I called Boxer's office asked if she would support the winner of the CT

[still_one]

primary

This is the answer I received:

It would be a violation ot ethics for us to discuss that

I repeated myself, "I am NOT asking who she wants to win in the primary, I am simply asking if she will support the WINNER of the primary"

They responded that it would be a violation of ethics

WHY WOULD IT BE A VIOLATION OF ETHICS?

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer need to do some arm twisting

and break Joe Lieberman's arm, if necessary. This is ridiculous! They need to threaten Joe with an immediate cut off from DSCC funding ASAP if he continues his 'petitioning' campaign. Make it clear, "You're either with us or against Joe."

[still_one]

6. It is a problem, and if they don't do something the media

will make a circus out of it

[bryant69]

2. That is a wierd response

I wonder what the rationale is.

I suppose they could reason that answering that they will support the winner of the primary is a pretty clear endorsement of one or the other.

When you ask "Will you support the winner of the primary?" it's clear that hte real question is will you support Lamont if he is the nominee. There's no question she would support Lieberman. So either way she answers could be seen as a tacit endorsement for one or the other.

Not sure how that violates ethics though.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[still_one]

4. I don't know either. I called Feinstein's office, and they indicated

Senator Feinstein had NOT made her views known, but they NEVER said it was an ethics violation to respond

Maybe it was an inexperienced staffer answering the phone

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. She Will Support The Nominee

I think her character and integrity are such that she would support whomever wins the primary. She has always been a staunch Democrat, and will support the party's nominee.

I wouldn't rely on what a staffer says. I know many here are angry for her decision to campaign for Lieberman, but it's her right. In the scheme of things, it's irrelevant. The ultimate call will be made by voters in Connecticut.

But ultimately she will back the winner of the primary. That doesn't mean she'll fly east to campaign for Lamont, but I doubt she would diss him publicly or privately if he wins next month.

[still_one]

5. Believe it or not, I have NO PROBLEM with her campaigning

for Lieberman, and yes, I believe she will support the winner of the primary, but for her staff to even raise it as an ethics concern is quite perplexing to me. They could have said what Feinstein's office told me, that the Senator had NOT issued a statement in that regard

[robinlynne]

9. I do have a problem with it. And I don't get it at all.

[still_one]

10. I think she is doing it out of friendship

I know that their positions on vital issues do NOT match, which is frustrating, but I think it is as simple as friendship

However, I will NOT accept ANY Democrat NOT support the winner of the Democratic nomination

[xchrom]

7. a violation of ethics to say she would support the democratic winner

of the democratic primary?

:rofl:

[still_one]

8. yeah, I thought it was weird also

someone pointed out to me in a previous post it was probably an inexperience staffer

[xchrom]

11. she is going out to campaign for lieberman.

i don't think it's inexperience.