Comments on: Schumer: DSCC Won’t Commit Unconditional Support for CT-Sen Nominee http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/ Firedoglake weblog Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:17:10 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: HEh http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-112534 HEh Sun, 21 May 2006 07:09:08 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-112534 <p>Maybe this will finally wake people up to the fact that part of the republican strategy has been to infiltrate the democratic party. Hillary Clinton and Bill have been business partners with the Bushies since Bill was gov. of Arkansas. Joe Lie-berman is nothing more than a republican posing as a dem as is Chukie. Time to wake up and stop voting for these pieces of shit just because they claim to be a democrat. And if Hillary runs for president that will be the end of the democratic party.</p> Maybe this will finally wake people up to the fact that part of the republican strategy has been to infiltrate the democratic party. Hillary Clinton and Bill have been business partners with the Bushies since Bill was gov. of Arkansas. Joe Lie-berman is nothing more than a republican posing as a dem as is Chukie. Time to wake up and stop voting for these pieces of shit just because they claim to be a democrat. And if Hillary runs for president that will be the end of the democratic party.

]]> By: mui http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107140 mui Wed, 17 May 2006 12:44:51 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107140 <p>Gov. rell’s popularity! Omigod, that’s a good one. Given all the revelations about Rowland . . . Mwahaha ;))</p> Gov. rell’s popularity! Omigod, that’s a good one. Given all the revelations about Rowland . . . Mwahaha ;))

]]> By: mui http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107139 mui Wed, 17 May 2006 12:41:19 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107139 <p>R Flanagan (232). Lieberman is the only viable republican we have in CT for this seat. The rest are sure losers. In other words it’s *not* “dumb.”<br /> If you think Lieberman is “liberal” on women’s rights, you are not following closely enough. Think Clarence Thomas, then Alito etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is a pattern of screwing Dems up here. Then combine that with statements made, e.g.not the cherry-picked ones. & ta da! We have a right-winger in our midst who acts as a spoiler for every congressional vote that matters.<br /> Schumer is being undemocratic and selfishly protecting the members of his money-bagging exclusive incumbent “club.”<br /> Besides Gov Rell is *weak*. Her “popularity” runs very shallow.</p> R Flanagan (232). Lieberman is the only viable republican we have in CT for this seat. The rest are sure losers. In other words it’s *not* “dumb.”
If you think Lieberman is “liberal” on women’s rights, you are not following closely enough. Think Clarence Thomas, then Alito etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is a pattern of screwing Dems up here. Then combine that with statements made, e.g.not the cherry-picked ones. & ta da! We have a right-winger in our midst who acts as a spoiler for every congressional vote that matters.
Schumer is being undemocratic and selfishly protecting the members of his money-bagging exclusive incumbent “club.”
Besides Gov Rell is *weak*. Her “popularity” runs very shallow.

]]> By: R FLANAGAN http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107114 R FLANAGAN Wed, 17 May 2006 11:31:24 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107114 <p>I agree with Schumer. Any rating I’ve seen<br /> shows Joe’s votes as more liberal than at least those of Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and of all republicans. And his position on abortion is certainly more liberal than Casey’s . Given Gov Rell’s popularity which she will put behind their Candidate I think a Lieberman primary loss could lead to a Republican victory in<br /> November. Dumb.</p> I agree with Schumer. Any rating I’ve seen
shows Joe’s votes as more liberal than at least those of Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and of all republicans. And his position on abortion is certainly more liberal than Casey’s . Given Gov Rell’s popularity which she will put behind their Candidate I think a Lieberman primary loss could lead to a Republican victory in
November. Dumb.

]]> By: mui http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107099 mui Wed, 17 May 2006 09:55:53 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107099 <p>I am going to say this again because Schumer t-‘s me off. A party of incumbents sounds waaay to snooty and country club for my tastes. It’s also undemocratic. Lieberman thought he could throw women to the curb and get away with it. Now it’s payday.</p> I am going to say this again because Schumer t-‘s me off. A party of incumbents sounds waaay to snooty and country club for my tastes. It’s also undemocratic. Lieberman thought he could throw women to the curb and get away with it. Now it’s payday.

]]> By: cal http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107075 cal Wed, 17 May 2006 07:05:48 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107075 <p>OK. So if Lieberman runs as an Independent, then Schumer (DSCC) will decide who has the better chance in the general election, the Independent or the Democrat. To organize the Senate the worst thing that can happen is the election of the Republican candidate. Actually a good point. So Schumer should have stated that unequivocally upfront.</p> <p>Still, if you’re the DSCC then you should be pissed at Lieberman for putting the Democratic party at such a risk. It would be best for the Democratic party (and the country) if Lieberman, should he lose the Democratic primary, dropped out of the election.</p> <p>So if this scenario played out, that is - Lamont wins primary, Lieberman runs as an Independent, the DSCC backs Lieberman - then they’ve invited the first shot in a revolution that would destroy the Democratic party.</p> <p>When Schumer said that the DSCC is an incumbent’s organization he spoke volumes about our problems. The kind of timidity that’s kept us not just in the back seat but in the trunk and shrinking. This has been in the dark recesses of my mind since 2002. The problem is in our stars …</p> <p>God, the Whigs just flashed through my mind again.</p> OK. So if Lieberman runs as an Independent, then Schumer (DSCC) will decide who has the better chance in the general election, the Independent or the Democrat. To organize the Senate the worst thing that can happen is the election of the Republican candidate. Actually a good point. So Schumer should have stated that unequivocally upfront.

Still, if you’re the DSCC then you should be pissed at Lieberman for putting the Democratic party at such a risk. It would be best for the Democratic party (and the country) if Lieberman, should he lose the Democratic primary, dropped out of the election.

So if this scenario played out, that is – Lamont wins primary, Lieberman runs as an Independent, the DSCC backs Lieberman – then they’ve invited the first shot in a revolution that would destroy the Democratic party.

When Schumer said that the DSCC is an incumbent’s organization he spoke volumes about our problems. The kind of timidity that’s kept us not just in the back seat but in the trunk and shrinking. This has been in the dark recesses of my mind since 2002. The problem is in our stars …

God, the Whigs just flashed through my mind again.

]]> By: George http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107037 George Wed, 17 May 2006 05:36:09 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107037 <p>Backing encumbents because they are encumbent is a terrible idea. The party will thrive only if more new faces are encouraged to run. I’m fed up with the manipulations of Schumer, Reid, et al. They have been unsupportive, or worse, of good candidates like Chuck Pennacchio, Ned Lamont, and Paul Hackett. Let the people decide who the candidates should be, for goodness sake! I have great respect for Schumer, but he’s doing a lousy job on this campaign stuff.</p> Backing encumbents because they are encumbent is a terrible idea. The party will thrive only if more new faces are encouraged to run. I’m fed up with the manipulations of Schumer, Reid, et al. They have been unsupportive, or worse, of good candidates like Chuck Pennacchio, Ned Lamont, and Paul Hackett. Let the people decide who the candidates should be, for goodness sake! I have great respect for Schumer, but he’s doing a lousy job on this campaign stuff.

]]> By: mui http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107014 mui Wed, 17 May 2006 05:04:12 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-107014 <p>orangejumpsuit (222). Lamont has some pretty competent people working with him. How the campaign is run is not the issue. Lamont has proved to be quite sensitive on many touchy issues for CT folks. It takes local knowledge here. Schumer is acting like a sledgehammer, and CT dems just need good mojo and progressives need to get the word out IMHO.</p> orangejumpsuit (222). Lamont has some pretty competent people working with him. How the campaign is run is not the issue. Lamont has proved to be quite sensitive on many touchy issues for CT folks. It takes local knowledge here. Schumer is acting like a sledgehammer, and CT dems just need good mojo and progressives need to get the word out IMHO.

]]> By: Philo http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-106988 Philo Wed, 17 May 2006 04:36:41 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-106988 <p>Wow. I hope I’m not repeating anything said upthread (as I recognize that I probably am), but with due respect to the notion of supporting both Democratic incumbents and a Democratically controlled Senate, in what way would Lamont getting the nomination be outside the party structure? </p> <p>That is, even if the Senate Dems love Joe and Joe promises to vote as a Dem on leadership matters, what about the State of Connecticut’s senatorial primary is so foul that the DSCC wouldn’t support its winner? What credibility to the Democratic Party would Ned Lamont lack <i>if</i> he were to win the nomination?</p> <p>I’m sorry, but I am a registered CT voter and Lamont supporter and I don’t appreciate being told by Schumer, a senator from the state in which I work, telling me that the duly established electoral structure of Connecticut isn’t good enough for the DSCC if it doesn’t keep Joe Lieberman’s head nice and anointed through the election season. That’s not democracy, that’s oligarchy. And it’s not what I deserve as a Democratic voter in Connecticut…</p> Wow. I hope I’m not repeating anything said upthread (as I recognize that I probably am), but with due respect to the notion of supporting both Democratic incumbents and a Democratically controlled Senate, in what way would Lamont getting the nomination be outside the party structure?

That is, even if the Senate Dems love Joe and Joe promises to vote as a Dem on leadership matters, what about the State of Connecticut’s senatorial primary is so foul that the DSCC wouldn’t support its winner? What credibility to the Democratic Party would Ned Lamont lack if he were to win the nomination?

I’m sorry, but I am a registered CT voter and Lamont supporter and I don’t appreciate being told by Schumer, a senator from the state in which I work, telling me that the duly established electoral structure of Connecticut isn’t good enough for the DSCC if it doesn’t keep Joe Lieberman’s head nice and anointed through the election season. That’s not democracy, that’s oligarchy. And it’s not what I deserve as a Democratic voter in Connecticut…

]]> By: pow wow http://firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-106942 pow wow Wed, 17 May 2006 03:44:13 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/16/schumer-dscc-wont-commit-unconditional-support-for-ct-sen-nominee/#comment-106942 <p><i><b>Specter’s concept that inherent Presidential powers “trump” statutes is NONSENSE.</b></i> - Mary at #143</p> <p>Mary - I totally agree. WHY can’t any Democrat say this clearly to Specter’s face, on the Senate floor, or somewhere else publicly… Every time I hear Specter play this utterly misleading “trump” card, I hear him claim (with a straight face, no less) that an unenumerated power allegedly derived from the Constitution, and unilaterally controlled by the Civilian Chief of our Armed Forces, “trumps” the privacy rights of EVERY American citizen as enumerated in and safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution. Or, in short, that <b>“the unenumerated Constitution ‘trumps’ the enumerated Constitution.”</b> HUH?! Cut it out, already, Arlen Specter.</p> <p>[And note my #217, if you missed it.]</p> Specter’s concept that inherent Presidential powers “trump” statutes is NONSENSE. – Mary at #143

Mary – I totally agree. WHY can’t any Democrat say this clearly to Specter’s face, on the Senate floor, or somewhere else publicly… Every time I hear Specter play this utterly misleading “trump” card, I hear him claim (with a straight face, no less) that an unenumerated power allegedly derived from the Constitution, and unilaterally controlled by the Civilian Chief of our Armed Forces, “trumps” the privacy rights of EVERY American citizen as enumerated in and safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution. Or, in short, that “the unenumerated Constitution ‘trumps’ the enumerated Constitution.” HUH?! Cut it out, already, Arlen Specter.

[And note my #217, if you missed it.]

]]>