The White House’s take on Connecticut is exceedingly rare

At Monday’s White House press briefing, Tony Snow mentioned that the president would effectively remain neutral in only one Senate race in the country this year: Connecticut’s. Snow said, “The president supports the democratic process in the state of Connecticut, and wishes them a successful election in November.”

A day later, a reporter noted how unusual it is for any president to stay completely neutral in a Senate campaign. Snow hedged, saying, “Actually, there have been races in the past where candidates didn’t meet the expectations of the local parties and Presidents have stayed out, Democrats and Republicans, in the past.” The reporter responded, “I’d like to see a list.”

Yesterday, Snow’s office produced one.

“In 1970, President Nixon took a neutral position in the US Senate race between [Vietnam war critic] Sen. Charles E. Goodell (R-N.Y.) and challengers Rep. Richard Ottinger (D-N.Y.) and James L. Buckley .” In 1980, GOP officials did not support a Republican in Michigan, the list said.

Then in 1982, President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush did not campaign against 20 House Democrats who voted for Reagan’s tax cuts, the list said. (Not really the same as not endorsing the official GOP candidate.)

In 1990, Democratic National Committee Chairman Ronald H. Brown denounced Rep. Gus Savage (D-Ill.), accused of making sexual advances toward a Peace Corps volunteer, and pledged not to give his reelection campaign any funds. (That’s not the president, but okay.) In 1991, Bush I “refused to endorse Louisiana gubernatorial candidate David Duke ,” Snow’s office said.

In other words, Connecticut GOP Senate hopeful Alan Schlesinger is in with some pretty exclusive company. Taking the list literally, there are only two modern examples of a president refusing to back a congressional candidate of his own party, “one involving an alleged sex offender and the other a Klansman. Not unusual at all.”

In related news, the Bush White House may be quietly backing Lieberman, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has chosen to be slightly less subtle.

[Yesterday] morning, a source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in a phone interview that the party will not help Schlesinger or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.

“We did a poll and there is no way any Republican we put out there can win, so we are just going to leave that one alone,” said the NRSC source.

Instead, the NRSC is pulling for Lieberman over Ned Lamont, who rode an anti-war message to a victory in the Aug 8 primary.

“Most Republicans would agree that he’d clearly be a better choice than Lamont,” said the source.

An NRSC spokesman later clarified that the Republican committee would not “actively and openly” support Lieberman, but would simply opt out of supporting Schlesinger.

It occurs to me that someone, perhaps the DSCC, should go out of its way to remind Republicans in Connecticut that Lieberman, just a few weeks ago, enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Human Rights Campaign. Just a thought.

“It occurs to me that someone, perhaps the DSCC, should go out of its way to remind Republicans in Connecticut that Lieberman, just a few weeks ago, enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Human Rights Campaign. Just a thought.”

Just goes to show one how really really principled today’s GOP are.

  • In the last month Lamont’s poll numbers in the Quinnipiac poll climbed from 27% to 41%. Lieberman made back two points from 51% to 53% and the Republican’t, Alan Schlesinger, fell from 9% to 4%. So apparantly Lamont took more points from Schlesinger than Lieberman and picked up a lot of undecided voters.

    I think that with more exposure, Lamont will pass Lieberman in October and glide into a victory in November.

  • In addition to reminding Republicans that Lieberman still supports a lot of things they HATE, I think what Connecticut Dems need to do is make posters of a stupidly grinning Lieberman and one of his “Happy days in Iraq” quotes with a backdrop of real images from Iraq. Maybe add the caption “Lieberman still thinks Iraq was a good idea”.

    This reminds me of… somthing about yellow lines and dead armadillos.

  • Lance, that will only happen if Lamont very aggressively starts pushing Lieberman to remind the voters of everything he supposedly disagrees with the Republicans and Bush about.

    Holy Joe can only win if he’s able to convince Republicans that he’s essentially one of them, and enough Democrats that he’s essentially one of them aside from the war. Lamont can’t let him do this.

  • I really wish the Dem party leaders (together with the leading Dem presidential candidates for 2008) would sit down with Joe and “make him a deal he can’t refuse.” I would suggest an agreement that if he pulls out now, and throws 100% of his support behind Lamont, then in 2008, if a Dem wins the White House he will be the nominee to replace Justice Stevens, or, if he so chooses, he can pick his cabinet post.

  • It seems to me we should wait until we actually have power before we start purging the members from our ranks.

    Are Democrats actually allergic to having power?

    With the kind of Republicans we have in Colorado, e.g. Musgrave, Tancredo, Allard, I give my left nut for a Democrat like Liebermann.

    Let’s put our energy behind getting rid of the right wing Republicans before we go after the more conservative members of our own party.

  • Neil:

    There’s just no excuse for a “Democrat like Lieberman” in CT. Anyone compared to Republicans in Alaska, CO, etc. looks good, even northeast Republicans, who are more progressive than Lieberman in many ways. Further, he’s muddying the accountability message and is motivating Republican voters, hurting the down ticket.

    Full disclosure: I voted for Lieberman when living in CT.

  • Hey NeilS, get a clue! Holy Joe has enabled Bush with the semblance of bipartisanship on Bush’s worst policies from the Iraq war to judicial nominations. One of Paul Krugman’s recent columns was entitled “Centrism is for Suckers.” Lieberman is such an SOB because he is a Bush-enabler extraordinaire.

  • This situation epitomizes the saying that “politics makes strange bedfellows”. I kinda feel sorry for Schlesi-schlub, being hung out to dry.

    On a side note: wow…the fact that a reporter requested information and the White House produced said information is quite a change from the Scott McClellan days…

    Tony Snow, a kinder, gentler Press Secretary. đŸ™‚

  • With the kind of Republicans we have in Colorado, e.g. Musgrave, Tancredo, Allard, I give my left nut for a Democrat like Liebermann.

    Don’t you have a Democrat like Joe Lieberman in Colorado? Sen. Ken Salazar doesn’t strike me as “liberal,” and I thought he had pledged to campaign for Joe no matter what.

    How would a candidate report the donation of a “left nut” on a FEC report? Is that a financial or in-kind donation? Would it exceed personal contribution limits?

  • I was confused by the vehemence with which the right denounced Lamont’s victory. After all, the Connecticut seat was a safe Democratic seat no matter who the nominee. Then I came up with the following scenario in which a Lieberman victory turns out to be a great advantage for Republicans:
    1. In November, the Democrats take the Senate 51-49.
    2. Runsfeld resigns and Lieberman is nominated for Secretary of Defense; of course, bipartisan Joe would jump at the chance.
    3. The governor of Connecticut names a Republican to replace Joe, giving back control of the Senate to the GOP.

  • It’s not hard to figure out at all.

    It’s all about the fact the Republicans are very worried that the Democrats will take one or the other (or both) houses of Congress, giving them the power of subpeona.

    If they take the Senate, Lieberman – assuming he still caucuses with the Democrats and isn’t stripped of seniority – would be in line to chair the Government Operations committee, which would be where any investigations of the White House would begin.

    So, if Joe gets in with Republican votes, and chairs the committee charged with investigating the leaders of the party that kept him in office, how enthusiastic an investigator do you think he would be?

    And if Joe loses, the next-senior Democrat on the committee is the junior Senator from Delaware, Sen. Tom Carper, who is currently spearheading the effort within the Senate to preserve Democratic support for Lieberman, and is the “Democrat” most likely to kiss Bush’s ass after Holy Joe.

    Like they say, any Trojan Horse in a crisis – we support Joe, Joe supports us. We support Joe, Joe loses, Joe’s buddy remembers we supported Joe.

    How very “Rovian.”

  • slip kid no more —

    Krugman is right that anyone is foolish to trust Bush. He has bamboozled too many Democrats. As Bush said: “Fool me once etc. …..”.

    So Lieberman has been fooled more than once by Bush. That’s bad, but not a shooting offense.

    Lieberman has supported Bush on Iraq. Not without reservation, but certainly more than other Democrats. That’s bad, but also in my opinion not enough reason to drum him out of the party.

    The Senate has an important oversight role during wars, but it has to be careful about how it handles this role because the Executive Branch is in charge of foreign relations, even in times of peace. This is clearly established by Supreme Court decisions.

    That is not to say that the President shouldn’t be raked over the coals for the conduct of the war. He should be, and in my opinion will be. Probably in Congressional hearings much like those conducted by Senator Fullbrioght during hte Vietnam war. Senators can and should also speak out publicly about the fiasco that the Bush administration calls its fight agains terror.

    But all that aside, I still don’t think that Liebermann should be drummed out of the Democratic party for disagreeing with me on these issues.

    I don’t thing taht we are that far apart.

  • Comments are closed.