Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Manchester Supports Lieberman

Manchester's Democratic Town Committee passed a resolution chastising Sen. Joe Lieberman for his support of the Iraq War earlier this year, but apparently they're not entirely willing to line up behind his rival, Ned Lamont:
While many members of the Democratic Town Committee still have uncommitted support for the four party hopefuls running for governor and U.S. senator, the majority back Stamford Mayor Dannel P. Malloy and incumbent Joseph I. Lieberman, according to informal votes taken Tuesday.
...
Cummings said that while he's uncommitted in the race for governor, he does support Lieberman's reelection - despite a resolution the town committee passed nearly unanimously this year that chastised the senator for his support of the Bush policy in Iraq.
...
Still, when it comes to backing Lamont, Cummings said he's not willing to risk losing a Democratic seat in the Senate based solely on principle: "I'm willing to be Joe Hypocrite all over the place ... because of the greater good."(Phillips)
This is the first good news I've heard for Lieberman in a while. Cummings's sort of reasoning--that he doesn't want to risk the seat--could be very damaging to Lamont.

Source

Phillips, Kimberly. "Manchester Democrats favor Malloy, Lieberman." Journal-Inquirer 19 April, 2006.

27 comments:

TrueBlueCT said...

The Dems are smart up in Manchester. They were so incensed about Joe's Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Our Troops Must Stay", that they passed a censuring resolution against him. Now they turn around and embrace him??

I wonder what they got out of the deal.

Genghis is right. This isn't good for Lamont. However, the fear card is Joe's last to play before he starts in with the negative blitz against Lamont.

Let it rip, Joe, let it rip.

TrueBlueCT said...

P.S. I forgot to mention a couple of other fears. One is that in 2007 Joe might leave us to join the Bush administration, which would allow Rell to appoint perhaps the pivotal Republican to the United States Senate.

The other fear is that if many more follow Manchester's lead, we might start looking unprincipled, and less than genuine. Whoops, that's right, we're Democrats.

Patricia Rice said...

Congratulations to the Manchester Democrats. They know that real Democrats stick together and they want to back a winner!

MikeCT said...

Cummings' logic is bizarre, counterproductive, and cowardly - essentially he argues that in a blue state, strong Democrats can't possibly win. A particularly pathetic stance for a town chair. Too bad they let their fears overwhelm their hopes - that's Lieberman's strategy. In any case, Cummings isn't giving away the whole store, and Lamont will still do quite well if the chair gets his way:

Nevertheless, Cummings said, Lieberman shouldn't take Manchester's support for granted and the town committee should send its message clearly. He urged the delegates to split their votes 17-10 for Lieberman.

Also the former mayor is not willing to stick with Joe if he quits the Dems and expects Lamont to very well.

Still, "whoever wins the primary, of course, we're going to back," Cassano said, predicting that the two hopefuls will have equal support at the convention to force an August primary. "Democrats will stand united."

Lamont has also picked up the support of delegates in New Britain and Southbury in the last few days. I suspect he already has what he needs.

The Lamont campaign will be training volunteers on gathering petition signatures on next Wednesday the 26th at locations throughout the state. By continuing to gather signatures regardless of the convention outcome, the campaign is building its volunteer base and making first contact with Democratic voters.

Patricia Rice said...

What happened in Manchester will soon spread to some of the other towns that are frustrated at Joe's support of the war. They have made the intelligent decision that although they disagree on the war issue, 99% of the time, Joe is a strong Democrat and they are much better with him than without him. We are beginning to see party unity which will lead us to a big win in November!

BRubenstein said...

The staff of DeStefano should have paid much more attention to manchester then it did....chalk up another "amateur hour" mistake.

ctkeith said...

Bottom line from Manchester is 17 delegates for Lieberman and 10 for Lamont.

Looks like alot better than 15% to me.Lets have ourselves a little Primary and whomever wins everyone gets behind 100%.

You OK with that Patricia Rice?
I am.

Patricia Rice said...

ctkeith, unless you think you candidate is not a man of his word, he already promised to support whoever comes out of the convention. I don't think you would want Ned to break his promise...would you?

ctkeith said...

Patricia rice,

You've just proven your an idiot.

What Lamont said was whomever is the eventual Democratic Nominee (thats decided by a primary not a convention) he will wholeheartedly support.

In other words Dear,YOUR STATE JOB ISN"T SAFE!!

hartford_for_lamont said...

No Pat, you have that wrong; Lamont said that he would support whomever won the Dem PRIMARY, not the Dem convention.

The best news for Lamont is still the fear and uncertainty that Lieberman exhibits.

TrueBlueCT said...

Pat Rice--

What are you talking about?

Your candidate is the not-necessarily-a-Dem, egotistical bastard. Not Ned "team player" Lamont.

The only "Dem" threatening to make a mess of our fall is Lieberman. What did you mean by that last post?

hartford_for_lamont said...

"The Southbury DTC endorsed Lamont yesterday. The town will send 8 delegates to the convention."

This is proving my thesis true, that in the small CT towns, where the Dem delegates are NOT financially dependent upon a big city Dem mayor for city jobs or city contracts, the delegates are going bigtime for Lamont.

This means a lot, because the huge bulk of Connecticut's Dem convention delegates will be coming from small towns.

Lieberman's Dem delegate base seem to be in the large CT cities, but only when a large CT city's Dem delegation is controlled by a Dem party machine mayor, such as is the case in Hartford, where the Dem mayor Eddie Perez has packed the Hartford Dem delegation with employees of the City of Hartford and contractors to the City of Hartford, which means that Mayor Perez controls the financial livelihoods of many Hartford Dem delegates. Since Mayor Perez is a Dem party machine player who has already endorsed Lieberman, I expect most of the Hartford Dem delegation to vote for Lieberman.

Hartford has a total of 54 delegates to the Dem convention out of a total of 1,160 CT Dem convention delegates statewide, so Hartford will not have that much of an impact in the May Dem convention anyway, and I have been told that 15% of the Hartford Dem delegation, ie, those Hartford Dem delegates who are not financially beholden to Hartford Mayor Perez, will vote for Lamont, so even Dem-machine-controlled Hartford will deliver at least 15% for Lamont at the May Dem convention.

Interestingly, in contrast to Hartford, the Dem delegation in another CT big city, New Britain, which has a repub mayor, is going big time for Lamont.

In the case of the New Britain Dem delegation, since they have no financial dependencies upon the New Britain repub mayor, they are thus free to vote their hearts without any fear of losing their financial livelihoods.

That is, the New Britain Dem delegation (which consists of 30 delegates total), being free of any Dem party machine mayorial financial influence, seem to be going overwhelmingly for Lamont.

I would like to see Colin McEnroe research & publish a list of those Hartford Dem delegates who have some sort of direct financial dependency (either a Hartford city job or a Hartford city service contract) upon Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, to let those Hartford Dem delegates know that they will be watched to see if there will be a definitive correlation pattern between their financial dependencies upon the pro-Lieberman Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez and whether those delegates vote for Lieberman at the May Dem Convention.

I'd like to know if anybody else in any other big CT cities are seeing the same sort of contrasts that I am seeng in Hartford versus New Britain, ie, stark differences in Dem delegate preferences based on whether a particular big-city mayor is a party machine Dem who has packed a big city delegation or not.

The bottom line here is that if the small CT towns continue to declare for Lamont like they have been doing, I fail to see how Lieberman can win even 51% at the May Dem convention.

TrueBlueCT said...

Could it be that Pat doesn't understand the difference between winning the Dem endorsement and being the Dem nominee?

Pat, the convention vote gives us the "endorsed candidate". He or she then gets the top line.

The winner of the Primary becomes the "Dem nominee". There is a world of difference between the two. Just ask Susan Bysiewicz.

hartford_for_lamont said...

For all the great stuff that the local blogs are doing for this race, they are seriously missing the ball by them not keeping a running tally of the Dem delegate count for Lamont.

The most prominent local pro-Lamont blogs should start up permanent sections on their sites where anyone can easily just go and see the very latest Dem delegate counts by town pledged to Lamont. The bloggers should be talking to all the Dem DTC's that publically pledge for Lamont, and start posting running numbers of the pledged & estimated delegates for Lamont, like from New Britain, for example.

Bloggers, are you listening?

TrueBlueCT said...

Hartford_for_Lamont rocks!

Nailed it on the head. By following Lieberman off a cliff, the Cronycrats are going to ruin yet another election cycle.

I mean there is a lot I can overlook in voting for a Cronycrat Dem. But their collective wink and a nod to someone pimping Bush's war, who has declared FoxNews' Sean Hannity a wonderful American, and who has stepped out of line to vote in favor of Atty. General Alberto Gonzales, you know, the guy who helped reneder the Geneva conventions "quaint"... IT'S UNACCEPTABLE.

I can't overlook all that. And if I can't swallow it, why should any Independent?

Lieberman has nothing to run on. Republicans love his support for the Iraq Experiment, his extraordinary bi-partisanship during the Bush error, and his FoxNews appearances.

Nationally, Joe is our lamest Democratic Senator. We all know that. Iraq isn't just one issue. It's a big effing deal. And as CT is a blue state, anyone who backs up Bush and Lieberman by echoing the "just one issue bull-crap" deserves to be shunned.

If our CT "Dems" choose to stand beside the FoxNews-"Democrat", Joe Lieberman-- I'll take Jodi Rell. Even at 10-1 odds. We can't win without an earnest message. And Republican-lite isn't earnest.

TrueBlueCT said...

Clarification: When I said "I'll take Jodi Rell", I didn't mean to connote that I'd actually vote for her. I won't. What I meant to say was I'll bet on Rell. The folks I talk to all say the same thing. She comes off as genuine. If CT Dems continue playing the false game of backing up Lieberman but criticizing Republicans, they have no chance of winning anything.

ctblogger said...

This is the first good news I've heard for Lieberman in a while. Cummings's sort of reasoning--that he doesn't want to risk the seat--could be very damaging to Lamont.

?

I don't see how this is good for Lieberman. Take a close look at the numbers and the statement from Cummings and it tells the true story.

Cummings stated in the article that he wants the deglegates to go 17-10 for Lieberman. As it stand now, there are eight delegates who are undecided. I think it's fair to say that those eight are not supporters of Joe but need to be convinced that Lamont is the real deal.

In any event, Cummings dream of 17-10 is perfect for Lamont because it gives him more than 15 percent from Manchester. In any event, there will be a primary and although people are pretty unhappy with Joe, they'll need to learn more about Lamont before they throw there support behind him.

No disrespect to Genghis (and I'm a HUGE fan of this site) but I don't see where this is good news for Lieberman when you have eight delegates who will not support you. If anything, it shows that Lamont's campaign has to fight against Lieberman's name recognition and convince the delegates that a vote for Lamont will not jepordize a "safe" senate seat.

Genghis Conn said...

It's better news than he's seen in a while. It's especially interesting that a DTC which censured Lieberman is even partially willing to support him. We also don't know that it will be a 17-10 split: the original vote was 20-4 in favor of Lieberman.

hartford_for_lamont said...

TrueBlueCT said...

"Hartford_for_Lamont rocks!
Nailed it on the head."


Thank you TrueBlue!

I address the following question/action item to anyone in Manchester who can acquire special insight into the Manchester DTC, something like my special insight into the Hartford DTC, which is packed with financially-dependent cronies of the pro-Lieberman Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, a situation which I have previously detailed in this thread.

What is going on with the Manchester DTC? Does an Eddie Perez-type control them in the shadows?

All the pro-Lamont blogs should put out an all-points-bulletin to find someone from Manchester who can give us the inside story on the schizoid-like behavior of the Manchester DTC.

FYI, here is how I learned the inside story of the pro-Lieberman Perez manipulations of the Hartford DTC; I spoke extensively with 2 pro-Lamont, anti-Perez/anti-Lieberman members of the Hartford DTC who are my DTC representatives.

Now, can anybody do that in Manchester as well, and then report the Manchester DTC inside story to the blogosphere?

Something just does not add up at all with the Manchester DTC, for them to be so opposed to the Bush Iraq disaster, and yet seem to be so happy with Lieberman.

Methinks somebody owns somebody here.

ctblogger said...

True Genghis although I think it's safe to say that those eight undecided votes are not all that happy about Lieberman. Like you said, this is the DTC that censured Lieberman (and lets not forget what happened when people from Manchester went to meet Joe).

Also, as you know very well, there is alot of back room stuff that happens at a convention so I would be very surprised if Lamont couldn't pick up at least 15 percent from Manchester.

TrueBlueCT said...

Hartford_for_Lamont--

I was in Manchester for the historic vote. Manchester people are good people.

What happened? I don't know. In the Hartford area there is some prejudice against FFLD County folks. But they voted in favor of Malloy, so that can't be the explanation.

It could be they really are scared by Lieberman's threat to make this a 3-way race in the fall. That would be horrible for CT Dems.

Or, it could be they got something in a future promise from the Senator.

And maybe they just weren't familiar enough with Ned.

But I agree, there must be a good story surrounding their actions.

Patricia Rice said...

How about Manchester knows that Senator Lieberman is the only coice that makes sense. End of story.

ctkeith said...

Again you insist on proving you're an Idiot.

the only thing a 17-10 split does is assure Manchester is in favor tossing this Decision to their constiuents in the form of a primary.

GC,

There are 91 members of the Manchester DTC and only 24 bothered to even show for this meeting so whatever was said at this meeting has no standing anyway because a quorum(40%) wasn't present.

I'm not sure if this was a meeting of Manchesters DTC,Their chosen Delegates or just a stunt but someone should call their freinds on the Manchester DTC and find out.

hartford_for_lamont said...

I think that ctkeith has helped us get a whole lot closer to the truth about this Manchester DTC story -

I will speculate that the pro-Lieberman wing of the Manchester DTC, which is a minority wing, got together on their own and got some naive clueless reporter to pay attention to what was essentially a bogus meeting by them signifying nothing.

While we still await the definitive report as to what is really going on with the Manchester DTC, it increasingly appears that this was just a junk meeting which spawned a junk story by the Manchester Journal Inquirer.

In short, what we have here is just meaningless rubbish, ie, no great "victory" or "major momentum shift" for Lieberman.

Perhaps what we have here is a desperate attempt to create some phony Joementum?

Phony WMD's in Iraq, and now phony Joementum in Manchester!

It all makes sense now; the Manchester DTC censure of Lieberman in Jan was the real thing, while this latest headline "Manchester Democrats favor Malloy, Lieberman" is just junk.

Bergs said...

Cummings's sort of reasoning--that he doesn't want to risk the seat--could be very damaging to Lamont.


Doesn't want to risk the Seat??? what seat? We don't have the seat now!

The ONLY reason the CT Dem Committee and the Dems are backing Lieberman is : They are believing Joe's threat that he will not be able to give any of his money to other Democrats, And that the loss of his seniority counts for very much. The Seniority of a Democrat who votes however the heck he wants, not how his constituents tell him they want him to is no seniority at all!

Remember when Joe was running with Gore? 2000. THE ONLY RIGHT LEANING THING Joe had going for him, was school vouchers! Now all of a sudden, over the last couple of years, Joe's priorities are the same as the Republicans! He is clearly a man with no principles, and I want him out. If we lose the seat to a Republican, what have we really lost? Not much IMO !

hartford_for_lamont said...

While I am pulling for a Lamont victory, I too have no problem with potentially losing Lieberman's seat to Schlesinger, sincw we (the Dems) don't really have this seat now anyhow!

It was outrageous for a deep-blue-state Dem like Lieberman to vote to end the filibuster of Alito, ie, Lieberman voted as if he was some sort of red-state Dem like Mark Pryor, who obviously had to pander to a right-wing red state base.

Lieberman in his seat is even worse than having Schlesinger in that seat, because Lieberman, being a Dem (in name only, of course) gives Bush and the repubs a special sick sort of cover for their crimes.

Lieberman is a cancer upon all Dems, both here in CT and nationally, and he must be excised out of that seat, one way or another.

t_yeager said...

The Manchester town council embarassed the town. A bunch of Washington wannabees who think that because they pass a resolution,it somehow matters to people in the real world. The council should boosting their town not making it a laughing stock in the national news.Lieberman is a great senator because he is principled enough to cross the party line and work for his country.