Several commenters at recent threads on post-Connecticut primary observations and Mike McGavick's endorsement of Joe Lieberman have gone off the mark discussing the Republican nominee, Alan Schlesinger. Some have proclaimed Lieberman's independent candidacy opens the door for a Republican victory, others bemoan McGavick's endorsement of Lieberman as a betrayal to the Republican cause. Both observations are wrong.
Stefan's post on McGavick endorsing Lieberman noted polling that clearly indicates Schlesinger is a non-factor, even in a three-way race with Lieberman and Ned Lamont, and that's being polite [Note to readers: I'll post other polls on this race as they become available. I expect those polls will show a closer spread between Lieberman and Lamont than the pre-primary poll testing a three-way matchup]. In addition, it appears he has some serious baggage that makes his sacrificial lamb candidacy even weaker.
The race in Connecticut is clearly between Lieberman and Lamont. While Maria Cantwell is leaping to endorse Ned Lamont in response to the netroots' demands for fealty, McGavick is actually supporting the candidate who represents sane political discourse, not rabid "Bush lied!" ideology. It doesn't take a political genius to recognize Cantwell's choice to join leading Democarts in rushing to support Lamont (and avoid the wrath of an empowered base) plays right into the theme of civility and problem solving McGavick has been emphasizing. Thus, making his endorsement of Lieberman all the more logical. Especially, when more thoughtful Democrats are making the opposite choice as Cantwell by showing the courage to support Lieberman.
Cantwell has been spending a lot of time lately pandering to her base through her actions in the Senate and her campaign personnel choices. She runs the danger of tilting even farther to the left under the gun of the empowered far left, as Mark Wilson's recent flub indicates.
Meanwhile, McGavick is staying on message talking about what's wrong with DC as an anti-incumbent mood continues to grow. It's also worth noting in this discussion that all three Republican members of Congress in Connecticut are supporting Lieberman, in the midst of their fight to retain seats in what are increasingly Democratic districts. Keep all in that in mind before glibly tossing around the RINO label that has no applicability in this discussion.
Maria Cantwell has became an embarassment to me, as well. Her decision to endorse Ned Lamont after today's tragic events show a beginning of weakness on her saving grace: Her understanding of the need to win decisively the war on terror. Ned Lamont's cut-and-run proposal would only embolden the Islamofacists.
Also, the movement of so many Republicans to endorse Senator Lieberman may be hurtful to him.
Posted by: SVC Cardinal Blogger on August 10, 2006 07:46 PMSometimes it just works out that way. This is one of those times, people. So for those of you who are upset that McGavick's endorsing Lieberman, don't be. It's a perfectly okay thing in this case. I approve.
Posted by: Michele on August 10, 2006 07:58 PMReally--sometimes it IS okay that party-crossover endorsements happen.
Posted by: Michele on August 10, 2006 08:04 PMIt would be a great thing if the Republican candidate could win. But with something like 13% in the polls, he would have a better chance of beating Bahgdad Jim. To campaign for him at this point is futile. To knock those who are instead switching their energy from the Republican to Lieberman is short sighted. At this point, if you are campaigning for the Republican, all you're doing is helping Lamont win.
Posted by: Mike H on August 10, 2006 08:05 PMThe fact is that it is unusual for a primary loser to buck his party and run as an independent, and how Democratic voters will respond to that is unclear. I suspect many will be turned off by what they may view as a selfish move. Lieberman speaks of partisan politics, but he lost in a democratic election fair and square - that's American democracy at work, not partisan politics.
The other aspect is that Republicans getting cosey with Lieberman may only go to show what many felt before, that Lieberman was kissing up (literally) too much to Republicans, and George Bush. That was the accusation, and Republican support, at the expense of a Republican candidate, will only enhance the image. The undecided voters may be swayed by this. Overt support by Republicans therefore may do more harm than good from the viewpoint of Republicans. To be determined.
Lamont has done very well very quickly, so things will certainly evolve. But there is the energy and momentum of a Primary victory in their favor, and that should help to a certain extent. Meanwhile, expect Lieberman to take a lot of heat and receive a lot of negative feedback for his move, and expect that also play a role. Nobody likes a sore loser.
Posted by: Daniel K on August 10, 2006 08:40 PMThe thought of ''It's all our fault, cut-and-run Lamont'' in the US Senate is truly frightening...
And; yes: IMO on balance Mike McGavick made a smart move by immediately stepping out and endorsing Joe. I doubt that will make any appreciable difference in the race in CT, but it MIGHT matter here in WA, when you contrast his action with ''Mother-of-Growth-Management-while-she-was-in-the-WA-Leg'', ''I-love-the-Howard-Dean-wing'' Cantwell.
SIDEBAR: I walked behind Mike McGavick with a group of his enthusiastic supporters at the Silverdale ''Whaling Days'' parade a couple weekends ago. From what I saw Mike got an almost universally friendly reception from the crowd; lots of ''thumbs up'' and happy waves in return. For whatever my amateur opinion is worth, I think Mike comes across really well in person; he sure knows how to work a crowd.
Posted by: Methow Ken on August 10, 2006 09:07 PMhttp://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=197
mikey says;
Wednesday, August 9th, 2006
It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore
Friends,
Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.
but read the whole thing, he really goes on a threatening rant. very funny.
Posted by: chardonnay on August 10, 2006 10:57 PMNot sure what you find amusing. The issues people are debating are deadly serious. The Iraq War and what to do about it is a deadly serious problem.
You can have your opinion about these matters, and so can people who believe the U.S. and the Middle East would be better off if the U.S. began pulling troops out of Iraq.
But don't belittle the debate, or the arguments on each side. For every Michael Moore there's a Michelle Malkin, but if you listen to what "the people" are saying, the arguments are less shrill and more earnest, less polemical and more realistic. This war effects real people in this country and in the Middle East. No matter what one thinks about how we got into, we need to know how we're going to get out of it.
That's a debate not only worth having, but that we must have, and so far the balance of opinion is tipping toward reducing U.S. troop presence in Iraq and having an exit plan in which the U.S. calls the shots, not an unstable government in Iraq.
Posted by: Daniel K on August 11, 2006 12:06 AMI still don't think a candiate for Washington State Senator should go around endorsing candidates in other States. He has his own battle.
And as far as an R endorsing a Democrat running as an independent and ignoring the Republican candidate flies in the face of the Tim Goddard "Being a Republican" code.
Not being associated with a party, I would vote for Joe, but there is also a Republican in that race.
Posted by: swatter on August 11, 2006 07:34 AMI may not agree with the aisle crossers, but I do respect them more than the lackeys. In Olympia- the only thing bipartisan since Gregoire took office is the roll call.
Posted by: Andy on August 11, 2006 08:11 AMJust like with Eikenberry in 1992. Well, great, Sid Morrison got a job with the Transportation department, and the rest of the state was stuck with Mike Lowry.
This is why I have such hatred for Evans Republicans in this state. You are all a bunch of hypocrites.
Posted by: ann on August 11, 2006 09:40 AMEither it is important to support the Republican party or it isn't.
Posted by: ed on August 11, 2006 09:42 AMIf it is ok to vote for Democrat Lieberman then it is ok to vote against McGavick since by voting for Lieberman it proves that you don't have to vote lock-step party-line.
So, whenever the party sends up a Republican in Name only as its flag bearer, I can just point to their support of Lieberman (not to mention their support of Lowry over Eikenberry in 1992) and tell them, that they themselves have shown that it isn't enough just to have a R in front of their name.
Posted by: Steve on August 11, 2006 09:47 AMAnother bottom line -- if Lamont wins, he will vote to withdraw from Iraq and probably be involved in a dozen investigative hearings against Bush on everything from domestic wiretapping to kicking small dogs. So the question is, which bottom line is better for Republicans? Because a Republican will not win in Connecticut this time around.
Posted by: Razeeb on August 11, 2006 09:50 AMBut the American people are not so naive as to be unaware of the daily news where the same young Muslim male faces are implicated in attacks or planned attacks. We must maintain our resolve and it's not going to happen through Democrats.
The "D" in Democrat stands for Defeat.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 11, 2006 09:51 AMRegardless of which party he or she comes from.
The Enemy Within though poses a special danger. And that is why I will never vote for a RINO and often vote against them.
Posted by: Matt J. on August 11, 2006 10:15 AMThe more I learn about McGavick, the more my fears about him are confirmed.
The sad fact is the lesser of two evils this year is a vote for Cantwell. At least she won't have any influence within the Republican Party of Washington state like McGavick will if he wins.
Posted by: Alice on August 11, 2006 10:26 AMSo, I have a NEW 11th commandment.
Thou should NOT speak ill of another Republican unless he is a liberal backstabbing sleazebag like McGavick.
Posted by: Steve on August 11, 2006 12:38 PMHowever I get what Eric is saying here. McGavick's support of Lieberman makes political sense, especially given Cantwell's support of Lamont.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 11, 2006 12:53 PMThe Republicans have no reason to run a good candidate in the CT Senate race. A great Republican candidate is not going to win in that state right now.
There's no amount of money that can be spent by the Republicans that will make the Democrats look any more stupid than they do today. McGavick's support of Lieberman precisely fits this philosophy.
The point is not to win the Senate seat in CT. The point is to use that race to illustrate to the American public how weak the Dems are on National Security, National Defense, and the War on Terrorism. Endorsing Joe L does exactly that.
Not a great move by McGavick, but the best possible move given the circumstances.
Posted by: Larry on August 11, 2006 02:27 PM"There's no amount of money that can be spent by the Republicans IN THAT RACE that will make the Democrats look any more stupid than they do today."
Posted by: Larry on August 11, 2006 02:28 PMJeff B. wrote, "Iraq is a symbol of our overall resolve to confront Militant Islam"
I think it telling that you would say Iraq is a symbol. Iraq is much more than a symbol. It is a sovereign nation with a population that is being massacred in civil war strife. Real people, real men and woman and children being blown to bits. Calling them a symbol IMO shows a lack of humanity and understanding of the human toll and suffering in that country.
ed wrote, "Either it is important to support the Republican party or it isn't."
Got to agree with ed. It isn't as if you couldn't produce a Republican candidate that didn't have baggage if the one you've got does. And either way, I find it amazing that the Republican Party would openly suggest that people vote for a non-Republican over a Republican, regardless of the situation. Is it any wonder that Republicans in Connecticut have no chance?
While McGavick might believe it is favorable for him to help Lieberman with a donation to his campaign, I think it was plain stupid of him to publicly announce it. If you're going to do something like that make your moves behind the scenes. Yes, contributions are public records, but it is not obvious that his contribution would necessarily ever become so well known.
All these moves that undermine one of your own don't paint a great picture of Republican leadership. And let me preempt those that would suggest it is no different than the Democratic Party and Lieberman by pointing out that Lieberman lost a Primary - it happens - and that's why we are a democracy, where the people vote, not a monarchy, where you rule for life.
Posted by: Daniel K on August 11, 2006 03:58 PM"It is a sovereign nation with a population that is being massacred in civil war strife."
Really? By whom? The U.S. Military, or terrorists? And are there more or less deaths than Saddam and his henchmen perpetrated every day for almost 30 years? And why do Democrats get to use Iraq as a SYMBOL of the President's incompetence, but we can't use it as a symbol of our resolve to combat militant Islam and promote freedom and democracy around the world?
"All these moves that undermine one of your own don't paint a great picture of Republican leadership."
Remind me again - who is 'one of our own'? I stand by my comment above, and you're welcome to debate it:
No amount of Republican money spent in that state on that race would win the seat nor make the Democrats look any weaker on National Security, National Defense, and the War on Terrorism than they do today with Ned 'My grandpappy was Stalin's best friend and George Soros thinks I'm cute' Lamont.
Getting behind Lieberman is the only thing to do, because it will again elevate the Democratic Party's inability to prosecute the War on Terror and inability to provide for our National Security on the national stage, thereby providing a great many votes for Republicans all across the country this November. Word to your momma.
"146,000 people voted for Lamont, thats only 21% of registered Democrats or about 7.5% of the Connecticut's total registered voting base of around 2 million."
Posted by: chardonnay on August 11, 2006 06:42 PMLarry wrote:, "Really? By whom? The U.S. Military, or terrorists?"
Wow, you are truly ignorant and blind Larry if you respond that way. Sunnis are killing Shiites. Shiites are killing Sunnis. That's a civil war. If the Kurds start getting involved things will get even worse.
Believe whatever you like, but please believe it and back it up with all of the power you possess. Bank all of your party's future on it. That way it will have the proper effect in the future.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on August 13, 2006 10:08 AM