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).
Monday, October 16, 2006
Monday Morning Round-Up
22 days to go. And three debates, starting today. Here we go.
- Paul Krugman writes about Lieberman destroying his own credibility in the Times (see post below).
- The AP runs with Joe's refusal to say whether America would be better off with Democrats winning the House, or whether Connecticut would be better off with a Democrat as Governor:
Lieberman told The Hartford Courant on Friday that his decision on whether to vote for Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell or Democratic New Haven Mayor John DeStefano will remain private....
Lieberman also declined to comment Friday on whether he thinks the nation would be better off with the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives. “I haven't thought about that enough to give an answer,” Lieberman told The Courant.
- Today's Cup of Joe rounds up this, and other, questions that Lieberman will likely refuse to answer in today's debate, and through the rest of the campaign:
WHY DOESN’T LIEBERMAN THINK A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WOULD BE BETTER FOR CONNECTICUT?: ...After 6 years of total Republican rule in Washington that’s put the nation on a historically dangerous course, Lieberman’s answer should have been instinctive and clear. But, with Dick Cheney campaigning for Lieberman last week, and his series of Republican fundraisers throughout the last month, this makes you wonder whether Joe is putting Joe’s interests ahead of Connecticut's...
WHY DID LIEBERMAN TRY TO HIDE HIS TERM LIMITS PLEDGE?: Senator Lieberman has yet to answer why he tried to hide the fact that in 1988 he pledged not to run for more than 3 terms in the U.S. Senate. Unlike Sen. Paul Wellstone who voluntarily explained why he was breaking his two-term pledge and was recruited for another term by the Democratic party, Lieberman never came forward to admit he made this pledge, instead hoping voters would not remember.
WHY DID LIEBERMAN BREAK HIS PROMISE NOT TO SKIP 300 VOTES OR HAVE ONE OF THE WORST ATTENDANCE RECORDS?: Senator Lieberman has yet to answer why in 1988 he went on statewide television to promise voters he would not miss more than 300 votes and would not have one of the worst attendance records in the Senate – and then broke both promises.
- The Courant leads with Lieberman's massive fundraising numbers for 3Q compared to Lamont's which were released yesterday, and Lieberman's refusal to acknowledge the three-term pledge he made in 1988 until now:
"Sen. Lieberman only thinks it's a negative attack when his job is on the line," Dupont-Diehl said. "He made the pledge to not serve more than three terms as part of his campaign - to win votes. Rather than honestly acknowledging that he was breaking a promise, he tried to hide it from the voters of Connecticut."
Lamont raised nearly $4.9 million in the quarter ending Sept. 30, with nearly $1.1 million from individual contributors and $3.75 million from his own pocket. From the start of his campaign through Sept. 30, Lamont contributed $6.25 million.
Dupont-Diehl said Lamont's personal funds have been necessary to match Lieberman's record-breaking quarterly take of $6.1 million. Lieberman disclosed a summary of his quarterly fundraising Friday.
"It's no surprise he is out-raising us," Dupont-Diehl said.
- The Times also runs a rather lengthy and generally positive profile of Annie Lamont (can't wait to read their profile of Hadassah!)
- The LA Times is at least the second paper to report that the upcoming Baker report on Iraq will suggest redeployment and a change in course:
Two options under consideration would represent reversals of U.S. policy: withdrawing American troops in phases, and bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting.
While it weighs alternatives, the 10-member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III has agreed on one principle.
"It's not going to be 'stay the course,' " one participant said. "The bottom line is, [current U.S. policy] isn't working…. There's got to be another way."
James Baker is just another "partisan polarizer."
- There's a Debate HQ up and running on the official blog.
- Finally, "Bobby McGee" from CLP posts this suggestion for debate-watching entertainment - less damaging to your liver than a drinking game, but
justalmost as fun.