Tuesday, July 04, 2006

the DLC is sooo nervous about Lamont.

from MTP on Sunday, with mrs greenspan sitting in for punkinhead timmeh - the DLC is sooo nervous about Lamont.
"MS. MITCHELL: Senator Schumer, as you well know, in Connecticut your colleague and friend and former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman has a heated primary race on his hands against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. Now let me show you a bit of a new ad that the Lamont campaign is airing, which morphs Joe Lieberman with pictures of President Bush.


AD ANNOUNCER: Joe Lieberman on the Iraq war:

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: (With George W. Bush’s face) We are now at a point where the war in Iraq is a war of necessity.

AD ANNOUNCER: Joe Lieberman may say he represents us, but if it talks like George W. Bush and acts like George W. Bush, it’s certainly not a Connecticut Democrat.

(End videotape)

MS. MITCHELL: OK, as campaign chairman, will you now, today, commit to supporting whoever wins that Democratic primary in Connecticut where he is now facing that tough challenge?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let me say this, Andrea. Harry Reid, myself, the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, in this primary, are supporting Joe Lieberman. And we’re doing everything we can to help him. I’m not going to speculate on what happens after the primary, because we believe Joe Lieberman is going to win, and it—I’m not going to undermine my candidate by speculating about what might happen afterwards. We think he’s going to win and we’re supporting him in the primaries.

MS. MITCHELL: You’re supporting him even though his position on the war is completely contrary to most, most Democrats?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, again, the Democratic Party is united in holding the president’s feet to the fire on oversight, but...

MS. MITCHELL: But why won’t you commit today to supporting Joe Lieberman, the former vice presidential nominee?

SEN. SCHUMER: Because...

MS. MITCHELL: You’re basically saying that you will support the Democrat, whoever wins?

SEN. SCHUMER: I am saying that we are supporting Joe Lieberman in the primary...

MS. MITCHELL: But only for the primary.

SEN. SCHUMER: ...and we’re not going to speculate about things afterwards because that undermines your candidate. We’re supporting Joe. He’s going to win.

MS. MITCHELL: Are you suggesting that you might not support the Democratic winner?

SEN. SCHUMER: As I said, I am not going to speculate on the future because we’re for Joe Lieberman in this primary.

MS. MITCHELL: We’re talking about what the definition of “is” is here, but...

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, there you go.

MS. MITCHELL: So, Joe Lieberman up through the primary, and then he’s on his own?

SEN. SCHUMER: We’re not speculating after the primary.

MS. MITCHELL: What if he runs as an independent?

SEN. SCHUMER: We’re not speculating after the primary. It doesn’t make sense. When you have a candidate you’re supporting, you don’t say, “What happens if he doesn’t win?”



SEN. McCONNELL: Could I just say, this illustrates the nature...

SEN. SCHUMER: I’m sure you’ll want to. Weigh in.

MS. MITCHELL: Weigh in on this one.

SEN. McCONNELL: ...the nature of the Democrats’ problem. Joe Lieberman voted against all of their cut-and-run proposals. All of them. He supports the president in his war on terror and in the Iraqi chapter of that, and it creates a real dilemma. The Democrats are obviously totally divided on the issue of how to handle the war on terror.

MS. MITCHELL: Well, let me help you get off the...

SEN. SCHUMER: But, Andrea, wait, I don’t agree with that. If you look at every poll, who do the American people have more faith in in terms of Iraq? It’s the Democrats. Who do the American people—do they want to see a change in direction in Iraq? Absolutely.

MS. MITCHELL: But, Senator...

SEN. SCHUMER: And I think they respect the fact that Democrats do have divisions and are debating this, and not just marching in lockstep to whatever the president does, because they’re not happy with what the president is doing, and that’s going to help us.

SEN. McCONNELL: The debate that Chuck and I are having—this debate that Chuck and I are having is likely to be the big issue in the fall campaign. We’re going to have this debate with the American people."


oldschool said...

My political naivete will show here.

I can kind of understand that the DSCC has some obligation to support Leaverman as a Democrat senatorial incumbent. i.e. 'He's one of us, has been around for quite a while fighting the good fight' (I know I know) etc, and he *was* the party's candidate for V.P. in 2000 etc. - BUT isn't the idea and purpose of the DSCC to simply to get Democrats elected as US Senators? If Lamont is a stronger candidate than Leaverman, or at least equally viable, shouldn't the DSCC being showing him some love - maybe kicking in some $$$ to the his campaign? And stop portraying Lamont as a Republican?

I don't even know where I'm going with this, but it sure looks like the DSCC wants more than to elect Democrats to the Senate. They want *certain* people elected - other people not so much. Maybe they can't count on Lamont to 'play the game' the *right* way? (and just why the fuck are they playing those games anyway). I want to know just what it is about being elected to Congress that is evidently just so unbelievably sweet that people will do anything to keep the gig.

I've never said I'm a Democrat. Since I just moved, maybe when I go do the paperwork, I'll, for the first time ever, register as one. Maybe not. A tired cliche, but I truly do not know what the party currently stands for. Every time a Democrat says the right thing(e.g. Murtha, Feingold) all I hear is the sound of little rat feet scurrying away. Hell, Arlen Specter says the right things sometimes too. And gets the same results, btw.

For now, I couldn't care less about the Democratic party. The first man, woman, or mixture thereof who stands up and says 'the country's fucked, heading for infinitely worse fucked-up'edness, and I'm gonna work to change that' - gets my vote. If it's a democrat - fine. Republican - okey-doke. I'm just hanging around here waitin' for a bandwagon to jump on. Just so the driver's got some balls, at least figuratively.

Sorry for the ramble - need coffee - massive amounts of coffee...

disclaimer - I'm new to this stuff - having been completely apolitical unti about mid-2004 - politically agnostic until then.

lukery said...

old-school - i'm kinda new to the game too. i was apolitical till 02. your rambling apology is not accepted.

great comments - i too would love to know why they are so desperate to keep their seats - but its even worse than that. digby touched on it a while back - many of these people sell their soul for campaign donations, which is fine as far as that goes - (although i always wondered why they prefer say, $10k in the campaign rather than their own pocket) - but what is even weirder is that most elections arent even close (for a variety of reasons) - so they are selling their souls for campaign contributions that they dont even appear to need.

here's the trick - the key to DC is that you raise as much money as you can, and then give it away to other candidates. that's where the power lies, cos then you can call on the favor and get put in positions of real power on the committees - and then you can block legislation or whatever - which means that you can then extort a whole lotta people.

btw - i've never really understood what it means to be 'registered democrat' - i dont think we have anything like that here.

oldschool said...

Yes indeed the "power broker" is of great value, especially to egos as inflated as those flitting about D.C.

I *think* another aspect of the whole campaign finance thing is that any money not spent on advertising or whatnot within the election itself - can quite legally go straight into the pocket of the candidate. See, e.g., Tom Delay, who is using campaign funds to pay his legal bills in Texas. I've heard of lot of "that's reprehensible", but no one is saying it's illegal.

A few thousand (or hundreds of thousands) dollars here, a few there, pretty soon you're talking real money. It just makes me feel bad for Senators, who have to patiently and patriotically wait six years between elections.

lukery said...

i'm not sure it can go straight into the pocket. it can be used for legal defense, and perhaps a few other things - but i dont think it can be used as superannuation.

Miguel said...


lukery said...

thnx mig