Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Saturday, November 04, 2006


How Ridiculous Is Joe's Position on Iraq?

Even Richard Perle is now saying he wouldn't have advocated going to war if he knew then what he knows now:

Richard Perle, who chaired a committee of Pentagon policy advisers early in the Bush administration, said had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein. Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan.

"I probably would have said, 'Let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,'" he told Vanity Fair magazine in its upcoming January issue.

Joe Lieberman continues to say he would vote for the war again today.

Get Out The Vote

Lots of ways to do it this weekend.

Saturday Morning Round-Up


Connecticut for Cheney

What does it say about Joe Lieberman that there's an entire article out today about his whining about the personal tragedy of Chris Dodd even paying lip service to supporting the Democratic candidate, but he will almost certainly refuse to say a word condemning these reprehensible remarks:

In an interview with ABC television, Cheney cited the example of antiwar Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont’s primary win against incumbent Joe Lieberman to suggest al Qaeda militants would draw messages from the vote.

Lieberman, a supporter of the war, is now running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary.

“I think when they (militant groups) see something happen such as happened in Connecticut this year with the Democratic party in effect (having) purged Joe Lieberman, primarily over his support for the president and the war, that says to them that their strategy is working,” Cheney said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Friday, November 03, 2006


A Vote for Joe is a Vote for More Cheney

National Lieberman Party Chairman Dick Cheney says... "more war!":

Four days before the election, as Republican candidates are battling to save their seats in Congress amidst a backlash over the war in Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC News the administration is going "full speed ahead" with its policy.

"We've got the basic strategy right," Cheney told George Stephanopoulos in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on "This Week."

He also says to vote for Joe.

"No One Wants the War in Iraq to End More Than I Do"

It's the comedic gem of the entire campaign:

Even Lieberman's supporters are confused by his duplicitious new role as an anti-war candidate.

Joe Lieberman, Peace Candidate

Backed into a corner, Joe is responding with predictable self-righteous indignation to the Lamont campaign's latest ad saying that a vote for Joe is a vote for "more war."

Who takes this man seriously when he says "nobody wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do?"

Joe on Imus: Threatens Dodd, Dumps on Dems

Hearing that Joe made a "Godfather" threat to Sen. Dodd on Imus this morning. Anyone have the audio/video? (Update and Bumped: Here's the quote:)

IMUS: "You said the next time you have a meal with Dodd, you'll have to bring a food taster."

LIEBERMAN: "Now I think I should bring Don Corleone."

Apparently, Dodd was asked about this on MSNBC a few minutes ago. And he laughed it off. Well, it's that courageous attitude that is sure to get him elected president in 2008.

Crooks and Liars has some video of another comment - Joe demonstrating his commitment to Democratic ideals.

"You gotta join one caucus or another to protect your seniority... but I'm going to be very independent... watch me..."

In a few short months, it's gone from being "how dare Ned Lamont question my Democratic credentials" to "the only reason I'm joining a party is to protect my seniority"

And Democrats and Republicans alike at Bloomberg's fundraiser last week thought it likely that Joe would caucus with Republicans if it suited him.

Joe Is Push Polling?

This is the second report I've heard about possible push-polling today:

Just got a call (noon Friday) purporting to be a survey. Asked how likely I was to vote, then gave a glowing description of how wonderful Lieberman had been, then asked, "if the election were held today, who would you be most likely to vote for, Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman." The woman didn't say who paid for the call; she seemed pretty new at it, though - stumbling on the script several times. She got off the phone as soon as I said Lamont.

The other report said the person calling identified themself as from "BUTM" and the phone number on caller ID was 785-799-3900. I think it's more likely that it's actually "BVTM"... Check out "The Google" and see what comes up for that number.

3 Days

Atrios on November in Iraq:

There have been 11 troop deaths in Iraq in November.

It's the third day in November.

Joe Lieberman wants at least three more years of this.


Vote for change.

Meriden Record-Journal Endorses Ned

Kirby at CTBob has it:

The senator who sought his party’s presidential nomination in 2004 made preparations to abandon his party even before the outcome of the August primary, by lining up enough signatures to run as an independent. In his strange concession speech on primary night, Lieberman compared the loss to a football game, saying he was only down after the first half. By refusing to cede his interests to the decision of Connecticut Democrats, Lieberman also prolonged a headline-grabbing race that continues to draw attention away from other Democratic efforts in this election. Once again, his self-interest has cost Democrats opportunities. The three-term incumbent has since campaigned on experience and on a message of bipartisanship, saying his focus is on representing the people of Connecticut. But his track record on the loyalty front makes such pronouncements suspect, at least.

What changed?
During his successful bid to unseat Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in 1988, Lieberman pledged to limit himself to three Senate terms. He was asked recently by the editorial board of this newspaper what had changed his mind. He said that when he’d made that pronouncement he wasn’t sure he would get to serve even six years. He also said he felt Weicker had stopped producing and didn’t feel that was true in his own case. In any event, it was another example of a senator willing to rewrite the rules, even his own, to suit himself. Dissatisfaction with Lieberman’s performance is precisely what led to Ned Lamont’s victory in the primary. Lieberman’s stubborn support for an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq and his perceived too-cozy relationship with the Bush administration was a vulnerability the senator either failed to recognize or refused to take seriously until it was too late. During the primary he appeared surprised, even miffed, that his re-election was not going unchallenged. Now the senator wants a do-over. Ned Lamont’s campaign has never had the seasoned slickness the senator’s has displayed since the primary. On occasion, he still comes off as a neophyte. But his earnestness and commitment have never been in doubt.

...The U.S. Congress is indeed in need of a change. For the past six years, bipartisanship notwithstanding, Lieberman has been part of the problem, not a sign of its solution. Lamont brings a fresh perspective, not the result of naivete, but a concern that the future and health of the nation requires a challenged status quo.

Lamont wants to establish universal health care. He wants to use funds now being misspent in Iraq to bolster educational and employment opportunities at home. Experienced in running a business, he does not want to see children inherit the misfortunes of profligate and irresponsible budget practices. Significantly, the Democratic candidate sees Meriden as the focal point for manufacturing and distribution in the state, a perspective he’ll be urged to remember should he arrive in Washington. Lamont, whose only elected experience was as a Greenwich selectman, has a genuine claim to being a Washington outsider, a claim too many others try to make for political expediency. He can be counted on to help re-establish the checks and balances the country desperately needs right now. We endorse Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate.


Friday Morning Round-Up

Final weekend. Volunteer.


Again: Republicans Say Lieberman Will Caucus With Them

It's going to happen if the Republicans retain control of the Senate. This is not a man of his word. We've learned that already.

Republicans peeling off checks for Joe Lieberman at Mayor Bloomberg's house Wednesday night were abuzz with the possibility that the Connecticut senator will join their party if reelected Tuesday....

"His Democratic buddies [Sens.] Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy screwed him," a Republican guest told us. "People are hoping he'll switch parties. He votes with the Republicans a lot. He's one of the last few statesmen."

One Democrat observed, "It could happen. The Republicans could offer him some big carrots, like chairmanship of the Budget Committee. I think he's up for grabs." President Bush praised Lieberman for his pro-Iraq War stance earlier this week.

Thursday, November 02, 2006



Paul Newman in a new radio ad (mp3):

"When the voters in the primary chose Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, they were sending a message,'' Newman says.

"But Mr. Lieberman wasn't listening. He turned his back on the very party that had supported him for 18 years. Entitlement - that's what 18 years in the Senate does to you.''


Lamont Campaign Files Supplemental FEC Complaint

Hours ago, in the wake of the revelations in the New Haven Register today:

...Since the filing of this complaint, additional facts have been brought to light which further confirm the need for immediate action by your office. Those additional facts are as follows:

Additional Facts Evidencing the Misuse of Funds Beyond the $387,561.00 in Supposed Petty Cash Disbursements

....The New Haven Register reported today that “[Tomas] Reyes [of Oxford] and another man, Daryl Brooks of New Haven, who ran a consultant service, said they each got one check from the campaign for their services, but they are listed in the third quarter campaign finance report as getting two checks, for a total of twice what the men said they received.” M. E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor, New Haven Register (Nov. 2, 2006). “The report lists Reyes as getting two checks for $8,250, one on Aug. 4 and one on Aug. 15. Brooks received $12,200 on Aug. 11 and another check for the same amount on Aug. 15, according to the Lieberman report. Both men said this was inaccurate.” Id. Thus, the amount of unaccounted for expenditures from the Lieberman campaign is now at least $408,011.00.

Additional Facts Further Evidencing the Failure to Itemize Supposed Disbursements in Excess of $200.00

...The New Haven Register’s report establishes that “[s]everal young men, who were paid $60 a day out of [the supposed] petty cash [fund] to canvass in Bridgeport, said they were paid in cash for aggregate earnings over $200.” M. E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor, New Haven Register (Nov. 2, 2006).

Specifically, “Rob Dhanda, 18, of Stratford, said he earned $480 in cash over several weeks, while Walter Ruilova, 18, also of Stratford, said his total was an estimated $360 in cash. Id. Moreover, “Ruilova estimated there were about 30 teenagers working out of the Bridgeport office, each earning $60 a day in cash, over a few weeks.” Id.

one of these disbursements are itemized in any of the Lieberman Committee’s reports and we therefore submit that the foregoing constitutes a patent violation of federal law.

Additional Facts Further Evidencing the Failure to Maintain a Written Journal

Title 11 C.F.R. §102.11 (2 U.S.C. 432(h)(2)) (Petty Cash Fund) provides that “[i]f 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.”

As further chronicled in today’s Register, Tomas Reyes “said he has yet to be asked by the campaign to turn over material for the journal, which would justify expenditures of $8,250.”

It is simply not possible to comply with the foregoing regulation if the Lieberman campaign has not even made an effort to collect the information that may (or may not) exist to maintain the journal.

The committee filed incorrect reports. Petty cash is not supposed to be disclosed until it is distributed. Until such time it is part of a committee’s cash on hand. Thus, by reporting the creation of petty cash instead of the actual disbursement of the petty cash, this may have artificially deflated their disclosure of cash on hand.


The Lieberman campaign’s flagrant disregard for these laws and regulations calls for the immediate investigation of this matter by your office to ensure that the voters of Connecticut can be fairly informed about the conduct of their elected officials.

I would appreciate you contacting me confirm receipt of this amended complaint.

I thank you in advance for your attention to this pressing matter.

Sincerely Yours,

Tom Swan



Liveblogged it over at the official blog.

Polls and the Polling Pollsters

A new Zogby/Reuters poll shows Ned cutting the gap in half since their last poll a couple of weeks ago. It pegs the CT-SEN race as being closer than NJ-SEN (where Menendez has opened up a 12-point lead) and RI-SEN (where Whitehouse has opened up a 14-point lead), and just as close as TN-SEN (where they have Ford 10 points behind Corker).

Again, this is a volitile race. Between the ballot positioning, a major party candidate polling in the single digits, the likelihood of a motivated Democratic turnout, the night-and-day difference between field operations, the vast discrepancy between polls, significant uncertainty about turnout models, and the demonstrated inaccuracy of polls before the primary, a lot is up in the air.

And the debate between the two major parties tonight (Fox 61, 7pm) might make shake things up even more.

Lieberman Breaks Campaign Finance Law

Really, there's no other conclusion to be reached.

Again, there is a reason disclosures like this are required by law. Because if expenditures are not itemized, and you have almost 10% of a campaign's warchest floating around in cash, it can be spent in any number of nefarious ways.

If this is just allowed to just slip by, think of what a horrible precedent it will set. What's to stop a future campaign from declaring 20% of their funds in unitemized "petty cash?" 50%? 100%? Where is the line drawn?

Joe Lieberman owes voters an explanation. He owes reporters a look at the petty cash journal he was required by law to have kept... if he even has it.

Update: Matt Browner-Hamlin, who's been on top of this story from the beginning, has a lot more. He's right. This is getting serious:

The Lieberman campaign essentially paid campaign workers off the books. The article doesn't find people who were necessarily paid more than $100 in petty cash (which would be illegal), but these are all individuals who received over $200 and thus should be itemized on Lieberman's reports. Failure to provide full information about these people, including their names and addresses, is an avoidance of the law. At minimum this information continues to fill out our understanding of the extent to which the Lieberman campaign stopped obeying campaign finance requirements and regulations during the Democratic primary....

The Lieberman campaign's continued silence only strengthens the need to ask questions like O'Leary has done in this article. She has brought out new information that demands answers from Joe; if she can't get them, I hope the FEC will. Every piece of evidence that comes out suggests malfeasance, albeit of varying degrees, by Joe's campaign. Lieberman's actions and Lieberman's silence do damage to the health of our elections. The need for truth has never been more clear than today.


Thursday Morning Round-Up

Wednesday, November 01, 2006


Keep Your Eyes Open

It's the final days of the campaign, and Lieberman - with whatever six-figure "petty cash" fund he has lying around nowadays, or with help from his Rove-backed friends, or both - likely has some really slimy stuff up his sleeve.

The guy who ran google ads comparing Ned to Osama bin Laden gave Joe another $1,000 last week.

And one report has surfaced of a mailer to Republicans attacking Daily Kos.

Joe is the worst kind of Republican, and he will use the worst kind of right-wing smears in the coming days in order to hold on to and fire up his far-right base.

(FYI, he also has until 12 noon tomorrow to re-accept the invitation to the debate he had originally agreed to attend but then backed out of.)

"An Opportunist, A Self-Seeker, Like All The Rest"

Colin McEnroe mourns the idea of Joe in words that many can likely relate to:

I still think he'll win by three points on election night, but what he will never win back is my respect. He really was, during the 1980s and much of the 1990s, not simply a politician I believed in but THE politician I beleved in. Among officeholders of significant rank, he was the guy whose integrity I regarded as unbreachable. I did not always agree with him, but I did believe that he arrived at his opinions through serious reflection.

I don't believe that anymore. I feel like Benjy, the "idiot" in "The Sound and the Fury," when he says Caddy doesn't smell like trees anymore. Joe has lost his innocence. He's an opportunist, a self-seeker, like all the rest....

Funny thing, that. This is kind of a farewell tour, too. One of the lessons he might have learned this time, by losing a primary, is that he had fallen out of touch with his home people. He spent too much time seeking the national limelight and had a hard time even mounting a field operation here where he lives. That might have told him he needed to water his roots....

I will never give him back the faith and the trust I invested in him when I was young and looking for people in public life whom I could admire. And there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of people like me. People who believed in him and never will again. People who are now creeped out. That thing we gave him was a pearl beyond price. Losing it, he should feel like he's watching Tinkerbell die on stage, while he claps his hands and she doesn't stir.



Hope this runs a lot in Connecticut.


Journal-Inquirer on Joe's Times Freak-Out

Short version, it's all about a condescending man supremely scared that his position on Iraq is being revealed for what it is, an incomprehensible disaster:

But Joe Lieberman seems to care a lot about whom the Times endorses.

He seemed personally hurt by the Times picking Lamont.

His No. 1 flack wrote a long diatribe on the subject.

And Joe resorted to what has sometimes been his ultimate defense in this campaign: No one understands me.

If we did, you see, we would appreciate him sufficiently.

Lieberman's exact words about the Times editorial board were:

"I don't believe that they've ever really understood my position on Iraq." It's not every man who can out-condescend The New York Times.

Why not just say, "They have their views and I have mine"?

And, anyhow, who does understand Sen. Lieberman's position on Iraq?

Maybe professor Irwin Corey.

To the rest of us, Lieberman's position on Iraq has long been incomprehensible gibberish.


It's not just the Times that fails to understand Joe Lieberman's position on the war. Nobody understands it. Because it is contradictory and illogical on its face.

And why is that?

Because Joe Lieberman does not want to choose.

The choices in Iraq are three:

- Keep doing what we are doing.
- Get out - in an orderly way but a quick one.
- Send more troops and temporarily colonize the nation to save it.

Joe refuses to make any of those choices, and then he whines that those pointy-headed eggheads at The New York Times don't appreciate the position he never took.


Meanwhile, Back Over Where People Are Dying

Things are getting worse by the week:

Joe's attidude?

"With a friend, you don't essentially put a gun to their head."

Cheney Stumps For Joe Again

The Lieberman Party's chief national surrogate will continue his campaign against the Democratic Party, Ned Lamont, and, today, John Kerry:

Time and time again, we're seeing examples of Democratic Party leaders apparently having lost their perspective concerning the nature of the enemy we face, and the need to wage this fight aggressively. No sharper example can be found than the Democratic Party chairman himself, Howard Dean, who said the capture of Saddam Hussein didn't make America any safer. And maybe it should be no surprise that such a party would turn its back on a man like Senator Joe Lieberman, who has been an unapologetic supporter of the fight against terror.

Instead they highlight people like John Kerry, their presidential nominee in 2004....


Wednesday Morning Round-Up

(Bumped.) One hundred and forty-four hours until polls open. Volunteer down the stretch.



Bob Englehart in today's Courant:

It's looking like Joe will spend $20 million on this race.

Events Tonight

Matt Stoller was at a surrogate/Schlesinger "debate" at Yale, which had Colin McEnroe's Favorite Pundit, Lanny Davis, as Lieberman's stand in. He talked at length with Alan Schlesinger:

I got to talk to Schlesinger tonight for about a half hour. He's an interesting guy, and a cool guy who is appealing because he is seriously bucking the Republican party machine, and doing it explicitly. He is running for the seat because he feels that he has an outside shot at winning - he's looking at the 1970 Senate contest and thinking that a high 30s goal can elect him Senator. But he's also running because he's angry that Jodi Rell and the state and national Republican leaders threw him under the bus after cutting a deal with Joe Lieberman to merge political operations for this cycle. He's angry that the Republicans spread rumors about him and sullied his reputation. And he's angry at the machine lock that small groups of Republicans have had on the party on a state and national level.

BranfordBoy was also there:

Once again, I am somewhat abashed to report, Alan Schlesinger stole the show. He wasn't as flamboyant this time out (maybe sitting calms him), but he had some of the best lines and he has this disarming ability to speak as if what's coming out of his mouth (odd as some of it may be) exists somewhere in his brain as opposed to on those three by five cards your high school debate coach told you the always have at hand.

There seemed to be a cadre of Young Republicans in the audience and they heartily approved of his defense of the Bush tax cuts. On the other hand, the Lamont supporters ate up his characterization of Joe Lieberman as a shifty politician who says one thing and votes another.

CTBob also talked at length with Alan, who accused Joe of using his $387,000 petty cash on "street money:"

Schlesinger: "Well, it's an awful lot of petty cash. It's more than our whole campaign in petty cash. I'll tell ya, it's gotta be street money. I mean, it makes no other sense. I really thought the days of that were over, back in the early sixties, but I guess not. It's unfortunate."

Finally, a diarist at MLN reports from Ned's town hall event at Conn College tonight.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006



Not that big a secret.

Listen to Hillary and Schumer yesterday, too (Hillary was responding to Joe endorsing her). Nothing but kind words for an opponent who is continually thowing them and their colleagues under the bus using every known right-wing smear technique:

Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are two of a number of Democrats who initially backed Lieberman and then switched to Lamont after the primary. Asked yesterday if he considered Clinton and Schumer fair-weather friends, Lieberman acknowledged suffering "disappointments" this year.

"A number of people are following the rules of the partisan political playbook," he said.

A Clinton spokeswoman said, "Sen. Clinton appreciates Sen. Lieberman's kind remarks." A Schumer spokesman declined to comment.


Kissing and Telling

The AP on Bush backing down from yesterday's endorsement of Joe:

Democrat Ned Lamont questioned Sen. Joe Lieberman's independence after President Bush praised the incumbent for his support of the Iraq war.

"Clearly President Bush and Dick Cheney are out there campaigning for Joe Lieberman," Lamont said Tuesday during a campaign stop. "They think it's a vote that they can count upon in a pinch ... The president is out there speaking loud and clear on behalf of Joe."...

Lieberman played down Bush's comments Tuesday.

"I have said from the first days after the primary ... that I was not going to allow this campaign to become a national political plaything for either side or anybody," he said.


The Definition of Insanity

New ad:


Bush and Joe All Alone on Iraq

Today's Courant front page (pdf via newseum):

"Brass Weigh Exit Date":

Brass Weigh Exit Date
U.S. Officers Warm To Iraq Deadlines
October 31, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Growing numbers of military officers have begun to privately question the conventional wisdom that has guided American strategy in Iraq - that setting a hard deadline for troop reductions would undermine efforts to create a stable country.

The Iraqi government's failure to tackle the problem of sectarian tensions has led these officers to conclude that, unless pushed, Iraqis will not undertake key political and security reforms. Therefore, the advantages of setting a hard deadline, these officials argue, may outweigh the disadvantages.

"The upside is that deadlines could help ensure that the Iraqi leaders recognize the imperative of coming to grips with the tough decisions they've got to make for there to be progress in the political arena," said a senior Army officer who has served in Iraq.


George Bush's Favorite Senator

"I don't believe that they've ever really understood my position on Iraq."

- Joe Lieberman, this weekend, on the NYT's endorsement of Ned Lamont.

Tuesday Morning Round-Up

One hundred and sixty-something hours until polls open. Get involved.

Monday, October 30, 2006


George Bush's Favorite Senator

It's all coming full circle, isn't it?

In a wide-ranging two-part interview that will run tonight and tommorrow on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes” show, President George W. Bush made some comments about Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, the Democratic incumbent who is running for re-election on his own Connecticut for Lieberman line.

“One man who stood by his decisions is Joe Lieberman,” Mr. Bush said. “He understands the consequences. And the Democratic Party ran him out of the party because he stood on principle.”


Furious Joe's Campaign Writes a Letter

When most candidates lose a newspaper endorsement - even one as potentially influential as the New York Times' - they let it go. They might go so far as to mutter something under their breath about newspaper endorsements being meaningless. About how the voters are the things that matter.

Not Joe Lieberman.

And not Dan Gerstein, who, upon reading the New York Times' reasoned, articulate editorial absolutely dismantling his candidate's carefully constructed post-primary PR, sat down to furiously bang out an official letter of protest (impressively enough, at the same time his head was apparently exploding) to the "liberal media" heavyweight.

The blog post introducing the letter opens with this gem, echoing Lieberman supporters across the right-wing by accusing the Times of being biased and having a "clear partisan agenda":

We fully expected that the New York Times, given its strong anti-war stance and clear partisan agenda, would repeat their misguided primary endorsement of Ned Lamont for the general election. But we never imagined the Times of all papers would produce such an intellectually dishonest and shoddy editorial as they published Sunday.

The Gerstein letter itself goes on to accuse the Times of being:

all in the first five paragraphs.

And there are twenty-nine petulantly vitriolic paragraphs that follow:

All of this goes to show that if anyone is guilty of not facing reality, it is the Times editors. You clearly overlooked all the signs that Senator Lieberman was listening and that his views could and did evolve. Instead, you repackaged the distorted caricature the Lamont campaign has been peddling for several months to serve your own ideological agenda.

The truth is, the only way Joe Lieberman could have won with the Times editors was to compromise his principles and recant his support for the war. And in much the same way, the only acceptable definition of changing course for the Times was a politically-determined timetable for troop withdrawal -– a path that has been rejected as a threat to our national security interests by many critics of the Bush Administration, including the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats, and our military leadership.

The most blatant evidence that the fix was in was your assertion that Mr. Lamont is “the far better candidate” to serve in the U.S. Senate. That is simply incomprehensible – and frankly an insult to your readers’ intelligence....

It is quite telling that the Times, much like the bloggers who have been trying to purge Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party, failed to acknowledge any of these accomplishments and stands – or to explain why they were not relevant to your endorsement process....

Or, not least of all, the Times editors did not acknowledge the consequences of losing Senator Lieberman’s seniority for the people of Connecticut and for many of the progressive causes the Times has long championed.

That is probably because you long ago convicted him of not being ideologically pure enough and of not being reflexively hostile enough to his Republican colleagues. You clearly wanted another finger-pointer in the Senate, and Ned Lamont wins that contest hands down.

It's really perplexing. What good can come of this letter? Other than to direct people to the decidedly sane and civil - and convincing - endorsement from the Times that made Gerstein fly into such a rage.

What it shows is how Joe's is and always has been a campaign based entirely on entitlement, indignation, and anger. He was angry at having to face a primary challenge. He was insulted that anyone would ask him to defend his record. And he's been in furious rage at the Connecticut voters who rebuked him in a record turnout in August.

And guess who he'll take that anger out on if he wins.


80: the number people killed in Iraq today:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - At least 80 people were killed or found dead in Iraq on Monday, including 33 victims of a bomb attack on laborers lined up to find a days work in Baghdad's Sadr city Shiite slum.

100: the number U.S. troops killed in Iraq this month:

The U.S. military announced the death of the 100th service member killed in combat this month....

Along with rising civilian casualties, October is already the fourth deadliest month for American troops since the war began in March 2003. The other highest monthly death tolls were 107 in January 2005; 135 in April 2004, and 137 in November 2004.

Zero: the amount Joe Lieberman has done to help end the war in Iraq:

WASHINGTON—A day after saying in a major campaign speech that “we must get tougher with the Iraqi political leadership,” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman met Tuesday with Iraq’s president and had a pleasant conversation that ended with the two men agreeing progress is being made.

“President Jalal Talabani is committed to working for a unified, democratic Iraq that preserves the rights and promotes the security of all its citizens,” the Connecticut Democrat, who is seeking re-election as an independent, said after he and four other senators met privately with Talabani for 45 minutes in the Capitol.

Asked if he followed through on Monday’s “get tough” message, Lieberman said, “This is a question of allies working together. With a friend, you don’t essentially put a gun to their head.”...

“If anyone asks what progress has been made in Iraq as a result of American involvement, look at this man,” Lieberman said. “He has taken the place of Saddam Hussein.”


Four Days Left

Invite everyone you know to send postcards to registered voters in CT via Family, Friends, and Neighbors.

You can do it until at least Thursday.

Bloomberg and Joe in Stamford

The float was there to greet commuters in Stamford, too:

As was a banner or two:

Bloomberg, a year ago:

The mayor voiced strong support yesterday for the reinstatement of the commuter tax, a levy on commuters who live outside the five boroughs but work in the city. A commuter tax would do little to help traffic, but would generate revenue for the cash-starved city from suburbanites.

The state Legislature repealed the 30-year-old commuter tax in 1999 as part of a highly politicized effort to influence a suburban Senate race. Since then, efforts to reimpose the tax have been consistently rebuffed.

The old commuter tax - equal to 0.45% - would generate roughly $500 million in annual revenue for the city, which faces an estimated $4.5 billion deficit in the fiscal year beginning July 1....

"What we need is a commuter tax, and I fought for that a long time," he said. "We'll continue to fight for a commuter tax - that's the way to solve some of these problems."


"The New Naderites"

Chris Bowers:

Lieberman's actions following the primary, as well as the actions of those Democrats who continue to support him, make it clear that it is in fact the Lieberman-Tauscher-DLC types view the party, its rules, and its members as a convenience to be easily tossed aside when they interfere with a personal path to power. This is our party as much as it is theirs. Hell, by now it is more our party than it is theirs. Lieberman and his supporters have become the new Naderites in our midst.

Sunday, October 29, 2006


On Seniority and Supporting the Party

Two takes. Stoller:

In the Lieberman-Lamont fight, there has been a fair amount of handwringing over why Lamont isn't blowing Joe out of the water. Why, if Joe lost to Lamont, isn't he losing in the general? Why did Lamont let Joe get away? Well there are a number of reasons, but among the most prominent is the total abandonment of Lamont by the party establishment. And let's be very clear - this is not Lamont that they are abandoning, it's the party primary voters that they are abandoning.

Here's the latest on Lieberman bragging about the seniority he'll have if he wins reelection. Make no mistake, these DC Democrats are only our temporary allies. They have total contempt for the rules of the party, and they cheered Joe after he faced us in the primary. It is no longer reasonable for them to call for party unity, because they no longer have any legitimate claim to call themselves leaders of the party....


But I wish folks talking about the glory of seniority would step outside of the conventional D.C. way of thinking for a moment… Look at this grassroots movement our campaign has built. Not just in Connecticut, but nationwide. Sure, Ned might enter the Senator tied for 95th in “seniority,” but he brings with him a legion of followers in each of the 50 states. The same legion that will follow his legislative career with the same zeal they stay abreat of campaign happenings....

Not only will Ned Lamont bring an entirely fresh perspective to the Senate, but a constituency far different from the DC lobbyists and political action committees that fund the campaigns of most representatives.

Who knows how much of a difference that will make, but we do know one thing: it’s time for change in D.C. It’s time for a different approach to getting things done and moving legislation in the capitol. Ned Lamont gives the people of Connecticut, and America, the best chance to change the course.


Flies and the Flying Flyers

A couple of good independent flyers:

BranfordBoy at MLN has a great flyer with which to greet Mayor Bloomberg and Sen. Lieberman tomorrow:

flyer 1

More on Bloomberg's support for a commuter tax on CT residents here.

And Mercury_Rising at MLN links to these downloadable posters at Bigpath.net:

flyer 2

Download it here: (pdf).

Joe Attacks NYT For Endorsing Lamont

Today's NYT endorsement is really getting under Lieberman's skin (not that that's very difficult to do). Earlier this morning, Joe petulantly accused the Times editorial board of not understanding his position on Iraq:

"I don't believe that they've ever really understood my position on Iraq," he said after he attended a church service Sunday. "I mean, this is all about Iraq. They're not giving me credit for anything else I've done, including a lot of stuff that they've complimented me on over the years, on the environment, other things, global warming."

But Joe's campaign just said he'd vote to authorize the war again today:

On Iraq, Lieberman now tries to steer the debate away from the wisdom of the original decision to invade, a vote that Gerstein said Lieberman does not regret and would cast again.

What's so hard to understand here?

Sunday Morning Round-Up