CT-Sen: Show a little love for...Alan Schlesinger?

Contribute here to support Schlesinger's candidacy.

Following today's debate performance (which has been sufficiently blogged elsewhere), there's a very real chance that Alan Schlesinger is going to pop up on the radar screen.  Heretofore an orphaned politician who can't even get his Republican governor to endorse him, Schlesinger's commanding performance in today's debate might be enough to pop his support up into the low double digits.  

Is it a smart idea to support the candidacy of a Republican candidate?  Ordinarily a question that answers itself, it's a thornier question here in the Nutmeg State today than it was a few days ago.  

The rationale for supporting Ned Lamont by supporting Alan Schlesinger seems clear: Schlesinger's meager support has thrown a lot of moderates and Republicans into Lieberman's corner, and Holy Joe's campaign is a reflection of that.  "Legitimizing" (for lack of a better word) the candidacy of Schlesinger will bleed support away from Lieberman, and may make a 45% or 46% showing on Election Day sufficient to carry Lamont to victory.

The risks?  Well, there's an outside chance that such a move would energize the GOP base sufficiently to jeopardize small leads that might be nurtured by Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, our three Connecticut challengers for the House seats currently occupied by sitting Republicans.  From where I'm sitting, though, Schlesinger isn't a captivating enough candidate to GOTV in Connecticut.  The only votes likely to gravitate towards him are currently going for Lieberman, and switching moderates and conservatives back from Lieberman to the GOP candidate is unlikely to affect any House votes OR to increase the turnout from people currently likely to stay home.

I know that some people have moral qualms about opportunistic mock support for a candidate whom we would otherwise vigorously oppose.  I have even been told that we don't want to be "like them," i.e., that dirty party that tried to put the Green candidate on the ballot in Pennsylvania in hopes of bleeding Casey's support enough to prop up Rick Santorum.  All I can say is that I had begrudging respect for the strategy as it was unfolding.  If it had worked, the argument goes, Santorum might have won an "illegitimate" victory, and surely we don't want to win like that, do we?

My answer: I want to win.  I want to build a Lieberman-proof Senate majority, since I have zero confidence that Holy Joe will follow through on his word and actually caucus with the Democrats if he wins.  I think he'd be highly susceptible to a Bush/Cheney phone call welcoming him to the other side, especially if the Democratic majority stood at 51-49 on Nov. 8th.  

And so I say again, with not a little bit of trepidation... show Schlesinger a little love.  It might just be the thing that puts Ned Lamont over the top.

•  Tip jar

  I welcome the healthy debate...and the tips!

  by rlamoureux on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:02:57 PM PDT

•  If you want Lamont to win, donate to Alan

  Lamont can write himself another check, but Democrats can't be seen directly supporting Alan, so it needs people on here to support him...

  by mhinds01 on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:09:46 PM PDT

•  After 6 years of GOP dirty tricks

  we can no longer have the luxury of "not playing down to their level." The stakes are too high, and what you are suggesing is effective politics and absolutely legal.

  Now that I see that Schlesinger has put the first $50 I sent him to good use <g>, I think I'll see if I can rustle up a bit more.  Exposing Leiberman for who and what he really is must be done, and if giving the legitimate GOP candidate a voice makes that happen, then damn, lets do it!

  by Voxbear on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:12:34 PM PDT

•  This may be a great idea,

  but I can't seem to follow through. I just ... can't.

  I'll donate to Jack Carter and Jim Pederson  to compensate for my squeamishness.

  by GussieFN on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:13:35 PM PDT

  •  As long as your heart...

    ...and your wallet...are in the right place.  Thank you!  :)

    by rlamoureux on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:20:10 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, same here.

    The idea of my money being spent by a right-winger gives me the creeps. Can't do it. Damn you principles!!!

    by plymouth on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:29:15 PM PDT

•  So bizarre.

  I had a dream last night that involved Alan Schlesinger's children.  I don't even know if he has children.

  by MissLaura on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:15:16 PM PDT

  •  I read through that really quickly.

    And almost did a spit-take because I thought you said: "I had a dream last night that I had Alan Schlesinger's children."

    Of all the things you could be dreaming about, I don't know much that could be weirder or creepier than THAT.

    by HellofaSandwich on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:47:14 PM PDT

    •  Um, it was a lot weirder and creepier than

      I'm describing here, but possibly not more so than that.

      by MissLaura on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 03:25:03 PM PDT

•  That's just nuts

  Let the Republicans fund their own. Spend your money on the myriad of Dems that need it.

  by think2004 on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:21:55 PM PDT

  •  Crazy like a fox

    The question is really this simple: I'm a Democrat who wants to see Ned Lamont elected.  What's the best way to promote this idea?  One response is certainly to contribute to Lamont's campaign itself.  The other is to help with the God-does-he-need-it funding of a weak challenger whose potential "surge" would serve to weaken Lamont's primary opponent.  If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then today, as a Lamont supporter, I really look at Alan Schlesinger as a friend.

    by rlamoureux on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:34:20 PM PDT

•  I Have Been Donating $$$ To Schlesinger

  As he showed today, Schlesinger is a far better candidate than Liarman.  Of course, that's saying absolutely nothing.

  Getting rid of Lieberman is critically important.  If Mickey Mouse were running against Lieberman, he'd get my money.

  Of course, I am primarily supporting Lamont.  But for Ned to win, Alan needs Republican votes.  And truth is, either Schlesinger or Lamont would be much better than Lieberman.

  Let's lend Alan our support.  Getting rid of Lieberman is crucial.

  by bincbom on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:32:05 PM PDT

  •  Schlesinger better than Lieberman?

    C'mon, surely that's getting carried away!  

    OK, maybe there's a big fat character issue and maybe your argument holds water there ... I'm not sufficiently familiar with Schlesinger to be sure.  But there's also some big fat platform issues.  For instance, Liebermans record is far, far superior to that of virtually all Republicans on abortion rights and gay rights.  Those NARAL and HRC endorsements didn't come out of nowhere, you know.

    So as a strategic move, sure, I can see some Kossacks choosing to support him.  But to claim that you'd RATHER he won that Holy Joe ... that's going too far, in my book.  

    by lgmcp on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:42:03 PM PDT

    •  Without Lamont in the race

      I wouldn't vote.  I will never vote Repuglicant and will never vote for Holy Joe.

      Ergo, no vote!

      by mombadanes on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 03:39:07 PM PDT

•  Technically...

  If we give to Alan, we won't be like the Republicans who give to Green candidates for one simple reason:  The Republicans are a real political party.

  I have principles, and one of them is that in order to come close to following them, I must get people who agree with them into office.  

  If the method of doing that happens to be bleeding the opposite party's base, then I have no personal issues whatsoever with doing just that.

  by ChapiNation386 on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:41:42 PM PDT

•  AGH!

  

  Have we really reached this point?

  Step back from the edge people!
  (and donate to Ned)

  by The Officious Intermeddler on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:47:19 PM PDT

•  What are the Republican blogs

  saying about the debate?

  by Elwood Dowd on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:50:14 PM PDT

  •  Not much

    So far, Newsmax has a piece up under the unambiguous heading "Lieberman Attacked For Support of Iraq War," which only parenthetically mentions the GOP candidate that was also in the debate; I see nothing from any of the other right-wing rags, though I freely admit to not knowing what the comprehensive list of the wackos would be.

    by rlamoureux on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 03:23:09 PM PDT

•  The enemy of my enemy...

  by brownsox on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:52:35 PM PDT

•  How about instead

  Find some position of his where he's much more conservative than Liberman or Lamont, and run an ad attacking for it. Hopefully that would boost him.

  by jfern on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 01:58:12 PM PDT

•  Nice idea, but ...

  I don't think boosting Schlesinger is going to help much. There's a fundamentally different dynamic going on here than in, say, a Dem-Rep-Green race. There, the Green can throw the campaign to the Repub because a significant number of Dems aren't happy with their candidate and don't care who wins (because they think the Dem and Repub are basically the same). Here, CT Repubs have already made the strategic judgment to support Lieberman over Schlesinger. That's the shocking thing, that their first instinct would be to pick the ex-Democrat over the Republican. Probably 99% of Lieberman's Repub supporters know Schlesinger is far more conservative. And they don't care. They aren't going to start caring now.

  Also, keep in mind that Lieberman's Republican base is only about 65%. Add in Schlesinger's 5% and Lamont's 10% or so, and you still have 20% worth. If Schlesinger gains anything, it will be from the 20% of Republicans. So there's plenty of room for Schlesinger to grow without hurting Lieberman.

  by ColoDem on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 02:28:26 PM PDT

•  There's way more upside

  to donating to Lamont, or the CT Congress races, then to Schlesinger.

  You give to shclesinger, he enriches gopper ad/pr firms, and benefits himself.  

  You give to Lamont, he can use the money to GOTV which helps down ballot races, he can bash lieberman and schlesigner, which serves the purpose of raising schlkesinger's name recognition.

  Schlesingerr will use the money to tie lieberman and Lamont together as liberals, which might help out lieberman, since it reinforces the perception among the ill-informed Democrats who might vote for lieberman that he is a Democrat.  He did that in the debate, if you read any of the debate threads.

  No money for goppers, they can do our work for us without our money.  Give to Ned, it helps not just him, but the Party and his Fellow Democrats!!

  by Duckman GR on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 02:28:50 PM PDT

•  Connecticut Republican Party kaput...

  There is no doubt in my mind that Joe Lie-berman will caucus with the Republicans if he were re-elected.

  However, there is one consequence of his defeat and Lamont's victory in the election. The Connecticut Republican party will be almost extinct.  Think of it.  They are confused right now about voting for Lie-berman or Schlesinger.  One has an (R) next to his name on the ballot while the other one doesn't.  When the smoke settles, and Lamont has won, with Schlesinger getting the second most votes, they are going to be wondering how a voter registration of at least 30% Republicans only managed a much lower percentage.  And the Republican masses will also wonder why their candidate wasn't supported by the national party nor the state party nor the GOP governor.

  Also, I find it hard to believe that a state with a large voter registry of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents would not have more votes for the two major party candidates.  If Lie-berman is making use of the GOP GOTV effort, then you know who he will be caucusing with.  Otherwise, his ground campaign doesn't match that of Lamont.  Good luck to the Connecticut voters.  I hope all the Dem peeps come back home to Lamont.

  by BasharH on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 03:20:15 PM PDT