Salazar to back Lieberman
According to the Pueblo Chieftain, Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) will support Joe Lieberman in his "second-half" campaign for the US Senate.
"I want to see Joe Lieberman back in the Senate because he is one of those senators in the center, one of the moderate Democrats and Republicans who get things done," Salazar said Wednesday in Pueblo. "I gave him my word that I would support him and I will."
Read the rest. What do you think?
Kari Chisholm | August 10, 2006 | Comment on This Post (20 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
It is a free country, and Ken is Joe’s friend and colleague. On the other hand, I am sure that Ken can and will be the friend and colleague of the future Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Ned Lamont.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 11, 2006 9:55:40 AM
I agree with Leo.
Lieberman has every right to run as an independent and Salazar has every right to support him.
I like Ken Salazar, quite a bit. While I'm not always in agreement with him, I do like that he is upfront with his stances. I guess Salazar figured that there really is no political problem for him supporting Lieberman and he did what he believed he should.
Posted by: Landon Mascarenaz | Aug 11, 2006 10:40:17 AM
I agree with Leo.
Lieberman has every right to run as an independent and Salazar has every right to support him.
I like Ken Salazar, quite a bit. While I'm not always in agreement with him, I do like that he is upfront with his stances. I guess Salazar figured that there really is no political problem for him supporting Lieberman and he did what he believed he should.
Posted by: Landon Mascarenaz | Aug 11, 2006 10:47:02 AM
I agree with Leo.
Lieberman has every right to run as an independent and Salazar has every right to support him.
I like Ken Salazar, quite a bit. While I'm not always in agreement with him, I do like that he is upfront with his stances. I guess Salazar figured that there really is no political problem for him supporting Lieberman and he did what he believed he should.
Posted by: Landon Mascarenaz | Aug 11, 2006 10:48:20 AM
I can't disagree more. This is abominable. Western Democrats are supposed to be tough when confronting the Bush administration. Salazer's support for Lieberman is a big "f*ck you" to Democratic voters everywhere and a big thumbs up to Bush's foreign policy.
Ugh.
Posted by: Jay Stevens | Aug 11, 2006 12:52:55 PM
"Democratic voter's everywhere"?
I like Lamont and I'm no Lieberman fan (I used to work for Dean and I'll never forgive him for what he said during that campaign), but Lamont won by 3% right? In Connecticut? How does that jive with "Democratic voter's everywhere"? Do Democrats always have to support Democrats instead of who they want to? I'm not willing to tread down that path.
I don't agree with Salazar, but he has a right to support whoever he wants. Just as Joe has a right to run under Connecticut law. And honestly, I just don't think Salazar will have a huge impact in the race.
And to address your point about Western Democrats confronting the Bush Administration, sure, I agree. But that just isn't it. Western Democrats understand the value of working on common sense solutions to benefit the population overall and speaking plainly to voters. Salazar made a choice because he believes Lieberman is necessary for the latter, not the former. I disagree with him, but he just places a higher priority on different issues than I do.
Posted by: Landon Mascarenaz | Aug 11, 2006 1:27:31 PM
I'll tell you why Democrats should be p*ssed: Lieberman ran in a Democratic primary to earn the right to represent the Democratic primary. He lost.
What he's telling Democrats -- everywhere -- is that he doesn't give a d*mn about how we want to shape our party. That means us here in the West, too. He feels it's right to put his own ambition ahead of the will of his party.
Matt Singer: "If the Democratic Party endorsement is unimportant to Lieberman, he should never have sought it. If it is important, he should respect it. That’s really not a complicated principle."
I have no problem with an independent Lieberman -- if he skipped the primary. He's playing poker with the 2006 midterms and has already skewed sharply right in the days after the election, calling anyone who dissents against the goverment "un-American." I don't think that's a healthy thing for the Democratic party.
Posted by: Jay Stevens | Aug 11, 2006 3:18:03 PM
Sorry for the second rant, but I thought I should bring Salazar into the mix.
Common sense and plain speaking would be better served by endorsing the candidate selected by your party in order to provide a unified front to the public. With Lieberman adopting Bush administration rhetoric on the war, Salazar's support of the Senator puts critical Rocky Mountain races on the spot, most notably Jon Tester's Montana bid.
This is dumb politicking. And spineless.
Posted by: Jay Stevens | Aug 11, 2006 3:28:03 PM
Of course, I want Lamont to win and win big, and I want the whole party would get behind him. But I don’t think Ken will spend much effort on this, and I am willing to let this pass. Harry Reid saw this coming. See http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/11030 Lieberman didn’t, and it cost him the party endorsement and will cost him his job. As it should.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 11, 2006 3:54:48 PM
Salazar is making massive mistake here by splitting the Democratic party. Does he not have faith in the Democratic primary process?
All he has to say is: I wish that Joe would have won, but above all I respect the political process of the Democratic party and I will support Lamont even though he and I disagree on many issues.
Salazar must have made Karl Rove smile. The last thing the Republicans want is a united Democratic Party.
Connecticut for Lieberman?
haha. More like Lieberman for Lieberman.
What a cry baby! If you don't elect me again, I will betray my party and sabatage a Democratic seat! What an a-hole.
Posted by: Raymond Suelzer | Aug 11, 2006 3:58:49 PM
If Lieberman wins, I suspect Salazar's support will NOT extend to putting the newly elected Independent senator on a juicy committee assignment. Senator Lieberman (I) would be a lonely man.
I think Salazar should rethink what he's doing. Lieberman didn't just agree with Bush; he all but accused anyone who critisized the president as being un-American. That statement makes him unfit to serve in any party. Bill Clinton and others made a big mistake by campaigning for Lieberman AFTER he announced he would run as an independent should he lose. There should have been a quid pro quo that he would only get support after such a promise. Is Bill losing his touch???
Posted by: Zak J. | Aug 11, 2006 4:53:33 PM
It may be a good idea for a couple Dems to support Lieberman to keep him in the fold just in case he wins.
I also need to hear more from Lamont to see whether he could cause more harm than good for the party. If he really is a far lefty pasifist then we may be better off without him winning. He doesnt seem to be like that to me though, but he has to make that clear to get my support.
Posted by: Del | Aug 12, 2006 12:45:58 AM
How come none of you are talking about Lieberman's impact on the Conn. House races? We have 3 seats in play in CT and Lieberman's candidacy is going to have the ancillary effect of driving up GOP turnout for those races. It's not about whether Lieberman has a right to run, he clearly does. But he's exercising that right to the detriment of the Democratic Party. Sitting Democratic senators ought not to aide and abet Lieberman in this.
Posted by: Matt | Aug 13, 2006 11:33:52 AM
"How come none of you are talking about Lieberman's impact on the Conn. House races?"
Well...generally in this blog, "Western Democrat," we talk about...you know...western Democrats...
Posted by: Jay Stevens | Aug 14, 2006 11:17:18 AM
An Open Letter to Senator Salazar from Colorado Democratic Voters:
Dear Sen. Salazar;
We urge you to reconsider your decision to support Joe Lieberman running as an "Independent" against the winner of the Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary, Ned Lamont. Your desire to support a friend is understandable but your highest commitment should be to honor the choice of the Democratic voters of Connecticut.
Please consider these questions:
What if the 64,000 people who voted for Mike Miles in the 2004 Colorado Democratic Senate Primary had decided to form an "Independent" campaign for Mike Miles? The answer: Pete Coors would most likely be the Junior Senator from Colorado. But rather than working against the winner of the 2004 Colorado Democratic Senate Primary election, a core group of Miles supporters across the state established "Be the Change USA", campaigned to elect Ken Salazar and helped to elect a Democratic majority in the Colorado General Assembly.
What if every candidate who loses in a primary jumped out of the party to run as an "Independent"? The answer: There would be no viability left in the party.
Who was the one who called for "party unity" after the 2004 primary? The answer: Ken Salazar. The response to that call for unity was that we all joined together to get Ken Salazar elected to the U.S. Senate.
Finally, it is our hope that you will use your available time during the next 90 days to work for the election of our great lineup of Democratic candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives from Colorado, as well as for Fern O'Brien, who is campaigning to become your rightful successor as Colorado's next democratically elected Attorney General. Please help support the reelection of our three Democratic representatives as well as the election of Angie Paccione, Bill Winter, Ed Perlmutter and Jay Fawcett. If we work together, Colorado will help to reestablish a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, which will bring a renewal of accountability in government and a return to the checks and balances that have preserved our democracy for over 200 years.
Thank you for your kind as swift attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Be the Change USA
Posted by: Rocky Mtn. Liberal | Aug 15, 2006 4:56:34 PM
An open letter from me:
"Dear Senator Salazar,
This is why you are the greatest individual to grace the Senate in a long damn time. You put the better candidate (Joe Lieberman) over ultra-partisanship.
God bless you, and please run for President in 2008.
Sincerely,
WyoBlueDog - Purveyor of Common Sense, Hater of Non-rational Liberals
Posted by: WyoBlueDog | Aug 27, 2006 9:30:18 PM
Ahem.
Furthermore, why don't all of you bitching leftists go form the "New Communist Party" or something? Like it or not, and immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be catastrophic, and Ned Lamont is part of the problem, when he encourages such an idiotic "proposal." If you started your own party, you could come up with ideas like Kucinich's Department of Peace to your heart's content, then hold hands and sing Peter, Paul, and Mary songs.
Leave the running of the country to people like Ken Salazar and Joe Lieberman; people that understand that Islamic fundamentalists want all of you hippy libs (and the rest of America).... DEAD. EXTERMINATED. NO MORE.
Rant done!
Posted by: WyoBlueDog | Aug 27, 2006 9:36:13 PM
I hope that Ken Salazar doesn't need the support of Colorado Democrats when he's up for re-election. Because if he thinks it's better to support Lieberman than the Democratic nominee in Connecticut, he's not going to receive our support.
Lieberman is a neoconservative, and he has betrayed all of us with his non-stop Rubber-Stamping of Bush and the far-right agenda. Salazar will pay for supporting his "friend" instead of the Democrat.
Posted by: Colorado Monster | Aug 31, 2006 9:33:03 PM
Yeah, you show him, ultra-lefty, out-of-touch with your country, let alone your state, Colorado Monster!! You show Ken good! You nominate a Kucinich nutjob!! And then have him get crushed by a Republican. Smart thinking there, Tex.
Posted by: WyoBlueDog | Sep 1, 2006 8:53:14 PM
very nice
Posted by: John | Mar 7, 2007 2:47:57 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
