The Lieberman SecDef rumors keep circling, as do the Weicker rumors.
It's obviously December. Kind of a slow month.
What else is happening today?
Update: Weicker won't challenge Lieberman. For someone who isn't running, he sure sounds like he's running.
33 comments:
Did anyone manage to catch channel 3's "Face the State" on Sunday? Malloy and Destefano were on, and I thought it quite interesting. I also thought that each candidate appears strong enough to face Rell in the governor's race.
I especially liked when Malloy called out Rell on the taxpayer financed commercials she's running all over the state. It's blatant campaigning if you ask me.
DeStefano scored points by naming all his endorsements. Is it me, or did it seem like he got waaay more time than Malloy? The mediator Terzi seemed skewed toward DeStefano... he didn't even let Malloy respond to some of his opponent's comments.
What I really did appreciate was that neither candidate attacked the other. I think they scored points with the viewers by focusing on the failures of the Rowland/Rell administration, and the issues that face Connecticut.
That all being said, who do you think won out? I'd say it was as close to a draw as it could get.
tom, deanfan84, I didn't watch the debate either, which is why I haven't commented about it either here or over on the DeStefano blog.
I have spoken with several people about the debate, and as is the case for most debates, everyone I know who supports Mayor DeStefano believes that Mayor DeStefano won. Everyone I know who supports Mayor Malloy believes that Mayor Malloy won.
I am glad to hear that neither candidate really attacked the other. We need to be spending our energy on pointing out Governor Rell's lack of leadership.
As to endorsements, Mayor DeStefano does have a great list of endorsements, including current or former congress people in three of the districts in Connecticut, State Representatives, Mayors, First Selectman and strong union support.
If you want to see a list of just some of the endorsements, check out http://www.destefanoforct.com/endorsements
I'm going to post the show on my blog. I'm converting the footage right now.
Weicker said he is not running in his speech today. However, he sounds open to supporting an alternative Democrat or maybe rethinking his "no".
Weicker, 74, said he will not challenge Lieberman, though he did not slam the door entirely on the possibility he will seek back the job he held for 18 years.
"You're not going to tell somebody in politics for 32 years you have no interest at all," he said. "I would hope, however, that the Democratic party exercises some choices."
Others in the Democratic Party who are considering a race have called him seeking his support, he said after his 15-minute talk. Weicker did not identify them.
Interesting to hear that other potential candidates are calling him.
And the challenge to Lieberman from within the Democratic Party expanded today - the Journal Inquirer reports that the Manchester Democratic Town Committee is considering a reprimand of Lieberman for his support of Bush's war. Significantly, "no one spoke in Lieberman's defense at the meeting." It will be interesting to see if this becomes a movement among the town committees. Good for them!
In other news, the This Week in CT Politics podcast is back!
You can download the latest episode with Susan Bysiewicz at http://www.ctpolitics.net.The topic is electronic voting machines.
We'll be bringing back the blogger's roundtable on the next episode. More details to come.
-Lon
Weicker is another 1960's era politician stuck in a time warp. He won his House seat in 1968 by tying Democrat Don Irwin to the Vietnam War. Ironically. Lieberman was more dovish than Weicker back then
AP: Weicker not Running
NYT: Weicker Running
Here is a comment I put up about it.
Money paragraph(s) from the Times:
HARTFORD, Dec. 5 - Former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. on Monday criticized Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's continued support of the war in Iraq and said that if no candidate challenged the senator on the issue in the 2006 election, he would consider running.
"When you've become the president's best friend on the war in Iraq, you should not be in office, especially if you're in the opposing party," Mr. Weicker, 74, said in a phone interview from his home in Essex, Conn. "I'm going to do everything I can to see that Joe Lieberman does not get a free pass."
Anyone in the know want to clear up this conflict?
I'm looking at you, Aldon...
Gabe, et al.,
I'm not sure I can do a better job than anyone else in clearing up what is going on. I am hearing lots of rumors, including more from last night. Some, I need to respect the confidentiality won't go into details.
I should also remind people that while I am still a staffer for the DeStefano campaign, this particular post is written out of my personal interest and does not reflect the DeStefano campaign.
There are several strong candidates in the wings trying to determine who will be the best person to challenge Lieberman. I believe some of them are talking amongst themselves about who will support whom.
To me it sounds like Weicker would like to see a strong challenger to Lieberman. If none emerges, he will run. He might run as an independent, or it may be possible to draft him to be the Democratic nominee. It sounds as if neither Weicker nor Blumenthal would resist a draft. However, Weicker is being vocal about the need for a challenger and Blumenthal is remaining coy.
Bottom line: My translation of what Weicker said was, "I am not currently running, however, if no one else runs or if I am drafted, look out Joe."
I am a big Democrat and Lieberman fan, I like the way he votes on social issues. While I don't agree with him on the war I do respect his postion because of his devout Jewish faith. I hope I am wrong but, but I can't help but think that some of the critcism of Joe has a touch of anti-semetism attached to it. Let's face it Joe is taking this postion because of his support of Isreal, not becasue he a supporter of George Bush. After all he ran against George Bush and is not in line at all with 99% of his policies. Why would we want to bring in someone like Weicker who would probably end up voting like Bush on more than just one issue? We've got a good guy in Joe! He's not negative and because of that he brings a lot of good to our state. I give him a lot of credit for saving that sub base too!!!
Another interesting take that I got on this this morning was from Colin McEnroe, who said "I think the truth is, he's dying to run, but he won't run unless he can win, and I'm sure his internal number say he can't win."
This may in fact be true. A glimpse at the October SurveyUSA poll about Lieberman shows strong support across the board, including 68% support from liberals. A single-issue campaign on the war, which is what Weicker wants to run, would be a loser.
Genghis:
"A single-issue campaign on the war, which is what Weicker wants to run, would be a loser." Tried this in 2004, didn't work then either. Sounds very Dean-like.
When Kevin Sullivan decided against running he indicated the party may have a problem articulating their maessage and so far that looks to be true.
Chris MC said...
As I said in my post in the "Weicker Rumors" thread, this ain't gonna happen, to wit -
From the Times:
[Weicker assailed by reporters questions at a Rotary meeting in Hartford]:
"If he's out there scot-free and nobody will do it, I'd have to give serious thought to doing it myself, and I don't want to do it,"
[Weicker back in his study in Essex]:
Mr. Weicker emphasized in an interview later that he was not making plans to run. If he did run, however, he said he would run as an independent and oppose Mr. Lieberman solely on the war.
"We'd get out of Iraq. I'm not going to tell you it should be on Feb. 16 or something, but six months to a year, we're out. Otherwise you get all these mealy statements."
Now, what do you imagine will happen when reporters press him a bit further on the details of his plan on the war? He's hedged right there! No date certain? That is what Bush himself says!
Mr. Weicker, noting that he had lost to Mr. Lieberman once, said his prospects in a rematch were "probably pretty poor."
"I'm not somebody who wants to put his track record on the line for some quixotic pursuit," he said, "but how do you bring the issue of the war to the country otherwise?"
Even he publicly acknowledges he can't win. He's angry about the war.
Lieberman would blunt the assault on his support for the war, and change the subject. Weicker wouldn't even get much of a debate.
So, your choices are these, gang:
- Rosa
- Dick
- John
Which of these do you suppose will fight the good fight and split the party in Connecticut (and throw the Governor's mansion in there too, btw), over Joe's position on Iraq?
I'm about as pissed off about the neocons' bait and switch approach to entangling us in their as I can be. But taking Lieberman out wouldn't even nick 'em. This is much, much bigger even than Iraq.
Want to make an impact? Get out the base in the Congressional races so we can get control of the House and launch full-blown hearings on the war and the rest of Cheney's racket.
Wouldn't Bill Curry be a logical candidate to primary Lieberman? There's no way Malloy or Destefano wants him as their running mate, and there's no vacancies on the statewide underticket. This guy may be widely discredited by virtue of losing so many times, but the hard left base loves him and it plays in with his image as a crusader. Any thoughts?
The Curry thought is interesting. He does have nothing to lose and it would help him solidify his folkhero status in his own mind and among the ultra-left town committee members who do nothing but complain once a month at their local meetings and show up to eat free pizza and drink cheap chardonnay on election night while pretending they worked their butts off.
Gorewon said...
I am a big Democrat and Lieberman fan, I like the way he votes on social issues. While I don't agree with him on the war I do respect his postion because of his devout Jewish faith. I hope I am wrong but, but I can't help but think that some of the critcism of Joe has a touch of anti-semetism attached to it.
Since this has come up, and for the record, I am a loyal Democrat who would be the first in line to volunteer for a viable candidate that runs against Joe in the primary.
I am also Jewish. My criticism of Joe is that he betrays his otherwise liberal record by some of his vocal positions (not limited to the war, also in favor of censorship) and his willingness to go on fox news to piss on other Dems.
Criticism of a Jewish politician or of the policies and tactics of Israel should not be assumed to be anti-semitism. I, and many other Jews, have problems with some of the policies of Israel and sometimes express those criticisms vocally. This does not make us less Jewish or anti-semitic and criticism of Joe or of Israel's policies by non-Jews don't amount to a prima facie case for anti-semitism either.
Lets agree that everyone should take a step back and a deep breath before we make accusations of anti-semitism without specific evidence.
Of course, if there is specific evidence, let fly - no one likes anti-semites, but don't make blanket accusations of anti-semitism without evidence.
He does have nothing to lose and it would help him solidify his folkhero status in his own mind and among the ultra-left town committee members who do nothing but complain once a month at their local meetings and show up to eat free pizza and drink cheap chardonnay on election night while pretending they worked their butts off.
I've been to those town meetings - they don't have pizza.
it's not really anti-semitism that i am picking up in some of these arguments, but i do sense a strong feeling of some people being anti-dentite.
Joe's political positions and stands are based on playing to the
electorate and winning elections. He's done quite well but he has no basic stance on what a government should do and be for its people.
David, I hear your concern about where it is best to spend resources, and if I believed that politics was a zero sum game, I would agree with you. Defeating Rell, Shays, Johnson and Simmons is much more important to me than getting a more progressive Democrat in the Senate.
However, I don't believe that politics is a zero sum game. I believe there are people that would get involved in a challenge to Lieberman that would sit on the sidelines otherwise. By getting them involved, we have a great chance of also getting them involved in the other important races.
Aldon
You have great credibility as far as being a frequent blogger but it appears that you are losing credibility in the marketplace of ideas. You continually make statements akin to your most recent post, where you say that defeating Rell is important to you. Yet, you don't tell us what your candidate will do better (specifically).
I know that you have previously stated that you don't want to speak for DeStefano, but you can't say how badly you want him to be Governor and then not tell us specifically why.
Once again, just the facts, sir.
Anonymous(1:19)
Apparently you aren't a frequent reader of this blog or you have defective memory. We had a discussion about this in other recent posts and the reason I support Mayor DeStefano and aspects of his vision have been talked about more here than any other candidate.
If you are seriously interested, go back and read previous posts. Go to the DeStefano website and read plenty of material there. Get a DeStefano DVD to learn more. Attend various events where Mayor DeStefano is speaking.
Once again, pay attention, do a little thinking on your own instead of anonymous trolling.
Aldon-
1. How is it that posting anonymously makes me any less of an independent thinker than you?
2. You were asked on to describe specifics of Mayor DeStefano's public policy objectives. You responded, in part, with the following:
"So, with that, I have no intentions of spending time getting a deeper knowledge of Mayor DeStefano’s positions. I have outlined them in a broad manner above, and with more breadth and depth than has been outlined by his opponents. If you need to go deeper, come hear Mayor DeStefano speak and spend some time exploring his positions there."
Note that you stated that you have no intention of getting to know his positions any deeper. NUFF SAID.
Anonymous(3:32)
Failing to identify yourself doesn't make you any less of an independent thinker. Asking questions that have been addressed repeatedly is what makes you appear not to be an independent thinker.
I am not a policy wonk. I have never claimed to be one. I have listened to Mayor DeStefano enough to believe that he has a clearer vision for a better Connecticut than Rell does. He's also expressed a better vision for Connecticut than you have.
If you want to talk with policy wonks, talk with policy wonks. But please, don't anonymously attack me because I am not the straw man you are trying to make me out to be.
I would also encourage you to ask the same sort of thing of Rell supporters if any of them would identify themselves here. And what about you? Do you believe anything enough to publicly stand up for it?
It sure doesn't appear so.
I'm neutral on the Destefano/Rell debate because neither of them have any kind of real vision for the state, but Destefano's website has a blog entry comparing him to Jimmy Carter, which is pretty funny. I'm not sure why you'd want to associate yourself with a man who to this day, even by his supporters, is remembered as a good person/bad president, but there it is.
I think courting the "progressive" vote in CT is akin to chasing fireflies, and probably as useless as a republican running in this state from the far right. You will get your true believers and scare everyone else. Malloy presented as a nice reasonable Democrat who wasn't going to hand the state over to the unions, but I guess he's going in the tank. Too bad.
DeanFan, I meant in the way he has courted statewide union support, moreso than his work in the city. You make a good point, however, about how he has managed the city's relations with labor. I am not anti-labor, I just think they exercise undue influence on the electoral process, as evidenced by my conversation here with Mr. McCluskey. If Destefano can win their support and not let them dictate the state's finances, then we will be lucky indeed to have him as our Governor.
I got the sense that Malloy was trying to present himself as the moderate candidate early on, and because of that came across as anti-union. Perhaps being very pro-union in Greater Stamford plays differently than in Greater New Haven, and he didn't want to alienate his base. This is purely speculation, I don't wish to anger anyone who works for the man, if they know better than me I'd appreciate their input.
deanfan84
Would a well run police department include these claims?
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29955
Enforce the Charter, hire the best (highest scoring candidate) and not waste peoples time energy and money pushing a flawed legal claim.
Aldon-
You're the one telling everyone that DeStefano has a better and clearer vision and then will not go on to say how he will accomplish it. Don't cloud the issue.
Aldon-
Don't cloud the issue. If you believe in DeStefano so strongly, don't you think you should know SOME specifics about his proposals? I realize that you're not a policy wonk, but you don't have to be a policy wonk in order to have some grasp on his specific proposals.
I am sorry, the last two postings are both from me...I didn't see the first one for quite some time and didn't think it went through.
Anonymous,
I don't think that any of the gubernatorial candidates are dealing in specific proposals, yet (Rell certainly isn't), although DeStefano has more concrete information on his site than either of the other two. You may have to wait until late next year before vague generalities give way to specific plans.
Post a Comment