Jennifer Medina gets some even more explicit remarks from Howard Wolfson in today's Times:

That strategist, Howard Wolfson, said Mrs. Clinton wanted to throw her considerable political weight behind Mr. Lamont because the national Republican Party “is clearly invested in Ned Lamont’s defeat.”

“I think they are going to do what they can to see him defeated,” Mr. Wolfson said, adding that he was particularly concerned with “Bush-Cheney talking points.”

“They are going to attack him in the way Republicans do,” he said, “and he obviously needs to be and is going to be prepared.”

And from Hillary:

“I think on nearly every issue we are closely aligned,” Mrs. Clinton said of Mr. Lamont later in the day, after an event in Amityville, N.Y.

And Gerstein's only play is to hit back with is more Daffy Duckesque spitting and fretting about the pitiful politics of partisan polarization presently pestering political parties:

Dan Gerstein, a spokesman for Mr. Lieberman, said that he was skeptical of the level of support that Mrs. Clinton was offering, calling it typical of the “partisan playbook.”

“We will be curious to see if and when Senator Clinton shows up with Mr. Lamont, whether he will turn around and distort her record, too,” Mr. Gerstein said.

"She wanted me to do it, and I wanted to do it... It's vitally important that we elect a Democrat to that seat."

- Spokesperson for Sen. Clinton (D-NY) Howard Wolfson, describing why he has signed on as an advisor to the Lamont (D) campaign.

“I’m a non-combatant.... I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it’s better if I just focus on my own race."

- Sen. Lieberman (R) in New Haven today, declaring he will not actively support the three Democratic challengers for the House of Representatives in Connecticut, as reported by Melinda Tuhus of the New Haven Independent.

Sen. Lieberman claimed two weeks ago that he was standing by his endorsements of the three Democratic candidates - Chris Murphy (CT-5), Diane Farrell (CT-4), and Joe Courtney (CT-2) - all of whom he has now abandoned.

Slow news day (or morning, at least), and starting today and through the weekend I won't be posting much. Make sure to visit the local and national blogs linked on the left.

Here are two absolute must-read posts from today to start, both spotlighting the very important and until now very overlooked issue of Sen. Lieberman's failures on Homeland Security.

First, Joejoejoe at dKos highlights Lieberman's leading role in dismantling FEMA, as well as his role in confirming Michael Brown and complete failure in oversight responsibilities as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee from the Jeffords switch in 2001 up until the Democrats lost the Senate in 2002.

I was struck by this absolutely prescient testimony from Ivo Daalder, arguing against folding FEMA into DHS in front of the Judiciary Committee in June 2002:

Daalder: Take FEMA. This is one of the best run federal government agencies. It has excellent record, gained through years of responding to natural disasters, of dealing with state and local government entities and first responders. In its FY2003 budget, the Bush administration proposed that FEMA take central control of all training and grant programs for first responders, providing state and local authorities with the kind of one-stop shopping and integrated training program they have long demanded. Why, then, tear an agency with such a successful record from its roots and integrate into a much larger bureaucracy, with new command and control lines? Much of its day-to-day responsibility has nothing to do with terrorism--and whatever responsibility it does have for this area is fundamentally different from the preventive and protective counter-terrorism functions of other parts of the proposed department. No one proposes to merge the diplomatic functions of the State Department with the military functions of the Pentagon, even though both have a role in national security policy--including in countering terrorism. Might it not be better, then, to leave FEMA be, and coordinate its counter-terrorism role as part of a well-functioning interagency process?

It's not as if DHS as it was configured was a foregone conclusion. Sen. Lieberman played an active role in weakening FEMA, against the advice of many experts, which, along with a complete lack of oversight of DHS, resulted in the post-Katrina disaster last year.

Second, Maura at MLN explores the infamous 42-minute Michael Brown hearing in the detail it deserves:

Joe Lieberman was a leader who had oversight responsibility and was actually in power in the Senate leading the committee that should have actually VETTED Michael Brown, not praised him effusively based solely on his own resume or used most of the 42-minute hearing to engage in inane banter. Joe Lieberman abdicated his oversight authority. That's the way things are done in Lieberman's Washington.

Dan Gerstein and Sen. Lieberman can try to make excuses, but the #2 at FEMA is not a minor appointee, and when someone that unqualified applies to any position in a goverment agency where competence saves lives, there was no excuse. Period. But, of course, that doesn't stop Gerstein from making one:

“Maybe in Ned Lamont’s naïve, reality-challenged world, he thinks simply by yelling loud enough he would have gotten the White House to give him what he wanted,” Dan Gerstein, Mr. Lieberman’s spokesman, said in a statement. “But that’s not how things work in Washington.”

Maybe in Dan Gerstein's entrenched D.C.-insider world, he thinks simply by not owning up to the senator's resposibility for oversight and making excuse after excuse for confirming an utterly incompetent man for a crucially important job at FEMA, he will get voters to stop paying attention and give him what he wants. But that's not how things are going to work in Connecticut.

Bottom line: Sen. Lieberman has not provided anything close to the leadership, oversight, or seriousness we so desperately need from government on national security. He has refused to challenge the White House when it matters and would refuse to do so in the future.

Update: Scarce at MLN dug up this absolutely jaw-dropping Fox News video clip from the days immediately following Katrina. Sen. Lieberman refuses to call for Michael Brown's resignation (as Nancy Pelosi had already done), and seems quite at ease with the Bush administration's response while the by-now familar scenes of destruction and tragedy play out on screen:



Just amazing.

Update 2: Jay from the comments on Gerstein's quote to the Times:

There has never, ever, ever been a better reason to change the way things work in Washington than the one contained in the condescending, yet supine, policy of rolling over for Bush evidenced in this Gerstein quote.

Shorter Joe: Unquestioningly accepting woefully underqualified hacks who'll undoutably fail at mission-critical moments is the way Washington works.

The infuriatingly hilarious thing, as a commenter at dKos notes, is that Gerstein and Lieberman have been shouting from the rafters about the evils of Democratic partisanship (never a word about Republican partisanship, of course) and about how "bipartisanship" is the only way to get things done in D.C.

But imagine what standing up to - instead of embracing - Bush's dismantling of Clinton's professional and well-run FEMA might have done. Imagine what one senatorial voice speaking up about Michael Brown's complete lack of qualifications might have done.

Bipartisanship in the name of incompetence and failure is no virtue.

And in this case, it so obviously failed America. And Gerstein pretty much admits it.

(Bumped.) Tonight, Ned will be speaking at a book launch event in NYC for "It Takes A Nation," a soon-to-be-released collection of first-person accounts of some of those affected by Hurricane Katrina, with proceeds from the event and book sales going to rebuilding efforts in New Orleans. Ned is also coming out swinging against Sen. Lieberman about the infamous 42-minute rubber-stamp hearing he gave to ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in 2002, as well as the senator's role in folding FEMA under DHS:

"I think FEMA worked really well when it had professional management as an independent agency," Lamont said in an interview this week. "And sure, it was Senator Lieberman who said, 'Let's redo FEMA.' It was Senator Lieberman who said, 'Let's put Michael Brown as No. 2 at FEMA."'

From a campaign press release, here are some of the solutions Ned will be proposing tonight, in order to prevent similarly disastrous government responses to other catastrophic natural (or other) events in the future:

- FEMA should be returned to an independent, cabinet level agency, as it was under the Clinton Administration where it performed effectively and admirably;

- We need to have our National Guard Forces and other resources returned to protecting America, this will not only protect us from natural disasters, but terrorist attacks as well;

- A thorough investigation needs to be conducted, including subpoenaing the White House if necessary, to obtain documents and information that were withheld to ensure the necessary steps are taken to prevent future failures;

- Congress needs to fully scrutinize all administration nominees to ensure their qualifications, not simply rubber stamp Bush's choices.

Just another "Al Qaeda" candidate, right, Joe?

"Maybe the only way to encourage the political will of the Iraqis is a time line," Shays said. "We determine what they need and they determine what they need before we leave."

And Shays again uses Lieberman as cover (although I'm sure it would come as news to Joe that he supports a timeline for redeployment):

"Joe and I have had the same view of the war from day one," Shays said. "His view could not change because of the election and neither can mine."

There's got to be a good Uranus joke in here somewhere:

Just before coming down to speak with you, I called Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus and congratulated them on their success today. As I see it, in this campaign, we've just finished the first half and the Classical Planet team is ahead, but in the second half, our team -- Team Pluto -- is going to surge forward to victory.

I am, of course, disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged. I am not disappointed because I lost my planetary status, but because the old politics of scholarship and intellectual integrity won today....

Tomorrow morning, our campaign will file the necessary petition with the International Astronomical Union so that we can continue this campaign for a new astronomy of unity and purpose. I will always do what is right for my orbit and Solar system regardless of what the political consequences may be.

Tomorrow is a brand new day. Tomorrow we launch a new campaign -- Team Pluto -- Asteroids, non-conforming celestial objects and planets.

The fifth-party candidate will help out one of the main targets of Democrats who want to take back the House (with whom he shares pollster Neil Newhouse) today:

Lieberman will appear with two prominent Republicans, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd, to celebrate last year's reversal of a Pentagon decision to close the Groton submarine base.

Meanwhile, Ned Lamont (D) will be helping out Joe Courtney (D) today, who is challenging Simmons.

Lieberman had previously endorsed Courtney and exactly two weeks ago said he would continue to support Courtney as well as the other Democratic House candidates:

Lieberman said that he will continue to support the Democrats running for Congress even though they now support Lamont.

"It is a little bit harder, but I have endorsed the three of them," he said. Lieberman endorsed Joe Courtney over Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2, and Chris Murphy over Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-5.

(Update: As an aside, Ned Lamont won Groton in the primary, 55% to 45%.)

But it must have mainly been his staff's fault or something, I guess:

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN: "...incidentally, I guess you don’t have to be a first rate political analyst to say that what happened in the primary in Connecticut was that people used it as an occasion to protest President Bush and the Iraq war. That's what I was the target. That's right."

IMUS: "Well, deservedly so, senator."

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN: "I take some of the blame here."

IMUS: "Well, you should."

(Part II in a continuing series.)

Yesterday, the GOP went a-purging in Alaska. And while Gov. Murkowski (R) may have his problems, at least he didn't whine and demand a do-over:

"We expected to win, we didn't win, so we'll support the nominee," Murkowski said after arriving at election headquarters to concede.

Update: Spazeboy was there and has video. Go show him some love:



I liked this last part. People power over PAC money:

The regional director of the United Auto Workers union says he's appalled that Senator Joe Lieberman has qualified to get on the November ballot as an independent.

Bob Madore says Lieberman is selfish and is only out for himself and that's why his union is backing Democrat Ned Lamont.

He pledged to get 5,000 people out to work for Lamont because Lamont has refused to accept a $5,000 political action committee contribution from the unions.

This is pretty funny. The Lieberman campaign, who blamed Lamont supporters for "hacking" Joe2006.com when actually it just crashed due to (expectedly) high traffic around election day + incompetence on the part of his web team, can't seem to find a single web-design or hosting firm to help them with their problems, so Joe2006.com is just sitting as a one-page useless site right now.

Now that Joe (Joe) is officially a member of the Connecticut For Lieberman party and no longer a Democrat, he will - and should - have a very hard time finding any Democratic consultants, firms, or vendors who will work for him. Expect more Republican hires.

Not surprising, given that the two Republican colleagues now share the same "Democrat-slaying" pollster, Neil Newhouse (via sufi at MLN):

Here's the letter they sent out:

Bob Casey, Jr. has traveled across the Commonwealth claiming that he is independent and stands outside of Democrat party lines on important issues. He also continues to criticize Senator Santorum for working with President Bush on important issues -- issues like protecting Israel and efforts to stabilize the Middle East.

Recently, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, a well-known supporter of Israel and the Jewish community, lost a narrow Democratic primary election in Connecticut against challenger Ned Lamont. As you may know, Lieberman has decided to run as an Independent in the upcoming general election. You may not be shocked to find out that Bobby Casey, Jr. DOES NOT SUPPORT Senator Lieberman in the upcoming election.

This is just part of Newhouse's likely expansive efforts to use Lieberman in races throughout the country to try to keep Republicans in control of Congress. Newhouse is also working for Gov. Rell (R) and Rep. Simmons (R) in Connecticut. Anything he does for Lieberman will be to help out his other clients.

Democrats, wake up.

• Former State Party Chair George Jepsen joins the Lamont campaign in an official capacity, as Chairman. Interesting to see how this plays out in Lieberman's hometown of Stamford:
  

  The Greenwich-born Jepsen spent 12 years representing Stamford and Darien in the state Senate -- six as majority leader -- before running unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor in 2002 with Bill Curry....
  
  Jepsen has known Lamont for more than two decades.
  
  "This is a very unpleasant and difficult decision to make," Jepsen said. "I like Joe Lieberman personally, but you reach a point . . . It's not just the war. It's Terri Schiavo, access to morning-after pills for rape victims, civil liberties, the mounting deficit. A whole series of issues where you just realize you're in profound disagreement with Joe."...
  
  Stamford Democratic City Committee Chairwoman Ellen Camhi said Jepsen's involvement with Lamont will probably make it difficult for some city's voters to pick a side.



• Mark Pazniokas and David Lightman explore the financial way forward for both campaigns (Lamont's campaign has previously pledged not to be outspent by Lieberman):
  

  The Lamont campaign said Tuesday it is budgeting $6 million for the general election, the same as it spent on the primary - with one major difference: Lamont, after writing $4 million in checks to his own campaign, hopes to put away his checkbook.
  
  As the Democratic nominee, Lamont now believes his campaign will have access to funding sources and labor support that had been unavailable to him as the little-known challenger of a national political figure, said Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager.



• Jennifer Medina in the New York Times recounts Lieberman's agreements with rabid right-wing radio host Glenn Beck yesterday. And also points out how he revealed to Wolf Blitzer that he has, indeed, completely lost the plot on Iraq:
  

  Later, in appearance with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Mr. Lieberman said that the war in Iraq had not undermined the credibility of efforts to deal with terror threats. Mr. Lieberman also said that he did not believe Iraq was already in a civil war, a term Mr. Lamont uses regularly.

  
  For what it's worth, a similar position - that the war in Iraq has decreased the threat of terrorism - was shared by a full 9% of the American public in a recent NYT/CBS poll.


• New Britain's own Spazeboyman has a great video report of Ned Lamont and other prominent Dems at the grand opening of the New Britain Democratic HQ.


• Expect the Senate candidates for the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, the Green Party, and the Independent Party to be formally approved and added to the ballot this week. At which point everyone - pollsters, media, Dan Gerstein - really needs to stop calling Joe (Con.-Lie.) the "Independent" candidate. (Update: It seems Independent Party CT candidate John Mertens didn't make the ballot.)

Greg Sargent, who is doing some of the best work covering this campaign, caught Joe Lieberman on Glenn Beck's radio show this morning making some really quite astounding comments, even for Joe.

Joe agreed with Glenn that we are currently in World War III:

BECK: Why is it there aren't more politicians saying, Guys, this is World War III. We are in deep trouble.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah, I mean, I don't know the answer to that...Everything you just said about the Middle East is right.

Joe agreed with Glenn that weapons of mass destruction were not the reason we invaded Iraq:

BECK: I've been saying this before we even went into Iraq, that we're trying to change the face of the Middle East. The weapons of mass destruction was a nice side benefit. We were trying to go and pop the head of the snake in Iran. That's what we were trying to do. And I don't think anybody had the courage or could actually come out and say that with world politics the way they are.

LIEBERMAN: Well, you're right. And I think if I fault the administration for anything before the war -- 'cause I think we did the right thing in going in to overthrow Saddam -- it's that they oversold the WMD part of the argument....

Most shockingly, Joe said he considered Glenn a "friend" of whom he was "proud":

LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Glenn. We are pround of you, friend. Keep on going.

For those unfamiliar with Joe's "friend," Media Matters has helpfully compiled some of his most outrageous statements.

On families of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: "[T]his is horrible to say, and I wonder if I'm alone in this -- you know, it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year."

On Hurricane Katrina survivors who remained in New Orleans: "And that's all we're hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones that we're seeing on television are the scumbags -- and again, it's not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out! It's just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they're getting all the attention."

Discussing disclosures from a caller who claimed to have tortured prisoners in U.S. custody: "I've got to tell you, I appreciate your service. ... Good for you. Good for -- I mean, good for you. Is it because you did it for the country? ... I have to tell you, when all is said and done, I'm glad people like you are on our side."

On filmmaker Michael Moore: "Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"

On the father of Nick Berg, American civilian executed in Iraq: "The want to be a better person today than I was yesterday says he's a dad, he's grieving, but I don't buy that. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I think he is grieving, but I think he's a scumbag as well. I don't like this guy at all."

Beck also recently compared DNC Chairman Howard Dean to Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and said that Ned Lamont's victory would mean the "death of the Democratic Party."

Comments are now moderated.

This is the second poll out today that shows the race in a statistical dead heat:

Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont are in a statistical tie in the race for United States Senate in Connecticut according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among likely voters in November, 44% say they would vote for Lieberman, 42% say they would vote for Lamont, 3% say they would vote for Alan Schlesinger, and 11% are undecided.

Lieberman leads Lamont 57% to 18% among enrolled Republicans and 48% to 38% among unaffiliated (independent) voters. Lamont leads Lieberman 65% to 30% among enrolled Democrats.

In light of these trends, and if only to save himself further embarrassment and humiliation, Sen. Lieberman needs to reconsider accepting the results of the primary.

If Joe Lieberman can be a member of two political parties at the same time, so can BranfordBoy:

So there you have it! If anyone gives me grief about how I can register as a Dem or a Republican but not both, I'll just refer them to the Secretary of State, who will champion my constitutional right to associate with a political party. And the more the merrier say I.

There is a serious issue here, which Lieberman's campaign is trying to distract from - and that is that Joe Lieberman has himself chosen to leave the Democratic Party. I mean, what else does he have to do to prove this? He lost the party's primary. He created a new party. He lost the support of every significant Connecticut Democratic leader. He has adopted Cheneyist rhetoric and hired a Democrat-slaying pollster who has never had a Democratic client and is currently working for Republican candidates in Connecticut. He is no longer listed as a Democrat by the DSCC.

I mean, he could call himself Canadian too. That wouldn't make it true.

No matter what his campaign or the ballot or his official registration says, he is no longer a Democrat. Period.

And if two parties aren't enough for Joe, I can think of a few more he can join.

According to multiple reports online from those with access to the premium Rasmussen numbers, their latest CT-SEN poll, in the field until last night, shows Ned Lamont (D) continuing to gain ground in what is now essentially a two-way race.

Lieberman (R) and Lamont (D) are reportedly now in a statistical dead heat, while Schlesinger (R) continues to be in the single digits.

Update: Atrios reports the numbers as: Lieberman (R) 45, Lamont (D) 43, Schlesinger (R) 6.

Lieberman Campaign Manager Sherry Brown yesterday launched one of the most incoherent, non-sensical political attacks I've ever seen, saying of the attempt by Joe's constituents in New Haven to redundantly strip Joe of his Democratic credentials (something he's already done himself by, you know, losing the primary and starting his own party), that:

"The purge campaign launched today by Ned Lamont’s supporters is dirty political tricks at its worst, ranking up there with the outrageous tactics that Katherine Harris and the Republicans used in 2000 in Florida to stop all the votes from being counted."

Umm... right... except there is no secretary of state involved, this isn't a presidential election, there are no votes being counted, this isn't an officially endorsed action by anyone, the action is actually well within the law, and, well... actually, there are no similarities whatsoever.

Except that Joe's campaign is quickly starting to look an awful lot like Katherine's.

"This constitutes an informal endorsement of Lieberman."

"The president is almost making it official."

"The president's friends have sent enough signals to Republicans in Connecticut that the White House thinks that Lieberman is the person they should be supporting..."

- Professor of government Bruce Buchanan, political scientist Arthur Paulson, and pollster Christopher Barnes, respectively, on President Bush's non-endorsement endorsement of Joe Lieberman (R) during his press conference yesterday, all quoted in an article by David Lightman of the Courant.

Uh, Dan... when your boss disregards the results of a record-turnout party primary he ran in and lost, isn't he really "purging" himself from the Democratic Party? As noted below, the DSCC agrees - Joe is no longer a Democrat. End of story.

On a related note, how does Dan Gerstein retain any shred of credibility with reporters? In a matter of a few months, in both official and unofficial capacities with the campaign, Gerstein has managed to make an absolute joke out of both himself and his candidate almost every time he opens his mouth. And he makes a joke out of the reporters who repeat his increasingly laughable claims without challenging them.

A quick and noncomprehensive list of Dan Gerstein's lies, blunders, and inconsistencies:

• In early March, Gerstein anonymously demanded that the Huffington Post censor Howie Klein because Klein had the audacity to write a hard-hitting blog post about Lieberman's troubled history on civil rights and gay rights. Gerstein refused a chance to respond, he just wanted Klein's piece removed.


• In July, Gerstein lodged some particularly disgusting anonymous smears to reporters about Ned Lamont's commitment to Israel, going after Maxine Waters in the process.


• That same week, Gerstein served as the chief defender of the Lieberman campaign's race-baiting fliers handed out in black neighborhoods, telling reporters:
  

  "We're surprised that the Lamont campaign wants to make an issue of this," Gerstein told Election Central. "This flyer simply states the facts, and in particular repeates a very questionable statement Mr. Lamont made which raises many questions he has yet to answer. If he's so concerned about discrimination, why didn't he resign from this club before he became candidate for u.s. senate? Also, what are the policies at the club and why won't he answer that question?"



• On primary day, now in an "official" role with Lieberman, Gerstein flew into an apoplectic rage about Joe's "hacked" website. In full-on attack mode, he called every reporter he could, falsely claiming that Lamont campaign or its supporters hacked Joe2006.com, when actually they just didn't know how to run a website. Gerstein even went to the FBI with this bogus claim. He eventually admitted that it was all bullshit, and that they had no evidence whatsoever to back up their very serious charges of "disenfranchisement" lodged against the Lamont campaign:
  

  Sargent asked Gerstein directly if they had any proof at all that Lamont or his backers were behind the attacks on the Lieberman site.
  
  "Here’s the thing. We are not putting the blame on the Lamont campaign," said Gerstein. "We think it's very important for them to put out a statement throughout the Net roots that they not only don't support these tactics, but want them to stop."



• Post-primary, Gerstein took the lead in pushing a non-story about a joke Lamont's campaign manager made about two (very corrupt) Republican mayors of Waterbury, forgetting to inform reporters that Lieberman himself made similar jokes about Waterbury while defending his buddy Rowland a few years ago.


• The same week, Gerstein went to reporters attacking Lamont for having the support of Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton, forgetting to inform reporters that Lieberman asked for Sharpton's endorsement a week before he endorsed Ned, and forgetting Lieberman's courting of Farrakhan in 2000.


• Also that week, Gerstein went into red-baiting mode with reporters, calling Ned Lamont "slightly to the right of socialist Bernie Sanders on fiscal policy"... forgetting to remind reporters that the Lieberman campaign spent basically the entire primary race calling Ned Lamont a closet Republican.


• Also that week, Gerstein completely flip-flopped on the Lieberman Party's relationship with Harry Reid, first telling reporters that Joe didn't want to be Reid's "political football," calling both Reid and Cheney part of the "petty partisan game playing which is stalemating Washington," then a mere three days later, telling reporters that Joe was "committed to supporting Reid as leader."


• Finally, just this past Friday, Gerstein sent out a press release to reporters touting Lieberman's hiring of "Democrat slayer" GOP pollster Neil Newhouse, but neglecting to inform reporters that merely weeks earlier, the press secretary he replaced, Marion Steinfels, had (falsely) attacked Ned Lamont for hiring Republican consultants:
  

  ...The Joe Lieberman campaign has just announced the hiring of GOP pollster Neil Newhouse, whose top clients include Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush and Pat Roberts. But Election Central couldn't help but notice that this announcement is strikingly at odds with the fact that in late June, the Lieberman campaign vigorously attacked Ned Lamont for... hiring a onetime Republican operative as a consultant.

This is just a small sampling of Gerstein's work for Lieberman this cycle. He continually misleads and lies to reporters, making them look like fools. They need to stop taking him seriously.

Late Update: Of course, these are just the 10 or so "greatest hits." There's much more:

• As Scarce notes in the comments, Gerstein recently equated Ned Lamont's victory by 10,000 votes in the record-turnout Democratic primary - you know, the election that was actually supposed to decide who won the nomination - to Joe Lieberman's piss-poor performance among the party insiders at the state Dem convention, which of course is meant to decide no such thing:
  

  Gerstein took issue with Orman's claim that Lieberman is wants "a do-over," bending the rules so he can run twice for the same race.
  
  "It's not a do-over," Gerstein said. "It's just like saying that Ned Lamont got a do-over after he lost the convention."



• As Tim notes at the official blog, Gerstein took a similar low road with Tom Suozzi's equally desperate campaign, attacking Eliot Spitzer (D) in the NY-GOV race before bailing out (not before a big payday) to take on the sinking ship S.S. Connecticut For Lieberman. The Politicker described just some of his hilarously "fearless" spin for that campaign a few weeks ago:
  

  And here's what [Gerstein] said about the significance of the upcoming debate:
  
  "In my view this is like opening night of the campaign. This is the first time of the two of these guys are side by side. If you discount the meeting in Mineola."
  
  "There is a lot of pressure here for [Spitzer] to nip this in the bud."
  
  This?

Dan Gerstein said today that "hyperactive staffers" in Harry Reid's office were being less than genuine when they claimed no deal was made for Joe (Joe) to keep his committee assignments if he was to pull out a win in November:

"This is a lot of hyperactive staffers who are trying to cater to the bloggers," he said, referring to the Internet writers who generally have supported Lamont over Lieberman.

Well, Lieberman (R) may or may not keep his seniority in the end, but as for Gerstein's claims that Lieberman is a loyal Democrat, it seems the DSCC, for one, now strongly disagrees:

Colin McEnroe:

I suppose another good question might be framed around the idea that this November Senate election will fall just a few weeks shy of the writing of [Lieberman's November 2005 WSJ op-ed], which argued that victory was so close that we would be fools not to stay and harvest it. His new line, as I understand it, is that disaster -- the kind of disaster that could suck the whole region down with it -- is so close that we would be fools not to stay and prevent it.

And we're supposed to trust this man's judgment?

Joe Lieberman is not serious about Iraq. And we would be fools to trust his judgment on this or any other matter of foreign policy.

Bush on Iraq, today:

"We’re not leaving so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake."

Lieberman on Iraq, yesterday:

SCHIEFFER: Are you now saying it's time to start drawing down the troops there, Senator?

Sen. LIEBERMAN: No, and that's absolutely the point I'm making.... it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we're getting all of our troops out by a given date.

Like Bush's position on Iraq? Vote for Lieberman.

Update: Joe stated a few months ago that, yes, he does support keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until 2009, which is when Bush's term as president expires:

We're talking about 2006, 7, 8... that's three years. And I believe that a lot of very good things can happen in three years in Iraq that ideally would allow us to remove every American soldier who's there today.

Along with CTKeith and DeanFan84, I had the chance to be on RadioNation on Air America last night to talk briefly about the CT-SEN race. One of the questions Laura Flanders posed was about what Lieberman was trying to accomplish with his recent back-and-forth plays for both Democrats (calling for Rumfseld's resignation, committing to stay in the caucus) and Republicans (hiring GOP operatives, talking to Rove).

I responded as I have recently to others - that I have truly given up on trying to divine any grand strategy behind the Lieberman campaign. They don't seem to have one. Decisions like this seem to be made on the spur of the moment, probably due to Joe's mood that day as much as anything else. Their campaign did absolutely everything they could to lose the primary, and they're now pretty much doing the same in the general. It's reflective of Lieberman's own personal frantic search for any way to keep his job. People make bad decisions when they're angry, bitter, and stressed, and he has never dealt well with losing.

Matt Browner-Hamlin has some similar thoughts:

I see Lieberman’s leftward tack as yet another fundamental miscalculation by him and his advisors as to how he can best increase his chances of winning the CT for Lieberman Party’s first seat in the senate. The left is gone, we have our candidate. We’re emotionally unavailable and most Dems are only becoming more attached to Ned. Lieberman cannot win by moving to the left, only to the right. Clearly he’s under the delusion that there is a space for him within the Democratic Party. If he wants to hold on to that notion, fine by me - it will probably cost him the election (again).

The only good reason he might have for "tacking left" are the recent comments of the likes of John Edwards, John Kerry, and unnamed sources for articles that claim major figures in the national party are getting more than a little fed up with being forced to deal with Lieberman's Cheneyist rhetoric and having to overcome his GOP GOTV operation to win the three House seats. He's got to keep these national figures at least somewhat happy, because he needs them to they stay as quiet as possible.

This is still looking like a replay of his primary campaign, where he had every advantage in the world and screwed up every major strategic decision - but this time with more ego-driven entitlement, more anger-driven shunning of advice, and with the scarlet letter of being a loser now indelibly marked on him.

Update: Regarding Rumsfeld, this blogger debunks Joe's claim yesterday that he called for his resignation "three years ago":

So, for the record, the bidding looks like this. 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.

How does this work, exactly?

In the debate on July 6th, Joe said:

Well, Tom and Joanne, Ned has got me confused again. But I'll tell you one thing he is wrong about. The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government. They are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Their military -- two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally. That's progress.

Today, six weeks later, Joe said on Face The Nation:

I would say that the last six months have been bad, a setback, and I'm talking mostly about the sectarian violence.

Again, to summarize the Lieberman position:

July 6th: Iraq better than it was a year ago. Iraqi military ready to lead the fight.

August 20th: Iraq worse than it was six months ago. Iraqi military not ready to lead the fight.

Of course, changing his facts doesn't mean he has changed his policy. He still opposes any date for beginning troop withdrawal. He's much more supportive of Bush on this than his new Republican colleagues Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Chris Shays (R-CT), both of whom have supported setting a date for withdrawal this weekend.

And then he goes on to accuse Ned Lamont and the Democratic Party of "distorting" his views on Iraq.

Looks like Joe does quite a good enough job of "distorting" his own record. He doesn't need any help.

(Hat tip John Campanelli.)

Lowell Weicker on November 10th, 1988:

''I congratulate Joe Lieberman on the very fine win, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart,'' Mr. Weicker said, surrounded at Greenwich Town Hall by 100 friends, staff members, his seven sons and his tearful wife, Claudia. ''I did not lose this race by a few thousand votes. In my mind and in my heart, I lost it by a hundred thousand.''...

''This wasn't a close race,'' Mr. Weicker said. ''It was a clear mandate by the people of Connecticut that matters I stood for are not to their liking and what Mr. Lieberman promises is to their liking. Let there be no taint at all on Mr. Lieberman's win. He has the support of this state.''

(from "The Elections: Connecticut; Weicker Concedes To Lieberman in Close Race" by Nick Ravo, New York Times, November 10th, 1988, B13)

Hearing Joe (R) came off as uncharacteristally nervous and unconfident on Face the Nation this morning. Losing an election must be quite stressful.

Video will likely be up soon at ConnecticutBlog.

• In today's must-read column, Frank Rich looks at the political landscape and the polls and declares an end to the era of the politics of fear - a full five years of Republicans like Bush and Lieberman being able to count on terror alerts and false generalizations to boost their poll numbers and scare up victories on election day:
  

  The hyperbole that has greeted the Lamont victory in some quarters is far more revealing than the victory itself. In 2006, the tired Rove strategy of equating any Democratic politician’s opposition to the Iraq war with cut-and-run defeatism in the war on terror looks desperate. The Republicans are protesting too much, methinks. A former Greenwich selectman like Mr. Lamont isn’t easily slimed as a reincarnation of Abbie Hoffman or an ally of Osama bin Laden. What Republicans really see in Mr. Lieberman’s loss is not a defeat in the war on terror but the specter of their own defeat. Mr. Lamont is but a passing embodiment of a fixed truth: most Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake and want some plan for a measured withdrawal. That truth would prevail even had Mr. Lamont lost.
  
  A similar panic can be found among the wave of pundits, some of them self-proclaimed liberals, who apoplectically fret that Mr. Lamont’s victory signals the hijacking of the Democratic Party by the far left (here represented by virulent bloggers) and a prospective replay of its electoral apocalypse of 1972. Whatever their political affiliation, almost all of these commentators suffer from the same syndrome: they supported the Iraq war and, with few exceptions (mainly at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard), are now embarrassed that they did. Desperate to assert their moral superiority after misjudging a major issue of our time, they loftily declare that anyone who shares Mr. Lamont’s pronounced opposition to the Iraq war is not really serious about the war against the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11.



• Toby Moffett compares the Lieberman Party candidacy to that of Ralph Nader in a column in the Courant:
  

  In 2004, I and many other volunteers built a more effective operation to challenge Nader's presence on the ballot in many states. It was clear to us that Republican operatives were helping him because they wanted him to take votes from Democrats.
  
  That's why Joe so reminds me of Ralph these days. He's ruining what is left of his progressive credentials and doing it with Republican help. Prominent GOP leaders across the country are urging Republicans to support him....
  
  For those who want to take one critical lever of power - the House - away from Bush, this is a looming disaster.



• The Bush-endorsing editorial page of the Courant responds with an unsigned and pretty much unintelligible editorial entitled "Let Losers Try To Win," specifically defending the actions of the Lieberman Party and calling it healthy for democracy for politicians to disregard election results. It's amazing to me the levels that some will go to to help save the job of this one selfish man. The idea behind "sore-loser" laws is pretty simple and common-sense - if you decide to run in an election, you should abide by its results. No one forced Joe Lieberman to become a Democrat. No one forced him to remain a Democrat and run in the Democratic primary. He chose to do so. He lost.


• Chris Shays buckles under in the wake of the Lamont victory, calls for troop withdrawals and congressional hearings on Iraq. (On the flip side, imagine where Diane Farrell would be in the polls right now if she had had the courage to endorse Ned Lamont in June or July, instead of hopping aboard the bandwagon with everyone else post August 8th.)


• Ned met Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres on Friday night. The Stamford Advocate has the details.


• Update: Ned's been back on the campaign trail in full force this weekend, meeting voters across the state. Today, he's visiting a DTC picnic in Burlington, the Machinists Union picnic in Granby, and a Polish festival in New Britain.