And the Republican Nominee from CT Is...

by DemFromCT

Can you name him? Today, at 9:30 am, it's Alan Schlesinger (he of the $20,000 war chest). But will it be Schlesinger in November? As you may know, Schlesinger used an alias to gamble at a casino on a regular basis, prompting the CT GOP to call for his stepping down from the nomination. Schlesinger has no interest in doing so, however, and wishes everyone would stay out of his private life. Today, the Stamford Advocate writes:

With its U.S. Senate nominee facing questions about his gambling habits, the Republican Party this week floated the name of a Darien resident as a possible replacement.

One-time Senate candidate Jack Orchulli said yesterday that he has not been asked to step in if Alan Schlesinger drops his campaign to unseat Democratic U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Still, Orchulli did not rule out another Senate campaign. "I just think it's too early for me to make any comment," he said by phone yesterday. "Alan's the nominee."

Either way, the R's do not have a strong candidate to run against the eventual Dem nominee, with or without Joe as an independent.

Meanwhile, Maura at My Left Nutmeg points to this Hartford Courant article which reviews Joe's Dem votes in the Senate:

By the numbers, Joe Lieberman is a true, consistent Democrat.

He votes with Democratic colleagues almost all the time. His record gets him high marks from interest groups close to the party, from the AFL-CIO to the NAACP.

But dig beneath the votes and there's plenty of ammunition for critics - including primary challenger Ned Lamont - who say Lieberman has a habit of straying from the party when it suits him...

Lieberman says he had "serious concerns" about Alito, but he was bound by his commitment to the so-called Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of senators who promised not to filibuster unless a judicial nominee was highly objectionable. "It was clear there were enough votes" to bar a filibuster, he said, "and the Gang of 14 had done something good to put barriers around [President] Bush's nominations.

It's not just the war, it never was just the war, but, hey, it's also the war.

But the central question Lamont and others are raising is whether a true Democrat shows the kind of public loyalty Lieberman has shown to the Bush administration on a central issue such as Iraq. A Lamont ad called Lieberman Bush's lap dog; Lieberman Wednesday replied, "I consider myself Connecticut's bulldog.

An excellent review, btw, appears in (of all places) the Christian Broadcast Network. Written by David Brody, it covers the Lieberman issue for a different angle.

Here's a look at the dissatisfaction timeline. In 1994, Lieberman didn't support President Clinton's universal health care plan. In 1998, Lieberman was the first Democrat to criticize Bill Clinton publicly over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

In 2003, he backed the war effort. In 2005, he supported Condoleezza Rice – Bush's choice for secretary of state. Also that year, he voted for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Just recently, in 2006, he wouldn't support a potential Democratic filibuster against Judge Samuel Alito. Like a lot of Connecticut liberals, Lamont sees all of this as too cozy a relationship with the President.

"I think Democrats are going to come to this campaign,” said Lamont. “They're going to want somebody who stands up with the Democratic Party willing to challenge President Bush."

In fact, some long-time Lieberman supporters, like former Democratic State Party Chairman George Jepsen now back Ned Lamont.

"Supporting Ned Lamont was not an easy decision for me, but I flatly disagree with Joe on a number of issues of conscience," Jepsen said.

On the Web, Lamont supporters are posting pictures showing him as “Benedict Lieberman,” or the President's puppet, even his lap dog.

"When the Republicans need somebody to make an issue that no other Democrat will go along with,” Lamont said, “they go to Joe Lieberman, and he carries their water every single time."

Well, CT politics aren't dull this summer. Look to see Joe's allies (especially the conservative allies) accelerate the whisper campaign about how the leftists (um, like Hillary, Mark Warner and Bayh?) are taking over the party. They'll feel the need to do that because claiming "the R candidate might just sneak in" ain't gonna fly. But Joe better have an answer for Gonzales, Alito and his Gang of 14 work, and the other things brought up here because that's as much an issue as the war with party activists.

The bottom line is that seniority without leadership does CT and the country no good. Terence Samuel addresses the broader issue of how DC Dems are going to have to deal with this (think 2008); it won't stop with Lieberman. But some of that will just have to wait until after August and November.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

More from Mark Schmitt at TPM Cafe.

[DemFromCT]

The NY Times on a shell-shocked Lieberman.

[emptypockets]

Interesting that the "dissatisfaction timeline" starts Joe's descent well before he became the party VP nominee. That event has looked increasingly like a bizarre aberration. Yet he still gets some mileage out of it.

[demtom]

emptypockets, the base's dissatisfaction with Lieberman was an essential element in his selection. The press in 2000 proclaimed that Bill Clinton was nothing but an impediment to Gore's election (on Lewinsky, sure, but also on lots of other scores), and Gore -- to his lasting discredit -- bought into the idea. Picking Lieberman was a way of saying, Forget all the good things that have happened to the country (giving Clinton 60+% approvals); this election will be fought on the disappointments. The GOP couldn't have asked for better.

Gore now knows what a mistake that was -- endorsing Dean in '04 and not endorsing Joe now speak loudly -- but in real time he made a fatal blunder.

[Mimikatz]

And Bill Clinton returns Lieberman's criticism by endorsing him, at least through the primary.

Why?

[DemFromCT]

Why? Because Terence Samuel is right.

First, all the Democrats who voted for the war and are now against it better come up with an explanation for what changed their minds. Supporting the war but faulting the execution is not going to work this time. I say this on the strength of the evidence that it didn’t work the last time. In a very real way those Democrats have to do what they have been calling on the White House to do -- admit they made a mistake. Kerry has made this journey: “It’s not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details,” he said. “... It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake. ... It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution.”

If Lieberman goes down, the war becomes a crippling issue for Hillary.

[DemFromCT]

CT: Lieberman is up with a new ad that hits Lamont as a "flip-flopper." The ad notes his past support for Republicans, his decision not to release his tax returns and his pledge not to run negative ads. The visuals for the ad are very simple with just a photo of Lamont shifting left and right with the words the announcer saying be typed on screen using a very techy font. Are negative ads what really what Lieberman needs right now? Aren't voters looking for a reason to come back to Lieberman?

[emptywheel]

I just had a funny thought. There's nothing that could perfect Lieberman's campaign more than hiring Chris Lehane. That would cap it all.

[DemFromCT]

it's as if...

[cw]

Schlessinger's weakness actually helps Lieberman, though. If Joe loses the primary and runs as an independent, he will be counting on lots of Republican support. The vast majority of conservatives will not consider voting for Lamont. If Schlessinger is an unpopular candidate, many Republicans will see Lieberman as an acceptable alternative.

Poll numbers suggest that Lieberman will handily win a three way race. Much of that strength comes across party lines. Having a stronger Republican candidate would actually steal votes from Lieberman, improving Lamont's chances in the general election.