That Connecticut - and the nation - would be better off with Democrats in control of congress, in their endorsement tomorrow of all 5 Democratic House candidates:

The nation is mired in an unpopular war. Congress exercises no spending restraint. Lobbyist influence is at high tide.

Little has been done to protect the long-term financial stability of Social Security and Medicare or to promote energy independence. There has been insufficient oversight of the Republican-controlled executive branch. Scandal taints Congress, with members being sent to prison, forced to resign or under indictment or investigation.

It's time for a change to Democratic control to see if they can do any better. Divided government has worked well in the past. Three Republican-held seats in Connecticut are key to whether there will be change or more of the same. Voters must ask themselves if these GOP incumbents can be part of the solution or are part of the problem.

"An unpopular war."
"Insufficient oversight."
"Lobbyist influence."
"Part of the problem."
"Change or more of the same."

What's hilarious is that the Courant will endorse Lieberman at some point, as they did in the primary. After this, though, it will be fun to see what type of tortured rhetoric they will be forced to employ in order to find even the most slightly coherent way of doing so.

Here's the documentation (all in Joe's FEC report, available for download):

July 25: ($5,000)



July 26: ($34,000)



July 26: ($23,000)



July 27: ($32,500)



July 31: ($1,056)



August 2: ($67,500)



August 2: ($6,000)



August 4: ($135,000)



August 7: ($5,005)



August 7: ($75,000)



Including an additional $3,500 that was also itemized as "Petty Cash" (but marked for gas/water/food), that's a grand total of $387,561.

In a comment at MyDD, Adam B notes the relevant FEC law:

A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements. This written journal shall include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. In addition, if any disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) sought by such candidate.

• David Lightman of the Courant digs into Joe's FEC filing and finds massive amounts from the "White House donor network" in a must-read article (written the day after Joe held a press conference claiming poverty):
  

  Lieberman's 1,877-page campaign finance report, made public by the Federal Election Commission this week, shows that while he relied on a lot of familiar Democratic names to help him collect $5.1 million since beginning his general election campaign Aug. 9 as an independent, he also got significant help from the White House donor network....
  
  Among the post-primary contributors to the Connecticut senator, running as an independent for a fourth term, was Joseph Allbaugh, one of the four members of Bush's tight inner circle during his 2000 presidential campaign, and two Republican Senate committee chairmen.
  
  Also giving was Melvin Sembler, former ambassador to Italy and longtime friend of the Bush family, former assistant Republican Senate Leader Don Nickles, and dozens of others from Texas, Missouri, Colorado and other states where Lieberman usually does not find contributors.

  
  More:
  

  From Texas came typically Republican donors like Allbaugh, Bush's 2000 national campaign manager and now an Austin-based business and homeland security consultant; Benjamin Warren, chief executive officer of ITC Trading Company; Leo Fields, a Dallas investment adviser; Alex Thomas, a San Antonio investor; and Robert Marbut, a San Antonio television executive.
  
  From Florida, there was Sembler and his wife, Betty; Lake Worth builder Bruce Toll; St. Petersburg college executive Carl Kuttler; and Weston attorney Teddy Klinghoffer.
  
  And from all over the country came other big GOP names: Maryland attorney Peter Winik; New York corporate executive Lewis Eisenberg; Greensboro, N.C., foundation executive E.S. Melvin, Washington consultant Debra M. Bryant and Chattanooga retiree Dudley Porter.

  
  And even more:
  

  The list reads like a Who's Who of players at the Capitol: American Council of Life Insurers, John Deere, MetLife, GlaxoSmithKline, Phoenix Companies, KPMG, Raytheon, Heineken, Bechtel, Laborers, American Federation of Government Employees, Honeywell International, Constellation Energy, AT&T, Walgreens, Friends of American Hospitals, Friends of Israel, John Hancock Financial Services, Allstate, Pfizer, BMX Technologies, Lumber Dealers, Northeast Utilities Employees, the Farmers Group, American Apparel and Footwear, Real Estate Investment Trust, American Bankers Association and others.

  
  Read the whole thing, and keep digging. That $380,000 slush fund came from these folks.


• The Journal-Inquirer's editorial on the debates: "Decision Lamont":
  

  Lieberman had his Spiro Agnew mask on at the Bushnell, a face he seems increasingly comfortable wearing. It's sad. Either way, this is probably Lieberman's last campaign, and it's a strange and pathetic show. He repeated his absurd and insulting final position on Iraq: He wants the soldiers home "as soon as possible," but not too soon. And he doesn't want to "dishonor" them. Is there someone who does? Leaving them as sitting ducks in Iraq would seem both dishonorable and dishonoring....
  
  But Lamont knocked the ball out of the park in his summation. He talked about how, when he decided to run, someone told him it was "impossible but important." And then he talked about the issues - his issues - ones that compelled him to run: 47 million Americans without health insurance; Dick Cheney and the oil companies making federal energy policy; Joe Lieberman agreeing with the Republican right wing that the federal government had a right to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, and family decisions about life support. But, "most of all," said Lamont, "the war, and the Bush rush to war." As Sen. Chris Dodd recently said, "We made a terrible, terrible mistake." As Lamont sees it, we "made our nation less secure" and we "undermined our liberties." It is not, he concluded, as Joe Lieberman would have it, that some are being "negative" and asking too many questions, but that we have asked too few questions, starting with "Can't we do better?" ...



• The Courant on Dean stumping for the party in Hartford and Schlesinger crashing Doug Schwartz's "Great Moments in Polling" press conference:
  

  "Now we've got 18 days left. Eighteen days of knocking on doors. I know you all know how to do that, because you did it for Ned Lamont before the primary," Dean said. "Work like crazy. Some of you might drop dead, but I promise you on Nov. 8, the resurrection will occur."...
  
  "I don't know if they polled Massachusetts residents, or perhaps they confused the names of Lieberman and Schlesinger in this particular poll, but I have to question it, because, I'll tell you, my race right now is so different than it was last week," Schlesinger said.
  
  "These numbers are going to be very fluid," he added. "My campaign started Monday. Their campaigns have been going on for several months. You have got to give me a little time here, and I think you'll see the numbers change dramatically."
  
  Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager, said they flat out don't believe the poll results.
  
  "I find the Q poll to be both inaccurate in terms of the state of the race, but also bordering on malpractice for a polling firm," he said. "For Doug Schwartz to imply in his press release that his poll numbers reflected the outcome of the last two debates is as intellectually dishonest as anything I've ever heard from a pollster."



• The Day followed Lieberman's quasi-campaign event with Sen. Collins yesterday, and got Lieberman to admit that he's been whining about money not out of principle (that much has been clear for a while), but out of jealously:
  

  And Lieberman also bridled at another question — why was he making an issue of Lamont's campaign expenditures when Lieberman's campaign has raised more money?
  
  “If I could be real personal about this as a candidate,” he said, “in the last week and a half, he wrote two checks for two million dollars. Do you know how hard it is, how hard Susan Collins and I have to work, to raise four million dollars? A part of this is envy!”

Spazeboy has video clips from this afternoon:

From Joe's latest campaign email, in which a $15-million candidate (with a $380,000 slush fund) claims poverty:

If we don't have the resources to counter Ned's last minute blitz of attacks and distortions, he could quite easily drive up our negatives and eat into our support.

Ned will also be pouring huge amounts of money to run an extensive get out the vote operation, which will be aided by Moveon.org and other interest groups, and his voters are clearly energized.

Update: Just like with every individual or group who dared to support another candidate, it turns out Joe asked for MoveOn's support before he decided to participate in demonizing them (h/t drowsy):

Dear MoveOn.org Members,

I’m running for President to make America stronger at home, stronger abroad, and to put America back on the great march of social progress from which George W. Bush has led us astray....

You can learn more about my plans at www.joe2004.com. If you agree with me that America needs new leadership to move us forward, I’d ask you to take action today:

1. Cast your vote for me in the MoveOn Primary
2. Sign up with my campaign
3. Email 3 of your friends that you’re supporting me

I know that I can defeat George W. Bush. Why? Because Al Gore and I already did it in 2000. With your support and active involvement in my campaign, I’ll do it again.

Best regards,

Joe Lieberman
June 17, 2003

In his 3Q FEC Report, the following expenditures appear:

7/27 - Petty Cash / Stipend Volunteers - $32,500
8/02 - Petty Cash / Stipend Volunteer Payment - $67,500
8/04 - Petty Cash / Stipend Volunteers - $135,000

August 3rd was the day Joe's hired goons tried to start physical violence with Ned at Ted's in Meriden. Looks like they were paid quite well.

And there's more listed under "Petty Cash" in the report in addition to the above amounts. That's at least $300,000 that Joe spent that isn't itemized on his statement.

Over 1,800 pages of this kind of stuff... help go through it.

Iraq, today:

A Shiite militia that has been accused of a wave of sectarian attacks on Iraq’s Sunni minority has seized control of the city of Amara in southeastern Iraq, attacking police stations and erecting checkpoints, witnesses in the city said today. At least 15 people have been killed, health officials said.

The takeover of Amara by the militia, the Mahdi Army, was a broad act of defiance against the authority of the central government, which has been trying to impose order and curb sectarian violence. The incident also raised questions about whether Iraq’s militias can be reined in.

This afternoon.

And a bunch of volunteer opportunities this weekend.

No Democrat, Republican, or minor party candidate in the state can even come close to matching this campaign's grassroots efforts. Show 'em how it's done.

The Future CT Senate Delegation:



Get involved this weekend.

This is and remains a very volitile race. The margins of the two major polls released in the last couple of days have differed by 10 points. One candidate is very hard to find on the ballot. Another is right next to an (inexplicably) popular governor on the ballot, yet pulls in only single digits.

Politicians and candidates - whether they're ahead or behind - will inevitably tell you that polls don't matter. They're generally correct. The horse race is the last thing that should matter to voters, but the first thing to catch their attention when it appears in newsprint or on TV. But even in a race like this that's proven impossible to poll (Quinnipiac was off by double digits in the days before the primary), polls do have an effect. Especially when some figures and voters in the party decide to hedge their bets in order to blow with the prevailing polling wind. That's why it's so great to see the new ad today, stressing party unity and reminding voters of the reasons behind this campaign from the day Ned announced back in March. More above.

He kisses... and tells:

This summer, we saw what happens when a Democrat rejects his party's doctrine of cut and run. Senator Joe Lieberman, a three-term Democrat from Connecticut, supports completing the mission in Iraq, supports victory in Iraq. And for taking this stand, he was purged from his party. Think about what that means. Six years ago, the Democrats thought Joe Lieberman was good enough to run for Vice President of the United States.

Now, because he supports victory in Iraq, they don't think he's fit to be in their party. There's only position in the Democrat Party that everybody seems to agree on: If you want to be a Democrat these days, you can be for almost anything, but victory in Iraq is not an option.

They even both like referring to the "Democrat" Party. It's like they're finishing each others sentences nowadays. So cute!

"I Love the 80's Edition":

Start digging... Lieberman's October FEC report is online.

He's even holding a press conference today to try to distract from it.

Go to it - right-click and download the PDF.

Great coverage of the debate by Pazniokas on the front page (extensive, giving even the three minor party candidates some attention), a good sidebar on the highlights and lowlights of the debate on p. A2 (Ferrucci won for "Most Strained Historical Metaphor"), other articles linked below, one letter to the editor on the GOP dumping on Schlesinger, one on Joe's "Myth of Bipartisanship," a hilarious one on Joe as a baseball player (talk about strained metaphors), and this cartoon from Englehart:

Some good analysis on Joe's transparently political flip-flop on Bolton:

...Senator Lieberman decided to play "fluffer" for the Republican leadership and Bush with his statement today in the New York Daily News that he has flip-flopped on Bolton and would now support his confirmation as US Ambassador to the UN.

Lieberman knows that after the next election, when there is a lame duck session of Congress called, all of the controls on party discipline come off.

Some Senators will be on their way out -- some will be planning to move in. While Lieberman might vote for Bolton in a new game plan, several Republican Senators are so irritated by the confirmation that has been kicked to near death twice that they won't save it and may even kick it to definitive death to help reach out to progressives they may need to "kiss and make up to" after the election.

Lieberman just used a false stilt to prop himself up before some of Connecticut's pugnacious isolationist Republicans....

I have hesitated pounding too hard on Senator Lieberman who has been a great advocate of advanced technology development in this country and has been (until the Iraq war) a generally sensible voice on national security issues -- particularly at home. But to quote George Soros, "Lieberman has gone off the rails."

Much more debate round-up below this post, but here's some more.

All of the write-ups seem to agree on the major storylines emerging: Lieberman got hit from all sides on Iraq and was left in the impossible position of having to attack the same Washington D.C. culture he's enabled and defended for 18 years.

• The Courant's headline:
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman had no friends on a crowded stage Wednesday, assailed from the left and right for asserting he can be a force for change after 18 years in Washington....
  
  In his closing remarks, Republican Alan Schlesinger teamed up with Democrat Ned Lamont to question how Lieberman would fare in "the real world" if he told his boss he couldn't fix something in 18 years.
  
  "What do you think your boss is going to tell you?" Schlesinger asked Lieberman. Then Schlesinger turned to Lamont. "Ned, you're a businessman like me, what do we tell this guy?"
  
  "It's time to go," Lamont replied.
  
  "You're fired," Schlesinger said....
  
  It was an uncomfortable format for Lieberman, 64, a three-term incumbent running as a petitioning candidate after losing the Democratic primary to Lamont, 52, a cable television entrepreneur.
  
  Candidates were limited to 60-second answers, which Lieberman appeared to find confining.
  
  CBS newsman Bob Schieffer, who as moderator firmly enforced the rules, frequently cut off the senator.



• The New Haven Register:
  

  -HARTFORD — This time it was four against one.
  
  The second debate Wednesday in the U.S. Senate race broadened to five candidates, with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman the target for his support of the Iraq war, Connecticut’s dwindling share of homeland security funds and America’s continuing dependence on foreign oil....
  
  Lieberman took a hit for the drop in homeland security money for Connecticut to $15 million, the lowest in New England on a per capita basis.
  
  "Sen. Lieberman’s tenure on the Homeland Security Committee has not brought back results for the state of Connecticut," Lamont said.



• The Day's headline:
  
  
  
  

  Hartford — Once again, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman and challenger Ned Lamont squared off in a debate Wednesday. And once again, all the good lines were stolen by the guy whose campaign was left for dead months ago, even in his own party — Republican Alan Schlesinger.
  
  Schlesinger, running a more-than-distant third to Lieberman and Lamont in recent public opinion polls, reprised the animated, jesting style he had shown earlier in Wednesday's debate at the Bushnell in Hartford, which was taped for broadcast at 7 tonight by WFSB-Channel 3.
  
  And most of his sharpest jabs — like those of the two other candidates, Ralph Ferrucci of the Green Party and Timothy Knibbs of the Concerned Citizens Party — were aimed at Lieberman.



• The Courant on Schlesinger:
  

  “There is a base Republican vote, and the base Republican is a lot bigger than six [percent]. It tends to be in the low 30s. I understand it’s fractured this time because of Lieberman; but it’s fractured, not evaporated,” Schlesinger’s campaign manager Richard Foley said. Speaking in the first week of October, Foley put a lot of stock in voters’ reaction to the Oct. 16 and Oct 23 debates. Anticipating a bump after the debates, Schlesinger said national conservative groups pledged to pony up a substantial amount of money if he polls in the teens.
  
  If that happens, Schlesinger could impact the election. With a three-way race, a candidate doesn’t need a majority to win. And since he’s competing with Lieberman for the state’s Republican votes, he doesn’t need to win or place to have a dramatic effect.



• The Courant on Lieberman caucusing with the GOP in a new Senate:
  

  On the other hand, Salka said if the Lieberman were interested in voting with the GOP or even switching parties, “which would be understandable considering that most of the Democrats have turned their back on him,” the Republicans would be delighted and give him a plum committee assignment in return....
  
  “Coming from Connecticut, it would be difficult for him to change into being a Republican,” Salka said. Then again, he added, “I don’t think he’ll serve much more than this next term, so it wouldn’t really hurt him.”

Four against one on Iraq, Lieberman's experience used against him:

NY Times:

HARTFORD, Oct 18 — Facing criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman was forced to defend himself in a five-way debate on Wednesday, at times appearing frustrated and repeatedly invoking his experience to fend off the group of opponents who are trying to unseat him.

Unlike the situation in the first debate on Monday, which included only the three major candidates and largely steered away from the war in Iraq, Mr. Leiberman’s four opponents spent much of their time this time assailing his support of the war....

Beyond the war, each of the challengers repeatedly turned Mr. Lieberman’s experience in Washington against him and argued that his 18 years in the Senate and candidacy for national office undermined his contention that he could change the culture in Washington....

Indeed, Mr. Lieberman was cut off several times by the moderator, Bob Schieffer, the chief Washington correspondent of CBS news and the host of the program “Face the Nation,” when he ran over his allotted time for answers.

Also read Matt Stoller's magnum opus post on the day.

On Monday, Lieberman was shocked that his feisty Republican opponent criticized him for voting with the Democrats 90% of the time. To understand this debate, you have to understand that Joe is a very self-centered man, and honestly believes that this election should be renamed 'Joe Lieberman Tribute Season'. He thinks that voters think about things like Committee seniority and how awesome his parking place is outside of the Dirksen Senate office building (to be fair to Joe, it is a really good parking spot).

This means that he also buys into the ridiculous idea that Democrats are mean, and Republicans are nice. Thus, a Republican attacking him from the right was not only shocking, it was problematic, since his strategy hinges on getting votes from conservatives and moderates to hold off dirty fucking hippies like businessman Ned Lamont and his venture capitalist wife, Annie. Lieberman didn't quite know what to do about getting attacked from the right and the left, so he bragged about everything he had done for Connecticut, the pork and funding he had brought home, and the work he had put in on all the little micro-issues. At one point, he said something particularly revealing, saying that he couldn't have delivered all the pork he had if he didn't work across the aisle, since the Republicans have been in the majority for so long. It was interesting to hear a politician so succinctly make the crass argument for political appeasement, but that's all that's left for Joe.

...Some friends here think that Joe is scared to face reporters, but I don't think that's what's going on. I think Joe actually and honestly doesn't like people and doesn't want to deal with them if he doesn't have to. That's why he doesn't like or care about doing good visibility events - his ego isn't fed by large crowds since he doesn't think much of people he doesn't know.

Word is a new Q-Poll is coming out soon that was taken before the debate on Monday. Take it with a huge grain of rock salt.

(Update: Kirby at CTBob was at the debate and has a great round-up of the substance. More posts here.)

Emerging consensus this time: Lieberman was alone onstage in defending Bush's war, Ned took Joe to task on Social Security and energy as well, Schlesinger was a big story again:

The AP:

HARTFORD, Conn. Oct 18, 2006 (AP)— The Iraq war touched off a war of words Wednesday as Sen. Joe Lieberman debated four candidates trying to succeed him in the Senate.

Two minor party candidates joined Democrat Ned Lamont in assailing Lieberman's support for the war. Republican Alan Schlesinger reminded the group that the Senate lacks the authority to withdraw troops.

"Three-and-a-half years ago, President Bush rushed our country into war," said Lamont, a wealthy businessman who rode a wave of anti-war sentiment to an August primary victory over Lieberman. "Senator Lieberman cheered him on every step of the way."

Lieberman, who is running as an independent, said, "No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do." But he warned against pulling out troops before the job is done....

Schlesinger delivered an energetic debate performance similar to the one he gave Monday, but the long-shot candidate had a harder time Wednesday because of two minor party candidates.

WTNH:

The candidates talked about Iraq and they also talked about oil prices. Both Democrat Ned Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger took Lieberman to task for supporting an energy bill that opens up Long Island Sound to that big gas barge. And they also sparred about Social Security again....

But as was the case in the first debate it was Schlesinger who seemed to have the best lines, like when he talked about Social Security.

"I say we repeal Congressional pensions and put the Congress into Social Security like the rest of us," he said, which was met by sustained applause. "There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund, it's a cruel hoax. We have to start putting money away."

Lamont continued his attack on the issue, saying, "Sen. Lieberman has been on both sides of Social Security. He was for privatization, then he was against. I think we need to be clear with the American people. We're going to be here to fight for Social Security. It's a guaranteed benefit."

Lieberman again reiterated that he no longer supports privatization.

"Social Security is probably the best thing the federal government has ever done. I disagree over whether it's real money in the Social Security Trust Fund. There is. Are there IOU's? There are because the federal government is in deficit, that's why I support pay-as-you-go government."

New Haven Independent:

U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman again got it from both sides in a campaign debate Wednesday -- but this time the subject was social security....

As Lieberman, Schlesinger and Democratic candidate Ned Lamont debated for the second time Wednesday, a clear dynamic emerged: Lieberman, the one-time vice presidential candidate who's now a petitioning third-party candidate, did not dominate, and often got cut off abruptly by moderators as he overran time limits. Lamont appeared nervous, spoke quickly, and held back from addressing Lieberman directly. Schlesinger provided the fire, a bit more sedate than in their first debate but still prone to gesture wildly, and often turning to Lieberman with direct and comical jousts....

In another a classic Schlesinger performance, the Republican again joined forces with Lamont to attack the man they aim to topple.

Schlesinger turned to the senator: "If you had someone doing a job for 18 years, and after 18 years, their record was one of complete failure, what would you do? What do you think should happen with that person?"

He turned to Lamont to make his point: "Ned, you're a businessman: what would you say about someone like that?"

"I'd say, "It's time to go, Joe!" said Lamont.

More photos from the day at the campaign Flickr page.

Ned was at his best yet. Joe again looked like wanted to be anywhere but on a stage defending his record. Schlesinger continued to hit Joe hard. Schieffer kept on having to cut Joe's mic, because he was running over time. The pro-Ned crowd outside was huge and boisterous. The media ran to Ned and Alan afterwards, but Joe was nowhere to be seen.

And the float was back.

Pictures and more coming soon. A great day.

• Ten. Ten U.S. troops were killed in Iraq yesterday. Ten.
  

  BAGHDAD, Oct. 18-Ten U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq on Tuesday, one of the bloodiest days of the war for American forces outside of major combat operations.
  
  October is on track to become one of the deadliest of the conflict for U.S. soldiers, with at least 60 soldiers killed so far this month. More than 2,700 American troops and Defense Department employees have died since the war began 3 1/2 years ago.



• David Lightman in the Courant explores Lieberman's trademark disingenuousness on social security privatization. In 2005, Lieberman said it would be "great" if Congress could "figure out a way to help people through private accounts":
  

  Then in early January 2005, Lieberman wanted to convene his bipartisan centrist Senate group, which usually met once a week, to talk about all Social Security options, and said that he was taking no position on any of them.
  
  "This is an ongoing problem and we'd be wise to deal with it," Lieberman said. "I hope we can get something done."
  
  He would not rule out personal accounts, although he said "it's important Social Security remain what it is," a social insurance program that "provides a floor of income." And, Lieberman said, "if we can figure out a way to help people through private accounts or something else, great."
  
  On Tuesday, Gerstein acknowledged that Lieberman's comment at the time "was not clear."



• Elsewhere in the Courant, Alan Schlesinger has the quote of the day:
  

  But Lieberman, who is trying to keep his Republican support intact, said a vote for Schlesinger would be wasted.
  
  "In the end, the race is going to come down to Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman for the U.S. Senate, and I think the voters in the state know that," Lieberman said.
  
  Schlesinger called Lieberman's remarks insulting.
  
  "It is another example of Joe Lieberman's patronizing attitude, that he owns the Senate seat, that it personally belongs to him," Schlesinger said.

  
  The national and state GOP have shafted Schlesinger from the start. Their grand plan - from Rove and Cheney on down - was to jettison their own candidate and get Lieberman re-elected. But they might have pissed off the wrong guy. It sounds like Schlesinger is doing his best to play spoiler and make sure their best-laid plans don't come to fruition.


• Dan Gerstein accuses every New England Democrat - and many Republicans - of making an "empty partisan point" by voting against the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill which gave away billions to big oil. Ned's full energy speech from yesterday is available here.


• Ned's full statement on yesterday's signing of the torture bill:
  

  With the President’s signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, America took a step backward in our fight for democratic values and freedoms in the war on terror. The bill is wrong for America, and does not make us safer. I believe it violates the constitution, is at odds with our values, puts our troops in jeopardy, and will lead to further delays in bringing terrorists to justice. This Administration and those that support it have made grave mistakes in protecting this country. As a result, we are less safe and, as Colin Powell stated last week, we are losing our ‘moral authority’ to fight the war on terror. It’s time for a change in Washington. It’s time for us to get this right. Our security depends on it.



• Debate day again today (although you'll only see it tomorrow). Tim at the official blog has a good roundup of what to expect.

For tomorrow, here.

Paul Bass was in New Haven today, and got some great video of the press pressing Lieberman... hard.

First on why it took him days to decide whether Democrats - like himself - should win back Congress: "Nobody asked me that question before":

The exchanges began when the Register's Mary O'Leary asked Lieberman about widely quoted remarks in Sunday's Courant. In that article, Lieberman was asked which party he'd like to see win control of the House of Representatives in November. He didn't have an answer. By Tuesday, Lieberman was saying he does indeed want the Democrats to gain control, but to govern in a bipartisan way. Click the arrow below this pictured screen to hear his response about why he took a few days to arrive at that answer.

He also basically told Republicans not to waste their vote on the Republican candidate:



Much more video at the New Haven Independent.

Well, he had the weekend to mull it over. And he's come to a conclusion. Sort of. Democrats (as he claims to be) might be better for America, after all, but only if they "change their ways."

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) - Sen. Joe Lieberman, running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary, said Tuesday he hoped Democrats seize control of Congress - with one caveat: a Democratic-led Congress, he said, must change its ways.

"It won't represent progress that's real," Lieberman told reporters while stopping at a transportation forum in New Haven. "It's not going to be much of a step forward if there's a new Democratic leadership that doesn't change the tone in Washington."

Because, you know, it's the Democrats that have caused all the problems in Washington these past six years.

Right.

And they're not worth endorsing or doing anything crazy like that:

Lieberman has said he will not endorse Democratic candidates because he understands that his candidacy has put Democratic candidates in an awkward position, and has said he would stay out of their races.

He voted against him - twice - before he said he was going to vote for him.

Colin McEnroe on the shock Lieberman received at the debate:

So Lieberman's words once again reveal his underlying psychology: He fully expected to be handed his Senate seat with the unalloyed thanks of a grateful Connecticut and he remains astounded to find himself in anything resembling a real political campaign.

More intriguingly, Lieberman unintentionally disclosed another thing he believes: that the fix is in and that he doesn't have to worry about Republican opposition. He actually said it! He said he wasn't expecting an attack from the Republican side! Remember, he got a phone call from Karl Rove right after the primary. From that day until this, his campaign has been oozing Republican gravy. He gets their money, and he gets their tactical support. The only thing they have not been able to do for Joe Lieberman is find the "off" switch on Alan Schlesinger.

3 weeks to go. Get involved. Lots of debate round-up below.

• The Journal-Inquirer on "Joe's War":
  

  The voters are hungry for honest talk and real issues. Whether this hunger leads to a wave that washes away incumbents and elects truly fresh and, yes, inexperienced people like Lamont depends on whether the candidates make the case. (Remember that Lincoln and Jefferson were inexperienced. Cheney and Rumsfeld were "experienced.")...
  
  The war goes to the heart of all other issues. It goes to the heart of the current malfeasance and arrogance in Washington. It is the reason we are not dealing with terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism. It is the reason for the continuing disarray in homeland security and intelligence. It is the reason Afghanistan is falling apart today. It is the reason the nation is broke and cannot afford to create a universal health insurance system, which Harry Truman advocated in 1948 and Robert Taft advocated in 1952....
  
  Lamont was anti-war before there was a prevailing anti-war sentiment. He had the guts to stand up. And mounting public concern about the war translated into votes for Lamont. There is no way Lamont could have beaten Lieberman in the primary, even with his millions, without the war issue....
  
  It is Lieberman's war just as it is Bush's war. After 18 years, it is Lieberman's Congress just as it is Dennis Hastert's.
  
  But the war is what made Lamont's candidacy in the first place and that's what he has to use as the foundation of his platform in the remaining weeks. His core message must be: You want more of this war and all that goes with it, from fiscal suicide to diminishment of the Constitution? Vote for Lieberman. You want to vote against Bush's war? Vote for Lamont.



• With no reason to do so other than to suck up to his GOP friends in the White House and Congress, Lieberman endorses John Bolton for UN Ambassador, calling him a "good spokesman" for America:
  

  Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman on Monday endorsed controversial Bush appointee John Bolton for a permanent slot at the United Nations - putting him at odds once again with Democrats and his Senate colleague, Chris Dodd.
  
  Dodd, D-Conn., is the leading critic of Bolton, the controversial envoy Bush sent to the U.N. on a temporary ambassadorship after Democrats and some key Republicans balked at nominating him.
  
  "I see no reason not to be for Bolton," Lieberman told a meeting of the New York Daily News editorial board.
  
  "Based on his capabilities - and now based on his performance - I believe Bolton is well-qualified," he said.
  
  "I think he's been a good negotiator and a good spokesman. He deserves to have a vote. I think he deserves to be confirmed."

  
  
• More debate reaction... from the Courant:
  

  A more realistic assessment is that Schlesinger, long neglected by GOP donors and unable to escape single digits in the polls, might become a player in a race dominated by Lamont and Lieberman. Lieberman leads Lamont, 48 percent to 40 percent in the most recent poll, with Schlesinger at 4 percent.
  
  With Lieberman relying heavily on Republican and unaffiliated voters in the general election, any gain Schlesinger makes in winning back a portion of the GOP base is likely to come at Lieberman's expense....
  
  Lamont was upbeat after the debate, saying he was happy to stand as the only business owner on a stage with two politicians.
  
  "We're the agent of change in this race," Lamont said. "I come from a very different background than these other two guys that are running. I'm going to come down there and try to shake things up."



• Rick Green in the Courant on the "indignant incumbent":
  

  At the first fall debate between Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman and Alan Schlesinger in Stamford on Monday afternoon, it seemed like we were in for another dry lesson from the indignant incumbent about the naughty people's millionaire from Greenwich.
  
  "Expect a lot of attacks today by Ned Lamont," Lieberman warned the crowd before the debate was minutes old, telling all that Lamont was probably going to buy the beer afterward to celebrate all the cheap shots.
  
  "I'm counting like four or five attacks on me so far," Eddie Haskell, I mean Lieberman, added a couple of minutes later. "I hope you all will stop it so we get on to the things that really matter....
  
  Lieberman, still a registered Democrat, won't tell us who he wants for governor or whether he wants a Democratic majority in Congress, but Schlesinger might yet force him out of his ill-fitting Republican Halloween costume."...
  
  Congress is partisan. The Iraq war is partisan. People truly disagree.
  
  Thank you, Alan Schlesinger, for reminding us of this.



• The New Haven Register:
  

  Lieberman, D-I, Lamont, D, and Alan Schlesinger, R, went back and forth on the issues, playing the debate mostly on the offensive approach. And at the end of the game, Schlesinger may have scored the winning touchdown.
  
  Before the debate at the Stamford Marriott, Lieberman made small talk with Schlesinger. He spoke close to his side of the audience, leaving Lamont over on his own and visually setting the two against Lamont.
  
  As the hour went on, however, it appeared that two were instead against Lieberman....
  
  And when Lieberman's allotted 17 response minutes finished, Schlesinger said, "No pun intended, but your time is up, Joe."...
  
  Staying local, Lamont went to Fiddlers Green at 280 Shippan Ave., in Stamford. As he arrived, the crowd of around 40 to 50 people cheered while passersby honked their horns. ...
  
  Supporters in the crowd interjected that Lamont did well to make mention of health care and that he came across as being very sincere.



• The Connecticut Post probably does the best job of covering the actual content of the debate:
  

  Asked about North Korea and its nuclear ambitions, Lieberman said too many fingers are pointed at President Bush and the Clinton administration. "Both parties have failed to stop that from happening. We should work through our allies, specifically China. And I don't agree that we should not be able to talk to the North Koreans," Lieberman said, referring to Bush's insistence there be no direct dialogue with the rogue country.
  
  Lamont said North Korea's nuclear program is a consequence of Bush's contention that Iran, Iraq and North Korea constitute an "axis of evil." He contrasted that with his opposition to the Iraq war and Lieberman's support.
  
  "We invaded a country with no weapons of mass destruction. Over the last three years the world has become a much more dangerous place. We need diplomacy and the Bush administration has been so derelict in this," Lamont said.



• Stamford Advocate:
  

  U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman went into yesterday's first debate anticipating attacks from his primary opponent, Democrat Ned Lamont.
  
  He was stunned, however, when some of the harshest criticism came from Alan Schlesinger -- the Republican candidate who has been overshadowed in the race and trailing far behind in polls.
  
  "I thought the attacks were only going to come from this side," Lieberman said at one point, referring to Lamont....
  
  Lieberman, continuing his battle for a fourth term as a petition candidate, railed against Washington's "partisanship and bitterness." He said Lamont would make it worse and urged audience members to grab pencils and keep score of how often the Democrat "attacks" him in the debate.
  
  But the tactic, which drew some laughs, had limited traction. At one point when Lieberman said, "I'm counting four or five attacks on me," he got some groans and one "poor baby" from the crowd.
  
  "You have an 18-year-old record," Lamont said. "That's what we talk about in a race like this."

Sen. Lieberman, this is way out of bounds.

The new attack ad from Joe's friends at the Club for Growth Swift Boat Vets Free Enterprise Fund flashes the phone number for Campus Televideo (Ned Lamont's business) at the end of the ad, encouraging viewers of the ad to call and harass them. View the ad here:



This is a business they're telling people to call and harass. Not the campaign. The campaign has a phone number. It's easy to find. But they put up the phone number for Ned's business.

It's like posting someone's home phone number.

But what do you expect from a group with ties to the Swift Boat Vets? This is positively high-road compared to most of their tactics.

This is the same ad that Lieberman Spokes-Tron-3000 Tammy Sun said she had no problem with in a newspaper report today.

I can't imagine that Sen. Lieberman won't loudly demand that this ad be pulled.

Oh wait, I can imagine.

Sigh.

(Major hat tip to reader "drowsy.")

Joe left the debate room before bloggers or any of the other regular folks in attendance could ask him a question, while both Lamont and Schlesinger hung around chatting with both media and attendees.

But try as he might, he couldn't evade the omnipresent Spazeboy:



For the record, Lieberman did not say he would remain in the Democratic caucus if stripped of his seniority. He evaded the question.

For months, he would not say whether he would bolt the party if he lost the primary. He evaded that question, too.

More reaction from others:

Update: NYTimes:

Ned Lamont, who defeated the senator in the Democratic primary earlier this year, criticized Mr. Lieberman as a “career politician” who has no plan for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

For the first time, the Republican nominee, a little-known lawyer named Alan Schlesinger, had a prominent pulpit to attack the frontrunner as well: he accused Mr. Lieberman of ignoring problems with the Social Security system and failing to work to keep the deficit in check....

“This is not a race about Republican or Democrat; it’s not a race about left and right,” Mr. Lamont said. “It’s a race about right and wrong. And I think right now we have a government in Washington, D.C., that is making a lot of bad decisions right now.”

Mr. Lieberman accused Mr. Lamont, in particular, of running a negative race. He challenged viewers at the outset of the debate to keep track of the number of times Mr. Lamont attacked him, saying the wealthy businessman from Greenwich would owe “free pizza and beer for everybody” if the number of attacks exceeded 10.

Firedoglake:

When Lieberman tried to nail down the critical senior vote by lying about the fact that he had supported social security privatization, Lamont set the record straight. All Joe could do was whine that Ned was being mean to him, and when he thought he was scoring a master stroke by keeping score of how many times his thin skin got bruised, the audience openly booed him.

Alan Schlessinger kicked Lieberman's ass for the GOP vote he so critically needs to win, and Lamont gave him no quarter on the Democratic side (and looked very senatorial in the process). While there are many good things to say about both Lamont and Schlessinger in the debate today, the loser was clearly — Joe Loserman.

TPMCafe Election Central:

Both Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont scored heavy blows in today's debate. Lamont persuasively invoked the same attack line Lieberman used 18 years ago against then-Senator Lowell Weicker — that the incumbent had served too long with too few results. A key Lamont goal was to broaden the case against Lieberman beyond Iraq, and he successfully did that today, saying Lieberman had failed Connecticut on various fronts.

Spazeboy, liveblogging:

Joe seems to think it’s fair to go after someone’s experience, when it’s cited as an asset…but it’s NOT OK to question Senator Lieberman’s experience. The difference being, of course, that Lieberman’s charge is questionable at best.

Kirby at CTBob, liveblogging Spazeboy a few hours ago (confused yet?):

Joe just came down the stairs with Spazeboy in hot pursuit. Let's hope Spaze nails him. We're doing our best here.

Having watched it on closed circuit here in the press room, I think Alan helped himself the most. He was a little over the top, but if you're a Republican, I think Alan gave you a lot to think about. He shot from the hip, and did a great job nailing Joe on his false Republican credentials. Ned didn't take any chances -- there was no need to. Ned is what he is -- an honest, ethical guy who wants to help make a difference in the world. He's not going to change that between now and November 7 or November 7, 2010.

And Joe is Joe. Had trouble dodging and weaving with Alan on his right and Joe on his left -- literally, on the stage. Initially, we thought he got the good seat being in the middle, but no -- he had no where to look or hide.

More reaction from me:

Think of the questions Joe didn't have to answer today. Not one question about Iraq, the same day the 3,000th coalition soldier was killed over there. Not one question about his commitment to caucus with the Democrats, one day after he was reported as saying he "hadn't thought enough" about whether a Democratic congress would be better for America. Not one question about accepting support from Mel Sembler, Bob J. Perry, Karl Rove, Tom Kuhn, or any of the countless other pro-Bush forces out there feverishly working to build the Lieberman party.

Seems like Joe should have to answer these questions. At some point.

In the meantime, "Schlesinger" has become the new buzz word in CT politics.

Two important ones in the local press today:

1. Today's Journal-Inquirer explores the new pro-Lieberman ads being paid for by Robert J. Perry, a major financier of the Swift Boaters in 2004 (to the tune of over $2 million) who so viciously attacked John Kerry's military service to his country. Now he's attacking Ned. And Joe Lieberman and Tammy Sun are A-OK with it:

"Here is proof positive that Lieberman is more likely to side with George Bush and Dick Cheney than people of Connecticut," she said. "And these are the very same people behind the swift boat campaign, one of the most disgraceful incidents in American political campaigning, which defined new lows, and they are choosing to focus on Connecticut and to focus on Joe Lieberman."

Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, which collected more than $2 million from Perry in 2004, criticized Kerry's service in Vietnam and questioned his wartime commendations.

Lieberman's spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, adamantly denied any connection between the incumbent's campaign and the Free Enterprise Fund ad, noting that would be illegal.

2. Today's Connecticut Post explores at length Joe Lieberman's relationship to big drug companies:

Alex Knott, political editor at the Center for Public Integrity, says there is no doubt Lieberman has cultivated ties to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry.

"He has accepted campaign contributions from biotech lobbyists and even hired Charles Ludlam, a former lobbyist for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, to write legislation that appears to have the objective of helping out the industry," Knott said.

Moreover, Knott said, industry campaign contributions help open doors.

"You tend to call back the people who have made contributions to you," he said. "While this access doesn't necessarily buy you an end result, it does allow you to make your case."...

"It is outrageous that under the guise of homeland security, the brand pharmaceutical industry is seeking patent extensions for everyday medicines at the expense of consumers, especially seniors and the uninsured — individuals who need affordable, life-saving generic medicines the most," said GPA President and CEO Kathleen Jaeger.

As for Lieberman's proposal, Jaeger said at the time it was introduced that it was "little more than a giveaway to the brand pharmaceutical industry."

General emerging consensus... Ned hit Joe on the issues, Ned looked the most Senatorial of the three, Schlesinger will rise in the polls after this performance:

AP:

HARTFORD, Conn. Oct 16, 2006 (AP)— Democrat Ned Lamont criticized rival Sen. Joe Lieberman's support for the invasion of Iraq on Monday in a debate in which the incumbent also faced jabs from the long-shot Republican candidate.

"I'm running against a career politician who says, 'Stay the course,'" said Lamont, echoing the anti-war mantra that propelled him to victory in the August primary. "It's time for us now to redeploy our forces."...

"It's not negative to say we've got to change course in Iraq," Lamont said....

"You need new people in Washington, a fresh perspective," he said. "Right now, we have a situation in Washington that's out of control."

New Haven Independent:

Schlesinger's emergence would work in Lamont's favor. If he can rise to 15 percent of the vote from his current 4 percent standing in the polls, he'd probably swing the election to Lamont (pictured talking to reporters after the debate). Even if his performance Monday was a bit over the top to make him a serious contender to win the race, it still worked to Lamont's benefit in two ways.

One way: It enabled Lamont to have someone else take the harshest shots at Lieberman while allowing Lamont to look more restrained and senatorial.

Matt Stoller:

There is just no question that Alan Schlesinger won this debate, Lamont pretty much held his own, and Lieberman lost. Alan Schlesinger was funny, interesting, and passionate. He made compelling conservative arguments, and punctured the myth that Lieberman was a principled independent. Lamont held his own as a credible candidate, standing up to Joe's attacks. Lieberman was somewhat funny, but he couldn't defend his middle of the road mantra when Alan Schlesinger and Ned Lamont were pointing out that his record doesn't match his rhetoric.

First take: Not one question on Iraq... but Ned did very well. Lieberman came off as the angry, sanctimonious, bitter career politician he is. Ned focused completely on the issues.

22 days to go. And three debates, starting today. Here we go.

• Paul Krugman writes about Lieberman destroying his own credibility in the Times (see post below).


• The AP runs with Joe's refusal to say whether America would be better off with Democrats winning the House, or whether Connecticut would be better off with a Democrat as Governor:
  

  Lieberman told The Hartford Courant on Friday that his decision on whether to vote for Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell or Democratic New Haven Mayor John DeStefano will remain private....
  
  Lieberman also declined to comment Friday on whether he thinks the nation would be better off with the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives. “I haven't thought about that enough to give an answer,” Lieberman told The Courant.



• Today's Cup of Joe rounds up this, and other, questions that Lieberman will likely refuse to answer in today's debate, and through the rest of the campaign:
  

  WHY DOESN’T LIEBERMAN THINK A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS WOULD BE BETTER FOR CONNECTICUT?: ...After 6 years of total Republican rule in Washington that’s put the nation on a historically dangerous course, Lieberman’s answer should have been instinctive and clear. But, with Dick Cheney campaigning for Lieberman last week, and his series of Republican fundraisers throughout the last month, this makes you wonder whether Joe is putting Joe’s interests ahead of Connecticut's...
  
  WHY DID LIEBERMAN TRY TO HIDE HIS TERM LIMITS PLEDGE?: Senator Lieberman has yet to answer why he tried to hide the fact that in 1988 he pledged not to run for more than 3 terms in the U.S. Senate. Unlike Sen. Paul Wellstone who voluntarily explained why he was breaking his two-term pledge and was recruited for another term by the Democratic party, Lieberman never came forward to admit he made this pledge, instead hoping voters would not remember.
  
  WHY DID LIEBERMAN BREAK HIS PROMISE NOT TO SKIP 300 VOTES OR HAVE ONE OF THE WORST ATTENDANCE RECORDS?: Senator Lieberman has yet to answer why in 1988 he went on statewide television to promise voters he would not miss more than 300 votes and would not have one of the worst attendance records in the Senate – and then broke both promises.



• The Courant leads with Lieberman's massive fundraising numbers for 3Q compared to Lamont's which were released yesterday, and Lieberman's refusal to acknowledge the three-term pledge he made in 1988 until now:
  

  "Sen. Lieberman only thinks it's a negative attack when his job is on the line," Dupont-Diehl said. "He made the pledge to not serve more than three terms as part of his campaign - to win votes. Rather than honestly acknowledging that he was breaking a promise, he tried to hide it from the voters of Connecticut."
  
  Lamont raised nearly $4.9 million in the quarter ending Sept. 30, with nearly $1.1 million from individual contributors and $3.75 million from his own pocket. From the start of his campaign through Sept. 30, Lamont contributed $6.25 million.
  
  Dupont-Diehl said Lamont's personal funds have been necessary to match Lieberman's record-breaking quarterly take of $6.1 million. Lieberman disclosed a summary of his quarterly fundraising Friday.
  
  "It's no surprise he is out-raising us," Dupont-Diehl said.



• The Times also runs a rather lengthy and generally positive profile of Annie Lamont (can't wait to read their profile of Hadassah!)


• The LA Times is at least the second paper to report that the upcoming Baker report on Iraq will suggest redeployment and a change in course:
  

  Two options under consideration would represent reversals of U.S. policy: withdrawing American troops in phases, and bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting.
  
  While it weighs alternatives, the 10-member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III has agreed on one principle.
  
  "It's not going to be 'stay the course,' " one participant said. "The bottom line is, [current U.S. policy] isn't working…. There's got to be another way."

  
  James Baker is just another "partisan polarizer."


• There's a Debate HQ up and running on the official blog.


• Finally, "Bobby McGee" from CLP posts this suggestion for debate-watching entertainment - less damaging to your liver than a drinking game, but just almost as fun.

Paul Krugman in tomorrow's Times:

In a recent interview with The Hartford Courant, Senator Joseph Lieberman said something that wasn’t credible. When the newspaper asked him whether America would be better off if the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives next month, he replied, “Uh, I haven’t thought about that enough to give an answer.”

Why wasn’t this a credible answer? Because anyone with the slightest interest in American politics — a group that obviously includes Mr. Lieberman — is waiting with bated breath to see how this election goes, and thinking a lot about the implications. If the Democrats gain control of either house, no matter how narrowly, the American political landscape will be transformed. If they fail, no matter how narrowly, it will be seen, correctly, as a great victory for the hard right....

O.K., what about the Senate race in Connecticut, where Ned Lamont is the Democratic nominee, and Mr. Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary, is running as an independent but promising to caucus with the Democrats if he wins? Is this a case where the man, not the party, is what matters? Only if you believe that Mr. Lieberman’s promise not to switch parties is 100 percent credible.

Other than this, Krugman forgets one overriding fact: Joe Lieberman is not just a political observer or pundit. He claims to be a part of the Democratic Congress. He promises to remain a Democrat if he wins. But he won't stand up and say a Democratic Congress would be better for America?

One of two explanations is logically possible (and they're not mutually exclusive): (1) Lieberman is feeding Connecticut voters a line of B.S. because he doesn't want to offend the Republican votes he desperately needs to win, or (2) He is planning on caucusing with Republicans, and is feeding voters B.S. when he tells them he isn't.

His credibility is shot, either way. He can't stand up and say "I'll always be a Democrat" and in the next breath say "I haven't thought enough about" whether Democrats in control of Congress would be better for America.

This is more than a slip of the tongue, it's a crack in the armor, revealing the inner machinations of a man whose only concern is holding onto power.

And the crack is growing larger every time he opens his mouth.

Joe will caucus with the Republicans if it benefits him. Not convinced? Let's size up the evidence:

• Karl Rove called Joe up on primary day, reportedly to offer his "personal friend" any "help" he needed from "the boss."


• The day after the primary, Dick Cheney called reporters to talk specifically about the results of the Connecticut Democratic primary, attacking Ned Lamont's patriotism in tandem with Lieberman. Cheney has since campaigned across the country attacking Lamont while campaigning for House candidates.


• The Lieberman party is being financed by huge amounts of Republican money, including energy lobbyists, Bush's college roomate, the chair of Scooter Libby's defense fund, and a major financier of the Swift Boat Vets. $15 million and counting.


• In an interview with The Hill, Lieberman threatened to leave the Democratic caucus if Harry Reid and other Democrats stripped him of his seniority.


• While Democrats and Republicans across the country have repeatedly called for the accountability of the House GOP leadership and the resignation of Speaker Hastert in the wake of the Foley scandal, Lieberman has refused to do so, and called critics of Hastert too "partisan" for demanding he resign.


• Lieberman is currently using the Fox News slur "Democrat party" in his campaign communications to supporters.


• Lieberman's candidacy is completely dependent on Republican votes. So much so that he declared himself a "noncombatant" in the CT House races.


• And now, to top it all off, he actually refuses to say whether he thinks a Democratic majority in congress would be better for America. A Democratic majority of which - assumedly - he harbors hopes of being a member come January 2007.

Or does he?

The evidence is clear, regardless of any pledges he makes. He's already bolted the party and told the voters in the primary they don't matter. He's broken promise after promise he made in 1988 - from promising not to miss 300 votes, to promising to run for only three terms. His word is worth nothing. The evidence above is worth a lot.

Will he unequivocally rule out caucusing with the Republicans if he returns to the Senate, whether he maintains his seniority or not, and whether the Republicans are in the majority or not?

Whether he answers the above question or not, it's clear a vote for Joe is a vote for the Republican congress. It's a vote to keep Dennis Hastert, George Bush, and Dick Cheney in power with as little oversight as possible.

Kirby and CTBob (from http://ctbob.blogspot.com) interviewed Alan Schlesinger in depth yesterday, and the video is up on their blog:

Unreal. Sen. Lieberman tells Mark Pazniokas - with an assumedly straight face - that he "hasn't thought enough" about whether he thinks Democrats should win back the house, or about who he's endorsing for Governor:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat and student of politics, blanked when asked if America would be better off with his party regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

A Democratic victory would immeasurably boost the influence of two Connecticut friends, U.S. Reps. Rosa L. DeLauro and John B. Larson, and provide a counterbalance to the Republican Senate and White House.

"Uh, I haven't thought about that enough to give an answer," Lieberman said, as though Democrats' strong prospects for recapturing the House hadn't been the fall's top political story.

He was similarly elusive about the race for governor. Is he voting for John DeStefano Jr., a Democrat and mayor of the city where Lieberman has lived since the 1960s?

"I'm, uh, I'm having," he stammered, then laughed and said his decision would remain private.

These are not hard questions. Or they weren't until the night of Aug. 8, when Lieberman conceded losing the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont and in the next breath launched an independent candidacy.

It will be a very fun debate if Lieberman can't come up with an answer to these questions before tomorrow afternoon.

He hasn't "thought about that enough to give an answer"? Even Jodi Rell's answer was better.

Update: While Joe Lieberman freezes like a politician stuck in the headlights, 83% Connecticut voters are quite clear on this - who controls the House matters. A lot:

With Connecticut a battleground state, voters strongly believe it is important which party wins control of Congress next month, a Courant/University of Connecticut poll finds.

Eighty-three percent of likely voters say it is important whether Democrats or Republicans prevail, with 56 percent saying it is "very important."

In the debates in 1988, Joe promised Connecticut voters he would not serve more than 18 years.

He lied.

Now he's promising he'll caucus with the Democrats in the Senate. Promising he won't accept a post in the Bush cabinet.

He lied then. What reason is there to believe him now?

Watch the new ad: