Kerry's press release on the CT senate primary

[whometense]

John Kerry on Ned Lamont’s Victory in Democratic Senate Primary in Connecticut



Below is a statement by John Kerry on Ned Lamont’s victory in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary. Kerry said on July 5th that he would support the Democratic nominee in Connecticut, and he supports Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate.



“After an intense and competitive primary season, Connecticut Democrats have chosen their nominee and they’ve made a strong statement about the current course in Iraq which is failing our troops. I strongly support Ned Lamont for the United States Senate.



"I’ve worked with Joe Lieberman since our days in college together, and I respect his many contributions to our public life. But the Democratic Party stands for something, and the Democratic Party in Connecticut has made a choice. That choice will matter in November to the direction of our Party and the direction of our country. The events of the past months make even more clear the differences Democratic leadership would make for our country on Iraq, in making America safer, in having an economy that works for everyone, and in achieving energy independence. That’s who we are as Democrats, and that’s what we’ll be fighting for. It’s time for all Democrats to come together to support Ned Lamont. It’s time for Democrats to unite.”



###

[bigwillq]

1. Thank you Sen. Kerry!

:bounce:

[CTLawGuy]

2. thank you senator!

NT

[debbierlus]

3. Thank you, Sen Kerry.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Every Democrat in elective office

should follow Kerry's lead. Those who continue to support Lieberman after his defeat have, like Joe, divorced themselves from the party.

[Tili]

10. Joe

Divorce from the party???? Joe practically raped, pilleged and slapped the Democratic party by announcing his "independent democrat" baloney. How much more proof do we need that it's not about the issues... it's about Joe. It's no wonder here in CT, those who really saw through him, called him a closet Republican and a pancake (flipping to where it will make him most liked). It saddens me to think that someone who has represented this great State for so many years has always had a hidden agenda. Obviously, it had to come out sometime. Independent Democrat!!!! Remember when he didn't give up his senate seat while running for VP. It's all about Joe.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. I think you are right

I've been to CT and think it is a very very lovely state! Welcome to DU! :hi:

[demdiva]

33. Welcome to DU!!!

I'm not sure I have ever seen someone's very first post!

:toast:

[erknm]

56. Think a little harder

I don't care what happens in CT, don't care about Joe vs Ned in any way. I do not have a horse in this race. Having said this, I think you are all wet on one statement. If it was "all about Joe", then he would have flipped his position to curry favor with the voters. Plenty of politicians have done that, both republicans and democrats, including Kerry. There are plenty of democrats who are telling the progressive voters what they want to hear. Likewise there are plenty of republicans telling bible thumpers what they want to hear. Think of all the politicians who voted for the resolution, (many of whom saw all the intelligence that W saw) and have now completely disavowed themselves of any responsibility.

Joe stayed with his position (be it right or wrong) when he knew that had he flipped, he would have retained his senate seat. How in the world is that "all about Joe"?

What I find really funny is that Kerry is going through yet another molting, positioning himself for a possible run in 2008, yet Joe would be a much stronger candidate nationally. Guys like Kerry do great in New England, they do great among progressives, but they do not do so great in national races. In 2004 we had an incredibly weak republican incumbant, W was ripe for the picking. Joe is a much stronger candidate nationally from the democratic side. You may not like everything he does, frankly some of the things he has done may infuriate you. But he would have been better than W, and he would have likely been a stronger opponent than was Kerry.

If Leiberman runs for Senate as an independent and gets on the November ballot, there is no way Ned wins. Yet now the party is asking him to "play ball" and support his party. Some nerve. If the party is what is important, then Lieberman is who you need. The voters who kicked Joe out of CT have made the election a dream come true for the republicans.

Flame on if it will make you feel better.

FH

[Tili]

60. True

True, however, he did something he hasn't done in I don't know how many years... he traveled the State. I saw him at the corner of my father's street at the gas station... too little, too late.

Do you really believe Ned won't win if Joe gets on the ballot in November? I guess we will just have to wait and see. Also, Joe was already a dream come true for the republicans.... he sided with them more times than not. Who wouldn't love a wolf in sheep's clothing?

[erknm]

82. You are correct, I should not jump to such obvious conclusions.

A republican win is still less than a 50-50 proposition. The best thing for the democrats right now is that the republicans have Schlesinger (sp?), a weak candidate who was never expected to be able to beat Lieberman. They are trying to talk to him about stepping aside, but he is refusing, and it is likely too late anyway.

The key is, as usual, the moderates. Moderates are largely absent from the ballot box in primaries, particularly off-year primaries. There are about 200,000 more registered democrats in CT than republicans. It runs about 640k - 450k. Thus, Lieberman needs to siphon off 200k votes before we can consider a republican win.

However, I disagree with many of the readers here on the fundamentals of this issue. I see this as a debate about the benefits of changing your tune on an issue and conveniently forgetting things you have said in the past. Too many politicians, particularly democrats, have done this. According to what they are saying today, there was no way the resolution could have passed. Yet we know it did. So what are we to believe? They blame it all on W, "He lied to us" they claim. Look, if I want autotrons who blindly follow the lead of the president and defer to him any responsibility for their behavior then I would vote republican. Lieberman has held to his position. We may not agree with that position, but I respect someone who does not try to rewrite history.

Someone on another thread noted that most democrats are abandoning him. Of course they are, they walk in lock step with their party, sheep following the leader. They are the epitome of what we all acuse the republicans of being.

And I would not dismiss Lieberman's ability to raise money. He has alot of support, like you said, he has always been a conservative democrat and some of the people who supported him before are not the progressive types. Additionally, it is interesting to note that sometimes the paranoid are correct. Some of the Oliver Stonesque conspiracy theorist kool-aide drinkers on this blog are absolutely correct on one count. Lieberman will get republican money, you can bet on it.

I do not care about this situation beyond one point, I do not want to see the seat fall to the republicans. So Lieberman didn't like that Clinton had his zipper down, so he has not run away from his vote for the resolution on the Iraq war. He also supports affirmative action, the rights of women and the environment. While he is not a communist, neither is he a neocon. I guarantee you that if the republican wins, that will be one less vote to protect the environment, one less vote to protect the rights of minorities, one less vote to protect social security, etc. The democrats in CT are risking alot for democrats all over the country just because they were pissed off.

FH

[ProSense]

84. I guarantee that if Lamont wins, he'll be better for the Democrats! n/t

[blm]

68. Lieberman was on the ballot in 2000. Kerry got 10million more votes in 04

and that doesn't even include the 5-6 million that were stolen.

And Bush was STRONGER and way more in control of the media after 9-11 and more in control of the electronic voting machines than he was in 2000.

[erknm]

83. The 2000 election was stolen, that is almost undeniable.

However, we cannot say the same for the 2004 election.

W got more votes in 2004 also, there were more voters participating in the election.

[druidity33]

72. PPPPPFFFFEH!!! n/t

[bigwillq]

57. Hi!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Tili]

59. Hello

Thanks :0)

[TayTay]

77. Welcome to DU!

I echo the comments that you made here.

[NastyDiaper]

69. Welcome.

:toast:

[cali]

71. Senator Leahy said it

in very strong terms a month ago. Kos had a post about it.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Excellent! K&R!

[Avalux]

6. Bravo! "The Democratic Party stands for something"

It's about the party and who the voters have chosen. Lieberman can go fuck himself and so can anyone who betrays the Democratic Party by supporting him and voting for him in November.

Thank you Senator Kerry - I hope all others follow your lead. :thumbsup:

[BelgianMadCow]

7. Good news! K&R

I hope this primary can prove to be pivotal in determining the dems strategy and courage to speak truth to power.

[Punkingal]

8. Way to go, Senator Kerry!

The Democratic Party stands for something is right, and I hope Harry Reid and others have received that message this morning.

[havocmom]

9. Kerry sees the writing on the wall and responds quickly

'If the people will lead, the leaders will follow' <--- Old adage which applies now.

That is how we will separate the wheat from the chaff in the coming weeks as we watch how other nationally prominent DEMS face the reality that THE PEOPLE are not happy with the direction the Hill has stumbled down.

Any nationally predominate DEM who does not come out with statements similar to Kerry's is sticking dynamite up their tush and holding a match. They are either Democrats or they are not. They either support the principles of Democracy and the will of the people or they do not.

Simple equation. They either represent US or they do/say AND REPRESENT what the big corporate lobbyists tell them.

They work for US or they are outed as working for the blossoming oligarchy. There is a big reckoning coming. Fence sitting DEM Leaders not welcome.

We the People to the Hill: Take a stand or be dammed.

[MaineDem]

11. I don't think Kerry needed the writing on the wall

I believe he said right up front that he'd support the Democratic nominee. Most party leaders said that during the primary. It's the right thing to do.

[IndyOp]

13. Dem leaders did say they would support the winner - so now is the

time for them to quickly do so! Clintons? Gore?

:kick:

[MaineDem]

14. They already have, n/t

[havocmom]

15. EXACTLY!

They move fast or the bus leaves without them

[TayTay]

16. Kerry saw this writing on July 5, 2006

when he said he would back the winner of the Democratic Primary in Connecticut. He told Don Imus last week that he is a Democrat and will back the Democratic Party and those who win Democratic primaries.

Kerry had this position over 4 weeks ago. He was one of the first Big Dems to say this.

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. Sorry, this comment is pretty clueless

Kerry - alone among many Dems - refused to support Lieberman in the primary and pledged his support early on for the winner. It's the other Dems who are falling over themselves to catch up with Kerry after they spent the primary campaigning for Lieberman. It's they who see the writing on the wall and are now ferociously trying to distance themselves from Joe... not Kerry.

This comment would be much better directed at the likes of Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh who campaigned for Lieberman and are now quickly rushing out statements to show that they are willing to support Lamont.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[havocmom]

44. LOL Hillary and others are the ones I was jabbing

:eyes:

[WildEyedLiberal]

58. Sorry about that. I guess I took your title wrong

My apologies for jumping the gun, I see now what you meant.

[havocmom]

75. Glad we're ok

:hi: Full moon ya know ;)

[WildEyedLiberal]

76. Aroooo...

:P

[w4rma]

18. Give Kerry some more credit than that please. He didn't support LIEberman

in the primary, either.

[semillama]

24. Question for you, w4rma, and others

who in the last couple of days, have been using the term "sore loserman" or images of signs bearing that term from the 2000 recount. You do realize that it was freeper types who coined that term to use against the recount, right? and by using it to denigrate Lieberman, you are also denigrating our rightful president, Al Gore, and those who worked their asses off to get the votes recounted in Florida. I just don't like to see democrats buying into a republican frame - after all, that's why we wanted Lieberman out in the first place!

I mean no offense by this post, but to me at least, it makes us look bad to use this term. Maybe you could use some other term - I kinda like the "LIEberman" one myself!

[w4rma]

42. I sure do realize that. And thank you for asking.

In fact it was the theft of the 2000 election that angered me enough to stay involved in politics as long as I have. I am using the Sore Lieberman theme for two reasons:

• When people see it they remember what happened in 2000, also. (In fact not only does it remind Democrats that the Republican leadership stole the election, but it also reminds Republicans that they shouldn't like LIEberman.)


• It is most effective **against** the DLCers and Repukes who called for Gore and Lieberman to quit fighting the theft. Their mindset is geared towards this type of emotional slogan. And it is they who must be convinced to stay away from LIEberman now. This theme was their rallying cry and it should be ours now.

So, now I'm using it against that traitor LIEberman who stabbed ME (and is is working hard to do it again) in the back after I supported him then and for quite a time after.

Btw, Al Gore is still my first choice to run for president in 2008, just as he was in 2004. But my focus is on the 2006 election, atm.

[havocmom]

45. I AM giving Kerry credit AND jabbing the DEMS who haven't shown his wisdom

:eyes:

[w4rma]

48. My apologies. I misread your post. (nt)

[havocmom]

50. Thank you for that, w4rma.

It's a day with a lotta 'hot under the collar'. Taking time is a giant step for sanity :thumbsup:

And, if ya have time, look in on this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1861659&mesg_id=1861659

We need to not be distracted by CT that we forget the PRIZE is the SENATE and there are lots of good DEMS to support and promote.

One Senator = One vote, no matter if it is CT, CA, NY, VA, MT

Work on what we can win instead of letting the GOP divert us via Joe

[demdiva]

34. Kerry said over a month ago that he would support the

nominee that the people of CT chose. I think it's really unfair to assert that Kerry is just following the political tidal wave here. He has been out in front of this issue just like he was out in front of like a million other ones (healt care, iraq etc....)

[havocmom]

53. Never said what you claim I said

Kerry listens to people and believes in democracy/will of the people

It's a batch of his colleagues on the Hill I am poking with a stick by comparing Kerry's immediate voice to the resounding silence of too many others today

[demdiva]

66. Thanks for clarifying!

[confludemocrat]

37. Right, there is a backlog of Liebermans to be gotten rid of

and none of these jokers wants to be next.

[blm]

49. Some supported Lamont by refusing to endorse or campaign for Lieberman

And Lieberman's numbers took their biggest nosedive after he spoke against Kerry's withdrawal plan on the senate floor.

Try seeing the big picture here. Things like this don't happen in a vacuum.

[havocmom]

55. Yep. And still waiting to hear from other ranking DEMS

But have to go to work. Keep me posted about those who back the candidate CT DEMs picked last night. ;) Maybe we should post an honor roll around here.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

12. Good one Kerry

[sampsonblk]

20. Excellent...this is what we need-nt

nt

[mcscajun]

21. Bravo! There'll be more like this as the day and week progresses.

The avalanche has begun. :)

[Cha]

22. "Democrats to unite"..that leaves

out joementia.

[Totally Committed]

23. Good for him...

Now he needs to help talk Joe down from his ledge for the doog of the Party...

And he needs to get Bill Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and enyone else who canpaigned for Lieberman onboard to do the same. They need to sit Joe down and have a talk with him. Soon.

TC

[zbdent]

25. Well, Lamont had a bigger (percentagewise) "mandate"

than George W. Bush had ... ever ...

[mopinko]

26. a small nitpick here, senator

"they’ve made a strong statement about the current course in Iraq which is failing our troops."

step away from the spin, there, sir. it is JUST not about the war. it is about everything, especially about he lack of checks and balances. it is about the failure of the legislative branch to exercise some adult supervision. that would mean you, also, sir.

[whometense]

27. In what way has Kerry failed

to exercise adult supervision? Sometimes it seems to me that there are approximately 5 adults in the senate - Kerry is unfailingly among them.

[mopinko]

32. i'll just say

i have my opinion, and you all are entitled to yours. we have a system that allows a single senator to shut down the whole system. that allows the minority access to the levers of power. that has not been done by senate dems. i hold them responsible for everything that has happened. when i here someone like kerry accepting the premise that this is about the war, which is the msm spin on this race, i want to :puke:
but that's me.

[ProSense]

28. He says that in the rest of the statement

...The events of the past months make even more clear the differences Democratic leadership would make for our country on Iraq, in making America safer, in having an economy that works for everyone, and in achieving energy independence. That’s who we are as Democrats, and that’s what we’ll be fighting for. It’s time for all Democrats to come together to support Ned Lamont. It’s time for Democrats to unite.”

[confludemocrat]

41. No, I don't think he does. As usual, cryptic and guarded, not forthright

except in saying that Democrats need to unite.

[fedupinBushcountry]

74. Well is this clear enough for you

Senator Kerry was on the Chet Curtis Show on July 10th, here is what he said: My paraphrasing I may have not copied it word for word but you can check the video link I will post, the topic comes up at about 1247 into the interview.

Q: You say you will not support Joe Lieberman if he runs as an Independent

A: I can't, I'm a Democrat and Joe is a Democrat at least today and I think that being a Democrat and that interest comes before self if you will. If he decides and doesn't win the primary, then I'm going to support the Democratic nominee. think that is the right thing to do and the Democrats in that state will decide who that nominee will be.

http://www.boston.com/news/necn/Shows/chet/ scroll down to July 10th interview.

Senator Kerry also did not endorse Lieberman in the primary.

[wisteria]

30. Senator Kerry understand what you are saying and has done more

about that then any other Senator I am aware of. There is no spin in Kerry statement- it is all from his heart.

[TayTay]

31. Gee, I don't think that's right at all.

Kerry has been extremely vocal in calling for oversight and accountability from this Administration.

Perhaps you can also ask those other Dem Senators to sign Kerry's letter from June 2005 that calls for an investigation into the Downing Street Memos. Perhaps you can ask them to make sure that Kerry's Amendment from Nov 2005 that calls for quarterly reports to Congress on the 'Rendition flights' that carry detained people from the US or it's allies to nations that practice torture.

No one has been more vocal than Kerry in demanding that Congress practice oversight on this Administration. It would be nice to hear him get some credit for this and even nicer to see some other Dem Senators take this up as well.

[confludemocrat]

39. Well, that's right, it's not just the war that did Lieberman in

his Washington insider elitism, obeisance to lobbyists and his general state of being a hypocritical dick did him in, which leaves more than a few in the party wondering with that scenario for defeat fulfilled, whether they might be vulnerable too.

[blm]

You can't even name one lawmaker who has worked to counter BushInc

more than John Kerry has.

[blm]

54. You can't even name one lawmaker who has worked to counter BushInc

more than John Kerry has.

[wisteria]

29. This is a wonderful statement. It expresses so much hope for the

future of our party. I too think it is time to come together and support our great Democratic candidates and leaders.

[demdiva]

35. It is a hopeful statement. Kerry is the true uniter (not a divider) IMHO

BTW....Did anyone else notice that Joe said he wanted to "unite not divide" in his concession speech? Was that an intentional nod to republicans or are they really that dumb???

[AtLiberty]

36. Thank you, President Kerry!

Will you also work for election reform so that the majority of American voices will be heard?

[La Coliniere]

38. The honorable thing to do.

Thanks Mr. Kerry!

[ronnykmarshall]

43. Thanks John!!

:yourock:

[angus]

46. Thank you, Senator Kerry!

I hope everybody does the same.

[TankLV]

47. Benchley's not gonna like this!...

Hoo boy!

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Little Star]

51. Kerry gets BINGO on this. n/t

[Guaranteed]

61. Solid. I knew he'd come through. nt

[Dr Fate]

62. A class act- thanks to Kerry for speaking for me yet again. n/t

n/t

[gully]

63. Bravo Senator, I never had a doubt you or others would support the nominee

eom

[rodeodance]

64. Thanks Kerry. Nicely said (btw-Howard Dean said about the same thing)

[rodeodance]

65. here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2768794&mesg_id=2768794

[Dr Fate]

67. Dean has ALWAYS supported the party, even when he lost.

That is one of many differences between us Democrats and the new C.T. Independent party.

[Spirochete]

70. I believe Senator Kerry

was wishing for Lamont to win all along. I don't remember him having said so, but I got the idea he was.

[blm]

78. Especially after Lieberman attacked the Kerry-Feingold withdrawal plan on

the senate floor FOR the Republicans.

[IndianaGreen]

80. Lieberman did more than just oppose Kerry/Feingold

He also opposed the watered down, no date certain, plan proposed by Durbin & Co. To add insult to injury, Lieberman stood alongside Bill Frist and attacked all the Democratic Senators as defeatists and cut-and-runners.

On that day, Lieberman stood far to the right of Hillary!

[blm]

81. I think that was the day that turned even moderate Dems against him.

His polls took a nosedive - an irreversible nosedive.

[TayTay]

79. You may just be right

This was on the HuffPo earlier this year:

I'd repeated an anecdote in the Huffington piece that suggested he privately pushed his fellow Dems to oppose the Iraq resolution, but bowed to the majority's will when he was overruled. "Never happened," Kerry said firmly. "There was no 'Faustian bargain.'"

So if there was no private meeting, no agreement to join with the majority, then why vote for the resolution? "It didn't happen in a vacuum," he said. "I'd been supporting the Biden-Lugar Amendment, a bipartisan effort that would have required that the inspections be completed before any military action took place. We had a good chance of passing it. That amendment reflected my position on the war.

"Then one day we turned on the TV and Joe Lieberman was in the Rose Garden with the President, saying that he was supporting the resolution - as is. We realized that, as of that moment, the amendment was effectively dead."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/kerry-calls-to-respond-_b_18844.html?p=2

With a nice nod to the John Kerry Forum folks for pointing this one out again.

[politicasista]

73. Kick for Kerry!

:kick: