MikeCT put together this amazing video compilation of the 2006 primary debate vs. the 2000 VP debate. It's a bit long, but very well done and worth watching in full.

In body language, verbal language, tone of voice, general attitude... compare the two. Yes, it's been said before, but it's startling when you see the two debates side-by-side:



Since he'll be officially attacking the Democratic party on Monday, there's little doubt we'll see Negative!Joe and not HighRoad!Joe next week.

The above video also really shows Joe's performance in July for what it was - that of a consummate attacking career politician. Voters - and even a fair amount of the media - didn't buy it then. I hope they won't buy it now.

Since the day after the primary, when he called up reporters in a tag-team attack with Joe Lieberman to impugn Ned Lamont's patriotism and attack Connecticut Democrats as supporting "Al Qaeda types" by voting for a change in course, Dick Cheney has been campaigning across the country attacking Ned Lamont.

Why won't Joe Lieberman disown these attacks? Perhaps it has something to do with why Karl Rove called him on primary day offering "help" from "the boss." Or why his campaign is currently using Fox News slurs against the Democratic party. Or why his record-breaking $15 million+ campaign is currently being supported by Swift Boat financiers and Social Security privatizers.

Because he will caucus with Republicans if he wins and it benefits him.

Here's a list of Cheney's pro-Lieberman attacks in speeches since the primary across the country:

Oct. 12, 2006: Vice President's Remarks at the Luncheon for Congressman Jim Ryun:

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that such a party would turn its back on a man like Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Senator Lieberman was my opponent in 2000 -- Al Gore's running mate, a longtime senator, and one of the most loyal and distinguished Democrats of his generation. Joe is also an unapologetic supporter of the fight against terror. He voted to support military action in Iraq when most senators in both parties did the same -- and he's had the courage to stick by that vote even when things got tough. And now, for that reason alone, the Dean Democrats have purged Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Boo! (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Their choice, instead, is a candidate whose explicit goal is to give up the fight against the terrorists in Iraq -- never mind that Iraq is a fellow democracy; never mind that the Iraqi people and their elected leaders are counting on us. What these Democrats are pushing now is the very kind of retreat that has been tried and has failed in the past. It would be reckless and inconsistent with our values. It would betray our friends, and only heighten the danger to the United States. And it would mean that all the sacrifices of our military have been in vain. So the choice before the American people is becoming more clear every day. For the sake of our own security, this nation must reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies. (Applause.)

The case of Joe Lieberman is a perfect illustration of the basic philosophical difference between the two parties in the year 2006....

Oct. 6, 2006: Vice President's Remarks at a Luncheon for Vern Buchanan for Congress :

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that such a party would turn its back on a man like Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman was my opponent in 2000 -- Al Gore's running mate, a longtime senator, and one of the most loyal and distinguished Democrats of his generation. Joe is also an unapologetic supporter of the fight against terror. He voted to support military action in Iraq when most other senators in both parties did the same -- and he's had the courage to stick by that vote even when things get tough. And now, for that reason alone, the Dean Democrats have purged Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party.

Their choice, instead, is a candidate whose explicit goal is to give up the fight against the terrorists in Iraq -- never mind that Iraq is a fellow democracy; never mind that the Iraqi people and their elected leaders are counting on us. What these Democrats are pushing now is the very kind of retreat that has been tried and has failed in the past. It would be reckless and inconsistent with our values. It would betray our friends, and only heighten the danger to the United States. And it would mean that all the sacrifices of our military have been in vain. So the choice before the American people is becoming more clear every day. For the sake of our security, this nation must reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies.

The case of Joe Lieberman is a perfect illustration of a basic philosophical differences between the two parties in the year 2006.

Oct. 4, 2006: Vice President's Remarks at a Luncheon for Congressional Candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs:

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that such a party would turn its back on a man like Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman was my opponent in 2000 -- Al Gore's running mate -- a longtime Senator and one of the most loyal and distinguished Democrats of his generation. Joe also is an unapologetic supporter of the fight against terror. He voted to support military action in Iraq when most other senators in both parties did the same, and he's had the courage to stick by that even when things get tough. And now, for that reason alone, the Dean Democrats have purged Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party.

Their choice instead is a candidate whose explicit goal is to give up the fight against the terrorists in Iraq - never mind that Iraq is a fellow democracy now; never mind that the Iraqi people and their elected leaders are counting on us. What these Democrats are pushing now is the very kind of retreat that has been tried and failed in the past. It would be reckless and inconsistent with our values. It would betray our friends and only heighten the danger to the United States. And it would mean that all the sacrifices of our military had been in vain.

So the choice before the American people is becoming more clear every day: For the sake of our security, the nation must reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies.

The case of Joe Lieberman is a perfect illustration of the basic philosophical differences between the two parties in the year 2006.

Oct. 2, 2006: Vice President's Remarks at Luncheon for Congresswoman Barbara Cubin:

Senator Jay Rockefeller, who would be chairman of the Intelligence Committee if his party took power, believes the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein still ruled Iraq. And the chairman of the Democratic Party is Howard Dean, who said the capture of Saddam Hussein didn't make America any safer. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that such a party would turn its back on a man like Senator Joe Lieberman.

Senator Lieberman was my opponent in 2000 -- Al Gore's running mate -- a longtime senator, and one of the most loyal and distinguished Democrats of his generation. Joe is also an unapologetic supporter of the fight against terror. He voted to support military action in Iraq when most other senators in both parties did the same, and he's had the courage to stick by that vote even when things get tough. And now, for that reason alone, the Howard Dean Democrats have purged Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party.

Their choice, instead, is a candidate whose explicit goal is to give up the fight against the terrorists in Iraq, never mind that Iraq is a now democracy; never mind that the Iraq and the people and their elected leaders are counting on us. What these Democrats are pushing now is the very kind of retreat that has been tried and has failed in the past. It would be reckless and inconsistent with our values. It would betray our friends, and only heighten the danger to the United States, and it would mean that all the sacrifices our military have been involved in would have been in vain.

So the choice before the American people is becoming more clear every day. For the sake of our security, this nation must reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies. (Applause.)

The case of Joe Lieberman is a perfect illustration of the basic philosophical differences between the two parties in the year 2006...

Sept. 22, 2006: Vice President's Remarks at the Reception for Congressman Randy Kuhl:

...Now Mr. Dean's party has turned its back on Senator Joe Lieberman.

Senator Lieberman was my opponent in 2000 -- Al Gore's running mate, a longtime senator, and one of the most loyal and distinguished Democrats of the generation. Joe is also an unapologetic supporter of the global war on terror. He voted to support military action in Iraq when most other senators in both parties did the same -- and he's had the courage to stick by that vote even when the going gets tough. And now, for that reason alone, because he supported the President in the global war on terror, the Dean Democrats have purged Joe Lieberman from the ranks of the Democratic Party in Connecticut. Their choice, instead, is a candidate whose explicit goal is to give up the fight against the terrorists in Iraq -- never mind that Iraq is a fellow democracy; never mind that the Iraqi people and their elected leaders are counting on us. What the Democrats are pushing now is the very kind of retreat that has been tried and failed in the past. We should have learned with 9/11 that it's no longer possible for us to retreat behind our oceans and feel safe and secure here at home.

Aug. 15, 2006: Vice President's Remarks at a Luncheon for Arizona Victory 2006:

And now Mr. Dean's party has turned its back on Senator Joe Lieberman.

Senator Lieberman was my opponent in 2000 -- Al Gore's running mate, a longtime senator, and one of the most loyal and distinguished Democrats of his generation. Joe is also an unapologetic supporter of the fight against terror. He voted to support military action in Iraq when most other senators in both parties did the same -- and he's had the courage to stick by that vote even when things get tough. And now, for that reason alone, the Dean Democrats have defeated Joe Lieberman. Their choice, instead, is a candidate whose explicit goal is to give up the fight against the terrorists in Iraq -- never mind that Iraq is a fellow democracy; never mind that the Iraqi people and their elected leaders are counting on us. What these Democrats are pushing now is the very kind of retreat that has been tried in the past. It is contrary to our values, it would betray our friends, and it would only heighten the danger to the United States. So the choice before the American people is becoming clearer every day. For the sake of our security, this nation must reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies. (Applause.)

Aug. 9, 2006: Interview of the Vice President by Wire Service Reporters:

I was -- obviously, we're all interested in this year's election campaign. I know Joe Lieberman and have a good deal of respect for him given that we were opponents in the 2000 campaign; and of course, spent a fair amount of time watching the man and studying him over the years, especially in connection with our debate in 2000. And as I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe's support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.

The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't -- we can't be.

The Courant reports that Lieberman has run - already, and by far - the most expensive campaign in Connecticut history:

Lieberman's campaign announced Friday that he had raised $14.8 million in contributions as of Sept. 30 in his quest for a fourth term - $5.1 million of it since early August, when he switched to an independent candidacy after losing the Democratic nomination to businessman Ned Lamont in an Aug. 8 primary. He has $4.7 million in cash left to spend for the Nov. 7 election, he said.

$14.8 million. It's what's paying for his lying attack ads. It's what's paying for his staffers - still - crashing Ned's events. And it's coming from people and groups who expect to be paid back.

It's hard to keep up with that. Ned probably won't, in the end.

Joe Lieberman is trying to buy this election. Don't let him.

If Joe Lieberman is elected to another term, he is leaving to caucus with the Republicans if they need him to.

Check out these great comparison sheet PDFs that are now available online. Unofficial, but it's representative of the type of initiative that volunteers and supporters have taken for months now.

Then keep it going.

Agree with Tim. And with the Journal-Inquirer.

Now it's the Free Enterprise Fund:

The Free Enterprise Fund reported raising $1,185,000 and spending $183,892 between 10/9 and 10/20. The major donor was $1 million from Robert Perry ($500,000 on 10/3 and $500,000 on 10/5). Other donors included D.C. Searle (IL) $150,000 on 10/6, and Thomas W. Smith $35,000 on 10/6. The group made electioneering communications relating to the elections of Jon Tetster ($124,330.87) and Ned Lamont ($59,562.85).

The who?

Free Enterprise Fund is a free market advocacy group founded by Stephen Moore... Free Enterprise Fund is an "action" think tank on fiscal issues, but also uses some of its energies and funds to counter the efforts of those who oppose their cause (see Ronnie Earl and MoveOn.org campaigns).

Stephen Moore is the former president of the Club for Growth, the far-right pro-corporate group which has attempted to knock off Arlen Specter (R-PA), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and other Republicans in recent cycles... from the right.

The Free Enterprise Fund has run smear campaigns against MoveOn, Texas DA Ronnie Earle (who was prosecuting Tom DeLay), and for Social Security privatization.

One of the major financial backers of the Free Enterprise Fund is Robert J. Perry, a big friend of Karl Rove who has bankrolled a host of dispicable causes, including paying $200,000 for pro-Tom DeLay ads in Texas, and funding the Swift Boat Vets. How much did he give to the swift boaters in 2004? This much:

PERRY, BOB - HOUSTON, TX

77234 $50,000 10/22/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $1,000,000 10/18/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $500,000 10/16/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $500,000 10/13/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $450,000 10/12/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $500,000 10/12/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $750,000 10/06/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $250,000 09/23/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $250,000 09/13/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $100,000 07/16/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

77234 $100,000 06/30/2004 SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH

Anyone who really thinks Joe will caucus with the Dems if he wins is ignoring this emerging reality at Connecticut's peril.

His backers are on the far right... of the Republican party.

A big middle finger to Joe.

It's looking like Connecticut will have a unified Senate delegation on Iraq next January:

PROVIDENCE -- U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd Thursday altered his course on Iraq, calling for a goal of repositioning U.S. troops from current Iraqi positions beginning immediately and finishing within 12 to 18 months.

Dodd, D-Conn., earlier this year had joined most other Democratic senators in rejecting precise timetables, calling instead for the beginning of phased redeployment by the end of this year.

But, he told students, faculty and alumni in a speech at Providence College: "The hour has arrived when Iraq must assume the responsibility of policing itself."

He offered a blueprint of how he would redeploy U. S. troops now in Iraq.

"We must begin immediately to reposition our troops from Baghdad, Fallujah and other large urban centers," he said, to Kurdistan and other less populated areas of Iraq.

That way, Dodd said, "training of Iraqi forces could continue."

He would also move troops to border areas, "where they can protect the territorial integrity of Iraq until Iraqi forces can do so themselves."

Other forces would head for military bases in Kuwait and Qatar, "where they could be available to protect our national security interests-and to Afghanistan, where we must redouble our efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, dismantle al-Qaida and neutralize the Taliban.

"These movements must begin immediately," Dodd said, "with the goal of completing them within the next 12 to 18 months."

Dodd will be campaigning with Ned this evening in West Hartford.

(Update: Forward this article to your friends and family here.)

I just got around to reading the Journal-Inquirer's editorial today:

...It is important for Democratic voters to know where Good Old Joe really stands this year and who his friends are...

At the Monday luncheon he:

- Said House Speaker Dennis Hastert should not resign.

- Introduced two Republican candidates for state office - for comptroller and state treasurer. He didn't introduce any Democrats, who have previously been told not to campaign at these luncheons.

- Thanked his Republican "friends" for their support, and he said he would never forget them.

Last week Lieberman told a Washington, D.C., newspaper that:

- He would also never forget the Democrats, like Chris Dodd, who moved to support Ned Lamont after he won the Democratic Senate nomination.

- If re-elected, Lieberman expects to retain his seniority. Otherwise, he said, he would have to consider not caucusing with the Democrats.

Well, there is only one other group to caucus with - the Senate Republicans.

Connecticut Republicans know what's going on in this election. Their nominal candidate, Alan Schlesinger, has between 3 and 5 percent in the polls. The Republican national chairman has declined to endorse him and Gov. Jodi Rell said he should withdraw from the contest. Republicans know that Joe is their horse in this race.

Democrats who think Lieberman is still one of them need to wake up and smell the coffee.

And voters of all stripes who think Lieberman isn't running one of the most expensive, personal-attack-filled campaigns in Connecticut history need to do likewise:

Once upon a time there was a primary. And in that primary, we ran a campaign that focused almost exclusively on the issues. We talked about Senator Lieberman … often. Of course we did, but we kept it to the issues: Iraq, his support for a deeply flawed president, and votes he cast in the Senate, like his vote for the Bush/Cheney energy policy. In a limited amount of time, we introduced a candidate who would stand up to President Bush on Iraq, would work for universal health care in ways Senator Lieberman never has, and wanted to do something about the earmark process in Washington, D.C.

Senator Lieberman, by contrast, went digging through Ned’s bank account, decided the urban vote was the make-or-break and played the race card excessively (including getting surrogates to lie from the pulpits of churches), talked about Ned’s stock, faked a website hack and smeared us with it, wouldn’t shut-up about tax returns, sent paid thugs to campaign activities, equated support for our campaign with emboldening al-Qaeda, leaked charges of anti-semitism to reporters and much much more.

Apparently involve calling your opponent a "dilettante".

Hilarious.

Oh, as for the substance of the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill, it's quite clear... Joe voted to give a federal government agency the right to make decisions about Long Island Sound.

And he was the only Northeast Democrat to do so. Can't run away from that.

First James Baker. Now the head of the British Army:

The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".

In an interview in the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, is quoted as saying the British should "get out some time soon"....

BBC political editor Nick Robinson described Sir Richard's remarks as "quite extraordinary".

He said the new head of British army was "effectively saying we are making the situation worse in Iraq and worse for ourselves around the world by being in Iraq".

The Bush-Lieberman policy has failed.

Time for a change.

And might call for "phased redeployment."

If true, this should mark the official end of the Bush-Lieberman policy in Iraq. Period.

A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by former secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, “Stability First” and “Redeploy and Contain,” both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term....

The “Redeploy and Contain” option calls for the phased withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, though the working groups have yet to say when and where those troops will go.

Joe Lieberman has been nothing but wrong on Iraq for four years, from helping to stymie the Biden-Lugar amendment in fall 2002, to still supporting Bush's "stay the course" strategy in fall 2006.

Even James Baker now agrees with Ned Lamont.

It's time for change. Now.

Looking at 48 new polls just out today from Constituent Dynamics, it seems somethings going on in CT that is not going on in the rest of the country.

The polls as a whole show Democrats currently ahead in the House by 19 seats, or a Democratic landslide.

Yet in Connecticut, which was supposed to feature three of the most competetive races in the country, the only CT race that was polled (CT-5) shows Nancy Johnson (R) still ahead, outside the margin of error. It's not clear whether the other two races show similar results, as they were last polled in August. But as races across the country start breaking hard for Dems, there has been no such significant movement towards Farrell, Murphy, or Courtney in any recent polls I've seen.

What's so different about CT... perhaps the fact that one candidate who calls himself a Democrat is threatening to leave the party and spending millions of dollars attacking the Democratic party and the Democratic brand every day?

Possibly his most serious work yet. Better than Young Republicans in lightbulb hats:



Here are some ideas.

But Joe's too busy defending his corrupt D.C. culture to listen to them.

Update: Great article about the Plan for Change in the Journal-Inquirer today:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont vowed Wednes ay to be a "people's senator," pledging to put the working people of Connecticut first while pushing for tougher ethics rules, affordable and universal health care, and a refocused foreign policy aimed at catching Osama bin Laden....

Lamont also promised to oppose the privatization of Social Security, support public financing of elections, report any meetings he may have with lobbyists, push for a ban on lobbyists gifts to lawmakers, and to "not take a dime" of special-interest money.

"I don't need their money, and I don't want their money," he said.

As always, there's a reason Joe doesn't want to talk about the issues. They're not on his side.

Good Q&A with call-in questioners on "Where We Live"... it's available online here.

• Ned and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will campaign together this morning, holding a joint press conference on energy independence and the Broadwater project - a project that everyone seems to forget Lieberman was the last local politician of any stature to come out against earlier this year. Big energy lobbyists for Lieberman. RFK Jr. for Ned.


• The New Haven Register reports on the event at SCSU yesterday morning in front of the type of large, enthusiastic crowd that Joe hasn't been able to conjure up (or pay to show up) even once this entire election (without someone named Clinton standing next to him):
  

  Interrupted several times by clapping, Lamont said a vote for Lieberman, the three-term incumbent who is running as a petitioning candidate, is a vote for the status quo that rewards energy lobbyists and a failed foreign policy, particularly in Iraq.
  
  "Joe Lieberman was sent to the Senate to fight for the people of this state, but today it seems as if his favorite constituents are George Bush and Dick Cheney. At almost every place where they’ve taken this country in the wrong direction, Joe has been by their side, championing their policies and enriching their supporters at the expense of Connecticut families," he said at a talk organized by the SCSU College Democrats.
  
  He said high-ranking Republicans, from former Secretary of State James Baker to U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine to former Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.S. Sen. John Warner of Virgnia, are all calling for a change of course in Iraq.
  
  "Recently, the president was quoted as saying that he would not withdraw from Iraq even if his dog was the only one left supporting him. And so the only question left is: Who will be the world’s last supporter of George Bush’s policy in Iraq — his dog Barney, or his good pal Joe?" Lamont said.



• In the wake of a report that we might keep troops in Iraq until 2010, Joe is clamming up about the war once again:
  

  Another supporter of the war who has been criticized for it, Sen. Joe Lieberman, was treading even more lightly. A spokeswoman for the senator's independent re-election campaign against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont did not respond to repeated requests for comment.



• The Connecticut Post has more details on Monday's debate, where Joe really has to worry about Alan Schlesinger attacking him from the right and increasing his 5% showings in the polls. He thinks he'll do better than that, and he might be right. Regardless, that's what he's going to try. It might turn into more of a Lieberman-Schlesinger debate:
  

  Tom Appleby, anchor of News 12, will moderate Monday's debate. A panel of journalists will pose questions to the candidates during the debate, which begins at 12:45 p.m. They include: The Advocate/Greenwich Time Editorial Page Editor Joy Haenlein, Connecticut Radio Network News Director Steve Kotchko, and WVIT Chief Political Correspondent Tom Monahan....
  
  "If the election were held today I would probably be in the high teens or low 20s. That is not enough to win, but if I hit my stride in the debates I think I can move Republicans from Lieberman to me and win the thing," Schlesinger said.



• The Courant and others lead with remarks at an endorsment event yesterday. Barely a mention in the papers of Ned's major policy rollout yesterday morning at SCSU. Of course, there was never a front-page article on Joe's accusations that Ned was mischaracterizing his experience as a teacher, or Joe's attacks on Ned for belonging to a country club, or Joe's attacks on Ned's wife, or Joe's continuing negative - and personal - attacks on any number of counts. Truly, there is too much at stake in this election to have it focus on stuff like this. And Indignant!Joe is getting really old.


• Part of the Problem Joe is previewing the run-up to the FEC reporting deadline in a few days. Lieberman has already run the most expensive campaign in CT Senate history. Perhaps he'll finally get some scrutiny for it.

No word on how it went at the fundraiser he hosted with Joe this past Tuesday night in L.A., but here's what longtime California GOP fundraiser (and Bush "pioneer") Bruce Bialosky had to say about Joe back in August:

But quite willing to speak was Bruce Bialosky, a leading Republican donor in California, who said he will raise more than $10,000 for Lieberman.

On Tuesday night, once Lamont had defeated Lieberman, Bialosky sent an e-mail to the 2,000 people on his political list “expressing my despair over Lieberman’s loss in the primary” and making it clear he’d raise money for Lieberman’s independent bid. “I’ve never seen such a tremendous response” from his list, Bialosky said.

“This is not an issue of partisanship. This is a great American,” he said. “There are certain times when we have to cross party lines. Sen. Lieberman has clarity on the most important issue of our time. His opponent doesn’t have a clue.”

Bialosky said, “I’m not going to be happy if Lieberman votes for (Nevada Democrat) Harry Reid” as Senate Leader...

It's really quite simple in the end. Want to stay the course in Iraq? Vote Joe. Want zero accountability for this administration or the congressional leadership? Vote Joe. Want more Alitos on the Supreme Court? Vote Joe:

In the Alito case, I voted against him because, based on his record, I didn’t have enough confidence about how he would vote on things I would value. But he is able, and a person of good character, and I honestly didn’t feel he was so far over the edge - as were some of the Bush nominees that I have filibustered - that I should filibuster him. I didn’t want to break the agreement, because breaking the agreement would have meant that if there is another opening in the next couple of years it would only take 51 votes and not 60 to confirm someone.

Had enough yet?

Back in Iraq, looks like we might stay at current troop levels until at least 2010:

The U.S. Army has plans to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010, the top Army officer said Wednesday, a later date than Bush administration or Pentagon officials have mentioned thus far.

The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, saying troops levels could be adjusted to actual conditions in Iraq. He said it is easier to hold back forces scheduled to go there than to prepare and deploy units at the last minute.

And Joe - as he said back in March - would be A-OK with that:

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.

On the fourth anniversary of the day of the Iraq War Resolution vote in the run-up to the last round of midterm elections, it's important to remeber the particularly destructive role Sen. Lieberman played in making sure the resolution was as vague as possible - and making sure President Bush had as much of a blank check as possible to avoid accountability later on.

RJ Eskew in the Huffington Post states it clearly:

The Iraq War might already be over if not for Joe Lieberman. Now, as Connecticut's voters prepare to go to the polls, they should remember how this self-described "moderate" helped kill concerted efforts by true moderates of both parties to limit the President's war-making power.

Lieberman played a key part in crushing the bipartisan Biden-Lugar amendment to the Iraq War Resolution.

That amendment would have limited the President's war-making role to eliminating Hussein's WMD capabilities - a limitation which would have required the President to seek further authorization once it was known that Saddam had no WMD's.
The Senate might well have refused that authorization. At a minimum, few Democrats would have supported a second authorization. That would have given them a much clearer story for the 2004 election, and probably ensured a Kerry victory.

It would also have required the President to return to Congress with further documentation that he had pursued action in the UN Security Council, and to certify that he had clear proof of an immediate and grave threat from Iraqi WMDs.

The Biden-Lugar amendment was supported by true moderates of both parties, including key Republicans like Dick Lugar and Arlen Specter. Supporters from both sides of the aisle were convinced it could win 60 to 70 votes - that is, until Joe and his friends stepped in.

One day Lieberman and Dick Gephardt (representing sell-outs from the Senate and Congress, respectively) appeared with Bush in the Rose Garden to announce that they support the War Resolution as is - without Biden-Lugar. Support for the Amendment collapsed overnight.

• A new Courant poll has the race tightening. NewHavenBoy at MLN has some great analysis. In short, there is a lot of room for movement in the final weeks, especially with the Schlesinger wild card. To me, the most interesting number is this:
  

  The poll suggests a potential upside for Lamont, a cable-television entrepreneur who has been arguing that an outsider's willingness to fight for change in Washington outweighs Lieberman's experience as an 18-year incumbent.
  
  By a margin of 53-29 percent, voters said they generally favored challengers and the promise of change over incumbents and experience.

  
  This is a huge opening for Lamont to turn Lieberman's "experience" against him. Voters are disgusted with incumbents across the board this year, especially those who are not interested in real accountability for the executive and legislative leadership and don't want to lift a finger to change the broken system.


• Speaking of "change," Ned will be addressing just these issues at a speech later today.


• The Courant also runs a story about Joe's missed votes. And yes, Joe criticizes Joe for going after Joe:
  

  Lieberman's campaign staff countered with its own explanation of the senator's voting record, which - to summarize - is as follows: Yes, Lieberman missed a bunch of votes, but it was because he was running for the vice presidency in 2000 and for president in 2004.

  
  So Joe's excuse is going to be that he was more concerned with his own quixotic run at higher office than with representing the people of Connecticut. But the facts don't even support that claim:
  

  Just 16 percent of the votes Lieberman skipped were because he was running for Vice President in 2000. In fact, after Lieberman’s Vice Presidential run, he amassed the second worst voting attendance record of any current U.S. Senator, skipping more than 300 votes. That included skipping half of all votes on Iraq, most votes on Medicare, all votes to fund the inaugural budget of the Department of Homeland Security, and a tie-breaking vote that could have brought more homeland security money back to Connecticut’s cities.



• Ned contributes more money to his campaign. I've given up on hoping the press will provide as much scrutiny to who is bankrolling Joe - who has raised and spent much more than Lamont. But at least it's nice to know that Joe himself no longer considers self-financing an issue in this campaign:
  

  Lieberman has been condemning Lamont for spending $6.7 million of his own money to "buy his Senate seat" yet recently announced he'll be campaigning with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a man who pumped ten times as much — over $66 million — into his reelection campaign in 2005. Bloomberg is hosting a Nov. 1 fund-raiser for Lieberman. Does Lieberman see that as a contradiction?
  
  Asked if Bloomberg's self-financing efforts were "wrong," he said "no."
  
  "I'm not saying that anybody with money doesn't have the right, under the law, to spend it and move themselves forward for office," said Lieberman.

  
  So, neither candidate cares about this issue. The public doesn't care. Only AP writers care.


• Speaking of Bloomberg, he'll be holding three fundraisers for Joe's lobbyist- and big-money-dependent campaign.


• Matt Stoller has a great post about Lieberman's changing position on North Korea, and how it shows his unwillingness to criticize Republicans on anything - even an issue he's been generally good on in recent years - while he goes around bashing Democrats every day.

New ad up:



Invite here.

CTBob tries to get one from Blumenthal's office:

So today I contacted the AG's office, and found someone willing to speak off the record. Off the record didn't really matter, because he couldn't tell me much beyond the fact that the investigation is ongoing and they can't discuss it.

When I brought up the possibility that Lieberman's campaign may have used their poorly-maintained server crash as an opportunity to attack the Lamont campaign and it's supporters, and there has been no resolution of the situation, what would keep them from doing the same thing on election day in November? They tried to use their server crash as an excuse to attack Lamont's campaign and get plenty of media coverage for their campaign; and they got tons of national attention, without any proof of their charges.

In the interest of providing an environment where a FAIR election can be run, it would be very helpful for the AG's office to at the very least publish some preliminary findings in advance of November 7th.

Indeed.

Someone should ask Professor Sean Smith:

Smith, a campaign strategist who came from out of state to lead Lieberman's team, will teach the political science seminar "Modern Political Campaigns."

CTBlogger has a lot more on DeStefano's shellacking of Rell last night. Go read it.

• New ad going up today, and it's a devastating one. Theme: 1988 Joe vs. 2006 Joe, using footage from a debate with Weicker. Will Joe complain about Joe's "negative attacks" on his future self? Will he comb the state looking for a mad scientist with a flux capacitor? The Courant has more:
  

  In a new Lamont ad scheduled to air today, challenger Joe Lieberman of 1988 seems to be making a case to reject the 18-year incumbent Lieberman of 2006.
  
  "After 18 years, it's time for somebody new," Lieberman says in the Lamont ad. "It's time for a change."
  
  The video is from 1988, when Lieberman's hair was longer and darker - and he was challenging Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., then an 18-year incumbent under fire for missed Senate votes.
  
  The new ad is one of a series planned by the Lamont campaign using Lieberman's own words and image. The first spot contrasts clips of Lieberman criticizing Weicker in 1988 with facts about Lieberman's present-day record.
  
  "In this campaign I promise you I will not miss more than 300 votes," Lieberman says. On screen flashes a slide that says, "The Fact: Joe Lieberman has skipped more than 418 votes."



• Also in the Courant: dog bites man, Joe panders to right-wingers:
  

  Lieberman's remarks Monday, which his staff hailed as a "major speech" on protecting children from Internet predators, seemed mainly a response to recent criticisms from the Lamont campaign over Lieberman's refusal to call for the resignation of Republican leaders, particularly Speaker Dennis Hastert, involved in the Foley scandal.
  
  Lieberman has denounced the actions of former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned abruptly last month after it was learned that he had sent sexually explicit messages to teenage boys who served as congressional pages. But the senator has stopped short of calling for the resignation of top Republican leaders, as many Democrats have done, and said that decision should wait until a congressional investigation into the Foley matter is concluded....
  
  Lieberman also cited an Aug. 8 Washington Post story that reported how the Lamont campaign, in targeting the African American vote before the primary, had sought out rap artists to phone black radio stations and "remind listeners that Lieberman had once targeted rap music for promoting violence and drug use."



• The Yale Daily News writes up the packed speech by Ned at Yale last night:
  

  Lamont spoke before a crowded auditorium of 300 people, predominantly undergraduates, about his race to oust three-term incumbent Joe Lieberman '64 LAW '67 from his seat next month. Lamont spoke for thirty minutes, outlining his reasons for entering the race and touching on a wide variety of campaign topics ranging from education and the war in Iraq to what Lamont called Lieberman's staunch support of President George W. Bush....
  
  While the issue that has garnered him the most national attention is his opposition to the war in Iraq, Lamont emphasized a broad spectrum of issues that he would support if elected to the Senate, highlighting free preschool for all children and more federal support for Pell grants. He also said the government had sacrificed public interest when it came to energy policy, the environment and medical care, blaming much of the problem on lobbyists' influence in Washington.
  
  "Earmarks - this is the currency of Jack Abramoff," he said, referring to the congressional lobbyist, who has plead guilty to felony charges stemming from corruption scandals.



• Great letter to the editor in the Day:
  

  Lamont's Vision Right For Our State's Future
  
  To The Editor Of The Day:
  
  History sometimes brings us to a fork in the road. For the voters of Connecticut, the 2006 election for U.S. senator is a case in point. Everything else aside, this race comes down to very different visions.
  
  Ned Lamont offers a vision of hope and optimism that real change is still possible. He believes that all Americans should have access to quality health care. He believes that we can prosper as a nation, without forgetting those in need. Those who heard Mr. Lamont's speech on Aug. 8, the night he won the Democratic primary, heard him repeat three times that we must treat the rest of the world with respect. In other words, it is a vision of justice.
  
  ...A vote for Ned Lamont is a message that we're tired of the status quo and that we know we can do better by each other.
  
  Henry S. Turenne Jr.
  Plainfield

The New Haven Indy has a nice roundup of the gubernatorial debate, which sounds like it was a TKO for DeStefano. He had a great response to Rell's non-answer on the Senatorial question:

"I think all of the candidates that are running for United States Senate have special expertise in their own way," said Rell. Noting her reply wasn't flying with Davis, she said, "I'm trying to answer your question, Mark, I will tell you honestly, they all bring something different to the table, and each one of them is, um, I think representative of their constituencies at every step of the way."

"The question is which one is best for the next six years?" Davis pressed.

Rell dodged again. "I think everyone in this audience would have a different opinion on which one is best for the next six years," said Rell.

DeStefano (pictured) couldn't resist the chance to attack: "I pray that I'll never be in politics so long that I'll give an answer like that."

Firedoglake catches the Lieberman blog mocking the chairman of the Democratic party:

If you have not had a chance to check out Ned’s new ad, please do (Quicktime). It’s a scream.

Howard Dean would be proud.

Nice.

52% of Americans think Hastert should resign.

Speaking of nuclear threats (this time of the fictional variety)...

David Sirota watches TV, catches Joe claiming he "never bought" the Cheney argument on Iraq and nuclear weapons.

He'll try to make a semantic distinction between claims of "having" and "developing" nuclear weapons. But it's clear that Joe did buy into the Administration's rationale for war, even though he now says WMD didn't matter:

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN SAID HE SUPPORTED IRAQ INVASION BECAUSE OF WMD: Introducing the Iraq War Resolution on Oct. 2, 2002, Lieberman declared that Saddam ‘has continued, without question, to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them on distant targets.’” As the Norwich Bulletin reported, “the weapons of mass destruction Saddam supposedly stockpiled [was] a key factor Bush and Lieberman cited in arguing for an invasion.” On 6/25/04, Lieberman told CNN that “Iraq did pose a threat to us” because “they had weapons of mass destruction.” He said this long after CNN reported that President Bush’s chief weapons inspector, David Kay, told Congress that “his group [of inspectors] found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.” [CNN, 6/25/04; CNN, 1/25/04; Norwich Bulletin, 12/26/05]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN SAYS WMD WAS A “SIDE BENEFIT”; WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED WAR ANYWAY: On Glenn Beck’s national radio show on 8/22/06, Lieberman agreed with the host that the WMD rationale that he pushed as a justification for war was merely “a nice side benefit” and that the Iraq War was really a vehicle for other objectives. Beck said, “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 immediately agreed, saying “You’re right.” [Glenn Beck radio show, 8/22/06]

Meanwhile, North Korea has apparently tested a nuclear weapon, Iran is about to go nuclear, and Iraq is in a civil war.

And Sen. Lieberman still - to this day - defends his own rationale for using false pretenses to get into this needless, counterproductive war of choice.

Not exactly... but the next best thing.

Check out this new mirror site:

Free speech was promised by the Lieberman campaign in their Joe2006 blog. That is, until they didn't agree with what was being said. Here's your chance to exercise YOUR RIGHT to free speech that Joe2006.com is denying you. Comments are welcome!

Same posts as the Joe blog. Comment away.

After a deluge of articles about the race yesterday in the local press, today seems to be a slow news day locally. Nationally, the Foley scandal will of course be pushed aside by North Korea's (apparent) nuclear test, which is a direct result of the global failure of diplomacy that has characterized this Administration's approach towards foreign policy since day one. We are in a worse strategic position with Bush's entire "axis of evil" than on the day it was declared, and in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea we are left with no good choices. James Baker's study group on Iraq will report to the president as much.

We need a huge change in direction in this country, and it's clear we can't afford to wait until 2008.

We need it in 29 days.

Update: Read Josh Marshall:

The bomb-grade plutonium that was on ice from 1994 to 2002 is now actual bombs. Try as you might it is difficult to imagine a policy -- any policy -- which would have yielded a worse result than the one we will face Monday morning.

Talking tough is great if you can make it stick and back it up; it is always and necessarily cleaner and less compromising than sitting down and dealing with bad actors. Talking tough and then folding your cards doesn't just show weakness it invites contempt. And that is what we have here.

The Bush-Cheney policy on North Korea was always what Fareed Zakaria once aptly called "a policy of cheap rhetoric and cheap shots." It failed. And after it failed President Bush couldn't come to grips with that failure and change course. He bounced irresolutely between the Powell and Cheney lines and basically ignored the whole problem hoping either that the problem would go away, that China would solve it for us and most of all that no one would notice.

Do you notice now?

CGG gets Lieberman's emails. Funny.

Almost as funny as outfitting Young Republicans in light-bulb hats. But not quite.

And, on an only slightly related note, not nearly as funny as this:

30 days to go. Lots to get to this morning.

• Colin McEnroe has a great big-picture take on the race a month out from election day, and the odd dynamics at work:
  

  So even as Lieberman lost some of the voters who typically vote for him, he gained some of the voters who typically vote gainst him. The family and friends of President Bush have let the word go forth to all who will heed them: You may vote for Joe without the slightest trace of hesitation or guilt....
  
  With each passing day Lieberman depends more and more on the least motivated voters. Least motivated to turn out, I mean. A Republican or conservative-unaffiliated who doesn't like the war, who doesnt like Bush and who is now appalled by the Foley scandal, has less incentive to go to the polls. That voter thinks: Jodi Rell doesn't need me, and I don't like anybody else.

  
  As Colin points out, 40% should be enough to win a three-way race. Even Lieberman's hapless Republican challengers in past cycles both got over 30%. Schlesinger is still at 5%. Do the math, and it's easy to see - any gain for Schlesinger is a gain for Lamont. Lieberman has every interest in being the de-facto Republican (and getting votes from Bush supporters) and no interest in any GOP support flowing to the real Republican in the race.


• The notion of Lieberman as the de-facto Republican is confirmed by a new poll in the 4th CD (which has the race as a dead heat in what is really both candidates' "home" district):
  

  U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont 42 percent to 39 percent among likely 4th Congressional District voters, according to a poll conducted for The Advocate and Greenwich Time....
  
  ...said Monika McDermott of the University of Connecticut's Center for Survey Research and Analysis, which conducted the poll, "The most noticeable thing is, at least in Fairfield County, it's like theLieberman-Lamont race is only between two candidates, and Lieberman is the Republican."
  
  The poll results are similar to another Advocate/Greenwich Time poll, released last week, showing U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Bridgeport, leading Democratic challenger Diane Farrell 44 percent to 40 percent in the 4th District race....



• Paul Bass also hits on this in a column for the Courant - "Republican" is a dirty word in Connecticut these days, especially if you're running as one:
  

  Although we don't seem to have "Republican" candidates, the national Republican money is flowing even to one candidate who technically is not a Republican: Joe Lieberman.
  
  ... The list (see "Seasonal Memory Lapses," NE, June 4) is practically too long to enter in the Congressional record, let alone replay here in full. Suffice it to say that if anyone is a loyal Republican in deed, if not name, it's Joe Lieberman.
  
  But he's not admitting that. Not in a state where Republican voters lag behind Democrats and unaffiliated voters by hundreds of thousands.
  
  But he's also taking all the Republican help and appealing directly to Republicans in this race. He can have it both ways: Wink at his Republican base (the group of voters who support him in the highest proportion in the polls) while claiming not to belong to a party that's not very popular in Connecticut this year. Reap the rewards of serving the needs of President Bush while pretending to the folks back home that he opposes the guy.



• And Bill Hillsman also takes Joe to task for his claims of "independence" in the pages of the Courant:
  

  Real political independents don't lose their party primary and suddenly convert to being an independent just to cling to their seats.
  
  Real political independents are for change and new, fresh, better solutions. They are not interested in 18-year incumbents whose poor judgment was instrumental in causing the problems we are now trying to solve. Real independents are looking for some shred of accountability and responsibility in Washington for the blunders that have been made by the people Joe Lieberman consistently supported: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
  
  In Connecticut's U.S. Senate race, Joe Lieberman is trying to be - simultaneously - the de facto Republican candidate, a Democrat and an independent. He may think this is a clever political ploy or some evidence of nonpartisanship. But real independents see through this kind of "politrick" and recognize it for what it really is: pandering.



• Want even more on this theme? Mark Pazniokas pens a good profile of Ned as the real non-packaged outsider and independent at this stage in the race:
  

  But his circle of advisers - the group includes former Democratic and Republican state chairmen, labor and community organizers - hardly cringe when Lamont doesn't act like a pol.
  
  "I think with everything happening in Washington, people are looking for leaders with real-life experience and [who] aren't packaged like a fast-food product," said Tom Swan, his campaign manager. "Ned is that."...
  
  "He is inexperienced at what?" asked Thomas D'Amore, a former GOP chairman who left the party to help elect Lowell P. Weicker Jr. governor in 1990. He is a Lamont adviser. "He is exactly the kind of person who has the right life experiences. He is not an actor. He is not a phony. He is the real deal."



• In other news, the Connecticut Post notices something called "blogs", and expectedly gets things almost, but not quite, entirely and utterly wrong. Watch the blogger in his natural habitat:
  

  Usually a blogger will write a post on one specific topic, typically based on a news story or opinion piece from another media outlet, offering their personal take on the subject.

  
  And then watch Dan Gerstein contradict himself yet again:
  

  "I personally am a fan of blogging, I think it's a really exciting development that has the potential to dramatically democratize the political landscape," said Gerstein. "But I would say, in our campaign, for the most part blogs have been used as sort of an underground railroad for misinformation about Joe Lieberman's record."

  
  Umm... Dan?
  

  Gerstein said the Lamont crew “did a brilliant job of using technology to build a support base and organize a campaign” in the primary.... “Ten years from now it will probably be looked at as a model for how campaigns will be run,” Gerstein predicted.

  
  I guess Dan Gerstein aspires to being an "underground railroad for misinformation."


• Spazeboy (just one of those "anonymous" bloggers like... Dan Gerstein) gets profiled in NE Magazine, and does a much better job educating the wider public about blogs:
  

  If I read a news article in The Courant or in any newspaper, my expectation is that the reporter has no bias, but that is completely unrealistic. The reporter is a citizen who votes for candidate X or Y. In reading [his or her work], you don't know where the writer stands. On the blog, if you come there for news, you know exactly where I stand. If you want an opposing point of view, I may not link to it, but it's possible to find it.