Kondracke falsely claimed Bill Clinton "has not said" he would support Lamont if he wins CT primary
SUMMARY: On Fox News' The Beltway Boys, Morton M. Kondracke falsely claimed that former President Bill Clinton "has not said" whether he will support challenger Ned Lamont if he defeats Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary. In fact, Clinton's spokesman told the New York Daily News that Clinton "will support the candidate that wins the Democratic primary."
On the July 22 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, Roll Call executive editor and Fox News contributor Morton M. Kondracke falsely claimed that former President Bill Clinton "has not said" whether he will support challenger Ned Lamont if he defeats Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary. Kondracke sought to contrast Clinton with his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), who Kondracke noted has indicated that "if Lamont wins the primary, she'll be for him." In fact, the New York Daily News quoted Bill Clinton's spokesman as saying that Clinton "respects the primary process and will support the candidate that wins the Democratic primary."
From the July 22 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, featuring Kondracke and co-host Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard:
KONDRACKE: Here's "The Buzz," Fred.
You know, Bill Clinton is going to campaign for -- for Joe Lieberman up -- up in Connecticut. And an interesting fact about this relationship -- I mean, Lieberman gets criticized by the left for making that famous speech in which he criticized Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But what's not remembered is that in the same speech, Lieberman was against impeaching Clinton on that -- on that account. And that actually helped undercut an effort on the part of some Democrats to -- to go to the White House and ask Clinton to resign. Clinton credits Lieberman with saving -- saving his presidency at that -- at that crucial moment, which is part of why he's going to campaign for him.
Now, Hillary Clinton went out of her way to -- to say that, well, if Lamont wins the primary, she'll be for him. Bill Clinton has not done that. He may have to support Lamont if -- if Lamont wins. But he has not said it in advance.
...why any of this even bears discussion. Is supporting the winner of the primary something that varies from year to year? Why Schumer or anyone else hems and haws when asked if they'll support Lamont if he wins the primary is completely mysterious to me.
The only reason I can imagine for something like this is if the primary winner was clearly a poor choice and the voters had been swayed by fame or charisma instead of ability (*cough*Schwartzenegger*cough*). I don't see that as being the case with a potential Lamont victory.
What do dems owe Lieberman, if he shows no loyalty to the party?
He ran in 2000 with Al Gore and he is supported by labor, pro choice and enviormental groups in CT.
He has stood by his party , he has a different opinion on the war . That is his choice. Bill Clinton was wrong on the Defense of Marriage Act and NAFTA but he still got our support.
This is the type of nonsense that is going to help the Repubs keep control in November.
The idea of losing the primary and running as an independent is not loyalty to the party. That's loyalty to himself. By splitting the Dems he could very easily give the seat to a Republican.
There's nothing nonsensical about recognizing why that's bad for the party!
he'd respect the outcome of the primary.
And, you know, he'd spend more time working for his constituents and less time on Fox News making sweet love to Sean Hannity.
President Clinton doesnt feel this way.
clinton will support the democratic nominee.
Its very disturbing to me that Lieberman may have to run as an independent in order to win. I know I will be voting for him on August 8 and again in November. I am from CT, I am very anti war but I support Senator Lieberman. There are many other issues facing the nation and the state. I think President Clinton also understands that Joe Lieberman is a very respected and qualified person to be in the US Senate. He has done alot of good for CT in terms of funding and his tenure is very important to the Democratic Party.
Why is that? What positions does Lieberman hold that are vital to keeping him in that seat that Lamont does not share, exactly?
I'm very curious.
Because number one is is right for Connecticut. He is being opposed by someone who's only experience is being a member of the town board of Greenwich. Joe Lieberman has support of numerous organizations which have stood by the Democratic Party . I guess President Clinton is wrong then to support Lieberman? Sadly I think most of the hate toward Lieberman is anti Semetic.
was governor for six years of the third largest state in the union. so much for experience. and how is the oppostion to him antisemetic? how come diane feinstein has never been targeted?
"Because number one is is right for Connecticut."
Are you listing points? Or are you calling him "number one"? And if the people of Connecticut choose Lamont over him in the primary, doesn't that say who's "right" for Connecticut? Perhaps we don't believe in democracy at all anymore.
"He is being opposed by someone who's only experience is being a member of the town board of Greenwich."
So what? Someone who's intelligent and reasonable can do the job. As was pointed out, Bush had Gubernatorial experience. A big difference that made, huh?
"Joe Lieberman has support of numerous organizations which have stood by the Democratic Party"
So, if Lieberman runs as an independent, this means what exactly, that he still has their support at that point? He's voted for bills they want in the past, that's why they support him. Where's the evidence Lamont won't do the same for them?
"I guess President Clinton is wrong then to support Lieberman?"
That's his choice, I would argue it's a poor one. We are not binary thinkers who agree with everything Clinton does or says, you know. What's sad is you seem to think that's some sort of "gotcha".
"Sadly I think most of the hate toward Lieberman is anti Semetic."
I've read many articles about the problems with Lieberman, and I've never...never...not once, not ever seen anything remotely justifying that comment. You should really back that up with something.
And in all of this, you fail to answer the question;what positions does Lieberman support that Lamont does not? The suggestion that it's simply the idea of some outsider upsetting the incumbent that's so horrible for the Democratic party is beyond laughable. That's how democracy works. If the people of Connecticut prefer Lamont, then Lieberman should step aside. The argument otherwise seems to be awfully weak.
that's why I support George Bush.............
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..........I crack me up
That Liberman WOULD run as an independent and split the democratic ticket as IF his Senate seat were his RIGHT. IF he cannot win the support of the majority of Dems then he ought to support the democratic ticket whatever it is. I say that and I am not even a democrat. I agree with Brab, that is very, VERY far from loyalty to the democratic party.
I fully agree with Solon. The honorable thing would be to run as a Dem and failing to secure the primary, gracefully step aside.
P.S. Solon, you should check out the
USC site
. See misconception number 1. They locked the discussion we were having before.Not conclusive, but a strong argument. As I said my understanding backed up by at least one Islamic scholar was it meant the peace which COMES from submission to Allah. So this piece doesnt really discount that. It is both as the article says. However it is enough for me to give it real credence and give the whole thing a second look.
That is the Solon I remember, thoughful and measured. That makes coming here worthwhile.
Any further argument would be semantic. Is it a type of peace that comes from submission or a type of submission that brings peace, I would submit either would be correct. So I wouldnt argue with anyone (anymore) whichever way they stated it.
He would easily win a general election so he should run in November , he is still a Democrat by heart. It is not his fault the Democratic Primary is being controlled by anti Semites and people who hate him because of his position on one issue. They forget what he has done for the Sound, the enviorment,Education .
Lieberman could support the war and still not have a primary challenge. He turned off a lot of people not for a heart-felt stance on an illegal conflict, but for his sycophantic attitude towards Bush and his policies. That's why he deserves to be ousted. And before you start crying anti-semitism, know that I am supporting Feingold for president.
"There are many other issues facing the nation and the state."
Exactly. To make the "war" the defining issue of this primary is insane. Let's look at the really important issues to most americans: health care, education, pension savings, the stock market, the job market, and so on.
I bet many, many more people will be effected by the policy on these things than by this "war" (yes, even taking into account the costs for the war). Yet, the Democrats can't seem to get past the fact that Lieberman takes a different stance on the war than they do, even though on the important issues above, he is a center-left candidate, with good voting records that should be a boon for him in a Democratic primary, if the issues were given the proper weight.
Now, I can't stand the guy's smarmy persona and his lack of charisma... but on the issues, I find I agree with him more than I disagree.
I'm sure that's true.
However, he also has some problems on women's issues. The war is not the only issue out there. And for the issues that you do agree with him on, does Lamont hold different positions? Is he completely contradictory to everything Lieberman supports?
My point is that he shouldn't be completely ostracized by such a large portion of the Democratic party mainly because of his opinion on the war.
Well, it is an awfully big issue. And it wouldn't be so bad if he had supported it and then woken up and realized how bad it was (like Murtha). He continues to support it even as it devolves into civil war. He criticizes Dems for speaking out against it. At this point there really is no reasonable case to be made for the war, yet he clings to his position.
At some point you have to ask yourself if someone who is either that deluded about what's going on over there or is just that stubborn and disingenuous belongs in public office. And a lot of the harsher criticism I've seen has come around since he said he would run as an independent if he lost the primary, and that's completely understandable.
Most certainly support the candidate of your choice, but can you site any specifics of the positives Liberman has done for CT? I'm not from CT and I'm not familiar with his record as it benefited CT.
but if it turned out he was on the GOP payroll, I wouldn't be too shocked.
why these Republicans say what they say...They cannot read or write. Just because someone said it, wrote it and it was reported, these PIMPS OF THE PRESS can not hear correctly or simply read it. Wow, I have seen the light. Now I understand them all. Conservativism is just a "stupid" religion. Sounds like a book title.
For those that don't seem to understand many Dem's being upset with Lieberman. I live in NV. I don't agree with JL's stance on the war, but really didn't have a "dog in this race". I just figured the people of Connecticut would make the decision they felt was best for them. Their state, their Dem party, etc. UP TO THEM
BUT....when JL said he would run as an independent if he lost them primary, that was too much for many Dems (including me). The most important thing in the '06 election is to oust the GOP control of congress and find out what REALLY has been happening the last 5 years! Maybe put the brakes on some of the more egregious things Bushco has been doing.
If JL wins the primary-more power to him he deserves our support. If Lamont wins then he deserves it.
JFM
Democrats' opposition to Lieberman has nothing to do with him being Jewish. I don't like the guy because ever since his speech against Clinton, he's tried to play himself off as some sort of maverick outsider aka McCain. He's a weasel is what he is. I like Feingold, I like Feinstein...their religious views are of almost no consequence to me. If I were Jewish I wouldn't like Joe...he is a weasel. Of course his reckless and obdurate support for the Iraqi invasion/occupation only makes me like him less. But I never DIDN'T like Joe because he's Jewish. Lamont holds many of the same popular views as Lieberman...those that are typically thought of as Democrat ussues. Anyway...I got no problem with somebody being Jewis. EZ
This race does mark an important turning point in the democratic Party.. Fo rthe last few years the Repulbicans have been the Toe the party on the issues while trying to paint the democrats with that brush. To me this race is about wheather the Dems will be fall into that mode. No one can say that JL is being targeted for any other reason than his stance on the war. I do believe that it should be in the hands of the Dem in Ct to choose thier canidate and that JL is being a sore loser is he runs as an indepenent but I know why high ranking Dems are supporting him. It comes down to the whether or not the Democratic party is going to become as rigid to its Idealogy as the Republican Party. One of the reasons I an a Dem is because of its Deversity. It is more open to internal debate and more tolerant of opposing views. However lately I have seen the aprty turn on itself and try and mimick the GOP toe the line tatics. I think the CT Primary has become the manifestation of the attempt of the narrowminded and rigid left wing of the party to take over like the narrowminded and rigid right wing of the Republican party has taken over it. I for one do not with to see the Far rights and the Far lefts i this country running the show. BOTH sides in my opion are NUTS. I am sick of people being Criticized for thier centrist views. That where the majortiy of us are in this country and those attacks are only an attempt of the right and left extremist to get thier way. With these people its thier way or the highway. THey are not interested in finding solutions they are interested in finding someone who argrees with THEM>
I know in many states there is a "sour grapes" rule regarding losing a primary and then running as an independent. There is nothing stopping this but decency should prevent it. If Joe were to leave the party after losing the primary, it would show a lack of class, plain and simple. It is not anti-semitic to say so.