Friday, March 24, 2006

U.S. Senate Race News

There are a couple of interesting stories about the Senate race out today.

Lamont Picks Up Greenwich Delegate Endorsements

Ned Lamont picked up sixteen delegates in his hometown of Greenwich.

Anti-war candidate Ned Lamont enjoyed a distinct hometown advantage over incumbent Joe Lieberman last night as Greenwich Democrats were forced to declare their allegiances in this year's U.S. Senate race.

Sixteen of 22 delegates elected by the Democratic Town Committee to represent Greenwich at the state party convention threw their support to the challenger Lamont.
...
Lieberman failed to pick up a single endorsement from the 29 Democrats who ran for the 22 delegate spots, a clear indication of the growing dissatisfaction with Lieberman's support of the war in Iraq. (Vigdor)

It isn't surprising that Lamont would have support in his hometown, of course. This story could be spun a number of ways: either that it's obvious that Lamont is winning support and is a legitimate candidate, or that he failed to carry the entire delegation from his hometown. Well, at least he still has Cornwall's delegate.

Interestingly, I have yet to hear about Lieberman's delegates, although they must be out there.

Courant Comments on Influence of Blogs in Campaign

Sen. Lieberman's fued with Colin McEnroe is reported on in the Courant this morning. Mark Pazniokas also examines the role blogs are playing in this campaign:

Six years ago, when Lieberman last ran for re-election, his comments would have had the shelf life of an ice-cream cone. But on Thursday, they only grew louder, amplified by Internet bloggers.
...
Online buzz about Lamont, who has been an official candidate for less than two weeks, already has helped generate $132,255 in credit-card donations to Lamont through a Democratic fundraising site, ActBlue.Com. About $10,000 came in Thursday.

"From time to time, there are events and we'll see little blips," said Tom Swan, manager of the Lamont campaign. "Sometimes it's from a series of postings on the Web, like this." (Pazniokas)

McEnroe weighed in, too:

McEnroe said the episode was a "bloggable moment" for several reasons, including Lieberman's insult of bloggers during the interview, his special status as an online target of liberals, and his unusually blunt language, which the bloggers interpreted as fear.

"This little moment on our show, it wasn't a gigantic moment," McEnroe said. "It was a kind of moment [the bloggers] were looking for. They were kind of looking for a moment when Lieberman's famous composure broke a little bit." (Pazniokas)

Exactly so. It also doesn't help Lieberman that he really doesn't have a base of Democratic supporters online. That may be a commentary about who, exactly, is writing blogs, or it may be a commentary on Lieberman himself.

Just how much of an influence these sorts of "bloggable moments" will have on the outcome of the campaign is debatable, but that blogs and other political sites have an influence is undeniable.

Lieberman's Numbers Remain Steady

A SurveyUSA Poll released yesterday shows Lieberman's numbers have remained pretty steady over the last month. There isn't any movement at all in Democratic support, which is hovering at 56%. Lieberman is under 50% with self-identified liberals, though, who may be the largest block of primary voters.

Schlesinger Almost In

Alan Schlesinger told the Journal-Inquirer that he's "very likely" to enter the Senate race next month.

Schlesinger, 48, a partner in the Shelton-based law firm of Schlesinger & Barbara and the interim finance director in Derby, said Wednesday he's seriously exploring a bid for the Republican nod in the election.

Describing himself as a "moderate conservative" with a background in finance and decades of government experience, Schlesinger said he expected to show voters that he was "not just some hack the Republicans are running again against a known Democrat."
...
"I've got the top of the ticket on my side and all I've got to get is some normal people," he said, referring to the high poll ratings garnered by Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

"Jodi's going to win big, and I have a shot at pulling it off," he added. "That's why I'm no sacrificial lamb. Nine out of the 10 elections I've won, and I've taken out three incumbent Democrats."

Schlesinger also cited what he said was an "eerie" historical precedent. Republican Lowell P. Weicker Jr., he said, defeated Democratic Sen. Thomas J. Dodd in 1970 when liberals, angry at Dodd's support for the war in Vietnam and his support for President Lyndon Johnson, essentially denied him the party's nomination and backed an antiwar candidate, Joseph Duffey. He said Weicker was then a one-term congressman largely unknown outside the 4th District whose victory was aided by having the popular Gov. Thomas Meskill at the top of the Republican ticket. (Michak)

Gah, what a mangling of history. I will be writing about the 1970 race, as there are a ton of parallels. But firstly, Dodd was ill and was also discredited for some sort of banking scandal, and wasn't actually in the running for a long time. Also, Meskill was a congressman at the time, but won the governorship in a surprise victory.

Interestingly, one of Duffey's supporters was a young Joe Lieberman. But more on that later.

Schlesinger would be the youngest of the three candidates, and he's right: he does have a shot, especially if Lamont can win. Connecticut will vote for moderate conservatives. I revise my earlier statement: he's worth watching, and may be just the candidate the Republicans are looking for.

Sources

Michak, Don. "2nd Republican plans to enter Senate race; sees chance with disaffected Dems." Journal-Inquirer 23 March, 2006.

Pazniokas, Mark. "Online Buzz Benefits Lamont." Hartford Courant 24 March, 2006.

Vigdor, Neil. "(Story Title Unclear)." Greenwich Time 24 March, 2006.

SurveyUSA Poll: "APPROVAL RATINGS FOR ALL 100 U.S. SENATORS AS OF 03/23/06"

58 comments:

TrueBlueCT said...

If Joe Lieberman holds a "public" event in New Haven, but the campaign doesn't tell anybody about it, is it still a "public" event?

What does it say about Lieberman when he is so scared of answering questions, that he won't put out his schedule?

Where is Joe?

TrueBlueCT said...

Lieberman staffer Ken Daglierre spoke on behalf of Joe at the Guilford DTC meeting last night. (following Ned Lamont). And heavens to mergatroid, he even took a few questions.

Anyway, in response to a DTC member Ken basically said Joe would turn around and endorse Lamont, were Ned to win in the Democratic primary.

Can we somehow get this on record from Joe himself? As Dems gauge where our loyalties should lie, this is a very important question.

Will Joe go Zell Miller on us? Or, will he die a proud Democrat?

Anonymous said...

dear trueblue...

joe is where he usually is..in DC groveling for money from the lobbyists and elite...i wanna know where his " fieldstaff" is?

The bloom is off the rose here and his buddies ( sean hannity,bill bennett,Jerry Falwell) wont save him.

On another note...Liberman's chief strategist ( Roy O) once told me he was a liberal...so did leslie o'brien and bill curry....will they be " liberals for lieberman"?

bluecoat said...

Schlesinger also cited what he said was an "eerie" historical precedent. Republican Lowell P. Weicker Jr., he said, defeated Democratic Sen. Thomas J. Dodd in 1970 when liberals, angry at Dodd's support for the war in Vietnam and his support for President Lyndon Johnson, essentially denied him the party's nomination and backed an antiwar candidate, Joseph Duffey. He said Weicker was then a one-term congressman largely unknown outside the 4th District whose victory was aided by having the popular Gov. Thomas Meskill at the top of the Republican ticket

Huh? Schlesinger is anti-war?

ctblogger said...

Schlesinger? Forget him, I'm rooting for the hate-monger.

Weicker Liker said...

Schlesinger sounded extremely cocky in the JI Piece.

Didn't address any issues. Was all me, me, me.....

As much as you might want to be concerned about Streitz, calling him "zenophobistic" was a bad thing to do.

Schlesinger should ignore Strietz

bluecoat said...

Strietz also works for the MTA in marketing!!! For Schlesinger to try to leverage his candidacy based on the dynamics of the war in Iraq is nonsense and also weird. Iraq is not Vietnam by any means in the eyes of the people - nobody is spitting on veterans or calling them babykillers. The voters of CT will pick somebody with a platform or an incumbent.

ctblogger said...

xenophobia |ˌzēnəˈfōbēə; ˌzenə-| noun

intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries : racism and xenophobia are steadily growing in Europe. DERIVATIVES xenophobe |ˈzēnəˌfōb; ˈzenə-| noun xenophobic |-ˈfōbik| adjective


Sounds like Streitz to me.

disgruntled_republican said...

BLUECOAT-

Insert Schesinger in where Weicker was...I can spell the rest out if you need me to.

GC is right though, not quite the parallel he thinks it is.

Weicker Liker said...

Any candidate that runs for the GOP nomination should IGNORE THIS GUY.

By mentioning him in the JI piece, he is giving Strietz credibility.

Steritz ran against Orchulli, Miriam Masullo and a taco bell manager two years ago at the State Convention.

Maybe I should put my hat into the ring....

I already work in Washington but have a residence in CT

Anonymous said...

Weicker Liker:

Do you work at ESPN?

bluecoat said...

Disgruntled: as a disgruntled republican myself, I understand that there will be some dynamics here given that CT tends to vote purple, but Weicker was already known in the fourth district for national sevice, which at the time was probably one of six districts in the state. He also has all that Pfizer money which I have to guess he used. Schlesinger is the interim finance director of Derby. He will need backing from the national GOP to my way of thinking and I'm not sure an appearance by W or Frist would be helpful.
I'm waiting to hear Schlesinger's a platform other than Social ecurity, which is a non-starter to say the least. And I'll admit I was not a resident of CT at the time and I don't even remember watching Weicker at the Ervin hearings anymore than I remember seeing Hillary with her Coke bottle glasses.

I guess I'm naive enough to think voters will use their brains but than I could never understand how nobody could see, or care, that he was liying during his last campaign hurrah.

bluecoat said...

He was lying during the last campaign refers to Rowland

disgruntled_republican said...

TrueBlue-

You are preaching to the choir here. I was merely responding to your comment about Schlesinger being anti-war. He has not said (but I assume at some point he will have to) if he is pro war or not. If you read GC's comment he speaks slightly to parellels Schlesinger uses, which arent as true as he leads on. We in the bog world will realize but I guess that is as far as it will go.

Should Ned win, Schlesinger is a legit candidate. For him to have a platform now is not necesary, he is just tossing his name as interested should Leiberman go down. He should however not even mention Steritz as he really is a non-factor.

Weicker Liker said...

Hey anonymous...

Do you work on Capitol Hill????

Anonymous said...

trueblue, please stop trying to trick the blog readers with lies. the events held last week were specifically with dtc members, not public events as you describe. certainly there is nothing wrong with a democratic candidate seeking the opinions of local dtc members. i am a dtc member and attended one of these meetings and joe answered good hard questions from our local dtc members. let's start basing this campaign on realities and not the speading of mistruths.

TrueBlueCT said...

Have the Democratic Party rules changed?

All DemParty meetings are meant to be open and in public. If a DTC is meeting with Joe in private, that is a clear violation of the rules.

And why is Lieberman so reluctant to hold a public forum?

And maybe you can tell me why Susie Voigt doesn't publish the time and place of New Haven DTC meetings on the State Dem website? (almost every other DTC does.)

Sean said...

Genghis-
You're right that Lieberman doesn't have alot of support online. But there has been at least this one post supporting Lieberman following those comments.

-Sean

Anonymous said...

trueblue, joe is running a campaign and can meet with whoever he wants silly. if he wants to have a meeting and invite chevy chevette owners he is more than welcome to. and ned lamont can do the same.

bluecoat said...

Disgruntled: while you did not adress me in your last post let me address the issue of pro-war and anti-war. It's like pro-choice and pro-life - marketing terms really; as far as I can tell nobody is anti-life but some folk question when life begins; at least I do. I am not anti-war now that we are in one - or at least a police operation - in Iraq with a country where we have captured its leader and turned him over to that country for trial - do you get my gist - these guys( the neo-cons) have created a new paradigm and it is totally gone from reality. Sadamm should have been tried at the Hague (US Rep.Simmons even said that right after Hussein was captured from his hole) and we should have forced Hussein to once again surrender as he did to Norman Sckwarzkoppf ( forgive my spelling) back in the '90's but this time he/Iraq should have absolutley no privaleges until they claen up their act - but Bush II din't recognize Hussein as the leader of Iraq when the military got him.. I really wish international relations were as simple as a soundbite but it never has been, and it never will be.

TrueBlueCT said...

ANON 2:48--

I know Joe can meet with whoever he wants. But a DTC can't meet informally. Nor in private.

That Joe says he met with the New Haven DTC, but told no one of this "appearance", is problemmatic.

Kevin said...

Here's the info on the New Haven DTC meeting, in case you haven't seen it:

Here

bluecoat said...

There is another dynamic here that I forgot about in my blogging and that is during the early years of 'nam, you could be drafted at age 18 but you could not vote until 21 and often in many states you couldn't even legally drink alcohol, which we have since gone back to BTW. just an observation.

Anonymous said...

trueblue, what are you talking about? i am a dtc member and delegate to the state convention and have been for many years, it is common for candidates to invite us to meetings/get togethers to hear our opinions and talk with us. its called a campaign meeting, not a dtc meeting. you may be new to the process and not understand this. the best thing for you to do is get yourself on a local DTC so you can really see how the process works.

bluecoat said...

true blue and as I poited out on the last post bluecoat said...
Political parties have nothing to do with democracy, they are based on concentration of power and their powers are granted by laws passed by the political parties and numerous traditions.
hopr that answers anon 4:42 for you or you may wish to check out the link to Bob Greenbergers Blog shown to the right on GC's here..

bluecoat said...

Gotta go now but I'm sure True Blue will explain why the Electoral College is till needed now that we are decades beyond the emergance of the information age.

disgruntled_republican said...

BLuecoat:

If it aint broke dont fix it.

TrueBlueCT said...

Kevin--

Great Post! Exactly what I'm talking about.

The Electoral College is a dinosaur that makes 80% of Americans' votes worthless on the margin...

There is a great bi-partisan effort to get rid of it. And it should be abolished after a second election which was almost won by the person with the least votes!

Anonymous said...

The only reason you think the electoral college doesn't work is because Al Gore got more popular votes than Bush in 2000. Get over 2000 already.

Anonymous said...

in 2004 it was almost the opposite. 50,000 more votes for Kerry in Ohio, and W would have lost despite having won the popular count by over 3 million.

This stuff cuts both ways.

As a CT Republican, wouldn't you like to have your votes actually mean something?? And it must be hard for your side to get full turn-out when the top of the ticket is a foregone conclusion.

Anonymous said...

My vote does mean something.. its going to elect a republican governor and lt. governor, a republican congressman, state senator and state rep. Its your vote thats not going to mean anything. And I cast my vote for the President twice and would do it again without a thought.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant! Not!

Anonymous said...

Had a couple of more mills in OH issued layoff notices in the fall of '04, the electoral collrge would have been greatest thing America had besides ketchup

Anonymous said...

Yea, by then we may also have a good Republican Senator on our line too...JOE LIEBERMAN

Anonymous said...

CT REPUBLICANS LOVE JOE-EY LIEBERMAN!

Anonymous said...

Sean said:

You're right that Lieberman doesn't have alot of support online. But there has been at least this one post supporting Lieberman following those comments.

Sean, if you're going to rip into another blogger for their grammatical errors, it would be wise to make sure your post is grammaticaly correct.

I think ctblogger busted you pretty good. Geez, he even has timestamps of your site to prove his case.

busted.

Anonymous said...

Streitz couldn't find a single supporter to come to his announcement.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:19- You're an idiot.

bluecoat said...

Disgruntled, I happen to beleive that the states and not the electorate in general elect the President and VP - something to do with the Connecticut Compromise -that said, I am not sure we need the 'electoral college' to carry our vote to a central location. And I honestly don't know if CT is a winner take all state or not..

bluecoat said...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Sen. John McCain emerged from a meeting with Iraq's president Saturday, saying all Americans wanted the democratic experiment in Iraq to succeed and hoped politicians here would quickly from a new government.

McCain, an Arizona Republican who backed the U.S.-invasion, headed a delegation that included Sen. Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who opposed the war in Iraq. Feingold did not speak, but nodded in agreement as McCain spoke about the future of Iraq.

"The American people, no matter what party they are associated with, want the experiment of democracy to succeed," said McCain.

The McCain delegation was in the country just four days after another powerful group of American politicians visited to press for the quick formation of a new government.
it says here form the AP today.

So who is anti-war and pro-war?

bluecoat said...

WASHINGTON — The state’s congressional delegation has told Sikorsky Aircraft and its workers that they must end their six-week strike or risk hurting the company’s chances of winning badly needed Pentagon business in years to come.


In a letter signed by all seven members of the delegation, the lawmakers told Sikorsky President Jeff Pino and Teamsters Local 1151 Secretary-Treasurer Rocco Calo to go back to the bargaining table and not leave until the strike is over.
it says here in today's NHR and here in CT Ceentral on-line with aslightly different twist as far as I can see.

It does appear that UTC is asking the teamsters to accept what everybody else in their company has accepted.

bluecoat said...

Streitz may have a little trouble with his get the immigrants out of the USA platform if he wants W to back him as it looks from this AP account of W's radio address today posted here

Is Streitz a native American?

Anonymous said...

The electoral college is no more anachronistic than is the U.S. Senate. The concept of all votes counting equally does not apply to the senate either. Wyoming, with a population of only 509,294 has the same number of senators as California, with a population of 36,132,147 (2000 Census). One person, one vote doesn't even come close.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know who the Dem congressional candidates are supporting? Will Courtney or Murphy or Farrell come out and endorse either Lieberman or Lamont?

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:15 the 3 congressional candidates showed that they have no balls at all and have endorsed Lieberman. Even though it was in their interest to be neutral, as is the common practice.

bluecoat said...

It's been a verry very big secret but Farrell along with her opponent Chris Shays have both come out in favor of no-backbone Joe and here from Wikipaedia is the real skinny on the electoral college.

Anonymous said...

you guys are thick-headed.

The Senate was designed to be about states' rights. But even it was reformed when the election of Senators was changed to be by popular vote. (before the state legislatures had chosen Senators.)

Anyway, the President is supposed to represent the people, and should be chosen by popular vote. Your injection of the Senate into this debate is poor reasoning.

bluecoat said...

From Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. and I didn't write it.

Anonymous said...

yeah, right. thanks. The Electoral College is set up by the US Constitution? Never would have known that.

It's still an archaic system.

Anonymous said...

Something that I think is being overlooked on this site - and so many others in our blogisphere - is where our party's State Legislators stand on the Lamont vs. Lieberman race. Some of them were brave enough to attend the rally on the 19th, but most have either stuck with the establishment and backed "Joe" or have been complete cowards and sat on the sidelines. Like it or not, these are the leaders of our party - and their opinions swing town committees and local elected officials. I think we need to put some pressure on them to come out and do the right thing.

What do you all think?

Anonymous said...

State party Democratic legislators almost unanimously support Joe Lieberman. Only the extreme left wing kooks are on their crusade to elect Ned. The fact that they can’t list a group of Senators and Reps that support Ned should say something.

Anonymous said...

Do they really stand with Joe?

Find me the Dem candidates' website that has a picture of a candidate next to Lieberman.

And despite Farrell's "endorsement", the records show she has never, ever, ever, donated to Joe Lieberman-DINO.

Maybe it is kooky to be against not only Bush, but Joe, and elective wars in general. (and I'd be delighted to hear your case in favor of the trio.) But that the Party structure makes a gesture of supporting the three-term, prior Dem V-P, candidate-- well, it is by no way surprising!

What is surprising is Lamont's traction, and Lieberman's obvious fear.

Outside of Eddie Perez, (whose mother-in-law works for Joe), no Dem has really come out in strong defense of the Loserman.

Anonymous said...

Congressman John Larson was on WTIC and said he disagreed with Joe's opinions on the war but then proceeded to give him accolades galore for everything else Joe stands for.

With the exception of local town committee's and left wind radical kooks, I have not heard any state legislator come out in support of NED LAMONT. Have Malloy or Destefano come out for Lamont? There are 24 Democratic State Senators....has anyone spoke out against Joe? case closed!

Genghis Conn said...

No one's going to openly stand with Lamont until he can either win or pull out a respectable loss at the convention. If he can get anywhere from 40% of the delegates on up, he'll have all kinds of friends he never knew he had.

bluecoat said...

No, the "electoral colege" is not even mentioned in the Constitution if you read my full posting and link but who cares when you're pushing soundbites.

Anonymous said...

Well if "no one" is going to stand up for Lamont until after the convention how about Lieberman? Shouldn't he be able to get some "out in the open" endorsements from senators and reps after decades in Congress? The very fact that all 24 of our state senators haven't endorsed "Joe" yet is a clear sign of his weakness. I've yet to see a quote from even ONE of them openly endorsing him. Does anyone else know if I'm overlooking something?

Oh, and there is one state house member endorsing Lamont - Betsy Ritter from the 38th (which is somewhere east of the river I think) - I saw her speak at the rally on the 19th.

Anonymous said...

Don Williams openly endorsed Joe at an event in February.

Anonymous said...

I believe Anonymous was mistaken. Betsy Ritter was not at the rally.