« My Tuesday Primary Review | Main | CT-Sen: Don't Forget What Jake Javits Did »

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

CT-Sen: Schumer and Reid Back Lamont

Posted by DavidNYC

Joe's row just got a lot tougher to hoe. Statement by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer (via e-mail):

“The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont’s candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.

“Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.”

The language in the second paragraph echoes Rahm's combative rhetoric from last night, albeit in much more muted form. The more I think about it, though, the smarter I think it is, both what Rahm said and what Chuck and Harry are saying here. The GOP can make big ugly noises about how Lieberman's loss means the Dems "aren't serious about national security." Yawn.

But individual Republicans know that they have to run away from Bush this year. The fact that even a Democrat could lose for being too close to Bush must scare the pants off of them. Rahm & Co. are smartly blunting the GOP's predictable line of attack, and rank-and-file Republicans must realize there is a lot of truth to what they're saying.

UPDATE: As I expected, Howard Dean also just came out for Lamont. Schumer, Reid, Rahm, Dean - getting those four to agree on anything is pretty amazing.

Posted at 10:40 AM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Connecticut | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CT-Sen: Schumer and Reid Back Lamont:

» Nedrenaline! from delgrosso dot com
Ned Lamont beats Joe "WATB" Lieberman in the CT primary. Woohoo! People powered politics work, folks. This is just the start, and we have lots of work yet to do, but it can be done. I can't feel too bad... [Read More]

Tracked on August 9, 2006 02:02 PM


Whats amazing to me is the GOP is taking the tack that Dems aren't 'serious about National Security and the Lieberman loss proves it'.

So, the rank and file, on the ground, everyday Democrat voter doesn't care about his or his nation's security? People who are opposed to the Iraq debacle are threatening America?

The GOP is so blatantly wrong to go down this line. Its not our leadership thats stridently against the war, its the average, everyday American. And we are screaming, dragging, kicking, and pulling the Dem Leadership into line on this issue.

Why does the GOP hate 60% of Americans anyway? Oh wait...we're not rich.

Posted by: Jerry 101 [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 11:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

We already have four Democratic Senators standing behind Lieberman (Ben Nelson, Inouye, Pryor, and Salazar). I hope no more rise to the surface or the "Democratic civil war" media narrative I warned about will certainly come to fruition and suck the oxygen out of the party message for months. I think Rahm's rhetoric was probably over-the-top, but Reid and Schumer walked the tightrope nicely. As many Democrats as possible have to extend their unwavering support to Lamont at this point. Unfortunately, I suspect several more Lieberman defenders within the party will arise in the days and weeks ahead.

Posted by: Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 12:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In terms of "power hungriness", Sen. Lieberman is no better than the man he went to war against - Saddam Hussein.
The only difference is: in the most UNdemocratic of countries, Hussein brushed aside the will of the people; and in the most democratic of countries, Lieberman brushes aside the will of the people.
1. In 2000, runs for Vice President, but hedges his bid by also running for Senate. (that's a hallmark of a coward)
2. In 2006, loses Demoncratic primary, but decides to run as an independent (not very moral, senator)

Wanting power at all cost? Hmmm... reminds me of our very own commander-in-cheese.

Posted by: rockSF [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 01:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Lieberman also doesn't have the excuse of low turnout, since almost half the Democrats in Connecticut voted. He can't say that the "radicals" have "hijacked" the party with a turnout that is higher than what we usually see in a midterm general election.

Posted by: dpinzow [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 02:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think you're right. Emanuel improved his reputation with the netroots by getting a bit shrill, and he's probably more angry with Lieberman than Schumer is because of the way Lieberman's been making things hard for Democratic House candidates in Connecticut, who have to deal with questions about his position on the war.

But Schumer and Reid needed to moderate their statements because they're still hoping to get Lieberman to see sense.

I'm hoping this transformation will finally spur the DLC to sever ties with Marshall Wittmann, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: KCinDC [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 02:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yup, Joe "UberEGOman" might be appropriate now. I always beleived that his failure to drop his 2000 Senate Re-Election bid was a signal of his incredible short sighted & bloated ego and sent a negative message to the voters alluding to Gore's inability to win the 2000 Prez race by proceeding with that run.
I think Schlesinger-R & LieberEGOman-I will split the conservative pro-Bush agenda vote and Lamont will be elected. Joe may also very well give up his Indy run, but only if seriously convinced to do so. Hopefully Bill Clinton can talk some sense into him.
Hopefully this vote sends a message to my Senators Boxer & Feinstein to take a tougher stance against the Bush Admin on this politically motivated war.
Congrads & Thanks to former Sen,Gov & Rep. Lowell Weicker(ACP-Greenwich) - you were finally vindicated!

Posted by: Predictor [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 04:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Russ FEINGOLD has endorsed Ned LaMONT for the Connecticut Senate seat. Snipped from a FEINGOLD press release posted at WISPOLITICS.com

“I congratulate Ned Lamont on his primary victory and enthusiastically endorse his candidacy. In this primary election, Democrats in Connecticut showed the Washington establishment what Democrats and Progressives all over the country are demanding - elected officials that stand up for the core American values we all share. From fighting for universal health care to demanding an Iraq policy that makes sense and puts our focus back on the terrorist networks that wish to do us harm, the Connecticut primary was about the core issues Americans talk about around their kitchen table every evening.

I have a lot of admiration for Joe Lieberman. He’s a fine man and he helped me a great deal on campaign finance reform. But Ned Lamont’s positions on the critical issues facing our country today are much closer to mine. We need more leaders like Ned Lamont in Washington and I look forward to working with him on a wide range of issues in the U.S. Senate.”

Posted by: walja [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 04:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Its interesting to note that (to my knowledge) none of the four senators who said they'd support Lieberman in his independent bid made a public statement after the primary.

The Democratic Party is getting behind the Lamont message. Not everyone will agree, but they will be the exceptions. Its ok if some Red State Dems run against some elements of the party. It's not ok if every Democrat's M.O. is running agaisnt their party.

Posted by: dantheman [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 07:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I am certainly of the mind that Lamont's victory is good sign of things to come, but I have to disgree with one point:

But individual Republicans know that they have to run away from Bush this year. The fact that even a Democrat could lose for being too close to Bush must scare the pants off of them.

On the surface that comment would seem to make perfect sense, but the more I think about it...the more I have a problem with it. It is much more likely that a Democrat get punished by his supporters for aligning with Bush than a Republican. Yes, running with the president is a significant problem for Republicans but Leiberman's loss doesn't amplify that problem.

Posted by: Nick A [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2006 10:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment