I guess Joe has run out of Democrats to defend him on Iraq, so a spokesman for the NRCC picks up the slack in this article from the Hill about the Shays-Farrell race:

Meanwhile, Farrell has used the war in Iraq to make Shays’s district one of the most competitive in the nation.

Republicans have tried to regain the offensive by calling on Farrell to renounce Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-Conn.) endorsement because his position on the Iraq war is more in line with Republicans than with Democrats.

"The suggestion that being for finishing the job in Iraq [is a losing issue] is ridiculous," said Ed Patru, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "It certainly has not had any effect on Joe Lieberman's popularity."

I suppose Patru hasn't been paying attention to recent national polls, which have indicated that both the American public and the troops on the ground in Iraq are turning against the Bush-Lieberman Iraq non-policy in larger numbers than ever. Or to noted liberal flame-breathers George Will and William F. Buckley, who have both turned against the Bush-Lieberman handling of the war.

As for Lieberman's popularity in CT, which Patru claims has not been affected? How does he explain this trend among CT Democrats?



It's sad that Joe needs to rely on the Republican leadership to defend his disastrous performance as a senator. It's even sadder that their defense of him is so completely wrong.