Lieberman's Republican Support

During the final weeks of the primary campaign, Lieberman was fond of attacking Lamont for his "out of state donors," despite waves of evidence compiled by MyDD and other sources that he was collecting out of state donations hand over fist. He was also often defensive, claiming that he was not George Bush. However, unsurprisingly, like everything else Lieberman says, that turns out to be basically untrue as well. From the Hartford Courant:
In the general election, in which Lieberman ran as an "independent Democrat," his take from Republicans soared 80 percent. He collected more money from Republicans than from Democrats. And of major donors - giving $200 and more - Republicans exceeded Democrats.

Officially, the White House stayed out of Lieberman's 2006 race, and Lieberman, who today caucuses with Senate Democrats, did not actively seek its support. But the signs from the White House were unmistakable.

"A lot of people would call and ask, `What's our position?"' Charles R. Black Jr. said last week. The former Bush adviser, who remains close to the president, said, "And I'd say, `There's no official position, but if I were you, I'd help Joe Lieberman.'"

There were other signals. On primary day, White House political guru Karl Rove called the senator. "He's a personal friend," Rove said later. "I called him. It was a personal call."

That call, leaked to media organizations at the time, "sent a message to Republicans across the country to embrace this guy. When Karl Rove calls, most Republicans ask how high they should jump," veteran GOP strategist Scott Reed said last week.

Throughout the campaign, the White House and Republican Party sent other veiled, and less veiled, messages. Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, would mention at rallies how the Democratic Party had moved away from Lieberman. Sen. Susan M. Collins, R-Maine, campaigned with Lieberman two weeks before the election. Melvin Sembler, a former Bush administration ambassador to Italy and former GOP finance chairman, held a fundraiser at his Florida home.(...)

Other Republican donors included brewery chairman Peter Coors, former New York Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato, Wall Street financier Henry Kravis, real estate magnates Trammell and Harlan Crow, and John C. Whitehead, a deputy secretary of state in the Reagan administration.

After Lieberman's victory, exit polls found he received the support of 70 percent of Connecticut Republicans, 34 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents.
70% support from Republicans, eh? With Republicans making up 26% of the electorate in Connecticut, that means Ned Lamont would currently be the junior Senator from Connecticut had Lieberman received less than 35% of Republican support. Overwhelming Republican support was crucial to his campaign, and the constant pro-Lieberman messaging, donations, and signals of Republican support were crucial to making that happen (that, and Alan Schlesinger was a complete joke). Among only Democrats and Independents, Lamont defeated Lieberman by 7%-twice the size of his victory in the primary when only Democrats were voting.

When conducted by players in the DLC-nexus, bipartisanship has always actually meant "joint attacks on the left." There are cases when bipartisanship is not like that, such as when Russ Feingold is able to scrape together a majority coalition. However, it is clear that for Lieberman, Republicans were always his main base of support. Had he not always been so willing to criticize the left, he would never have been so loved in a Republican town like the political industry in Washington, D.C., and by establishment media that was slowly being dominated by the Republican Noise Machine. At the very least, now that he was forced to win an election via overt Republican support, his ability to speak on behalf of Democrats has been annihilated. Everyone knows in the last election that Joe Lieberman was basically the Republican nominee. This is just the latest evidence supporting that claim.

Update: Dan Gerstein back in September:
A top aide to U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman adamantly is denying a thinly sourced report that the White House used big Republican donors to secretly funnel "millions of dollars" to the three-term senator's campaign committee before the Democratic primary last month.

But while Lieberman's campaign spokes-man, Dan Gerstein, insists there is "not a shred of truth" to the story now being widely circulated on the Internet, he also promised readers of the senator's new campaign "blog" that he would "look into whether or not serious Republican contributions have been made to Joe's campaign."
I wonder how Gerstein's investigation went. Probably about as well as the FBI's investigation into the supposed "hack" on Lieberman's website. Yet more lies from Lieberman's camp.

Tags: CT-Sen, Fundraising, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Republicans, Senate 2006 (all tags)



Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Lieberman first got elected in 1988 with the help of conservatives (e.g. one of the Buckleys) and Republicans who didn't like Lowell Weicker.

That he got re-elected with the help of these guys in 06 isn't a surprise.

If the CT media fell for it and failed to inform their readers, then, shame on them.

Also, happy you make the distinction here:

When conducted by players in the DLC-nexus, bipartisanship has always actually meant "joint attacks on the left." There are cases when bipartisanship is not like that, such as when Russ Feingold is able to scrape together a majority coalition.

Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy have teamed up many times over the years, and no one would deem Hatch a liberal sympathizer or Kennedy a sellout.

by Newsie8200 2007-03-19 09:06AM | 0 recs
Is there a way to recall a Senator in CT

Any CT people interested in starting the ball rolling?

by jasmine 2007-03-19 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Is there a way to recall a Senator in CT

I am from Ct and actively worked as a democrat on Ned Lamont's campaign.I also have volunteereed numerous times in my town's registrar's office signing up new voters so I do have some feeling for the Ct voters.They are overwhelmingly independent in their registration.This had little to do with the victory acheived by Lieberman.The republicans were caught flatfooted with a weak candidate because no one ever dreamed Joe would go off the dem line of the voting booths.Lamont was a dark horse to say the least.The tipping point for Joe that put him in DC instead of Ned was the old power base of republicrats that cave dwell in Joe's home county(New Haven ) and gave him just enough support to win.I personally will never vote for them again as I do live in one of the districts that had a state official that stuck with Joe against our wishes in the primary.I have since stopped working at the state level as a dem volunteer.I will work for federal and some local candidates and I am as we speak.The repukes here did support Joe but it was the old school dems that gave him the push he needed to win.

by kittycago 2007-03-19 09:48AM | 0 recs
the old school dems

and who were constantly reassured by the Dem Establishment cough Bill Clinton cough cough (sorry about that, frog in my throat) who reassured them that a vote for Joe was a good Democratic vote.

Thanks Bill, thanks Ken.

by BlueinColorado 2007-03-19 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

According to the state of secretary site the Ct republicans make up about 19%-21% of the electorate based on recent numbers.

You take away Farefield county and that republican number dips to the 10%-13% range.

The 2008 election is going to be all about getting the under-35 (college student, post-graduate, youngworker) and minorities out to the polls.

by Djneedle83 2007-03-19 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

If the blacks do not show up to vote in the South Carolina democratic primary in 2008 then Barack Obama has no chance to win the nomination.

The minority vote is so key to a Obama nomination in 2008. That is why I strongly feel that Edwards is going to pull off the upset and take home the nomination.

by Djneedle83 2007-03-19 09:24AM | 0 recs
Local media not helping

Everyone knows in the last election that Joe Lieberman was basically the Republican nominee.

But not enough people knew it before the election. For sure, CT Republicans were receptive to Lieberman's messaging, and progressive / liberal voters who were already averse to Lieberman's stances knew what was going on with the Republicans' kabuki. But this was not getting coverage in the local media, and Lieberman was able to play up the "independent / bipartisan" crap in his sound bytes just enough to string along the independents / unaffiliateds, moderates, and the dreaded low-information voters.

What vexes me is that how little reporting there's been of the Lieberpublican connection after the election, and also the almost total lack of reporting on Lieberman making statements that directly contradict his wishy-washy "Nobody wants to end the war more than I do / I want to bring the troops home in the right way" pre-election quotes. This Hartford Courant piece is way, way overdue but sadly I don't anticipate much more ink being spent on this. (At least we have Colin McEnroe and the local blogs... it's a start.)

I was telling voters that Lieberman had lost touch with Connecticut, but thanks to the local media, it's also true that a chunk of CT voters have lost track of Lieberman.

by joesaho 2007-03-19 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Local media not helping

It certainly hasn't helped in the past, and why should we here in CT expect it to change?  I had numerous conversations with Republican college students who signed on to help Lieberman during the general election.  Did the typical voter know about this?  No.

Instead, we got stories about how Joe has "stood up" to President Bush multiple times.  How imnportant it was to Joe to make sure the troops get brought home.  The local media aided and abetted this disaster, and so did the D.C. Democrats Thanks, Bill Clinton, for that recorded voice message supporting Joe, and thanks to everyone else, including Barbara Boxer, of all people, who campaigned for him.

Thank goodness for the local blogs.  Yet another instance where MSM aids and abets a disastrous status quo.

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Local media not helping

funny you should say that .Just last week in Stop and Shop,CtVoter, I told a "Joe guy "that I did not start opposing Joe when he turned into a Bushbot on the Iraq war.I turned on Joe when he voted to support Bush's energy policy and then claimed to be a friend of the envoirment.He was shocked when I told him Joe voted in favor of Bush's or should I say Cheney's energy policy.I suggested he did not vote at all in the future if he did not know the issues.

by kittycago 2007-03-19 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

The Democratic Party establishment could have pressured the local media into calling a "fair race," but it didn't because it cut a deal with Lieberman.  That's why 1 out of 3 Dems voted for Lieberman, and why he won so many independents, despite being on the wrong side of the issues and, on a daily basis, lying so overtly.

by justinh 2007-03-19 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

That is why it BLEW MY MIND when he gave the Democratic radio response a couple of weeks ago.  P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.  

I really don't get it.

by paida 2007-03-19 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

I guess what surprises me the most about the Conn Senate race of 2006 is the blog community did not see this coming.  First of all Republicans have always been regarded as more strategic voters than Democrats, the fact is the Conn Gop has been reduced to what it is, thier nominee got 10% of the vote.  The Democratic party veterans who by in large do not belong to the blog cummunity were too amused at a GOP nominee getting single digit votes against what they saw as two Democrats, ala Bill Clinton's statement on Larry King, to care which Democrat won.

Now I am going to say this so if it happens you have heard it, no matter how many seats the Democrats gain in 2008 nothing or next to nothing will happen the Joe Liebermans status in the Senate from the Democratic caucus.  The GOP percentage in Conn will continue to decline as Republican voter in Conn will either become Indepednets or Conservative Democrats.  At some point expect the DSCC to attempt to persuade Sen Lieberman to return full fledge to the party, becasue they will tell him they consider him a full fledge member anyway.  Finally if he runs in 2012 do not expect the DSCC or most party Veterans to back a net roots supported candidate who may challange Lieberman what the DSCC wants is Sen Lieberman to run as a Democrat and be unopposed.

I say this so no one can say they were caught off guard if my preditions come to pass.

by THE MODERATE 2007-03-19 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

"The blog community did not see this coming..."  Huh?  What blogs were you reading?

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

All though out the blogs and MYDD included.  Most Bloggers thought that Lamont would win in the end.  That the Democrats would rally around him the that would lead and October at the latest Lieberman would be through.  To clairify I am speaking of post primary results not pre primary results, but even with a week to go in the election I recall most on this blog believed Lamont would pull it out.

by THE MODERATE 2007-03-19 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support
in the ten days or so after the election, a lot of people believed that, a lot of Establishment Democrats were hinting that someone was going to sit Joe down for a talk. Around about the time Bill Clinton went on TeeVee (Larry King, late August, IIRC) and said that it didn't matter who won because Lamont and Lieberman were both good Democrats, quickly echoed by Rahm Emmanuel and the DCCC, I figured out that little talk wasn't gonna happen. When the DSCC spent no money in CT, when support from other Democrats came chiefly in the form of press releases, I figured out what was going on. I think most people here did.
I had trouble believing, and still have trouble believing, that Iraq was no big deal to so many voters, but as the polls stayed stuck through October, I was hopeful but not opimistic.
by BlueinColorado 2007-03-19 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

I think part of what happened was that Lieberman ran as an anti-war candidate leading into November.  It was enough to confuse voters.

by justinh 2007-03-19 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

There was an interesting backstory to that hinted "sit down talk with Joe"

"...Members of the team headed off another crisis during the summer by convincing the DNC to kill a resolution calling on Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who enjoys iconic status in the Jewish community, to drop out of the Senate race when it became apparent he would lose to anti-war newcomer Ned Lamont, who won the August primary.

"If the DNC had done that, it would have been a tremendous problem for the Democrats" because of Lieberman's stature, Dorf said..." ntent.php3?artid=13260

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

I think Ned laying low immediately after the primary was a mistake - the campaign should have had an attack plan ready to spring on Aug. 9th to paint Lieberman as a sore loser, etc. But realistically, if the campaign was being told that they were going to have a sit-down with Joe and some party elders, what else could they do?

With regards to your second point - it was amazing talking to voters how many were firmly against the Iraq war, but were either unaware of the extent to which Lieberman's nose was up Bush's @$$ on this one, or had some weird attachment to good ole' Joe despite their strong feelings on Iraq. We did what we could with our calls and door knocks... but like we're saying downthread the local media had a lot to do with this problem with regards to Dems and independent voters.

by joesaho 2007-03-19 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

When did Wolfson come on-board?  Was it directly after the primary - I can't remember?  Also, was it him that shifted Lamont supposedly to the middle, or Lamonts initial advisors?

Honestly, I didn't follow the campaign that closely, I know a couple of bloggers posted some analysis on the campaign... but I didn't read them in detail as you never get the truly evil dirt that went on...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

It was after the primary.  I don't recall Ned "shifting to the middle," though.

by justinh 2007-03-19 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Moving to the middle I seem to remember was Arianna Huffington's critique of the Lamont campaign?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 10:59AM | 0 recs
I agree with the postprimary problem..

It literally was, post-primary, all Joe, all the time, and the Lamont campaign was too quiet.  That allowed the schema of "Bipartisan Joe, just doin' what I can to make sure CT doesn't get hijacked by the lefty loonies" to solidify.

The local media bought it hook, line and sinker, and the national Dems just didn't want to recognize the Joe Lieberman that truly is.  

And I don't agree that local bloggers thought Lamont was going to win.  The polls consistently showed Lieberman up, and if people were overly optimistic or underestimating Lieberman, it sure wasn't apparent to me.

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

The bloggers looked in thw wrong direction here in Ct -they loked at the republicans not the republicrats.We have some very fat and happy people here in state goverment that run unopposed right now.I am hoping that will change but the change will not come from Joe's power base where I live and that is New Haven County.They don't call this Corrupticut for nothing.

by kittycago 2007-03-19 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

It's true that alot of old machine Dems like Amann stayed with Lieberman,  But they seemed to have represented a wider swath of CT voters who didn't know or care about Lieberman's stand on ths issues.  A familiar face versus a millionaire trying to buy Lieberman's seat--that was the line I head from most low-info voters.

by justinh 2007-03-19 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

yes I just posted a perfect example of that in a response to Ct voter.A nation of headline readers do not make informed choices on political representatives do they?Maybe c-span should have a text message contest for the hottest guy and girl in congress so we can get voters to watch what these people do on the floors of Congress.

by kittycago 2007-03-19 10:03AM | 0 recs
And don't forget...

"Joe's experience".  That's what I heard from mostly low information voters.  

The name "Ned Lamont" and "millionaire" were never separated throughout the campaign in the media--print and TV.  The support by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama was played up in the MSM, so that third of Democratic voters who went to the polls in November could rest easy by telling themselves that while Joe wasn't great, he still had the support of big Dems, and therefore, couldn't be all that bad.

The media share a responsibility for this shared delusion, of course.

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: And don't forget...

I think that's exactly right.

by justinh 2007-03-19 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

My DTC chair was backing Lieberman in the primary, appeared to support Lamont in the general (saw him at the fourth debate) but after the election I read he was in attendance at Joe's inauguration party. Grrrh.

by joesaho 2007-03-19 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

And the CT State Party Chair was also at the party, wasn't she?

by justinh 2007-03-19 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

I can't recall if she was there or not though from her stances throughout '06 and since the election, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Hey Justin - can you fill in the story on McDonough at all?

Thanks... Ken

by joesaho 2007-03-19 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Oh, hey Ken, what's happening?

Remember when he came by the polls on primary day?  He told us he was supporting Ned, but Shanley told me he was undermining their efforts in the Hamden office during the general.  So, not sure what his deal was.  What did you hear?

by justinh 2007-03-19 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

I heard similar things - I had been doing all my work in the New Haven office but someone who also spent time in Hamden said they got yelled at or something. After the debate at Quinnipiac though, McD was there and I have a photo of him chatting with Ned:

I couldn't hear what he was saying... but now I'm really curious as to what was said! Maybe we'll have to ask CTBob (in the right of the frame) if he has the audio...

by joesaho 2007-03-19 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Update

With reagrd to DanGerstein, the point is this:  Lieberman's campaign lied all day long every day, and they knew they could, because the mainstream media, paticularly local TV news, wasn't covering any of it.

They were like local sportscasters, whose job isn't to report objectively but to booster the home team (of Joe Lieberman).  After exchanging several e-mails with one station's political correspondent, it was clear to me that they had little idea that they were confusing the two.

by justinh 2007-03-19 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Update

The local TV news was just dreadful during this election.  "Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont", without any other information, seemed to be the only way for the TV stations to refer to Lamont.  And the day after the primary was all Joe, all the time.

The implications of the primary results, the Joe Flops, etc, were not even mentioned or discussed.  

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Update

It was downright maddening.  If they were going to identify Ned as a millionaire every time, you'd think they would at least mention how Lieberman refused to agree to spending limits in the election, and then even when on to outspend Ned.

by justinh 2007-03-19 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

channel 8 or 6 ?or both?Joe goes to the diners and gives them good stories so they all know Joe.He gives them some time they give him an elelction.

by kittycago 2007-03-19 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

It was Mark Davis.  

by justinh 2007-03-19 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Watching Mark David bias reports on ch 8 was like watching Fox News.  Ahh then again Fox news was here in my town on election day with Lieberman.  

by orion1 2007-03-19 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Channel 8 out of New Haven is the ABC affiliate. Nuff said.

by VizierVic 2007-03-19 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Are we just basing Lieberman's 'republican' contributions based on what Rove said alone, or is there clear evidence within FEC records identifying 'strictly' partisan republican donors?

Because, for example, if I look at Lieberman's and Hillary's 'major' contributions via geographical sorting - I can't see much difference between the two candidates - I'm a little confused? Looking at the geographical breakdown could Hillary's campaign also been financed by republicans as well?  For example, is zip code: 10021 predominately republican or democratic - or deemed evenly split? Alternatively, maybe not even partisan just corporate candidate based?

Contributions by Geography

In-State vs. Out-of-State:
In-State $14,982,610 (45.7%)
Out-of-State $17,795,576 (54.3%)
No State $2,925 (0.0%)

Top Metro Areas:
NEW YORK $11,750,042
BOSTON, MA-NH $918,868

Top Zip Codes:
10021 (New York, NY) $1,623,812
10022 (New York, NY) $711,150
10028 (New York, NY) $575,516
10023 (New York, NY) $555,520
10128 (New York, NY) $553,700
10024 (New York, NY) $529,595
10019 (New York, NY) $350,600
10011 (New York, NY) $307,130
20007 (Washington, DC) $287,707
10025 (New York, NY) $287,257 eog.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2006


Contributions by Geography

In-State vs. Out-of-State:
In-State $5,756,887 (20.0%)
Out-of-State $23,064,331 (80.0%)
No State $230,168 (0.8%)  

NEW YORK $4,929,011
BRIDGEPORT $2,539,427
HARTFORD $1,754,938

Top Zip Codes:
10021 (New York, NY) $861,700
06831 (Greenwich, CT) $533,800
90210 (Beverly Hills, CA) $424,693
06830 (Greenwich, CT) $373,650
10028 (New York, NY) $343,500
10022 (New York, NY) $309,400
06880 (Westport, CT) $306,418
10024 (New York, NY) $293,120
06117 (West Hartford, CT) $279,850
10583 (Scarsdale, NY) $228,350 eog.asp?CID=N00000616&cycle=2006

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

I'm not sure what the point of this is.  You think a comparison between someone who is running for President (a nationwide office) and someone who is running for Senator, in terms of the geographical financial support, is meaningful?  

The issue isn't whether Hilary is getting money from the same geographical locations that Joe did, but the amount of money dumped into this race by Republicans who supported the once-Democratic candidate, and the total lack of interest in this fact by the local (statewide) media.

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Lieberman had the second lowest percentage of in-state cash of any Senator elected in 2006 (behind Kent Conrad of North Dakota at 6.9% in a low money campaign).  The most similar patterns can be found in small states (most likely among Democrats): Tom Carper of Delaware (23.8%), Ted Kennedy of MA (31.8%), Jon Tester of MT (33.7%), Sheldon Whitehouse of RI (28.4%), Bernie Sanders of VT (20.2%), Olympia Snowe of Maine (34.4%) and Orrin Hatch of Utah (28.2%)  Exclude Ted Kennedy and look at the electoral votes: 3,3,4,3,4,5.  

Lieberman coming from a larger state (7 electorals) should have gotten more in-state money.  What really would prove more would be an examination of individual donors.  If 40% of Joe's money came from in-state, he would have received 5.7 million more.  So, at most $5 million of odd money came in, not enough to tip the campaign.  A good portion of this was not Republican money.  As a visibly observant Jew, Holy Joe profited directly from large donations from a small, national group.

The "message" from the Republicans that Joe was the de facto GOP candidate hurt.  The message from the Democratic establishment hurt more.  It was the message, rather than the money, that, IMO, told the tale here.  

by David Kowalski 2007-03-19 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

No, this was when both were running for the 2006 Election 'Senate' seats.

So, then you have to look 'where' was the money dumped from - quickly into Liebermans campaign?

Appearing geographically 'maybe' from the 'same' fundraising stream as Hillary?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Huh.  Hilary was chosen by the Democratic voters to represent the Democrats in the general election.  Joe Lieberman wasn't chosen by the Democratic voters to do the same.  Yet they both raised lots of dollars from the "same" geographical areas and still, what's the point that you're trying to make?  Other than people with lots of money to donate to political campaigns tend to be clustered in the same geographical areas.  Next, we'll find out that George Bush also raised money from the SAME AREAS.  

Must be a conspiracy.

What's to be made of the disparity between in-state and out-of-state contributions in Lieberman's campaign?  

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 10:36AM | 0 recs
Lieberman's committee work

Pardon my pimping a diary I wrote, but this all helps explain the fact that Lieberman's committee, arguably the most important investigative committee in the Senate, Waxman's counterpoint - has done absolutely no government oversight whatsoever

No subpoenas, no government officials testifying, nada.

He did rearrange the seating and praise Senator Collins effusely though.  She was heard to comment:

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, ranking Republican on the committee, told Lieberman she was "happy to sit either on your left or your right."

Why would you investigate the people who funded your run, and will fund his 2012 reelection bid?

You dance with the one that brought you.

by scientician 2007-03-19 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

I thought the money angle was what we were looking at... not whether Hillary was or wasn't the Democratic candidate?

We have a CT senator, with dubious democratic credentials (DLC stampage tho') seemingly to all of a sudden get big bucks in his campaign.  Looking at his campaign funding details his top donors coming from a neighboring state interestingly what looks like a similar funding stream to another dubious democratic candidate (definite DLC stampage tho').

That's why I'm asking -- If the fact has been raised that big 'republican' bucks poured into Liebermans campaign late in the game -- I'm asking where did it come from?  Did it come from the same geographically area, even breaking it down further, the same individuals, corporations as Hillary?

"What's to be made of the disparity between in-state and out-of-state contributions in Lieberman's campaign?"

You don't think it strange that the majority of Lieberman's money doesn't come from his own state?  Are there are other 'established' senators that have this same phenomenon?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

I do think it's strange that the majority (by a longshot) of Lieberman's financing came outside of CT.  

I just don't see the parallels between Clinton and Lieberman because, please note: Clinton was chosen by Democratic voters in a Democratic primary.  Lieberman wasn't.  And still ran.

The fact that they both received lots of funding from the same (roughly speaking) geographical areas isn't all that surprising, because regardless of party affiliation, those areas are where the money is.  

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Clinton being 'chosen' by Democratic voters is not the issue I'm interested in.  I'm more interested in the 'funding stream.'

There does seems to be a connection, i.e. significant zipcodes.  Now, I have no idea how large those zipcodes are, or the political profile of those zipcodes?

However you say:

"because regardless of party affiliation, those areas are where the money is."

BINGO! However, I do think party affiliation, or more importantly party philosophy is important. Also, we all know that money (at that level!) is not given to a candidates for their health, it's given for access, power and influence - that's not a conspiratory.

So... Is the top donor funding stream of Lieberman the same as Hillary's?  Could it mean that Hillary is tapping into the same republican/corporate money?  Now, I realize we need more of a breakdown about 'who' was contributing in those zipcodes, if that's possible, but it's still made me wonder if they do have a similar funding connections.  That's all...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Somehow, I don't think that's all you are wondering about.

What about Dennis Kucinich's fundraising?  What if it shows the exact same pattern?  Since we don't have the exact breakdown of party affiliation, let's just speculate.  If Kucinich's funding "stream" appears to be the same as Clinton, Lieberman, and any other candidate, what would be your conclusion?

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Stop pulling crap out of thin air?  I've told you what I'm interested in...

What has Dennis Kucinich's fundraising raising got to with DLC Lieberman and Hillary?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

There's a huge difference between Dennis Kucinich's party/political philosophy and the v. close and interesting relationship politically and possibly financially between DLC Lieberman and DLC Hillary, the latter correlation is far far more relevant... really!

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

You seem to imply that the same supporters (the Republican donors who poured money into Lieberman's campaign this fall) of Lieberman are also supporting Clinton.  And you point to geographical fundraising as your evidence.  

If Kucinich, who is, policy-wise, quite different from Clinton and Lieberman, then your whole hypothesis about the same "fundraising" stream must be extended to any candidate, whether Lieberman, Clinton, or, for that matter, Brownback.  Which might suggest that those geographical areas are where people who donate to political campaigns live--not that Republican donors are financing Clinton just because Lieberman and Clinton's donors are in the same geographical area.

Kucinich is just a counter example.

Remember, since we're not talking about the party affiliation of donors here, this is all just speculation.

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

You seem to imply that the same supporters (the Republican donors who poured money into Lieberman's campaign this fall) of Lieberman are also supporting Clinton.  And you point to geographical fundraising as your evidence.
Yep -- there could be a relationship there.

Your second paragraph: But Brownback's not a DLC Democrat? So, there's a pretty big variable right there that doesn't make the comparison between the two candidates relevant.

Again, Kucinich is not a DLC Democratic, nor holds even remotely the same democratic philosophy as both Lieberman and Clinton, so is alway irrelevant as a comparison.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Again, Kucinich is not a DLC Democrat, nor holds even remotely the same democratic (corporate) philosophy as both DLC Lieberman and DLC Hillary, so is irrelevant as a comparison.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

If his fundraising mirrors Lieberman's and Clinton's, he's evidence (because he's so different) that what ties all those areas together is a willingness on the inhabitants to contribute to political campaigns in general.  That's all.

The fact that Kucinich is so different is not irrelevant to the argument--it's precisely the point.

This is all pie in the sky, anyway, until party affiliation is available.

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Republican Support

Huh? For one thing, in reality, both Brownback and Kunnich don't have any geographically fundraising similarities.  Lieberman and Clinton do.

However, if in your fantasy comparison and Brownback did have a similiar geographical fundraising stream along with Lieberman and Hillary, then I would wonder even more if there wasn't a republican funding stream going into our ultra corporate DLC candidates?

Regarding your question on party affiliation, that's why I wanted to know if there was a way to breakdown 'who' was giving money to 'both' candidates, say in the most popular $$$ zipcode code: 10021?  If there is a correlation, then I think that's a significant finding.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-19 01:32PM | 0 recs
Well, you could have seen this coming...

JOe was pretty straightforward about the fact that not much was going to be done with "his" committee...

Still, at least they've rearranged the seats...I know I will sleep easier tonight knowing that thorny problem has been resolved.

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, you could have seen this coming...

what's the thinking in CT on Lieberman going for another term (I know it's five years off, and I'm a huge political dork, I'm just curious if there's any rumors on the ground back east)?

by BlueinColorado 2007-03-19 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, you could have seen this coming...

I haven't heard a wink--maybe others have.

I think Joe might have a more difficult time of it if he choses to run again.  Provided, of course, that any sort of reasonable candidate runs against him, and uses every Joe flop to their advantage.

by CTvoter 2007-03-19 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, you could have seen this coming...

I doubt he runs again.  Anecdotaly, I'd say about half of the Dems who voted for Lieberman in the general did so because they thought they sent him a wake-up call in the primary.  But after supporting the surge and blocking Katrina investigations, they feel betrayed.  The Hartford Courant had a piece on this.

by justinh 2007-03-19 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, you could have seen this coming...

I wonder if Lamont would run again?

by kittycago 2007-03-19 12:38PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads