Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Sunday Morning Round-Up
- An extensive article in the Connecticut Post today explores the herd of largely Republican D.C. lobbyists who have been racing to Sen. Lieberman and throwing large amounts of cash at him:
Meanwhile, Lieberman has taken in more than $1.4 million from PACs and more than $500,000 from individuals living within an hour driving distance of the U.S. Capitol, who each contributed at least $200...
In February, two prominent Washington Republican lobbyists, Craig Fuller and H.P. Goldfield, hosted a fund-raising dinner for Lieberman that raised eyebrows after conservative political columnist Robert Novak reported on the event....
Lieberman plans to tap his Beltway sources again on Tuesday at a fund-raising event off Capitol Hill....
Lieberman raised more than $8.9 million by the end of June, drawing substantial support from the legal profession, securities and investment industry, real estate, health professionals and insurance companies.
His top corporate contributors were Lehman Brothers, United Technologies, Purdue Pharma, Aetna, UBS AG, Hartford Financial Services, Irell & Manella, Citigroup, Sempra Energy and Guardsmark, according to opensecrets.org, a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog group.
"People, not politics?" These are Joe's "people": Republican fundraisers. Republican lobbyists. The Chairman of Scooter Libby's defense fund. People with no interest in holding President Bush or his administration accountable on Iraq.
- Robert Novak echoes this storyline in his column this weekend:
GOP for Lieberman
Republican money is starting to pour into Connecticut for Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman, running as an independent against multimillionaire anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, the Democrat nominee.
Private commitments to Lieberman by Republican contributors coincided with announcement of a Nov. 1 fundraiser at the Manhattan townhouse of Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York. Co-chairing the event is another New York Republican, former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. Lieberman has pledged to remain in the Senate Democrat caucus even if elected as an independent.
So who have these "private commitments" come from? Anyway, I'm sure they're not "significant" amounts. Paging Dan Gerstein...
- Dan Balz in the Washington Post writes about senior Democrats now seriously worrying that Sen. Lieberman's do-over campaign will cost the party some or all of their House pickup opportunities in Connecticut:
Not all the movement is related to the GOP political offensive. In Connecticut, the nasty Senate race between insurgent Democratic nominee Ned Lamont against Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is now running as an independent after losing the primary, appears to have spilled over on the three critically important House races in the state.
Lieberman has been leading Lamont in the polls, thanks to Republican and independent support, and key Democrats say they are increasingly worried about the party's prospects of carrying the GOP districts held now by Reps. Johnson, Chris Shays and Rob Simmons.
- Editor and Publisher notes today's Washington Post endorsement of Sen. Lieberman (he has a lot of friends in D.C., doesn't he?) is at odds with what the paper is reporting today on their front page. But what else is new:
The Washington Post's editorial page endorsed Sen. Joe Lieberman for re-election in his third-party Connecticut U.S. Senate race on Sunday, saying that even though he lost the Democratic primary -- and Republican leaders are now backing him -- his victory in November would still be the best thing for his party.
The Post, like Lieberman, is a strong backer of the Iraq war. Lieberman lost to an antiwar candidate, Ned Lamont....
Just as the Post editorial page was endorsing the pro-war candidate in Connecticut, the paper's front page carried a report that painted the war in the worst possible light. It opened, "The war in Iraq has become the primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers are increasing faster than the United States and its allies are eliminating the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.
- The New York Times leads with the NIE story, too:
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document....
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.
Who was responsible for this egregious strategic error? And what do we do to make sure nothing like this ever happens again? This is why talking about how we've got to this point is important. Even if Sen. Lieberman thinks it's not. Joe's "people, not politics" (i.e. Dick Cheney, Mel Sembler, Karl Rove) have zero interest in any candidate they support calling for accountability on Iraq. And they know they're supporting a candidate in Connecticut who won't do so.
My question is why the Post's endorsement editorial isn't online. Are they intentionally keeping it off their website in an attempt to reduce the blogger outrage?
Okay, this is bizarre. I just looked at the print version of the Washington Post as well, and there's no sign of the Lieberman editorial, just the same three that are online (Virginia transportation, Chavez, and Syria). Did it actually get published?
And we thought we had seen the depths that Lieberman would go to sell himself to beltway insiders.Post a Comment
There's no bottom.
There's no bottom.