CT-SEN: Ladies and Gentlemen, It's ... Alan Schlesinger!
The Connecticut press today is buzzing with talk about the startling performance by GOP candidate Alan Schlesinger at yesterday's debate. So we thought we'd bring you a highlights video so you can see him for yourself. Schlesinger grabbed yesterday's opportunity to set himself apart in a big way — whether for good or for ill remains to be seen. Against the backdrop of his more calm and restrained frontrunners, Schlesinger directed nearly all his attacks at Joe Lieberman — his main competitor for GOP votes. Schlesinger played an almost Howard Beale-like role, speaking loudly and proudly on one point after another. View the video here. A rundown of Connecticut press reaction after the jump.
The Hartford Courant's Mark Pazniokas said Schlesinger "made the most of the cumulative 17 minutes allotted," and speculated "that Schlesinger, long neglected by GOP donors and unable to escape single digits in the polls, might become a player in a race dominated by Lamont and Lieberman."
The Stamford Advocate's Brian Lockhart noted, "[Lieberman] was stunned, however, when some of the harshest criticism came from Alan Schlesinger."
The New Haven Register's Mary E. O'Leary wrote, "The GOP candidate...came off as the most aggressive and colorful, as he advised the crowd of business people to vote for him and not his two rival 'liberal Democrats.'"
ABC New Haven's political correspondent Mark Davis looked past Schlesinger's bombastic style and noted, "when Schlesinger settled down, he actually was the only one to suggest a new idea for shoring up Social Security."
Schlesinger's focus on attacking Lieberman could potentially have two effects. Since Lieberman's campaign has focused on winning Republican votes, a forceful Republican candidate who hammers home Lieberman's shortcomings in the eyes of GOP voters — bluntly saying, "Don't waste your vote on either of these liberal Democrats" — could conceivably lead at least some Connecticut Republicans to rethink their support for Lieberman.
Additionally, the third candidate's primary focus on attacking Lieberman could turn off people who might have supported the Senator but wouldn't vote for Schlesinger, either — and any such voters who stay at home are only aiding Ned Lamont. Lamont appeared to be well aware of this possibility: During the debate, he went out of his way to give Schlesinger a pep talk and suggest that he hang in there despite his political difficulties.
It's highly unlikely that Schlesinger will win or even come close to winning. However, Schlesinger nevertheless could have a major impact on the race if his presence in the debates discourages GOP support for Lieberman or if it steers the race's conversation to the right.
What's BS is how the CT media wrote off Schlesinger based entirely on cues from the GOP party bosses.
October 17, 2006 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given Schlesinger's gambling problems and the GOP ethical problems, I think the media and the GOP elite were right to write off Schlesinger. He's a poor candidate regardless of what happens in one debate.
October 17, 2006 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a good speaker and did very well in the debate. He positioned himself perfectly for a CT Republican. In a 3-way race, a GOP candidate should have a chance in CT.
I thought the GOP always fought on every front. If I were a Republican, I would think that Rove better have a serious belief that Joe Lieberman is switching to the R column after the election since they threw Schlesinger under the bus.
But the GOP elite can do whatever they want to do. It's wrong for the media to do the same.
October 17, 2006 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he splits the GOP vote, that's upside for Lamont. But if he also brings more GOPers to the polls, that's downside for the Dem Congressional candidates.
October 17, 2006 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, the man piled up massive gambling debt under an assumed name because the friggin casinos wouldn't let him in anymore! And no one watches debates except those who have already made up their minds. You are TOTALLY out of left field on this.
Schlesinger's performance will only help him a bit. And now Lieberman will go after him hard in the next debate, probably on the gambling thing. This is no more than a blip for ole Alan.
October 17, 2006 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schlesinger reminds me of what Jon Stewart said about Rev Sharpton: the most honest candidates are those without a hope of winning.
Too bad, that. Just on merit, however, Schlesinger deserves good press about that debate.
October 17, 2006 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd heard Schlesinger interviewed on a couple of relatively obscure talk shows, so I for one am not surprised by his performance in the debate. Unfortunately CODem is right, Schlesinger will not draw enough votes away from Lieberman to give Lamont the win.
I think the people making the most of this are simply those who WISH it would work to Lamont's advantage.
Joe embarrassed himself out there. But like anyone who trips and falls on their face, he got up and looked around, saw that nobody was looking, so he brushed himself off and walked on confidently towards re-election.
October 17, 2006 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only person who thought Schlesinger came off as a manic in need of a valium? He was a little too hyper to do himself much of a favor beyond being entertainment during the debate. I agree with the blip, and he gets that just for the visual arm waving.
Schlesinger has some ghosts in his closet--the gambling addiction doesn't appeal to anyone. The senate is a huge institution where wagers and stakes is what it really IS all about. Schlesinger will self-destruct in that environment. There is still a story about him yet to play out about using an escort service. Gambling and now paid tootsies too, oh my ;-(
Did you ever see the movie The Patsy? Go ask Ct Bob about his "interview" with Schlesinger. Being a patsy is what that's trying for. The hope is that Schlesinger can pull away votes from Lieberman, but in the coming days, Schlesinger's moral indiscretions are going to be aired in the MSM and the flurry of information is going to go against him. That 4pt lead is likely to shrink to an high of 2.75, and those republicans are not going to side with Lamont who's been bashing them over the head with partisan politics.
October 17, 2006 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out here in flyover country, I pretty much thought Lieberman was a shoo-in once he established a lead that gauged higher than the combined margin-of-error and I still think he's going to win, but it's nice to see that Schlesinger at least has a pulse.
I think the salient point that Schlesinger made is that the election is about more than the war in Iraq and he may peel off some libertarians and Club for Growth types if he continues to talk taxes and Social Security.
It will be interesting to watch Lamont's behavior in the next debate. My guess is that he allows Lieberman to play the heavy and do the attack dog thing against Schlesinger. Schlesinger likely takes more votes from Lieberman than he does from Lamont, so Lamont is in a catbird's seat of sorts as the onus falls on Lieberman to put the brakes, if indeed any are needed (I'm sure the tracking polls will help Joe decide if he needs to apply them), on Schlesinger. Lieberman's no dope, so I don't think he'll screw it up, but if he's not careful, he may smarmily preach himself into second place.
October 17, 2006 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Democrats were as outcome-driven and cynical as Republicans, they'd be setting up 527 groups that air TV ads promoting Schlesinger and attacking Lieberman from the right.
Or...big time Dem donors could simply give to Schlesinger so he can air the ads himself.
This is basically what Rick Santorum tried in PA, when the Repubs financed the Green Party candidate to siphon votes from Casey.
October 17, 2006 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, great idea: we see how well THAT trick worked out in PA!!
October 17, 2006 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I listened to the debate on WNPR, preferring to hear everyone's words, not watch them; however, I had to turn down the radio's volume because Schlesinger at times sounded like he was shrieking. His hysteria was off-putting, and seriously detracted from any credibility he might have proffered to the audience.
Lieberman has always irked me. I find his self-righteousness and pomposity offensive and patronizing. And that's just his attitude -- his politics, ugh. Self-aggrandizement, ahem. So it was more of the same snide snaps from him, though it does occasionally work in his favor in a debate situation.
All of that said, Lamont really doesn't stand up as a candidate at all. He is nervous, shifty-eyed (even more so on television) and heavily scripted with talking points delivered so disingenuously (and disingenous in and of themselves) that it makes me ashamed to call myself a Democrat. We have so many more eloquent, intelligent people in our party; why do we keep putting up so many hack weenies?
I'm glad that I'm no longer a Connecticut resident; I would be very troubled if I had to vote in this election. Dissatisfied with all three people concerned, I wouldn't blame people if they just stayed home on the 7th (or simply didn't check any of the boxes next to "U.S. Senate".) Perhaps I'm just too stubborn in my idealism, but I'm getting really sick of going to the voting booth and feeling like I'm selling out, as though a whore to a machine. 2004 redux.
October 17, 2006 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I maintain that Schlesinger knows this.
I think he's pissed off that the GOP bigwigs burried him and hitched their wagon to Joe. Thus he's going to charge hard for the Republican vote and take his revenge on the national party by helping beat Joe.
"I'm a Republican! How DARE the GOP choose Joe Lieberman over ME!?"
Or at least, that's how I read it.
October 18, 2006 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
Remember the 2004 pres. debates.
dc
October 18, 2006 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink