(Update: Forward the NYT endorsement to your family and friends to read.)

Thoughtful, well-argued, passionate, and really worth reading in full:

Two months ago, Connecticut’s Democratic voters sent Mr. Lieberman what should have been a jarring wake-up call when they rejected him for Mr. Lamont, a relative newcomer. We have been waiting to see what lessons the state’s best-known politician took from his defeat, and from the daily evidence of the deterioration of the situation in Iraq.

We wanted to see a capacity for growth and change in Mr. Lieberman. The country is full of Republicans who now realize the Iraq invasion was a disaster, either in its basic concept or in its execution. The most honorable of them are in agony over what has happened. Mr. Lieberman, who had not only continually defended the administration’s Iraq policy but also attacked Democrats who criticized the president, had more cause for soul-searching than most.

But instead of re-evaluating his own positions, Mr. Lieberman blamed his constituents for failing to notice that he had offered some negative comments about the conduct of the war, too, mainly when he was running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. He did not protest when Dick Cheney said that people who voted for Mr. Lamont were giving comfort to “Al Qaeda types.” His only reflection seemed devoted to a re-examination of the rules for getting back on the ballot.

Since his primary defeat, Mr. Lieberman has run a well-packaged campaign built around his self-assigned bipartisan image — “It’s not about politics,” say his ads. But it is very much about politics — from the flood of special interest campaign donations that has been running Mr. Lieberman’s way to the old Karl Rove lesson that political winners never admit to error....

Ned Lamont has run a far less polished campaign than Mr. Lieberman, but the more we see of him, the more impressed we are by his intelligence and his growing sophistication about the issues facing the nation. He is very much in the Connecticut mold of basically moderate, principled politicians, and his willingness to take on Mr. Lieberman when no one else dared to do it showed real courage and conviction. He would make a good senator. More important, he has the capacity to continually become a better one. We endorse Ned Lamont for Senate.

"General Clark":



"Card Game":

From Matt at MLN, a visual representation of $387,000 in cold hard cash... vs. the petty cash spent by other Senate candidates this cycle:

$387,561 in petty cash is light years beyond what nineteen other serious senate candidates spent. Why is Joe using all of this cash? Why were his campaign workers carrying around what had to be briefcases of cash? What was Joe Lieberman and his campaign doing with all of this cash?

I believe the comparative study of FEC filings of other senate candidates validates the need to ask these questions. Answers, I hope, will be forthcoming.

From their endorsement of all Democratic house candidates last week:

In 1994, voters rightly rebelled against unresponsive, entrenched Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and put Republicans in charge. Similar discontent inhabits the land today.

The nation is mired in an unpopular war....

From their endorsement of Joe Lieberman today:

The three-term, 64-year-old senator lost the primary election in large part because of Democrats' anger over his support of President Bush's policy in Iraq. He is now running as a petitioning candidate. He remains a moderate respected in Congress for his talent in working across party lines.

This election is not solely about a war gone sour....

Endorsing Joe Courtney, last week:

Four years ago, Mr. Simmons, an Army veteran and 10-year CIA veteran, expressed strong misgivings about going to war in Iraq and was unconvinced the country's nuclear weapons capability posed "a clear and present danger." Ten days later, he voted to authorize the military strike. Mr. Simmons still touts his "qualified" stance on Iraq, yet in June he voted for a resolution supporting the Bush administration's policies. Afterward, his campaign issued a statement saying the resolution "fails to fully address a key question that most Americans are asking: 'When are the troops coming home?'." But Mr. Simmons also says he doesn't support a deadline.

Last month, Mr. Simmons supported legislation on the treatment of detainees in the war on terror, saying the bill adequately clarifies and protects their rights. It doesn't. Mr. Simmons also says he's against privatizing Social Security, but his varying statements call his commitment into question.

Endorsing Joe Lieberman, today:

No mention of Lieberman leading off debate for Republicans on the Democrats' Iraq accountability resolution, no mention of Lieberman dismissing any call for any timeline, no mention of Lieberman's vote on the very same detainee legislation, no mention of Lieberman's statements in support of Social Security privatization in 2005.

Endorsing Diane Farrell, last week:

But the 61-year-old moderate from Bridgeport has been marginalized by his own party and has become increasingly ineffective....

Worse, Mr. Shays has been one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush's aimless and costly Iraqi war policy. Despite recently calling for a timetable for ratcheting down U.S. involvement and advocating the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his entire team, Mr. Shays foresees ongoing U.S. military activity in Iraq for a number of years. He has also made inexplicable statements of late, such as saying that the extreme sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at the Abu Ghraib prison "was not torture."

Endorsing Joe Lieberman, today:

Neither has Mr. Lieberman given Mr. Bush -- or the president's predecessor -- a free pass. The senator calls Mr. Bush's environmental record "the worst ....... in history." He threatened to subpoena Tom Ridge in 2002 when the White House refused to let the homeland security secretary testify before the Governmental Affairs Committee, which Mr. Lieberman then headed, about anti-terrorism planning.

Though the hawkish senator has too often leaped to military solutions abroad, he hasn't always been wrong. He was the only Northeast Democrat to authorize the use of force in 1991 to oust Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. He defied the Clinton administration in urging Congress to lift the 1995 arms embargo and let Bosnians repel Serbs bent on genocide.

Yes, they had to go back to 2002 to find a single lukewarm instance of Lieberman not giving Bush a "free pass."

• According to the NY Times, Joe is relying heavily on Mayor Bloomberg (R-NYC) for both personnel and fundraising:
  

  The Bloomberg group includes several top-level operatives who played key roles in the mayor’s decisive re-election last year or who are in the administration, and have taken leaves from their jobs to work on Mr. Lieberman’s campaign....
  
  Since Mr. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut to Ned Lamont, they have helped open campaign offices, devised a strategy to reach voters and are corralling enough volunteers to cover 2,800 shifts at more than 700 polling sites on Election Day, Nov. 7.

  
  I wonder if this new field operation (donated by a man who spent $77 million, or $103 per vote, to get re-elected in 2005) will be getting paid in "petty cash," too.
  
  And if not, why not?


• The Conn. Post: "Joe a No-Show," despite agreeing to the debate on stage on Monday:
  

  Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for Lieberman, said Friday that they would not participate in the debate.
  
  "All three candidates agreed to three debates, and we will be sticking to that agreement even if others choose to break it," Sun said. At Monday's debate Lamont and Schlesinger urged further debates while Lieberman sat quietly. Schlesinger asked him directly if he would participate and Lieberman appeared to nod affirmatively.
  
  However, when asked the next day by reporters if a fourth debate was in the making, Lieberman said it wasn't likely.



• Schlesinger goes on the air:
  

  Schlesinger said Thursday he is spending $50,000 per week for the new ads and insisted he believes they will make a major impact, though Democrat Ned Lamont and incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman each have been spending 10 times that amount on TV for weeks.



• The Lieberman Party's new slogan is unveiled... unfortunately, "scraping the bottom of the ballot" didn't win. I'm looking forward to the jingle.

Future president Joseph Biden:

Biden said Lieberman is a "close personal friend," that his son and Lieberman's son attended Yale together, and that his daughter-in-law was the matron of honor at Lieberman's son's wedding.

"It's a matter of personal honor," he said. "It's not possible for me to campaign against Joe Lieberman."

For Biden is an honorable man,
So are they all, all honorable men.

Only two more weekends to go, and there's a whole lot of events going on in the next couple of days. If the weather's really bad, you can always come into one of the field offices and phonebank.

Here's what's happening this weekend:

Fri. 5:30pm: Branford DTC Meet and Greet

Sat. 9am: Canvass in Willimantic
Sat. 9am: Canvass in Meriden
Sat. 9am: Canvass in Vernon
Sat. 9am: Canvass in Middletown
Sat. 9am: Canvass in West Haven
Sat. 9:30am: Canvass in West Hartford
Sat. 9:30am: Canvass in Stonington
Sat. 9:30am: Canvass in Clinton
Sat. 9:30am: Canvass in East Hartford
Sat. 9:30am: Canvass in Granby
Sat. 9:30am: SEIU 32B/J Rally and Door Knock in New Britain
(with John DeStefano, Chris Murphy, and other officials)
Sat. 9:30am: Canvass in New London
Sat. 10am and 12pm: Canvass in Bridgeport
Sat. 10am: Canvass in Bristol
Sat. 10am: Canvass in Waterbury
Sat. 10am and 12pm: Canvass in Stamford
Sat. 10am: Canvass in Killingly
Sat. 10am and 12pm: Canvass in Norwalk
Sat. 11:30am: Canvass in Norwich

Sun. 7:30am: Children's Memorial 5K Race/Walk in Milford
Sun. 11am: Canvass in Middletown
Sun. 12pm: Canvass in Colchester
Sun. 12:30pm: Canvass in Suffield
Sun. 1pm: Canvass in Stamford

Lieberman promised reporters they would get to know how it was spent on Monday.

It's now Friday. Still no answers.

Over 3,000 people have now co-signed the letter to the FEC demanding that Joe Lieberman divulge how this "petty" cash was spent.

Here's Spazeboy's take.

Update: The Politicker:

But judging by conversations I've had with people within the Lamont camp, it's the Joe Lieberman GOTV effort that's on their minds. Specifically, they're obsessed -- perhaps with good cause -- with the matter of Lieberman's nearly $400,000 in unaccounted for petty cash expenses. Lamont's supporters aren't going to let the matter drop, and staffers, as well as unaffiliated Democratic consultants I've been speaking with, seem to find it genuinely extraordinary.

• Joe runs scared from the fourth debate (was I the only one that saw him nodding his head "yes" when asked whether he would participate in a fourth debate on Monday night?)
  

  Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger, meanwhile, have accepted an invitation to a fourth debate Thursday, but Lieberman declined. His press secretary, Tammy Sun, said the campaign was sticking to the agreement to hold three debates.



• More from the Courant on yesterday on the trail:
  

  Lamont campaigned Thursday at the port of New Haven with DeStefano, the city's mayor and the Democratic gubernatorial nominee. They talked about dwindling federal homeland security money.
  
  They criticized Lieberman and Rell for a 60-percent reduction in Connecticut's homeland security funding.
  
  New Haven harbor is the busiest port in all of New England, said DeStefano, and the second largest storage place for the Northeast petroleum reserve.
  
  "We have tried to get this right since 2001, and since 2001, frankly, the intent and the ability to secure our infrastructure has degraded," DeStefano said.

  
  And, in response to Obama supporting Ned, more of petty bitter Joe. Yes, how dare any Democrat have the audacity to support the Democratic nominee in this race:
  

  Her visit came a day after U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., campaigned with Lamont. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who urged support of Lieberman before the primary, sent an e-mail appeal on Lamont's behalf.
  
  "I would say most of my Senate Democratic colleagues have stayed out of this race, and that, too, means something to me," Lieberman said. "But I have a special place in my heart for Mary and the other four who stuck with me in the general election."



• The AP on Obama's email for Ned:
  

  Lamont aides said they welcomed the support of Obama, who has enjoyed a surge in popularity in recent weeks as speculation about his national ambitions mounts.
  
  "He's a very credible, charismatic and inspiring politician," said senior Lamont adviser Tom D'Amore. "We're thrilled to have his support.
  
  Obama has also given $5,000 to Lamont's campaign through a political committee.



• The Danbury News-Times on Ned and Homeland Security, and Ned on Joe's Rove-Bush-Cheney warchest:
  

  "If he's elected it will be with Republican money," Lamont said. "I don't know where he'd be on the issues. When the next Supreme Court nomination comes, where will the senator be? I don't know. When it's time to redeploy troops, where will the senator be? I don't know. When it comes to constitutional rights, detainee treatment, he's been on the wrong side of history."
  
  Lamont later added, "Dick Cheney has campaigned around the country talking about Joe Lieberman. He knows something."



• The Times on Joe being scared of Alan Schlesinger:
  

  “Joe Lieberman is masquerading as a Republican,” he said.
  
  The senator rarely mentions Mr. Schlesinger on the stump, and the Lieberman campaign has largely ignored his entrance into the race, except to assert that the Republican has become something of a folk hero among some Lamont supporters.
  
  But in a nod to the closeness of the Senate race, and the potential for even a small uptick in Mr. Schlesinger’s fortunes to alter his own, Mr. Lieberman has recently argued that a vote for the Republican would help only Mr. Lamont.
  
  “With all respect to Alan Schlesinger,” Mr. Lieberman said last week, “this race is effectively a race between Ned Lamont and me, so a vote for Alan Schlesinger helps Ned Lamont.”

It's now been three days since Lieberman spokewoman Tammy Sun promised reporters they could see documentation of how $380,000 in cash was spent in twelve days before the primary.

Reporters still haven't been allowed to look at the records. And we still have zero idea of how over a third of a million dollars in cash was actually spent.

Matt Browner-Hamlin has more.

Joe or no Joe.

24 enter. Only one will survive. Vote!

My favorites?

L5: “There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.” - Joe Lieberman; http://nationalreview.com/interrogatory/ hayes200406020847.asp (submitted by Cozumel)

L6: Senator Lieberman wrote about the Iraq he saw: “Progress is visible and practical. There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraq hands than before.”

Senator Lieberman goes on, “Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes, we do. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/ 2005/12/20051207-1.html (submitted by Cozumel)

L12: Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider hole of denial if he believes that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer. –J. Lieberman, December 2003 (submitted by Ralphbon)

L16: Flip: December 8, 2005 “It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril”

L20: From Joe himself, even though it sounds more like Dick Cheney: “After bin Laden, we must target Saddam” by Joseph Lieberman. Wall Street Journal. Oct. 29, 2001. pA22: Did Saddam have a direct hand in the attacks on America that began on Sept. 11? The evidence at our disposal is circumstantial but suggestive. We do know that he has not just the motive and malevolence, but the means. And we also know that Iraqi intelligence officials have met at critical times with members of the al Qaeda network. (submitted by mui)

L21: HoJoe on the reasons for Abu Ghraib. “Let us have faith” by Joseph Lieberman. May 14, 2004. Wall street journal. HoJoe doing a gee whiz on Abu Ghraib: Was it somehow also the cumulative effect on a generation raised in an entertainment and Internet culture that has grown increasingly violent and pornographic? And then argues that firing Rumsfled will only make the terrorists happy: Many argue that we can only rectify the wrongs done in the Iraqi prisons if Secretary Rumsfeld resigns. I disagree. Unless there is clear evidence connecting him to the wrongdoing, it is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the Commander in Chief, in the midst of a war. I have yet to see such evidence. Donald Rumsfeld’s removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq. (submitted by mui)

L22: “Our Resolution” by HoJoe. Wall Street Journal Oct 7, 2002. pg. A.26. HoJoe channeling Dick Cheney again:
So, my answer to “Why now?” is, “Why not earlier?” And, of course, that question has new urgency since Sept. 11, 2001.– Won’t a war against Iraq slow or stop our more urgent war against terrorism? To me, the two are inextricably linked. (submitted by mui)

L24: "In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy." From Joe’s conference speech, February 2003 (submitted by jeffreyw)

Sends an email to supporters in CT in support of the Democratic candidate for senate:

...Ned earned the Democratic Senate nomination through his hard work and clear message. And his victory paved the way for an entire crop of Democratic challengers to stand up and fight for the common good. Today the candidacies of Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy are integral to the Democrats’ strategy to regain the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A majority of Connecticut Democrats supported Ned Lamont in the August primary. I hope they will see this impressive movement through to the end by volunteering their time with Ned in these next two weeks.

• The Times give Joe a deserved beat-down over his political equivocating on whether the Iraq war has made us safer or less safe:
  

  Like Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerrey supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein early on and said that the region was safer without him in power. But he added: “Do I think invading Iraq helped the war on terror? No, I do not. I think it reduced the threat in the region, which was serious.”
  
  His comments put Mr. Lieberman in an awkward position. Mr. Lieberman declined to say whether he believed that the war in Iraq had helped the war on terror.
  
  Initially, Mr. Lieberman cited Mr. Kerrey’s comments about Saddam Hussein, saying that overthrowing him had helped make the Middle East safer, but he conceded that terrorists had “poured into Iraq now.”
  
  Then, pressed by reporters, Mr. Lieberman answered, “It’s a more complicated question than that, and it doesn’t have a yes-or-no answer.”



• The Courant asked John Kerry about the analogy between Lieberman and Nixon:
  

  "The Nixon analogy is a very poignant one to me, because I remember him running with a `secret plan for peace.' That was in 1968. He ran and won re-election in 1972, four years later. And it wasn't until three years after that, that troops were finally gone," Kerry said. "Half the names on the Vietnam wall, folks, were put there after our leaders knew the strategy was bankrupt and it wasn't going to work."
  
  Kerry said that was immoral then. He added, "I think to engage in that same delusion today is equally as immoral."

  
  And also takes on the the Bob Kerrey-Lieberman dispute over Iraq yesterday:
  

  Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator, endorsed Lieberman, despite sounding closer to Lamont on the war. He said the U.S. is losing the conflict, and the occupation of Iraq hurt the war on terror.
  
  "We cannot be the Iraqi police force forever," Kerrey said, calling it an inappropriate use of U.S. military. "At some point you've got to say to the Iraqi people, `It's yours.'"
  
  His comments left Lieberman in the awkward position of trying not to contradict a war hero who had just endorsed him. He declined to say whether the U.S. was losing in Iraq.



• The Stamford Advocate on Lieberman's internal numbers and Joe's support from the GOP and Rove:
  

  "We're involved in quite a campaign," [Lieberman] told about 50 friends, political allies, family and campaign staff members. "The public-opinion polls are good. Our internal polls are not quite as good, but they're good."...
  
  His words echoed the GOP's midterm election talking points against Democrats. Despite mounting bipartisan criticism of the war, the White House continues to frame the issue to portray the opposition party as weak on terrorism and security.
  
  In an interview Tuesday on National Public Radio, Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, implied a vote for Lieberman is a vote for winning in Iraq.
  
  Rove said Lieberman's support grew in the days leading up to the August primary, which he attributed to voters considering the "consequences to America of winning or losing" in Iraq.



• Even David Broder sounds like he's starting to get sick of Joe now, too:
  

  When the three candidates in Connecticut's celebrated Senate race met for their final debate on Monday night in New London, only one of them appeared to be having a good time.
  
  It was not Ned Lamont, the tense and fidgety businessman who had captured the Democratic nomination as an opponent of the Iraq war. It was certainly not Joseph Lieberman, the three-term Democratic senator who had lost the primary to Lamont because of his support of that war and is running as an independent. Lieberman looked exhausted and exasperated by his situation, even though polls show him to be in front.
  
  No, the only person who was relaxed, good-humored and reveling in the moment was Alan Schlesinger, the bulky Republican nominee whom no one gives a chance of winning....
  
  Lieberman insists he is not wholly in the Bush camp but still argues that a victory in Iraq is possible and essential for American security -- whatever that may mean. "I'm not ready to give up on the Muslim world," he said, adding that a democratic Iraq could serve as a model for the Middle East. His winning and returning to the Senate and its Democratic caucus would slow, if not reverse, growing pressure from the Democrats for an early pullout of U.S. forces....
  
  ...Lieberman is an exhausted veteran, barely able to conceal his irritation at having to fight for a seat he feels that he owns. When challenged on his record, he turns testy.
  
  Their weaknesses were exposed by Schlesinger's good humor. But theirs is the fight that counts -- and it counts a lot.

Still no record of where it went, two full days after Lieberman's campaign promised reporters they could have a look at the records.

Liebermeforme.com has a creative take on the whole matter.

First of all, how cynical a politician do you have to be to bring in another politician with basically the same last name as the immediate past presidential nominee for the Democratic party who just happens campaigning for your opponent on the same day?

Couldn't be a cynical effort to confuse "low-information voters," could it?

Professor Sean Smith would be proud.

Secondly, here are Bob Kerrey's thoughts on the wonders of democracy today while campaigning for Joe Lieberman:

"Sometimes public opinion is wrong. Sometimes the majority is wrong. And I think in this case if the majority of the Democratic party of Connecticut voted against Joe Lieberman because they thought he was creating these problems that they observe in Washington, D.C., I would say... that you're wrong."

Incidentally, he also said today that he thought the Iraq war was hurting our efforts against terrorism.

Joe wouldn't agree that Iraq was making us less safe from terrorism.

And on a timetable for troop redeployment in Iraq, Kerrey said: "At some point guys like Joe are going to have to figure out how to do things approximately that way."

Bush, this morning:

"If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's security, I'd bring our troops home tomorrow."

Lieberman, last week:

"No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do and bring our troops home.”

Nixon, 1969:

“I want peace as much as you do.”

Suddenly, just like Bush, Lieberman thinks "stay the course" is a slur. When, just like Bush, it's been his policy for four straight years.

The White House-connected Bush-Cheney-Rove cash just keeps on flowing in to the Connecticut for Lieberman coffers... this time, under a particularly deceptive name. Don Michak:

The Connecticut Issues Project, a tax-exempt group behind campaign literature lauding U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, has received nearly all of its funding from five people who don't live in Connecticut, including two who each contributed $20,000 to the Republican National Committee, government records show.

The stated purpose of the Washington, D.C.-based group, established in April as what the IRS calls a "527" political organization, is "to educate the public in Connecticut about the records and positions of elected officials and public policy issues."

The group is perhaps best known for a flier mailed under its name to state voters last month that on one side asked, "When George Bush wanted to close the New London Sub Base, who was there to stop him?"

The answer, printed on the other side, was "Connecticut's Joe Lieberman," whom the flier praised not only for "saving" the sub base but also for "fighting for the needy."

The Connecticut Issues Project by the end of September spent a total of $236,964, primarily on consulting services and opinion research, according to its latest report to the IRS.

The document reveals that more than 95 percent of that money - $225,000 - came from a handful of big donors who all contributed to the group immediately before the Democratic primary in August:...

Alan Goldberg, a partner in the new York firm of Goldman, Lindsay and Co. and the former chairman and chief executive officer of Morgan Stanley Private Equity, and Miriam Goldberg, identified in IRS and Federal Election Commissions records as a "housewife," each made $20,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2001.

Mr. Goldberg also has a long record of contributions to Republican committees and candidates, including Bush and the Bush-Cheney Compliance Committee, as well as Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

It's crunch time. Time to put your phone-dialing fingers where your blogging fingers usually are. Or something like that.

Sign up to volunteer in the last 13 days of the campaign.

This campaign has always been about people talking to people. And they've been doing it in amazing numbers via the Family, Friends, and Neighbors program and in other ways too.

This campaign is not about protecting entrenched Washington interests. It is not about rubber-stamping everything that's wrong with our government. It's about effecting real change. And if that's not worth fighting for, I don't know what is.

• The New York Times runs a corrective article to better illustrate Lieberman's continuing political deception on Iraq. This is not a "principled" man.
  

  HARTFORD, Oct 25 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has used the phrase “stay the course” several times in discussing the war in Iraq in recent years, echoing a key phrase of the White House, contrary to an article published Tuesday in The New York Times....
  
  In recent weeks, Mr. Lieberman has called for different tactics in Iraq.
  
  The White House said Monday that President Bush was no longer using the phrase “stay the course” when speaking about the war.

  
  
• The Courant on Joe's continuing politically-motivated flip-flopping on Iraq. This is not a "principled" man.
  

  Calling Lieberman's recent pronouncement that he wants to end the war in Iraq an "election eve Nixonian declaration," Lamont then excoriated the senator in front of a sympathetic crowd of college students and veterans at the University of Hartford.
  
  "It was Richard Nixon, for instance, who told the country way back in 1969, `I want to end the war' and then pressed forward with Vietnam for three more years and a cost of 9,000 more American lives," Lamont said. "Sen. Lieberman saying now, two weeks before an election, that he suddenly wants to end the war is as credible as Richard Nixon was almost 40 years ago."
  
  The Nixon references in Lamont's speech Tuesday were accompanied by the campaign's release on Tuesday of a lengthy online ad that compares several statements Nixon made in 1969 about the Vietnam War with statements Lieberman has made in 2006 about Iraq.
  
  The statements by Nixon and Lieberman that are used in the ad, which is being played on YouTube, are similar in both tone and content. For example:
  
  Nixon: "An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in." - Nov. 3, 1969
  
  Lieberman: "If you tell your enemy when you're going to leave, they'll wait and create disaster." - July 6, 2006



• The AP on Lieberman's shifting defense of his "war of choice". This is not a principled man.
  

  "Iraq is Joe's war of choice, and he's been its strongest and staunchest supporter every step of the way," Lamont said in a speech Tuesday at the University of Hartford. "And in the greatest act of audacity of all, he is now asking Connecticut voters not just for a fourth term, but to hold him harmless for his role in the most dangerous foreign policy blunder of our generation."
  
  The criticisms were some of Lamont's strongest yet of Lieberman.
  
  Lamont recalled that during the Vietnam War, former President Nixon voiced support for bringing the troops home even as he continued to pursue the war at a cost of 9,000 lives. He noted Lieberman has spoke recently of wanting to end the war as soon as possible.
  
  "That's about as credible as Richard Nixon was almost 40 years ago," he said.



• The New Haven Register on Joe's failure to speak honestly about Iraq. This is not a "principled" man.
  

  Ned Lamont’s campaign put up an Internet ad that draws a parallel between President Richard Nixon’s statements on Vietnam in 1969 and statements made by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman on the Iraq war....
  
  Lamont, who beat Lieberman in the Democratic primary in August, Tuesday also delivered another talk on Iraq, in which he continued the Nixon parallels and said Lieberman’s plan, to keep American troops in place to assist the Iraqis until they can stand up for themselves, is not an exit strategy.
  
  "Now, virtually everyone but Joe Lieberman sees that we need to change course, have the Iraqis determine their future and move from involvement in a civil war to bolstering stability in the region. Iraqis will only stand up when American troops begin to stand down. That is how we end this war," Lamont told several hundred cheering students at the University of Hartford.



• WTNH on John Kerry campaigning for Democrats in the state today.
  

  (East Hartford-WTNH, Oct. 25, 2006 6:22 AM) _ Massachusetts senator and former presidential hopeful John Kerry visits Connecticut today to rally behind the state's Democrats. He'll join Senate candidate Ned Lamont at the first of a series of town hall meetings to speak directly with voters.
  
  Sen. Kerry, who made a run for the white house and lost to President Bush in 2004, will help Lamont kick off those town hall meetings.
  
  Like Lamont, Kerry is well known for his opposition to the war in Iraq. After the Connecticut primary, Kerry blasted Sen. Joseph Lieberman for continuing in the race as an independent. Kerry accused Lieberman of adopting the rhetoric of Vice President Dick Cheney on the issue of Iraq.

Big surprise:

Asked whether he was backing Lieberman, whom Cheney presented as "a big supporter of the global war on terror," the vice president said he was reluctant to answer, but tipped his hand nonetheless.

"I don't want to harm Joe's chances or prospects," he said, "so I haven't said anything about his election."

Vote Joe, get Cheney.

Update: Caption contest?

Bush and Joe stopped using the phrase. At about the same time. When it became politically unpopular.

Of course.

Bush today:

The White House said Monday that President Bush was no longer using the phrase “stay the course” when speaking about the Iraq war, in a new effort to emphasize flexibility in the face of some of the bloodiest violence there since the 2003 invasion.

“He stopped using it,” said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary. “It left the wrong impression about what was going on and it allowed critics to say, ‘Well, here’s an administration that’s just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,’ when, in fact, it is the opposite.”

Joe today:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has used the phrase “stay the course” several times in discussing the war in Iraq in recent years, echoing a key phrase of the White House, contrary to an article published today in The Times.

The article used a database to analyze hundreds of Mr. Lieberman’s war-related comments since 2001. It pointed out that Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee for United States Senate, frequently criticized Mr. Lieberman for being a strong supporter of the Bush Administration’s “stay the course” policy on Iraq, and said that in the statements reviewed the senator never actually uttered that phrase.

In fact, Mr. Lieberman has used the phrase at least half a dozen times over the last two years, during a presidential debate and in several television interviews — including several instances that were covered in The Times database. As recently as November 2005, upon returning from a trip to Iraq, for instance, he said on CNN’s American Morning that he agreed with the administration’s view that it was necessary to “stay the course.”

As well as Ned winning the debate and Joe refusing to answer his question:

It was an opportunity for both men to talk about the other's attack ads. Lamont defended himself by saying his ads use Lieberman's own words. Lieberman used it as an excuse to call Lamont a liar instead of defending his ads.

Sometimes, 1988 Joe and 2006 Joe are very different.

But sometimes, they're the same:



Update: Yep, a supremely cynical Senator who has voted for free trade deals from CAFTA to OFTA, who gleefully rakes in money and accepts advertizing from pro-outsourcing groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, who himself owns plenty of stock in companies that do outsourcing, is running an attack ad against a challenger who has the backing of the vast majority of union members in the state and has spoken out repeatedly and insistently on the incumbent's votes and policies on this issue.

A full day after the Lieberman campaign promised reporters it would disclose the legally-required record of how it spent almost $400,000 in cash, they still refuse to do so. Empire Zone:

The Lieberman campaign is steadfastly refusing to allow reporters to inspect documents related to a $387,000 disbursement of petty cash before the primary election. By law, the campaign is required to keep a petty cash journal.

According to the Federal Elections Commission, a campaign can make payments of under $100 through “petty cash” as the campaign said it did with “volunteers” in the field during the days leading up to the primary, paying them between $50 and $100 a day.

Ned marches into the debate with family and supporters:



Ned addresses supporters at the post-debate rally:



More at the campaign Flickr page.

(Update: over 2,500 people have already co-signed the campaign's letter to the FEC).

They're dancing around this one, trying every technique in the book to get folks to stop asking where almost $400,000 in cold, hard cash went in 12 days before the primary.

First, Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said she wasn't there when it happened:

Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said she wasn’t with the campaign at the time of the primary, but her understanding is that there was a staffer in charge of keeping track of petty cash. (NH Register, 10/22)

Then she promised she'd produce the journal detailing petty cash expenditures - one that is required by FEC law:

She said the money was used to cover salaries, food, lodging and transportation for hundreds who were hired to do statewide canvassing. The daily rates ranged from $60 to $75 to $100 for the work, Sun said. She said she would attempt to find the petty cash report by Monday. (NH Register, 10/22)

Then she was "unable to say" why the young workers who assumedly got all this cash weren't listed by name and salary in the FEC report, while their lodging and transportation was:

Sun was unable to say Saturday why the workers, some of whom appeared to have stayed for days or weeks in dormitories at the expense of the Lieberman campaign, were not listed by name and salary. (Courant, 10/22)

Then she hid behind the campaign's lawyer:

"The fact is, our attorney has assured us that the petty cash expenditures and the rest of our FEC report is in full compliance with the law's disclosure requirements just as every campaign Joe Lieberman has run for the last 18 years has been." (AP, 10/23)

Then she reversed herself, said the cash was not used to pay workers, but to pay field coordinators who then threw the cash around to kids:

Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, said today the cash was paid to field coordinators who then distributed the money to workers who canvassed for the three-term incumbent, who's running as an independent candidate after his primary loss to Lamont in August. (Journal-Inquirer, 10/24)

Then she reversed herself, and told reporters they couldn't see the petty cash journal:

Sun declined Monday to allow reporters to examine the campaign's petty cash journal. (Courant, 10/24)

Now, despite promising reporters she would produce records of how almost $400,000 in cash was spent and then suddenly telling reporters they couldn't look at them, and despite still being "unable to say" why the slush fund even existed in the first place, she's calling the whole thing a "kooky conspiracy theory":

"We are in full compliance with the FEC’s disclosure requirements, have done nothing wrong, and there’s not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. We will not be going beyond the law to release the journal simply because Ned Lamont has some kooky conspiracy theory." (NH Register, 10/24)

There's a lot of non-debate stuff in the news today too... more soon.

• First, the Iraq story in the Times on Joe's changing words (not including last night, when he was hit multiple times for his support of a destructive policy in Iraq and responded again with "politics, not principle"):
  

  A close examination of hundreds of Mr. Lieberman’s statements on Iraq over the past five years shows that while he repeatedly praised President Bush, he was far more likely to criticize him. But those critiques dropped off markedly in the last two years, even as the insurgency in Iraq gained strength.
  
  At the same time, Mr. Lieberman made negative comments about fellow Democrats three times as often as he made positive comments, particularly after his failed campaign for his party’s presidential nomination in 2004.
  
  Near the end of this year’s primary, Mr. Lieberman ramped up his criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, and soon after his loss, called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. More recently he has called for “bringing the troops home.” Yet he continues to strongly oppose setting a timetable for withdrawal, echoing the position of the White House.

  
  Read the whole thing, and take a look at this handy graphic noting Joe's shifty rhetoric on Iraq. Whether it's why we invaded, whether Rumsfeld should be fired, or whether the Bush policy is making progress, Joe's been all over the place - since the very beginning of the war - in an attempt to cover himself politically.


• To the debate. Emerging consensus (other than the LaRouche hecklers) is that Lamont was as forceful as he's been yet in countering Joe's whining attacks, Joe got hit multiple times - again - on his ridiculous stance on Iraq, and the crowd both inside and outside the debate clearly thought Ned and Alan won... yet again. What's not being reported - yet - is how Joe called Ned a "son of a bitch" afterwards. Mr. Nice Guy is taking etiquette lessons from his friend Dick Cheney, I guess.


• The Courant came close to reporting the final comment:
  

  Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and his main rival, Democrat Ned Lamont, stood toe to toe as the live WTNH, Channel 8, television broadcast ended, continuing to argue about the veracity of their multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns.
  
  "I don't think much of his ads, and he doesn't think much of my ads," Lamont said, when asked to recount their tete-a-tete. Lieberman's staff called it a private conversation....
  
  Lamont, who appeared reticent in previous debates, moved comfortably about the stage wearing his wireless microphone in a cumulative time format in which the candidates could use their time however they saw fit.
  
  Lieberman ignored the format and gave a three-minute opening statement in response to the opening question on Iraq.
  
  "So much for no opening statement," said the moderator, ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos....
  
  "You constantly distort and, frankly, just tell lies," Lieberman said.
  
  His comment set off boos, catcalls and the first round of singing by hecklers.
  
  "Whoa. Whoa. Whoa," Stephanopoulos said, calling for order. When Lieberman finished, Stephanopoulos called for a new question, but Lamont got to his feet and took a few quick steps to Lieberman.
  
  "Sen. Lieberman just called me a liar, and he made a lot of outrageous accusations," Lamont said, facing Lieberman. "Senator, everything we are talking about is your record."



• The Day:
  

  Lieberman eventually continued, charging Lamont with distorting his past positions: “No matter how much you distort my record, they're not buying it,” he said, referring to the state's voters.
  
  That seemed to get a rise out of Lamont, who has contributed roughly $12 million of his own fortune to his campaign to topple Lieberman, a challenge largely generated by what he has described as Lieberman's unwavering support of the war in Iraq and of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
  
  “Senator, everything we're talking about is your record,” Lamont snapped. “You can't run from your record.”...
  
  And as in previous exchanges, Lieberman said Lamont's vision for the country was “a recipe for defeat and disaster.”
  
  Lamont's retort was just as firm.
  
  When opponents of the Iraq war protest the current policy, Lamont said, “it's Senator Lieberman who questions their motives, suggests they're negative, suggests they're partisan, suggests they're undermining the credibility of the president. ... Joe Lieberman and George Bush's stay-the-course strategy - that's the recipe for failure.”



• The Times:
  

  “I spent a lot of my life in telecommunications,” said Mr. Lamont, a cable executive from Greenwich, Conn., “and let me tell you, if you really want to connect the dots for Mohamed Atta and if you want to put together a trail between e-mails, domestic immigration and other consumer databases, we can do that. We also need checks and balances.”
  
  Mr. Lieberman criticized Mr. Lamont, who has said he would have supported a resolution in the Senate to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, for having a plan that was a “recipe for failure and disaster.”
  
  Mr. Lamont, who has hammered at Mr. Lieberman for his support of the war, said, “Only Senator Lieberman thinks having 140,000 of our brave troops stuck in a bloody civil war in Iraq is making America safer in dealing with terrorism.”
  
  But it was Mr. Schlesinger who again seemed to grab the spotlight, with zingers on subjects from campaign finance to stemming illegal immigrants.



• The Day was also outside the event, saw huge support for Lamont, and some Young Republicans from Quinnipiac for Lieberman (wonder if they work part time in the polling institute?):
  

  New London - If the election were decided by the size and spectacle of the demonstration, Democrat Ned Lamont would have been chosen, by loud acclaim, the state's new senator by the crowd outside the Garde Arts Center tonight.
  
  Accompanied by two giant papier-mâché heads, of President George W. Bush's infamous state-of-the-union peck on the cheek of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and the martial airs of the Scotch On The Rocks bagpipe band, more than 300 fans of Lamont packed the entrance to the theater.
  
  There were also fans of Lieberman, a knot of about a dozen New London firefighters and another half dozen Young Republicans from Quinnipiac University....
  
  “My biggest problem is the war,” said Eleanor Susan LaPlace of Old Saybrook. “I'm tired of us spending money on that war. We're going to end with a political settlement anyway, so just stop bombing and work for a political solution.”
  
  Asked why she supported Lamont, Mary Fisher of Madison said, “Number one, he has honesty and integrity, and I think that's so lacking in Washington. Number two, of course, is the war in Iraq. Lieberman has supported this war all along, even though his constituents have said we don't want this.”
  
  And that was the other major complaint of Lamont supporters: That Lieberman has become a puppet of the Bush administration and no longer listens to his constituents.
  
  “I became very unhappy with Mr. Lieberman many years ago, wrote him many letters asking him why don't you stand up for this, why don't you stand up for that, and I don't even get so much as a form letter saying thank you for wasting your time, we'll get back to you some day,” said Ken Gucker of Danbury. “His lack of concern about the people is just disheartening.”



• The New Haven Independent was also there:
  

  That’s why he doesn’t want to “pull out of Iraq” without a clear victory, Lieberman said – he worries that doing so would encourage terrorists. “I’ve traveled to just about Arab country except Iran” and learned the importance of this issue, Lieberman said.
  
  When his turn came, Lamont (shown immediately after the debate) didn’t mention that Iran is not an Arab country. But he did characterize continuing the U.S. war in Iraq war as the problem, not the solution.

Well, it was an exciting night. The pre-debate march was amazing. Inside the hall, Ned won over the crowd during the debate, without a doubt. Laughter erupted two minutes into Lieberman's opening answer when he still hadn't addressed the question at all - about Iraq. He was booed quite roundly a couple of times. Some asshole LaRouchites who happened to be sitting right in front of me stood up and interrupted the event midway through, I physically "escorted" one of them out when security was nowhere to be found (and obviously, security at the place just took the night off, since they appeared again during the closing statements). Schlesinger continued to be forceful, and his performance was the main subject of discussion for many Lieberman supporters leaving the theater. Schlesinger and Lamont paraphanelia were flying off the tables afterwards, Joe stickers stayed put. Ned told the crowd gathered at the packed post-debate event that he and Alan agreed on one bipartisan inititative - that it was time for Joe to go.

Pics and more later.

Tom Tomorrow:



More.

Plain and simple, the AG today said Lieberman was wrong when he claimed his vote for the Bush-Cheney energy bill didn't give up Connecticut's ability to protect itself from facilities like Broadwater:

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal disputes claims by U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's campaign that President Bush's energy bill "in no way hurt" Connecticut and New York's ability to keep a floating natural gas platform out of Long Island Sound.

"There are a number of areas that are still unclear, and the energy policy creates some of the doubts and questions as to the rights of states like Connecticut," Blumenthal said last week. He said the bill places states that deny energy company's permits for projects such as the gas platform at a significant disadvantage in federal court.

Read it - and co-sign it - here.

More from the AP:

"This massive slush fund is an affront to democracy and Connecticut," Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan said in a press release Monday. "These questions are critical for the people of Connecticut to know, and that is why these laws exist and why we're taking legal action. Only an 18-year career politician could dump almost $400,000 in cash into an election and try to call it petty cash."

The Lieberman camp denied any wrongdoing.

Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said Sunday, when the allegations first surfaced, that the cash was paid to field coordinators who then distributed money to workers who were canvassing. The payments to workers, many of them students, ranged from $50 to $100 per day, Sun added.

The Debate HQ is set up on the official blog.

Lieberman's campaign today claimed that the $387,000 slush fund was used to pay salaries, food, lodging, and transportation of "young kids" doing paid canvassing.

But "Lodging for Volunteers," "Car Rental for Canvassers," "Food for Staff," a $1,700+ tab for "Food and Beverage" for Tom Lindenfeld (their field guy), multiple payments to temp and staffing agencies, multiple gas receipts for $20 and $30 each, multiple van and bus and car rentals (ground transportation alone accounts for at least $90,000 of their itemized expenses), multiple airfares, and even a $12.99 car wash are all itemized on their FEC report.

The $387,000 slush fund was not used to pay these expenses (just a sampling from their mammoth 1,800+ page FEC report, available for download here):

7/7 - YMCA of Stamford - Accommodation - $439.00
7/10 - Kinkos - Copying - $319.06
7/12 - Postmaster - Stamps - $139.00
7/12 - Staples - Office Supplies - $58.80
7/14 - Poland Springs - Water - $136.56
7/16 - Stop & Shop - Food for Staff - $280.62
7/18 - Connecticut Costume - Uncle Sam - $65.00
7/18 - Varc Rentals - Car Rental for Canvassers - $50.00 (x24 for a total of $1,200)
7/20 - Homewood Suites - Lodging - $3,065.00
7/20 - JEF Associates - Field Consulting - $20,000.00
7/21 - Jay Harlan Corporation - Van Rental - $14,194.84
7/23 - Super8 Motels of Danbury - Lodging for Volunteers - $860.16
7/24 - Splash Car Wash - Car Wash - $12.99
7/27 - Legislative Consultants - Van Rental - $1031.60
7/27 - Office Depot - Chairs - $117.63
7/27 - People's Bank CC Services - Bus and Vans - $20,000.00
7/27 - United Personnel Services, Inc. - Temporary Personnel - $5,760.00
7/27 - US Airways - Airfare - $439.60
7/28 - JEF Associates - Field Consulting - $18,000.00
7/28 - SVM Prepaid Cards - Pre-Paid Gasoline Cards - $3,105.00
7/29 - Konover Residential - Conf. Room Rent - $1,800.00
7/30 - Tony Arancio - Sound System - $10,000.00
7/31 - CT Culinary Institute - Housing - $8,075.00
7/31 - Express Car and Truck Rental - Van Rental - $30,700.00
7/31 - SVM Prepaid Cards - Gasoline Cards - $40,095.00
7/31 - Tracy Hardy - Reimb. for Folding Tables/Boxes - $2,580.27
7/31 - YMCA of Stamford - Lodging - $1,069.51
8/1 - Arrow Line/Peter Pan - Bus for Pre-election day - $5,990.00
8/1 - Laura Cahill - Reimb. for Van Rental - $2,076.81
8/2 - Connecticut Costume - Uncle Sam - $380.00
8/2 - U-SAVE Auto Rental - Van Rental - $3,920.00
8/3 - Arrow Line Peter Pan - Bus - $6.987.00
8/3 - Dollar Rental Car - Car Rental for Canvassers - $500.00
8/3 - U-SAVE Auto Rental - Van Rental - $1,770.10
8/3 - U-Save Car and Truck - Car Rental for Canvassers - $3,841.02 (x2 for a total of $7,682.04)
8/4 - Chris Lavery (San Francisco) - Field Consulting - $4,520.00
8/4 - James Gee (Trenton) - Field Consulting - $7,000.00
8/4 - JEF Associates - Field Consulting - $19,000.00
8/4 - Monroe Press - Sound For Vans - $5,350.00
8/4 - Monroe Press (Philadelphia) - Posters/Lawn Signs - $91,669.00
8/4 - Tomas Reyes - Field Consulting Services - $8,250.00
8/6 - Thomas Lindenfeld - Food and Beverage - $1,772.82
8/7 - AT&T - Teleconferencing - $4,075.67
8/7 - Exec. Jet Management - Chartered Flight - $24,431.78
8/7 - Urban Prevention Programs - VansDrivers&Food&Phonebank - $6,860.00
8/8 - Goodwin Hotel - Food & Bev. & Lodging - $17,313.68
8/8 - Joseph Eyer (DC) - Reimb. for Transportation - $2,800.00
8/8 - Michael Wence - Reimb. for Expenses - $604.00
8/8 - Staffing Now, Inc. - Staffing - $724.00
8/10 - Avis Rent-A-Car - Van Rental - $1,184.32
8/10 - Avis Rent-A-Car - Van Rental - $1,205.02
8/10 - USS Chowder Pot - Campaign Event - $697.76
8/11 - Daryl Brooks - Field Consulting Services - $12,200.00
8/11 - Labor Ready - Temporary Staff - $752.69
8/11 - Stan Welch - Field Consulting - $10,200.00
8/15 - Chris Lavery - Field Consulting - $4,520.00
8/15 - Dan Robinett - Field Consulting Services - $3,000.00
8/15 - James Gee - Field COnsulting Services - $7,000.00
8/15 - Mary Wagley - Field Consulting - $1,200.00
8/15 - Stan Welch - Field Consulting Services - $10,200.00
8/15 - Tomas Reyes - Field Consulting Services - $8,250.00
8/21 - Untied Personnel Services, Inc. - Temp. Staff - $5,320.71
8/24 - Sandra McKinnie - Reimb for Office Supplies - $307.90
9/11 - Jordan Caterers - Food and Beverage - $2,149.68
9/11 - Vonda McKeithan - Mileage & Food & Bev. Reimb. - $1,302.93
9/19 - Urban Voters & Associates - Field/Voter Contact GOTV Local - $8,470.00

Short version: Everything is falling apart. Everyone is running away. Even Joe, though he won't admit it.

• Three Marines were killed in Iraq on Saturday, making October the deadliest month in 2006 for U.S. troops in Iraq.
  
  There are still 10 days left in the month.


• A senior U.S. state department official says the Bush-Lieberman policy in Iraq has been "stupid" and "arrogant":
  

  "History will decide what role the United States played," he told Al Jazeera in Arabic, based on CNN translations. "And God willing, we tried to do our best in Iraq."
  
  "But I think there is a big possibility ... for extreme criticism and because undoubtedly there was arrogance and stupidity from the United States in Iraq," the diplomat told Al Jazeera. (Watch Fernandez on Al-Jazeera -- :19)



• Bush parrots Lieberman, lies, says he has never been for "stay the course" as a policy:
  

  During an interview today on ABC’s This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is “between ’stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’”
  
  Bush responded, ‘We’ve never been stay the course, George!’
  
  Bush is wrong:
  
  BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
  
  BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
  
  BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
  
  BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
  
  BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
  
  BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]



• Even Bush now agrees to a timetable:
  

  WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.
  
  Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.



• Stoller on Lieberman's decidedly changed rhetoric on Iraq, despite a decidedly unchanging policy:
  

  The Connecticut press has by and large accepted the conventional wisdom that Lieberman is for Bush's war, and Lamont is against it. But that's not actually what the electorate thinks. The electorate listened to Lieberman's commercials, and at least some portion of them believe that he's not really that pro-Bush or pro-war. I mean, he used to be a Democrat, and said he'll caucus with them, right?
  
  So in Connecticut, the three Republicans and Joe Lieberman are able to blur the line between them and the Democrats on the war, because the press doesn't know that the public doesn't know. In the rest of the country, Lieberman's trick, of using his party affiliation to hide his political affiliation, doesn't work, and so the contrast is starker.
  
  This is a really interesting story, and it's something I hope the Connecticut press pursues. Lieberman won't explicitly admit to a change in position on Iraq, but his commercials, and the message he's putting out around the press, say that he has changed even as surrogates like George Bush and Dick Cheney quietly defend Lieberman's GOP credentials.

• Mark Pazniokas has an excellent article about Joe's relentless and ridiculous campaign predicated on the politics of petty personal paranoid projection:
  

  Upon hearing that Ned Lamont was about to launch his closing advertising blitz, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman hastily called a press conference to pre-emptively denounce ads he'd never seen.
  
  "Ned is going to use his wealth to run an uglier campaign and throw as much manufactured mud at me as he possibly can ... every half hour of every television viewing day from here on in," Lieberman said.
  
  Offering only speculation, Lieberman then questioned if the personal fortune Lamont is using to pay for the ads comes from big oil, tax shelters or investments in companies that ship American jobs overseas. After savaging his opponent, he promised to fight "the politics of personally funded, personal, negative, attack campaigning."...
  
  By calling Lamont a partisan figure, Lieberman ignored the message of his primary campaign, when the audience was exclusively Democrats. Prior to Aug. 8, Lieberman emphasized how well Lamont had worked with Republicans as a member of two local boards in Greenwich.
  
  "He's attacked Ned as being a closet Republican, as a fanatical liberal and just about everything in between," said George Jepsen, the co-chairman of the Lamont campaign and former Democratic state chairman. "He has attack ads up right now that massively distort Ned's record as a successful businessman. What he says about Ned being on the attack rings a little hollow."...
  
  "I will tell you there is no way I can now match this last-minute Lamont onslaught of attack ads without your help," he said.
  
  From listening to Lieberman, no one would suspect that he had raised $6.1 million from mid-July to Sept. 30. Or that his total fundraising as of that date was $14.8 million, a record for a Connecticut campaign.



• Tammy Sun says the $380,000 slush fund was for "young field workers":
  

  At least 10 payments labeled "petty cash" for "volunteers" are listed in Lieberman's campaign finance report, which was made public last week by the Federal Election Commission. The largest payment of $135,000 was made Aug. 4. Other cash payments in the days before the primary included $75,000 on Aug. 7 and $87,500 on Aug. 2.
  
  Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for the Lieberman campaign, said the money was used for payments to young field workers hired in the closing weeks of the primary. She said they were paid $50, $75 or $100 a day.
  
  Sun was unable to say Saturday why the workers, some of whom appeared to have stayed for days or weeks in dormitories at the expense of the Lieberman campaign, were not listed by name and salary.
  
  The report listed tens of thousands of dollars for rooms rented at a YMCA in Stamford, Fairfield University and a culinary school in Hartford, as well as more than $50,000 for rented buses and vans that transported the workers around the state.



• Mary O'Leary at the New Haven Register also digs more into the slush fund, gets Tammy to say "it wasn't me":
  

  Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said she wasn’t with the campaign at the time of the primary, but her understanding is that there was a staffer in charge of keeping track of petty cash.
  
  She said the money was used to cover salaries, food, lodging and transportation for hundreds who were hired to do statewide canvassing. The daily rates ranged from $60 to $75 to $100 for the work, Sun said. She said she would attempt to find the petty cash report by Monday.
  
  Tom Swan, campaign manager for Lamont, said the expenditures would be in violation of FEC rules, if they aren’t documented.



• O'Leary also interviews the guy who - literally - wrote the book on "Negative Campaigning":
  

  As for Social Security, a mailer sent out by Lamont calls Lieberman “Bush’s point man on Social Security.” Lieberman over the years has rejected the use of private accounts, only to periodically reopen the subject, before ultimately rejecting them again in 2005, making himself the target of Democratic ire.
  
  While he votes with the Democrats 93 percent of the time, “He always seems to give credence to the other side and so there are always statements out there that you can take and use against him. That seems to have gotten him into some trouble,” Mark said.
  
  “I would say that I think the Lamont attacks are absolutely fair game. There is a lot of hypocrisy on Lieberman’s part,” said the author.