"Non-Combatant" Lieberman Won't Back Democratic Candidates

Well it's official.  Joe is not going to endorse the Democrats running for office in CT.  I'm not very surprised.  

The New Haven Independent

Declaring himself a "non-combatant," U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in remarks at a New Haven press event Friday, raised anew the question of whether his "independent" candidacy will help Republicans hold onto three Congressional seats in Connecticut -- and control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Lieberman -- who after losing an Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont has launched a third-party bid to hold onto his seat in the Nov. 7 general election -- was asked whether he still endorses Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, three Democrats looking to unseat endangered Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson.

"I'm a non-combatant," Lieberman declared. "I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it's better if I just focus on my own race."

Further in the article

The comment was significant because analysts from both major parties believe that Lieberman's campaign could help the three Republicans keep their jobs in the face of tough challenges. Lieberman's strongest support -- 75 percent in the most recent Quinnipiac poll -- comes from Republicans. If he succeeds in drawing more Republican voters to the polls to support his candidacy, that could help the Republican Congressional candidates. Those three races are considered among the 10 most competitive Congressional races in the country; both parties consider the races key to deciding which party controls the House in 2007. National Republican strategists and donors have come forward to help Lieberman's campaign; party leaders have abandoned the nominal Republican in the Senate race, Alan Schlesinger. Prominent Republicans like Shays and former Republican House leader Newt Gingrich have endorsed Lieberman.

Speaking about Farrell - I caught her on Hardball tonight and couldn't make hide nor hair of her position on Iraq.  She kept saying that we have to get rid of Rumsfeld before we could think about withdrawing.  I was suprised and disappointed in her - this is the first time I saw her interviewed.  To me it didn't seem like much of a position.

•  please explain to me

  Farrell's position.  

  I already know Joe's ME, me, me - Mine, mine, mine

  by Kitty on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 02:53:48 PM PDT

  •  She's been anti-war from the start, I believe.

    That's what's making Chris Shays flip-flop.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 02:56:53 PM PDT

    •  I live in the district

      and all I care about is that she isn't an (R). A vote for Shays is a vote for an (R) majority.

      D majority = judgement day for Bush

      by CTMET on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:02:33 PM PDT

  •  She is taking the officially blessed Dem position

    and I say that because she is not the only Dem on Hardball who has said the exact same thing.

    They have clearly made the calculation that calling for Rumsfeld's resignation is the way to go and it is frankly - stupid.  Rumsfeld's exit won't change the policy which is what Matthews rightly keeps pointing out to them all.  But just one thing, they should say that Matthews' question is unfair because he and they know that the President is the "Commander in Chief" which means that he alone makes the decisions about troop movements.

    Farrell did do the best she could with what she had.  The Democrats need to freakin' figure this one out and fast or we will lose this election.

    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:03:04 PM PDT

•  Kinda makes you wonder about all these people

  who are sooo convinced he's going to caucus with the Dems if he wins.  If there's any more evidence necessary that this race is still a priority, some people are just in denial.

  by Mr Met on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 02:57:27 PM PDT

•  Wow, this must be some kind of record

  for most federal candidates in a state having given money to candidates who they don't support that cycle (Lieberman having given $5,000 to each of the three Democrats through his PAC, and Lamont having given $500 to Lieberman in February of 2005.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:00:31 PM PDT

  •  That was pre-primary, was it not?

    And he's not supporting them anymore, is he?

    by Mr Met on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:01:38 PM PDT

    •  That's what the article says.

      And yes, the money was given at least before the June filing.

      Still ...

      by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:05:32 PM PDT

      •  Yay-ess? Still what?

        by Mr Met on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:06:28 PM PDT

        •  It's still funny. n/t

          by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:09:18 PM PDT

          •  Everybody funny.

            by Mr Met on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:10:35 PM PDT

•  Hey Joe

  I thought you said you were still a Democrat, just an "independent" Democrat.

  So you're saying you're not a Democrat after all?  You're saying that all those people who kept calling you a DINO were right after all?

  You ought to get on the horn to Tom Carper and straighten him out, cos he still seems to think you're a Democrat.

  by Thomas Kalinowski on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:01:01 PM PDT

•  But Jane H. is the bad guy and

  Lieberman really wasn't campaigning with Republicans yesterday.  Please.

  by Lefty the playwright on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:03:45 PM PDT

  •  Dodd was out of town, otherwise I believe he

    would've been there.

    Richard Blumenthal (long time Democratic attorney general) was there.

    Other than those two guys, every other major player on Team Connecticut was a Republican, so why is it surprising?

    by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:08:32 PM PDT

    •  Missing the point again

      "Team CT" is different than supporting your own "party's" candidates.

      Please, get off it.

      by DrWolfy on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:12:30 PM PDT

      •  Team CT was a bipartisan effort

        to save the Groton-New London base.

        It is different than supporting your own party's candidates, because it had to do with keeping federal money and work in Connecticut, not with supporting or opposing any candidates.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:19:49 PM PDT

        •  Yes....

          But he is FAILING TO ENDORSE his OWN PARTY'S CANDIDATES.

          That was the point of the diary.  Stop obsessing about Jane Hamsher already.

          by DrWolfy on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:23:24 PM PDT

          •  When did Farrell, Murphy and Courtney join

            the CT for Lieberman party?

            by DemocraticLuntz on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:30:44 PM PDT

•  It's a pity there are no Long Thorny Catci in VT

  'Cause someone should really shove one..

  Egomaniac Joe obsessivly keeps flushing even though his dignity is already long gone.

  Kick his whiny ass Ned.

  by SecondComing on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:06:45 PM PDT

•  Good!

  Anything that makes him look more obviously like the Republican he is is good because it will help him lose. Sadly, he may bring out enough additional Republicans that he could be the entire cause of the House not flipping, while losing his own seat. Thanks, Joe, I know you're only thinking of the good of the country. NOT.

  by anastasia p on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:07:40 PM PDT

•  Prediction....

  Lieberman will hold campaign apperances with Shays.

  That will come as no surprise.

  On a sad note, they "decided" not to oust Liberman from the state Democrat Party even though he is running as a party of one in defiance of Party rules.  Shameful.

  by emsprater on Fri Aug 25, 2006 at 03:32:58 PM PDT

•  Joe broke his promise to back CT Democrats

  He's screwing the Democrats as best he can:  his breaking his two-week-old promise to endorse Connecticut Democratic Congressional candidates was done on the day after his doing the photo-op with the Republican foes of these candidates!

  by Phoenix Woman on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 01:47:03 PM PDT

•  i don't like lieberman but i still think it's

  a fair question.

  why should anyone support someone if there is no reciprocity??

  not to mention.  why would those candidates want back stabbing it's all about me joe's support anyway??

  i would suggest if he did it would only hurt their campaigns.

  by BiminiCat on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 03:04:32 PM PDT

  •  Why should Lieberman support the Dems?

    Why should he support the Democratic nominees for Congress if there is no reciprocity?

    Because he keeps telling everyone that he is an "independent Democrat," that he remains loyal to the Democratic Party, and that his independent candidacy is not designed to hurt the Democratic Party. He is, in particular, telling Connecticut voters that he will remain a Democrat if he is sent back to the Senate.

    He keeps telling the media, the voters and himself that somehow he can still be loyal and run against the official Democratic nominee. One test of that clearly needs to be to see if he supports the rest of the Democratic ticket.

    If he can't pass even that simple test, then his claims that if he is re-elected he will continue to support the Democratic Party in the Senate by caucusing with them are suspect, aren't they? If reciprocity is the issue, maybe he shouldn't be expected to support Democrats outside of Connecticut  running this year -- including his friends like Hillary, Feinstein, Cantwell, Casey, Kennnedy, Stabenow, and all the other Democratic incumbents and challengers who are now supporting Lamont over Lieberman? But if wants to be stay in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, he is obligated to support efforts to gain a Democratic majority.

    Look, Lieberman is asking the Democratic Party to do something extra-ordinary -- having lost the nomination in a legitimate primary, he says that if he is elected as an independent he will continue to caucus with the Democrats, to enjoy the committee assignments and the seniority that come from the Democratic party, and even to benefit if the Democrats are in the majority. He says that running as an independent ("Connecticut for Lieberman") candidate, is not an act of party disloyalty, but is only being done beacuse of the extra-ordinary circumstances.

    I don't buy his argument, but if it is to be taken seriously, he'd better damn well bending over backward between now and November to prove that in all of his other actions, he is a behaving as a loyal party member. That way, in the increasingly unlikely event he does win in November, he can go back to the Democratic caucus showing that he helped other Democrats win, not brought them down. (This is especially important in the tight battle for taking back the House -- with three legitimate pick up targets in CT, Lieberman could seriously undermine the party in those races).

    Reciprocity? No. But Joe has a special test to prove himself on the party loyalty front if he wants back in after November, and this kind if action isn't helping him make that case, is it?

    by terjeanderson on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 04:14:44 PM PDT

    •  so basically

      in these special circumstances he should be out there helping the same people who are tying to defeat him?

      by BiminiCat on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 04:50:47 PM PDT

      •  yes

        if he wants to be taken seriously when he says he is remaining loyal to the party, that is what he exactly what he needs to do.... the "special circumstances" are of his own creation, not the various Democratic Congressional candidates -- he choose to bolt the party and run as a third party candidate. If he truly cares about the well-being of the Democratic Party, he needs to unequivocably endorse and urge his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominees. Playing a cute game of footsie with the Republicans (for the sake of his own political career) simply means that his alleged loyalty to the party is only functional when he thinks it is good for his career. That doesn't pass the laugh test of his so-called "independent Democratic" candidacy and his claim that he will return to being a member in good standing of the party after the election.

        I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to sell his soul to whatever political alliances (Republicans, neo-cons, DLC types, Beltway lobbyists, etc) he thinks will benefit his re-election. He has a perfect right to make any of those decisions, but in providing aid and comfort to Republican candidates, he loses the right to claim any place in a future Democratic party.  That is the choice he is making, and right now it is pretty clear that he's decided that he's wants that Republican support. (Wonder what kind of reciprocity they'll be asking for in return for that?)

        by terjeanderson on Sat Aug 26, 2006 at 05:05:15 PM PDT