
Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call on you to do a service for me.
Today, DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer held a conference call with bloggers. He was in a rush, walking and talking on a cell phone on his way to cast a vote. He talked to us about some interesting things Senate Dems are doing about tax breaks for the middle class, and to provide assistance with funding for college education, but we had been told in advance the call would be about senate races. We had our own questions (emphasis added):
Question: I’m curious: Is the DSCC taking a position where it will unconditionally support the eventual nominee of the Connecticut Democratic Party?
Schumer: We haven’t taken a position on that yet. . . (interrupted by crosstalk with staff over timing for a vote). What we do is. . . we are an organization of incumbents, and while we certainly find challengers who go up against incumbents, we support incumbents, so I know I didn’t answer your question, but we are supporting Lieberman at this point. Our general rule, and I don’t think there’s been an exception, is that we support the Democrat against the Republicans. We expect Lieberman will win, but if he doesn’t and Ned wins, my guess is we will support him. We haven’t taken a position on that but we’ve almost never deviated. I do not know of a time that the Democrats have deviated and not supported the Democrat.
Question: Would that hold if Senator Lieberman decided to run as an Independent?
Schumer: I think we’ll have to, you know, cross that bridge when we come to it, because it hasn’t happened. Will Senator Lieberman be pledging to vote for Harry Reid for Leader? Will he be running as a Democrat but on a different line? I don’t know; I’d have to give it. . . If it’s a Democrat versus a Republican, there’s no complicating factor. We’d, you know, almost always vote for the Democrat. In this situation we expect Lieberman to win. I don’t think. . . So, you know, we’ll have to weigh that when we come (sic). Our goal is first and foremost to elect a Democratic Senate. We think there’s a moral imperative there, given everything else, and I suppose that would guide our decision.
Question: So Senator, there’s a possibility that if Senator Lieberman runs as an Independent, and there’s another Democratic nominee, that the DSCC would be supporting the Independent?
Schumer: I’m not saying that there is a possibility. I’m saying we haven’t even begun to look at it yet.
Question: I hate to harp on this, but this is something that is big in the blogosphere. If the race does tighten, and Ned Lamont does make it a race, how committed is the DSCC to committing resources to Senator Lieberman since Senator Lieberman hasn’t committed to running as a Democrat?
Schumer: I think Senator Lieberman has committed to running as a Democrat to us. That’s me, and he has to Senator Reid.
Kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it?
If you want to fight this sort of thing, help us Crash the Gate by participating in this Action Alert from this morning.
Update: Some people seem less bothered by this exchange than others. Fair enough. That's why I reported it with minimal editorializing. But I have to ask, what's so hard about the chair of the DSCC (emphasis on "D") saying the organization will unconditionally support the state's chosen Democratic nominee? Is the person (the incumbent) bigger than the party? Is getting leadership control more important than respecting the will of the state's Democratic voters? Winning is critically important, but what is winning for, and for whom?
I'm not stupid: I understand the strategic stakes and potential immediate-term ambiguities. But these kinds of questions tease out values, and we as a party have for too long made tactical, short term calculations at the expense of the Democratic movement in America, and at the expense of the country itself. That's why we're in the minority in every branch of the federal government.
Update II: Just to clarify, because some people seem confused. When Senator Schumer describes the DSCC's overriding goal, he is referring to a Democratic controlled Senate. If the DSCC feels that goal is advanced by backing an Independent over a Democrat, then such matters would at least be considered. That's the hypothetical calculus he's describing.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Oh I hope it is Fitzmas soon!
Like before I leave town later in the week! Please Christy bring me some Fitz!
Fitzo! Ahora! Immediamente!
smell the waffles
Oh, Pach…. how hysterical is it that the Amazon ad immediately to my right as I type this is highlighting “In Praise of Public Life” by Joementum? I’m sure all FDLers will want to click over and buy that one! Mwhahaha
Kind of speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
———————————————————-
I think it just means that he really hasn’t thought about it and doesn’t want to commit to a position. The establishment does not think that Lamont’s going to pull off an upset, so they really haven’t considered what they’re going to do if he does.
P.S. Fitz is in town, right? Tomorrow could be an interesting day.
It’s official. I despise Schumer. Before, I just thought he was a putz and not worth despising.
Nuff said. Speaks for itself for sure. They have all the marbles so they decide what to do with them. Well we are coming in to steal your marbles! Support Incumbents: well if they are not really Democrats who needs them. Shumer: you said you are committed to electing Democrats, well s’cuse me sir but Joe Liberman is no Democrat.
Keep up the good work all. I am so proud of your great work!
Hey Pach anymore takers on Roots NOLA? We are all overwhelmed with rebuilding but..I’m just saying…
I don’t like things he’s said in the past, but this doesn’t sound so bad.
…and people are telling me I should give to the party. No. I’ll give to individual candidates. And I have litmus tests. Not being Joe Lieberman is the first one. Not shilling for Joe Lieberman is another. I can of course understand why they have to talk nice about him, but he has earned at the very least some skepticism from his colleagues. Can somebody make Schumer a video of JoMo’s appearances on “Hannity”?
MsAnnaNola:
Email me. We just started one today. Small, but come on in.
I think it means that he has thought about it, is worried, and wants to brush the issue aside so as not to give the Lamont challenge further traction.
watching Abu the Terrible on cnn– he’s still talking like chimpy’s personal attorney, rather than speaking as our AG.
suprise.
What’s so hard about the chair of the DSCC (emphasis in “D”) saying the organization will unconditionally support the state’s chosen Democrat?
what exactly defines ‘Democrat’ ? and who defines it that way? why does it matter?
to the DSCC: it is somebody that will vote to put a ‘Democrat’ into leadership power. Same over at the DCCC: there’s only one supremely important partisan vote: who gets to be Speaker?
All the other votes of a Senator or Representative are secondary to that all-important first vote on the first day of ‘organization’…
I tend to agree with 5, probst. If anything, it just reinforces my own opinion that Schumer is a rather indecisive guy. I’m not reading any sort of “darth vader” type thing from him. Ask Schumer if the sun rises in the east, and he’d tell you he’s “pretty sure it does…as far as he can remember it does…but he hasn’t scientifically studied it”, instead of just saying: yes.
Ghostman
I am annoyed by the Hillarys and Chucks to say the least. They seem to think that electing a democratic congress should mean unconditional support for even traitors like coat-hanger Lieberman. Besides, he knows damn well the only viable republican candidate we got in CT for this race is Lieberman himself. Otherwise, it’s losers all around. Ned is the best man and the best Democrat we got.
Since when does the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee support independents over Democrats? That is some serious incumbency ass-covering that has absolutely nothing to do with what’s best for the party and everything to do with “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.”
Thanks, Pach. Excellent work.
Rob Zuber @ 4:10 pm (#8) - What Schumer is doing, unless I read this very wrong, is that he’s threatening to not support Lamont if Lieberman loses the Democratic primary and runs as an independent. That’s a signal to the Democratic establishment in CT that they aren’t going to get any help if they move off the reservation by supporting Lamont.
If I were part of that establishment, I suspect my attitude would be “Don’t let the door hit your ass, Chuck”, but I’m clearly not blessed with the instincts of a politician.
kirby (4) that sounds like a fun plan. Heh! Another kossack attack on the deserving.
I understand why Schumer wants to protect Lieberman. After all, the democrats wouldn’t want to go pissing Lieberman off. Who knows what he might do - Start stabbing fellow democrats in the back left and right? Defend bush in the war in Iraq? Take republican positions on family planning? Vote to prevent filibustering of extremist supreme court nominees? Give Bush standing ovations every time he mentions ‘terra’?
Any of these things are possible if we don’t keep Joe firmly in our corner.
So please, for the sake of the party, please back off on Schumer - he just doesn’t want to ruin a good thing. Surely we can all understand that?
“We are an organization of incumbents”????
Fuck him. You are an organization of representatives of the American public you jackass!
OT - CNN/Blitzer’s Beard - why do we care that tony snow “choked up” at his first briefing. He did so much choking to get that job, it shouldn’t be news anymore.
I’m sorry. Did Don Cuccio say he would support Ned Lamont before or after he said he wouldn’t?
And in the picture, is that Hillary asking the Don if he wants Ned to be sleeping with fishes?
MsAnnaNOLA says:
May 16th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Hey Pach anymore takers on Roots NOLA?
MsAnna, me. School is out and I’m coming home this week.
New Yorkers, please write to your “senators” and correct Chuck and Hillary. Please! Is there a google group for them up yet Pach?
to the DSCC, if Joe Stalin got elected as an Independent Senator from Connecticut, the only important question is whether he would support a Democrat for Senate leadership. The flip of Jeffords away from GOP to Independent (voting for Democrat leadership) flipped the power structure in the Senate temporarily…
Great stuff Pach. I agree with Cujo.
VICHY DemSchmuckie Schumur in New York puts someone like Ben Nelson in Nebraska in a less bad light.I have to believe that Schmuckie is extorting large cash deposits from conservatives for his support of Leibermann. Perhaps a very secondary benefit is that that cash doesn’t go directly to wingnuts.
IMO, Schmuckie’s “We haven’t taken a position on that yet” means, “I hope with all my
heartmight, that Joementum beats Ned in the primary, so I don’t have to dodge that question again.”Hey Schmuckie, go Dick Cheney yourself.
Cujo - I respond at the end of the last thread. Let’s just say we are in ways on different sides of parts of that debate. I have direct personal experience on the “job” front as an employer in AZ btw.
xyz- did you forget the snark tag? Hope so!
first, we can Liarberman, then we shitcan Screw-you-mer, then maybe we can take our party back.
Organization of incumbents? It sounds like a snooty club I wouldn’t want to belong to. Nice work Chuck.
“Fuck him. You are an organization of representatives of the American public you jackass!”
Bullseye.
xyz 20 — yes.
This is why I don’t support that Tripartate idea of the “new” dynamics of the Dem party: the pols, the “mainstream” and the netroots.
One, I consider myself part of the mainstream, and two, if we are not the mainstream all we can expect is the SOS from the pols - all we’ll be is marginalized.
At the end of the day there are only elected officials and voters. To paraphrase George Carlin: Why are there three?
CNN just showed some more pix of Valerie Whatshername in her Armani — damn, she’s hott ! Dazzling smile . . . Hubba-hubba…
What’s so hard about an 18-year incumbent Senator running in a Democratic primary saying he will unconditionally remain a Democrat?
I think the answers to both questions are the same.
I do like how Chuck is on a first-name basis with “Ned” now.
xyz @20 - That hurt to read!
Sounds like Schumer spells DSCC differently than anyone else: dScc. That might come as a surprise to Howard Dean. I wonder what the DNC thinks of the DSCC possibly not pledging to support the D in CT, whomever that may be?
Anyone heard from Dean on this?
EPU - in case you haven’t seen it already, I left you a post at 4:19 on the prior thread.
What Schumer is doing, unless I read this very wrong, is that he’s threatening to not support Lamont if Lieberman loses the Democratic primary and runs as an independent.
I don’t read it that way. I think he doesn’t want to say anything that could be interpreted to mean he thinks Lieberman can lose the primary, that’s all.
In PA today, I voted for progressive Pennacchio over too-conservative party choice Bob Casey for Senate, so I know how to ignore these guys. :)
Pach — a useful skill is knowing when not to ask the next question, because the answer you have so far is probably better than the next answer you can’t predict. Suppose the callers had stopped with Schumer’s answer about the moral imperative to elect Democrats. Ned may win the primary and he’s clearly a Democrat and would have won the most Democratic votes. So there’s an overwhelming argument to apply the principle: support the Democrat.
Obviously we have the benefit of hindsight, but wouldn’t that outcome be better than getting Schumer to say, twice more, that another option was on the table? The callers had boxed Schumer in, but kept pushing and forced him to keep another door open.
Organization of incumbents. Yeah, right. Conditionally incumbent. Right NYers?
BTW Ned’s Greenwald film looks and sounds great. I think Joe probably spent a lot on his souless diner ‘mercial.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 4:22 pm (#28) - Responded to your response there, as well.
*ilson attention to that kind of detail really does not serve you very well. ;) ;)
it is incumbent upon us to disrupt their cozy little club
Incumbent= S.O.S.
I don’t really care how much you’ve sniffed the wingnut seats of power because you, joey, have more face time than me– count me in, buddyboy. I am right behind you, sniffing your unholy trail. Maybe I’ll grow up to be a DINO too.
What’s so hard about an 18-year incumbent Senator running in a Democratic primary saying he will unconditionally remain a Democrat?
B/c long ago the little shit from CT stopped representing his constituents and decided the only person he needs to represent is the little shit.
We know of too many politicians who act the same way.
It is no different from the idea that we, and I think I can speak for all of us here, have never voted for any candidate so that they could turn their representation of us into a luxury lifestyle for themselves.
Long ago the Lieberman’s and the Schumer’s of the world sold their positions/souls (assuming they ever had one - I don’t think Lieberman ever did; Schumer I’m agnostic about) for their own aggrandizement.
It’s not about you baby; it’s all about them.
Number one: I don’t think he has even thought about it.
Number two: I’m a little hesitant of any blanket statement stating that they will unconditionally support the democratic nominee. Two words: Zell Miller.
So…..I’m curious. Suppose Leiberman wins the nomination over Lamont. But Lamont makes a real strong showing…final vote results are pretty darn close. Still, Lieberman wins the Deomcratic nomination.
A groundswell erupts for LAMONT to run as an independent. Lamont tosses his hat in the ring. Who do you support in the general election?
Ghostman
VG - see, *ilson can get away with that, whereas certain married guys might refrain -
ah, hell, she is awful purdy
Jason Leopold is such a hack. Do you think he will ever out his sources? No, because he has no sources — at best he’ll do what Tom Maguire said — pick three names at random from the White House staff list, accuse them of leaking to him and then when they deny it say “aha!”
He’s an absolute embarassment to anyone and everything he touches. No wonder Raw Story sacked him and every reputable blogger has denounced him. He makes Matt Drudge look like Murrow.
Prior thread, Cujo, I really liked your emphasis on white collar responsibility for illegal immigration.
Atty Gen. Gonzalez was asked about the legal status of his own immigrant parents - he said it was uncertain. UNCERTAIN??? If they were indeed naturalized, there’d be records somewhere and the parents would proudly retain the certificates. Face it: his parents were ‘wetbacks’ . . .
Thanks, Chuckie Headcheese. I just sent another donation to Ned Lamont in your honor.
scarecrow:
Not sure I follow you. His moral imperative is to have Dems in the majority, so if an Independent Lieberman promised to vote for Reid for Majority Leader, that fits his goal. Certainly, that’s not a choice he wants to have to face.
More than one person did the questioning, but the bloggers ask the questions their readers want answered, and in that context, I think the ramp up was entirely appropriate to tease out the DSCC’s position, to the extent it has one.
Jane, thanks - glad we are in agreement.
Seriously, how can the Democratic party consider supporting Lieberman as an independent?
This is a man who consistently crosses party lines to support the worst president in American history. He is not a Democrat. He is not even a traditional conservative.
Lieberman will go down in history as a Republican extremist for the sole reason that he chose the worst moment in history to give aid and comfort to the single worst president, and administration in american history. He chose to throw his support behind the worst and most virulent strain of Republican extremism that this country has ever seen.
It is beyond astonishing that any Democrat would choose this point in time to support this particular administration and this Republican congress. But it is what it is.
Rob Zuber @ 4:31 pm (#39) - If that were Schumer’s objective, he could have just said “We’ll support the Democratic nominee” and left it at that. Unless he’s just the putz I thought he was, there was a message for someone in there. He deliberately avoided saying they’d support the Democratic nominee under all circumstances, and instead made a point of saying fealty to Reid was an important consideration.
Pach - bravo!
The message Schumer is sending to party leaders in CT is “if you back Ned, don’t expect the big bucks for the election” and that can be a very effective tactic given that local parties depend on spillover from the bit senate campaign to help their candidates.
Schumer not committing to support the Dem is astonishing even in this climate and should, I think, be a sign to those who argue for loyalty to the party - it’s not even loyal to itself.
Ghostman: Lamont has promised to run as a Democrat, win or lose, and to support the choice of the state’s Dem voters. Lieberman has not made those promises, and his position on running as a potential Independent has been unclear. Schumer essesntially acknowledges this with his use of the words “I think. . .”
Cujo - from the Jack thread
How can Comey claim to know that there are foreign policy implications to this case? He’s in DoJ, not in the State Dept. I don’t get that. Is it common for a (Deputy) Attorney General to assert such a thing?
In the Arar case, the determinations as to how to handle Arar seem to have been made by FBI and Immigration initially and Immigration and it seems that the ultimate assertions of State Secrets where the originating actor is FBI probably should be the AG - FBI is within DOJ and AG is head of DOJ. (I guess immigration is now withing Dept H.Sec. and that is where Ridge came in - heck if I understand how they have DHS organized) Comey was Acting AG for that matter - Ashcroft was a named defendant and so they lawyered it (right call on this - even if I don’t like any of the rest) by having him recuse himself and Comey as Acting make the determination on State Secrets.
Hope that makes sense.
Rob Zuber @ 4:31 pm (#39) - BTW, great that you voted for Chuck P. Hopefully, many more will as well.
Schummer and Reid (S&R) are imperialisticly consistent. Screw what the people in the state want as a Dem nominee, (S&R), determine who runs, who they will support…Look what happened to a popular ex-marine who wanted to run for senate in Ohio. No wonder the dems keep losing with these losers (S&R) at the helm of the DSSC. They outbush Bush as deciders.
Ghostman 48. I will support the progressive in this case, because we got stabbed by too many coathangers in the back by this dick called Lieberman.
No wonder WE THE PEOPLE do not feel represented - because we aren’t. Political gamemanship vs. real people. Yuch!
————-
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you”. Friedrich Nietzche
WE NEED A NEW YORK NED!!!
NY progressives couldn’t get it together to run even a symbolic primary challenger against Schumer in 2004 (the year he defended the rectitude of torturing “ticking time bombs” at a hearing where other Democrats were tearing John Ashcroft a new rectitude of his own over Abu Ghraib).
So the door won’t be hitting Schumer in the ass until at least 2010.
Now the same lassitude is preventing NY progressives from getting behind Jonathan Tasini, or someone, to challenge Hillary.
If Connecticut has its Nedrenaline, can New York find its Tastosterone? Or some alternative energizing fluid?
Or to switch metaphors, where’s the asteroid for New York’s lumbering DINOs?
I’m in. If we can make requests, I’d like my copy to go to Ken Salazar. I’ll refrain from asking you to bounce it off his noggin.
he could have just said “We’ll support the Democratic nominee†and left it at that.
I disagree. I think the press would run the headline, “Schumer thinks Lamont can win!”.
And, oh yuck, I just discovered that man-on-dog boy himself votes only a few miles away from me. He did have a little trouble today, though. :)
58, Pach: got it. I prefer that Lamont have that attitude. Good for him. Now….last I read anything about this race, Lamont seems to be pretty far behind? I guess….well, I always considered Connecticut to be pretty liberal, and thus Lieberman’s many tilts towards Bush would put him in disfavor there.
Why aren’t the voters of that state feeling more negative towards ole Joe?
Ghostman
us Hoosier Democrats know about Conservative Democrats! The last Senator ever expelled from the Senate was Indiana’s Jesse Bright in 1862. A gun smuggler to the Confederates was caught with a letter of recommendation from Senator Bright addressed to Pres. Jefferson Davis. Now that’s conservative to the point of being actively traitorous in time of war…
Let Lieberman top that !
No, that’s clearly a situation where he should say of course we support whoever wins the primary, because this is a democracy, and the voters decide, not us powerful senators.
Helps to explain their approach to Ohio, pulling the rug out from under Hackett before he could even get going.
sorry, clicked on the wrong thread–I was having trouble with the comments section on the Action Alert thread so I had to reopen FDL.
Sure, Schumer is a mealy-mouthed corporate brownie-hound, and Lieberman is repug lite. But it’s unrealistic to expect the party to not favor incumbents. Dance with the one wot brung ya, the value of known versus unknown commodities, and all that.
Yo *ilson,
I’m sure you meant no offense, but we don’t tolerate racist monikers at the lake. Not for nationality, sexuality or parents of republicronies. Now say you’re sorry.
T-
Mary @ 4:39 pm (#59) - As much as any of this makes sense, I suppose. It’s hard to believe that the decision to send an innocent foreign national (from Canada, no less) off to some Third World dictatorship to be tortured could be construed as a national secret.
If I were Canada right now, I’d be trying to figure out how to flood America with unpasteurized cheese and extra-strong Labatt’s.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/sec.....Ntcm5ld3M-
Bush agrees to full NSA oversight by Congress
Color me jaded. IMO, this is so that people like Russ Feingold now get the “you can’t talk or speculate about classified information like the Fourth Amendment anymore” treatment. And Hoekstra and Roberts can take their martyrdom of, “gosh, after 5 years we may have to follow small tidbits of the law re: the things we decide to discuss because people are so PARTISAN” and saute it with liver and serve it up at the next RNC polkafest.
punaise #49 actually my comment had a bit more obscure intent, which I thought *ilson might get. So, you have my blessing to call Valerie whatshername a hottie, should you wish to do so. And so does *ilson, BTW. Not that any of you need my blessing!!
Yeah, I gotta say I don’t see that exchange as being so bad, either. He’s covering for his Senate colleague, but if Lamont wins, I will be shocked if the DSCC doesn’t support Lamont.
Of course, I’m shocked by stuff almost on a daily basis now, but still… To back an independent instead of the Dem nominee would be insane. And suicidal for the party. Unless the Dem nominee was, like, maybe a neo-Nazi or something, of course.
Cujo and D Mason - I respond back. But I think we should await the next immigration thread to continue the debate.
Ghostman, I don’t know if it is accurate to say Lamont is far behind. But I feel Lamont needs more major exposure: like a primetime commercial to combat Lieberman’s diner ‘mercial.
Tony choked? I thought sure he’d be an expert at sucking Karl Rove’s cock by now.
T- that’s being way too hard on *ilson. I appreciated the irony in his comment about Gonzales.
VG 75 - that is indeed a blessing, in dis guy’s
opinion
Pach - perhaps I’ve misuderstood something, but I thought what the callers really wanted was for Schumer to commit to support Ned Lamont if Ned Lamont won the primary. Since Schumer acknowledged that they basically support incumbents first — i.e., Lieberman — he couldn’t undermine Lieberman by saying, “but if Lamont wins the primary, he becomes the Democrat that we will support.” Such a statement would be interpreted as a boost for Lamont, and Schumer wasn’t going to do that.
So given that the callers couldn’t get what they really wanted, what’s the next best thing? I’m suggesting they might have settled for a statement that sounds like DCCC will support the Democrat as a moral imperative. Then leave it there and use that statement later, when/if Lamont wins. If that occurs, you can point to the moral imperative argument as a reason DCCC should support Lamont.
Pressing the issue wasn’t going to get Schumer to say what you wanted — he’d already made that clear - so perhaps it would have been best to let it drop at that point and take what you got, rather than risk opportunities to make the ambiguity worse. The next two answers open the door for the bad scenario you fear.
I’m just wondering out loud; I can’t really criticize the callers, who had to think/ask in real time. As I said, hindsight is great.
SP CPA - Yes, ChimpCo (Chimp & Associates Company, Inc.) just takes too long to type out) includes Cheney and any and all present and past (and future) members of the chimpministration.
As a proud Kinsey 6.1, I can abstractly admire the beauty of females. Valerie is stunningly good-looking!
And yes, “T-”, I thought for a while about using that word to describe Gonzalez’s parents - I put it in single quotes to delimit it. I just love the irony of Bush’s base knowing the parents of the Attorney General are “illegal aliens” aka undocumented workers.
78, mui…..somehow, I had it in my mind that Lamont was around 40 points or so behind. But I don’t know for sure. I hope he’s closer.
Tv time is what he needs? Hopefully he’ll get something lined up.
Ghostman
punaise- not that anyone needs my blessing!
I think Chuckie just added fuel to the fire to support Ned Lamont. After he was on a call with bloggers who are leading the charge against Liberman. One of the many things that bloggers do is call the establishment on their crap, and encourage people to follow up and take action.
Mary @ 4:47 pm (#74) Cynic that I am, I suspect that this promise will evaporate the moment that Hayden is confirmed. I really don’t think Bush cares what Feingold says, not enough people will listen. He may care about what his own base wants, and even they don’t want their phone calls monitored (they probably just want the press’ phone calls monitored). Let’s just say that Arlen Specter isn’t the only one who’s been inexplicably changing his mind lately.
We’ve seen plenty of promises from the various Republican leaders about full and complete hearings, and we have yet to see one materialize. Until that day dawns, I remain, shall we say, a bit skeptical.
scarecrow:
I can’t speak for everyone on the call, but I think the goal was to find out the DSCC’s position, and not to engineer a particular response, like an attorney trying to get a certain result into the record.
Scarecrow at #40 above:
This is SO true.
Know when to accept the answer you have when you have an agenda for asking the question.
If you don’t have an agenda, then go ahead and push. But obviously that wasn’t the case here.
The questioner had a good answer. “We have never not supported the Democrat.” That’s your sound byte. That’s when you say “OK, great. Thanks much. That’s all we need to know.”
Then you walk away.
I’m sure Schumer feels he has nothing to lose by backing lieberman and nothing to gain by acknowleging Lamont.At this time.I’m also sure that Schumer has felt the rumblings of the netroots concerning Lamont. my take on this exchange is, When have you ever heard any politician give a straight answer to anything?That’s their trade! Bullshit,vague answers to everything.God forbid they should take a stand on anything that could change and then make them look bad. Narcistic egomaniacs do not like sunshine,just like vampires.
Hey you guys, I now Plame is a lot cuter than Lieberman, but . . .Isn’t Ned the cutest of all?
Ghostman, dunno about polls, because the Lamont race is gathering speed I think. Check out the press on his campaign site.
Yes, we need a primetime slot, or something like “Nancy Johnson caught redhanded,†but starring Joe as the bad guy, and Ned as our good guy.
Fair enough.
To put it another way, our agenda was to discover the truth related to the question.
I can’t speak for everyone on the call, but I think the goal was to find out the DSCC’s position, and not to engineer a particular response, like an attorney trying to get a certain result into the record.
But that is exactly the opposite of what happened.
I have to say, no disrespect intended, that it sounds exactly like someone was trying to engineer a particular response. And that’s where the trouble started.
Always remember the wise words of Bob Ross (may he rest in peace): Don’t overmix the colors, or you’ll get mud.
The questioner overmixed the colors. Got mud.
*ilson- oh dear, I hope you have figured out that I was kidding, and what I was kidding about. Sometimes I am way too obscure. Certain people do have a kind of compelling natural charisma, that works for both sexes. Valerie. Fitz.
VG - no apologies needed. I caught the humor … others might not. Sometimes its important to let others know I am one of those self-avowed homosexuals!
VG- the pejorative does not add to the irony.
Peace.
T-
OT- WOW, I’m just now catching up on the day’s news and am absolutely hyperventilating at the news from Gore. Could it be true??? Do we have a ray of hope???? YEOW!!!!!
*ilson- thanks. I am glad to know. BTW, my absolutely favorite game growing was “Clue”.
*ilson:
But are you “practicing?”
I am choosing to clutch that ray of hope, meta!
don’t blog, don’t tell
angie, ange, where are you?
This Schumer/Clinton business is really disturbing me. But we got NOW.
Nice caption, Pach. From the same film, “I don’t want my brother coming out of that toilet with just his dick in his hand.” Dammit, we don’t want Ned coming out of that primary with just his dick in his hand.
The dem party should certainly be supporting Bernie Sanders in Vermont even if some obscure registered dem filed the paperwork to run as a democrat. Of course Lieberman is no Sanders.
fuck the “practicing”. At 64 years old, if I don’t have down pretty good by now, all the practice in the world won’t help …
I think what’s “hard” about Schumer saying what you want him to say is that he’s just the chair and not inclined to get out in front of the whole organization and take a position that they haven’t discussed. Now, if you think they actually have discussed it and he’s just lying about it, that’s a different issue.
Maybe it seems obvious that the DSCC should automatically support every D nominee but there’s always the possibility of some David Duke type winning a nomination where I wouldn’t want the party to be automatically throwing support around. Now, obviously that has zero applicability to Lamont, but maybe it helps explain why there isn’t a policy to that effect.
Lisa 95 — that was quite gifted. “Engineer a response” — is that newspeak for “get a straight answer?” Because that’s all I saw.
Hi mui– It’s unfortunately looking like a triad. Unfortunately, tripods and triangles and triads are fairly sturdy; that is, until the cow kicks the milk stool right over. We gotta get a moooove on. Keep the faith– we are helping Lamont out here!
T- thanks for the response. I don’t endorse use of demeaning phrases, and I apologize if that is how it came out. Oddly the term conjures up a double meaning to me. Growing up in SoCal I am well aware of the insulting nature. But, because I also know some stories first hand, to me it also conjures up a certain kind of heroism and faith in the future. Over and out. Peace.
I think we should get Randi to yell at Schumer. I heard she’s good at that.
Thanks for organizing the book project. I came late. I missed to whom and what address to ship the book?
Watson:
The RP volunteers are picking up the books at the store, so just select “In store pickup.”
Thanks!
Does anyone know who among Air America supports Lamont, besides Seder. I love Sam Seder, but women to talk women’s issues are best in my opinion.
Jane @ 109:
I was using someone else’s phrase (Pach’s, maybe?). “Engineer a response” was in his/her comment. I just repeated the phrase.
I think the questioner got a straight answer when Schumer said they’ve always supported the Dem nominee. That’s the answer.
As mentioned by someone else above, Schumer doesn’t want to sound like he’s doubting an incumbent Dem’s ability to win a primary. That’s understandable. So he doesn’t want to come out and say, “Sure, if Lieberman loses, we’ll support Lamont.”
So he said it without saying it. That’s my take on the exchange. And I personally would have left it at that and not continued asking, because it seems to me that is where it went off the beam.
That’s all I’m saying.
CTG book project info: http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....%e2%80%99/