Friday, June 30, 2006

The Lieberman Problem

It seems our primary has put Lieberman's Senate colleagues in an awkward position.

Want to see a Democratic senator squirm? Don't ask about Iraq or gasoline prices. Ask about Joe Lieberman.

They edge toward the door, duck into the elevator, scoot down the hall to avoid the question: Will you support Joe Lieberman if he loses the Aug. 8 Senate primary to Ned Lamont and runs as an independent?


Not to worry though. Even if Lieberman ditches the Democrats he'll still be one of us.

Anyway, he[Lieberman] said, Democrats should not worry if he runs as an independent.

"I'd organize with the Democrats if I'm fortunate enough to win," he said. "I'd remain a Democrat."


I wonder how many Senators will come out to campaign for Lieberman in the primary? If Lamont wins who will come out to campaign for him? Speculate away!

Source
Lightman, David. "Sensitive Subject In The Senate". Hartford Courant. 6/30/2006

58 comments:

Mmmm Jodi Rell said...

I have a friend in Washington who I was on the phone with just last night - I tried to describe to him the Lamont phenomenon and how its changed the state's Democratic scene. Told him if he gets the chance - come up before August 8th to see it in action.

If Ned wins on August 8th - I would not be suprised to see Russ Feingold, John Kerry, maybe even Hilary Clinton - all '08 competitors looking to shore up progressive credentials at Joe's expense.

Ned's still gotta win though.

bluecoat said...

Dick Durbin is behind Joe in the primary 100%...and he wouldn't even committ to supporting the winner of the CT primary whoever it might be...

GMR said...

It looks like Feingold is probably going to support Lamont if Lamont wins the primary. Both this article and previous articles have stated this.

A three way race has so many implications it's hard to fathom who benefits and who doesn't in other races. On the one hand, any Democrat supporting Lieberman as an Independent is essentially admitting that the Democrat primary voters cannot be trusted. But it will boost turnout among Democrats, which should help in down ticket races. On the flip side, both Lamont and Lieberman staying in the race means that there aren't going to be many volunteers for down-ticket races. And with many Democrats pulling the first lever for Rell, and then the third or fifth lever or whatever for Lieberman, their string of straight-ticket voting will be interrupted, so the next race -- State Senator -- might be interesting.

Money will fly into this race if it's a three way matchup.

What's interesting is the relationship that Sen. Lamont or Sen. Lieberman (let's face it, Sen. Schlesinger just doesn't seem that plausible) will have with the Democrats who supported the opponent in the general election. The people who supported Lamont will have a better excuse: we were supporting our party, than the people who support Lieberman ("it's our club and you weren't invited").

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat..Durbin is the Ass't minority leader..for him to not committ to support the winer of the Democratic primary is disgraceful.He should be removed for that comment.

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat..Durbin is the Ass't minority leader..for him to not committ to support the winer of the Democratic primary is disgraceful.He should be removed for that comment.

Mr. Reality said...

Shore up progressive credentials? You mean shore up liberal credentials! Liberals needed to change their name to progressive to hide the philosophy that many mainstream people are opposed to.

BRubenstein said...

My favorite presidential hopeful ( Finegold) has it right..likes Ned..and will support the winner of the primary.

TSCowperthwait said...

If Ned Lamont wins the primary, Dems are going to have a hard time holidng that seat in my opinion. Republicans are not going to vote for Lamont (the way they have voted for Lieberman) in the general election.

Russ Feingold is an idiot. If he supports Lamont it only strengthens my argument that Lamont will not receive Republican votes.

bluecoat said...

BR: I agree with you about Durbin; he is usually abot process in the Senate and backing the choce of the people in the primary should be about process....and does everybody remember that Chris Dodd has said the primary is "hurtful" to the CT Donkeys...

BRubenstein said...

Mr Reality...given the extreme closeness of the 2000 and 2004 presidential race to say that many mainsteam folks dont like or wont support a liberal is just nonsense.

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat..i do remember Dodd saying that..he better not call me looking for money for his Presidential PRIMARY..( he only likes primaries if he is the one contesting..what a hypocrite)

BRubenstein said...

TSC..you may not like Finegold...but to call this Harvard Law School honors graduate..and successful lawyer an idiot..is just wrong and degrades a man with probably better educational and professional credentials then YOU have.

Patricia Rice said...

The good news is...all the scenarios don't matter because Senator Lieberman is going to win the primary.

TSCowperthwait said...

BRubenstein, why the attack on my credentials. First off, you don't even know me. Second off, any legislator who gets up in the middle of a hearing because he doesn't like what is being said and leaves is an idiot. His job is to sit through those hearings and make a determination one way or the other. Sometimes, he's in the majority and sometimes in the majority. To leave during a hearing because you don;t like it is juvenile.

BR, knock off the personal attacks and questioning of my background. I've never personally attacked you (if you can call it an attack, the only time I spoke in a harsh tone towards you was in suggesting that you might like living in Venezuela because the state owns the oil, as you proposed here).

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

TSCowperthwait said... "
Russ Feingold is an idiot.


I don't agree.

He's worse than that; the man is evil.

disgruntled_republican said...

Feingold...way too liberal to me. Without getting into specifics I think some of the things he has done are detramental to the country but I don;t think he is an idiot. I do think he is doing the right thing by backing the primary winner though.

GMR - It's comments like that that could make Mr Schlesinger into Senator Schlesinger. Quite frankly I hope it is a 3-way race and both Ned and Joe focus on beating each other. If that happens it will certiainly increase the likelyhood of having Senator Schlesinger.

The more the opposition writes him off, in a 3-way race, the better it is for him. The numbers prove it...

TSCowperthwait said...

Ok, I'll retract use of the word "idiot" because I think some of you are taking its literal meaning. Obviously, someone who is as educated as he is is intelligent (and hence, can't be an idiot within the literal meaning of the word). How I about I call him "evil" as well.

cgg said...

TSC I have to think that Lamont will get a few Republican votes based on the war. I think this is a bad year for anyone, of either party, who voted to give Bush the authorization. Republicans can't be thrilled with how things have turned out, and I'll predict that some will cross party lines in the privacy of the booth.

TSCowperthwait said...

Thew few Republicans who vote for Lamont will be evened out by the Dems (in Derby) who vote for Schlesinger. How about that?


I forgot to comment of Durbin. He too is an "idiot" if he does not support the winner of his own party's primary.

cgg said...

Any other year I'd agree with you about crossovers, but my gut tells me this year they'll work in our favor.

disgruntled_republican said...

cgg -

YOu said, "TSC I have to think that Lamont will get a few Republican votes based on the war."

I disagree....Alan has spoken in favor a a gradual withdrawl as well and will not lose republican votes to Lamont over this.

BRubenstein said...

TSC..i should have said.." and better educational and professional credentials then many posters here..." sorry i said what i said..

cgg said...

DR no one knows who your candidate even is. And is Lieberman runs as an Independent that's where all the focus is going to be.

Mr. Reality said...

BRube, In my opinion you are either conservative or liberal or at the very least you lean one way or the other. But I get the sense that liberals do not like being called liberal. Why else would they call themselves something different. You mean to tell me that a "progressive" would not vote fo a liberal? Please!!! Liberals don't want their candidates to be labeled as such because they know some people will just not vote for a liberal.

Even the news media is calling candidates like Ned Lamont a progressive...he's a liberal, but maybe some people don't know that!

The reason the Presidential races were so close is because these guys an against George Bush.

TSCowperthwait said...

No problem, BR, I'm just edgy today. Too much work, too little time, and fun loving politics to discuss = bad combination. I should have used a different word. Thanks for note - I'm not typically a crybaby!!

disgruntled_republican said...

Republicans, the people you say will crossover, know who he is.

bluecoat said...

McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform legislation - maybe we should just agree that all politicians are idiots when they don't do what we want them to do especially when they don't even serve our particular district....

TSCowperthwait said...

Bluecoat, I won't agree to that because of what I previously said about Feingold walking out of a hearing because he didn't like it. Cry me a river, Russ. So the record is clear, if Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) did something like that I'd be all over him too, and I worked with him, admire him as a legislator, and consider him a friend.

cgg said...

Liberal and progressive mean basically the same thing. Republicans have turned liberal into a dirty word, and now those same Republicans laugh at the use of a different term. I see it as a non-issue. Call me a liberal or a progressive. I don't care.

What I like about the term progressive is it's association with the progressive era and all the reforms that were made in the US during that time period. It fits will with what those us of on the left would like to see happen in politics now. Progressive may also pre-date the word liberal and it's use in the US.

BRubenstein said...

MR Reality...as too the general accepted political terminology im not either a conservative or a liberal..i define myself as a leftist.

As to Ned Lamont..sorry..i dont see him as either a liberal or as a progressive...he appears to be a moderate to me ( leaning liberal) ..i would bet by convential standards that Finegold,Boxer and other Senators would be to the left of Ned on most issues. Its just that Ned is further to the left from both our Senators that he appears to be a liberal to you.In other blue states both of our Senators would be labeled conservatives.

BRubenstein said...

LMAO...and my father was a good conservative Republican

TSCowperthwait said...

So as not to confuse anyone, I am a "conservative." I ask the "liberals," is that a bad thing?

turfgrrl said...

Lamont is basically an unknown politically. Has he ever won a contested elected office? If I recall correctly, his municipal accomplishments were in races where whoever ran, won. His business dealings are certainly interesting, and much to the dismay of the killer bees, I will be posting on them soon enough.

bluecoat said...

TSC: he was wrong to walk out and an idiot on that particular case was OK by me if you want; my point was all of these guys do come up with bad and good stuff from time to time; and my post was in the works before you clarified the idiot thing...

bluecoat said...

on the Schlesinger side, I want to know if he stands with Bill Frist on the flag ammendment, the snactity of marriage ammendment and federal legislation that ususrps state's rights in limiting the commercial liability of hospitals doctors, HMO's & drug companies when they kill and injure consumers .

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl..Ned isnt an unknown politically...he won office locally and had to state out positions..he was a member of a DC thinktank and worked on issues...he also was a big Kerry fundraiser...he also headed a investment committee in the Treasures office...

In summation..he has been political for a long time ..with a record..he is not an "unknown polically" as you assert.

As much as YOu want to tear him down..his work record and business pursuits have nothing to do with the Senate race at all..its just another attempt by you to tear down a good candidate.

bluecoat said...

Ned's also aligned with Diane farrell on Iraq - the issue that defines the race for her - but she supports Joe who supports Bush who is to the right of farrell's opponent Shays...pin the tail on the Donkey....

BRubenstein said...

TSC..there is nothing wrong with being a conservative, understanding of course that there are several strains of it ....

TSCowperthwait said...

BRubenstein, I don't understand why some people give you such a hard time on your posts. I think you always make interesting points...

TSCowperthwait said...

I know that Schlesinger supports a flag burning amendment.

Derby Conservative said...

I really hope that you Dems all keep discounting Schlesinger. Every race he's won has been by beating a popular Democrat incumbant. They never gave him any credit either, just ask Gino DiMauro in Derby. He was supposed to be an unbeatable Derby Democratice Mayor and Schlesinger took him out...then won over 80% of the vote 2 years after that.

MightyMouse1 said...

I spoke to a high level GOP operative (worked for RSCC now a consultant), the Republicans are rooting hard for Lamont. So I guess it is safe to say that Washington Republicans want Lamont to be the Democratic candidate.

bluecoat said...

the flag ammanedment is silly; I see flag etiqutte ignored all the time and some in the name of patriotism; how many fire compnies do you see these days with equipment with flags hanging off the back in direct violation of official etiquette??? the list is long and the ammendment is silly not to mention impractical ...

TSCowperthwait said...

Bluecoat, there is a SIGNIFCANT difference between people who don't properly follow flag etiquette and those who burn the flag.

bluecoat said...

TSC: I don't disagree with you on that but their are many who violate flag etiquette all the ime who are clamoring for this chaange; plus their are very few flag burnings and if somebody wants to burn a flag that belongs to them they can do that as far as I am concerned - and burn their own bra at the same time too; burning a flag that doesn't belong to you is already against the law just as burning anything in the center of most cities is a violation of law; and then you have to decide what a flag is...

TSCowperthwait said...

Sorry bluecoat, I read your post wrong -- but I don't know how to remove a post so just ignore my last post. Sorry!

TSCowperthwait said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
amazins860 said...

It's not just a problem for Lieberman's colleagues in the Senate - it's a problem for Murphy, Farrell and Courtney.

bluedevil19851 said...

Where are the three of them (Murphy, Farrell and Courtney) on the Lieberman issue?

chevygirl1492 said...

I think Murphy may be going with Lamont.

coffeeaddict1234 said...

Nope, he's listed on Lieberman's website as endorsing him.

carlosj1985 said...

WHAT?? I thought Chris was a Porgressive. He claims to be against the war but then sides with Joe on the biggest issue America has faced in years? How is that possible?

janes1978 said...

Chris endorse Ned NOW! Please we need you on our side.

MightyMouse1 said...

He is not Progressive, he is PRAGMATIC. The most important thing is winning the election, right?

mikey51485 said...

Not just Chris we need Joe and Diane.

cgg said...

Flag burning is free speech. Meanwhile the same people who decry burning it ignore every rule regarding the flag. The Bush administration once used the image of the flag on the cover of the budget! Did any congressional Republican oppose that abuse?

TSCowperthwait said...

Wait a minute, if Murphy endorsed Lieberman, doesn't that make him...what is that Lamont supporters call them...oh yeah, Republican? Since Murphy supports Lieberman, are the Dems going to rally around another candidate and leave him in the cold? Or do they only do that to incumbent Democrats?

disgruntled_republican said...

mightymouse-

Of course Republicans want Lamont to win the primary as it is the only way qwe get a 3way race and a shot of winning!