CT-Sen: Schlesinger, Republicans are Lieberman's Only Hopes

As the Rasmussen poll shows, Lieberman's only hope to win in Connecticut is based not only on winning some Republican votes, but actually upon winning about 70% of Republican votes, including the majority of the far-right wing conservative base. Even with the pathetic, scandal plagued Republican in the race at a shockingly low 6%, all of Lieberman's gains are still coming from Republican voters, and his "margin" over Ned Lamont is still within the margin of error. If a non-scandal plagued, even vaguely competent Republican were on the ballot, this campaign would already be over. With a Republican at 20%, Lamont would be ahead. With a Republican at 27%, Lamont would be ahead outside the margin of error. And that would be before all of the donations switch, all of the advocacy groups abandon Lieberman, and every major Democrat in the country publicly tosses Lieberman to the curb. Were it not for Schlesinger, Lieberman's third-party, do-over campaign would already be little more than an amusing footnote in a blowout-election.

Lieberman knows that not only Republicans, but the far-right wing conservative base is his only path to victory. That is why he is now claiming that the terrorists are somehow worse than the Holocaust or the Soviet Union. That is the sort of batshit wingnuttery that appeals to the Little Green Footballs crowd--the same crowd he knows he has to win to pull this thing out. Soon, in the name of "bi-partisanship," we can expect him to start calling for a fifty-foot fence along our borders, and for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran. I mean, seriously, if you think that Al-Qaeda is worse than the Third Reich or Stalin, why should we ever expect your crazy wingnuttery to restrain itself?

If Schlesinger were to drop out of the race, and a less felonious Republican placed on the ballot, Lieberman would be toast. He is probably toast anyway, but in that scenario the campaign would turn into a blowout sooner, rather than later. If he is at only 46% with a majority of Republican votes, he would truly have no chance if a credible Republican entered the race. Two weeks ago, when looking through old election returns, I noticed that in the vast majority of House districts, simply having a candidate on the ballot guarantees a major party 20-27% of the vote. A percentage like that means that you automatically win a sizable majority of your own partisan self-identifiers. Thus, if Schlesinger drops out, and another Republican takes his place, Lieberman has no shot at winning a majority of the Republican vote, and is therefore finished.

While Schlesinger says he is staying in (someone needs to check to see if he is on Lieberman's payroll) Republicans in Connecticut are working hard to replace him. They have, for example, approached Jack Orchulli, who is open to the idea. Orchulli got waxed by Dodd in 2004, winning only 32% of the vote in a two-way race. It is a mathematical impossibility to win a three way race without at least 33.4% of the vote. If Orculli could not pull that off in a two-way race, there is no chance at all he could win a three-way race. While he couldn't win, if he or any other even semi-credible Republican were ont eh ballot, Lamont would instanesouly take a commanding lead. This would allow us as Democrats to turn our attentions elsewhere, expect to bask in Lamont's warm glow and mock Lieberman ala Katherine Harris in Florida. There is not other reason to pay attention to the Florida Senate race except to mock Katherine Harris. I'd love to see Connecituct in the same category.

Lieberman has to do two things to even have a shot in this race: keep Schlesinger on the ballot, and appeal to the far-right Republican base in the void Schlesinger has left. Even then, Lieberman's chances are not very good. If Lamont is within the MoE on Lieberman already, and now we will see every major endorsement Lieberman has received switch to Lamont, that alone probably finishes Lieberman off. Over time, these flips will probably cause a total collapse in Lieberman's already low (36%) Democratic support. But it gets worse for Leiberman: by appealing to the far-right, he will see the same precipitous drop among Independents that Republicans around the country has seen since early 2005. Throw in the fact that Lieberman has shown himself time and time again to be a pathetic campaigner (he dropped 50 point to Lamont From April 28-August 8th, or about one point every two days), and he is really up a creek. Worries of the now-banned concern troll aside (although I grant the possibility that she was an idiot rather than a concern troll), Lieberman's chances to win this election are minimal, at best.

It is time to strip Lieberman of his committee seats, and to freeze off his donors, lest they end up reflecting badly on the rest of the party in the wake of his disastrous plummet. For months, the DLC and the national punditry warned Democrats how bad they would look if they nominated Ned Lamont instead of Joe Lieberman. They may yet be proven right, but for different reasons than they claimed. Lieberman's continued downward spiral is going to be ugly and make him look even more pathetic than he looks now. He will start to fall behind in polls, and then he will respond by making comments like claiming that Al-Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgency are worse than the Third Reich or Stalin. As it gets even worse, he will become a major lodestone. In order to salvage our image to the rest of the nation, we will need to cut him free, just as he has cut us free. This is going to get ugly fast, and the establishment needs to take more aggressive measures to end it before it gets worse.

Tags: Alan Schlesinger, CT-Sen, Democrats, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, polls, Republicans, Senate 2006 (all tags)



Scandal plagued?

Okay, he may be an unsuccessful card count, and been in debt once or twice but I really don't think that makes him "scandal plagued".  Come on, a personal failing like that shouldn't preclude someone from public office.

To be quite honest after the past month or so, I'd almost rather see Senator Schlessenger then Senator Independent Lieberman.  The only thing "pathetic" about him is his fundraising.

I don't think it's healthy to bash people for personal problems just because we can. Schlessenger poses no threat (and in fact, could act as a spoiler) so lighten up.

by delmoi 2006-08-11 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Scandal plagued?

Schlesinger has a much more sensible approach to the war than Lieberman, calling for a phased withdrawal.  For awhile, I thought that this might pull some support from Lamont, be he has been so successfully defined as an antiwar candidate that I doubt that will happen.  

by Winston Smith 2006-08-11 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Scandal plagued?

I suspect there is a fair number of CT Republicans who want out of Iraq yesterday too. They could go for Lamont if a pro-occupation Pub takes Schlesinger's place on the ballot

by Sitkah 2006-08-11 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Scandal plagued?

I don't think it's healthy to bash people for personal problems just because we can. Schlessenger poses no threat (and in fact, could act as a spoiler) so lighten up.

The GOP (with their corporate media) are trying to define Democrats as the al Qaeda party. So don't expect me to give any Pub a break for anything.

by Sitkah 2006-08-11 09:06PM | 0 recs
The same smear machine is doing in Schlesinger

Make no mistake, The republican party backs Holy Joe here.  He may vote with the dems most of the time, but not when it really counts. And the rhetorical cover they give him is worth more then a senate vote.

That's another reason smearing him bugs me.  It just enables smear-based politics. We need to move past that, IMO. You didn't see Ned Lamont bash Leiberman for anything other then his public positions, even though there was fertile territory (like his wife being a major lobbyist for health insurance).  Joe was in the pocket of big pharma but Ned kept things civil on his end. Smear merchant politics turns people off of politics, at a time we need to be bringing them in.

by delmoi 2006-08-11 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The same smear machine is doing in Schlesinger

I hear ya. But I just can't summon the strength to speak up for anyone who belongs to a party that calls me -- indeed a majority of Amercans -- terrorists or their enablers. If he wants civility let him denounce what his own party is doing first.

by Sitkah 2006-08-11 11:05PM | 0 recs
Lieberman's Only Hopes

Lieberman would be better off to bail out now, while he still has some credibility in Washington and could manage to land himself a cushy lobbying or consulting gig.  If he hangs around much longer he is going to be nothing more than a punching bag, and his stock will plummet.

Look for him to do whatever is best for Joe--  there is no chance that he will act on high principle.

by global yokel 2006-08-11 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Only Hopes

Why is Hunter Thompson dead when we really need him - again?

Don't make the mistake of assuming that Lieberman is looking out for himself. He is a twitching writhing ego out of control following the path of people like Ed Muskie and Hubert Humphrey.

Particularly like Humphrey in '72, Lieberman is willing to give the Reps all the talking points they could possibly want in a desperate attempt to support his increasingly disconnected fantasy.

Both H and L were fairly decent guys sometimes, but their respective wars, Viet Nam and Iraq, backed them into a corner, and they came out snarling and slavering like frenzied hogs.

The Humphrey thing may be a bit too historical for a lot of people these days, but I guarantee you Lieberman knows it. Confront him with it - the media won't know what you're talking about, but Lieberman will start blowing steam out his ears. And that's a good visual.

by ORB 2006-08-12 12:00AM | 0 recs
CT-Sen/CNN Outrage

For those who might not have seen this on www.dailykos.com :
CNN anchorman Chuck Roberts, on what was NOT an editorial piece, asked ON-AIR, "if Ned Lamont was, as some are saying, the al-queda candidate."

This is so out of bounds journalistically, we're urging folks to comment/write/call CNN.

The cnn website www.cnn.com has a "contact us" section where you can leave feedback.

The phone number where you can leave a voicemail is 404 827 1700.

This sort of journalistic bias is beyond excuse and requires response.

by Cobalt 2006-08-11 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: CT-Sen/CNN Outrage

"if Ned Lamont was, as some are saying, the al-queda candidate."

There's bad and then there's disgraceful -- and this is the latter.

by Sitkah 2006-08-11 08:57PM | 0 recs
Committee Assignments

Is there any willpower among the Democratic leadership to strip Joe of his assignments? I'd love to see some real information on this. It would go a long way to showing that he's been ostracized by the Dems in the Senate.

by duke1376 2006-08-11 07:22PM | 0 recs
Keyes vs. Obama

Even Keyes got 27% against Obama here in IL and he was certifiable and a pure carpetbagger and the IL GOP totally in chaos in 2004.

Any GOP candidate in CT ought to be able to do at least as well as Keyes.

Joe is toast.

by michael in chicago 2006-08-11 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Keyes vs. Obama


Great description of Alan Keyes!!!

by John Mills 2006-08-11 08:30PM | 0 recs

I think Schumer is the problem--supporting Lamont front-stage, but then supporting Lieberman back-stage.

Schumer needs to put real pressure on Lieberman the way he put on Hackett. The fact that Schumer is in charge of the Senate races makes it even more glaringly obvious that he is shirking his responsibility to the party vis-a-vis getting Lieberman off the table.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-11 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

Agreed! Agreed! Agreed!

And Chuck Schumer really doesn't want McCaskill, Webb, Klobuchar, Cardin/Mfume, Ford, Nelson(s), Cantwell and others out there campaigning while an ostensible "Democratic" Lieberman is bashing his own party and bringing up al-queda.

With the exception of Richardson, the endorsements have been palliatives so far.

Schumer, Dodd, & President Clinton need to be much more aggressive.

by Cobalt 2006-08-11 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

You think that based on what?  He did what was asked of him: endorsed Lamont and announced the DSCC will support him.  When someone does what you demand you thank him, not assume he's continuing to screw you behind your back.  I'm no great fan of Schumer's but I've seen no evidence that he's continuing to support Lieberman.  If your only evidence is that Lieberman has refused to drop out, that's not enough to be making public accusations.

And by the way, Schumer had a lot more leverage on Hackett than he has on Lieberman.  He could call Hackett's donors and tell them to cut off the money.  He can do a certain amount of that to Lieberman, but Lieberman has a lot more non-Schumer-dependent funding than Hackett did.

by antidoto 2006-08-11 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

Schumer's my Senator.  I can say whatever I want based on my impression of the job he's doing.

He's running the races, so it's his job to make sure that people fall in line and that the Dems do not self-destruct, that the money doesn't get wasted, and that we win.  I cannot see how it possibley helps to have Lieberman still in the race, so it makes no sense that Schumer hasn't pressured him to leave.

The fact that he was so pro-active and in Hackett's face is precisly the reason his silence is so obvious, right now.  Schumer didn't suddenly find religion.  He's getting what he wants.

Lieberman is weak--very weak as a result of the primary and his abysmal performance afterwards. Even senile grandmothers in Iowa can see that Lieberman is desperately hurling Republican talking points at Lamont--and opening the door for the entire Republican hit machine to rush in with guns ablazin.  By monday morning every Republican will have called Ned Lamont a terorist sympathizer--just like Joe Lieberman.

So, my guess--and it is just a guess:  Schumer is giving Lieberman a set period of time to make up his own mind to drop out, then he will start making the calls.  My guess is that the deadline is Sep 1.  None of us know for sure, but that is my guess.

As for Schumer's support of Lamont--I don't really trust that, yet.  We've got a whole slew of very silent Senate Dems at the moment, sitting back as the media slowly equates Lamont with Osama Bin Laden.  It just so happens that Schumer is the one in charge of the races.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-11 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

Chuck is my Senator too and I know him from my days on the Hill and Chuck is about Chuck.  Period!  He is running the DSCC and he wants to win the majority bad so goodbye Joe Lieberman hello Ned Lamont.  He may like Lieberman personally but with Chuck it is all business so Ned Lamont, Claire McCaskill, Harold Ford, Sheldon Whitehouse, Bob Casey, etc will be his new best friends if they will get him to 51 Dem seats in the Senate.  You know what, that is exactly what we need in that job.

by John Mills 2006-08-11 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

Bingo. (About Schumer.)  

by InigoMontoya 2006-08-11 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

OK, I didn't realize you knew him personally.

But in your first comment you made it seem that Schumer was doing what he was asked with Lamont, and now you make it seem that he will ignore Lieberman because all he cares about is getting '51 Dem seats in the Senate.'  Between embracing Lamont and ignoring Lieberman--there's still questions left unanswered.  

Do you know,  for example, if he thinks  Lieberman can beat Lamont? Is Schumer thinking that Lieberman and Lamont could each be his 51st seat, so he should just sit back and let what happens happen?   I mean, I get the sense he would rather have Lieberman--that they all would.  And if all Schumer cares about is winning the seat, it seems that he could back Lamont in public, not tell Lieberman's funders to shut off the valve, and he'd still get his CT seat, push back this 'blogger thing' and--you know--have his cake, eat it too, and it's still all about Chuck.  

I guess that's my point.  I see this as a decisive moment, a time for some real symbolic leadership--a move to cut off the GOP smear campaign.  And instead, Schumer et al are just doing what they are asked and then standing back to let Lieberman do his thing.  If the point of their original endorsements was to get Lieberman to drop out--it didn't work. So why are they letting it stand?  To give Lieberman time to give the Repubs some good ammo for 2008?

Did you hear Weiner's comment yesterday when asked about the race?  He said something like, I support Lamont, but it would be fine with me if Lieberman wins in the end.  Wasn't Weiner one of Schumer's staffers?  A position like that is not fine for a Democrat to take on TV right now.   We want our Democratic leaders to stand up and say, 'We will not stand by while anyone subverts the outcome of one of our primaries for their own personal gain.  When registered Democrats pick a candidate for Senate--the leadership backs that choicce 110%.  We stand up for our party.  We don't take a wait and see attitude.'  

It is possible to persuade a colleague in these situations.  And the are either not trying or they have agreed not to do it for a given period of time.  If it's all business with Chuck, there's some obvious business that's not getting done--his CT race is turning into a circus.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-12 03:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

I mainly dealt with Chuck's staffers when I was on the Hill and he was in the House.  However, I know his MO to a T and it is always about what is best for Chuck.  I can't tell you how many times he screwed me and my old boss to make himself look better and we were on the same team.  I am not a fan but I respect his ability.

AS Chris's post points out the chances of Lieberman winning this seat are minimal so Schumer is going to go with the better bet which is Lamont.  Do I think Chuck would be upset if Lieberman wins - no as long as he caucuses with the Dems but he is not going to put resources into it.  It's too much of a longshot and now that Lieberman is an Independent there is always a possibility he will caucus with the Rs. Remember, Chuck's goal is at least 51 Dems and Lamont, not Lieberman, helps him get there now.

I don't want to make Schumer seem soleless because he isn't.  He believes in most of the right things but he is driven by his desire to advance himself.  THe old joke in DC was the most dangerous place was between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera.  

Regarding Weiner, he is his own person now.  Former staffers go their own way and make their own decisions.  Weiner has long since outgrown being Chuck's protoge.  After all the guy was a serious Mayoral contender last year.  Don't read too much into his comments.

by John Mills 2006-08-12 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

Forgot to add that regarding getting Lieberman off the ballot, I have read that Dodd is supposed to be working behind the scenes on that one.  He apparently has the best relationship with him.  I don't think anyone in the leadership thinks he is viable anymore and they don't seem to want to give the Rs any opening, slim as it might be, to win the seat.

However, remember they may not be able to convince Lieberman to get off the ballot.  The guy is pretty stubborn - he hasn't budged on his position on Iraq one bit despite the mess it has become.  If they try and he won't stop running, you can't blame Schumer, Reid, Dodd et al.  He clearly is not driven by his loyalty to the Dem party.

by John Mills 2006-08-12 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

Hey, thanks.  Those are great insights.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-12 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Schumer

I much more concerned about guys like Ken Salazar and Mark Pryor endorsing Lieberman because this feeds Lieberman's idea he is still viable.  It makes the job of convincing him to quit much more difficult.  That is actually something the leadership could do something about if they chose.  These guys are both junior members of the Senate and Reid could make it clear they will not get plumb committee assignments like Finance or Appropriations as a result of these moves.  Maybe he has and they don't care.  I don't know.

by John Mills 2006-08-12 09:34AM | 0 recs
Lieberman's Only Hopes

I think we're getting close to the tipping point, that moment when the fossils that run the Democratic Party realize that the grassroots/netroots faction is indispensable.  They can't take on the GOP machine and win without us, and they are going to have to change their tune if they don't want to remain in perpetual minority status.

by global yokel 2006-08-11 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Only Hopes

The trouble is, they're dinosaurs -- and dinosaurs aren't noted for their smarts.

by Sitkah 2006-08-11 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: CT-Sen: Schlesinger, Republicans are Lieberman
They need some televised debates to prop up Schlesinger or whoever the Republican ends up being. Try and peel some of Joe-mentum's Republican base by highlighting the non-Iraq issues where Lieberman disagrees with Republicans.
by Anthony de Jesus 2006-08-11 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: CT-Sen: Schlesinger, Republicans are Lieberman

I am going to say this again.  Repetition seems to be necessary.  The Rasmussen poll--- and remember Rasmussen is an avowedly Republican polling organization---was another deliberate gift to Joe to jigger the numbers his way.  they knew it was too erly to poll and that the early outcome would help Joe.

If they had waited a decent time --- as would be usual in that normative poll would show a fall off for Joe and with Lamont probably in the lead.

It was just like when Gallup(?) polled right after the end of the Repub. convention and Armando (and I ) howled that the poll was illegitimate because the timing was suspect.

Well this is another kiss from the Rethugs.

by debcoop 2006-08-11 08:52PM | 0 recs
CT-Sen: Schlesinger, Republicans are Lieberman's

Another really good analysis.   I worry I sound like a sycophant but you are on a roll.

Let's give Dodd a little time - say 10 days or so - to talk Lieberman off the ledge.  The sting of the defeat will need to fade a little and the reality of everyone running away is going to need to set in before the guy will move.  He is a wounded animal right now lashing out at everyone.  If he won't budge then the leadership should take whatever steps necessary.  

Drying up the fundraising may be a little harder as Lieberman will lean hard on his "friendships and relationships."  Despite our complaints about Rattner and Bradstreet, Dems don't have the organized K Street project the Rs do so our fundraising is a little more disjointed and harder to control.  Over time this will probably take care of itself as it becomes clear Lieberman is not going to win.  Donors, even friends, are reluctant to give money to losing causes.

by John Mills 2006-08-11 08:48PM | 0 recs
I'm glad someone addressed the Schlesinger factor

Some of us have been posting that Lamont's fortunes are directly tied to Schlesinger's number, but this is the first major thread I've seen from a blog leader addressing the matter. Well done.

I tinkered with my Excel model more and still can't get Lamont over the hump without Schlesinger in the high teens. I never went beyond 23% since I doubt that's realistic in a 3-way.

You've got to take this into account: Schlesinger's initial gain above the 6% will come almost exclusively from Lieberman. But every point it goes up, and especially if it gets to the mid teens or higher, some of that starts coming off Lamont's number also. I know that doesn't sound feasible, someone switching from Lamont to Schlesinger, but I've sampled enough 3-ways over 10 years that a change of 8-10 points or more is never a pure siphon from one candidate to another. It indicates an overall shift in preference, not merely increased party loyalty, and that impacts the entire field, at least somewhat.

Chris nailed it with the batshit wingnuttery reference. IMO it's classic Lieberman handicapping incompetence, yet again. He thinks he needs to go that far bizarre to clamp the conservative vote. But he doesn't realize he's only got it due to Schlesinger's current reputation. Meanwhile, the rhetoric endangers Lieberman's numbers among Democrats and left leaning independents. There are plenty of left leaning independents in Connecticut, as evidenced by Kerry's 58-41 edge in the 2004 exit polls. Hard to imagine Lieberman hasn't lost there in the last few days.

Fascinating race since I always prioritize proper handicapping. Lieberman will all but ignore Schlesinger. Lamont needs to engage Schlesinger, in the debates and commercials.

One thing about margin for error; it is applied to each characteristic, not the simple margin, so no way Lieberman is behind by more than the margin for error if Schlesinger reaches 27%. A 46 number with a 4% margin for error within the confidence level means it should be between 42 and 50. A 41 is between 37 and 45. So right now a 45-42 Lamont lead is within the margin for error, albeit on the extreme outside, as is a 50-37 Lieberman advantage.

by jagakid 2006-08-11 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad someone addressed the Schlesinger fac

The poll numbers will be fluid.  Don't forget, a lot of the Dems currently sticking haven't been exposed to the Connecticut party machinery, all the national Democrats, the various interest groups, etc. that are going to now come in heavy on Lamont's side.

I'd be curious to know the numbers and manner of any of Lieberman's field people from the primary coming on over to Lamont now that he's the primary winner.
Burying hatchets and all that.

by InigoMontoya 2006-08-11 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: CT-Sen:

This is going to get ugly fast, and the establishment needs to take more aggressive measures to end it before it gets worse.

Do you realize what you're calling for -- the DLC/DCDem establishment to act decisively against one of their own? Their inability to do so is one of the reasons they need to be tossed out. And besides, if JoMo does drag the party down they've got MyDD to blame for it instead.

by Sitkah 2006-08-11 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: CT-Sen: Schlesinger

What a great post this was to read.  Thanks for it, Chris.  

After I pulled a bit of a coup this morning by scooping Political Wire, I had my KOS diary cited therein.  I was happy about my diary, but as I read and responded to the comments, I realized I did not make my points clearly.  

This blogging can actually be hard.  I guess that's why they pay Bowers the big bucks.  I mean.. uh.. I guess that's why they pay Bowers.  

Full comment was too long and diaried..

by Winston Smith 2006-08-11 08:55PM | 0 recs
Chris, you're far too optimistic

This is going to be a very difficult race. It seems like a lot of Joe's supporters in the primary were Joe supporters first, Democrats second. The NYTimes article referenced above that will be published tomorrow worries me - it seems to show Democrats who are still under the belief that Lieberman is a stand-up guy, even as he acts like a dyed-in-wool Republican.

We overestimate our chances at this point at our own peril, IMO. To me, we have to keep the underdog mentality.

by PsiFighter37 2006-08-11 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: CT-Senatorial Race

Why haven't the Dem. leaders stripped Lieberman of his plum committee leadership assignments? Why is he sitting on any committee at all under the banner of Democrat?

Once those posts are gone, the truth of his own mis-steps will pierce even his egotistical brain. If not, well, at least CT voters will be assured that he can no longer help them. That's probably not a vote getter for the former Democratic Senator from CT. As an Independent, he's a different type of representative, if he could even be elected.

by MarchDancer 2006-08-12 02:23AM | 0 recs
Why Leiberman Must Go Away

I am here in L.A., and I just came from a fundraiser for Jim Webb, running against George Allen in VA.  This guy is pretty amazing, and has the military and street creds that not even Rove can contest----War hero, Secretary of the Navy under Reagan.

Yet, as I listened to his plan to campaign in Virginia against the 20 million dollar campaign of his opponent, my only thoughts were "if this guy loses, it is Leiberman's fault."  If we lose this shot at taking back the Senate, taking back the House, it is all the fault of Joe Leiberman.

All the dollars, all the energy, all the resources to fight Joe Leiberman should be going elsewhere - whether it is Webb in Virginia, or Tester, or even Jack Carter in Nevada.  

Strip him of his committee posts, threaten to strip any other Democrat of their posts for supporting LeiberBush, whatever it takes to bring both discipline and sanity back to the Party.

This is an argument that even the DLC can buy:  We have a real shot at taking back the Senate, but only if monies and energies are directed towards targeted seats, not trying to capture heretofore safe seats.  Give it up, Joe, for the good of the party you keep talking about.

by VeniceDave 2006-08-12 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: CT-Sen: Schlesinger...

You should post this as a diary.  It's a great comment.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-08-12 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: CT-Sen: Schlesinger, Republicans are Lieberman

Schumer has very deep union ties--think umbilical-cord ties. He may publicly state he's for the dem candidate Lamont, but privately and realistically, he'll vote union everytime. Unless Lmaont can attract the AFL-CIO, Schumer will do everthing he can behind-the-scenes to defeat him, anfd that goes for every candidate who has union backing.

by sugarpie 2006-08-12 06:58AM | 0 recs

It's important to sanction Joe, but I think it more effective to warn off his contributors with the implied threat of sanction to them even if it takes ten years to do it.  A better and more effective option, perhaps than sanctioning Joe in the Senate.  This is a very tricky chess game.

Joe should be removed from the caucus immediately.  Reid's problem in removing committee assignments is that if Joe wins, there is going  to be hell to pay.  And in the interim he is going to be a loose canon on potentially important votes whether he retains his assignments or not.  And it's Reid's job to manage that.

by NorCalJim 2006-08-12 08:25AM | 0 recs
I am still worried

While Bowers' analysis seems sound, I still think that we should treat this race as bloody difficult on general principles.  Lamont almost lost.

I am glad that Reid seems to be inflicting progressive discipline on Joe, not wanting to seem rash himself.  Perhaps Reid will eventually pull the plug on Joe's committee assignments.

I suspect (and hope) that the Dem leadership is trying to give Joe a face-saving way to drop this.  But Joe won't unless Joe is CONVINCED it is hopeless.

I refuse to count this guy out.  The one thing that gives me hope is the over-the-top bullshittery that we have seen from Lieberman and his wingnut supporters (Peretz, Coulter, Thomas, CNN); it's sort of like a "stock market" for poltical trouble.  Just like the orange futures market has a better Florida weather-predicting history than the National Weather Service, wingnut effervescence may be the best reliable sign of wingnut jeopardy.

by Bruce Godfrey 2006-08-12 09:31AM | 0 recs
Debates are a must

In any debate, Joe Lieberman will bleed support.  If he sticks to Democratic talking points and principles, Republicans will either go back to The Gambler, or just stay at home on election day.  If he starts spouting right-wing nonsense, the Democrats who are supporting him will come home.  

Debate, debate, debate.  

by bosdcla14 2006-08-12 10:10AM | 0 recs
Lieberman committee assignments

Why is it taking so long for the Dem leaders to pull those assignments from Lieberman.

Joe has said some very hurtful things about Dems over the last couple of days.

It is way past time for the CT for Lieberman part representative to give those Dem assignments!

by wdmosely 2006-08-12 04:42PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads