Senator Pryor stands by Lieberman

[Freddie Stubbs]

A Baltimore blog claims it ascertained that U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor will support U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election effort in Connecticut -- even if Lieberman does not win the Democratic primary next month.

(Lieberman faces a tough challenge for the Democratic nomination, and earlier this week he said he would run as an independent if he loses the primary. This has caused turmoil among Democrats over whether loyalties should be to the person or the party. Daily Kos is keeping track of where senators stand, under the headline "Who's a loyal Democrat?")

UPDATE: We just spoke with Pryor's communications director, Michael Teague, who confirmed the report.


http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2006/07/pryor_stands_by_lieberman.aspx

[Larkspur]

1. I'll stand by Sen. Feingold everyday

Feingold gave Lamont the best non-endorsement endorsement that he could on MTP a few weeks ago and said that he will support the Dem nominee, no matter who it is. That's what Dems should say.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Feingold certainly wouldn't dare to endorse Lamont in the primary

[Ken Burch]

4. Will you agree that it would be dishonorable for any Dem senator

to support Lieberman if he loses the primary and then runs as a conservative independent?

[mdguss]

3. It's not his fault; Lieberman is putting Democrats in a pinch:

Go to any red county, and they'll say, "Joe Lieberman is my favortie Democrat." Democrats elected in the south and midwest (Pryor, Johnson, and the Nelsons) are being put in a very difficult position by Joe's independent candidacy. If they don't back him, they're revealing themselves to be "liberal Democrats who are not tolerant of Lieberman's moderate views." And we're kidding ourselves if we think that Karl Rove doesn't already have that--actually a much nastier verson of that--written. But if they support Lieberman, they're not going along with the party--which, in some states, like Arkansas can be a good thing.

None of this would be happening if Lieberman just agreed to abide by the results of the primary. If he lost, he might need a job. Maybe when Rummy finally retired, Bush would appoint him Secretary of Defense. He would actually be pretty good for that job.

[Ken Burch]

5. Can we finally let go of this "They love Lieberman in the Red States

so we have to make him Senator for Life" bullshit? The fact is, Lieberman is too old to ever be on a presidential ticket again.
And the other fact is that Lieberman didn't swing a single Red State anywhere for the party in 2000.

HolyWarJoe HAS no Red State Magic. Face reality, people.

[Jimdish25]

6. Can't they just say they are not endorsing either...

one in the primary, and support the winner in the General election? Why is that so difficult for a DEMOCRAT! What bank did Ned Lamont rob? This is sheer cowardice and I'm sick of it. This is why the Dems will wake up with egg on their faces after the next election is stolen in plain sight.

What do they stand up for? Afraid to come out against the Iraq war. Afraid to stand up against no-bid contracts. Afraid to stand up to the "Patriot" Act. Afraid to stand up for the environment. Afraid to face up to election fraud. Afraid to censure Bush. Afraid to say the word impeachment.

The Republicans are laughing at Mark Pryor while the rest of us are just embarassed.

[wordpix2]

7. a man in the know told me it's not a definite Joe would run as an indie

This is talk in CT. I imagine if Joe loses big to Lamont he will go away on the lecture tour. If it's tight, he will probably stay and battle it out with Lamont.