LamontBlog: Ned Lamont (D) for CT

"Blog Wars"

2006-12-06T22:03:00.000-05:00

A documentary on the bloggers' role in the race will air on Dec. 28th at 10pm on the Sundance Channel. More details here.

(Yes, there will likely be some Adult Language.)

Last Call

2006-11-11T11:35:00.002-05:00

I really don't know whether this will be the final post on this blog or not, but I'm taking a break from all things online next week, and afterwards, who knows. It seems incongruous to keep posting on a single-race blog now that that race is over, even though there's still much to be said about what this race ultimately meant. I am sure I will re-engage in blogging somewhere soon. If you would like to be informed about it, you can send me an email at the address on the left.

In the meantime, thank you so much for reading this blog and being a part of what really became a social movement both online and offline, in state and out of state. Thank you to the daily visitors and regular commenters here. Thank you to CTKeith, DeanFan, and the others who were on top of this race online from the very beginning. Thanks to BranfordBoy, CTBlogger, Spazeboy, and CTBob who were on the ground providing the energy for this race from early on. Thanks to Scarce for being omniscient and omnipresent. Thanks to everyone else at My Left Nutmeg for providing an indispensable community forum - something that really should be nurtured and expanded in the weeks and months ahead. Thanks to the national bloggers at Atrios, Daily Kos, MyDD, Crooks and Liars, Firedoglake, and everywhere else who were so helpful on a daily basis encouraging the type of broad nationwide support that was so crucial in making this into more than just a local race with local impact.

Thanks especially to Tim Tagaris, who came in and showed us all how this is done (notwithstanding his poor judgment in hiring me after the primary), and the rest of the campaign team, who were so inspiring, first to work with, and then to work for.

And of course, thanks to Ned, who inspired so many and who, I have little doubt, will continue to do so.

This was never about one person, though. It was always about ordinary citizens finding strength in each other. That type of shift in power is incredibly threatening to the existing power centers in both government and in the corporate world, which explains the $12,000 checks that flew into the Lieberman coffers as much as it explains the inaction by most Republicans and betrayal by some Democrats during the general election.

We took on one major party in the primary, and we won an historic victory. But, in so many ways, we had to take on the combined efforts of two major parties in the general - an even more herculean task that, amazingly, we almost pulled off too.

In the meantime, we made Joe Lieberman a vestigial senator. He is no longer a Democrat. He chose to leave the party in July. In August, 52% of Democrats rendered their clear verdict. In November, the margin was even greater (about two-thirds of Democrats voting against him, according to one exit poll). Joe has long derived his power from claiming to speak for a largely mythical "center" in the Democratic party while constantly advocating positions that place him to the right of many Republicans. No more.

To place a (D) after his name at this point would be to say to Connecticut Democrats that they don't ultimately get to decide who represents their party - that the Tim Russerts of the world get to do so. It would be insulting, disrespectful, and wrong. Joe can vote however he wants or caucus with whichever party he wants, but he is not a Democrat. Having re-stated multiple times that his vote for organizing the senate is not up for grabs, he is now just one of 100 senators. And - on the war especially - there will be many Republicans who will be more likely than Sen. Lieberman to be the 51st vote (and 52nd, and 53rd) for meaningful legislation. Those votes should be welcomed. There are also many new Democrats - like Jim Webb (D-VA) and Jon Tester (D-MT) - who will more truly represent the center in American politics.

Going forwards, Sen. Lieberman has a choice. He can either face this reality, or ignore it at his own peril. He can either become responsive to his constituents, or become even less relevant. He can either continue to be beholden to the lobbyists and D.C. "bipartisan" power centers that bailed him out post-primary, or he can start being beholden to the people of Connecticut again. The choice is his. Those who have worked for the last year to hold their senator accountable - from Ned on down - aren't going anywhere.

Charles

Iraq

2006-11-08T18:29:00.000-05:00

The text on Huffington Post front page just now is a good indication of just how much of an impact this race had on elections across the country:

REP MURTHA: THE CHANGE OF POWER....IS GOING TO CHANGE THE POLITICS ON THE WAR....

NEW DEMS ON IRAQ: Kristin Gillibrand: “We Need A New Direction"……..Joe Sestak: "We're In The Midst Of A Civil War"……………Gabrielle Giffords: "My Priority Is To Bring Our Troops Home Safe And Soon"…………Claire McCaskill: "We Need To Set A Framework…To Completely Redeploy"…………Patrick Murphy: "We Need To Start Bringing Our Men And Women Home Now”……………RUMSFELD FORCED OUT…………

Not One of Us

2006-11-08T16:02:00.000-05:00

I just randomly tuned to Sean Hannity on the radio in the car and heard that Lieberman was going to be on as a guest - again - today.

All Democrats should welcome the vote of Sen. Lieberman (Lieberman) to organize the senate with Democrats, the same way we should welcome any such vote from the right side of the aisle.

But let me be as clear in my words as Connecticut Democrats were in their votes both in August and - even more emphatically - yesterday:

Joe Lieberman is no longer a Democrat.

He has no more right to call himself one, or to speak for Democrats in our new majorities, than any of Sean Hannity's other best friends do.

And for this, we can thank Ned too.

Sec. of Defense Joe Lieberman?

2006-11-08T13:02:00.000-05:00

Wouldn't that be hilarious...

...well, guess not. Maybe he'll be the new UN Ambassador or something.

Building

2006-11-08T11:43:00.000-05:00

I'm not being at all disingenuous in writing that I was happy when I woke up this morning. Sincerely content. Proud.

The results of the election were not what any of us had hoped for. But the results of this campaign far exceeded the hopes almost everyone had going in. And it changed the country.

We defeated a three-term incumbent in a primary with a grassroots-fueled online and offline effort. We emboldened Democrats across the country to speak clearly about Iraq, and provided the summer spark that lit last night's autumn wildfire.

And most importantly, we inspired thousands of people who would have normally stayed on the sidelines to get involved in politics. This is already being reflected in the makeup of town committees. And does anyone doubt that in the coming years it will be reflected in the state legislature, and even higher offices?

There is also a lot of disillusionment. Especially with the way - after voters issued such clear verdict in August - the national and local party alike decided personal friendships, gargantuan egos, and placating the most powerful of interests trumped our apparently quaint and outdated notion of "democracy" within the party system.

The establishment - of both parties - was forced to fight tooth and nail to defend power for power's sake. It wasn't pretty. What we saw last night was how immovable real entrenched power centers are in this country. And, also, how a Democratic majority alone - in one or both houses - won't solve these problems.

So yes, we lost the election. But even before first vote was counted, we had already won a whole lot more than that.

And all because one guy stood up when no one else would, and so many stood up to join him.

It's All Over But The Counting

2006-11-07T20:06:00.000-05:00

And, who knows, maybe the recounting...

Nine Hours Until Polls Close

2006-11-07T11:17:00.000-05:00

Vote.

Remind your friends to vote.

Get out the vote.

Calm Before the Storm

2006-11-06T23:36:00.000-05:00

I started this blog back in February when I heard a guy named Ned Lamont was considering challenging Joe Lieberman in a Senate primary. After hearing him speak and reading his positions, I had no doubt he could win, but, just like anyone else, I had quite a few doubts that he actually would. But as I wrote almost nine months ago now, this challenge was always going to be as much about the journey as it was about the destination:

Opportunities such as this, both to change the party and to change the national conversation, do not arise often in politics. I hope to explain in detail in later posts why I believe Ned Lamont's candidacy presents just such a golden opportunity: why he should run, why he can win, and why the race itself will - win or lose - be a greatly positive exercise for both Connecticut and the nation.

No one would say that the race itself hasn't had a dramatic effect on the national discussion. This midterm election has become a referendum on Iraq. Senate candidates in places like Missouri are now using language that Ned was considered "out there" for using last winter and early spring.

I'm sitting here at HQ in Meriden, where things seem to have quieted down for the night. Tomorrow will come the storm: boots on the ground, lawn signs and literature in hand, umbrellas overhead if necessary, contacting our voters, reminding people to vote the entire Democratic line.

And again, I'm reminded of how opportunities such as this do not arise often.

Tomorrow is the opportunity we've been waiting for.

Let's do it.

In The Field

2006-11-06T21:08:00.000-05:00

I've spent most of the day in the New Haven field office helping get volunteers ready to go out tomorrow... it's been bustling all day. People are energized and excited to get up in the pre-dawn tomorrow and spend hours at a polling place. There's no doubt among anyone here that this is going to be close. Every vote will count. And if the results are any reflection of the intensity of support that we've all seen on the ground this entire campaign, it will be a good night.

Ned stood up for what he believed in when no one else would, and countless thousands of people have been returning the favor throughout this campaign. And it just keeps going. It's been a great experience both to witness and be a part of.

24 Hours

2006-11-06T07:36:00.000-05:00

86,000 newly registered voters, mainly Democrats. A volatile electorate. A possible national Democratic wave. A major party candidate with less than ten percent in the polls. A candidate leading in the polls with a name harder to find on the ballot than Kazakhstan on a map, but with 80% Republican support.

Most importantly, a candidate who has inspired countless citizens to work hard for the enitre Democratic slate in Connecticut vs. one who is forced to buy his soft support with envelopes of petty cash.

This was worth fighting for when people said it was impossible in February. It's worth fighting for even more now.

24 hours untill polls open to get out the vote. Then 14 hours to work. It's what I'll be doing for the next two days.

Joe and Nancy Today

2006-11-05T16:52:00.000-05:00

Working against a Democratic congress, together:

David Sirota has a lot more. Joe tried to get Ned - who had been invited by Rep. Larson (D) - thrown out of the Hartford Veterans Day Parade today.

No One Wants the War in Iraq to End More Than Dick Cheney Does

2006-11-05T12:13:00.000-05:00

Sunday Morning Round-Up

2006-11-05T09:38:00.000-05:00

48 Hours. GOTV.

Here's what's in the news this morning, as the Democratic wave builds and the midterms seem to be crystallizing nationally as a referendum on the Bush-Lieberman policy on the war in Iraq:

The Danbury News-Times, which had endorsed Joe pre-primary, endorses Ned Lamont, saying "it's time for change". Angry letter from Dan Gerstein accusing them of being brainwashed by bloggers forthcoming:
His unquestioning support of Bush administration policies on Iraq, even as American military casualties mounted and Iraq spiraled out of control toward civil war, was a failure of duty and he should be held accountable.

It took the Lamont challenge to get Lieberman back to Connecticut to explain some of the choices he has made in Washington....

The News-Times Editorial Board has twice endorsed Lieberman for election to the Senate, citing his experience, intelligence and hard work. The Editorial Board also endorsed Lieberman in the August primary. After he lost, the Editorial Board suggested he withdraw from the campaign.

In Tuesday's election, the Editorial Board endorses Ned Lamont.

From the start of his campaign, Lamont has been a confident candidate, sure of his message as an outsider, not intimidated by Lieberman's long experience in government.

Lieberman dismisses Lamont as someone who wouldn't be able to match his presence in the Senate. Lieberman summons the same attitude toward voters who disagree with him on the war.

The problem for Lieberman is that all of his experience, all of his knowledge, didn't help him recognize what the Bush war policies were doing and now American military personnel are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

If the most experienced members of Congress didn't exercise oversight responsibilities on Iraq, have they really earned re-election?

If elected, Lamont will have to learn the ways of Washington. But Washington would benefit from having new people who ask questions, who wonder why "business as usual" can't be challenged and changed....

In a year when the voters must impose change on Washington, Ned Lamont is the better choice.

A New York Times editorial on Connecticut's opportunity on Tuesday to be a force for change in our country's direction:
The last thing one Connecticut woman expected while visiting Indiana in September was to find the politics of her home state dominating the conversation. But as she watched a soccer game one day, ordinary Midwesterners approached her to discuss Senator Joseph Lieberman’s chances of winning in the general election.

It was yet another illustration of a rare event: Connecticut’s capture of the political stage. Such moments do not come often for the third-smallest state in the union, especially one with a reputation for being averse to change....

This year, Connecticut has led the country in demanding change. Now it could make history. But that will not happen unless its citizens actually go to the polls on Nov. 7.

The Times has a good take on Lieberman's lifeless Poetmkin campaign vs. Ned's real, grassroots support and energy:
Whether among friends or not, Mr. Lieberman, with his avuncular, grandfatherly demeanor, usually seems right at home, happily chatting with children or their mothers. But he keeps the stops short — typical for a campaign in which his appearances are carefully orchestrated and tightly controlled. His aides routinely cut off questioning when they feel Mr. Lieberman has addressed an issue adequately, and the senator himself, a three-term incumbent, sometimes has the air of a candidate who did not quite expect to be defending his seat again.

Mr. Lamont, by contrast, seems to possess almost limitless energy. He lingers at events, shaking hands until his driver begins tapping him impatiently on the arm, always seeming to enjoy himself.

Oh, Joe is also a very mean-spirited man:
One woman insisted that he was not conservative enough for her, chiding him over his views on abortion. She pleaded with Mr. Lieberman about why he did not support a ban on so-called “partial-birth abortion,” which she called a “disgrace.”

“Come on, how can a man like you agree with that,” she asked, sitting in the waiting area of a hair salon. “You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to write in my husband. I don’t like any of them. Ned Lamont is the biggest jerk in the world.”

Mr. Lieberman responded with a chuckle. “Well we agree on that,” he said. “So if you’ve got a choice between a jerk ...” He trailed off, not quite finishing his sentence.

The AP on Lieberman being courted by the GOP. How many times do people have to report this, and look at where his $19 million is coming from, and listen to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and George Bush, before they realize that this will happen?
Veteran GOP consultant Dave Carney said he expects Republicans to make a push for Lieberman to switch ranks, but he predicted the senator will stay put. That way, said Carney, he could wield more power as a centrist.

''If he stays where he is, he could be the undisputed 800-pound gorilla in the Senate,'' Carney said. ''He will end up as the powerbroker, the go-to guy. Both sides will need him as a bridge. To get anything done, you would need his seal of approval.''

Ron Napoli, a Waterbury, Conn.-Democrat who volunteered on Lieberman's first state Senate race more than three decades ago but is backing Lamont, said the GOP courtship of Lieberman is already in full bloom.

''And he's responded,'' said Napoli, who added that he would not be surprised if Lieberman breaks party ranks to join the GOP.

The Courant on the race returing to Iraq. Joe certainly sounds rattled:
Knowing that Lieberman prefers to discuss issues other than Iraq, Lamont's advisers welcomed Lieberman's remarks Friday as evidence that their ad is scoring, tightening a race that Lieberman has led in every poll since losing the primary.

Gerstein said the press conference was following the game plan of quickly and aggressively responding to anything the Lieberman campaign saw as a distortion of his record.

"They can conjecture all they want and spin all they want," Gerstein said. "There was nothing different."

On Friday, Lieberman insisted the race was far broader than the war, though he portrayed the conflict as never far from his thoughts.

"It's about which of us can do a better job for the people of Connecticut," Lieberman said. "People are worried about Iraq. So am I. I worry about it, think about it, pray about it every day, try to get it to work better every day."

At a campaign stop in Waterbury on Saturday, Lamont said Lieberman's position on the war in recent weeks was "a muddle."

"I don't know where he's going to be the day after the election. You know where I'm going to be," he said. "We're going to be down there, holding the president's feet to the fire, saying now is the time to change course."

Lamont said he was not reassured by Lieberman's insistence that he would remain a Democrat if re-elected.

"When he's getting so much of his support from the Republicans, when the Bush-Cheney [administration] is out there campaigning for him, when all of his money is coming from Republicans and Republican-linked lobbyists, there is going to be an awful lot of pressure on him," Lamont said.

New Haven Tonight

2006-11-05T01:12:00.000-05:00

How Ridiculous Is Joe's Position on Iraq?

2006-11-04T16:29:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-04T13:36:00.000-05:00

Lots of ways to do it this weekend.

Saturday Morning Round-Up

2006-11-04T09:41:00.000-05:00

Ned demands Lieberman repudiate Cheney's attack on Connecticut Democratic voters:
“It’s time for George Bush, Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman to stop insulting Connecticut voters by likening their desire for change to a desire to aid and abet terrorists,” Lamont said. “It is absolutely unacceptable for any U.S. Senator to sit by silently while the Vice President of the United States attacks his state’s voters with such outrageous and inflammatory allegations. The fact is, the vast majority of Connecticut wants a change of course in Iraq because they know Senator Lieberman’s ‘stay the course’ policy is seriously endangering our country.”

Of course, despite all the faux outrage he shows every day, you know Joe will show no outrage - real or fake - about this. It's simple: Joe agrees with Dick.

In between recounting the antics of Lieberman supporters yesterday, Pazniokas smacks down Joe at the press conference he called - and then moved - to "complain" about the not-at-all outrageous claim that he will vote to continue the Iraq war:
Lieberman later held a press conference at a fenced-in construction site, backed by non-singing construction workers, to complain about a Lamont ad that says, "A vote for Joe Lieberman means more war."...

"This is reprehensible and wrong, and I'm not going to stand for it," said Lieberman, standing in a construction site near Dillon Stadium in Hartford, where access was limited.

Lamont has called for Congress to set a 12- to 18-month deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, while Lieberman and the Bush administration oppose any congressional deadline.

"This is the most baseless accusation in a campaign that has been filled with baseless accusations," Lieberman said. "The fact is that none of us wants more war."

The ad does not say that he does.

"I think with less than a week before the election, Sen. Lieberman is trying to confuse people about his position on the war," Lamont said. "I mean, with one breath he says the troops must stay, and then he says, `I want them out as soon as possible.'"

CTBob and Spazeboy were out and about yesterday and filed reports from the trail.

The Register on Lieberman supporters having the gall to disrupt an event with seniors:
Lamont got off to a stalled start in Hartford when a meeting with senior citizens at the Percival Smith Towers Senior Housing was interrupted by about 30 people from the Lieberman campaign, according to state Rep. Evelyn Mantilla, D-Hartford.

She said they crowded into the walkway and were so loud, chanting and jostling, that Lamont left after meeting some five people. "I didn’t mind the noise, but when they crowded the entrance, they startled the seniors," she said.

AP: Lieberman is whining about Dodd.

Connecticut for Cheney

2006-11-04T08:02:00.000-05:00

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.”

A Vote for Joe is a Vote for More Cheney

2006-11-03T19:35:00.000-05:00

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"

2006-11-03T18:53:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-03T15:46:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-03T12:37:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-11-03T12:17:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-03T12:05:00.000-05:00

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.

Enough.

Vote for change.

Meriden Record-Journal Endorses Ned

2006-11-03T10:37:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-03T08:27:00.000-05:00

Final weekend. Volunteer.

The Day finds Joe blaming his campaign manager for any FEC violations:
The senator ducked a question about the Lamont campaign’s complaint to the Federal Election Commission about more than $387,000 in petty cash spent during the primary, and following a report in The New Haven Register that some Lieberman workers said they had been paid twice as much as the campaign reported to the FEC.

“Well, I decided a long time ago in my political career that I couldn’t be both campaign manager and the candidate,” Lieberman said. “So, I’m the candidate.”

They also have a new poll out which mirrors the results of the Q-Poll.

The Times also brings up this flagrant violation of the law... in the last few paragraphs of their story:
And Mr. Lamont filed a second complaint with the Federal Election Commission about how the Lieberman campaign accounted for an unusually high $387,000 in petty cash spending.

His campaign continued to call on Mr. Lieberman to account for his petty cash primary spending after an article in The New Haven Register raised new questions about whether Mr. Lieberman properly reported payments to canvassers last summer.

The campaign has declined to release details of its petty cash spending, which federal rules require to be disbursed in amounts of less than $100.

The Register article said several of Mr. Lieberman’s canvassers collected more than $200 each, a threshold that requires itemization in public reports. Two consultants employed by the senator also told The Register that they got only half the payments Mr. Lieberman listed, in his last campaign finance statement, as going to them.

Great op-ed by Rick Green in the Courant:
As the Iraq fiasco deepens and change swirls across the country, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman campaigns on, convinced that we won't notice.

In Southington, I listened with fascination and incredulity as Lieberman explained Iraq to a chamber of commerce breakfast.

There was no mention of the much-hyped weapons of mass destruction. The reason for war was to take out Saddam Hussein.

"We went in to liberate them from him and to liberate us from him," Lieberman told the crowd.

If that's the case, what are we doing now? Bipartisan Joe should pay attention to what a truly great Republican, U.S. Sen. George Aiken of Vermont, once said about ending the Vietnam War: "Declare victory and go home."

No, Lieberman said, we should stay until the Iraqis "take over their own security so we can leave." This is Nixon's "Vietnamization" all over....

"The political shots taken here at home endanger those on a real battlefield," Lieberman told Hartford senior citizens at a press conference to introduce a "Hee Haw" radio jingle. He's even giving us a lovable dog in his "closing argument" television commercial.

It's a sweet and phony diversion from reality. The election isn't about bipartisanship or slobbering dogs. It's about the biggest question of our day, a costly, botched war. Lieberman would have you believe that questioning his role in this colossal squander is "partisan" - or worse.

Dan Gerstein seems to spend all his days writing whiny, angry letters to newspapers whenever he sees criticism of Joe Lieberman. This time, it's the Courant.

The Courant on the debate:
There was no empty chair, like the one Stephen Colbert left for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman on the set of "The Colbert Report" last summer, when Lieberman steadfastly refused to appear on his satirical news show.

There was no life-size cutout of Lieberman, like the one that Phil Giordano debated on the stage of a nearly empty Garde Arts Center one memorable night in 2000, when Lieberman refused to acknowledge the candidacy of Giordano, a Waterbury mayor and future federal felon....

Only 2 minutes and 25 seconds elapsed before Lamont needled their absent opponent, Lieberman, who is running as a petitioning candidate after losing the Democratic primary.

"Alan, I'm happy to see that you're here," Lamont said. "In the interest of bipartisanship, we've got the Republican and Democratic nominee, reaching across the aisle. I wish that Sen. Lieberman was here as well to answer the questions of the people of Connecticut."...

The show segued to a tongue-in-cheek commercial reminding voters that they will have to look hard to find Lieberman on the ballot. It seemed to be a comment on his absence at the debate.

"Go, find him! Find Lieberman! Find Lieberman, boy," a voter says in the ad, leading a bloodhound. "Find him, boy. Go find Joe."

The Register declares Alan Schlesinger the winner of the debates.

The NYT also runs a profile on how the 2004 presidential run made Joe the bitter man he is today. But according to Carter Eskew, who manages to paint his decision to even run in the Democratic primary this year as a virtue, the whole thing is biblical:
Senator Lieberman’s rejection by his party in 2004 foreshadowed his stunning loss in August to Ned Lamont, a little-known businessman with an antiwar message. And, some friends and advisers say, that earlier rejection played a role in Mr. Lieberman’s decision to run for re-election on his own party line; it freed him to do and say exactly what he felt.

“I think that was kind of a defining moment,” said Edward L. Marcus, a former chairman of the Connecticut Democratic Party who remains a Lieberman friend and supporter. “The whole experience made it clear to him that he was not being rejected by the voters, he was being rejected by a wing of the party that he just could not hope to appease.”...

“I think it was his sense that it was Job-like, that he had to go through it,” Mr. Eskew recalled. “It was probably a combination of things — one, the practical suggestion that he needed to say to people: ‘I didn’t leave you, you left me. I didn’t give up on you.’ To his credit, he did run in the primary. And, to his credit, he didn’t trim his sails.”

Again: Republicans Say Lieberman Will Caucus With Them

2006-11-03T08:15:00.000-05:00

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.

Entitlement

2006-11-02T22:41:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-02T20:33:00.000-05:00

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.

Conclusion

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

Debate

2006-11-02T20:32:00.000-05:00

Liveblogged it over at the official blog.

Polls and the Polling Pollsters

2006-11-02T15:57:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-02T11:28:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-02T08:34:00.000-05:00

Last day to do family, friends, and neighbors. Deadline is 11pm ET tonight.

First day of the Stand Up for Change bus tour. Begins with a rally at UConn, stops for a Town Hall in Manchester, and ends at the rally/watch party for the debate in Quinnipiac with Alan Schlesinger tonight... with perhaps a surprise stop thrown in somewhere, too.

The Times' lead story today on Iraq and the elections:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 — A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they win control of Congress next Tuesday and say Republicans will maintain or increase troop levels to try to win the war if they hold on to power on Capitol Hill, according to the final New York Times/CBS News poll before the midterm election.

The poll showed that 29 percent of Americans approve of the way President Bush is managing the war, matching the lowest mark of his presidency. Nearly 70 percent said Mr. Bush did not have a plan to end the war, and 80 percent said Mr. Bush’s latest effort to rally public support for the conflict amounted to a change in language but not policy.

The poll underlined the extent to which the war has framed the midterm elections. Americans cited Iraq as the most important issue affecting their vote, and majorities of Republicans and Democrats said they wanted a change in approach. Twenty percent said they thought the United States was winning in Iraq, down from a high this year of 36 percent in January.

Democrats will be severely hindered in their efforts to demand a change in course in Iraq if Joe Lieberman returns to the senate. A vote for Joe is a vote for stay the course, and a crucial one at that, given the likely narrow margin in the Senate.

The Times on Shays cozying up to Lieberman in an attempt to retain a Republican house seat:
Mr. Shays, who says he will vote for Mr. Lieberman on Election Day, argues that both he and the senator are the focus of attacks by the most partisan elements of the Democratic Party, a message clearly aimed at moderate voters in the general election.

“This is a huge election about whether or not people like Joe Lieberman and I are there reaching across the political divide,” said Mr. Shays, who has attacked Mrs. Farrell for supporting tax increases and what he calls excessive spending as the first selectwoman of Westport.

The Courant on the tightening race:
"I've seen polls that show us in a statistical dead heat, eight points down, 12 points down. I don't care," Lamont said. "I think the people of Connecticut want a change."

A one-day Rasmussen Poll conducted Oct. 28 and made public Tuesday has Lieberman leading, 48 percent to 40 percent. The survey of 500 likely voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

The Quinnipiac poll of 926 likely voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. It was conducted from Oct. 24 to 30.

A less traditional poll by Zogby Interactive has Lieberman leading Lamont, 47percent to 43 percent, within the margin of error of 4.3 percentage points.

And on "principled Joe." Ned has never said an unkind word about Joe personally, yet Joe has called him a "son of a bitch" (or words to that effect) to his face. He's also been whining a lot:
Lieberman generally found a warm welcome in conservative Naugatuck, but he was not conservative enough for Judith Busch. Sitting in a nearly empty beauty parlor, she told Lieberman that he did not share her strong opposition to abortion.

"You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to vote for my husband," Busch said, adding that she can't vote for any of the other candidates. "Ned Lamont is the biggest jerk in the world."

"Well, we agree on that," Lieberman replied.

The Register on the FEC looking into Joe's $387,000 Petty Cash slush fund:
Political committees may make expenditures of not more than $100 to any person or for a transaction out of the petty cash fund and are required to keep a written journal documenting the payments.

The campaign has said it is under no legal obligation to release the journal and has no plans to do so. Lieberman also said their attorney has assured him that they have done nothing illegal.

"To me, this is just a political trick," Lieberman said of the complaint filed by the Lamont campaign.

But interviews with some of the people who were brought in to help get out the vote for the campaign in the two weeks before the hotly contested Aug. 8 primary described situations that appear to be at odds with some campaign finance requirements.

At least one man who was hired as a consultant, Tomas Reyes of Oxford, said he has yet to be asked by the campaign to turn over material for the journal, which would justify expenditures of $8,250....

Several young men, who were paid $60 a day out of petty cash to canvass in Bridgeport, said they were paid in cash for aggregate earnings over $200.

Rob Dhanda, 18, or 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. Ruilova estimated there were about 30 teenagers working out of the Bridgeport office, each earning $60 a day in cash, over a few weeks.

Michelle Ryan, a spokeswoman for the FEC, would not comment on specifics of the Lamont complaint, but said "in terms of itemization, it is required once the aggregate total to a recipient is in excess of $200."

Lieberman answered an inquiry about releasing the journal, by pointing to his history of compliance with campaign rules.

"I have an unblemished record of compliance with election laws. I always tell my staff at the beginning, whatever you do, just totally follow the law. I’ve never received anything approaching even a fine," the senator said in a recent interview.

The size of the petty cash involved raised eyebrows with the nonpartisan Public Campaign Action Fund, which asked the campaign to go beyond the legal requirements and disclose the particulars of the expenditures.

"No other senatorial campaign that we know of has ever left undisclosed to the public a sum as large as this," said the fund’s board Chairman Pete MacDowell, in a letter to the senator this week.

This whole thing stinks. And the fact that the media is turning a blind eye to $400,000 in cash going who knows where - when other politicians have been jailed for less - stinks even more.

Keep Your Eyes Open

2006-11-01T23:58:00.000-05:00

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"

2006-11-01T21:30:00.000-05:00

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.

New DCCC Ad

2006-11-01T15:32:00.000-05:00

Hope this runs a lot in Connecticut.

Journal-Inquirer on Joe's Times Freak-Out

2006-11-01T14:35:00.000-05:00

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.

More...

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

2006-11-01T12:50:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-01T12:34:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-01T08:50:00.001-05:00

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

New Rasmussen Poll out this morning: Lieberman 48 (50 in last poll), Lamont 40 (40), Schlesinger 9 (6). And some cogent analysis, too:
Lieberman's dip in the new poll could be a mere statistical wobble, or it could signal a significant tightening of the race.

But all bets are off if the marginalized GOP candidate manages to climb much further. Schlesinger has been sidelined up to now because of a gambling controversy and the willingness of Republican voters to flow en masse to the Lieberman camp. But after managing only 6% early in the month, he now attracts 9% of the vote.

...To the extent Schlesinger gains in the campaign's waning days, the likely loser is Lieberman, not Lamont.... Thirty-seven percent (37%) now view Schlesinger favorably, up from 19% on October 3.

New Q-Poll out this morning: Lieberman 49 (52 in the last poll,) Lamont 37 (35), Schlesinger 8 (6). Ned narrowed the gap by five points. Schlesinger continues to grow his support, but Joe still continues to get an eye-popping 73% of Republican support. The 17-point poll was clearly an outlier. And many factors are conspiring to make this election a very volatile one. As an aside, I don't know why anyone should particularly trust one poll over others when it is conducted by someone who makes editorial comments gleefully assuming an electoral and political outcome such as the following:
"For Ned Lamont to catch Sen. Joseph Lieberman, he needs Alan Schlesinger to break out of single digits and take away Republican votes from Lieberman. That hasn't happened. Lieberman, the once and future Democrat, is winning 73 percent of the Republican vote," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.

Speaking of that "once and future Democrat," the AP covers one of the most underreported stories of this race - the way the Lieberman Party is actively helping to re-elect three Republican House incumbents (at our nation's peril):
The three-term Connecticut senator is aggressively pursuing Republican and independent voters in his race against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and little-known Republican Alan Schlesinger. That targeted appeal _ and the potential for a strong GOP turnout _ could save three GOP House incumbents struggling to return to Washington.

"There's resentment on a lot of people's parts," said Richard Smith, Democratic town committee chairman in Milford, a New Haven suburb. "There's something about the American character. We love a good fight, but we also love people who play by the rules. C'mon Joe, you're a Democrat or you're not a Democrat. Sometimes, self-interest takes the day."...

Lieberman's coattails could carry the GOP incumbents to re-election and undercut Democratic hopes of majority control of the House.

"It does help me," Shays said in a recent interview. "I know there will be a lot of Republicans who will vote for him, as well as a lot of independents and Democrats...."

Who else but Doug Schwartz disagrees with Chris Shays, claiming in perplexing fashion that he doesn't "see Lieberman firing up the Republican base," despite his own poll showing Lieberman attracting almost unified Republican support. And Joe? He says he hasn't thought about it. Right:
"Loath to be seen as a spoiler, Lieberman dismissed the idea that his success could hurt the Democratic effort to retake the House.

"I haven't thought about it," Lieberman said. Contending that most voters tend to cross party lines, he added: "People are going to be smart enough to pick their way."

The Courant on how the race is all coming back to Iraq, and how that's bad news for Joe. Joe wonders aloud whether the LA Times story about generals believing a timetable is necessary might have been a political ploy against him and the rapidly shrinking number of other Republicans who are staying the course with Bush:
Lieberman declined to comment on a Los Angeles Times story, carried in The Courant and other papers, reporting that some military officers believe Iraqis will not undertake key political and security reforms unless faced with a timetable for troop withdrawals.

"I'm surprised to hear that," Lieberman said. "I'd like to know more before I comment."...

In response to a question, Lieberman told reporters he hoped the timing of the report was not political.

"Obviously, politics affects the conduct of a war, because, as we've seen before in our history, maybe an enemy can't defeat you on the battlefield, but if you lose the support of the American people, it can have the same effect," he said. "But you've got to be real careful about playing politics with war, because people's lives are on the line."

The Times on how the race is also returning to the Bush-Lieberman kiss of death:
When, for example, he was asked recently whether the country would be better off with Democrats in control of the House, he said he was not sure. The next day his aides tried to clarify his statement, saying he would like to see the Democrats regain control of Congress, provided they promoted a more bipartisan atmosphere....

It has been a considerable shift from the primary, when Mr. Lieberman spent most of his time talking about his record of voting with Democrats 90 percent of the time and criticizing Mr. Lamont for siding with Republicans as a member of the Greenwich Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Lieberman has now taken to speaking of the potential of a Democratic wave on Nov. 7, noting that he could become chairman of the Homeland Security Committee if the Democrats took control of the Senate. But he ducked a question on Tuesday about whether the midterm elections were a referendum on the Bush administration.

Two long profiles of the race this morning from New York reporters who have been out-of-state since (it seems) the primary, and whose writing seems to very much reflect it - one in the Observer, and one in the Times.

The Norwich Bulletin was at the Conn College town hall last night:
Ned Lamont said Tuesday he hopes U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman will change his mind and participate in Thursday's televised debate with him and Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger.

"I think people are tired of the 30-second commercials and the mailings, and I think people want to see the candidates debate the issues, so I am hoping that he decides to be there," said Lamont, the Democratic nominee in the five-way contest for U.S. Senate.

C.R.E.A.M.

2006-11-01T08:50:00.000-05:00

Bob Englehart in today's Courant:

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

Events Tonight

2006-11-01T00:31:00.000-05:00

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.

DSCC MIA

2006-10-31T21:15:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-31T16:47:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-31T16:42:00.000-05:00

New ad:

Bush and Joe All Alone on Iraq

2006-10-31T12:06:00.000-05:00

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
By JULIAN E. BARNES, And DOYLE MCMANUS Los Angeles Times

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

2006-10-31T10:21:00.000-05:00

"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

2006-10-31T08:11:00.000-05:00

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

For once, a traditional media outlet breaks a story in this race. According to this morning's Courant, Lieberman has apparently been paying someone barred from touching absentee balllots... to distribute absentee ballots. Guess the petty cash fund ran out. (This jibes, BTW, with another pro-Lieberman mailer I've seen that actually encourages absentee ballot fraud):

A Hartford Democrat who was fined and barred from involvement in absentee ballot activities last year is working for a company hired by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's campaign to do voter outreach in the city - including the distribution of absentee ballot applications.

Prenzina Holloway was fined $10,000 in July 2005 and ordered not to distribute absentee ballot applications or to assist voters with the ballots for two years, after the State Elections Enforcement Commission found that she had forged a voter's signature in the 2004 election.

Holloway acknowledges working for Urban Voters and Associates, a company paid $17,550 by the Lieberman campaign since September to do "field work." But she said she isn't involved in the company's absentee ballot operations.

"That is just a no-no," she said. "And I know it is a no-no."

But five people at a Vine Street housing complex for the elderly have told The Courant that Holloway and another person came to their doors to give them absentee ballot applications, and a security worker at another complex on Woodland Street said Holloway tried to get into the building to distribute applications there. Holloway was barred from the building after getting into a verbal altercation with the worker after he made supportive comments about Lieberman's main challenger, Ned Lamont. ...

[Lieberman Campaign manager Sherry] Brown said Urban Voters was hired to help with voter contacts in Hartford, including the distribution of absentee ballot applications.

She said she was under the impression that the company was run by Holloway's daughter, city Councilwoman rJo Winch.

Brown knew Holloway had an elections enforcement issue, but she believed it had been settled. She said the Lieberman campaign did not, however, do any background checks on any company hired to do campaign work..

The way their entire campaign has been run - from throwing $387,000 in cash to the race-baiting flyers to the "website hack" claim to this - just smells.

The Times on the shift in the race to the war. As in races across the country in the final week, it's all coming back to Iraq:
Mr. Lamont expected to receive a boost to his central campaign theme — that Mr. Lieberman has been too staunch a supporter of the White House’s prosecution of the war — when President Bush singled the senator out for praise in a two-part interview being broadcast this week on the Fox News program “Hannity & Colmes.”

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

This week, Mr. Lamont’s aides said, the campaign plans to release an updated version of a commercial it broadcast earlier this year, featuring a boy reading the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq. The new version will include a voiceover by Mr. Lamont arguing that the war’s human toll will continue to rise if Mr. Lieberman is re-elected.

Angry Dan Gerstein says we shouldn't "re-litigate" the decision to go to war. It's the "mistakes were made, things were said" defense. Lieberman - precisely like Bush - seems to be physically incapable of taking any responsibility for his decisions:
“The Lamont campaign’s effort to re-litigate the decision to go to war is not where most people are now,” Mr. Gerstein, the spokesman for Mr. Lieberman, said. “They want to talk about what you are going to do now. There is a lot of concern about the war not going well, and sectarian violence, and casualties. But at the same time, a lot of people in Connecticut reject Lamont’s solution.”

A good letter to the editor on the Times endorsement - it's all about changing course. (Gerstein's bizarre rant didn't make the cut - next time, keep it shorter and maybe they'll read it):
What are the voters of Connecticut saying if they now re-elect Mr. Lieberman? How can we change course and restore our standing as a great force for justice in the world, escape the Iraq quagmire, begin to direct resources toward crucial issues like the deficit, the environment, Social Security, medical costs and energy independence by voting for Mr. Lieberman?

The Courant on the trail yesterday:
Lamont, a multimillionaire who has invested nearly $15 million in his own campaign, seemed amused by the endorsement when he spoke to reporters outside a union hall in East Hartford.

"I think Mayor Bloomberg's been a pretty good mayor, but I gotta say Joe doesn't seem to think much of Connecticut millionaires," Lamont said. "And he's got a soft spot for New York City billionaires. That's the difference."...

In East Hartford, Lamont spent an hour with unionized Machinists, a group he needs to help turn out the Democratic base. He is scheduled to greet Machinists today as they leave the Pratt & Whitney plant in Middletown.

Connecticut still has 193,000 manufacturing jobs, but work at Pratt has left the state and, in some cases, the country, giving the impression of an inevitable and continuing industrial decline.

"It's not inevitable. It's because our country is making a lot of bad decisions," Lamont said. "And on Nov. 7, we need to start making some good decisions."

He was frequently interrupted by applause from the crowd of more than 100. Lamont said the U.S. remains a dominant market and should be able to better protect its workers.

Also from the Courant, Joe's been raising $100,000+ a day from corporate and right-wing interests. He's also backtracking and returning the Scaife money (which must mean he wholeheartedly approves of the Bill Kristol money and the Mel Sembler money):
Thirty-six PACs have given Lieberman money so far this month, including Boeing, Qwest, the Indoor Tanning Association, Ernst & Young, Deloitte & Touche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Bowling Proprietors Association, Air Tran Airways, Citigroup and Mutual of Omaha.

And he continues to attract Republican and conservative money, getting contributions from Joseph diGenova, a well-connected Washington attorney, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, former Louisiana Rep. Billy Tauzin, now president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Richard Scaife, publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Lieberman's campaign returned the Scaife contribution. Scaife, an heir to the Mellon fortune, was regarded suspiciously by Democrats in the 1990s when he was said to have helped fund the Arkansas Project, which among other things tried to learn details of President Clinton's extramarital affairs.

The Register on Schlesinger's first TV ads:
The TV ads were simple and generally positive, although he did manage to get in a couple of shots at the "drive-by media" he accused of trying to "hijack the election," as well as a swipe at "limousine liberals."

"We're just trying to get people's attention," Schlesinger said enthusiastically. He said he's counting on people noticing the difference between his positive ads and the tough commercials of Democrat Ned Lamont and Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman.

There's been a recent dearth of polling, which is very weird considering there's a week to go in the race and the ridiculous and stale Q-Poll keeps on getting referenced by everyone as the most recent. A new Zogby Interactive poll puts the race at Lieberman 47, Lamont 42.5, with Schlesinger still at 6. A not-yet-public Rasmussen Poll reportedly has it at Lieberman 48, Lamont 40, with the gap closing. This is going to come down to the wire.

George Bush's Favorite Senator

2006-10-30T20:06:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-30T17:47:00.000-05:00

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:

dishonest,

"ill-informed,"

"tendentious,"

biased,

"narrow-minded,"

willfully ignorant,

lacking "rigor,"

"disinterested" in the truth,

and intellectually captive to... wait for it... bloggers...

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.

Numbers

2006-10-30T12:14:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-30T12:03:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-30T11:25:00.000-05:00

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"

2006-10-30T06:35:00.000-05:00

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.

On Seniority and Supporting the Party

2006-10-29T21:53:00.000-05:00

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....

Tagaris:

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

2006-10-29T21:28:00.000-05:00

A couple of good independent flyers:

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

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:

Download it here: (pdf).

Joe Attacks NYT For Endorsing Lamont

2006-10-29T14:30:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-29T09:32:00.000-05:00

Read the NY Times endorsement in today's paper if you haven't already. Then invite your personal contacts to read it, too.

Wow. Gerstein says Lieberman would vote again for the Iraq war in the Courant:
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. Instead, Lieberman keeps the focus on more comfortable terrain: Is it feasible to withdraw while the insurgency rages in Iraq?

And Lieberman, who repeatedly called for staying the course in 2004 and 2005, said recently, "I am not for stay the course."

"He is trying to rewrite the past. He was in favor of `staying the course,' repeatedly," said George Jepsen, co-chairman of the Lamont campaign. "He wants to blur the issue in voters' minds."

Op-ed in the Courant by Susan Bysiewicz's former treasurer asks "Why is Joe Spending So Much Under the Table?"
I served as treasurer for Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz's election committees from 2004 to this past January. These committees raised about $2.6 million, every dollar of which I had the legal responsibility of reporting.

Poring over contributions, disclosure forms and receipts required attention to all details, compliance-minded finance staff and an accountant with expertise in campaign finance. We had a rule that each and every check and receipt had to be reviewed by three sets of eyes before any action was taken....

How was this compliance system possible in the dog-eat-dog world of politics where the pressure to fund-raise is so intense?

Simple - our campaign had a leader who insisted on best practices for compliance with campaign finance laws.

I recently reviewed Sen. Joe Lieberman's filings with the Federal Elections Committee, in which he reported $387,000 in petty cash that was distributed over the 12 days leading up to the primary.

The problem with a petty cash fund in political campaigns is that it may lead to an appearance of impropriety because these are cash payments to people and for purposes that are not disclosed to the public.

For that reason alone, as treasurer, I never allowed a petty cash fund. ...

Joe Lieberman needs to explain immediately and in detail to whom and for what purposes his campaign spent on average $32,000 a day in unaccounted-for cash in just 12 days.

As Connecticut's former attorney general, Joe Lieberman knows that campaign finance information for public campaigns is neither privileged nor confidential. To the contrary, it belongs to the public. The citizens of Connecticut, as they prepare themselves for an informed vote on Nov. 7, are entitled to an answer.

An editorial in The Day notes how Lieberman continues to torpedo the three Democratic congressional candidates. It doesn't mention how his allying with Bloomberg's operation - which is also supporting Chris Shays - also figures into this.
Lieberman's presence in the campaign isn't helping the three Democratic challengers in the hotly contested House races either. His role in “consolidating those Republican voters is actually helping all three Connecticut Republicans,” Nathan Gonzales, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, a highly regarded political newsletter, told the Bloomberg news service. Gonzales said “the trio is in better shape than what a lot of people thought earlier” and he predicted only the Rob Simmons seat is up for grabs with the others held by Nancy Johnson and Christopher Shays leaning Republican.

The Stamford Advocate on Bill Clinton's silence since the primary:
Though he lives less than 14 miles from Lamont in Chappaqua, N.Y., the former president has stayed out of Connecticut. He has chosen to spend time this month on the campaign trail instead with Democrats in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Illinois, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Maine, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Clinton's schedule has led some to speculate that he is reluctant to work against his longtime friend Lieberman, for whom he campaigned in Waterbury two weeks before the primary. Political analysts say that Clinton also recognizes Lieberman's importance to the balance of power in the divided Senate. Lieberman is running as a petitioning candidate, but has pledged to caucus with Democrats if re-elected.

The Courant was at the NAACP dinner last night in New Britain.

CTBob notes evidence of Lieberman lying to a Democratic delegate pre-convention in order to get his vote:
I asked Jim about the phone call.

"One of his staffers called me shortly before the convention and asked if Senator Lieberman could speak to me. I was sort of honored that the Senator wanted to talk to me, so I said 'Sure thing.'"...

"I said that I'd read in the paper that he would run as an independent if he lost the primary, and Joe said, 'No Jim, I will not run as an independent. That was something a Lamont supporter goaded me into saying.'"

Spazeboy was at the SEIU 32BJ rally in New Britain yesterday. The New Britain Herald also has more:
SEIU International President Andy Stern expressed his love for the union as he spoke.

"All of us alone are just ordinary people," he said. "We ordinary people get to do an extraordinary thing."

Candidate for U.S. Senate Ned Lamont stopped in as well to drum up enthusiasm among the union members.

"On Nov. 7, we're going to rock the vote," he said. "The eyes of the country are on little old Connecticut."

New York Times Endorses Ned

2006-10-28T22:24:00.000-04:00

(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.

Two New Ads

2006-10-28T20:16:00.000-04:00

"General Clark":

"Card Game":

Bar Graph of the Day

2006-10-28T12:27:00.000-04:00

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.

Courant vs. Courant

2006-10-28T11:35:00.000-04:00

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."

Saturday Morning Round-Up

2006-10-28T10:20:00.000-04:00

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.

Quote of the Day

2006-10-27T23:42:00.000-04:00

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.

This Weekend

2006-10-27T16:53:00.000-04:00

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

$380,000 in Cold, Hard Cash

2006-10-27T11:50:00.000-04:00

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.

Friday Morning Round-Up

2006-10-27T08:27:00.000-04:00

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.”

$380,000 In Cash

2006-10-26T19:58:00.000-04:00

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.

4th Debate Is On

2006-10-26T19:50:00.000-04:00

Joe or no Joe.

Quote Off!

2006-10-26T19:47:00.000-04:00

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)

Obama Supports Ned Lamont

2006-10-26T15:42:00.000-04:00

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.

Thursday Morning Round-Up

2006-10-26T09:00:00.000-04:00

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.

$380,000 In Cash

2006-10-25T16:17:00.000-04:00

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.

Bob Kerrey Hates Democracy

2006-10-25T14:03:00.000-04:00

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."

Everyone Wants to Bring the Troops Home

2006-10-25T12:51:00.000-04:00

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.”

DNC Ad

2006-10-25T11:54:00.000-04:00

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.

Journal-Inquirer: $236k for Joe From GOP-Backed Group

2006-10-25T11:31:00.000-04:00

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.

Listen To Bob

2006-10-25T08:41:00.000-04:00

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.

Wednesday Morning Round-Up

2006-10-25T08:08:00.000-04:00

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.

Cheney Hearts Joe

2006-10-24T23:40:00.000-04:00

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.

Open Thread

2006-10-24T23:33:00.000-04:00

Update: Caption contest?

The "Stay the Course" Course

2006-10-24T20:48:00.000-04:00

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.”

Mark Davis Reports On Viewer Reaction To Mark Davis

2006-10-24T19:40:00.000-04:00

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.

"Boy, Is He Running A Dirty Campaign"

2006-10-24T16:24:00.000-04:00

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.

Update: Lieberman Still Refusing to Release Slush Fund Records

2006-10-24T15:32:00.000-04:00

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.

Pics From Last Night

2006-10-24T14:43:00.000-04:00

Ned marches into the debate with family and supporters:

Ned addresses supporters at the post-debate rally:

More at the campaign Flickr page.

Lieberman Shifty on Slush Fund

2006-10-24T09:05:00.000-04:00

(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)

Debate Round-Up

2006-10-24T08:20:00.000-04:00

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.

Post-Debate

2006-10-23T22:57:00.000-04:00

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.

On "Partisanship"

2006-10-23T15:06:00.000-04:00

Tom Tomorrow:

More.

Blumenthal: Joe Wrong on Broadwater

2006-10-23T14:28:00.000-04:00

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.

FEC Complaint Officially Filed

2006-10-23T12:27:00.000-04:00

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.

Debate Day III

2006-10-23T08:56:00.000-04:00

The Debate HQ is set up on the official blog.

What The $387,000 Slush Fund DIDN'T Pay For

2006-10-22T13:41:00.000-04:00

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

Iraq Round-Up

2006-10-22T12:22:00.000-04:00

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.

Sunday Morning Round-Up

2006-10-22T09:26:00.000-04:00

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.

The Courant Says What Lieberman Couldn't

2006-10-21T18:24:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe's Dirty Tricks Fund

2006-10-21T16:25:00.000-04:00

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

July 25: ($5,000)

July 26: ($34,000)

July 26: ($23,000)

July 27: ($32,500)

July 31: ($1,056)

August 2: ($67,500)

August 2: ($6,000)

August 4: ($135,000)

August 7: ($5,005)

August 7: ($75,000)

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

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

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

LamontBlog: Ned Lamont (D) for CT

"Blog Wars"

Last Call

More Post-Game

Iraq

Not One of Us

Sec. of Defense Joe Lieberman?

Building

It's All Over But The Counting

Nine Hours Until Polls Close

Calm Before the Storm

In The Field

24 Hours

Joe and Nancy Today

No One Wants the War in Iraq to End More Than Dick Cheney Does

Sunday Morning Round-Up

New Haven Tonight

How Ridiculous Is Joe's Position on Iraq?

Get Out The Vote

Saturday Morning Round-Up

Connecticut for Cheney

A Vote for Joe is a Vote for More Cheney

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

Joe Lieberman, Peace Candidate

Joe on Imus: Threatens Dodd, Dumps on Dems

Joe Is Push Polling?

3 Days

Meriden Record-Journal Endorses Ned

Friday Morning Round-Up

Again: Republicans Say Lieberman Will Caucus With Them

Entitlement

Lamont Campaign Files Supplemental FEC Complaint

Debate

Polls and the Polling Pollsters

Lieberman Breaks Campaign Finance Law

Thursday Morning Round-Up

Keep Your Eyes Open

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

New DCCC Ad

Journal-Inquirer on Joe's Times Freak-Out

Meanwhile, Back Over Where People Are Dying

Cheney Stumps For Joe Again

Wednesday Morning Round-Up

C.R.E.A.M.

Events Tonight

DSCC MIA

Kissing and Telling

The Definition of Insanity

Bush and Joe All Alone on Iraq

George Bush's Favorite Senator

Tuesday Morning Round-Up

George Bush's Favorite Senator

Furious Joe's Campaign Writes a Letter

Numbers

Four Days Left

Bloomberg and Joe in Stamford

"The New Naderites"

On Seniority and Supporting the Party

Flies and the Flying Flyers

Joe Attacks NYT For Endorsing Lamont

Sunday Morning Round-Up

New York Times Endorses Ned

Two New Ads

Bar Graph of the Day

Courant vs. Courant

Saturday Morning Round-Up

Quote of the Day

This Weekend

$380,000 in Cold, Hard Cash

Friday Morning Round-Up

$380,000 In Cash

4th Debate Is On

Quote Off!

Obama Supports Ned Lamont

Thursday Morning Round-Up

$380,000 In Cash

Bob Kerrey Hates Democracy

Everyone Wants to Bring the Troops Home

DNC Ad

Journal-Inquirer: $236k for Joe From GOP-Backed Group