Jodi Rell, the “Republican” governor of Connecticut, has announced that she will not seek re-election.

In a surprising announcement, Mrs. Rell, 63, did not immediately give a specific reason for her decision, saying only, “At some point, you know inside that it is time to begin a new chapter in life.”

Her announcement came during a news conference at which she first thanked people who had helped in a food drive over the weekend.  “Second, I would like to share with you the news that — after much soul-searching and discussion with my family — I have decided not to seek re-election next year,” Mrs. Rell said. Her family was standing nearby during the announcement, The Hartford Courant reported.

The news left the Republicans without a candidate possessing big statewide name recognition and the Democrats with an opportunity to push for the governorship in 2010.

Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, a Republican, has said that he might run for governor if Mrs. Rell decided not to seek re-election. Other Republicans, including the House minority leader, Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk, and the Senate minority leader, John McKinney of Fairfield, also have expressed interest.

Among the Democrats, Ned Lamont, a businessman who unsuccessfully ran for the United States Senate three years ago, has expressed an interest in being governor.  “I salute the governor for her service to Connecticut, her civility, and her integrity,” Mr. Lamont said in a statement Monday evening. “Now is the time for a fresh start.”

Mrs. Rell, a former lieutenant governor, has been governor since 2004, when Gov. John G. Rowland resigned. He served 10 months in prison after pleading guilty to corruption charges. Mrs. Rell was elected in her own right in 2006.

Mrs. Rell’s job approval numbers have dipped in recent Quinnipiac University polls, mostly because of the state’s budget problems. A Sept. 16 poll showed that 59 percent approved of how she had handled her job, while 34 percent disapproved — the lowest approval rating during her tenure.

Those numbers are sustainable, however — certainly not enough in and of themselves to signal an uphill fight. So, it may well be that she just decided to move on to something else.  She and her husband have also had health problems of late, although she dismissed that explanation when asked.

The state GOP will not miss Rell, even if her decision makes it harder to retain the seat.  She’s not ideologically conservative, of course, but that’s pretty typical of Nutmeg State Republicans.  But she’s not at all popular with insiders, having developed a reputation for putting her own interests above her party’s.

Joe Lieberman continues to tweak Democrats at every opportunity.

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent who supports Democrats in Congress despite his backing of the Iraq war, said on Thursday he was not ruling out endorsing a Republican in the White House race.

The 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate said he also wants to see if an independent enters the crowded field of 2008 presidential hopefuls. “I’m going to chose whichever candidate that I think will do the best job for our country, regardless of the party affiliation of that candidate,” the Connecticut senator told reporters in the state capital Hartford. “I’m not going to get involved until after both parties have their presumptive nominees and, frankly, to see if there is a strong independent candidate,” he said.

Lieberman recently held a fundraiser to help Republican Susan Collins get re-elected and has hinted numerous times that he might leave the Democratic caucus, so this isn’t a big surprise.

Still, it’s time for Lieberman to fish or cut bait. He’s either caucusing with the Democrats or he isn’t. His continually trying to have it both ways is just annoying. He’s in the same position where John McCain was after the 2000 election, enjoying the media attention that comes from going against his party. Of course, Lieberman at least is nominally an “Independent,” having lost his bid for re-nomination as a Democrat.

Lieberman’s endorsement won’t do much to help a Democratic nominee; indeed, it might hurt. It really won’t do much to bolster a Republican, either, unless he gives a Zell Miller type speech at the Convention.

A gentleman is going around trying to give away stickers with a slash through the name “Rudy McRomney.” He’s not having much luck.

Asked by your intrepid reporter why he should want such a sticker, it was explained that good conservatives should be opposed to all the current frontrunners for the GOP nomination (Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney). Asked whether that made any sense, I allowed that it made a “modicum” of sense. He seemed pleased with this concession but nonetheless left with a full complement of stickers.

Matt Stoler has given up on Congressional Democrats, deciding that, “It’s pretty obvious at this point that the Democratic leadership isn’t serious about ending the war in Iraq. They won’t defund the war, and keep repeating the meme that cutting off funding for the war means cutting off funding for the troops.” As a result, “they are screwing over us, who voted them into office to end the war, and we’re enabling them with cheerleading.”

He thinks it may be time for the Netroots to start working to defeat these people in the primaries for their betrayal. While I would be happy to have the Netroots defeat electable Democrats in the primaries, replacing them with Ned Lamont types, I find it rather odd that Stoler had such high hopes. After all, almost none of the 2006 winners who shifted the balance of power in Congress–by definition replacing Republicans in those seats–did so on a platform of quick withdrawal from Iraq.

Further, even if there were a unanimous consensus among Congressional Democrats to call of the war right now, the institutional arrangement of our government would preclude it. A minority of forty senators could filibuster and deny the Democrats a victory. If they could peel off enough Republicans to get past that (ten, with Senator Tim Johnson being incapacitated) President Bush could veto it, requiring two-thirds votes in both Houses to override.

Let’s just say we’re not there yet. And, certainly, that fact doesn’t constitute “screwing over” liberal bloggers.

Sean Hackbarth does a pretty good job of explaining the basic appeal of Bolton. Although, I have to wonder how True Believers will react to being compared to Ned Lamont boosters! :)

The NYT gives prominent attention to news that Democrats run relatively conservative candidates in key House seats they are trying to keep or snatch from the Republicans.

In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party.

One such candidate, Heath Shuler, was courted by Republicans to run for office in 2001. Mr. Shuler, 34, is a retired National Football League quarterback who is running in the 11th Congressional District in North Carolina. He is an evangelical Christian and holds fast to many conservative social views, like opposition to abortion rights.

“My guess is that if Democrats are in the majority, it’s going to be because of these New Democrat, Blue Dog candidates out there winning in these competitive swing districts,” Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, co-chairman of a caucus of centrist House Democrats, said in an interview.

But if candidates like Mr. Shuler do help the Democrats gain majority control of Congress, it could come at a political price, which may include tensions in the party between its new centrists and its more liberal political base.

While Democratic leaders have gone to great lengths to promote the views of these candidates, some, like Mr. Shuler, have views on issues like gun control and abortion that are far out of step with the prevailing views of the Democrats who control the party. On some issues, they may even be expected to side with Republicans and the Bush White House.

Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected more moderate views. That was especially true in suburban areas and some rural districts, said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “As a group, they are moderate in temperament and reformers in spirit,” Mr. Emanuel said.

[...]

Collectively, the group could tilt the balance of power within the party, which has been struggling to define itself in recent elections. The candidates cover the spectrum on political issues; some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, some are the reverse. They could influence negotiations with Republicans on a variety of issues, including Social Security and stem cell research.

There are two main groups of moderate Democrats in the House: the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of socially conservative and moderate members formed in 1994; and the New Democrat Coalition, a caucus of centrists formed in 1997. While there are differences between the two — the Blue Dogs tend to be more rural and Southern, with occasional alliances with Republicans, while the New Democrats are more suburban and wealthy and place a premium on party loyalty — there are members who belong to both. Both, of course, have a stake in helping the centrist candidates succeed.

Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility. “I think there’s tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love,” Ms. Tauscher said, adding that this was something “we’ve got to fight.”

Matt Stoler is angry at the audacity of Tauscher in pointing this out, saying it amounts to declaration of intraparty war. This is essentially axiomatic. After all, in progressive states like Maine and Rhode Island, Republicans run candidates like Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chaffee. In states and districts that are naturally aligned with the other party, the path to victory is candidates who are more centrist. That’s Politics 101.

Furthermore, if the Democrats take over the House, their leadership will come almost entirely from the Old Democrat wing. Its incumbent on the New Democrats to both fight to gain as much influence as possible and to reassure voters in Republican-leaning districts that voting for the likes of Heath Shuler is not a vote for Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy.

Then again, Stoler thinks the reason Ned Lamont is losing to Joe Lieberman, despite having narrowly beaten him in the hyper-charged Democratic primary, is because the Democratic bigwigs aren’t being mean enough to Lieberman. It couldn’t be that most of the people who supported Lieberman in the primary are still support him and that Republicans and swing voters would prefer a relatively moderate candidate with seniority over a leftist freshman.

Joe Lieberman is once again running away with the Connecticut Senate race.

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I) has increased his margin over Democrat Ned Lamont by eight points. He now leads the antiwar candidate 50% to 40% (see crosstabs [$]). Thirty-nine percent (39%) are certain of their Lieberman vote, while 30% definitely expect to pull the lever for Lamont. GOP nominee Alan Schlesinger now attracts 6% of all voters.

It’s interesting that, despite continued bad news on whatwas presumed to be the defining issue in the contest both in Connecticut and nationally, the war in Iraq, and the weight of the Democratic party machine against him, Lieberman is nonetheless gaining steam.

The Senate Democrats are hedging their bets, apparently promising Joe Lieberman he will retain his seniority if he’s re-elected as an Independent and joins their caucus.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the longtime Democratic senator from Connecticut running for re-election as an independent, says the party leadership has assured him he would keep his seniority if he returns to Congress. Local Democrats are responding with irritation, political opponents voice disbelief, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denies making a decision.

But the strongest response is likely to come from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) who views Lieberman’s independent status as an opportunity to press Democratic leaders to restore seniority he lost four years ago. If Lautenberg retrieves seniority accrued during 18 years of Senate service before retiring in 2000, he could leapfrog Lieberman to lead the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee or the Environment and Public Works Committee.

[...]

Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, does not want to wrestle with these questions in public before the Nov. 7 election. “The caucus won’t make any decisions until after the elections in November,” said Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley.

While that response implies that Lieberman’s status is to be decided by the entire caucus, senior Democratic aides say questions of seniority are largely decided by Reid.

Lieberman said he would keep his senior position in the caucus, even though he lost Connecticut’s Democratic primary, and is running against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, whom the Senate Democratic leadership has endorsed. “That’s what I’ve been told,” said Lieberman in an interview Friday, before Congress recessed for the election. “Caucuses like to keep as many members as they can, not discourage membership,” implying that leaders risk his defection to the GOP if they strip him of seniority.

Jim Jeffords kept his seniority, too, when he bolted from the Republican party mere months after having been re-elected under their banner and caucused with the Democrats. Given that it’s quite likely the party will need every vote it can get, alienating Lieberman further would be idiotic.

Ned Lamont touts himself as a teacher of inner city kids. The Lieberman camp says that’s stretching the truth.

On the campaign stump, Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont often tells audiences that he teaches at Harding High School in Bridgeport. On his Web page, Lamont states, “I teach in a 50-year-old inner-city public school,” referring to Harding. In a July Connecticut Post article, Lamont said, “I’m a guy that started a business from scratch. I’ve been involved in education and technology. I teach at Harding.” And in advertisements running on radio and television, Lamont extols his time at Harding. Students who appear in the ads call him their “teacher,” and urge him to run for the Senate.

Rival Senate candidate Joe Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat who is running as an independent after losing a primary battle to Lamont, is taking issue with Lamont’s portrayal of himself as an inner-city schoolteacher, saying he’s “misleading” the public.

The Lieberman campaign points out that Lamont is a multimillionaire from Greenwich who volunteered to help with a business class at Harding High School. “The reality is Ned Lamont has trouble with the truth,” said Dan Gerstein, Lieberman’s communications director. “Ned Lamont has loudly and widely trumpeted his credentials as an educator and in doing so has unequivocally given people the impression that he is currently a teacher in the Bridgeport public schools. Since Mr. Lamont is touting this credential, there are legitimate questions,” Gerstein said. “He has distorted Lieberman’s record and he has a habit of mischaracterizing his own positions on Iraq. If he is not teaching, why does he continue to mislead the voters about his role in the Bridgeport public schools?” Gerstein said.

The Lamont camp said Lieberman’s complaints are nonsense. “By any measure you apply, Ned was a teacher to those kids,” said Liz Dupont-Diehl, a spokeswoman for the Lamont campaign. “This is a sad attempt by Senator Lieberman to divert attention from his failure to represent the people of Connecticut and hold the Bush administration responsible for a badly managed war,” Dupont-Diehl said.

The facts surrounding the issue are clear. During the 2004-05 school year, Lamont served as a volunteer teacher at Harding. He helped a certified teacher lead two classes on how to start a business and brought in outside experts to bolster the course. Hector Sanchez, Harding’s principal, said Lamont helped teach once a week, on Mondays, for two periods, which amounts to 1.5 hours for the day. The effort lasted the school year, Sanchez said. In 2005-06, Lamont volunteered to help teach a similar class at Bassick High School. Lamont’s campaign staff said he has done some teaching this year, but admitted that effort has been occasional.

So does that give Lamont a right to portray himself as a teacher? “That’s stretching it,” said Sanchez, who said he admires Lamont’s commitment to his school. “He’s not a certified teacher. It was as a volunteer. He arrived once a week for two periods every Monday. He partnered with the certified teacher. I can vouch for him coming here,” Sanchez said.

Sanchez said that not many people volunteer as much time at Harding as Lamont has. “I have people who come in,” he said. “But to do it for the whole school year, I don’t have anyone that gives that type of commitment.”

[...]

Dupont-Diehl said Lamont uses the term “teacher” in a conversational way, not a technical one. “His is using ‘teach’ in a common-sense version. He has never claimed to be a certified teacher. But he has been endorsed by Connecticut’s two teacher unions,” she said. “There has never been any inconsistency in how he describes it. He is a teacher. He stands up in front of a class. It’s too bad Lieberman does not have similar volunteer activities. I think that’s significant,” Dupont-Diehl said.

Gerstein said Lamont should explain his activities more accurately, and contends that many across the state have been led to believe that he’s an inner-city teacher.

Here’s the commercial in question:

(The YouTube version has been “removed due to terms of use violation.”)

Does the ad imply that Lamont was more than some guy who volunteered an hour of his time a week to work with kids? Yeah, I think it does. Is making something that consumes such a small fraction of his professional life the primary focus of his ads and campaign literature somewhat misleading? I’d say so.

Lamont employee David Sirota thinks the Lieberman camp is the one who should be ashamed. He argues that Lamont has been totally honest in his portrayal, citing this July 29 press release highlighting the ad:

After calling the schools, looking for an opportunity to volunteer, Lamont was paired with an accounting teacher. Since then, Lamont co-taught the class regularly, bringing other national business leaders to address students, and leading exercises such as how to create a business plan. Ned’s experience in the Bridgeport Public Schools, and the Federal government’s failure to meet the needs of 21st century schools, is part of what drove him to run.

But even this is, to say the least, misleading. As Lamont now admits, he has not taught the class regularly this year. That’s hardly surprising; he’s got a business to run and is campaigning for the Senate. But to put out a release in July–after a 2005-6 school year in which by his own admission his teaching was “occasional”–saying “Since then, Lamont co-taught the class regularly” is inaccurate.

The commercial itself, as Sirota points out, has all the facts:

The students say that Lamont was their teacher, despite having another job running his own business. ‘But he learned from his parents, the value of giving back to the community,’ the students say. ‘So I guess being a volunteer teacher was something Mr. Lamont felt he had to do.’”

Yet, a guy who gives a couple guest lecturers and recruits some other guest lecturers to fill out the rest of the term–in a course being taught by another teacher–is not a “teacher” in any meaningful sense.

The word Lamont is looking for is “mentor.” That’s what he was doing. Mentoring is an honorable thing and I’m sure these kids got a lot out of Lamont’s life experience and the fact that he gave a damn. Not many people, let alone many millionaires, volunteer their time to help those less fortunate. I’m sure the kids in the ad are genuinely grateful. Lamont’s service is quite honorable. The touting of it in this manner, though, is questionable.

Full disclosure: My wife’s firm does polling for Lieberman. I stumbled on the story via Memeorandum

Writing for USA Today, Bruce Kluger uses some rather strained logic to argue that the power of the blogosphere is largely mythological. His evidence? Bloggers failed to kill of Joe Lieberman’s independent campaign for the Senate and “Snakes on a Plane” had only modest success at the box office.

On Aug. 8, Connecticut businessman Ned Lamont defeated U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary, a triumph widely credited to the rah-rah racket produced by pro-Lamont armies stationed along the Internet.

Indeed, the bloggers had scored big. They had helped vault a local politician to national prominence and cemented the Iraq war as Issue No. 1 in the congressional elections. Not a bad day.

But their victory was short-lived. Even before the primary, Lieberman announced that, should he lose, he’d still run in November as an independent. This electoral chutzpah effectively rope-a-doped the bloggers and recharged the senator’s fabled Joe-mentum. Lieberman’s still the man to beat in the general election.

While it is helpful of Kluger to point out that bloggers are a subset of voters which are a subset of people, it’s unclear what that insight reveals. Would Ned Lamont be the Democratic nominee for the Senate absent the organized movement led by lefty bloggers? Doubtful. Can the Netroots have the same kind of impact in the general election? Well, no. So what?

If this wasn’t enough to drain the effervescence from the blogger bubbly, America’s noisy Web wags were dealt an even more sobering blow 10 days later when Snakes on a Plane opened nationwide to a decidedly flat $15.3 million box office.

Before its premiere, Snakes had been the latest blogger darling, as swarms of online film geeks prematurely crowned it the summer’s big sleeper. This hyperventilating fan base even convinced Snakes‘ distributor, New Line Cinema, to up the movie’s rating to R, to ensure a gorier, more venomous snake fest.

But all that clapping and yapping couldn’t put enough fannies in the seats. Ticket sales for Snakes‘ debut barely topped those of Talladega Nights, which was already in its third week.

So a comparatively low budget film overtaking a highly promoted film starring perhaps the biggest box office draw today, despite having been publicized almost entirely through a grassroots online effort is evidence of the failure of online marketing?

And which bloggers, precisely, were touting this film? I have read in various media outlets that bloggers were hyping–and even helping write–the movie. But I don’t recall any of the political bloggers I read–and I read a lot of them–touting the movie except as a one-off cultural reference.

There are some good comments on this at Crooked Timber, with Kieran Healy observing that, “in the absence of the jokey attention it got online, would have gone straight to DVD and never come close to the top of the box office for even a single weekend.”

Commenter Steve LaBonne offers, “I’m tired of these [censored] silly blogosphere columns in these [censored] newspapers.” And Michael Bérubé ties the two events together beautifully, offering up this gem: “Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who takes seriously the threat of motherlovin’ snakes on planes. Elect Ned Lamont and you might as well hand America over to our Herpetofascist enemies.”

Elsewhere, N. Todd Pritsky offers an amusing if profanity laden response to Kluger and skippy the bush kangaroo replies without the use of a single capital letter.

An article in today’s NYT discusses the concerns of Democratic leaders that Joe Lieberman’s “independent” senate campaign will bring more Republicans to the polls, hurting the Democrats’ chances of winning a couple of key House races.

As Senator Joseph I. Lieberman begins to mount a vigorous and well-financed re-election campaign as an independent, many Connecticut Democrats say they are worried that his bid could jeopardize their party’s ability to win in three hotly contested House races this fall.

Mr. Lieberman, a centrist Democrat who lost in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman, is now running on his own line. With polls showing that many Democrats are eager for a change, Democratic officials say they expect Mr. Lieberman to campaign aggressively to win over Republican and unaffiliated voters.

If he does, Democratic strategists say, he may well attract voters to the polls who are likely to support the state’s three Republicans in Congress: Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons and Christopher Shays.

As Steven Taylor notes, this would indeed be an ironic result of the purge of the impure from the Democratic ranks. Of course, the Republicans could wind up countering this if the hard liners are successful in knocking off the “RINOs” like Lincoln Chaffee and replacing them with candidates that would be great for Alabama but get trounced in swing states.

Joe Lieberman willnot endorse Conneticut’s Democratic candidates for Congress, he announced yesterday.

Declaring himself a “non-combatant,” U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in remarks at a New Haven press event Friday, raised anew the question of whether his “independent” candidacy will help Republicans hold onto three Congressional seats in Connecticut — and control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Lieberman — who after losing an Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont has launched a third-party bid to hold onto his seat in the Nov. 7 general election — was asked whether he still endorses Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, three Democrats looking to unseat endangered Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson. “I’m a non-combatant,” Lieberman declared. “I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it’s better if I just focus on my own race.”

[...]

“It’s a little awkward for me now” to endorse the Democratic candidates in the general election, he said, “since they all endorsed my opponent,” Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont.

Indeed it would. Given that the Democratic Party is endorsing and funding his opponent–as it should; Lamont is after all the party’s nominee–it would be odd to expect Lieberman to nonetheless endorse them.

The only question, really, is why he continues to insist he will caucus with the Democrats if elected. Is it out of an odd sense of loyalty to a party that has abandoned him and that he has abandoned, at least temporarily, after being defeated in a far race for the nomination? Or is it just a tactical move to get 40 percent or so of the Democratic vote?

Democrat/Connecticut for Lieberman/Republican backed Joe Lieberman called for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation on yesterday’s “Face the Nation.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot “walk away” from the Iraqis.

Lieberman, the one-time Democratic vice presidential candidate, is running as an independent in his bid for a fourth term since losing the Democratic nomination to newcomer Ned Lamont, who harnessed voters’ anger against the war in Iraq.

Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he had called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003. “With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Lieberman said the Bush administration should have sent more troops into Iraq “to secure the country.” “We had a naive vision that the Iraqis were going to embrace us and then go on and live happily ever after,” he said. Lieberman said the administration must “put severe pressure on the Iraqis to contain sectarian violence.” “There is still hope in Iraq and as long as there is we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism,” he said.

This strikes me as an odd strategy on Lieberman’s part. Whether this is his genuine view of the situation or merely a cynical ploy to triangulate, its effect will be to alienate Republicans while likely doing little to shore him up among Democrats predisposed to vote for party nominee Lamont.

UPDATE: Greg Djerejian notes that Lieberman has been all over the map on this one.

Way back in October of 2003, Lieberman said if he were the guy in the Oval Office he’d can Rummy (different than calling on Bush to do so, of course, which is more forceful, and not in keeping with the deferential war time mores we’re admonished to follow). Then, after the massive debacle of Abu Ghraib, some seven months after this interview, Lieberman sees it fit to pen an op-ed in the WSJ urging Rummy not be sacked–lest we “delight foreign and domestic opponents”. And now fast-forward to these heady times rife with challenges from the likes of Ned Lamont, and it’s OK again, I guess, to risk delighting our foreign foes with calls for Rummy to go. Rather on the lame side, I’m afraid.

Sadly, yes. Oddly remniscient of Genghis Khan John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it.” This sort of thing has always irritated me about Lieberman and most other politicians who scrupulously cultivate an image of moderation.

Jason Horowitz reports that,

a source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in a phone interview that the party will not help Schlesinger or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November. “We did a poll and there is no way any Republican we put out there can win, so we are just going to leave that one alone,” said the NRSC source.

An update to the post notes that,

An NRSC spokesman just called to make clear the distinction between actively and openly supporting Lieberman, which they’re not doing, and merely opting not to support a Republican in Connecticut. “The NRSC is not supporting Lieberman,” said Brian Nick, a spokesman for the NRSC. “He is a Democrat who votes 90 percent of the time with the Democrats. The race isn’t competitive at this point — our resources will be used elsewhere.”

A subtle distinction, to be sure. Still, the NRSC wouldn’t have actively supported Schlessinger anyway. Had the netroots insurgency not sprung up and Lieberman had coasted to re-nomination–as everyone expected just a few months ago–he would have been a shoe-in to win re-election. Schlessinger has always been a placeholder. The GOP has enough on its plate this November without backing sure-fire losers.

Political Wire’s Quote of the Day:

“Even if Joe Lieberman leaves the race, it will still be a three-way race, me, Schlesinger and Gold. So it’s going to be crowded.” — Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont (D), on Hardball, referring to GOP rival Alan Schlesinger’s (R) gambling name, “Alan Gold.”

Great line. There’s something just a little unsporting going after a major party nominee polling in the single digits less than 90 days out, though.