Maybe I was wrong yesterday when I wrote that Lieberman was campaigning on behalf of Republican candidates. However, whether I was right or wrong, he clearly is not supporting Democratic candidates. He just said so himself:Declaring himself a "non-combatant," U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in remarks at a New Haven press event Friday, raised anew the question of whether his "independent" candidacy will help Republicans hold onto three Congressional seats in Connecticut -- and control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

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

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

Lieberman made the remarks at a Friday morning photo op held in the rain under an I-95 overpass in the Fair Haven neighborhood to tout his role in bringing $50 million to the state to help ease transportation gridlock.

"It's a little awkward for me now" to endorse the Democratic candidates in the general election," he said, "since they all endorsed my opponent," Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont. What a crybaby. It's "awkward?" Grow up. He won't support his party's nominees unless his party's nominees defy the will of the voters? Oh yeah--he isn't a Democrat anymore.

To make things even more awkward for Lieberman, top aides for Senators Clinton and Reid are now on loan to Lamont. Even if Lieberman does somehow pull out a victory, I can't imagine he is feeling al too secure about his committee seniority these days (all caucus votes on seniority would take place after the election).

After I was elected to the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee, a friend of mine on the state committee sent me a copy of the bylaws for the state party. Today, I find the following passage of particular interest:SECTION 2. Only duly registered and enrolled Democratic electors shall be eligible to serve as members or officers of any of the committees provided in Section 1 of this rule.

(a) No person shall be eligible to serve as a member or officer of any Democratic committee as provided in Section 1 of this rule who:(...)

(3) by voice, vote, financial support or otherwise has, within two years, supported a candidate in a general or special election opposed to the duly nominated candidate of the Democratic Party in that election, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this Section. While Governor Rendell is not technically violating this section, with his recent remarks on Santorum, he comes very close to doing so:Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) has confounded his party with some recent comments about Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). He recently told the Weekly Standard that Santorum "has proven that he gets the job done. Time and time again he has come through." Rendell later praised Santorum again to the Philadelphia Inquirer: "How could I be tearing a new rear end for someone who worked effectively to get flood relief for Pennsylvania?"

The Inquirer reports that Rendell officially supports challenger Bob Casey (D) and plans to campaign for him, but that Santorum is already running radio ads in Philadelphia highlighting Rendell's remarks. Why is Governor Rendell saying positive things about Rick Sanotrum in the Weekly Standard? For that matter, why is Governor Rendell giving an interview with the Weekly Standard at all? Now Rick Santorum is using those comments in his ads. Of course, I am talking about a Democrat who went on Fox News in order to support Samuel Alito during the confirmation hearings and repeat the talking points Republicans were using about Democrats during those hearings. I am also talking about someone who was openly a member of the Fainthearted Faction during the Social security fight. Whatever lesson Democrats in DC may or may not learn from the Connecticut Senate primary, I wonder sometime how long it will take that lesson to filter down from DC and back into Pennsylvania.

This is a huge, huge, huge mistake by Rendell. Rick Sanotrum is closing the gap on Casey because he has gone on the air first. This isn't particularly worrying because it is a common phenomenon in politics: the candidate who goes ont eh air first often receives a boost. However, it is worrying because of Santorum's ridiculous war chest that should allow him to stay on the air pretty much continuously between now and Election Day. Fortunately, Casey has a lot of money too and we scored some points with the base this week by pointing out that the Green Party of Pennsylvania is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. In the meantime, we do not need to show that the communications apparatus of the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is operated by the same people who run the Republican shop. I do not care what 1990's school of triangulation politics Governor Rendell comes from, the simple fact is that he has consistently performed better than other Democrats in the state, and his consistent willingness to talk up Republicans and talk down Democrats is a major reason for this. He has no problem benefiting himself at the expense of his fellow Democrats. When I attended my first state committee meeting back in June, the party leaders repeatedly hammered the concept of "loyalty" to us newbies. Quite frankly, after seeing Governor Rendell do something like this yet again, I don't think that we were the ones who need to learn that lesson.

While this is a holiday, some important elections loom. To compliment Benawau's piece on CA-42, here is a round-up of those elections:

• In MA-Gov, We will not be shooting an video with Deval Patrick tomorrow, as his campaign is too focused on prepping for the Massachusetts Democratic convention later this week. Entirely understandable--I will shoot for a later date. An off-line article I read in the local alternative weekly seemed to indicate that Patrick was on his way to a thunderous endorsement. I will still be attending Drinking Liberally in Cambridge tomorrow night, and I look forward to meeting some people in the local netroots scene.
  
  
• In CA-50, Busby is looking as though she might actually be able to win on June 6th. At the very least, she has forced massive Republican spending to defend the seat (emphasis mine):Staffers from the National Republican Congressional Committee are quietly telling GOP House members to prepare for a possible loss in the June 6 special election to fill the seat of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now in prison for taking bribes. The Southern California district is heavily Republican, but some GOP insiders believe that Democrat Francine Busby will defeat former GOP Rep. Brian Bilbray and go on to win a full term in November. More alarming some worry that a Bilbray defeat could signal the GOP's loss of control of the House. The NRCC has already pumped $3.1 million into the race."It is becoming more and more likely," says one GOP strategist, "that Bilbray will squeak out a victory." But another longtime Republican operative isn't so sure. "This is a district we should never lose," he says. "It's the stink of Cunningham, and the Bush problem."$3.1M. The NRCC has only $24M cash on hand. They are spending one-eighth of their cash on hand to defend a seat with a local Republican partisan index of around RNC +20. If Busby wins, Republicans are finished come November. Even if she does not win, Republicans are still in a world of hurt.
  
  
• In MT-Sen, Tester has the big mo' for the upcoming June 6th primary. Kos has a local blog round-up and the latest poll info.

Be sure to visit the always-improving netroots page. This is an open upcoming elections thread.

If we have won independents, we have won the election. --Chuck Schumer on a March 29th conference call with bloggers.This election will be a referendum on Bush. --Rahm Emmanuel on a March 29th conference call with bloggers. Most members will be elected with between 80% and 100% of their support coming from Republicans. --Republican pollster Jan van Lohuizen in a March 3rd memo to RNC Chair Ken Mehlman.The difficulty for President Bush here is that he is noticeably less popular among independents than one would expect of a president with a 38% overall approval rating. Instead, his approval among independents is some 9-10% below what we might expect based on other presidents. --Political science professor Charles Franklin, March 4"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"Independents: 28% Approve, 62% Disapprove --CBS News Poll. March 9-12, 2006. N=1,136 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults) Among independents, the number approving of Bush's job performance has fallen from 47% in January 2005 to 26% today/ --Pew Center for People and the Press, March 151. Bush's overall approval rating is 79 percent among Republicans and 14 percent among Democrats-a gap of 65 points. But his rating is also just 29 percent among independents, producing a very sizable gap of 50 points relative to GOP identifiers. Put another way, independents are 50 points away from Republicans, but just 15 points away from Democrats. 2. Only 20 percent of independents believe the country is going in the right direction, a mere 12 points more than the comparable figure among Democrats-but 37 points less than the figure among Republicans. 3. Twenty-six percent of independents approve of Bush's handling of the economy (66 percent disapprove), 14 points more than the number of Democrats who approve-but 44 points less than the number among Republicans. 4. Twenty-six percent of independents approve of Bush's handling of the Iraq situation-15 points more than Democrats; 43 points less than Republicans. 5. On handling the campaign against terrorism, 38 percent of independents approve of the job Bush is doing. That's 11 points more than Democrats, but 45 points less than Republicans. 6. How about whether Bush has "the same priorities for country as you have"? Sixty-nine percent of Republicans agree, but just 11 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independents. 7. Was removing Saddam Hussein from power worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq? Only 30 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats say yes, compared to 70 percent among Republicans. 8. And what should the US do now? Just 24 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents believe we should "stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy" (the administration position), compared to 61 percent of Republicans. --Ruy Teixeira, October 13th 2005, in coining the term IndycratsHere is an eye-opening fact about the Survey USA 50-state tracking released today: in every single state, Independent approval of Bush was closer to Democratic approval of Bush than Independent approval of Bush was to Republican approval of Bush. That was the case in every state. Fifty out of fifty. Massachusetts and Utah. California and Alabama. New York and Idaho. In every single state in the country, Independents were more in line with Democrats than they were with Republicans. In fact, in thirty-three states, the difference between Democratic approval of Bush and Independent approval of Bush was less than half the difference between Republicans and Independents. In twelve states, the difference was three times as great. Nationwide, Democrats were more than 25 points closer to Independents than were Republicans. --Chris Bowers, August 17, 2005It's an alignment I've not seen in many years, since '98 probably. What it says is that Independents and Democrats have a potential new majority, apart from the lockstep Republicans. Post Sept. 11th's upswing of non-partisanship, and then all through 2004, the Independents remained in the 50-50 range in reaction to Bush. Now they've shifted, and further, have aligned with Democrats. Rove's got to do something, because this puts Bush in dangerous territory. Gone are the 50-50 days, and approaching are the 40-60 days. --Jerome Armstrong, June 24, 2005 For the 2006 elections, Democrats cannot increase their advantage among independents any further than they already have. This is the largest Democratic lead among independents in 24 years, and historically is only clearly surpassed by the advantage they held among independents in 1974. Given this lead among Independents, there has to come a time when Democrats realize that success in this election depends less on continuing to target and appeal to Independents, and more on building a political machine that can make their current appeal and potential majority into a reality at the ballot box. At the same time, there needs to come a point within the progressive activist base when we realize that in our lifetimes it is entirely possible that there will never be a better opportunity than 2006 to wreck permanent damage on the conservative movement and all for which it stands. Pass up this chance, and the next time an opportunity of this level comes around there is a good chance you will be either dead or retired. I do not doubt that the 2005-2006 election cycle has seen a significant increase in progressive grassroots and netroots electoral activism over previous cycles, as Schumer indicated yesterday. However, considering the degree to which progressive grassroots electoral activism was all but dead in the 1990's, that really isn't saying much. The potential for progressive netroots and grassroots electoral activism is much, much larger than its current level. For this to happen, there needs to be a reinvigorated belief among all Democrats that we can in fact win. For this to happen, there needs to be at least some increased transfer of resources away from constantly appealing to Independents, and toward invigorating progressive activists. For this to happen, there needs to be a greater embrace among congressional Democrats of at least the courage and the bravery of people like Murtha and Feingold, even if they don't want to embrace their particular stances. For this to happen, there needs to be action on the part of people like Murtha and Feingold to become leaders of the activist base, and regularly speak to their concerns in a way that will keep them motivated for 2006. For this to happen, there needs to be a strategy for Democrats beyond just watching, and assisting in, Republican implosion. For this to happen, there need to be a wider recognition among progressive activists as to just how rare and precious this opportunity actually is.