Tuesday, December 06, 2005

More Weicker Buzz

I'm amazed at how quickly this story has caught fire. I guess the chance of a senate race that isn't a foregone conclusion is way too good to pass up. Here's a snippet from a recent story in the New Haven Independent:

This isn’t a question of who’s going to win or lose. This is a question of making a statement about the war. I’m the underdog. I know that. I’d probably have my head handed to me on a chopping block. The idea is to go out and say what you believe, which nobody has done, except the pro-war people.
...
Would you run if an anti-war Democrat emerges?

No! I said yesterday if you get someone in the Democrat to stand up against Lieberman, that’s great! If we get a Republican who’s opposed to the war -- which I think is unlikely -- I’d back him.

I have received telephone calls from at least two Democrats who are contemplating running, both of whom I know. To both of them I said, “God bless you.” I’d back them. Both of them have a name recognition problem.
...
Are you up to the rigors of campaigning?

Listen my friend. I have a new titanium knee. I’m 74 years old. The dentist just yanked one of my front teeth two days ago, so I don’t smile very photogenically. Hey, I am what I am. The answer is yes, I think I understand what it takes to campaign. (Bass)

I do wonder who those Democrats are. Are there any Democrats who could realistically challenge Lieberman? Richard Blumenthal is busy waiting for Lieberman or Dodd to die so he can have one of their seats, he'd never run against them to get it. Larson and DeLauro aren't known outside their districts, and Larson was a miserable failure the last time he ran in a statewide primary (1994 gubernatorial race-lost to Bill Curry).

As for Weicker himself, even he admits he'd probably lose. Still, he has the anti-war crowd very excited.

Meanwhile, Lieberman is busy angering his own party again:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, increasingly isolated in his own Democratic party because of his strong support for the Iraq war, today called on the White House and congressional leaders to form a special "war cabinet" to provide advice and direction for the war effort.
...
Lieberman, whom the Bush administration has praised repeatedly for his war stance, defended the president. "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril." (Lightman)

That sound you just heard was every Democrat's hand smacking his/her own forehead in disbelief.

Sources

Bass, Paul. "Weicker: I Can Win." New Haven Independent 6 December, 2005.

Lightman, David. "Lieberman Calls For Formation Of 'War Cabinet'." Hartford Courant 6 December, 2005.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is no Republican opposed to the war but there are lots of Republicans opposed to the way the war is being handled including a number of Senators included in the bipartisan 79 that just voted for John Warner's nonbinding resolution calling on the Bush administration to be more forthright in reporting to the Senate on the end game. Lieberman voted against the resololution. There's an issue here that is John Kerry nuanced but next fall is a long ways away. Injured, wounded and mentally ill just topped 45,000 on one report I read and the VA is short funding and support from the adninistration and the Congress. Joe has also been slow on Homeland Security funding as he is holding up the House bill that passed 410 to 10 that required funding be based on risk rather than pork.

Chris MC said...

Anonymous (for god's sake make up a screen name) said:

"Joe has also been slow on Homeland Security funding as he is holding up the House bill that passed 410 to 10 that required funding be based on risk rather than pork."

Now that's worth talking about. What are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

Sorry Chris MC I don't get on the site that often but the 911 Commission members spoke about this yesterday and Rep. Pete King of NY specifically mentioned Lieberman duirng a couple of interviews. The US Senate protects the small states, (and with it the far out towns), when it comes to money and that is what Joe is doing here but Shays has voted for the House bill (and its not often you get a 410-10 vote in this House) and is comfortable that CT will make out. Joe has also been criticized in the NYC press over this in recent weeks too.

Mod.dem.like.JFK said...

A friend that worked in the Wieker administration and is very close to him says there is no chance he is in. Apparently his health isn't what it use to be.

Any prognostication on who the challenger/s will be?

Tony said...

Is this Chris Mc of Newtown DTC fame?

Joe must go and all the top d's know it, but won't do a thing about it.

Aldon Hynes said...

(Note: Personal rumor mongering, not reflecting personal opinions or any campaigns I am currently working for.)

One email I received which was copied to nearly two dozen people listed two people whose names I have heard before in this context: Ned Lamont and Gary Collins.

Ned Lamont is from Greenwich. I believe he was a major bundler for Kerry and has contributed a lot to the Democratic Party.

Gary Collins 'served as Connecticut counsel to John Kerry for President' and 'was a leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in Connecticut's Second Congressional District'.

I don't know if these are the two people that are reported to have contacted Weicker.

Another rumor that is less substantial but interesting is that Jim Smith, CEO/President of Webster Bank is considering running. This may well be a simple rehashing of the rumor from a month ago that he was going to run for the 5th CD.

Meanwhile, the Draft Weicker movement seems to be picking up steam and I expect we'll be hearing more in the press and in the blogs in the coming days.

CT05 Admin said...

Nancy Johnson, reeling under persistent complaints from CT05's seniors about her signature legislation, the so-called "Medicare Modernization Act of 2003", has gone (Bush-like) on the offensive, defending the indefensible.

The New York Times
December 5, 2005
Republicans Find They Have to Sell Drug Benefit Plan
By ROBIN TONER and ROBERT PEAR

excerpt:

The Medicare drug plan was devised to reflect central Republican tenets: that private companies, and private market forces, are the best way to deliver drug benefits to the nation's elderly; that the government's role should be sharply limited, particularly when it comes to exerting price pressure on the drug companies; and that the nation's retirees ought to have a full array of options for their drug coverage.

[...]

Representative Johnson, in Connecticut, said she planned to. "Absolutely, without question," she said. "It's a wonderful benefit."

Mrs. Johnson predicted that the new Medicare law would follow the course of the 1996 welfare law. After the welfare law took effect, following years of impassioned debate, she said, it was widely accepted as a major improvement in social policy.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS: Full admission of her true colors and personal philosophy. So no more window-dressing legislation and table scraps to mollify us back here, OK Nancy? Time for an honest accounting of what you are and who you represent.

And, BTW, the difference between imposing a new regime on the underpriviledged and doing it with the seniors? The seniors vote.

See you in November.


CT05.net

Anonymous said...

Good job!! The prescription drug benefit good or bad will be in play next fall were it not for the General Assembly voting to sure it up in CT as the Democrats shot themselves in the foot once again. The Medicare D is better than no D at all and the seniors will be well subsidized by the ever dwindling population of workers that pay taxes. Too bad Kerry's plan for health care never got a fair shake as it wasn't Hillarycare and Dean never had any ideas either. The government should be negotiating with the drug companies over drug prices for part D the same way the do for the VA as Dodd argued.

ctkeith said...

Just wondering if you still think I'm out of my mind Gehghis.

I'll predict right now that Joe Lieberman will NOT be the Jr. Senator from CT in 2007.

DeanFan84 said...

ctKeith--

If Joe goes to Sec. of Defense who do you like to replace him? "Little Dick" Blumenthal, or Rosa DeLauro?

Myself, I was a Blumenthal booster, but have changed my mind. Dick doesn't deserve any grassroots support.

Let Rosa come out and publicly criticize Joe's Iraq position, and it will be settled for me.

"Senator DeLauro", that has a nice ring to it. lol.

ctkeith said...

Deanfan,

I agree.

Lieberman at least wanted it bad enough to take on a VERY POPULAR Weicker 1n "88"

.Blumenthol is so risk averse I'm sure he would have voted for The IWR,The Patriot act and any other legislation it took guts to vote against.

If you want the title SENATOR in front of your name you don't wait for it to be handed to you.You go out and get it.

Time to go get it ROSA.

Anonymous said...

Rosa won;t do anything that hurts hubby's lucrative consulting business, Voting the party line 99% of the time isn;t very courageous, either

It's almost as courageous as being an anomymous poster. Wanna endorse my senate bid?

Anonymous said...

I disagree that Weicker would most likely lose. The majority of CT citizens disagree with Lieberman on Iraq, and Iraq is turning into THE issue in 2006. Liebermans support is a mile wide, but a millimeter deep. He will also be a liability to Democrats trying to defeat our GOP congressmen ans women.

http://www.dumpjoe.com

Aldon Hynes said...

Anonymous '06

S/He has name recognition!

Anonymous said...

Lieberman took no risks in 88, had he lost the election, he would still have been AG.

ctkeith said...

Anon 5:29,

You obviously know nothing about politics.

MikeCT said...

On rumored Democratic opponents:
Edward Lamont is a long-term contributor to Joe Lieberman - not a big plus in his credibility column. He contributed $500 to Lieberman in each of these years - 2003, 1999, and 1993 - according to Open Secrets. He also played both sides of the fence, donating $500 to Chris Shays in 1998.

Gary Collins - a corporate lawyer - warned against the Iraq war long before it happened. He seems to have opposed the war in Afghanistan:
Collins later added that, in his opinion, anyone who protests the war is a patriot. “My campaign manager might kill me if I say that, but it’s what I believe,” Collins said.

At least one person couldn't figure out his position, however:
“I thought it was pretty much whack,” Morino said. “It was pretty typical for a politician these days to not only not have his own opinion on something, but to be unable to even express this lack of an opinion without completely skirting the issue.”

Collins raised $90,000 for his aborted campaign for Congress in 2002. Here is his fundraising script. He dropped out because Middletown, his hometown, was redistricted out of the 2nd CD.

DeanFan84 said...

As a succesful African-American, Gary Collins would give Joe fits in a Democratic Primary.

His candidacy would also give Dem turn-out a huge boost in the 2006 general.

As such Gary has my vote over the Greenwich guy, who I couldn't Google much up about except that he attended Harvard, and then Yale. (If someone has some real info about Lamont, please share it here.)

Aldon Hynes said...

Now, for a slightly off topic humorous little bit. On a mailing list about blogging, journalism and credibility, I received this little gem:

I thought this was funny - CNN has an AP piece on Wikipedia and the
Seigenthaler incident at
http://www.cnn.com/...edia.rules.ap/index.html
in its technology section. It says "The episode demonstrates the lack of
accountability that often comes with articles posted by anonymous people
over the Internet."

The article is posted without a byline, hence anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Why is Collins's ethnicity a reason to vote for or against him?

DeanFan84 said...

Can you be that stupid? Damn, CT's got some idiotic Republican bloggers.

Anonymous said...

easy,

Because you have to win before you get to rule.If the minority vote is increased by 1/3in 06 it's a Dem sweep in CT.

Genghis Conn said...

ctkeith,

Six months ago, I would have said no way. I still think it's pretty unlikely that he'll lose next year.

But Lieberman seems to be coming a bit unhinged lately... I'm a pretty moderate guy most days, and he's annoying even me. It seems like what he's doing is designed to irritate the party faithful.

He could be angling for SecDef, although why he'd give up being Senator-for-Life here for an administration post with a three-year expiration date on it is beyond me.

There's no way he's running for national office again, following the descent of Joe-mentum into a Joe-death-spiral...

I really don't know what he's thinking. It's as if he's daring the left to primary him.

And now, for everyone's amusement, the Joe Car, from 2004. I took this on a slow day in Manchester, New Hampshire, about two weeks before the primary. It's parked right outside his HQ.

DeanFan84 said...

Genghis--

Joe is already gone.

Even when he put his house up for sale, I wasn't so sure. But seeing him all over tv this week, and yukking it up with FoxNews' Sean Hannity, I have no doubt.

The question is whether Rosa is going to let "Little Dick" Blumenthal slime his way into her Senate seat. She should come out now with some strong statements against Joe's "War Cabinet" bullshit.

And look, after his Sec Defense stint, Joe will be poised to join the Carlyle Group and rake in the millions. Waht else do you do when you hit the end of the road?

(to Joe's credit, he's never been about the Benjamins. But when you can go out and make $10-50 Million, why wouldn't you? I have no doubt that Joe loves his kids, and that has got to factor.)

DeanFan84 said...

P.S. Lieberman's "War Cabinet" bullshit.

mod.dem.like.jfk said...

Hey DeanFan,

How can you say any idea is "bull shit" when you know little more about it than a short article today. Maybe this is something that might be able to lead us toward some sort of resolution that can bring some sort of stable turnover in Iraq AND (most importantly) get some of my friends home quicker. I'm certainly willing to listen and see.

I want our troops home, but I also know we can't just pull out of this quagmire today without creating an even larger breeding ground for terrorists.

We owe it to our men and women over there to start thinking outside the box. I'm not thrilled about the pro-war stuff, but kudos to Lieberman for throwing bold ideas into the mix.

In times like these, it is wise to listen to those we don't always agree with in order to find a proper solution, rather than to merely slander an idea because we don't like the messenger.

ctkeith said...

mod.dem.like.jfk said...,

When 80% of Iraqis want the american military out and 40+% think killing American soldiers is their duty it's time to leave, not call for bipartisan discusion groups.

The wars over and W was so incompetent he lost with the best military ever assembled in history.Sad but true.

Anonymous said...

1. I see a a poll quoted that "80% of Iraqis want us to leave". But no cite , anywhere it's quoted. In the absence of a hyperlink, methinks it's a Baghdad or Burlington urban legend, probably cooked up after too much bad maple syrup.

2. The State of CT is about 80%white. Rowland beat Curry by 12 points. It would take some very fuzzy math to cause increased minority turnout to cause a Democrat sweep, particularly as the minority vote is concentrated in the 1st and 3rd districts which aren;t competitive anyway.

3, Some named liberal posters here quickly switch from snark to profanity. Then they wonder why reality based people here stay in stealth mode.

ctkeith said...

Hey Genghis Conn,

If I told you that Liebermans new nickname amongst both Senators and Staffers on both sides of the aisle is "JUDAS" would you doubt me?

Joe is hung out in a VERY LONELY place.

Aldon Hynes said...

I suspect the comment "When 80% of Iraqis want the american military out and 40+% think killing American soldiers" actually comes from a British Ministry of Defense poll which notes that "82 per cent [of Iraqis] are 'strongly opposed' to the presence of coalition troops;" and "Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified"