Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 


 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

Dodd Says He Is Open To Supporting Lieberman In 2012

by: tparty

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 09:02:34 AM EDT


In an appearance on Face the State just two weeks ago, Sen. Dodd answered a question about Sen. Lieberman by stressing how hard he worked for Lieberman in the 2006 primary, how he thought Lieberman was the best candidate for Democrats in 2006, how he made an "impassioned plea" to keep him in the party in late 2008/early 2009, how he anticipates that Sen. Lieberman will remain a Democrat in 2012, and how that "would help" him earn Dodd's support in the 2012 campaign:

Q: Let's talk about your friend Senator Joe Lieberman, who has unequivocally endorsed you for re-election this year. Does he have to be a Democrat in order for you to support him in his next re-election bid? If he's an independent, will you support him over the Democrat?

DODD: It would help if he'd stay a Democrat. And I suspect he will. I made an impassioned plea on his behalf at the Democratic caucus in January, in opposition to several in the caucus who took a different point of view. But I've known Joe for 40 years. He had a position that was not unlike other Democrats on the Iraq war. And unfortunately, as you know, I campaigned hard for him in that primary, and believed he would have been our strongest candidate. And Joe wanted to be back in that caucus. There were several of us that spoke on his behalf. He's very much a member of that caucus, and I suspect he'll stay such.

Q: So if he says, that I'm going to run as an Independent, will you support him against a Democrat?

DODD: Well, I'm anticipating he's going to stay a Democrat.

Yesterday, of course, Sen. Dodd received his usual thank-you note.

And, just yesterday, Dodd insisted to reporters that Lieberman should not be punished if he filibusters health care reform:

But Lieberman's fellow Connecticut senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, who faces a tough reelection fight in 2010, dismissed the idea that Lieberman would incur any retribution.

"No, no, no. People are going to be all over the place," he said when asked if Lieberman should be punished. "The idea that people are going to be reprimanded because somehow they have a different point of view than someone else is ridiculous. That isn't going to happen."

In fairness, this forgiving attitude towards his junior colleague been a consistent stance of Sen. Dodd's for almost three years now. Unfortunately, it has been a consistently wrong-headed and almost unfathomably misguided one, which, despite Sen. Dodd's crucial work on multiple policy fronts these days, continually calls into question his personal and political judgment in a very serious way.

Update: This was the official statement from Sen. Dodd yesterday on Lieberman's filibuster threat:

"Joe and I disagree on the public option," said Dodd. "I and many others support a strong public option because it will save money, and it will introduce more choice and competition into an industry that badly needs both. And I'm optimistic Joe will join us."

And he also sounded the "optimism" note in comments to Brian Beutler at TPM:

"Joe and I are good friends," Dodd told me, "and there's a difference on this and that's certainly his right to express it.... I'm disappointed we're not in agreement on this, but that happens from time to time on issues."

He did acknowledge the consensus on the public option: "I believe it brings down costs, I think it's going to save money as well," Dodd said. "And so I'm still hopeful that before we complete this process there'll be a lot more support for the public option, possibly even a good colleague and friend from Connecticut."

tparty :: Dodd Says He Is Open To Supporting Lieberman In 2012
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I Couldn't Agree More (4.00 / 2)
All the good things Dodd as done recently to win back wavering progressive support are of little consequence if he continues down this road.

Not an indication of a position of strength? (4.00 / 2)
Dodd IMHO is coming off as if he must appease Lieberman, and reads to me as a battle weary smart lab rat who is pushing the same old levers that he has learned get the contributions, the votes, etc.  When they don't work, his instinct is to push them again, incredulous that they don't work as well anymore. Someone else may say, "STOP! Do something different!"  He seems to "try new techniques" reluctantly and then abandon them more than have actually reached epiphanies.  I hope I am wrong.  I would like to think that his commitment

To me Dodd's Lieberman pronouncement yes, comes across as either talking Joe down or tiptoeing away quietly from a nut case with kitchen matches dancing around menacingly by a tinderbox.  But there's another aspect:  I find myself casting about for an explanation as to what is going on. Is Dodd so fully macerated in the collegial aspects of the Old Boys' Club/Senate that he is not attuned or sensitized to the increasing hostility and impatience toward this culture and its dysfunction from the public,or the degree to which voters' skin crawls about exactly this situation?

Instead of understanding that he is doing exactly the wrong thing for its "outside the Beltway" impact, in his mind's eye, he appears to be focused on the Senate unwritten cultural rules, giving himself the feedback that he is doing the right thing. There may be more than simply cultural etiquette -- Joe may have some power over Dodd that is unclear to some of us.

Unfortunately, the demonstration of Old Boy manners also represents to some voters the evidence of a power/access culture that can translate into an impulse or an argument for cleaning house.

So when Dodd pronounces that he has strong convictions and is committed to doing X, I look back at his relationship with and support of Lieberman and I have to say, I don't find those professions of deep convictions and principles credible when he appeases a snake.   Convictions are most convincing when the holder does not compartmentalize them.

In the presence of a plethora of candidates who lack true commitment and conviction and who are unwilling to make their actions match their words, this apparent ethical impediment is less visible, hiding in plain sight. But the instant somebody with candor, clarity, and honesty/strong sense of ethics steps up into the public eye, there is a strong contrast.  There could be a sea change of passionate sentiment -- a sudden recognition of what is wrong that becomes clear when another candidate actually tells it straight and is identifiable as a person possessing a moral compass.

Dodd IMHO is conveying a a mixed message.  What do his years of experience mean?  Is Dodd savvy to the ways of Washington and adept at moving with them -- or too beaten down by them for too many years to step up to the fight?

During the Vietnam War, it was said that the way to get to peace was to hire people who were committed to peace and when they got tired or cynical or nolonger believed peace was possible, trade them out for more people who believed in peace to replace them.

Has Dodd reached that "no longer  believing" stage where he is going through the motions? And is he of more benefit to Connecticut in that state of mind but with seniority than a new senator with many ideas and convictions but no seniority to help make things happen?

I really don't want to feel that Chris Dodd should be primaried - however,I do have to say this Lieberman talk does not increase his attractiveness or credibility.

Does he need a serious Democratic challenge to make him smell the coffee?  And how much "remedial work via primary" is worth doing?  The effect seems to wear off fairly quickly after the general election.


[ Parent ]
He is as tone deaf on LIEberman as he was on the Countrywide thing (4.00 / 2)
He ignored the growing tempest surrounding his VIP mortgage for months.  Now Senator Dodd is ignoring the growing anger surrounding his inexplicable support for perhaps the most hated politician in Connecticut- Joe Lieberman.

Mr. Dodd could lose enough support among Democrats to lose his senate seat.  He needs to wake up and wise up.


[ Parent ]
Senator Dodd, is Joe Lieberman really worth (4.00 / 5)
..your senate seat? Because that is where this is headed.

I couldn't agree more. (4.00 / 4)
Unless Dodd distances himself from Joe, he loses my vote.  Lieberman may be the most hated politician in Connecticut --a richly deserved honor.  Dodd's support of that narcisstic smirker is unfathomable.

[ Parent ]
Now we have another decision? (0.00 / 0)
Is Dodd a great Senator and a positive influence on our country more than Joe is a horrible senator hurting our country?

Yet Joe punishes all Democrats and the majority of citizens (4.00 / 2)
Huffington Post:  15 Lieberman betrayals: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...  

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

The idea ... (4.00 / 5)
... that voters are going to forget Lieberman's actions -- or Dodd's support of Lieberman -- is ridiculous. That isn't going to happen.

Maybe Dodd's not that serious about reform after all. If it turns out that Joe's filibuster waters down the health care bill and Dodd expects to walk away looking like the good guy who fought for it, well that won't happen either. Results do matter.  

The "good cop (Dodd), bad cop" (Lieberman) routine is getting old. Perhaps it's time for two new Senators who don't play these asinine games.



What is impossible to fathom here (4.00 / 4)
is what Dodd thinks he gains from even a passing support or simple mention of Lieberman.

Few if any of the remaining "registered Democrats" supporting Lieberman would vote for Dodd, they are more likely to support the so-called "moderate" Simmons.

If anything, Dodd looses support of core Democrats by doing something like this. He's better off to simply say nothing.

Let Lieberman climb out to the end of the branch all by himself.


I'm taking a deep breath (3.00 / 5)
I think we got to let this play out a little more.  Right now Lieberman is like the little kid in the ammunition magazine with a match.  No one knows how he is going to act although he clearly wants attention now.  I know I would act differently than Dodd if I were in his situation.  But I don't necessarily think we can attribute Dodd's action right now to cynical back scratching.  For all we know Dodd is trying to talk Lieberman down.  

If Lieberman blows this thing up, however, then it's time to get out the torches and pitch forks.  If Dodd tries to protect him, then we'll have to light his castle too.

I say this as someone who has recently dipped into my small fortune for Dodd.

I hope this all works out.  If it does, we'll all forget how Dodd reacted.  Frankly the emotional roller coaster of this summer has been exhausting.  But I won't be too exhausted to help beat the crap out of that scrawnly little bastard if he tanks this thing.


What to do about Lie berman. (4.00 / 2)
Sometimes Chris Dood stuns me with his tonedeafness.
Hey! Dood! We, the Democrats of CT, rejected the little worm in 06. He won as an independent because the National Dems backstabbed the State party and because Rove dumped in a very large pile of illegal campaign support to Lie berman's campaign in the final two weeks. Most of his votes came from the Republicans (who were given a rabid dog (what was his name?) as a candidate so that they wouldn't be conflicted abandoning him, and from UnAffiliateds who obviously didn't know any better.
Now Lie berman is out to screw US again and the National Party doesn't have the courage or even the self-preservation instincts, to distance themselves from him. The whole point of keeping him in the D caucus was to get to 60 votes. If he then votes against the Caucus, against cloture, he's no asset to the Caucus and should be expelled.
Meanwhile, this is an article from Rob Kall, via OpEd news, via Buzzflash: http://www.opednews.com/articl...
sugestin that we make Holy Joe's life miserable anytime he;s in the district. I'm not sure that I'd endorse the more extreme elements of this, like targeting his grandchildrens' school, but the general direction of this piece is right on.

A friend of Lieberman is NO friend of mine! (4.00 / 3)
It's been a very long time since I've commented on MLN, but Joe has made me so angry that I'm willing to go against Dodd if he continues supporting this horrible disgraceful LIEberman!

Term limits... (4.00 / 2)

Both Dodd and especially Lieberman have become poster boys for the desirability of term limits.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

I called Lieberman's office in Hartford and.... (4.00 / 5)
they are getting a little testy up there.  They must be getting a deluge of phone calls from irate Nutmeggers.  When I called, I identified myself and my town so they would know that I was a constituent and told the staffer that according to a recent poll, 68% of CT residents support a public option.  He snapped back with a "what poll is that!?", and I told him Research 2000 from last month and al I got in reply was an pretty wimpy "oh".  

I then told him that Lieberman is not representing us but the health insurance industry.  This guy could not get off the phone fast enough.  When I asked him if they have been getting a lot of calls, he would not answer me and said he would pass my message on to Lieberloser.


Eyes on the prize here for a sec! (4.00 / 2)
Peeps, peeps, peeps: You can't seriously tell me that you would risk Joe Lieberman becoming our Senior Senator by voting against Chris Dodd next year?  Whatever you might think about how Senator Dodd has handled various issues,  he has been a wonderful Senator for CT.  

We really don't know what goes on behind closed doors, and I think it's unfair to judge Senator Dodd's positions re Joe (who does not merit the title "Senator" in my view) by what we see in public. People thought the public option was dead and then it miraculously revived. It was not miraculous: It happened with a lot of hard work behind the scenes and we have Chris Dodd in large part to thank for that.

We need a strong health care bill and we need to re-elect Chris Dodd and we're not going to do either by paying attention to every single shiny ufo balloon that Joe L sends up into the air.

We also need a really great candidate for 2012.

My tuppence...


peeps? (4.00 / 4)
yes, I would consider voting against Dodd next year.

He's as much responsible for the banking meltdown and the current state of our economy as any other Congressman. Unless we get significant health care, banking, energy reform, there's no real reason to re-elect him, especially if he's going to back Lieberman over a real Democrat in 2012.

Results matter. As for Lieberman, he should be tried along with Bush and Cheney for war crimes, not serving as a member of the U.S. Senate.


[ Parent ]
Remember what happen to Ned Lamont... (3.00 / 3)
Chris Dodd did not support him!  What makes you think he'll support "a really great candidate" in 2012 over Lieberman, when he has already promised his support for Joe!


[ Parent ]
Dodd backed Lamont fully when he won the Primary (4.00 / 2)
and even cut a TV ad for him...

As to voting Against Dodd,CaptCT, which one of the Republicans would you vote for over Dodd?


[ Parent ]
Remember: Dodd continued to praise Lieberman ... (4.00 / 1)
in the local and national media right up to the night before the November 2006 election, mitigating any positive effect of the ad.

In 2008, Dodd fought to make sure Lieberman kept his chairmanship of Homeland Security -- after Lieberman had campaigned for John McCain! How did that work out for us? Now Dodd is saying he'll support Lieberman in 2012 over a real Democrat -- someone like Ned Lamont? That's just inexcusable, especially after Lamont helped out Dodd's presidential campaign.

Look, here's the bottom line: IF Dodd and the Dems don't come through on health care, banking, and energy, it will prove one thing: both political parties are owned by Aetna, Duke Energy, and Goldman Sachs.  

IF that's the case, it won't much matter whether Chris Dodd, Merrick Alpert, Rob Simmons or Linda McMahon are having their strings pulled. I'd vote for the one who'd be easiest to beat 6 years later.

I hope that Chris Dodd and the Dems DO come through, and it doesn't come to this. IF they do come through, I'll give Dodd all the praise he deserves and I'll kick in a campaign contribution. But results matter. You don't get points for trying.  

And you get no points for endorsing Lieberman.


[ Parent ]
Don't put words in Dodds mouth (3.00 / 2)
He never said he would support Lieberman over the Democratic Nominee he said he hoped Joe ran as a Democrat.

The rest of your rant is every bit as stupid as the Ralph Nader idiots rants in 2000 which gave us 8 yrs of W.

Politics is  both a team Sport and a contact sport,If you  don't understand that you're useless to either team and may as well stay in the stands with the rest of the frindges.

There is not one single Senator on the left who is doing more to fulfill the vey agenda you profess to think is important and yet thats the very one you dummies insist on bashing.If ever Repubican in this state isn't laughing at the idiocy they're reading here they should be.


[ Parent ]
"He said he hoped Joe ran as a Democrat" (4.00 / 2)
I think that comment speaks for itself.

Stupid is getting robbed, and thanking the robber for not taking more.  


[ Parent ]
It sure does (0.00 / 0)
and it makes what you said in your commemnt DEAD WRONG and a LIE,he never said this,

Now Dodd is saying he'll support Lieberman in 2012 over a real Democrat -- someone like Ned Lamont?


[ Parent ]
Yes, Dodd did the right thing. (0.00 / 0)
But many of his Senate colleagues did not.  A few paid lip service to Lamont, but actually enabled Lieberman sub rosa.  

[ Parent ]
Remember Ned Lamont (3.40 / 5)
And in Greenwich local Democrats stuck it to two Republicans who'd converted to Democrats to run for local office.  We Democrats do have standards, though national Democrats seem to think we don't.  Chris Dodd needs to understand that he can be primaried, just as Joe Lieberman was.  Our vote cannot be taken for granted, especially if he insists on betraying us by backing the man we hate most in this state- Joe LIEberman.

Chris needs to wake up.  Really.


[ Parent ]
"OUR VOTE" (0.00 / 0)
 Please stop portraying youself as a leader of any group because YOU'RE NOT.

Lamont and every other Democrat worth taking seriously are going to do everything in their power to get Sen. Dodd reelected in 2010.

PS- I'm sure Joe Lieberman gets a great laugh every time he reads your comments here and sees how easily your hatred makes you to minipulate.


[ Parent ]
Easy, Keith. Easy! (0.00 / 0)
I've not said I'm a leader of any group.  Relax.  But I would suggest that you not ignore how much most Democrats hate Joe Lieberman, and how many people are dismayed with Chris Dodd's continued support for him.

OK?


[ Parent ]
Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
 I dont give a dam which elected official  supports lieberman, I NEVER WILL.Lieberman is beyond the pale....and anyone supporting him doesnt have connecticut citizens in mind as all Lieberman does is represent himself and the large corporations and the very wealthy.

I find it pretty F-ing funny (4.00 / 2)
That people are coming here bashing Dodd when it's quite obvious that out of all the players in the Health Care debate he is BY FAR the furthest Left.

Without Dodd the Public Opton would not be in the Senate Bill coming to the floor and would be DEAD! He was the ONLY ONE that went into the Senate negotiation on what would come to the floor wanting to put the Public Option in.

Does it sting a little that Dodd had to use "SENATE SPEAK" to deal with a question on whether or not he would help Lieberman should he run in 2012,Yeah.

Am I grownup enough to realize that that was  exactly what he should have done in order to keep the Health Care Reform Bill with a Public Option moving forward,YOU BET YOUR ASS!!

 


If Dodd had thrown his full weight of support ... (0.00 / 0)
... behind Ned Lamont in 2006, maybe we wouldn't be worrying about Lieberman's filibuster.

Also, what has Dodd done in the past two years to make anyone think that his endorsement of Lieberman is "Senate speak." Just the opposite.

So, I'll thank Dodd AFTER the health care reform bill passes, provided it's not watered down to nothingness.


[ Parent ]
Thats Garbage (0.00 / 0)
Ned lost by 10% point and his loss had absolutely nothing to do with Dodd.

Dodd has to live with the REALITY that Lieberman is a US Senator until 2012 and that Pres. OBAMA made the decision to keep him in the caucus.

The Screamers here can live in their fantasy world and allow Lieberman a good laugh every time he grabs the spotlight by amplifying his importance with their tirades because they don't have the responsibility to legislate.


[ Parent ]
Dodd is the one who fought to keep Lieberman ... (4.00 / 2)
... in the caucus and as a committee chairman, threatening Obama with a "messy fight" otherwise.

We all have to live with the reality that Lieberman is a U.S. Senator. That doesn't mean Dems have to kiss Lieberman's butt. If Dodd and Harry Reid were smart, they'd pass the health care reform bill through reconciliation, rendering Lieberman's filibuster meaningless.

If that's what they do, then good for Dodd and Reid. If not, and Lieberman waters down the health care bill, it won't be just Lieberman's fault, it will be Dodd's and Reid's too.  


[ Parent ]
Keep digging Capt (0.00 / 0)
First you pull a fox news act by putting words in Sen Dodds mouth he never said and now you're just flat out making shit up.

Do you really believe Sen Dodd was "threatening Obama with a "messy fight" otherwise."

Pres. Obama and Harry Reid made the decision to allow Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship and whether anyone here likes it or not (and I didn't when it happened) it has worked out to the Presidents Benefit and with Specters switch noone SANE can argue otherwise.

Looks to me like that the Hate many here are displaying has made them Blind.  


[ Parent ]
Here's the link ... (4.00 / 1)
where Dodd warns Obama of a "messy fight" if Lieberman isn't a chairman.

U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd said that President-elect Barack Obama would not want one of his party's first major post-election issues to be a messy fight over Joseph Lieberman's status as a Democrat.

It's an odd thing for Dodd to say, considering that Obama has nothing to do with who's chosen as Chairman. It's the Steering Committee's job, of which Dodd is one of the senior members.

Here's Dodd's comment about supporting Joe in 2012:

... will you support him over the Democrat?

DODD: It would help if he'd stay a Democrat. And I suspect he will. [...]

Q: So if he says, that I'm going to run as an Independent, will you support him against a Democrat?

DODD: Well, I'm anticipating he's going to stay a Democrat.

So, Dodd is going to support Lieberman as the Democratic nominee for Senate in 2012? Give Dodd a call and ask him to clarify. He's your buddy, not mine.

You're the one who's blind.



[ Parent ]
You should apply for a Job with Fox News (0.00 / 0)
Because your own links prove you did exactly what they do.

Nobody except a Fox Employee could read the link you provided and say Dodd "thretened Obama" and nobody "fair and balanced" could read your second block quote and interpret it to mean what you wrote here;

"Now Dodd is saying he'll support Lieberman in 2012 over a real Democrat -- someone like Ned Lamont?"

 


[ Parent ]
Huh? (2.50 / 2)
You should apply for a job as Dodd's lap dog. Sometimes you make no sense.

Give me call when we get real health care reform, real banking reform, and a real climate bill, and I'll happily eat crow and send Dodd a nice campaign contribution.

Otherwise, I'll be voting against Dodd in 2010 and his buddy, Joe the Democrat, in 2012.  


[ Parent ]
Look (0.00 / 0)
Obviously you have a point, but a lot of us here saw that Dodd was likely to use his campaign as a vehicle to rehabilitate Joe a long time ago, and now it appears to be playing out exactly as expected. Capt sure doesn't have to be excited about that shit. And while it may not be 100% rational, there are probably a lot of people who'd rather lose both than keep both, when it comes down to it.  

[ Parent ]
add (0.00 / 0)
I like Dodd's performance over the last several years, and on balance I'd say I like Dodd more than I dislike Lieberman -- though it's probably pretty close, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if many friends and allies feel different about their relative merits / demerits.

But at the same time, the reason that ["Post-2004"] Dodd is as attractive to me as he is has much to do with the fact that precious few in Democratic politics -- and even fewer in the Senate -- have given voice to the systemic criticism that there are people and organizations that are simply bad faith actors in the political process. Dodd seems to do this more than most, but at the moment that Joe gears up to crap all over Dodd's good work on healthcare, he delivers this "My friend and good Democrat Joe Lieberman" song and dance instead of a still-polite "Senator Lieberman is mistaken, and our constituents deserve the facts about the Democratic proposal" type of statement.

At his best, Dodd gives us some of what the good Dr. Dean was selling back when. This is not a moment when Dodd appears to be at his best.


[ Parent ]
Joe Lieberman sucks. (4.00 / 1)
Right?  Right.

If there's anything that most of us here agree on it's that (or some variation on that theme).  I wanted to at least start out this comment with as many people as possible on my side.

...because now I'm going to side with CTKeith.  I don't think it's worth throwing Dodd under the bus just because he refuses to throw Joe under the bus.  In fact, I think that voting against Dodd because he won't badmouth Joe gives Joe more power than he deserves.  That sonofabitch is changing your vote.

Because if your primary reason for filling in the oval for someone else next November is because Dodd won't go on television and tell the world that Joe Lieberman sucks, it's not about Dodd.  It's about Joe.  

And if you want to stick it to Joe, voting against Dodd is a lousy way to do it.

|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|


Right on Spazeboy (4.00 / 1)
I'm willing to continue to give Dodd the benefit of a doubt for the time being.  Keith is right, we wouldn't have ANY public option in the bill if it wasn't for Dodd.  

I despise Joe Lieberman, but I won't judge Dodd for not saying the same thing.  We've got all of 2011/12 to bash the living hell out of anyone who supports Lieberman.  Let's just chill the f- out until then.

Connecticut Bob


[ Parent ]
It's not about words, it's about actions (0.00 / 0)
CCAG has asked Harry Reid to use reconciliation to avoid a filibuster and get a strong health care reform bill passed out of the Senate.  

Does Dodd support that? If so, what's being done to make that happen -- or to otherwise make sure we get real health care reform? Or are they going to use Joe's filibuster as an excuse for watering down the bill?

That's what this is about -- using Lieberman as an idiotic excuse to legislate badly. Again. As if they never saw it coming.

So, before I jump on the Dodd bandwagon, I'm going to see what he actually produces.  

Democrats have been giving away more and more at every step of the health care negotiation. Let's see what they end up with. If it turns out to be just more corporate welfare, then it won't matter what I say or you say. Dodd and the Democrats will take a beating in 2010.  

You get a once-in-a-century shot at real reform. This is it. I really hope that Dodd rises to the occasion, not just on health care, but on banking and climate reform too.


[ Parent ]
No Capt (0.00 / 0)
It's about Opinions and Facts.You have every right to your opinion but not your own facts.

One,Dodd never Threatened Obama,Period,Your own link makes that perfectly clear.Two,He never said anything close to this sentence you wrote:

"Now Dodd is saying he'll support Lieberman in 2012 over a real Democrat -- someone like Ned Lamont?"

What's clear as a bell is that you crossed a line here and instead of admitting your mistake you chose to attack and  then rap yourself in a sheild of what you consider your rightious motives.Reminds me of a Certain Jr. Senators actions in 2006.

 


[ Parent ]
Keith, you're wrong (0.00 / 0)
Dodd warned/threatened Obama with a "messy fight" -- Dodd's words -- in the Senate if Joe wasn't given a chairmanship.

Why did Dodd make such a warning to Obama? Obama doesn't pick the chairmen. Dodd does -- as a member of the Steering Committee. Yet, Dodd threw it in Obama's face:

U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd said that President-elect Barack Obama would not want one of his party's first major post-election issues to be a messy fight over Joseph Lieberman's status as a Democrat. [...]

Which Senator was going to cause the "messy fight" with Obama -- and why can't Senate Leader Harry Reid, or Dodd himself as a member of the steering committee, handle it?  

Dodd, in fact, indicated that to avoid this "messy fight" in the Senate, Obama should support Joe staying in the caucus -- which would require a chairmanship.

"What does Barack Obama want?" Dodd rhetorically asked reporters Friday after speaking at a childhood nutrition forum at the state Capitol complex in Hartford. "He's talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together. I don't think he'd necessarily want to spend the first month of this president-elect period, this transition period, talking about a Senate seat, particularly if someone is willing to come forward and is willing to be a member of your family in the caucus in that sense."

So, that was the beginning of Dodd's push to get Joe a chairmanship. Dodd warned of a "messy fight" in the Senate, in an effort to get Obama's public support to keep Joe in the caucus. Dodd then followed up by organizing support on the steering committee for Joe's chairmanship:

"They had more than two and a half weeks to organize around this," said one high-ranking aide who favored Lieberman being stripped of his post. ... While the pro-Lieberman allies were out in force -- led by Sens. Chris Dodd, Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, and Bill Nelson -- the Senators who wanted a harsher punishment held their cards tightly.

As for Dodd supporting Joe the Democrat over a real Democrat, here's the conversation:

If [Joe] is an independent, will you support him over the Democrat?

DODD: It would help if he'd stay a Democrat. And I suspect he will.

So, if Joe "stays" a Democrat, which Dodd suspects he will, he gets Dodd's support -- presumably over any real Democrat who runs against him. I consider Ned Lamont a real Democrat.  

You can argue that Dodd is holding out a carrot to Lieberman -- be a good Democrat and I'll support you. But when has Dodd ever NOT supported Lieberman? For two weeks in October 2006 -- while he was telling the world what a great Democrat Joe is?

I worked the phones that fall. I can't tell you how many people -- Democrats -- I spoke to who said "Well, Joe is a good Democrat. He's wrong about the war, but he'll come around." Basically repeating what Dodd was saying in the press.

Look, there is no questioning the fact that Dodd has supported Lieberman wholeheartedly at every chance. Why should anyone ever think he won't continue to do so in the future. Especially after comments like the one that tparty singled out in his diary.

Bottom line: It's not about Lieberman. He'll lose in 2012 even with Dodd's support.

But we need real health care reform, banking reform, climate reform, and lots of other major changes. If Dodd delivers -- at the very least on health care and banking -- he makes a strong case for being re-elected, and I'll be behind him 100%. If he doesn't deliver, I'm not voting for him or supporting him in any way.  


[ Parent ]
Capt (0.00 / 0)
I can name you 6 Senators off the top of my head that would cause a "messy fight"  and none of them is named Dodd.

You've now changed you opinion from "threatening" to "Warning".Perhaps that's progress in your realization that facts can't be manufactured to buttress your arguments.We'll See.

It's also nice to see that instead of saying this,

Now Dodd is saying he'll support Lieberman in 2012 over a real Democrat -- someone like Ned Lamont?"

You're now saying this,

So, if Joe "stays" a Democrat, which Dodd suspects he will, he gets Dodd's support -- presumably over any real Democrat who runs against him. I consider Ned Lamont a real Democrat.  

It's still not an honest assessment but at least it's movement torward the realization that what you did was wrong and dishonest.Keep Trying.

 


[ Parent ]
You can parse that however you want... (0.00 / 0)
The meaning is the same. Dodd threatened Obama with a messy fight in the Senate if Lieberman didn't get his way.

And, above, Dodd is saying he'll support Lieberman over a real Democrat in 2012.

Parse away.  


[ Parent ]
All For Show (0.00 / 1)
.
"They put on this show that they don't like each other, and then behind closed doors they buddy up and make deals"



"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
If we wanted to watch a scary Holloween Movie (0.00 / 0)
Most of us know where to find one.


[ Parent ]
That's Not what It Is (0.00 / 0)
.
And you should watch it with an open mind, Keith.
.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
I watched a large part of it (0.00 / 0)
Only a total nutjob who believed in every conspiracy theory ever hatched could watch the entire thing.

[ Parent ]
Thanks For Doing That (0.00 / 0)
.
Folks, take a look and see if you too are one of the millions of "total nutjobs" waking up to where we are heading if we don't do something about it.

Then look inward and ask yourself; are you

...a total nutjob who believed in every conspiracy theory ever hatched...

or are you someone who can see through the lies and propaganda you've been deluged with your entire life?

Here's another helpful link:

"What Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri Do All Day, or Why I Cannot Talk About Politics With My Father"

http://winterpatriot.blogspot....

.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
I would agree with what you say. (0.00 / 0)
But consider this: I don't know any progressive in CT who would vote for someone whose positions mirror Joe's. . . . In that case, I'd be inclined to take a pass and not vote at all. That would be a first, as I've voted for many who would qualify as the lesser of two evils.

What Dodd loses if he sticks with Joe is alot of feet on the ground (and some citizen generated contributions) during what could be a very difficult campaign. On balance, Dodd is doing a decent job; and it's true that we don't know what really happens behind closed doors.  

But Joe has been giving the whole country the finger for far too long. Dodd knows this; so why doesn't he cut the cord?


[ Parent ]
I would agree with what you say. (0.00 / 0)
But consider this: I don't know any progressive in CT who would vote for someone whose positions mirror Joe's. . . . In that case, I'd be inclined to take a pass and not vote at all. That would be a first, as I've voted for many who would qualify as the lesser of two evils.

What Dodd loses if he sticks with Joe is alot of feet on the ground (and some citizen generated contributions) during what could be a very difficult campaign. On balance, Dodd is doing a decent job; and it's true that we don't know what really happens behind closed doors.  

But Joe has been giving the whole country the finger for far too long. Dodd knows this; so why doesn't he cut the cord?


[ Parent ]
 
0 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead



 
Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- Jon Kantrowitz
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT



Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin



Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox