Connecticut Politics and Elections: Coverage, Analysis, Maps and Commentary
Is it really true that Lieberman takes your SSN before you can go to an event?If that is true, I find that appalling. That's worse than Nixon and Bush combined in terms of crowd control.Poor Joe, he must be really pissed off at the world right now.By the way, the new Rasmussen poll (this one is actually pretty legit, MoE 3%) has Ned leading Joe by 10 in the primary, and TIED with Joe 40-40 in the general.Joe's toast.
If that's true, it's probably only for tomorrow's event with President Clinton. It's a decision made by the secret service, not Senator Lieberman or his campaign.
There was an article in yesterday's NYT CT section about unaffilated voters switching their registration in order to vote for Ned Lamont in the primary. At present the article isn't online though.
Incorrect, I've been to multiple events starring current & former presidents, as well as presidential candidates, giving your SSN IS NOT required.This is an ADDITIONAL request from the Lieberman campaign. Also, asking for someone's social security number for identification purposes is ILLEGAL.
OT, but ... we're celebrating my kid's birthday today. The pool's in great shape, the kids had a blast, the weather is perfect. Life is good...And now, back to snark.;-)
My guy at a network (non-Fox), says they are already writing the template for the Clinton story.Basically, Lieberman is under threat, but he's fighting hard- and he brought the "comeback kid" with him.Much of the story will be about Hillary's reticence, but Bill's commitment to back a friend. They expect Bill to talk about loyalty- Bill's to Joe and Joe's to Connecticut. For what it's worth.They expect the Lamont portion of the story to be a David and Goliath kind of thing.How do folks here think about what Bill Clinton said- it seems we haven't had too much discussion about that:He said that instead of seeking to retire Republicans [anti-war Dems / pro-Lamont guys]were pursuing "the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life."There's a lot to take lightly from Bill Clinton. But he's the best political strategist the Democrats have- and he's a winner. Do you Lamont followers take offense at having your strategy being labeled "the nuttiest"?
healthcarenow, NO it is absolutely FALSE that the Lieberman campaign is taking SSN numbers. I am going to the event tomorrow. I called early, got on a waiting list and was told the campaign would get back to me if there was space. I got a call back the other day and was told that they had a ticket for me. They took my name, and my social security number was NOT required. Please, let's end this rumor now.
In fact, it is the Secret Service that requires a SSN for any person attending an event where the SS will be providing security. In the past, this has been the case at CT fundraisers where the President or Vice President are in attendance. It's required to run security background checks on participants. Requiring a SSN is not illegal in such instances--if you prefer not to give your SSN, you have the option not to attend the event.
FatGuyinMiddleSeat,I would never call my self a "Lamont follower" but I'm a supporter for sure.I take only mild offense at Clinton's comment. I disagree that it is "nutty" but then again I disagreed with a good deal of what Clinton did and said. If we always went with the sure thing we would miss out on great Senators like Paul Wellstone, and Russ Feingold.
It would be a bit ironic for Clinton to praise Lieberman for "loyalty." Wouldn't that beg the question of Lieberman's leading the effort to censure Clinton, after impeachment was defeated?Also, how can Lieberman be considered loyal to the party, when he will likely be running against the party's nominee.Seems to me that loyalty is not the best theme for Lieberman/Clinton.Maybe it explains why Clinton would campaign for Lieberman, but it doesn't does pass the smell test as a description of Lieberman. Loyalty is also a pretty weak rationale. For Lieberman's sake, I hope Clinton can offer a more compelling reason for why Democrats should vote for Lieberman.
Loyalty? I don't believe that loyalty will be the theme of Clinton's remarks. First of all, Lieberman has not been loyal, and doesn't promise to be. He led the effort to censure Clinton AFTER the impeachment vote failed. And he is planning to run against the Dem nominee in the likely event that he looses the primary. Second, loyalty is a very weak argument for supporting a candidate. For Lieberman'ssake, I hope that Clinton comes up with a more compelling rationale for re-electing Lieberman.
The Courant's Elizabeth Hamilton is working on yet another, serious 'character' issue regarding Alan Schlesinger.She has corroborating witnesses... this will be a very damaging piece to Alan.Look for it to run this week.
Wow, tomorrow in Waterbury is going to be crazy! I'm looking forward to the David v. Goliath coverage especially. Ned will be in Waterbury sometime after 6PM for a Meet and Greet at Vasi's restaurant and I know at least NBC 30 and Fox 61 have stated they intend to be there to cover Ned at Vasi's after the Joe-Bill Clinton event. In response to fatguyinmiddleseat-- This is the only primary I have ever heard of, though, where after the debating has finished and the voters have had their chance to decide, one candidate has pledged not to follow the will of the voters and instead will create his own party. Primaries are potentially good for parties when candidates debate ideas and let the voters decide. Internal primaries backfire when the candidates fail to unify after the voters decide their candidate. Shame on Joe!
Speaking of snark, I got another piece of junk mail from Disaster for Connecticut yesterday.It claims, despite Malloy's outstanding record of reducing crime and making Stamford the 11th safest city in the country, that Malloy would compromise the safety of his city rather than compromise with the local police union.This is truly junk mail. If Malloy's opponent thinks this is going to help him get the nomination and the Governor's mansion, he is badly misjudging things.DeStefano's city is a dangerous place, and it has gotten more dangerous during his tenure. There is a reason the FBI hasn't been able to compile crime statistics on New Haven for the last six years.Malloy Campaign Manager Chris Cooney describes this smear as akin to the "Swift Boating" of John Kerry, and he is right.Disaster for Connecticut's efforts to emulate Karl Rove's campaign tactics will fail to damage Malloy, but they are succeeding in damaging the Connecticut Democratic Party.
"She has corroborating witnesses... this will be a very damaging piece to Alan."Well, whatever she says, his support can only drop 9%. Because that's where he is now, at 9%.
Anonymous said... " There is a reason the FBI hasn't been able to compile crime statistics on New Haven for the last six years."Come on now, surely they have access to a supercomputer don't they?They'd need one.
By the way, I'm only relaying the stuff about Clinton / loyalty- it's what they've been prepped with- knowing how Bill improvises and never plays the notes on the page, we could get anything.Jawelcome has an interesting point- very rarely do we see a candidate run in a primary and say, if I don't win, I'm running anyway. (Maybe Pat Buchanan? Not great company.)It would be more compelling for Joe to cede to Lamont at this point. Makes the story "can Joe win as an indie" versus "will Joe lose to this random guy".I think there is a tiny bit of legitimacy to Joe's expressed desire to put his record before the whole of Connecticut- because 50% of the voters are unaffils. But yes, it is disingenuous to have your cake and eat it, too.But a lot of us let Joe have his cake and eat it, too, by being on the ballot twice in 2000. So whaddaya expect? How many of you pulled the lever for him twice? A whole lotta ya! Of course, he was our guy then, and hypocrisy didn't matter.
Update-As my in-house guy noted- they were told "loyalty to Connecticut" was the theme- it is distinct from loyalty to party; but Bubba may be laying Joe's groundwork for the indie run. ("Connecticut for Lieberman", indeed)Additionally, as I've posted elsewhere, the Lieberman speech during the impeachment era was carefully-crafted political theater. Designed for Bill's benefit- Joe set himself up as the moral arbiter...and then ably set a boundary for acceptable remedy.I was at the Hawk and Dove in DC the evening that Joe gave that speech- among the drunken hacks, there was a lot of knowing laughter and acknowledgment that an old friendship was being drawn upon by Bill to protect himself.If you need any further evidence of this: Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman all go back to YLS/ 1970s Conn. politics together. And Lanny and Bill are right behind Joe.Bill excommunicates those who have defied him. Ask Professor Lani Guinier (Bill and Hill were in her wedding) how it feels to be on the wrong side of Bill Clinton. And all she did was refuse to step aside voluntarily. If Joe had done this without clearing it- or without going through channels, Bill would be talking about supporting the winner of the primary.
FGMS has some chops yo.the Lieberman speech during the impeachment era was carefully-crafted political theater. Designed for Bill's benefit- Joe set himself up as the moral arbiter...and then ably set a boundary for acceptable remedy.Dig it.I was at the Hawk and Dove in DC the evening that Joe gave that speech- among the drunken hacks, there was a lot of knowing laughter and acknowledgment that an old friendship was being drawn upon by Bill to protect himself.Loyalty is everything in politics baby.Get ready to reap the whirlwind yo.
"Come on now, surely they have access to a supercomputer don't they?"haha.Seriously though, many people don't know that New Haven is the only major city in Connecticut that doesnt report their crime statistics to the FBI. I wonder why? And this guy has the balls to attack Malloy on it when Stamford is the 11th safest city in the country? The swift boat analogy is dead on: DeStefano is trying to hit Malloy where he knows he is weakest, to try and muddy the waters and confuse their records.
Post a Comment