CT-SEN: It's Official -- Lieberman Rules Out Any Run On GOP Line
As I wrote below, Election Central posed a question this morning to the Lieberman campaign: Would he or would he not rule out a run on the GOP line if he lost the Dem primary and the line were offered to him?
Well, now campaign spokesperson Marion Steinfels has gotten back to me, and the answer is: He rules it out. Completely.
Steinfels said that Lieberman would "absolutely not" run on the GOP line. She added: "He has said he's always been a Democrat, and he'll always be a Democrat."
This morning, Election Central posed the question in a phone call to campaign deputy press secretary Noah Kores. He said the campaign would get back to us, and we said we'd let you know when (or if) the campaign did.
Well, now it has, and their answer is: "Joe Lieberman will never run as a Republican. Never."
Never. Meaning until after the primary and the offer is made.
July 19, 2006 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this means that Joe has the necessary signatures to run as "Independent - Democrat" when he loses to Lamont.
DallasNE
July 19, 2006 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not be covering the guy with glory just yet.
First of all there already IS a Republican candidate, and Lieberman's people have been trying to shove him out the door.
Unfortunately, the current candidate wants to stay in the race. How rude.
July 19, 2006 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to remember Lieberman ruling out an independent run in exchange for some Reid shilling a while back.
July 19, 2006 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did it take so long for Joe to come up with an answer to such a simple question? Was there a possibility that he would?
=-
July 19, 2006 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm no Lieberman fan, but I'll take "absolutely not" as absolutely not, at least until he changes his mind. Then I'll remember that it was "absolute not," and hope his opponent does too -- as well as makes sure everyone in Connecticutt remembers as well.
July 19, 2006 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So "Joe Lieberman will never run as a Republican. Never."
But what about "Joseph Lieberman"?
July 19, 2006 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
okay, so he won't run as a republican--but has he answered the question about with which party he would caucus if he won as an independent?
July 19, 2006 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I believe him.
Now, if he'll just stop talking and acting like a Rep-- I'm just being churlish, I know.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 19, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The statement still isn't enough.
Lieberman believes he can run as a Democrat even if he's only listed on the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party line.
Is it that much a stretch for him to think that he can run as a Democrat, be listed on the "Connecticut for Lieberman" line, and also be listed on the Republican line? Can he make a semantic difference between "run" and "list"?
It depends on your definition of "run" and "list," doesn't it? Lieberman is now clearly capable of pulling a Clinton on the semantics of the November ballot.
Given the history of Lieberman's self-preserving duplicity, unless he's specifically stated he won't allow himself to be LISTED on the Republican line - then he's leaving that door open, too.
July 19, 2006 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman said consistently for the past several weeks that he would caucus with the Democrats if re-elected as an independent.
It's one of the reasons he wouldn't get any R votes in the CT general election, even if the Card-Counter remains the candidate.
July 19, 2006 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is sooooooo bush-league (small "b" bush there). Let me see if I've got this right: Some in-the-tank-for-Lamont blogger calls the Lieberman camp, gets a peon on the phone and asks him an out-of-left-field question about accepting the Republican nomination. Kid on the phone doesn't know if the premise is accurate, if there have been discussions over his head he doesn't know about, nothing. Says he'll get back to said blogger. Blogosphere goes crazy, saying Lieberman is "mulling" the option. Problem is, Lieberman doesn't even know it's been suggested. In any case, he puts out word after a few hours, and manages to turn the whole thing to his benefit, reminding voters very publicly that he's a proud Democrat. This is the kind of crap that loses elections: Cheap, cheesy and obvious tricks that remind everyone that a lot of the buzz around Lamont comes from political hacks.
The pressure to leave the Repub line blank comes from Repubs, not from Joe. They don't have anyone who can win, so next best is Joe to win, and best way to do that is ensure a two way rather than three way. A few more stupid pet tricks like this and they won't have to worry ...
July 19, 2006 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole thing sounds like a set up designed to boost Lieberman's stature amongst Democrats and left leaning Independents.
July 20, 2006 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Message to the Democratic Party - "Get Joe to Go Now!"
I just put together a long post here in the TPM Cafe about Ralph Reed's ties to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews which is operated by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein.
I suspect that Rabbi Eckstein has laundered upwards of $20 million for the Republican Party with help from Ralph Reed.
Joe Lieberman is a long time friend of Rabbi Eckstein and, in fact, the Forward quoted Lieberman as saying that the IFCJ is the "best-kept secret in the United States". LOL - Not anymore, it's not.
Rabbi Yechie, btw, is a close associate of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Rabbi Eckstein has ties to all the big name right wing Christian leaders. This is going to be fun!
July 20, 2006 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd first want to see the full question and answer that "absolutely not" is quoted from. Lieberman is quite capable of saying he's a "running as a Democrat" when he's listed on the ballot with another party. If his personal voter registration is Democrat, then he can say he's running as a Democrat. Why would it be any different if the other party is the Republicans rather than Connecticut for Lieberman?
DC Drinking Liberally
July 20, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Leiberman SAYS he will "never" run as a Republcian. What else could he possibly say? If he said anything but "no way" it would instantly, totally destroy his chances of winning the Democratic primary and severely damage him in the election as well.
This is the political equivalent of mommy answering a question from her 3rd grader! So, the statement has zero meaning.
What Lieberman says now and what he will do if push comes to shove are two different things. His "never" could easily become "not until next week".
Remember that in a 3 way race all bets are off. Just because the polls now show Lieberman ahead means nothing! When the campaign heats up this fall, anything could happen and Lieberman will be badly weakened by not winning the Democratic primary.
And what Republicans are hoping will happen is that the Democratic and independent vote will split between Lieberman and Lamont, while the Republicans turn out for their guy. That could mean a Republican pickup.
So, it's going to take a crow-bar to force their candidate out of the race. It would be like trying to herd a shark back into a tank when he can smell blood in the water!
What will be key to watch is after the primary whether the pressure from the national republican party mounts for their candidate to withdraw. They'd have to have some real leverage to force him out of the race, too.
The real question now is whether Lieberman might by fall be so pissed-off at CT democratic voters and the national party that he caucuses with Republicans.
In Colorado we still remember Ben "switchorse" Campbell running as a Democrat and then switching parties! He even won re-election as a Republican. So, there's plenty of precedent for Lieberman to decide he's really more comfortable in the Republican party sometime over the next 6 years, if he wins.
It's pretty clear the only reason Lieberman is a Democrat right now is because CT is a majority Democratic state.
July 20, 2006 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he'll get a good number of Republican votes, and I think the polls show that. Schlesinger polled at 9%. CT is majority Dem, but not THAT big of a majority.
July 20, 2006 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was in the CT papers sourced to anon. GOP leaders. I think they got it out there to hurt him in the primary, which they want him to lose, b/c the best chance they have is in a 3-way race. There has been a lot of talk about independently funded candidates getting in the race in lieu of Schlesinger.
July 20, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weren't IFCJ and Eckstein covered in a long article in the NYT, perhaps in the Magazine, awhile back?
July 20, 2006 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? I think it hurts by mentioning that he was even under consideration by the GOP.
July 20, 2006 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The common wisdom (or the prevailing left of center meme, depending on your point of view) is that Lieberman's policy positions are too often in line with the Republicans, be it on Iraq, the Alito vote, Social Security reform, etc.
By being given the opportunity to reject the Republican nomination for the Senate, it could serve to inoculate him from charges that he is not a true Democrat.
July 20, 2006 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Rabbi Who Loved Evangelicals (and vice versa) by Zev Chafets, NY Times, 5/24/05 - Good article but it is in PDF format in my library's archives and, for some reason, the text is blurry and faded.
Thanks for reminding me about it. IIRC, the article opened with a deacon of an Evangelical Christian church handing out $1ook of his won money to Rabbi Eckstein. The deacon is wealthy and in the steel business. Since I suspect that Rabbi Eckstein is laundering Republican campaign money, the steel magnate's name will come in handy.
I have a fairly lengthy thread that initially was about Ralph Reed. I've branched out considerably since then. First, Rabbi Eckstein and then, last night, I posted about Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's New Jerusalem Foundation. I'm 98% certain that Ehud Olmert was running money from the US through his foundation or some other way to fund his campaign and/or something else.
I don't know how expensive political campaigns are in Israel. I can't imagine that they are anywhere as expensive as here.
An 11/02 article in the Jerusalem Report (which I don't know anything about) reported that the New Jerusalem Foundation claimed to have raised $15 million in 2001.
One article I read referred to another in the Jerusalem Post in which Ehud Olmert told the Post that he invested $4.5 million of foundation money in Israel. I went through a lot of Jerusalem Post articles last night but I didn't see that one so I don't know if that is true.
What I do know is that Ehud Olmert, then mayor of Jerusalem, was in the US often in 2002 and raised some big bucks from the Evangelical Christians. $500k in San Diego, $400k in Dallas. None of the money was reported in the foundation's 2002 990.
Rabbi Eckstein's International Fellowship of Christians and Jews hired Ralph Reed's firm sometime in the first part of 2002 to manage "Stand Up For Israel", a grassroots campaign to encourage Christian support for Israel.
Why the rabbi thought he needed to do this is beyond me. How much more support for the Israelis can he get unless the Evangelical Christians want to guard the Israel's border for them?
Obviously, the campaign was set up to generate money. Between 2002 and 2003, $22 million went to just two vendors, both with right wng connections. The one vendor, an "direct mail firm" owned by E. Paul Bigham, was paid $7 million despite the fact that the agency was not registered in Texas until 2/04.
I'm 95% certain that Rabbi Eckstein has been laundering campaign money for the Republicans. ITCJ revenue went from $17 million in 1998 to $44 million in 2005 with big jumps in election years. As far as I can tell, Rabbi Eckstein wasn't doing anything different year in and year out to increase his revenue by 10-36% every year.
"Stand Up For Israel" held an international day of prayer on October 11, 2002. There was supposed to be a big rally in Washington DC but I don't know if it came off or not. I did not find any articles about "Stand Up For Israel in 2003 which is surprising because Rabbi Eckstein is quite the publicity hound.
This "Stand Up For Israel" campaign is fluff to cover something else. I'm sure Rabbi Eckstein, Ralph Reed and all the big conservative Christian leaders have each other's email, fax and call phone numbers. To organize an international day of prayer probably takes less than half a day.
The other big Christian leaders were busy in October 2002, too.
300 of America's most influential Christian leaders were holding the "World Prayer Summit" in Jerusalem in October 2002, according to the Jerusalem Post.
Following the Jerusalem meeting, Mayor Ehud Olmert was scheduled to co-host a prayer summit in Virginia:
The prayer summit is sponsored by a coalition of some 300 US churches, the Churches United for Israel. It is to take place at Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church on October 27. The Jerusalem Prayer Team Web site is: www.jerusalemprayerteam.org.
A million bucks laundered for a political campaign is one thing but if millions and millions of dollars were laundered to Israel, that's something else.
IIRC, two issues were prominent in the news in October 2002, the elections and the pending war in Iraq. The Iraq War started in March 2003. I can't remember anything else specifically.
Of course, the decision to invade Iraq was made in 1998. Everyone who read the PNAC report, "Project for a New Century" or whatever the name is, knew we were going to war. It was a foregone conclusion when Bush was elected. He just didn't mention it to anyone outside of his circle.
The first week Bush took office, bombing was stepped up in Iraq. I'm sure Saddam Hussein got the message.
Money was already pouring out of the U.S. Treasury like a river in 2002 but even more would be spent on the war.
As an aside, I was trying to keep an eye on these characters in the the first couple of months after 9/11 and it seemed like every other hour, Congress spent another $10 or $20 billion. One afternoon, Trent Lott and Tom Daschle held a press conference on the lawn outside of the Capitol to announce more spending and I swear they both looked like they had just had sex. Yours truly was quite alarmed about all of this.
During 2002, at least a dozen members of Congress went to Baghdad and all of the major networks were in Baghdad in April 2002, covering Saddam's big birthday bash. Leslie Stahl from 60 Minutes even interviewed the Iraqi connected to the first WTC bombing who had been in Iraqi custody for a number of years. What happened to him post-war is still a mystery.
If you stop and think about it, the very fact that representatives from Congress visited Baghdad when war was pending is remarkable. You would think that Saddam Hussein would not anyone from the US coming in and stirring up trouble.
Again, not one of these members of Congress could offer enough money to any Iraqi to get proof of WMD programs. Not the names of the scientists, not the locations, not even a description of the programs.
Somebody ought to throw that wimp, Maureen Dowd, up against a wall and make her tell us about the Iraqi movie she supposedly saw,. the one about Saddam having a mile-long runway underneath his palace. I'd like to know if that movie was a piece of phony propaganda. In any case, I want to know who suggested she see it and whether she actually saw the movie. And while she's up against the wall, have her confirm what she was doing in Saudi Arabia a couple of years besides looking at women's lingerie.
I've got to cut this short. Something was going on in and around October 2002 with the big conservative Christian leaders and some right wing Israelis but what, I don't know. Money, power, both?
July 21, 2006 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink