Remind me please
I wonder if Ned Lamont has said this to and about his opponent: "I want to hear the Senator make an irrevocable and non-ambiguous commitment to join the Democratic caucus if he should defeat me in November. I think the voters of the Nutmeg State (REH: I love that name) deserve to know if a vote for Joe is a vote for the current power structure that rules Washington or if it is a vote for the Democrats. I believe that the voters deserve to know whether the Senator, if re-elected, would move to the Republican side of the aisle. I ask for a binding, explicit, totally clear promise from the Senator, coupled with a promise to resign rather than break that promise. If the Senator promises to side with the Democrats, then this is a race between two Democrats and is a do-over of the primary that thanks to the voters I won. If the Senator says he can't promise or doesn't know or won't answer, then he's hiding the ball on the fact that a vote for him is a vote for the current government to stay in power and a vote against change. If he won't promise to join the Democratic side of the aisle if re-elected, then he's telling everyone that he's really running as a Republican. And then the voters of my state can choose between me, a happy Democratic warrior for change, and a man too ashamed to admit he's a Republican but is a Republican nonetheless. I have always found a way to work with Republicans and I welcome their votes. I never thought it was necessary, however, to pretend to be a Republican in order to work with the opposition party. The Senator shouldn't need to pretend to be a 'maybe' Democrat in order to conceal his switch to the Republican Party."
Great stuff. I can't think of any reason Lamont shouldn't do this immediately. If he already has, he didn't say it loudly enough.
August 15, 2006 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been stunned to watch the media coverage of Lieberman's loss. I was on vacation with no internet and only saw a CNN graphic. "Democrats Desert Lieberman". It has become clear given the Talking Points agreement between Lieberman and Chaney that Lieberman has deserted the Democrats. Joe is hurting the Democrats right now with his decision to run and to imply that all who disagree are aligned with the terrorists. His run may cost downticket congressional races.
The Democrats of the Nutmeg State have spoken. The National Democratic party should not be giving Joe a 2nd chance. Joe's only hope of winning must be to attract republicans and independents and assume democrats will vote for him. The national Democratic Party must not enable/deliver the democratic base. Joe has made a decision to run against the interests of the party and does not deserve the support of the party in exchange for any number of promises. If Joe is a true Democrat, he would honor the results of the primary, step aside and shut up. Joe is well on his way to earning the title "Traitor Joe".
August 15, 2006 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree. Remember how Joe was mentioning that he is running as an independent for his party's sake? Well, let's not give him a 2nd chance at the seat using a "independent Democrat" (yes, you can sue, but that looks bad) tag. That is, if Joe accepts the challenge and says he'll caucus with the Dem's.
It's not that far-fetched. He voted with the party's leadership a fairly high number of times. It's just that his talk on Sunday gabfests have been easy on the GOP and hard on Democrats.
August 15, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Lieberman called Lamont's bluff, it might cost Lamont a few crucial votes. But the gain would be that Lieberman's triangulation options would be reduced should Lieberman win. And make no mistake, Lieberman has at least a 50-50 shot of pulling this thing out.
That latter gain depends in turn on the likelihood of Lieberman not straight-caucusing with the Dems if he wins and Lamont has made no such demand. I happen to think that likelihood is very high--not that he'd caucus with the Republicans, but that he'd bargain with them, triangulate, split the difference, get the best deal he could for himself.
Lieberman wants to have it both ways on this. Lamont can't lose by forcing Lieberman to choose.
August 15, 2006 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ken D.
Perhaps a more forceful way for Lamont to make the point would be, "You don't know which side he is on. He said he would stay a Democrat if elected on his own ticket, but now he is courting and receiving support from top Republican leaders who obviously expect him to switch, either right away or later in the term. You can't trust him on this basic issue." Try to herd Lieberman into a commitment, rather than "demanding" it.
August 15, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right now, Republicans are supporting Lieberman. If Lieberman unequivocally declares that he will caucus with the Democrats, then Republicans are going to vote for their own candidate, and Lieberman just looks like the sore loser that he is. So it wouldn't help Lieberman to "call Lamont's bluff".
August 15, 2006 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason he wouldn't do this immediately is that Joe Lieberman might unequivocably say he is a democrat. That would hurt Ned's campaign by not really allowing him to insinuate otherwise.
The insinuation of a possible switch to the dark side hurts Lieberman. It is in the back of every voter's mind. The calls from Rove, the funds from partisan republican donors, and using the same verbage as Cheney hasn't helped Lieberman in Connecticut.
I think Lamont's real chance to win is to reinforce this doubt in the 48% of democratic voters that supported Holy Joe. Otherwise, barring a real republican candidate entering the race, Ned has an uphill battle.
August 15, 2006 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Joe, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that the downside, if there was one to Lamont's making such a demand, was offset Lieberman's reduced ability to equivocate.
August 15, 2006 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a way that Lieberman can actually help the party: He can collect all the Republican money that's starting to flow his way, then drop out shortly before election day. He'd be a good role model for the Green Party candidate in Pennsylvania, too.
Seth B
August 15, 2006 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think that Lieberman should be permitted to caucus with the Democrats and I think that the leadership of the party should say so now. He was rejected by the party voters in a primary election. And, he is running against the nominee of the party. Either thing counts him out in my book.
global citizen
August 15, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
An unbreakable promise from a senator, even one as nominally upright as Lieberman, to resign if he doesn't do what he says he's going to do? Whom are you kidding?
Joe has already shown he'll promise anything (except coming to his senses on Iraq and democrat-bashing) to stay in the race.
August 15, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good god what a worthless rant.
Demanding Lieberman to strictly adhere to the Democratic Party mantra is as fascist in principle as what many on the left claim about the Bush administration.
Reed, your "wish" seems to completely contradict the argument most people make for picking Lamont.
Most argue that what we need in Washington is a fresh start. That picking non-career politicians like Lamont might be a better alternative to the stagnant, indoctrinated "lifers" like Joe Lieberman.
Yet here you are essentially admitting that this argument is a complete sham. You clearly articulate here that what matters is not open-minded thinking or pragmatic vision. You claim that absolute devotion to one's party and its platforms (no matter what the individual politician may secretly think about them) is of utmost importance.
Yes, your disgusting party really has come a long way from the horrible Neocons.
You play the exact same game, my friend. You just root for the Red Sox as opposed to the Yankees.
What a joke.
August 15, 2006 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a nice idea but Lieberman will never give a straight answer and newspapers aren't going to press him on it. For comparison, in July Ned Lamont said he would agree to a spending cap in the primary and the Lieberman camp responded saying it was a "campaign ploy". No response on the substance - all deflection.
What should happen next is Harry Reid making an announcement that whoever wins the CT Senate race will be coming to Washington with their seniority set at zero. Many CT voters would support Lamont over Lieberman if they knew Lieberman would be starting again from zero. For those that think this is somehow harsh or unprecedented you need look no farther back than Frank Lautenberg.
Lautenberg retired after 3 terms in the Senate and got back in as the Democratic nominee to bail out Dems after Bob Torricelli imploded. For his troubles Frank Lautenberg had his seniority reset to zero. Why should Lieberman get more favorable treatment when he's being asked to get OUT of the race than Lautenberg who was asked to get back IN the race? Somebody (say...Frank Lautenberg) should make a big stink about Lieberman and his seniority. If Senate Democrats want to be consistent they will reset Lieberman's seniority based on the 'Lautenberg precedent' and announce that detail ASAP.
My guess is Lieberman will whine like a baby if he's faced with losing his seniority and announces he's joining the GOP. No way do CT voters want a freshman GOP Joe Lieberman over a freshman Dem Ned Lamont. That's how you press the issue - you don't ask nicely, you force Lieberman's hand. He's gone from zero to Dick Cheney in less than a week. The 'independent' label is marketing, not product. Lieberman is going to caucus with the GOP or lose. It's obvious.
August 15, 2006 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love that. He wasn't exactly at zero before -- witness comments like "we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril" -- but it's still a great way of putting it. It's even better than Bill Clinton's "[Lieberman's] position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position ..."
August 15, 2006 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
To encourage Lieberman to quit the DNC and DSCC should:
1. Go after the money. Sit down with Lieberman's donors and encourage them to either donate to Lamont or stay neutral. He’ll still get money from defense contractors of course. But the party should make it really uncomfortable for traditional Democratic allies, such as labor, to give him cash. And nobody from the Clinton White House should be giving him a dime.
2. Go after his consultants, whether newly hired or held over from the primary. Punish anybody who stays on his campaign by making it difficult for them to get jobs. Offer them new jobs or contracts in other campaigns to ease the exit.
3. Give Lieberman a gracious way of getting out. Get Clinton and Carter and Gore to agree to appear at his side during the speech. Get Bob Rubin to give him a job at Citigroup.
They need to do whatever it takes. It's time to get this guy out of the race.
August 15, 2006 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Lieberman was a true Democrat, he would have abided (abode?) by the results of the Democratic Primary, and not have insisted on a "do-over" because he thinks he knows better about what Nutmeg Democrats want. Or that his unpopular stances somehow make him a better representative of the voters than Lamont, who seems to be on the same side on the major issues of the day as the Democrats that voted in the primary.
August 15, 2006 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so, Lieberman is a true Liebermanite which means himself first last and always. If he thinks his path to getting elected in the fall lies with caucusing with Dems, then he will do so.
August 15, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I hire you to represent me in my divorce?
---- Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings abuser.
August 15, 2006 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Utter nonsense from Washington National
The Democrats backing Lieberman are the same ones you better pray are contributing to McCaskill, Tester, Whitehouse, Casey, Menendez, Pedersen and Carter. They are not going to be pressured by anyone into dropping their support for Joe Lieberman, and any attempt by Dean, Reid, Pelosi or anyonme else to strong-arm them will mean we lose all seven of those races. Get real, people. You sound like a bunch of whiny second-graders.
August 15, 2006 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with requiring Lieberman to come out on his hind legs and acknowledge whether he does or does not consider himself a Democrat?
And if he does consider a Democrat, what is wrong with requiring him to make a verbal commitment to that concept.
The truth is Lieberman lost his primary because he refused to be a Democrat at all. I recall ironically, that when he ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination, his web site did not anywhere contain the words Democrat or Democratic Party on it anywhere. That's a pretty passive aggressive attitude, particularly when you're running for Chief.
What does being a Democrat mean to Lieberman? If it means attacking fellow Democrats while consistently running interference with and giving bipartisan cover to Republicans worst decisions...
well, who needs him?
August 15, 2006 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which party is that? The party of Lieberman for Lieberman? The Republicans? The Democrats?
That sounds smart ass and snarky, but given the man's history and conduct, it is a blunt and fair question.
August 15, 2006 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
August 15, 2006 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't just about any Democrat or Republican run in the Connecticut general election? And, run as a Democrat or Republican? If the loser in a primary can still run in the general election as a candidate of the party whose primary he lost, there is no point in the state wasting money holding a primary election. I would think the Conn. Secretary of State or Attorney General would step in and demand that Lieberman run as an independent, and campaign as an independent, with no party mentioned. If he did that, fine. Then the problem is the state laws which allow such a run-around.
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 15, 2006 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is indeed a state law against "sore losers" using the name of a major party in an independent bid. Joe's official campaign is "Lieberman for Connecticut" or some such twaddle.
I think the reason the Dems aren't pushing his "danicing" around state law is their fear that it will look petty, but it would be nice if the AG made a statement warning Lieberman about it.
Joe's not only a louse, but a law-breaking louse.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 16, 2006 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink