Friday, August 18, 2006

Alan Who?

Republicans across the nation have an interest in our Senate race; just not in the endorsed GOP candidate.

Facing Senator Joseph I. Lieberman’s independent candidacy, Republican officials at the state and national level have made the extraordinary decision to abandon their official candidate, and some are actively working to help Mr. Lieberman win in November.

Despite Mr. Lieberman’s position that he will continue to caucus with Democrats if re-elected, all three Republican Congressional candidates in Connecticut have praised Mr. Lieberman and have not endorsed the party’s nominee, Alan Schlesinger. An independent group with Republican ties is raising money for Mr. Lieberman, who has been a strong supporter of President Bush on the Iraq war.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, while saying he would support the Republican nominee, is not planning to campaign for him, and even allowed two of his aides to consult with the Lieberman camp before the Aug. 8 Democratic primary. And Newt Gingrich, the Republican who once served as House speaker, has endorsed Mr. Lieberman’s candidacy.

Alan Schlesinger isn't at all pleased by this development. I can't say that I blame him. Both parties have stood by worse candidates in the past.

Mr. Schlesinger has reacted bitterly to the rejection by his own party, dismissing calls for him to leave the race. He maintains he can win by conveying his conservative platform to voters.

“Washington and the media have attempted to hijack this election and turn it into a referendum on the future of the national Democratic Party,” Mr. Schlesinger said in an interview on Friday. “Their interest is not in electing a Republican in Connecticut, or anyone in particular in Connecticut.”

Republican doubts about Mr. Schlesinger were crystallized when the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, pointedly refused on Monday to say the White House would endorse him. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee — whose job is to champion Republican candidates everywhere — pledged to “stay out of this one.”

This is a national effort to steer Connecticut's general election. It's not about supporting local Republicans. It's not even about supporting Joe Lieberman. It's about making sure the Democrat loses. Whether or not that's a fair strategy is debatable. What's clear is the GOP's intention to support an Independent, at the expense of their own candidate, solely to keep the Democrat from winning.

Kornblutt, Anne E. "G.O.P. Deserts One of Its Own for Lieberman". New York Times. 8/19/06


BRubenstein said...

well said CGG and i agree...the hiprocracy smells.

Anonymous said...

"the" Democrat

You mean the newbie that used to write check to Chris Shays?

Anonymous said...

"This is a national effort to steer Connecticut's general election"

Excuse me, but which one of CT's 169 towns does Kos live in?

Having nationalized the election themselves the Nedheads have no card to play to keep it local now

cgg said...

Fair point, one that Genghis has addressed several times on this site. Nationally both sides are trying to influence the race.

The difference is that Democrats are trying to get a Democrat elected. Republicans can't say the same.

Anonymous said...

It's simple.

Lieberman's sticking around is the Republicans best hope of holding the House.

Not to mention Joe has proven to be a useful idiot.

However the CT Repubs are playing with fire. B/C by embracing Joe, they are also embracing Bush's war.

Are they miscalculating in their hope that Joe can still provide them cover?

As I've said before, 2006 is shaping up to be one heckuva "throw the bums out" year.

Is my memory faulty, or did Perot do particularly well here?

Anonymous said...

cgg - If a viable Republican candidate had stepped forward at the convention or, hypothetically, Schlesinger catches on and moves to within striking distance (miracles do happen, right?), then the national Republicans would play in this race. Obviously, they prefer any R over everyone else, but the realty is that AS is not credible at this point. Therefore, if the choice is between Lieberman or Lamont, who do you think the RNC would favor? Lamont? C'mon.

MikeCT said...

Bill Kristol says it all:

“For me, it’s an uncomplicated decision,” said William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and a neoconservative who is helping Mr. Lieberman through an independent group called Vets for Freedom, which is helping to raise funds and providing strategic advice for the senator.

....he said, “Foreign policy hawks and Bush doctrine believers and prowar types, we want Lieberman to win.”

Anonymous said...

Am I the only person who is not 100% confident that Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats if elected?

disgruntled_republican said...


If the Dems keep treating him the way they are and actually do strip him of seniority and committee assignments I would think he MIGHT be pushed away. But if they dont strip him, he will stay with the Dem caucus.

TrueBlueCT said...

The Repubs are still teasing Joe with a potential Cabinet position.

If Rumsfield stepped down, and Sec. of Defense was legitimately offered to Lieberman, who here says he wouldn't take it?

Any Dem, (like Jimmy Amann), who stills support Joe, should at least ask him for a public commitment to serve out his full term. (if elected.)

Do I need to remind anyone that Rowland would have appointed Joe's replacement, had he and Gore prevailed in Florida in 2000?

Leroy said...

CGG (and team),
I'm very familiar with the innner workkings of the State and Nat'l GOP.
Bloggers, and traditional media the same, are spinning this stroy the way they see fit.

Its been itterated by thate state GOP and echoed by the white house and RNC that this is a simple matter of priorities. The RNC/AND State GOP are no more willing to actively work for schlesinger as they are for Scott Maclean (CT-1) or whats his name in CD3.
Part leadership must seek the mist efficinet targeting of resources.

AB said...

How about the simple fact that Lieberman is a far better candidate ti serve as our Senator than either Lamont or AS? Its a fact, neither Lamont or AS has the experience, notably foreign policy experience to serve in this very vital time.

I love this notion that he has no right to run. Last I checked, there was no mention of political party in the United States Constitution. Being a member of an organized party does not constitute a right or meet a requirement of said constitutuin, This is whast wrong with both party;s, they believe they have some God granted right to power.

Well, they do not, and if Joe Lieberman wchooses to run as an independentm that is his right, granted by the US Constitution, and if republicans, democrats and independents choose to vote for him, that is also our right.

AB said...

One last note, the idea that republicans are voting for Joe are doing so to keep out the democrat.....uh hello!!!! Joe is a democrat despite what you Lamont supporters might say. The man has served as a democrat for all these years and because he has takena different position on the war you brand him disloyal. Even voting for Joe, we are still getting a people are the hypcorites, party of tolerance my foot. The guy takes a position on one issue and you cast him much for loyalty....

Anonymous said...

Aaraon B. it is indeed ironic one of the Nedheads screaming about "party loyalty" must be Tom D'Amore, wh managed a third party candidate for Governor. I donl;t recall libs screaming too loud about abadoning Bruce Morrison that year to keep Rowland out of office.

Ned's high dollar low wattage campaign will crash of its own internal contradictions

Don Pesci said...

ccg --The difference is that Democrats are trying to get a Democrat elected. Republicans can't say the same.

Kos would say that's debatable. Isn't the charge against Lieberman that he's a Republican in disguise? Maybe Republicans have fallen for the progressive propaganda. In any case, you guys can't have it both ways. Political parties, you never weary of telling us, are supposed to act in their own interests. That is what Republicans are doing. So, what's the problem?

Anonymous said...

aaron b,

would you like to go back and rethink your comment?

In case you hadn't noticed Joe Liebermans foreign policy in action,the Iraq war, is a total disaster.Israel and the USA are weaker today then any time since WW2 and Hezbollah just won it's first battle with Israel in its history.

Using your briliant analogy I guess you would think putting Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling in charge of Exxon/Mobile today would also be a grand idea.

Anonymous said...


Glad to see you getting the monetary rewards you deserve for your writing.

Whens the notice on your blog that says,I write political columns for Connecticut newspapers,being Removed.It seems like false advertising since noones is printing your stuff anymore.

cgg said...

Don Pesci said: Political parties, you never weary of telling us, are supposed to act in their own interests. That is what Republicans are doing. So, what's the problem?

As I said in my post whether or not they're playing a fair game is debatable. But a few days ago people here were telling me I was crazy to think this was a national effort. I'm just pointing out that it is in fact just that.

Anonymous said...

now Joe Lieberman is responsible for the IDF's deficient tactics and strategy in Lebanon?

Looks like you guys ran out of real thing to criticise

Anonymous said...

Interesting the Clinton adminstration signed both the Iraq Liberation Act and approved the Exxon/Mobil merger. Lots of ammesia now on those fronts

actually the mogul who most resembles a CT candidate was Koslowski from Tyco, the big art collector

bluecoat said...

Congratulations to John McCain who is often considered Leiberman's best Republican friend in the Senate for backing the GOP endorsed candidiate. And further congrats to him for being smart enough not to waste his time campaigning for him. There is an OpEd by the NYT Times in Sundays CT Section about the anemic CT GOP bench - I;ll try to post it tomorrow if it shows on line and I remember. It's nothing new to those who visit this blog.

bluecoat said...

Rivals Sound More Alike -- Shays, Farrell Both Pessimistic On Iraq Outlook
August 19, 2006 By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief

Bush: Iraq War Keystone in Terror Fight

AB said...

Anonymous...if Israel is weaker as your claim it is because the rest fo the world demands that it acquiesce to its desire to allow the terrorists to do as they please. What israel woudl have doen and should have done if not for world opinion was decimate Hezbollah and Hamas beyond its possible survival. There is no negotation with one who wants you and all who surround you dead.

As for the perception that the US is weaker, in what sense? Yes we are roiled ina difficult situation in Iraq, does that mean we give up and allow islamic jihadists to do as they please. Fact, Iran and its henchman, ie Hezbollah need only one end, that is its destruction. The Iranian people do not approve of their government but are being kept from saying as such and doing something about it. We do not have a problem with the many good people in iran, but their leadership has to go....

So tell me, exactly what wopudl you liek israel and the US to do about hezbollah, hama and Iran?