Weicker on Dodd

Video from Face the State here.

Some highlights: Weicker says that some of the things he said about Dodd’s father in 1970 were “not called for.” Weicker also supports Dodd, says he would vote for him, and says that his heart is in the right place. Weicker also thinks that Barack Obama will be a great president.

Interesting to watch!

Advertisements

28 responses to “Weicker on Dodd

  1. Dodd may not want Weicker’s endorsement.

    Didn’t he endorse Lamont last time? Mayor McForehead?

    Wonder if Weicker will become 5th CT resident to contribute to Dodd? Oh wait, Weicker lives in Virginia….

  2. Weicker is one of the saddest politicans to ever darken the great state of Connecticut.

    Since fleeing the governor’s office before voters could throw him out, he has:

    Made numerous endorsements for candidates who then went on to lose their respective races.

    Threatened to run for president multiple times, never actually following through.

    Threatened to run against Joe Lieberman, the good fellow who heaved his fat behind out of the U.S Senate 21 years ago.

    All of which are a desperate attempt to maintain a myth that his opinions mean something.

    Nothing could be further from the truth for a man who ‘couldn’t get elected dog catcher’ after lying to voters on his stance on an income tax while running for Governor, for sadly what would be his lone candidacy for the that office.

    Every time he offers another political position, he only looks more pathetic.

  3. I, for one, would like to hear what John Rowland has to say about the pressing issues of our day.

  4. Weicker is one of the saddest politicans to ever darken the great state of Connecticut.

    Every time he offers another political position, he only looks more pathetic.

    God Bless you El Kabong.

    ebpie said:

    I, for one, would like to hear what John Rowland has to say about the pressing issues of our day.

    He’s around in Waterbury where a form of Russian Roulette includes bad mouthing him and seeing if you can make it to the door before being beaten to a bloody pulp.

    I saw him a couple of months ago – he seemed a lot more like the John Rowland I knew in the mid-80’s (then – a terrific guy) than the one we all saw later.
    The smile & quick wit are back like he was still in his 20’s. I was surprised at how glad I was to see him now that’s he all the way back to normal.

    It was a long trip for him; it was nice to see he made it.

  5. Bruce Rubenstein

    lets not overdo the Rowland lovefest…he is a felon who betrayed our trust

  6. lets not overdo the Rowland lovefest…he is a felon who betrayed our trust

    Bruce – take a look at the 16th district.

    I represent a good sized portion of Waterbury on GOP State Central (and was unanimously re-elected to my seat 4 hours ago) *and* don’t feel like moving right now.

    John Rowland is very popular throughout the district and remains extremely popular in Waterbury.

    The fact is – he could beat Bill Curry again right now and you know it.

  7. Congrats on the re-elect, ACR.

    Waterbury is a very forgiving town, if you happen to be a native son. The rest of the state isn’t quite as quick to forget, though.

  8. Waterbury is a very forgiving town

    It’s a different place in the universe; but good heavens are they LOYAL – and they expect it back.

  9. Bruce Rubenstein

    ACR id come to your victory party anytime….however…Rowland betrayed our trust…its not about who can win …its about being honest and setting a example that is one you can be proud of…

  10. ACR id come to your victory party anytime….however…Rowland betrayed our trust…its not about who can win …its about being honest and setting a example that is one you can be proud of…

    If only the Internet had existed when Ribicoff was wheeling and dealing one land deal after another, huh Bruce?

    Larson’s state senate hallmark nursing home bill that netted his insurance company over a a quarter-million in commissions?

    Gimme a break – I’m easily the only member of GOP state central that can honestly say I never once voted for Rowland for anything.

    It is however nice to see him back to the sort of guy I would have voted for for congress 25 years ago had I lived in his district.

  11. Before we move on to Rowland, some things have to be said about Weicker:

    In his race against Tom Dodd’s, the current senator’s father, Weicker not only “said some unfortunate things” about Dodd; he said some unfortunate things about the only ardent anti-Vietnam war candidate in the race, Joe Duffy.

    “In fact,” wrote the proprietor of this site, “during the first and only debate in October, another of Weicker’s memorable lines was that ‘a nice warm jail cell’ awaited draft dodgers.”

    Time, and experience in Washington, changed Weicker. His support of Ned Lamont was rooted in two things: Lamont’s forthright opposition to George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, now won by the good guys; and his smoldering hatred of Joe Lieberman, Connecticut’s senator who lost a primary against Lamont but defeated him in the general election.

    Now, it is very difficult for Weicker to lend his support to Chris Dodd at a difficult moment in the senator’s political life without tidying up the past, hence the apology.

    But peoplem with fading memories should know that his support of Chris Dodd is not new. When Roger Eddy ran against Dodd, Eddy took the precaution of traveling to Washington to secure Weicker’s support. Weicker received him warmly and promised him his 100% support in rather extravagant terms. A week before the election, Weicker appeared in radio spots supporting Dodd with the same effusion he had previously extended to Eddy.

    Not for nothing did Weicker describe himself as “the turd in the Republican Party punchbowl.”

    Weicker’s chief aide during his senatorial career and much briefer gubernatorial; career, Tom D’Amore, played a direct roll in the Lamont/Lieberman primary and general election, and Weicker appeared a few times on Colin McEnroe’s radio show to lend support to Lamont’s efforts.

    Weicker has much to apologize for, and it was something of a miracle that Dennis House in the clip shown here was able to tease from the maverick a mini-apology relating to Dodd’s father.

    It’s a beginning.

  12. Bruce Rubenstein

    ACR..you know me well enough to know my position…there are crooks…and bad people in BOTH parties….no one party has the monopoly of them….

  13. Bruce Rubenstein

    It’s a beginning.

    Don..nice article and I do believe that your rendition is pretty accurate with my only question….what “much” does Weicker have to apologize for?

  14. Don..nice article and I do believe that your rendition is pretty accurate with my only question….what “much” does Weicker have to apologize for?

    Oh, the destruction of the Connecticut Republican Party, just to begin with

  15. Bruce,

    Some of Weicker’s perfidy is here in Chris Powell’s review of his autobiography: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2007/10/andont-door-bang-yerarse-on-way-out.html

  16. Bruce Rubenstein

    Don….as you know I am not of your party, but i do have an observation and a question or two.

    Observation…folks are into politics for many reasons, mostly they get interested by way of their family,friends,school or by their own account. I believe most of those that get involved most do so for alturistic reasons, no matter what party they work in. Assuming one is not too jaded,mercantile and base and therefore is reasonably alteristic and is candidly interested in particular issues,policies and particular candidacies and candidates, then I see no reason to apologize for the advocay of same. Assuming that Weicker had as good a reason as you to join the GOP then why does he have to apologize for whatever actions he took and cannot ask you to apologize for whatever actions you took? Certainly you have your point of view but to expect an apology from an adversary within your party seems to me to be abit unrealistic.He is entitled to his views and relationships as you are entitled to yours.

    Question….Don is it your ascertion that Weicker’s change about the income tax ruined your party ? Or was it something else or a combination of positions?

    While I cannot say I agreed with him 100% on the issues, I do think he was a hero by virtue of his moment on the watergate committee as Senator, where our rights were threatened.

  17. lets not overdo the Rowland lovefest…he is a felon who betrayed our trust

    I was never really clear on the resolution of all that – according to Wikipedia, “On December 23, 2004, Rowland pleaded guilty to depriving the public of honest service.” Which I think was a deal with the Feds right? Did that essentially result in the equivalent of a felony conviction?

    I have to admit I have quite the conflicted view of former Governor Rowland.

  18. Bruce Rubenstein

    Adam….yes it was a felony conviction for which he did time…..now in order to show proper political balance, there are folks in my party who were convicted felons also…

  19. Count Pete

    No need to be conflicted, Adam: John Rowland was the emptiest of empty suits, a master at working the room but lacking either a moral or an ideological compass, motivated merely by personal ambition: a genial egomaniac. Look no further than his shameless flip-flop on abortion in 1990–after years of equating abortion with murder, he turned pro-choice because (as he explained) otherwise he couldn’t get elected governor. I knew him well back in the days ACR describes, and he was the same waste of time then that he proved later–but we were more easily fooled.

    Weicker, Dodd, Rowland–we’re lucky we still have a state at all!

  20. Weicker, Dodd, Rowland–we’re lucky we still have a state at all!

    Indeed.

  21. Adam….yes it was a felony conviction for which he did time…..now in order to show proper political balance, there are folks in my party who were convicted felons also…

    Thank you, as I said I never really heard what the final resolution was. Knew there was a plea deal after he resigned but wasn’t clear on the details. And yes, both parties have their share of bad apples.

  22. Bruce,

    Here’s where the expression “has much to answer for” comes from.

    When Cardinal Richelieu died, the pope of the day was asked “to comment” in modern lingo.

    This is what he said: “If there is no God, Cardinal Richelieu will have lived a successful life; and if there is a God, he will have much to answer for.”

    I know people get involved in politics for the best of reasons, but there is something about the game that spoils the best of intentions. The road to Hell, you know, is paved with them. Partially it has to do with the insularity of the political beast; partially it has to do with what C.S. Lewis might call the inner ring, the holy circle, as in the circle of our acquaintances. I’m not sure any of this falls under the rubric of corruption, and I do not believe that the political class is any more corrupt than any other profession. But I do think Bernard Shaw was right when he said “every profession is a conspiracy against the laity.” So, this means we, the laity, have to watch the politicians carefully. I do not see equivalence between myself and Weicker, except in the matter of political opinion. But Weicker was not preeminently a commentator, as I am. He was in a position to affect the nature of his state political party, but really cared nothing for it – which is why his hand picked chairman of the party, Tom D’Amore, proposed to “open” party conventions to those unaffiliated with the party. I leave it to you to ponder who this would have helped – not, I would say, the Republican Party.

    I think you might understand my aversion to Weicker if you think of him as Joe Lieberman. There are some in your party who think of Joe as I do of Lowell, for good reasons. I have no quarrel with them on that point, and – no sarcasam intended, I feel for them.

    The income tax ruined the state, not so much the party; Weicker and other faux Republicans had hollowed out the party long before Weicker, Richieliu like, imposed an income tax on the state.

    I do not say he will answer for what he has done, merely that he has much to answer for.

    If there is a God, we will all have much to answer for.

  23. It was good talking with you today about a world now blown away.

  24. Tom D’Amore, proposed to “open” party conventions to those unaffiliated with the party. I leave it to you to ponder who this would have helped – not, I would say, the Republican Party.

    It had nothing to do with opening the party and everything to do with the convention challenge Prescott Bush Jr. had given Weicker in 1982 gaining waaay more votes than required to force a primary, which Bush chose not to.

    Weicker was uncomfortable with the idea of being in a Republican primary even then.

    To avail his cause a majority of the delegate votes to change the party rules Weicker made all sorts of deals and promises which he promptly broke in 1986 via his support of Julie Belaga – who delivered the worst performance of any CT Republican gubernatorial candidate in modern history.

    A snake, the mans handshake was (and is) worthless.

    I was a there for all of the above.

    Both Tom D’Amore and Lowell Weicker are totally dishonorable men and neither is worthy of association with any decent upright person of any stripe.

    The last time I saw D`Amore was in the summer of 1986 at the Farmington Marriott where then VP George Bush had just held a small reception for 30 or 40 of us that he considered his best CT supporters.

    I’ve never seen D`Amore again; and I’m grateful for that.

  25. Count Pete

    My very good friend ACR and I don’t agree on everything, but I endorse and affirm everything he has to say about Weicker and D’Amore.

  26. Don,

    Your post #23 IMO was right on target. Especially your comment below:

    “I know people get involved in politics for the best of reasons, but there is something about the game that spoils the best of intentions. The road to Hell, you know, is paved with them.”

    I do not eat, drink, or breathe politics like some who post here many times each day, but I do find politics to be very interesting. As someone who is far more concerned about positive results, rather than partisan party politics I have over the years come to the same conclusion you have above.

    If we all had a dollar for each politician, incumbent or challenger, who claims that he or she is running for office to make a difference, work for a positive change, and bring positive results, we would have long ago seen all that. Additionally, we would all have more than enough dollars to pay all our bills.

    Since increasingly it seems to me at least, that so many campaign promises are merely empty promises, my conclusion then is much the same as yours. There is something that becomes more important over time to even the most honorable of politicians, with the best of intentions, that gets in the way of their original interest to bring about positive change. IMO, they simply become far more concerned about becoming re elected time and time again, and with their own political careers, then why they are supposed to be there in the first place.

    As someone who spent a good part of my working career as a fairly high level executive in private business I saw exactly the same thing there as well. IMO I saw many examples of high level executives who over time became far more focused with the politics of just holding on to their high level jobs, than with the results of the job they were actually doing.

    I conclude then that there really is only one current solution. We desperately need more than ever, reasonable term limits not just for our President, but for all members of Congress as well.

    It seems very logical at least to me, that if our elected officials knew they had only a reasonable time, to help produce the changes they claim to believe in, we would get more people running for office who would be more focused on effecting the changes they run on, and not a lifetime career.

  27. Al,

    I concur with what you’ve said, and you put it very well. I’ve been a proponent of term limits roughly since I crawled out of the crib. If you go to the site and type in “term limits” in the search engine, you’ll get quite a few hits. Here’s one of them: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2006/06/term-limits-revisited-theyre-good-for.html

    When one of the columns on term limits ran in one of the Connecticut newspapers, an editor with a robust sense of humor, who shall remain nameless, wrote back to say that his idea of term limit was elections one a week. ARC is right about “opening conventions to independents.” I sould have made it clear that this formulation was Weicker’s and D’Amore’s, not mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s