Saturday, January 28, 2006

Weicker Supports Lamont's Candidacy, But Doesn't Rule Out Run

Former Governor Would Stay on Ballot if Lamont Loses

Lowell Weicker is backing Ned Lamont, for now, but hasn't ruled out running against Lieberman should Lamont lose, according to a story in today's Greenwich Time.

In public comments made in December, Weicker said he would be strongly induced to run against the incumbent if no other viable candidate stepped up to the challenge. But, since then, former Greenwich selectman Ned Lamont revealed that he is considering challenging Lieberman for the Democratic nomination.

"I can assure you, if Ned Lamont wins the Democratic nomination for United States Senate, at that point I would be gladly willing to step aside," Weicker said.

...

"If I make the run, it would be as an independent," Weicker said, explaining that his candidacy would revolve around the war. "The issue is the war, period. And I know exactly where he stands on that." (Vigdor)

So according to Weicker, there will be an antiwar alternative to Lieberman on the ballot this November no matter what.

Should Sen. Lieberman be worried? The not-quite-candidacy of his potential primary challenger has gathered an awful lot of media attention, and money is sure to pour in from all over the country once he finally declares. Even if Lamont is defeated, his supporters will likely back Weicker in November instead of Lieberman, should Weicker be on the ballot. If the Republicans, as threatened, run a strong candidate of their own, the vote could be split in ways that are very dangerous for Mr. Lieberman.

Then again, both Lamont and Weicker are long shots, right now, and no real GOP challenger has yet stepped forward. Lieberman's base of moderates and independents could deliver a fourth term for him quite handily. It's impossible to say with any certainty what will happen.

Source

Vigdor, Niel. "Weicker backs town man for seat in Senate." Greenwich Time 28 January, 2006.

34 comments:

BDRubenstein888 said...

This is the same position that Weicker told me some months ago im my discussions with him to encourage him to run...its a principled position aimed at helping LaMont who he feels can carry the banner well, and at the same time keep his options open.

Weicker told me that he feels the Democratic Party hasnt done enough about the War and he would be more effective and certainly feel better running as an independant.

LaMont has obtained alot of support and encouragement from elected and appointed democratic party officials and i believe could well place 30% at a delegate convention.

LaMont needs to put together a staff and battle plan...work out his policy issues...contact the grass roots and sympathetic party people..and raise money.

I must say i was impressed with his first few contacts with the media and political operatives....few new and green people could have done as well....and as time goes on and he gains more experience expect him to be even better.

ctblogger said...

Just came back from Lamont's speech in New Haven and I'll have a full post (including video) on my site.

I thought you would be there Genghis?

TrueBlueCT said...

Lieberman has a base? Genghis, you are kidding me, right?

Certainly Joe has the name recognition that comes with having been our Party's V-P candidate in 2000. But outside of those folks loyal to Joe due to the fact he takes their phone calls, what real supporters does Joe have?

Telling to me is that during the 2004 primary run, I saw exactly 2 cars sporting *GoJoe* bumperstickers. Two, that's all. Another example of Joe's non-existent base is the New Hampshire primary, which Joe targeted, going so far as to live in NH for the six weeks prior to the vote. The result? Joementum came in a distance fifth. Now,that's resonance!

Ned Lamont is the candidate with a true base. Fact is that without saying a word, Ned can count on a good third of the Party,-- those of us so disgusted with Lieberman's support of Bush's Iraq Occupation that we would have voted for John Orman-- to vote for him in August. Really, anybody but Joe.

However, my belief is that Lamont takes the Dem nomination in May by talking about Party loyalty, and our need to stand together against Bush. (in contrast to the fabled Bush-kisser). Ned should worry less about playing to the anti-war crowd, whose votes he already owns, and more about making the strongest case against Joe, which is his lack of Party loyalty.

What does it mean to be a good Democrat? Can you be a good Democrat and be more popular with CT Republicans than CT Dems. Can you be a good Democrat and vote for Torture? Can you be a good Democrat and vote for the bankruptcy bill? Can you be a good Democrat and thumb your nose at Harry Reid? Can you be a good Democrat and call Sean Hannity a "wonderful American"? Can you be a good Democrat and spend all your time inside DC? Can you be a good Democrat and consistently give the Republicans political cover?

Lieberman clearly has been playing to both sides. Hammering him for his dubious loyalties is the way to win delegates, not the anti-war message. imho.

TrueBlueCT said...

Genghis, also, a clarification. You write:
"So according to Weicker, there will be an antiwar alternative to Lieberman on the ballot this November no matter what."

This is not accurate, as neither Weicker, Ned Lamont, nor Howard Dean people, are "antiwar".

Who was against going to war in Afghanistan? None of us. Nor are any of us against the War on Terror. We all want to defeat Al Qaeda and capture Bin Laden, and we don't mind sending troops in to get the job done.

What we are against, however, is the Neocon agenda, and the chickenhawk "Dems" who are eager to promote it. Our belief is that there is something distinctively un-American about elective war, and that is our problem with the Iraq Experiment.

This is a very important distinction. And as the mainstream press will continue to stereotype us as a bunch of pacifists, I hope you, here in the blogosphere, will help us point out the truth. None of us are afraid of fighting the good fight.

Anonymous said...

just afraid Bush and Lieberman will leave a decent government in charge of Baghdad. Can't let them have a success, can we

TrueBlueCT said...

nedlamont.com open for volunteers!

Ned is looking for an initial 1,000 volunteers, and that he won't move beyond the exploratory stage of his campaign until then.

I bet he reaches this benchmark by Tuesday evening. Any takers??

And to the campaign staff-- great first move! I really, really like it.

TrueBlueCT said...

Anon3:19--

Since we invaded Iraq almost three years ago, I have hoped and prayed Iraq would prove a success, and my fears would be proved wrong. (as they were during Gulf War I).

But have we made much progress in Iraq, are we today any safer as Americans, and is our very presence there making things better or worse?

You are probably one of those who still think Vietnam was winnable, if only we had dropped more bombs and committed more troops. As such, it is difficult to argue with you except to wonder if you are living in a fairy tale world.

MikeCT said...

This is not accurate, as neither Weicker, Ned Lamont, nor Howard Dean people, are "antiwar". Who was against going to war in Afghanistan? None of us.

Well, yes actually, many Howard Dean people were anti-war and many others were against the war in Afghanistan. No need to apologize, cover for, or marginalize us.

TrueBlueCT said...

MikeCT--

For the record I meant to write "Howard Dean", and not "Howard Dean people". I screwed up while editing that sentence.

But along this line, do you really think many Dean people were against hitting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Howard certainly wasn't, and I always thought the real pacifists were mainly Kucinich supporters.

Not to denigrate nor marginalize anyone who refuses to support war and the violence of war. My grandfather was a Quaker, and if we all shared his philosophy this world we be a better place.

MikeCT said...

Thanks for the clarification. I never polled Dean supporters, but I noticed there was a contingent of activists that had their roots in the peace movement. (They tended to be split between Kucinich and Dean.)

ctkeith said...

Lieberman's base of moderates and independents?
Man GC,you looking for a job with Rupert Murdoch?

Joe Has Name recognition Not a Base.

The only move left to stop this is for Blummy to call Hilary and convince her she must convince Joe he has to retire or for W to throw Joe a lifeline.Without one of these things Happening CT is in for ride you ain't gonna believe.

Anonymous said...

actually, Vietnam was like Korea, a draw in our favor, until the Watergate congress shut off funds to Saigon and B-52 air support so the NVA could take over in 1975.

LBJ and Westmoreland's idea of adding troops was lunacy. We did better after our troop levels went down. Truman was right and Mac Arthur proven wrong. It was a mistake for the US to fight a massive land war in East Asia. Which is why Rumsfeld idea of keeping the troop levels low in Iraq was implemented. More Americans would cause Iraqis not to buy in to their own government.

The financial and human cost of keeping Iraq is a pittance compared to Vietnam and the potential reward exponentially higher.

But in the land of liberal myths nothing makes America stronger than losing a war .

Anonymous said...

I don't want to lose a war.

I just think that what we are doing is analogous to trying to get the Catholics and Protestants to live happily together in Ireland.

How much history do you have to conveniently forget to hope that more or less warring factions will peacefully come together, just because we declare a Democracy?

Anonymous said...

Would London be safer if Belfast was undergoing civil war?

Brit policy in Ulster actually contains violence pretty well

Reality is messy and unpleasant and must be dealt with ...like realizing the 1960's antiwar movement led to the killing fields of Cambodia and the boat people of Vietnam. Quite an achievement to emulate

Anonymous said...

Does "Paid for by Ned Lamont for Senate" mean he's registered? I haven't had a chance to FEC yet.

Independent1 said...

"Reality is messy and unpleasant and must be dealt with ...like realizing the 1960's antiwar movement led to the killing fields of Cambodia and the boat people of Vietnam. Quite an achievement to emulate."

While I wouldn't quite put it that way, I think you've captured one of the most trying dilemnas of our age: That choices are usually between which 'bad' outcome you think is least undesirable. If we hadn't intervened in Iraq, thousands would have continued to die; we intervened in Iraq and thousands of (different) people have died, though the rate is less. We haven't intervened in Darfur, while hundreds of thousands die, though if we or others do, surely many will die. The Tutu and Hutsis massacre each other, babies die every single day in North Korea because of choices made by that regime. We belatedly chose to intervene in Kosovo and the rest of the Balkans, and the killing stopped. If it hadn't, who would be condemning the US intervention now?

Aldon Hynes said...

Anon(8:32) I believe that you have something like two weeks from your first expenditure until you have to file and that either the campaign has filed within the past couple of days or it will file within the next several days.

ctkeith said...

Hey Anon,

FREE SAUDI ARABIA,When do we start bombing to bring freedom and Democracy there?

Anonymous said...

The financial and human cost of keeping Iraq is a pittance compared to Vietnam and the potential reward exponentially higher.

But in the land of liberal myths nothing makes America stronger than losing a war .


The financial cost is actually worse.

* According to current estimates, the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion. In current dollars, the Vietnam War cost U.S. taxpayers $600 billion.
* Operations costs in Iraq are estimated at $5.6 billion per month in 2005. By comparison, the average cost of U.S. operations in Vietnam over the eight-year war was $5.1 billion per month, adjusting for inflation.
* Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next decade.
* Since 2001, the U.S. has deployed more than 1 million troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.
* The number of journalists killed reporting the Iraq War (66) has exceeded the number of journalists killed reporting on the Vietnam War (63).

That 700 Billion figure is based on a 10 year occupation of Iraq, a not unlikely scenario.

Why do conservatives hate being confronted with facts such as these?

Chris MC said...

Please, stop calling these fools "conservatives". There is nothing conservative about them.

And really, "It was a mistake for the US to fight a massive land war in East Asia. Which is why Rumsfeld idea of keeping the troop levels low in Iraq was implemented. More Americans would cause Iraqis not to buy in to their own government."

Rumsfeld's thinking and decision making is not unknown to us. It has nothing at all to do with that. Stop making sh*t up and deal with facts. You want to defend the indefensible, be my guest. Stop trying to rewrite history.

Anonymous said...

IN current dollars Iraq is probably even under your "worst case" scenario about 1/3 as expensive as Vietnam. The U.S. economy was much smaller than.

The military was about 7-8% of GNP then, now, even with Iraq, it's about 3%

One way to look at this is the ten year cost of Iraq under this scenario is roughly what federal highway expenditures will be.

The death toll from Iraq operations is also about 2% of annual highway fatalities. Vietnam was at about 15%

Anonymous said...

Ned Lamont is so last week...America will be riveted on this campaign which all the lefties here will be strongly supporting

CARACAS, Venezuela - Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist who set up camp near President Bush's Texas ranch last summer, said Saturday she is considering running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) to protest what she called the California lawmaker's support for the war in Iraq.

MikeCT said...

CT's labor federation is equivocating on whether to support Lieberman:

John Olsen, president of the state AFL-CIO, was more cautious in predicting whether his group would endorse Lieberman in a primary. Many in organized labor "are disappointed in the senator" over his position on the war, which means Lieberman will need to emphasize positions on issues such as education and healthcare that appeal to labor families, Olsen said.

MikeCT said...

CT Blogger has posted videos of Ned Lamont's answers at a New Haven Q&A. (If you have any trouble viewing them, get Quicktime.)

Most significantly, Lamont is picking up the youth vote. This young woman's endorsement is among the most sought-after in the nation. When she supports a candidate, she's very enthusiastic about it, though her attention span has its limits.

Van Os Supporter said...

I realize this is a Connecticut blog, but I would like to point out Fiona's wide political influence. In this picture, she is seen campaigning with David Van Os who is running for Attorney General in Texas.

Y'all are pretty lucky to have an Attorney General like Dick Blumenthal up in Connecticut, and we'd sure like some help electing a great Attorney General for Texas

Proud Moderate Dem said...

Anyone reading this, please call nancy johnson and chris shays and tell them to vote NO in the upcoming GOP budget vote. this budget is scary in terms of what it does to students, children, seniors, the middle class and those in need. all for a tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. simmons has already changed his vote bc of pressure from constituents. as dems we may not all agree on lamont/lieberman but as in my continuiing attempt for us to search for common ground and not larger divide i think we can all agree that this is one damaging budget!

ctblogger said...

Although he dissed my Rolling Rock Beer, Proud Moderate Dem is correct. The GOP budget is outrageous and disgraceful.

If Nancy johnson agrees to this, she can kiss her voters in Southbury goodbye.

Anonymous said...

@chris mc,

Yes, you are right. These people are not true conservatives in any shape or form. Barry Goldwater would find them despicable.

As far the expense for Iraq, those figures I quoted were in all likelihood too low.

This study by Columbia Professor and Nobel prize winner for economics Joseph Stiglitz pegs the real cost between $1 and $2.2 trillion, depending on the duration.

The Economic Costs of The Iraq War

The study is getting considerable play in the media in the past several months, and from surprising conservative voices --not the wingnuts out in the blogosphere-- who are decrying the enormous cost.

It appears quite likely if the US is in Iraq for several more years the costs will dwarf Vietnam, even adjusted for inflation.

Some of the reasons for this are interestingly ironic, such as the jump in oil prices; the increase in military spending and subsequent budget deficits; the cost of fighting with the huge number of reservists and high-priced security forces (mercenaries); and medical costs for the brain injured and the disabled who would have otherwise died in earlier times.

This might be a decent angle for Ned Lamont to pursue, citing the enormous cost of this effort which so far has produced no tangible results or enhanced safety for Americans. Certainly Joe Lieberman would have no foot to stand on against these charges.

CT05 Admin said...

Johnson set to vote against children of working and middle class.

Back in December, Nancy Johnson was one of a handful of Representatives who switched their votes at the last minute to pass a grossly unfair budget plan, one which (among other things) cut student loan programs crucial to CT05 middle class and working class families. If Connecticut's Republican delegation had voted against the budget, it would have failed.

This Wednesday, Johnson plans to again vote to cut over $12.7 from student loans alone.

It is another moment of truth for Nancy Johnson. Will she vote to represent her constituents' interests? To do that she will have to vote no on this budget.

Call Nancy Johnson's office today and demand that she stop supporting these cynical and short-sighted cuts in crucial programs. The toll-free number is 800-426-8073.


CT05.net

Anonymous said...

CT05- Thank you so much for the SPAM

the wanderer said...

The financial and human cost of keeping Iraq is a pittance compared to Vietnam and the potential reward exponentially higher. says anonymous earlier on this thread. She must be a pro-life Republican calling ...human cost...a pittance to get a reward

Anonymous said...

Paul Vance came out swinging months ago on Nancy Johnson and the GOP's plan to slash student loan funding. He told a funny story in Thomaston about his student loans.

Anonymous said...

Why fight without a reward.

What was the reward for the 400K dead for WWII, or the 33K dead of Korea?

Was a generation or two of peace in Europe and the Korean peninsula a reward....was the price worth it?

Democrats think there's always a free lunch. And the safety and the nation transcends silly political labels...or , it used to

Anonymous said...

Exxon thanks the Bush administration every day for their reward. So do al-Queda and Hamas.

Keep on sippin' the koolaid, wingnut.