LieberDem

Movin' Out

2006-08-09T17:59:00.000-07:00

A few things. First off, an amusing headline from CNN.com:

MTV cartoon draws fire as rasict

At least, that was the headline as it read around 8:50. Apparentlee, teh CNN.com frntpage neads better copi ediiting.

Which leads me to topic 2: I was interviewed by CNN today, and a brief clip of the interview appeared on Paula Zahn Now tonight. The interview lasted 10-15 minutes, but they only showed about an 8-second clip of it. The exact words shown on screen were:

I think that when it comes down to it, the atmosphere that has been created in the blogosphere is one that is just as poisonous as the atmosphere of DC consultants, where they are spinning everything in favor of their candidate.

The obligatory megacut left out much of the context of that statement. Twice, the interviewer asked me a leading question to the effect of "So, you think that the bloggers have done a disservice to the Democratic Party?" I never took the bait, so they just played one of my more direct criticisms of the blogosphere. I think the blogosphere has the potential to revolutionize politics for the better, and we have already seen the seeds of that this year. But we've also seen some pretty rotten seeds get planted alongside them.

I think the intentions of the blogosphere are good, but the tactics of some of its members are questionable. The blogosphere's elite claims to be part of a people-powered movement seeking to introduce a new kind of politics into the American political system. But their tactics of "highlight if it helps, ignore if it doesn't, and spin everything" is eerily similar to that of DC consultants.

A root cause of this is the fact that the blogosphere to date has been pretty strictly divided based on ideology. There are the liberal blogs and the conservative blogs. There is some variation of opinion within each, but neither of the two spheres interact with each other, except to snipe and insult the other across the internet.

It's kind of like a group of 6-year old boys building a fort where only boys are allowed, then crawling inside their fort just to talk about how stupid the girls are, and to occassionally throw a water balloon at a passing girl (or at a boy who dares to hang out with girls). Since they only really talk with other "real" boys while they're in the fort, they become convinced that most boys agree with them, and deride any boy who doesn't as a sissy.

Seriously, that's about the maturity level of the blogosphere at the moment. Many of them show signs of maturity, but the group as a whole needs to grow up a lot more before it can reach it's full potential.

That's the goal of the blog that will be launched soon by Sundog and myself - to provide a blog where people of differing opinions discuss real issues in a thoughtful fashion, and talk with other instead of at each other.

The name of the final site is still TBD (we have several URLs reserved, but need to pick which one to use). Until then, here's the temporary URL while the new site is being chosen and designed:

http://demprogress.blogspot.com/

Sundog and I will be posting our thoughts there over the next week or two while the new site is being completed. If you are interested in being a contributor to the new blog, send me an email with a brief (500 words or less) writing sample and a summary of your political views. And yes, the name of the temp blog is a nod to the recently-formed "GOP Progress" website designed to get Republicans who don't want to toe the line demanded by the more hardline elements of the conservative blogosphere.

The first posts on the new blog will be up shortly. Hope to see you all there.

Too close to call

2006-08-08T18:37:00.000-07:00

Lamont leads 53-47 with 45% of the vote counted. I'll make a call on the primary once it becomes clear whether Lamont's lead is widening or narrowing after 50% of votes are counted.

If you held an anvil over my head and told me to guess now, I'd say Lamont by 8.

UPDATE (9:41 PM): It's now 52-48 with 55% counted. I'll wait for one more round of votes to get reported before posting my "final" projection.

UPDATE (9:49 PM): It's now 51.6-48.4 with 64% counted. I'm going to hold my tongue on further predictions. But FYI - the Courant website seems to be furthest ahead of the curve on posting results.

UPDATE (9:56 PM): Holding at 51.6-48.4 Lamont with 72% now counted. I'm going to predict a 52-48 victory for Lamont, although that might narrow after the counting of absentee ballots.

UPDATE (11:06 PM): With more than 95% in, Lamont is leading by a margin of 10k votes (51.9-48.1%). Lieberman conceded defeat in the primary, but vowed to continue as an independent candidate through November.

Remember that result I said I couldn't stomach? This was it. Lieberman lost, but by a close enough margin that he thinks he could and should have won. I certainly think Lieberman should drop out now, but I can't imagine that he will after such a close result.

We'll know what the lay of the land is for November once we see the first post-primary poll. I think Lamont will get a 10 point bounce from the last Q-poll, making the first post-primary poll look something like: Lieberman 43%, Lamont 36%, Schlesinger 11%, and 10% undecided.

And that's my last commentary on the CT-Sen race. Check back here tomorrow for an announcement on the launching of the new Sundog/Cacambo blog (Cacambo will be my new alias; site name TBA).

Signing off

2006-08-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

When I started this blog almost exactly one month ago, my primary purpose was simple: Refute and rebut some of the distortions and myths that were being spread about Lieberman's record in the progressive blogosphere. Anyone reading my posts can hopefully see that that has been the thrust of my posts. I have almost never addressed Ned Lamont's candidacy, much less laid out a case as to why Lieberman would be better than Lamont.

The underlying motivations for my chosen blogging path may help explain the reasons why. First, my primary reason for starting this blog was practical, not ideological. The readers of this blog may be surprised to know that the only candidate I have ever worked or even volunteered for was Howard Dean back in 2003. I chose to start this blog not because I strongly agree with Lieberman on the issues, but rather because I believe that this race is a distraction from Democratic efforts to retake seats from real GOP control, and that the sooner it ends, the better off the Democratic party and the progressive movement will be. Given Lieberman's intention to run as an independent candidate (which I strongly disagree with), a Lieberman victory in the Democratic primary was the only way to ensure that the distraction did not continue until November (until now - I'll get to that).

Second, I love a good debate and generally like to ensure that both sides of the story are told. Call it the urge to the influence of being in speech and debate club, or simply the mindset of a future attorney, but I rarely miss an opportunity to mix it up in a political debate. Generally, the most visible result of this mindset was me annoying my family members at Thanksgiving dinner. With the blog, I just played Devil's Advocate on a slightly bigger stage.

Finally, I hated the way in which the debate was being framed. I can't stand to see only part of the story get told, and loathed the way in which Lieberman's record was being distorted. I actually agree with most of the primary grievances being leveled against Lieberman. He does seem to have a Panglossian view of the situation in Iraq. It does seem as if he took the support of his constituents for granted. His desire to seek common ground and find bipartisanship seems woefully naive in the current D.C. environment (although I will add that I wish that were not the case). But the methods employed by some of Lamont's supporters in making their case against Lieberman were often marked by brazen intellectual dishonesty - taking quotes out of context, focusing on one vote while ignoring 200 others, and pounding on exceptions as if they were the rule.

Any objective assessment of Lieberman's voting record and political positions shows him to be a moderate progressive. But just being progressive is not, by itself, sufficient to justify re-election.

I was always planning to end this blog once primary day arrived (and have so told a few bloggers and the journalists who have asked me), regardless of who won the primary. A Lieberman victory would effectively ensure his re-election, and focusing on the race after a Lamont victory would only serve to take more attention away from races where Democrats could actually add to their potential majority. Either way, I would have no further reason for continuing the blog after the primary. Beyond that, I'm starting law school in a few weeks, and would have little time for blogging after that anyway.

I was originally going to say all that on primary night, but events of the past few days at first disillusioned me, and then made me decide to speed up the clock on my announcement. Anyone who has read the blog over the past two days could no doubt detect my growing despondency. The last straw hit today, and I decided to get this over with now.

It has become painfully clear to me that little good (and plenty bad) will come out of this race for Democrats, regardless of whether Lamont or Lieberman is the last man standing. That's why I wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible. Until today, the only way to make sure this intraparty slugfest ended August 8 was for Lieberman to win the primary. But today, Frank Lautenberg hinted that there might be an alternative - he said Joe Lieberman might forgo his independent bid if Ned Lamont wins the primary by a double-digit margin.

I don't much care anymore whether Lamont or Lieberman wins this Senate seat. The only outcome that gives me pause at this point is Lamont winning by a narrow enough margin that Lieberman decides stays in the race. The two ways to end this race on Tuesday are through a Lieberman victory or a Lamont rout. I could live with either option, but if you asked me now, I'd probably tell you that I would prefer the latter.

Lamont seems like a progressive and a good man. If he is a man of his word, and there is no indication that he is not, then he will be at least as progressive as Lieberman on most issues, and more progressive on the rest. Like Lieberman, he advocates progressive policies on the issues most important to me (education, the environment, stem cell research, and gay rights), and his personal wealth actually appeals to me, since it ensures that he won't need to rely on the money of others to get re-elected. I won't condemn him simply because I disagree with the tactics of some of his supporters, particularly since I could now say the same thing of Lieberman. No less importantly, recent polls seem to indicate that a double-digit victory for Lamont is more likely at this point than even a narrow Lieberman win, meaning that a Lamont rout now seems the most likely way to end this race quickly.

Thus ends LieberDem the blogger. I have not yet decided what to do with LieberDem the blog, but I will mull it over between now and Wednesday. I would not necessarily be averse to turning it over to a thoughtful Lieberman supporter who wishes to make further arguments in favor of him. I still believe that progressives can vote for Lieberman in good conscience, and I also believe that it's always best for both sides of the story to at least be told. I simply no longer wish to be the one telling it for Lieberman.

As for me, I plan to help start a blog in the next couple weeks which will focus on progressive causes and candidates elsewhere in the nation. The blogger known as Sundog, a Lamont supporter who often comments here and elsewhere, will be one of the founding contributors. I will likely only be an occasional contributor (providing analysis rather than advocacy) as I begin law school and plan ahead to my real career, which will have nothing to do with either politics or blogging.

If you believe I'm being disingenuous about some part (or all) of this, I can't say that I would blame you. The timing and suddenness of it obviously invites speculation, although I hardly think this blog is significant enough to warrant conspiracy theories. However - and I'm sorry if this sounds dismissive - at this point, I'm tired of stressing about other people's opinions on this race, and that is perhaps the biggest reason I'm not waiting for the primary to post this (also the reason I've disabled comments on this blog). If you truly are curious about the reasons behind the why and when of my decision, email me and I would be happy to explain.

Besides that, I wish both candidates and their respective camps best of luck with their campaigns, and I hope that we all can start fighting together again come Wednesday morning.

- Matt

If you need a good laugh...

2006-08-04T12:09:00.000-07:00

...just look at this for awhile:

http://www.arnoldsneighborhood.com/

Definitely among the most clever satirical websites I've seen.

What a week...

2006-08-04T06:11:00.000-07:00

So at a campaign stop for a CT-Sen candidate yesterday, a group of people supporting the rival candidates aggressively confronted the candidate, loudly asking him leading questions in the presence of the cameras and the other voters at the venue.

Sound familiar? Well, it should. Except this time, Ned Lamont was on the receiving end of the verbal barrage rather than Joe Lieberman.

There are a couple of universal (i.e. applying equally to both sides) observations to be made about this. First off, the First Amendment obviously gives supporters on both sides the right to verbally confront the rival candidate while he's campaigning. Unless they cross the line into harrassment or physical assault, it's legal and - in some ways - healthy for democracy.

But at the same time, it's also pretty damned silly, and is certainly an unwarranted distraction. The purpose of such confrontations is to embarrass the rival candidate or keep him from being able to speak his mind, and is most definitely not to ask the candidate insightful questions on the important issues. It's a grab for attention and an attempt to disrupt.

But the thing that struck me most about all this was the response of the anti-Lieberman camp to this. When Lamont supporters verbally confronted Lieberman, it was called a healthy display of the voters' anger. When the Lieberman campaign did it, they called it "thuggery," "Rovian," and accused the Lieberman supporters of trying to incite violence. They say Lieberman ran away and attempted to hide from the voters, while Lamont "escaped" the "hooligans."

They say one reporter caught an elbow and got a bloody nose, but does anyone here really think that the mainstream media wouldn't pick up on the story if Lieberman supporters got physically violent at a campaign event? Reporters were obviously at the event; if the Lieberman supporters had gotten physically violent, you can bet your life that they would all be rushing to produce a story on it - or at the very least, the reporter who got a bloody nose would make sure a story was printed on it.

I've checked Yahoo News, Google News, the National Journal's Hotline Blog (which picks up on everything), and no one is talking about this encounter outside of the anti-Lieberman blogs. There was one amusing article on the encounter in a small neighborhood paper called the Record-Journal which carried an amusingly tabloid-esque headline and was decidedly sympathetic to Lamont, but even that did not seem to mention anything about the Lieberman supporters engaging in physical violence. The progressive blogosphere's echo chamber is the only place where this can still be heard, and the story appears to have fizzled out even there. I suspect an objective account of what happened will never be printed.

All that being said, I repeat that the use of these "disrupt and harass" tactics by both sides is, shall we say, unproductive. I'm sick of this whole campaign at this point. There's obviously no hope that there will be a substantive discussion of the issues between now and Tuesday. The only two things we've learned from the past few days are that the Lamont camp can dish it out a lot better than they can take it, and that BOTH camps are thin-skinned. This campaign has devolved into fratricide, and regardless of the outcome, it will be a blessing to the Democratic party when it ends.

Thursday Round-Up

2006-08-03T14:01:00.000-07:00

Say what you will, but the nastiness of the last few days made me somewhat disillusioned with the entire CT Senate race. And since I still have more furniture to put together (I have a love/hate relationship with IKEA), I'll make this quick:

Excellent article on the blogosphere, partisanship, and ideology over at The American Prospect:

The netroots could be right that full-throated liberalism is compatible with Democratic electoral success. There may be no reason to worry that Feingold blew away the competition in the latest Daily Kos presidential straw poll. But netroots members should care about whether they are right or not, and make the case that they are, rather than demonize moderate elements of the party that are very bit as dedicated to building a Democratic majority as they are. If netroots activists’ assumptions about electoral viability are wrong, then despite their intentions, they are working against their stated goal. As members of the reality-based community, we all ought to be willing to step back and question our biases. Whether for the sake of the Democratic Party or for the sake of progressivism, we must.

If there's one point that I actually want to get across by Tuesday night, it is that we are all on the same side. I'll be making that point more often and more emphatically in the coming days. But at least until this race ends, I'd bet real money that few of the big-time bloggers are going to listen.

In other news, The Plank argues that Hamsher and Lamont aren't as independent as they would each like the world to believe, there's an amusingly insightful take on the race at the Thought Theater, Sundog examines Hamsher's almost/somewhat/'well, they started it' apology and also fires off a nice quip against Marshall Wittman, and a new Qunnipiac poll shows Lieberman trailing Lamont by double digits.

Anyone who doesn't think Lamont is the favorite in the primary at this point is kidding themselves, and I can't say I'm surprised given the way the Lieberman campaign has been run for the most part, and considering the prominence of the Iraq War in this race (check out the % of Lamont voters saying it's the main factor in their voting decision). I just hope there's no more friendly fire damage between now and Tuesday, but I know that's some very wishful thinking.

Kudos to Sundog and Peking Duck, who are (near as I can tell) the only blogs so far to denounce both the flyer and the blackface. I'll update and add to that list if people see more.

I just gotta ask the question...

2006-08-02T13:43:00.000-07:00

How stupid do both the Lieberman and Lamont camps think black voters are?

First, Lieberman's campaign released a ridiculous flyer implying that Lamont's country club membership makes him racist (sorry Dan, but I don't buy it). Lamont volunteered in urban schools which serve low-income minority students, so clearly the man was socially and racially conscious before this race began.

And then Jane Hamsher, not technically on the Lamont payroll but certainly one of Lamont's cheerleaders-in-chief, manages to see the flyer (and raise it through the roof) by posting a picture of Lieberman with blackface. It was deleted from the Huffington Post website where it was originally posted, leaving the right wingnut blogs to carry it. The progressive blogosphere's silence on it is deafening. There's something very, very wrong when it's the progressives who are silent about someone posting a JPG of the most racist thing someone could do with Photoshop, giving conservatives an opening to posture about tolerance.

It all really begs the question - do the Lieberman and Lamont camps really think that the IQ of black voters is so low that they will actually respond positively to these things? What the hell are they thinking?

Someone needs to realize that the attacks from both camps are only going to hurt the Democratic party and its image to voters - not just in CT, but across the country. Someone in this race needs to come clean and call a timeout on all this. But something tells me that neither side will.

Update: Fleshed out the first full paragraph and changed "campaigns" in the first sentence to "camps" to further clarify that the Hamsher blackface picture was not authorized by the Lamont campaign. To his great credit, I hear Lamont's campaign manager asked Hamsher to take down the photo.

I finally have the a/c working in my new apartment, so I'm moving in tonight. Unfortunately, it doesn't have internet access yet, and won't until I can find a month-to-month service that won't bankrupt me (shoot me an email if you know of one), so I won't be doing evening updates for a couple days. Hope everyone has a pleasant evening, and if you're on the East Coast - stay cool.

104 degrees...

2006-08-02T09:18:00.000-07:00

That's what The Weather Channel says will be the high in Philly today. I'm seriously hesitant to step outside for lunch.

If you haven't yet, go to:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/

New Donkey post, Iraq, and education

2006-08-01T14:02:00.000-07:00

Good post today over at the New Donkey blog. It combines some reasoned criticisms of Lieberman with refutations of the hyperbolic statements that are so frequently made about him. The post is lengthy, but well worth the read. Here are the last couple paragraphs, which I particularly liked:

I frankly do not agree with either side of the Lieberman-Lamont fight in their contention that this is some sort of Democratic Gotterdammarung that will perpetually resolve every intraparty dispute. Much as I stubbornly admire Joe Lieberman, it's clear he is a clumsy politician who lives in the pre-Karl-Rove atmosphere that permitted genuine bipartisanship. The Clinton New Democrat tradition in the party would survive his defeat.

But I also think the savaging of Lieberman as "vicious and reactionary" is a terrible sign of the defection of many progressives from reality-based politics. And to respond specifically to Matt Stoller's questions, the idea that Joe is the epitome of the "Democratic establishment" is a krazy-kat reflection of the false belief that Clintonism completely conquered Washington, and is the source of every D.C. establishment vice. If you took a straw poll of the consultants, the DNC types, and safe-seat House Members who surely represent an important part of the D.C. Democratic Establishment, I doubt you'd find anything like majority support for Joe Lieberman. He's only the embodiment of the Establishment when viewed through the looking glass of those who view all their friends as brave insurgents, and all their enemies as The Man.

I do, believe it or not, agree that Lieberman's view of the role of bipartisanship is outdated. I think it's one of two major topics, the other being the Iraq War, on which Lieberman's outlook is unjustifiably optimistic.

Since I've mentioned it, I'll use this opportunity to clarify my personal take on the Iraq War. First, I do believe Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power, but I would not have voted for the resolution which gave Bush the authorization to use force in Iraq. Simply put, I think that any full-scale invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation should be done only with the active participation of the U.N. Security Council, or at least NATO (which was used in the Kosovo intervention). Coalitions of the willing are simply not a substitute for a true international force. Saddam Hussein was an absolutely brutal dictator whose regime needed to be changed, but it's not the job of the United States to decide when and how that regime change should have happened. In the words of my favorite author on foreign policy, Joseph Nye - right war, wrong time, wrong way.

In the years since the Iraq War began, Lieberman has refused to acknowledge the inevitable result of occupying a nation larger than California without a strong international mandate. His outlook on Iraq seems Panglossian in its outlook. In fact, I am often reminded of a lyric sung by Pangloss in Leonard Bernstein's operatic version of Candide when I think of Lieberman's persistent optimism on Iraq - "I've clung to my sanguine position/In the teeth of the ugliest facts." (Sorry...8 years of singing musical theater was bound to find its way into this blog sooner or later)

So there you have it. I disagree with Lieberman on Iraq and quite strongly. If you want to slam his position on it, you won't get any argument from me. What I will argue with is the notion that Iraq is all that matters, or even that it's more important than all the other vital issues facing this country.

If I had to zero in on one issue that is most important to me, it would definitely be education. On this issue, Joe Lieberman has been a leader in fighting for greater educational opportunities for underprivileged students. It is often forgotten in the progressive blogosphere that the education system in this country is broken for tens of millions of students, and few leaders in either party have shown the political courage necessary to instigate real change.

Despite all the heat that No Child Left Behind gets from both ends of the political spectrum, NCLB represents the biggest push to improve the quality of education for underserved students since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. For that reason, I believe Lieberman was absolutely right to join Ted Kennedy in leading the Democrats' push for its passage. But George Bush went onto ensure that the act's title became a horrible irony. The fact that George Bush and Tom DeLay refused to provide the funding for NCLB is a despicable insult to the millions of students and teachers whose schools desperately need the money promised by NCLB, but who were shafted out of it by the GOP leadership.

I have spent the last two years studying education policy, particuarly its impact on low-income and minority students, and have personally seen failing inner city schools in Philadelphia. The students at these schools will never have a fair chance without the money promised by NCLB, and Lieberman has been among the most vocal proponents of fully funding NCLB. He has also repeatedly pushed for expanding access to and increasing the size of Pell Grants, which remains the most progressive financial aid program ever introduced in this country, and has fought against efforts to increase the interest rates on Stafford Loans. Even without bringing in his strong advocacy for the environment, stem cell research, and civil rights (the other issues which I feel most strongly about), Lieberman's strong progressive record on education nearly offsets my strong disagreement with him over Iraq.

I realize that I will never be able to convince someone that Lieberman is acceptable if their opposition to the Iraq War is so strong that they can see little else. But I think that such a single-minded focus on the war is a grave mistake when there are so many other problems in the country which will affect tens of millions of Americans for decades after the Iraq War ends.

Dan Gerstein

2006-07-31T21:22:00.000-07:00

Dan Gerstein has just entered an official position with the Lieberman campaign. In light of this development, Dan and I have mutually agreed that it would be best if he ceased being a contributor on the blog while he is officially connected to the Lieberman campaign. As a result, I am now the blog's sole contributor, although I will be seeking another contributor or two to help fill the gap. I also should reiterate that I have always been the blog's sole administrator, just in case anyone decides to follow Jane Hamsher's dishonest attempts to question this blog's independence.

My own posting will be sparse for the next day or two as I finish moving into my new apartment and recover from a hand injury I sustained in the process. While I realize this is a critical stage in the campaign, please be patient if this page is short on updates for the next couple days.

Hope everyone is doing well.

Update: Just to briefly explain why I did not know about this before, I have been (as mentioned above) moving into an apartment for the past several days - the first apartment of my own, as a matter of fact, in case anyone had forgotten just how young and out of touch with the world of "real" politics I am. I honestly have not had the chance to read through any news articles on the Lieberman race since Friday as a result, which is why my only post this past weekend was an addendum to another post rather than an original one.

The simple truth is that I did not know Dan had entered into the official employ of the Lieberman campaign until a couple hours ago, and he hadn't officially joined the Lieberman team until last week (correction: see Update II) - before that, he was working for Tom Suozzi. Had I known before, I would have requested that he leave before. As it happened, he told me himself and simultaneously suggested that he take his leave of the blog. While I think Dan is a good writer and have greatly appreciated his contributions to the blog, I could not have agreed more that no one on the Lieberman campaign team should be connected to this blog.

That's the truth, pure and simple. Since I will be disappearing into my first year of law school in a few weeks and have no intention of making a career out of either politics or blogging, I have no motivation to lie - nor much of a reason to care if Jane Hamsher (or anyone else) doesn't believe me. Considering that I have been called a Nazi and received two emailed death threats in the past three weeks, being called a campaign plant by people who know nothing about me actually feels like an improvement.

I will be making a post in the near future outlining my original and continuing mission in starting this blog. In the meantime, please feel free to browse through the other posts, most of which are no less timely now than they were when they were written.

Update II: Dan made a comment to this post, and I just would like to point out two things from it:

He is a volunteer, and so is not being and has not been paid by the Lieberman campaign during this cycle (he has said before that he was in their paid employ until the spring of '04, but not since).
He did not enter his volunteer position with the Lieberman campaign until yesterday (my "last week" comment from above was apparently incorrect).

What is so amusing about all the conspiracy theories being swirled around right now is the unstated arrogance behind them. The assumption is that no rational person could possibly want to write positive things about Lieberman unless they were stupid, dishonest, or being paid - essentially saying "No sane person with free will could possibly disagree with me."

(By the way, did anyone notice when Kos appeared in a campaign commercial with Lamont? At least Dan decided to stop blogging once he volunteered to work for the Lieberman campaign.)

In any case, neither Dan nor I have received any money from the Lieberman campaign, and I have never had even the most tangential relationship with the Lieberman campaign. I'm going to leave it at that. Whoever wishes to spend time coming up with conspiracy theories to say otherwise can obviously do so at their leisure, though it is the very definition of an ad hominem attack (ignore the message, shoot the messenger). I'll be busy checking court dockets and worrying about when my A/C is going to start working.

- Matt

More Truth on Lieberman's Record

2006-07-31T07:48:00.000-07:00

The Connecticut Post today became the latest state media outlet to publish an analysis piece busting the myths about Joe Lieberman's Democratic credentials and reaffirming that Lieberman is more than within the Democratic mainstream.

The article by Peter Urban is particularly noteworthy because it examines Lieberman's voting record in the Bush era, not just over his entire career. Here's the key graphs:

Since winning re-election in 2000, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman has been a more dependable Democratic vote than during his two prior terms.

When Democrats and Republicans disagreed, Lieberman voted 90.5 percent of the time with his colleagues in roll call votes cast during his third term.

He sided with the majority of Democrats over Republicans only 78.9 percent of the time over the previous 10 years.

The 11.6 percentage point swing belies assertions by his critics — including Ned Lamont, his challenger in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary — that Lieberman has moved away from the Democratic mainstream. . .

The Connecticut Post examined 5,338 roll call votes cast in the Senate between Jan. 1, 1991, and June 22, 2006. Casting aside the votes in which the majority of Democrats and Republicans agreed, Lieberman stood with Democrats on 2,369 of 2,871 roll call votes, or 82.5 percent. Dodd voted 90.9 percent of the time with the Democratic majority during the same period.

But Lieberman's record shifted over time to support Democrats more often in his third term than he had in the previous decade.

Since winning re-election in 2000, Lieberman has sided with Democrats over Republicans on 813 of 898 roll call votes where the parties disagreed, or 90.5 percent. From 1991 through 2000, Lieberman sided with Democrats on 1,556 of 1,973 votes, or 78.9 percent. Lieberman and Dodd voted the same way on 2,460 of the 2,871 contested roll call votes — or 85.7 percent of the time. The two shared similar views on almost all the "key votes" that the National Journal identified in the 108th Congress. On those dozen votes, they separated on a single issue — restricting deployment of the Bush administration's missile defense system. Lieberman was for it, Dodd opposed.

They voted together in opposition to oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bush's tax cuts and energy policy. They voted together in support of abortion rights, extending an assault weapons ban and funding the Iraq war.

Lieberman receives a ranking of 76.4 percent from ProgressivePunch, a nonpartisan searchable database of Congressional voting records from a liberal perspective. The score, however, was deflated because of votes missed while Lieberman was running for president in 2003. He scored 85.5 percent among the 414 votes evaluated in which he actually voted. Dodd scores 87.2 percent from the liberal group.

LieberDem Addendum

2006-07-30T17:36:00.000-07:00

Say that five times fast...

As I indicated in the comments section of Dan's Alito post, Dan expressed many of the thoughts that I have been having over the past couple weeks about the Alito vote. Specifically, I strongly disagreed with the implicit assumption that Joe Lieberman could have somehow stopped Alito from being confirmed.

The sad truth is that there was no way for the Democrats to stop Alito from making it to the Supreme Court in this Congress. Had Democrats filibustered Alito, the Republicans would have sought the nuclear option. Bill Frist wanted to pursue that option during the showdown over appeals court judges in the spring of '05, and had enough of his caucus ready to back the measure to push it through (only 3 GOPers - McCain, Chafee, and Snowe - openly opposed the nuclear option). By mid-May, Frist and Reid had given up the pretense of seeking a compromise, and each leader was committed to lead his caucus down the road that would have ultimately ended with the nuclear option. Frist was, of course, only prevented from going down that path by the May 23 formation of the Gang of 14, of which Lieberman was a member.

And for those who say that the Gang of 14 has done nothing to stop Bush nominees, I refer you to the cases of circuit court nominees Henry Saad (forced to withdraw his nomination due to Gang resistance), William Myers (DOA in the Senate due to Gang resisitance), Terrence Boyle (nomination has been held up indefinitely due to Gang resistance), and William Haynes (ditto). The circuit courts are every bit as important as the Supreme Court, since the vast majority of major federal cases are decided at that level. So the Gang of 14 has hardly been a rubber stamp for Bush nominees, and its preservation has served a very important purpose.

I'd like to use an analogy with military strategy and history. Say that a defending army is faced with the approach of an invading force, setting up a battle over a fort that clearly has great strategic importance for both sides. The defending army realizes quickly that they will almost certainly lose the battle to defend the fort, even if they resist the invading army with all their might.

The defending army is faced with two choices at this point:

Stay and fight to the end, with the final result being the loss of not only the fort, but also much of their ability to fight in the future.
Retreat from the fort to a more strategically favorable position, thereby conceding the battle (and with it control of the fort) to the enemy, but also ensuring that their army retains its ability to continue the war.

Now, many would undoubtedly prefer option 1. It is the option that appeals to bravery, heroism, and other romantic ideals. But the smart military strategist will choose option 2. It might appear unseemly, even cowardly. But it's the strategy which ultimately provides the best chance to win the war. It's the strategy that George Washington took with the British - avoid direct confrontation unless victory seemed likely, even if it meant keeping his army in perpetual retreat for long stretches of time.

It might not sound like a courageous strategy, but it was obviously a smart one. The British eventually began wearing down, and changes in public and international opinion brought an infusion of energy and manpower to the American forces. Washington then began fighting (and winning) battles on his terms, and the tide of the war turned decisively in his favor. Great leaders, both in the military and in the civilian world, have always known that discretion is the better part of valor.

Such was the battle over Sam Alito. The battle was admittedly major, but it was not decisive; it was Wagram, not Waterloo. The four more progressive SCOTUS justices will continue vote to uphold progressive ideals, and Kennedy will be there with them on most major progressive issues as well. Kennedy's has consistently voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, meaning that the replacement of O'Connor with Alito did not spell doom for abortion rights. Throwing all the king's men into the fray over Alito would have ultimately accomplished nothing, and would not have changed the final outcome.

Odds are that there will not be another Supreme Court vacancy until at least after this year's midterms. Given the virtual certainty that the Democrats will gain seats this November, we will be in a much better position to fight nominations six months from now than we were six months ago. The Gang of 14 will become irrelevant after this term, and the GOP will almost certainly lose the votes necessary to invoke the nuclear option. This means that even if Democrats don't re-take control of the Senate, the Democrats will once again be able to use the filibuster freely and the GOP will not be able to do anything about it except curse and pound their fists.

Given those circumstances, Lieberman's decision to not fight to the (sadly inevitable) death on Alito was hardly unreasonable. Avoiding bloody conflicts until victory seems at least possible might not be a very sexy strategy, but history and common sense both show that it works.

Lieberman Wins Endorsements from Hartford Courant, Connecticut Post, and Washington Post

2006-07-30T07:39:00.000-07:00

Today brings four major newspaper endorsements in the Lieberman-Lamont race -- -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Hartford Courant (the state's largest and most influential newspaper), and the Connecticut Post (one of the state's largest dailies, covering the Bridgeport area).

[NOTE: The Connecticut Post endorsement was not findable online, but the AP reported on it and quoted excerpts today.]

Most of the attention, particularly in the blogosphere, will focus on the Times' editorial backing Lamont. The Lieberman-haters will undoubtedly trumpet this validation from the bellwether of elite conventional wisdom, despite the fact that it was far more a kneejerk attack on the incumbent than a convincing brief for the challenger (more on that in a moment). They will also probably neglect to mention that the Washington Post took the diametrically opposite tack in endorsing Lieberman (more on that too).

But in terms of actual electoral influence, limited as newspaper endorsements may be, the editorials from the Courant and Connecticut Post are far more significant. That is especially true if you apply the "Connecticut knows best" standard that the out-of-state Lieberman-haters keep touting to deflect attention from their primary role in fueling the campaign to purge Joe Lieberman from the party.

These local editorial boards are most familiar with Lieberman's record/character and the dynamics of the race. They are most likely to make a choice not based on their own ideological agendas and pet peeves, but on the needs and interests of the people of Connecticut. And both papers embraced Joe Lieberman as clearly the best choice to serve the state in the Senate.

What was most notable about The Courant's endorsement was its explicit rejection of the politics of purity that is driving the Lamont campaign. This is an editorial board that is often to the left of Lieberman and has had several disagreements with him on the issues over the years. But that did not stop the Courant's editors from seeing and reaffirming one of Lieberman's greatest strengths -- his ability to rise above the excessive partisanship that is corroding Washington and get things done for his constituents and his country.

Mr. Lieberman has gained considerable influence in his 18 years in the Senate. His specialty is working with Republican moderates - and sometimes conservatives - to craft bills that can pass the most divided, least civil Congress in memory.

As head of the Governmental Affairs Committee in 2002, he wrote the Senate's version of the homeland security bill. With Republican Sen. John McCain and the 9/11 families, he forced President Bush to accept a bipartisan commission to investigate the intelligence failures leading to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The commission's riveting report sold more than a million copies, and some of its most important recommendations were embraced. The list goes on. . .

From his seat on the Armed Services Committee, he helped save the Groton sub base and its thousands of jobs. He brought home a lot more bacon than Connecticut had any reason to expect from the 2005 federal transportation bill.

But the most compelling passage of the editorial is The Courant's reasoned take on Iraq:

[Lieberman] is now called a renegade by many in his party for standing with President Bush on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We have not often agreed with Mr. Lieberman on the conduct of the war but admire his sticking to his beliefs in the face of withering criticism. Not enough members of Congress have such character.

He was not alone among Democrats in giving Mr. Bush authority in 2002 to attack Iraq: 81 House and 28 other Senate Democrats joined him. But Mr. Lieberman crossed the party line last November when he argued in the conservative Wall Street Journal that "our troops must stay" -- although few Democrats in Congress would disagree that they must, for now -- and later scolded that "in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." Partly for this regrettable phrase that he contends was taken out of context, antiwar partisans would remove him from office.

Mr. Lieberman's history of enthusiasm for military interventions overseas is an anomaly in a man famous for mediating among warring factions in Washington. But to dismiss this moderate -- a vanishing breed in a Congress sundered by extremism on both sides -- for dissenting on a single issue would be a terrible waste. And a mistake.

It would show an intolerance unworthy of any political party.

The Connecticut Post's endorsement strikes a similarly pointed blow against the Lieberman-haters' purge campaign and the myth that Lieberman is not a good Democrat.

Democrats like to pride themselves on being the political party of the "Big Tent" under which a diversity of views co-exist in the interest of larger social welfare goals. Is there not room now under that tent for Connecticut's junior senator?

We trust that's not the case and, therefore, the Connecticut Post endorses Joseph I. Lieberman to be the Democratic Party's candidate for U.S. Senate. Look at the Lieberman record. It spans more than 35 years of elected public service starting in 1970 when he was first elected to the state Senate, continuing in 1982 with his election as state attorney general, one of the first "activist" attorney generals in the nation and then moving on to three terms in the U.S. Senate.

There have been many times when we've disagreed with the senator, but his overall record is commendable and the record of a fighter who has been there for Connecticut in the areas of defense contracts, the environment, education, health care, civil rights, and transportation.

The Washington Post's endorsement also hinged on Lieberman's exceptional ability to find common ground for the good of the country without compromising core Democratic ideals. In particular, the Post underscored the value of Lieberman's thoughtful, hateless approach to the Democratic Party going forward.

Noting that Lieberman is being pummeled for working with Republicans as much as for his position on Iraq, the Post argued "that's a criticism that strikes us as shortsighted even from a partisan Democratic point of view." The editorial went on:

Throughout his Senate career, Mr. Lieberman has been faithful to the fundamental values that most Democrats associate with their party: care for the environment; dedication to a progressive tax code and other ways to help the poor and middle classes; and support for Israel and other democracies around the world. But he's managed to hold on to those values while also working with Republicans to move legislation forward: with Susan Collins (R-Maine), for example, on homeland security; or with John McCain (R-Ariz.) on climate change.

This is a talent and temperament that is helpful to the Democrats in the minority but will be needed even more if there's a change in power in one or both houses of Congress or, in 2008, in the White House. Then, more than ever, the Democratic Party, if it hopes to accomplish anything, will need people such as Mr. Lieberman who bring some civility to an increasingly uncivil capital -- who can accept the idea that opponents may disagree in good faith and who can then work to find areas of agreement and assemble working majorities of 60 senators. His ability to do so is a strength, not a weakness, for the party as well as the nation.

Now compare these arguments with those in the New York Times editorial. The Times makes no mention of the Lieberman's many major policy contributions, though there are few predictable words of faint praise for opposing the Bush tax cuts and supporting a woman's right to choice and environmental protection. Nor, more significantly for a paper that purports to cover Connecticut, is there any mention of Lieberman's many accomplishments on behalf of the state.

Instead, the bulk of the editorial -- which claims Lieberman has "forfeited" the Times' support -- is devoted to excoriating the Senator for not despising George Bush enough. The Times' chief complaint is not about Lieberman's position on Iraq, but that Lieberman has not obstructed the President's conduct of the war on terror at every turn, calling him one the Bush Administration's "most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates. . . There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.

Beyond being clearly inaccurate -- "never challenges them"? -- these statements are quite telling. The fact is, Lieberman has been critical of the President and the Republican Congress on many occasions related to Iraq and the war on terror, just not in the bitter, apocalyptic tones that some on the left (and now the New York Times) demand.

And that really is the crux of the matter here. All of Lieberman's good works and his great character are rendered meaningless, not even worth a passing reference, simply because he is more outraged by the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 than the torture of foreign enemy combatants and potential terrorists in Iraq.

Let's be clear: Lieberman spoke out against the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and he supported John McCain's amendment banning torture. He just tried to introduce some perspective and proportionality to the issue, which we now know is an unforgivable sin to those who actually believe that George Bush is a greater threat to America than Osama Bin Laden.

What was equally telling was the Times' minimalist appraisal of Ned Lamont. In endorsing a candidate for U.S. Senate in a time of war, the nation's preeminent newspaper could only muster two sentences on the challenger's qualifications -- one of which highlighted his inexperience.

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

What really jumped out to me there is the use of the word "moderate" to describe Lamont. Lamont seemingly was a moderate before deciding to jump on the anti-Lieberman bandwagon, voting with Republicans on his town council 80 percent of the time. Now during this campaign he is embracing the hard-line, anti-Clinton wing of the party that wants to resurrect protectionist trade policies, government-run health care, and unaccountable public schools.

The truth is we don't know what Ned Lamont is, though by all appearances he seems to be more of a dilettante and an opportunist than a liberal or a moderate. And for the Times to blithely overlook that troubling fact, and tout the candidacy of a cypher who is clearly unqualified to be a U.S. Senator out of pique with Joe Lieberman's civility, suggests that Grey Lady has sadly been seduced by the Kossacks and blinded by the same anger that animates them. Indeed, if anyone has forfeited anything here, it is the Times kissing away its credibility as a fair-minded arbiter of America's national interest.

Fortunately, the Hartford Courant and the Connecticut Post know who Joe Lieberman is, and they have given their readers more than good reason to entrust their junior senator with another term serving them in the Senate.

The Alito Myth

2006-07-28T10:33:00.000-07:00

Of all the outlandish myths that the Lieberman-haters peddle, none is more ludicrous than their charge that Joe Lieberman put Sam Alito on the Supreme Court.

No matter how many times you remind them that: A) Joe Lieberman spoke out against Alito's nomination; B) he voted against it; C) a filibuster was doomed to failure and thus amounted to a meaningless and ultimately destructive gesture; the Lieberman haters keep claiming that Lieberman is responsible for Alito getting confirmed, simply because he did not back the futile filibuster.

Case in point: the hysterical mailing from the National Organization of Women that was reported on in today's Hartford Courant.

In a Lamont mailing, Rosemary Dempsey, president of the Connecticut NOW, said Lieberman's refusal to back a filibuster was "a slap in the face to every woman of this state, no matter her political beliefs, economic status or race."

Beyond explaining why NOW has zero credibility in the mainstream political world, this quote epitomizes the irrationality and disingenuousness of the purge campaign being waged against Joe Lieberman. Compile a very strong record on reproductive rights and on women's rights, vote against the nomination in question, get NARAL's endorsement, and you still get accused of slapping women in the face.

It also underscores the desperate need for some perspective on this particular issue.

Up until this session of Congress, the filibuster was not even considered a fringe option for blocking Supreme Court nominees. With one notable exception, the case of Abe Fortas in 1968, the tactic had never been invoked to block a Supreme Court nomination. According to the official account by the Senate historian, Fortas was not torpedoed because of his ideology, but because of serious ethical issues.

As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, [Senate Minority Leader Everett] Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

That all changed last year with the Roberts and Alito nominations. Some in the Democratic family decided that Bush's high court appointments had to be blocked by any means necessary, and the threat of a filibuster based purely on ideology was openly discussed. This of course prompted the whole showdown over the so-called "nuclear option, with Republicans threatening to change the Senate rules to permanently bar the use of filibuster for Supreme Court nominations if Democrats used the tactic against John Roberts or Alito.

Lieberman and other moderate Democrats then worked with the reasonable elements of the Senate Republican caucus -- the so-called gang of 14 -- to craft an agreement that would protect the right of the minority to filibuster court nominees in the future in extreme circumstances. That was his great sin -- finding a compromise with Republicans that helped Democrats, by preserving the precedent that had been followed for the entire history of the filibuster.

If Lieberman had supported the filibuster, it would not have changed the outcome at all. It would have, though, threatened the agreement he had made, which at the moment was the only thing standing in the way of the nuclear option being triggered and the filibuster being eliminated completely as a check and balance in Supreme Court nominations.

If Lieberman and the other members of the Gang of 14 had broken their word and backed the filibuster, it may have derailed the Alito nomination temporarily. But it would have had disastrous consequences, setting in motion a chain of events that ultimately would have resulted not only in the end of the filibuster as we know it, but in Alito getting on the bench in the end once the Senate rules were changed. Talk about a pyrrhic victory.

These subtleties are of course lost on the Lieberman-haters. By their dipso-facto kind of logic, Republicans are evil, compromise with evil is evil, and thus even a compromise with Republicans that helps Democrats is evil. Moreover, because Joe Lieberman has compromised with Republicans at times in the past, that makes him even more evil than the other Democrats in the Gang of 14 and a deserving a much higher level of blame.

Presto: Joe Lieberman's opposition to Alito is magically transformed (re: twisted) into support for Alito. George Orwell would be proud.

Sadly this is yet another case of scapegoating Joe Lieberman -- not just for George Bush's actions, but for the Democratic Party's impotence. The Democratic Party failed to put up a candidate who could be beat Bush in 2004, which was the best way to stop him from appointing right-wing judges to the court. That was not Joe Lieberman's fault.

In addition, the Senate's Democratic leadership, and the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, failed to make a compelling case to the American people as to why Alito was so unfit for the Supreme Court that his nomination justified the extreme use of the filibuster. That was the only way that the Democrats could have won the nuclear option showdown, by having the bulk of public opinion on their side. Again, not Joe Lieberman's fault.

Now let me be clear: honest people can disagree over the question of whether the Alito nomination met the extreme circumstances threshold. There is a credible argument he did. My point is that the Senate Democrats did not present a convincing enough case to justify blowing up the institution over this nomination. Moreover, the question became moot when the other members of the Gang of 14 decided that Alito did not meet that test. Once that happened, if Lieberman had broken ranks and supported the filibuster, he would have accomplished nothing, other than momentarily appeasing his critics and weakening the agreement that was preserving the filibuster in the first place.

None of this will persuade or mollify the Lieberman haters, who have already convicted him in spite of the evidence. But for those voters who care about the truth, they need to know that Joe Lieberman did right by Democrats throughout this episode. He opposed Sam Alito AND protected a critical check on presidential power. To say otherwise is a slap in the face of reality.

Finally, good Lieberman ads

2006-07-28T09:48:00.000-07:00

I have said many times privately and a couple times publicly that the Lieberman campaign's TV ads have so far been poor in both concept and execution. Lamont's quirky ads have been overly cheesy at times (the "I support this message...so do we" tags begin to sound contrived once you've seen it a few dozen times), but have had been unquestionably better than the Lieberman campaign's duds. The strategy has been to try and shift the focus to Lamont, which will never work in a race between a 3-term incumbent who has been on a national ticket and a challenger who few have ever seen or heard of. The correct strategy should have been to highlight and burnish Lieberman's solid credentials as a progressive and a Democrat.

Finally, the campaign seems to be getting it. They have released two new ads - one featuring an endorsement from Chriss Dodd, and the other featuring Bill Clinton. The newest Lieberman ad features Clinton speaking at the rally for Lieberman:

Bill Clinton: "I'm proud that I helped Joe Lieberman in 1970. I'm proud that we've been friends all these years. Proud of his three terms in the Senate. He has been one of the leaders in the Congress. I want him elected because he understands and cares about health care. I want him elected for economy to national security, for our children and grandchildren. Go out and elect Joe Lieberman. He's earned it; he's been a good Democrat. He's a good man, and he'll do you proud. Thank you and God bless you all!"

The ads do exactly what Lieberman's camp has so far failed to do. They put a Democrats on the screen telling the audience (and the ad's viewers) that Joe Lieberman is a reliable, principled Democrat - and in a way that gets the message across.

The Dodd endorsement ad is no doubt going to be helpful, but it's the Clinton ad which will undoubtedly get the most ink spilled on it. The anti-Lieberman crowd will probably make at least two arguments to downplay the Clinton ad's potential effectiveness:

Clinton is not from Connecticut, and an out-of-state politician will not hold much sway over CT Democrats.
People will see the ad and instead of focusing on Clinton's obvious support for Lieberman, they'll take a mental trip back to 1998 and remember Lieberman's criticism of Clinton's personal conduct during the Lewinsky scandal.

The first point is easy to argue against. First off, primary voters rarely resent TV ads or campaign appearances by out-of-state politicians who they respect. As long as the ad's viewers don't dislike Clinton, they probably won't dwell on the fact that he's not from Connecticut. Clinton is probably particularly immune from such a connotation, since he was President and therefore in some sense did represent the people of Connecticut (along with all Americans), even though he is not actually a resident of the state.

The second point seems like very wishful thinking on the part of Lieberman's detractors. For one thing, I don't see many people making such an association unless they already dislike Lieberman or have already decided to vote against him. I think that the memory of Lieberman's speech is far, far stronger among Lamont supporters (particularly those in the blogosphere) than it is among the general population of Democrats.

Even if the viewer did make such a connection, I think that most voters are highly unlikely to hold Lieberman's 8-year old criticism against him after Clinton just went and called Lieberman his "friend" that he is "proud of" as a "good Democrat." As I wrote last weekend, Lieberman's role in the Lewinsky scandal is massively and artificially inflated by his detractors, who ignore Lieberman's staunch opposition to impeachment or any other official reprimand of Clinton and instead focus on the one speech that he made where he criticized Clinton's personal conduct - and even at the time, Clinton said that he agreed with the speech and did not find it the least bit disloyal or out of line.

The ad will finally start to rebuild the positive associations between Lieberman and progressives that have held for the vast majority of his political career. Clinton remains perhaps the most recognized and most respected member of the party, and his word that Joe Lieberman is a good loyal Democrat should (and probably will) carry much weight among Democratic voters.

Coupled with the Dodd ad, the Clinton ad hopefully is an indication that the Lieberman campaign has finally figured out the strategy they need to take in order to stop the free-fall in the polls (maybe even throw it in reverse) and remind Connecticut Democrats why it's more than ok to pull the lever for Lieberman.

SurveyUSA: Lieberman Gaining Strength

2006-07-27T12:30:00.000-07:00

Some encouraging news from of all places Daily Kos. There is a diary up today by Bruin Kid, regarding the latest approval ratings for U.S. Senators from SurveyUSA, which shows that Joe Lieberman's numbers among Democrats generally and even liberals are moving up.

Here's the key passage from Bruin Kid's post (remember this is coming from a Lieberman critic, not a friend):

Last month's ratings showed Lieberman had suffered big drops in support from Democrats and liberals. This month, however, he seems to have recovered. His approvals among both Democrats and liberals are now both back at 50%.

He especially had a HUGE jump of support among liberals. (WTF?) This, BTW, to go from -16% to +7%, is outside the margin of error. So something's up here. And remember, this was way BEFORE Bill Clinton's visit to Connecticut, so that does not explain the jump.

And here's the full results of the survey.

Yes, something is up here. After two years of an unrelentless smear campaign against Joe Lieberman, the truth about his rock-solid Democratic record, his integrity, and the results he's delivered for Connecticut are getting out. I suspect that as more Democrats focus on the facts, and not the distortions coming from the Lieberman-haters, those numbers are only going to continue to rise in these closing days before the primary.

MD-Sen: Your campaign might be in trouble if...

2006-07-27T00:15:00.000-07:00

Ran across this in yesterday's Hotline. I don't even think explanation is necessary for this one...

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20060724-111915-6219r.htm

Real Clear Record on Abortion/Gay Rights

2006-07-26T14:27:00.000-07:00

The Real Clear Politics blog offered an excellent breakdown of Joe Lieberman's rock-solid record on abortion rights and gay and lesbian rights to counter the latest misinformation campaign by the Nedheds. The whole post is worth reading, so here it is:

When 95% Perfect Isn't Perfect Enough

Last week I discussed Joe Lieberman's near-perfect voting record on "women's choice" issues, as determined by liberal interest groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood who are backing his campaign. The Hartford Courant reports that Lamont supporters gathered yesterday to attack Lieberman on the issue of abortion and gay rights to try and demonstrate that their guy is more than a single-issue candidate opposed to the war in Iraq:

By national standards, Lieberman has a stellar record on gay rights and abortion issues. He is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Federal PAC and the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.

"Joe Lieberman works in Washington with the leaders of these organizations every day. They know how difficult it is to get things done in a Republican town, and he's proud to get their support," said Sean Smith, manager of the Lieberman campaign.

When the Human Rights Campaign endorsed him earlier this year, the organization said, "Sen. Lieberman's strong support of fairness for all Americans, gay or straight, dates back three decades to a time when few of his peers were standing by his side."

But that is no longer enough for some activists in Connecticut, where the gay rights movement is eyeing the next prize, gay marriage - a step Lieberman is unwilling to endorse.

And while the abortion-rights group NARAL says Lieberman votes with it 95 percent of the time, some activists cannot forgive Lieberman for refusing to support a filibuster in opposition to the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, an abortion opponent. Lieberman did vote against confirmation.

"The bar is higher here," Jepsen said, surveying the Pond House, where dozens of women, and a few men, mingled as they waited for Lamont.

The bar is higher? The bar can't get any higher than demanding absolute ideological purity. Even in deep blue Connecticut the issue of gay marriage is a close call, and Lieberman may be slightly outside of state Democrats on the issue - but not by much. A Quinnipiac poll from last April showed that a slight majority (53%) of Connecticut Democrats supported gay marriage while 42% opposed the idea. Independent voters, by the way, opposed gay marriage by a margin of 52-42, which is identical to the opinion of voters statewide (53 opposed - 42 in favor).

Again, look at Lieberman's voting record as determined by the largest gay & lesbian interest group, the Human Rights Campaign. Out of the seven votes they deemed most important last year, Lieberman voted for the HRC-supported position on six of them. Only eight Democrats in the Senate voted for all seven, putting Lieberman in the same company with Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, and ahead of Senators like Jim Jeffords, Tom Harkin, Dianne Feinstein and, oh yeah, Chris Dodd.

I understand the desire of the Lamont folks to try and make their candidate out to be more than a suit stuffed with antiwar anger and a resentment against Lieberman for not hating George Bush as much as they do, but the effort to attack Lieberman on other issues where he has a solidly progressive voting record makes them look even more like a group of hardcore ideological purists. With the amount of attention this race is getting nationally, I don't think that works to the benefit of the Democratic Party as a whole at all.

Airing out the laundry

2006-07-25T11:19:00.000-07:00

So every once in awhile, I've noticed that someone puts up a laundry list of grievances against Lieberman. In the spats of hate mail and derisive comments which I've received over the past few weeks, more than one has called me a "coward" or something to that effect for not answering these charges. Well, I've finally decided to call that bluff.

First off, whenever I read this list of charges, I was reminded of Snopes.com's dubunking of the ridiculous"Clinton Body Count". The body count was a ridiculous laundry list distributed by GOPers in the 1990's listing dozens of people connected to Clinton who had died over the course of his political career. It was a crock, and Mikkelson did a masterful job of exposing it as such.

Here are what Mikkelson cited as the rules of thumb in creating such laundry lists. I've modified this list so that it refers to the anti-Lieberman laundry lists rather than anti-Clinton laundry lists, but it's eerie how similar the rhetorical tactics are:

List every vote or statement that Lieberman has made that even remotely suggests he is not progressive. It doesn't matter what his stated position on the issue is, or how he ultimately voted on the issue in question. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about how many times Lieberman smiled during his debate with Cheney in 2000.
Play word games. Make sure that not voting for a filibuster on a bill is framed as "supporting" that bill. If Lieberman at any time voted for something proposed by a Republican, call it the "Bush/Cheney/Lieberman" bill. If Lieberman ever says he's "open" to an idea, say that he is in favor of it.
Make sure every vote or statement by Lieberman that you can dredge up is offered as evidence that he is a Republican, without regard to the context and relative significance of the vote/statement in question. If Lieberman voted against something 32 times, and then did not show up for a vote on one amendment, ignore the 32 votes he made and focus on the 1 he didn't. You don't have to discuss what impact it has on the totality of his record; just keep harping that the one vote "shows that he is a Republican."
If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why all the Democrats who know Lieberman best — Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Larson, John Lewis, etc — are still going around endorsing him and talking up his progressive credentials. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.
Most importantly, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off the fact that he has never proposed a bill on something as evidence that he is against it - do it! If a critical vote contradicts your theory, claim that particular vote was "irrelevant." If your explanation of Lieberman's actions has no basis in reality, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff . . .

(This is all just to point out that the intellectual dishonesty of many of the charges against Lieberman is enough to make Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove proud).

I work 9-5 and then have a night job two days a week, so this took me two days to put together and is therefore a one-time only thing. I want to start with the disclaimer that I am only speaking for myself, and that these are only brief rebuttals - if I were to give full-length rebuttals to everything on this list, this post would be dissertation-length.

Since this is so long, you might just want to hit CTRL-F and look for the topic you're interested in... Sadly, I'm only half-kidding. Here goes:

"Support of Nafta/Cafta"
- I'm pro-trade, so this one is easy for me. Much of our economy relies on trade and open commerce with other countries. It's no coincidence that NAFTA - a centerpiece of the Clinton economic policy - came right before one of the biggest periods of economic growth (and job growth) in American history. Jobs might be lost in manufacturing, but huge numbers of jobs are also created in the service and technology sectors. The important thing is that those workers in industries that are hurt by trade policies are given adequate re-training and education to make them marketable in other areas - and that is something Lieberman has supported steadfastly.

In Connecticut in particular, many jobs rely upon the continuation of our open trade policies with other countries, including and especially those in North and Central America. I agree that it would be very preferable if we attached labor standards to such agreements, but it's tough to argue that Lieberman's support for NAFTA hurt our economy.

"Support of the Bush energy policy"
- Lieberman has most definitely not supported the Bush/Cheney energy policy. He voted against the key Bush/Cheney energy initiative, providing one of the critical votes which killed it in 2003. As far as Lieberman's vote in favor of the 2005 Energy Act, I refer readers to my post on Lieberman's efforts to cut emissions. The big points I made in that post on the Energy bill were:

Calling it the "Bush/Cheney/Lieberman" bill is laughable, since Lieberman never attached his name to the bill in any way

(Note: This is another common tactic – implying that Lieberman's vote for a particular bill makes him a bad Democrat, while ignoring the fact that many other unquestionably good Democrats voted for the same bill. On virtually every topic cited here, at least a third of Senate Democrats would have to be called “bad Democrats” along with Lieberman, so to single Lieberman out as a bad Democrat makes little sense)

Lieberman had actually co-sponsored many amendments to it, including several to strip the bill of some its environmentally unsound provisions, drastically cut carbon emissions, force Bush to release the full EPA report which his administration had censored, and add language forcing the federal government to finally recognize climate change

"Willingness to deny rape victims emergency contraception"
- This is perhaps the most egregious half-truths told about Lieberman, and insulting to those rape victims who have had to get EC (one of my best friends went through that terrible experience last year). He said that religious-run hospitals shouldn't be forced to give EC if the religious beliefs of the religious institution operating the hospital prohibit its use.

And you know what? That is what is required by the Constitution. The courts have ruled repeatedly that the government can't force religious institutions to do things that go against their religious beliefs, as that would violate the First Amendment. I strongly disagree with any religious doctrine that prohibits the use of EC, but the government simply does not have the Constitutional right to force them to reject even a ridiculous belief. And from a purely practical standpoint, de-funding hospitals which will not give out EC for religious reasons (the aim of the law in question) could have a catastrophic effect on emergency care and health care in general across the country, since so many hospitals are run by religious institutions.

Right or wrong, that's the reality of constitutional law and practical effects on the matter. I'll grant that the courts have not, to my knowledge, ruled on these EC laws in particular, but the legal history of the broader issue of government directives being forced upon religious institutions is pretty long (most particularly in the case of religious colleges and universities). Lieberman's words about the "short drive" were very poorly chosen, but you can't fault Lieberman for thinking it's unwise to compromise the Constitution or to de-fund hospitals for abiding by their religious beliefs, however misguided those beliefs may be. Besides, NARAL and Planned Parenthood seem to think his record on choice is pretty good - they endorsed him.

"Support of someone from the International Arabian Horse Association to run FEMA"
- This one was a screw-up on behalf of the whole Senate, which confirmed him by voice vote without any dissent. That's one that all our leaders are responsible for, and it's absurd to single out Lieberman.

"His unwillingness to demand censure on wiretapping"
- Lieberman has said that he believes the Bush wiretapping to be illegal. But the censure motion had zero chance of passing, and everybody knew it. All that pushing censure would have done is tie down the Senate in debating a resolution that literally does nothing, and keep the Senate from debating bills that actually have a chance of passing on issues that are more urgent (like, say, education and health care). And we learned from the Clinton impeachment attempt just how destructive and divisive pushing such futile measures can be. Lieberman opposes the Bush wiretapping program, but he also opposed wasting the Senate's time on a debate over whether or not Bush should be verbally slapped on the wrist. As he and Clinton both have said, it would be an unproductive use of the Senate's time.

(Final note: Only three other Senators attached their name to this resolution. So singling out Lieberman for this is, once again, absurd).

"Support of No Child Left Behind"
I think it's preposterous to condemn a bill that hasn't been given a real chance. The education system in this country is broken for millions of students who have the misfortune of living in districts with underfunded and/or mismanaged schools. NCLB was pushed by Ted Kennedy, who is about as Democratic as you can get, as a way to try and level the playing field. But Bush shamefully has underfunded the program, which has undermined it and kept it from reaching its full potential. I think this is the most underreported travesty of the entire Bush presidency, since it has stranded tens of millions of students in thousands of schools by failing to give them the money that NCLB would have provided to improve their schools. Lieberman has always supported fully funding NCLB, but Bush and Frist have undercut the efforts at every turn.

This legislation is unquestionably progressive; it marks the greatest effort to improve the schools of underserved students since the introduction of Title I forty years ago. Lieberman was right to be among the 48 Democratic Senators who supported NCLB. It is Bush who should be condemned for underfunding it and not allowing it to have a real chance - a point which Lieberman has made repeatedly.

"Support of School Vouchers"
- Actually, Lieberman was noted for proposing a modified version of NCLB which stripped it of its voucher provisions. I oppose vouchers as a long-term solution, but let me say this - I have personally seen the conditions that exist in urban high schools during my time as an education student. Many students are condemned to underfunded and/or mismanaged schools. Until we can solve that problem, I can easily see why many African-Americans and other education advocates have pushed for vouchers, and why many good Democrats have listened. Critics of the idea should talk to the parents of kids who go to schools in the poorest neighborhoods of Philadelphia before they have a knee-jerk reaction against it.

Lieberman has said that he would consider school vouchers for poor students only. And improving the educational possibilities of poor students is about as progressive as you can get.

"Support of a non-provoked attack on Iran"
- This looks like a thinly veiled effort to say that Lieberman supports starting a second war in the Middle East. Problem is, it's not true. Lieberman was extremely cautious in his assessment of US options in Iran. He said he would consider targeted air strikes as a last resort in an effort to knock out "some of the components" in order to "delay and deter" the development of Iran's nuclear program. Considering air strikes to prevent a state with an undeniable record of arming terrorists from developing nuclear weapons is hardly a horrendous position to take, and that is the most 'aggressive' stance he has taken on Iran.

But this is a common tactic of the Lieberhaters - if he doesn't rule something out, say he supports it. It might be dishonest, but the assumption is that no one will bother to check what he really said.

"Interest in privatizing Social Security"
- This is another huge distortion of Lieberman's position, and the ultimate example of equating "willing to listen to ideas on" with "interested in." If he's so interested in privatizing it, then why has he gone on record against it every single time it's come up? He made one comment last year saying he wanted to hear what the whole proposal was before deciding on it. What he really said about privatization is completely ignored. Even a NYTimes article which highlighted some Democrats' (misdirected) anger towards Lieberman on this issue conceded that point:

"But as for the president's proposal to divert part of the payroll tax to private retirement accounts, Mr. Lieberman said he had already rejected that idea before the 2000 election."

Once it was clear that the Bush plan on SocSec had no new ideas other than privatization, he announced his opposition to it. Before that, he waited to get all the facts before making a final decision, which seems much more reasonable than having a knee-jerk reaction against changing anything about SocSec (keep in mind that there were many more issues being discussed than privatization). Lieberman has always opposed privatization, and you can't fault him merely because he decided to make an informed decision rather than a hasty one.

"Support of Gonzales and the torture policy"
- First off, the reason why Gonzales wrote the memo is often forgotten. As Bush's attorney, he had little choice but to do what his boss/client told him to do, as any government attorney will tell you.

Besides which, even if you do think the memo showed that Gonzales personally supported torture (which I think is a doubtful charge in and of itself), it's absurd to argue that just because Lieberman voted for Gonzales, he must have supported everything Gonzales has ever done. If that were requisite for voting in favor of a nominee's confirmation, no nominee for anything would ever pass the Senate. Every Democrat in Washington knew that the Bush administration could have proposed far worse AG nominees than Gonzales, who is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and (incidentally) the first Hispanic Attorney General and highest-ranking Hispanic cabinet member in the nation's history. If Gonzales had been voted down, Bush probably would have proposed someone far less hospitable - just remember John Ashcroft (whom Lieberman voted against).

"Vote on cloture for Alito"
- The meaning of Lieberman's vote on cloture is massively and artificially inflated by the Lieberhaters. The cloture vote was a foregone conclusion, since the Gang of 14 as a whole decided that they approved of Alito. Lieberman personally opposed Alito, which is why he voted against him. The truth is that even if Lieberman had voted against cloture, it still would have passed by 12 votes, since 19 other Democrats voted for cloture - including Democratic stalwarts such as Herb Kohl, Jay Rockefeller, Daniel Inouye, and Maria Cantwell. All he would have accomplished by voting against cloture would have been angering the Gang of 14 - the group which is necessary to preserve judicial filibusters.

The vote on confirmation was actually closer (passed by 8 votes) than the vote on cloture was (12 votes). In other words, the argument that the cloture vote was the "real chance" to stop Alito's confirmation is just plain wrong. Both votes were foregone conclusions, the cloture vote perhaps even more so than the final confirmation vote.

Even if the cloture vote had not been a foregone conclusion, a junior Senator from a small state in the minority party who is not in the Senate leadership and who is not on the Judiciary Committee has zero chance of being able to stop the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. To pretend otherwise, or to pretend that Lieberman actually supported Alito, is really dishonest.

"Yes confirmation vote on Rice"
- I'm not a fan of Rice as Secretary of State, but even die-hard progressives have conceded she was less hawkish than rest of the Bush administration's foreign policy "experts." Most critiques of the Bush Administration have Colin Powell and to a lesser extent Rice acting as voices of caution against Cheney and Rumsfield. As with Gonzales, Bush could have nominated someone much worse than Rice (think Paul Wolfowitz). And as with Gonzales, Lieberman was hardly a bad Democrat for voting to confirm her. Fully 32 of the 45 Senate Democrats voted for Rice, including Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein, Jon Corzine, Daniel Inouye, Pat Leahy, and Chris Dodd. I hope no one would argue that those are all bad Democrats.

"Support of the Bankruptcy bill"
- Another egregious and obvious distortion. He did not support the bill - in fact, he was one of only 25 Senators to vote against it. He did vote against the filibuster on it, but (again) him voting to filibuster the bill would have done nothing since the cloture motion carried by a solid margin anyway. Lieberman clearly does not believe in making a pointless statement by voting against cloture if the motion to end debate is going to pass anyway, which is why he would become a member of the Gang of 14 (which saved judicial filibusters) just a couple months later. Again, that's hardly an unreasonable position for a practical-minded politician to take.

"Support of Defence [sic] of Marriage Act (Clinton did too, BOTH were wrong)"
- Can't argue with that - he was wrong on this vote. But he's been far more supportive of gay rights and civil rights than pretty much any other Senator during the course of his career. That bill passed 85-14, with great Democrats like Bill Bradley, Tom Harkin, and Paul Wellstone voting for it, so Lieberman was in good company being wrong, and it hardly makes him a bad Democrat. After all, if you call Paul Wellstone a bad Democrat, then who on earth is a good one?

He has opposed the Federal (anti-)Marriage Amendment (twice), indicating that he has become considerably more progressive on this issue during the past 10 years. Besides, he was endorsed by Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights advocacy group in the country.

"Supported our ports being run by Dubai"
- This charge really ticks me off. If we are to be honest, the only two 'honest' explanations for the criticism over Dubai are Arab-bashing and political expediency. Obviously, neither reason is very good. The port operations that were to be handed over to Dubai Ports World (DPW) used to be handled by a British shipping company, and the Singapore company PSA operates port terminals all over the world. Why is it acceptable for British and Asian companies to operate ports, but not Arab companies?

"For telling Democrats they criticize the president at their own peril (of course, NO Republican ever criticized Clinton)"
- This charge is typical of a very Bush-like tactic: Giving only part of the quote without providing the context. Remember the "Global Test" BS that he threw at Kerry? Meet its twin. The point Lieberman was actually making was that BOTH parties should stop going at each others' throats and work on solving the serious problems we face both at home and abroad. Here is the quote given with its context (full speech here):

I recall here the wisdom of Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, who served our country during World War II and the beginning of the Cold War. Stimson said that sometimes the best way to make a person trustworthy is to trust him. There is wisdom there.

It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.

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.

It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.

It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism.

Obviously, the people who cite only the third paragraph of this quote completely missed (or completely ignored) the point Lieberman was actually trying to make.

"Friends with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who call Democrats terrorists...Friends with convicted felon, former governor John Rowland"
- Yes, let's please hang people for who they're friends with. I don't like any of those three either, but guilt by association? That's a tactic most frequently associated with McCarthyism.

"Does not comport self like opposition party member, e.g. one of the few Democrat attendees at a Valentines soiree with the Bushes"
(http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/02/14/ap2527187.html)
- This is a puff charge. Lieberman and his wife went to a reception with the Bushes - so what? Does Lieberman have to be hostile to Bush and refuse to be seen with him just because they are members of different parties? Being one of several Democrats to go to a purely social function with Bush is hardly cause for alarm. Comporting oneself like a member of the opposition party means criticizing Bush's policies, and Lieberman has done that plenty of times (see the bottom of this post).

"Supported Bush on faith-based programs that spread lies about choice and abortions"
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/images/20020207-9.html)
- I disagree with the faith-based initiative legislation. But Lieberman is an orthodox Jew, so surely it is not surprising that he supports it, and I won't hold the depth of his faith against him on this. Lieberman has an outstanding record on choice...need I list the pro-choice endorsements he has received again, or mention the fact that he has voted against the proposed bans on late-term abortions each time they have come up?

"Has essentially endorsed John McCain for president. “I hope he runs.”"
- This is just plain dumb, and a variation on the "say he supports something if he doesn't outright condemn it" tactic. Saying that you hope someone runs is most definitely not saying that you hope they win. It's far more likely that Lieberman thinks that McCain will bring issues into the discussion that he feels should be talked about - say, campaign finance reform. People make statements like this all the time about presidential races, usually to indicate that the more people that get in the race, the more issues will be discussed. Heck, I've heard people say they want Pat Robertson to run for President - not because they want him to win, but because if he does manage to win the GOP nomination, the Democrats will win in a landslide in November. In any case, to spin "I hope he runs" as an endorsement is just an insult to people's intelligence.

"Against universal health care."
- This one is really out there; it's saying "he never attached his name to a bill supporting it, so therefore he must be opposed to it." He has said repeatedly that he supports providing universal health care (i.e. health care for all Americans), but has never proposed a bill that would grant it because he knows it wouldn't pass a GOP congress. Anyone remember what happened to Hillary's health care plan? Joe supported that, but saw what happened to it. If that couldn't pass a Democratic Congress, why on earth would he spend time writing a bill when there is a GOP Congress which would never let it reach the floor? Ending the GOP majority is the only way to move towards universal health care. Defeating Lieberman won't end the GOP majority, and defeating a candidate who will vote for universal health care certainly won't help bring it about any faster.

"Against gay marriage, not proposed anything on domestic partner benefits"
- The first part is an outright lie. He voted against the Federal (anti-)Marriage Amendment twice (here and here). As far as not proposing anything on domestic partner benefits...see "Universal Health Care." Again, remember that the GOP controls Congress, so any bill granting rights to gay couples would have zero chance of passing, and probably wouldn't even make it out of committee. You can't fault him for not wanting to spend time on a bill which will never see the light of day over bills with a real chance of passing and advancing progressive causes - like his clean energy bill which would protect the environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And again, the Human Rights Campaign seems to think his record on gay rights is pretty good, considering the fact that they have endorsed him.

"On Iraq: Time magazine's Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware: 'Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting'"
- This doesn't quote Lieberman, but rather quotes someone who is criticizing Lieberman. It's pretty hard to respond without knowing what Lieberman actually said. I certainly don't agree with Lieberman's position on Iraq, and I think he sometimes doesn't see or chooses not to see how bad things have turned there. But as I said, there are other things that I think are just as important for America's present and future - education, the environment, equal rights, and stem cell research. And getting just one more vote against the war in Iraq is not worth sacrificing Lieberman's long, progressive record on those vital issues.

"Yes vote for John Roberts"
- Most Democrats believed Roberts should be confirmed, according to polls. And Lieberman voted with a majority of the Democratic Caucus on Roberts. Other supporters of Roberts included Russ Feingold, Carl Levin, Pat Leahy, Herb Kohl, Patty Murray, and Chris Dodd - all progressive standardbearers. So again, this is hardly a case where Lieberman's vote was out of the Democratic mainstream.

"Voted to stop federal aid to public schools that used materials 'supportive of homosexuality'"
- To be honest, I'm not sure what bill this is referring to...I've done a few Google searches and nothing has come up, and I'm afraid that I'm not a walking encyclopedia of legislation. I do know that since very little federal money goes to public schools anyway (less than 10% of the total budget of US public schools) and that such a law as this would be completely unenforceable, the impact of such a provision would be close to nil anyway, though that certainly wouldn't make it right. This sounds like the kind of thing that was added on as an amendment or rider to an appropriations bill, and not a stand-alone piece of legislation.

Lieberman's record on gay rights is as solid as any Democrat's (thus the HRC endorsement), so I have a tough time believing that he would support this provision by itself. I certainly don't agree with such a provision (both on educational policy and civil rights grounds), and I would disagree with Lieberman if he did support it, but without knowing the circumstances surrounding this, I can't really respond more than this. I would be willing to update this one part of the "laundry list" if someone points me in the right direction.

"At Memorial day parade, marched with Republican Nancy Johnson while ignoring Dem. candidate Chris Murphy"
- This charge seems to be one of those that started in the blogosphere and was embellished each step of the way. There was a photograph posted somewhere of Lieberman walking with Johnson during part of the parade, and that turned into Lieberman "marching" with her and "ignoring" Murphy. I doubt that it was anything more than a matter of one person seeing someone they know and deciding to go over and say hi - in other words, this is another case of the Lieberhaters wanting to hang him for daring to be friendly with a Republican. And if he was talking to Johson, well Connecticut has a very small Congressional delegation, and they have to be on good working terms with each other regardless of party membership in order to make sure things get done in CT.

Lastly, Lieberman has endorsed Murphy over Johnson, a rather important fact that the Lieberhaters ignore.

"Formed his own party, to run AGAINST the Democratic opponent, if he loses the primary"
- You won't hear me argue that Lieberman made the right choice in choosing run as an indy. But he has just as much of a right to run as an indy as Ned Lamont has to run in the primary. It's also understandable that Lieberman, whose appeal is strongest among unaffiliated voters, would want to give all CT voters a chance to vote on his re-election (and unaffiliateds are the largest voting bloc in Connecticut). He will caucus as a Democrat no matter what, and that is what matters most in the end - Lieberman will add to the Democratic caucus and help build a Democratic majority. While I don't think he should have chosen to run both in the primary and as an indy, that doesn't change the fact that his record on the issues is in the mainstream of Senate Democrats, and that his re-election will add to the numbers of the Democratic caucus.

"Was hostile and boorish to opponent Ned Lamont in primary debate, treated Dick Cheney with kid gloves in vice presidential debate."
- This strikes me as sour grapes about the fact that Lieberman took an aggressive stance and then mopped the floor with Lamont in the debate. And yes, he was civil with Cheney - so what? That debate has been cited as among the best, most informative VP debates in the nation's history. Besides which, those who make this charge seem to forget that although the tone was congenial, Lieberman did get in quite a few jabs on Bush/Cheney in the debate, including one where he mocked Cheney for criticizing the Clinton/Gore economic record despite the fact that he had grown rich during the Clinton administration.

"Has been seen on Fox News more than in Connecticut...Has been in downtown Baghdad more than downtown Bridgeport"
- This is the logic of Douglas Adams's Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (an animal that assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you). In other words, the charge is equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Just because he "has been seen" more on TV than in Connecticut obviously does not mean he actually has spent more time in the Fox studio than in his home state.

In any case, the fact that he has not campaigned in Connecticut extensively since 2000 is because his job as Senator requires him to stay in Washington and travel elsewhere. This is one of the oldest political charges in the book - that because someone is in Washington doing their job as a member of Congress, it means they are ignoring their constituents back home. The problem is that you can't do your job in Washington from hundreds of miles away, so a candidate facing this charge is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Maybe Lieberman should have gone back to Connecticut a bit more, but it's not like he was spending all his time eating caviar in D.C. and partying all night in Baghdad.

There's the laundry list rebuttal. This took me a ridiculous amount of time to compile and write (and thank you to my girlfriend for proofreading it), so I won't be responding to any more of these between now and the primary. Most of the items on this laundry list were either half-baked or half-truths, but now there's at least a small part of "the other side of the story" for all to read. I'll finish by repeating the disclaimer that this is by no means definitive (I only devoted a few sentences to each topic, and this STILL was 10 pages long) and I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Here is a (very) incomplete list of instances where Lieberman has criticized Bush and his policies, often from the Senate floor. The first few of these were lifted from one of this blog's commenters, followed by several additions of my own:

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush on stem cell research:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=258819

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush's economic policies:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207942&&

Here is Lieberman denouncing Bush's stance on affirmative action:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207356&&

On energy and transportation spending:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=251348

On education:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=232428&&
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=251419
and
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=258511&&

On the handing over of wilderness areas to the oil and gas industry:
http://senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=R&PressRelease_id=546&Month=10&Year=2003

On cutting programs that provide jobs for CT residents:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=232560&&

On global warming and the environment
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=249687&&
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=254747&&
and
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=253658&&

On Medicare
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=255404&&
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=247052&&

I could make this list go on for hours, but I have to eat and sleep at some point. In any case, hopefully this helps reveal just how disingenuous the half-truths being told about Lieberman are.

Clinton on Lieberman: "He'll do you proud"

2006-07-24T19:43:00.000-07:00

Suffered a minor injury on the way back from work today, so I'm afraid I'm not up for a lengthy update. I'll just quote part of Bill Clinton's speech that he made while campaigning for Lieberman in Waterbury today:

"[We Democrats] don't agree on everything. We don't agree on Iraq...the real issue is, whether you were for it or against it, what are we going to do now? And let me tell you something, no Democrat is responsible for the mistakes that have been made since the fall of Saddam Hussein that have brought us to this point."
"I don't have anything against Joe's opponent. He seems like a perfectly fine man. But I know that on the issues that I believe are critical to our future, Joe Lieberman's past is good evidence of his future...He is a good man, a good Democrat, and he'll do you proud."

UPDATE: From the Danbury News Times's coverage of the rally:

Democrats and the public were impressed by the event.
"It was a highly charged environment," said former Danbury mayor Gene Eriquez. "It shows the wonderful, broad support for Joe that people would come out on a Monday afternoon."
Jasmine Jeffrey of Waterbury, who sat in the balcony, said Clinton's visit was "excellent, phenomenal. It was awesome, so inspiring."
Sandy Healy of Waterbury had planned to vote for Lamont until Monday.
"This will make a big difference," Healy said. "I wasn't going to vote for Lieberman, but I am a big fan of Clinton and with Clinton's endorsement, I am going to do volunteer work for Lieberman."

Sounds like people power to me.

DailyKos attempts a rebuttal

2006-07-23T20:21:00.000-07:00

DailyKos decided to put my story debunking the myth that Lieberman somehow betrayed Clinton on the front page of their website (I guess I should start by thanking Kos and Co. for driving some more traffic here). She called some of my arguments "absurd at best," accused me of trying to "rewrite history," and said that my pointing out Feingold's role in the impeachment era somehow constitutes "whin[ing] that Russ Feingold has gotten away scot free."

Well, I will now rebut their rebuttal. I have to get up early for work, so I'll only hit some of the parts of mcjoan's rebuttal that address my post directly:

Lieberman, as was and is his wont, craved the approbation of Republicans and the Media, and he got it big time for that speech. Damaging President Clinton and Democrats while aggrandizing himself. Sound familiar?

To put it plainly, I think Russ Feingold was wrong every step of the way in the Clinton/Lewinsky saga. But Russ Feingold did not deliver a speech on the Senate floor intended to garner the approbation of Republicans and the media. Feingold's criticism of Clinton stemmed from his personal sense of disappointment and principle, not for grabbing attention. Indeed, Feingold's position on the Clinton impeachment garnered almost no coverage at all. Funny how that worked out.

First off, this post should be taken note of by neuroscientists all over the world, because apparently mcjoan can read minds! She states with certainty that she knows the respective motivations of Russ Feingold and Joe Lieberman during the Clinton scandals. Well, since she never has talked to either of them about it, the only explanation is that she somehow has the ability to read and interpret their brainwaves from 1998. Professor Xavier would be jealous.

(I'm sorry to be snide, but claiming to know their motivations seems a little presumptuous)

The truth, of course, is that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Lieberman and Feingold's motivations were. All we can do is judge them by their words and actions. On that basis, no reasonable person could say that Lieberman's actions were somehow more critical or disloyal than Feingold's. Lieberman made one speech criticizing Clinton's personal conduct; Feingold said he was open to impeachment, said Clinton "disgraced himself," and was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans on the key motions which could have ended the impeachment trial's public humiliation of Clinton.

I can't explain why the press covered Lieberman's statements more than Feingold's; I don't know the motivations of the press any more than I know the motivations of Feingold and Lieberman. Perhaps the differential coverage was based on the fact that Lieberman had been a longtime political ally of Clinton's, and were both founding members of the New Democrat movement which swept Clinton into office. Perhaps it was because Feingold had already been a critic of Clinton during the GOP attempts to push the Clinton/Gore fundraising stories, so his calls for greater scrutiny seemed less surprising. The point is that there's no way to know. In any case, it's preposterous to blame Lieberman for the actions of the media.

Here's another interesting part of it:

(BTW, in bringing Feingold into this discussion, I take it the LieberDems have given up their false smears of anti-Semitism against Lamont supporters.)

I certainly have never made any such accusation, although I appreciate anything that stokes my ego by associating the entire pro-Lieberman movement with my pen name. If she's referring to me specifically, then I should point out that I have expressly said that I very much disagree with "John Droney's ill-begotten sentiments that Jews should vote for Lieberman just for the sake of 'supporting home cooking'."

If, on the other hand, she used "LieberDems" to mean all of Lieberman's Democratic supporters, then I have no problem agreeing with mcjoan that any Lieberman supporter who thinks that the Lamont campaign is somehow motivated by anti-Semitism is seriously deluding themselves. That's why I've never made any such charge, and never will.

I want to end with one last point - I don't think either Lieberman or Feingold did anything wrong.

My post was not at all about trying to criticize Feingold, since I think all his statements and actions were in good conscience. I personally believe the whole impeachment ordeal was a waste of time and taxpayer money, since it had no chance of actually succeeding and distracted the entire nation from far more important matters. But Russ Feingold thought Bill Clinton had done something wrong, and wanted to see something done about it. I find no inherent fault in that, even though I would not have done the same thing myself if I were in his position.

I only had two points - both of them related, both of them simple, and neither (I think) too controversial:

Joe Lieberman was not disloyal to Clinton, and Clinton will tell you so himself
Singling out Lieberman as disloyal because of his actions during Clinton's impeachment is hypocritical unless others (such as Feingold) are criticized as well

UPDATE: PoliticalWire linked to the Lieberman/Feingold story as well, and (like mcjoan) accused me of trying to "rewrite history."

It's interesting...they didn't take issue with any of the facts or votes cited in the post. So I'm not exactly sure what they're taking issue with.

I'll say it again - I have no beef with Russ Feingold. I'm simply pointing out that, despite the fact that Lieberman and Feingold's respective campaigns (Lieberman for Senate, Feingold for President) are much-talked about in the blogosphere, only Lieberman is skewered by the Kossacks for stabbing Clinton in the back. And since no one can honestly say that they know what was running through the minds of Lieberman, Feingold, and the media in 1998, we can only judge them by their words and actions at the time.

I laid out what those words and actions were, but I wasn't trying to interpret (much less re-interpret) those events and I certainly wasn't trying to pass historical judgment on Feingold and Lieberman. I think we should all leave that to the historians.

Feingold, Lieberman, and Bill Clinton

2006-07-23T15:08:00.000-07:00

In September of 1998, Joe Lieberman made a speech in which he said Bill Clinton's actions with Monica Lewinsky were "wrong and unacceptable and should be followed by some measure of public rebuke and accountability." The Lieberhater crowd has repeatedly said that Lieberman "stabbed Clinton in the back" by daring to make that speech, and have used the speech to argue that Lieberman was a disloyal Democrat who helped push the GOP drive towards impeachment.

Such a charge could easily be dismissed as patently false without exposing the implicit hypocrisy behind it. Lieberman never supported the impeachment efforts. He voted to dismiss the charges and end the trial every time such a motion came before the Senate, and he voted against both counts during the impeachment trial (here and here).

In fact, Lieberman never supported impeachment, resignation, or any other official reprimand of Clinton during the months leading up to the impeachment trial. He merely believed that the President's personal conduct with Lewinsky was morally damaging to the country, and felt compelled to say so publicly.

And Lieberman's assessment of Clinton's personal conduct was one that few Americans disagreed with - including Bill Clinton himself (as the thoughtful writers over at The Plank pointed out), since Clinton said this of Lieberman's 09/98 speech:

Basically, I agree with what he said...I have nothing else to say except that I can't disagree with anyone else who wants to be critical of what I have already acknowledged was indefensible. There's nothing that he or anyone else could say in a personally critical way that - I don't imagine - that I would disagree with, since I have already said it myself, to myself.

As Mr. Gerstein noted, many have actually credited Lieberman's speech as providing the Democrats with the position that allowed them to save the Clinton Presidency: Separate the legitimate questions about his personal conduct from the illegitimate legal attacks. Most Congressional Democrats echoed Lieberman's sentiments in the months to come, allowing the Democrats to criticize Clinton without fueling the GOP's drive towards impeachment. No Democrat who knows Lieberman, Clinton included, thought that his statements were indicative of anything but the concerns of a loyal friend and political ally.

But even if we were to accept the absurd characterization of Lieberman's actions as "stabbing Clinton in the back," then Russ Feingold stabbed Clinton in the back, twisted the knife, and shot him with an Uzi.

Among Democrats, Feingold was the most persistent and vocal critic of Clinton and the greatest Democratic proponent of continuing the GOP investigations throughout the period from 1997-1999. During the Lewinsky scandal in particular, Feingold was Clinton's strongest and earliest Democratic critic.

And yes, this is the same Russ Feingold who is a hero of the progressive blogosphere.

When the scandal first broke, Feingold said, "If there is any proof that (Clinton) lied under oath, I will have no trouble voting on his impeachment," making him the only Senate Democrat to openly consider that most extreme measure.

He later said that Clinton should seriously consider resigning. Even in the wake of the House impeachment vote, when Clinton was at his most politically vulnerable, Feingold refused to say say that Clinton shouldn't resign - even as fellow Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl strongly insisted that Clinton should remain in office.

After Clinton apologized for the first time, Lieberman showed his appreciation for Clinton's words, saying it marked the "beginning of a healing process." But Feingold didn't show any appreciation for Clinton "just saying he's sorry." He said:

Explanation rather than contrition is the key...not just saying he's sorry but adequately saying how it occurred so people can feel more comfortable about it. What he has to answer is how he said one series of things and then changed his story about it. He's got to explain this.

At the actual Senate trial, Feingold was the Democrats' Critic-in-Chief, voting to continue the trial and keep the charges on the books right up to the final vote:

Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against Robert Byrd's motion to dismiss the charges
Feingold was the only Democrat to support the motion to subpoena witnesses to testify against Clinton
Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against either of Daschle's motions to proceed to closing arguments - and he voted against both of them (on January 28 and on February 4).

Feingold did ultimately vote against removal (as did Lieberman), but unlike Lieberman and every other Democrat, he did not announce his opposition to impeachment until the day of the final vote. Feingold even refused to sign onto Dianne Feinstein's bipartisan resolution to "censure and move on", a resolution pushed by the founders of MoveOn.org and co-sponsored by Lieberman, because it would have undermined the proceedings of the impeachment trial. He only supported censure after impeachment had failed, when censure was the strongest measure left on the table to use against Clinton.

After Clinton's impeachment trial was finally over, Feingold summed up his feelings succintly:

President Clinton has disgraced himself.

At every turn during the trial, Joe Lieberman had voted for the Senate and the country to move on, while Russ Feingold voted to let the public humiliation of Clinton continue. Little wonder that Feingold proposed his censure measure against Bush even though he knew it had no chance of passing: Feingold had already proved during the Clinton years that he had no problem using the Senate to support measures with no chance of passing in a divisive effort to humiliate a President. Lieberman had learned in 1998-99 that such futile efforts are "an unproductive use of our time," even if he believes the President to be wrong.

Feingold's intense and repeated slamming of Clinton was far harsher and more damaging than Lieberman's one-shot critique of Clinton's personal conduct. Indeed, Feingold was less forgiving and more encouraging of the GOP efforts to humiliate Clinton than any other Democrat.

But Lieberman is the one bashed in the liberal blogosphere for stabbing Clinton in the back, while Russ Feingold is lauded along with Howard Dean as the standardbearer of the 'netroots'. Online straw polls have repeatedly showed Feingold to be the favored 2008 presidential candidate among members of the liberal blogosphere. This past week, Feingold blew away the competition in a DailyKos poll on the 2008 contenders, while Lieberman was being bashed for feeding "the hate machine" that pushed Clinton's impeachment.

The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering, and there is no rational explanation for it.

The truth, of course, is that their hatred of Lieberman has absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton. MoveOn.org donated money to Feingold's campaign account, but endorsed Lieberman's opponent and helped raise money for him. Why? Because just six months earlier, MoveOn had said they would help fund a Lieberman challenger because of Lieberman's position on Iraq.

After impeachment, MoveOn showed that they had no intention of forgetting the reasons the group was started. They started a "We Will Remember" campaign to hold accountable those who did the most to fuel the impeachment fire, and raised money to oppose their re-election. But MoveOn's roots have become a victim of Iraq-induced amnesia.

What really matters now is that Joe Lieberman is a pro-war Democrat, while Feingold is stridently anti-war. Consequently, Feingold's trespasses are forgiven, while even the most minor transgressions of Lieberman are artificially inflated into cardinal sins.

It is groupthink worthy of the Bush administration: Don't examine the evidence, then come to a conclusion. Start with your conclusion, then look for evidence that supports it.

Russ Feingold is good, Joe Lieberman is bad, and all evidence to the contrary be damned.

Such an approach may not be rational, but it's the only way to argue that Joe Lieberman has been anything but a loyal Clinton Democrat.

The Democratic Majority Project Part 2 - Claire McCaskill

2006-07-21T18:52:00.000-07:00

It's time to introduce a second practical progressive candidate who is aiming to tack back a GOP seat and add to the Democratic majority. Claire McCaskill is currently running for the Misourri Senate seat currently held by Jim Talent. Talent took the seat in 2002 from Jean Carnahan, wife of the late Gov. Mel Carnahan, thanks to money raised from 5 campaign trips by Dubya.

Talent has been a consistently backed the most hardline elements of his party. He voted against a resolution recognizing a woman's basic right to choose, voted to let the Energy Department waste $37 million on bunker-busting nuclear bombs, voted to make it harder for workers to get overtime pay, and co-sponsored the Constitutional amendment banning equal rights for same-sex couples. He received a 100 from the Christian Coalition, and a zero from the League of Conservation Voters. He has also been woefully ineffective for Missourians - other than non-binding resolutions, he has not introduced a single piece of legislation that has been passed by the Senate.

Worst of all, Talent has been the Equivocator-in-Chief on the vital issue of stem cell research. Last year, he co-sponsored Sam Brownback's bill to ban stem cell research, but then withdrew his support for the bill after McCaskill began criticizing his disgraceful position on the issue. After the press slammed him for the election-year 'change of heart', Talent reversed himself again. He announced his opposition to a Missouri ballot initiative which would have allowed the state to fund stem cell research within the bounds of federal law, and then voted against the stem cell bill that passed the Senate this week.

Claire McCaskill has served as Missouri's State Auditor since 1999, and has been "one of the most active and effective auditor's in Missouri History" according to the Columbia Daily Tribune. As she says on her campaign website, she has "exposed faults in employee background checks for workers helping vulnerable people, including nursing home caregivers and school bus drivers." You can read more about her impressive record as State Auditor here.

In the Senate, she will fight to expand Medicare benefits for seniors, protect our environment and free us of our dependence on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy and more fuel-efficient vehicles, and fully fund No Child Left Behind (the underfunding of NCLB has been one of the most underreported travesties of the Bush administration).

This is a close and very winnable race - recent polls have had McCaskill tied with Talent or even slightly ahead of him. But Talent has raised nearly $20 million compared to just $4 million for McCaskill, and has more than three times as much cash-on-hand. Talent will be able to distort his record all the way up until election day, and we need to make sure Claire McCaskill has the resources to set the record straight.

Help Claire take back the Senate seat that was once held by Harry Truman, and end GOP control of the Senate!

Click here to go to the Claire McCaskill for Senate website
and
Click here to contribute to McCaskill's campaign

UPDATE: One of our readers made a good catch - Talent also voted against a minimum wage increase last month.

UPDATE II: For the first time, I've decided to highlight the comment of one of the readers of this blog - our resident troll, who goes by the sarcastic moniker "liebermanforlieberman." This is what he said about stem cell research:

I wonder if people care that much care about something like stem cell research right now, when our troops are being wiped out in Iraq and our Constitution is under attack by Lieberman/Bush/Cheney. To me, worrying about stem cell research right now seems pretty frivolous.

I agree that Iraq is a vital issue and the loss of thousands of lives there is tragic (believe it or not, I oppose the war), but such a complete lack of understanding of the promise of stem cell research and the seriousness of the issue is incomprehensible. This research holds the promise to save quite literally hundreds of millions of lives, and improve the quality of life for many more. Stem cells may hold the potential for providing revolutionary treatments for cancer, muscular dystrophy, ALS, Parkinson's disease, paralysis and countless other life-threatening illnesses.

The Lieberhaters' singleminded focus on Iraq is absurd if it comes at the expense of research with potential to save lives worldwide, long after the Iraq War ends. I sincerely hope "liebermanforlieberman" doesn't speak for all of Lieberman's opponents when he calls this vital research "frivolous."

Update III: That troll cleverly deleted the comment from the string. However, I would be more than happy to email a saved copy of the comments page to whoever wishes to read the callous post for themselves. In any case, this is the first and probably last time that I will negatively highlight a reader's comment, but the issue of stem cell research is both germane to this post and vital to the country.

This also is just further proof that for all the claims of Lieberman's detractors that their opposition isn't just about Iraq, their words and actions prove that some of them can't even look past Iraq long enough to help save countless lives.

This just in from the Hotline...

2006-07-21T16:28:00.000-07:00

Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie phones in with a quick rundown on Ned Lamont's tax return disclosure press event...

In what may be the most embarrassing revelation on the return, Lamont personally only claimed to give $5,385 in charitable contributions. The Lamont campaign emphasized that there is a separate Lamont family trust which, last year, doled out $213,750. Rennie states the campaign worked very hard at obscuring the $5,385 figure and bootstrapping Ned Lamont onto the amount the trust gave. The campaign manager had an angry tone, directing it at the press. Cameras were not allowed in the room while reporters examined the returns. Copies were collected at the end. The press conference had been on Lamont’s public schedule but then the campaign announced in an 11:30 a.m. email that the candidate would not be appearing.

Click here for the full story.

Now, I personally don't care too much about Lamont's taxes, because as I said yesterday, this campaign will probably never be about Ned Lamont.

But the Lieberhaters were so critical of Lieberman for avoiding an anti-Lieberman float, saying it showed he was afraid to face tough questions and so on. Well, Lamont just did an even more obvious dodge with his disappearing act from his own press event. And if the campaign manager did ban the cameras and/or take an angry tone with the press...well let's just say those aren't exactly the actions of a campaign interested in being upfront and open with the people.

As I said, I don't really care about Ned Lamont's finances; as long as no one finds $90,000 in his freezer, he can make as much money as he wants and use it as he sees fit - including on this race. In fact, I prefer self-funded candidates, because they have far less need to take money from special interest groups to get elected. Not to mention that they save the party some money that can then be spent on other races.

But I'm guessing that the Lieberhaters, for all their protestations of how terrible it was for Lieberman to not face a few disaffected voters, will not denounce Lamont's campaign for ducking the tough questions on his tax returns. And that is more than a bit hypocritical.

News and a Critique

2006-07-20T22:21:00.000-07:00

So there were two big bits of news today. Dan touched on the good news for the Lieberman camp - Bill Clinton is coming to stump for Lieberman next week, just a week before the primary.

The bad news is that the latest poll from Quinnipiac has Lamont leading Lieberman 51-47%. Statistically it's a dead heat, but anyone would be lying if they said that Lamont hasn't had the Ned-mentum for the past month or two (or five).

(Disclaimer: The next several paragraphs contain an unflattering analysis of how Lieberman's campaign has been run)

The reason why is simple - Joe Lieberman's campaign has looked as if it has been in a constant state of panic ever since Lamont's campaign started to look serious. The deer-in-the-headlights look that was on Ned Lamont's face in the debate has been in the collective eyes of the Lieberman campaign for months. Even Lieberman himself has acted like he never saw this coming. Many political observers have noticed it, and so have I.

Ned Lamont has every right to run against Joe Lieberman in the primary, and Democratic voters have every right to support him - just as Lieberman has every right to run as an (Dem-caucusing) indy candidate in November and have Democratic voters support him. Some bloggers try to claim that Lieberman is acting like a man desperate to cling onto power. I don't buy into that one bit. Sorry, but being the junior Senator from a small state in the minority party does not exactly qualify as sitting in Caesar's palace.

Far more likely is that Lieberman simply never saw this coming, and still hasn't gotten over the initial shock of Lamont's entry into the race. The initial surprise is somewhat understandable. He's a three-term Senator with a strong record on nearly all progressive causes who has not faced a serious electoral challenge at home in 18 years. Lieberman realized that most Democrats in his state disagreed with him on the Iraq War, but it probably was hard for Lieberman to imagine that any single issue could fuel a serious intraparty challenge to him.

His campaign staff also seems like they never expected to have to run a real campaign. So at first they seemed to ignore Lamont's challenge, probably expecting it to fade fast. It didn't, and Lieberman's campaign came to realize that Lamont's challenge was serious. And what they did next is mind-boggling: Instead of reminding the voters of Lieberman's strong history on progressive causes, their campaign increasingly focused on disqualifying Lamont.

I can't think of a polite word to describe that strategy. I agree with the general rule that if the incumbent's campaign can make the election about the challenger, that the incumbent will almost certainly win. But that simply was never going to happen and will never happen in this race. Lieberman is one of the most prominent politicians in the state's - and indeed in the nation's - recent history. By contrast, Lamont has no record, and virtually no one had ever heard Ned Lamont's name before this year. Ned Lamont is a vehicle for opposition to Lieberman; the campaign will never be about him.

Every time they have polled the race, Quinnipiac has asked respondents whether their vote was more for their candidate, or against the other candidate. Here are the results from each of the past three polls:

AMONG LIEBERMAN SUPPORTERS
May 2 June 8 July 20
For Lieberman 92% 90% 86%
Against Lamont 4 5 11

AMONG LAMONT SUPPORTERS
May 2 June 8 July 20
For Lamont 20% 19% 33%
Against Lieberman 77 78 63

Consistently, the vast majority of voters voting for Lamont were doing so not because they supported Lamont, but because they were against Lieberman. Consequently, any campaign strategy that was designed to damage Lamont in the eyes of voters has always been and will always be doomed to failure. As the Hotline On Call blog asked this weekend "Are negative ads what really what Lieberman needs right now? Aren't voters looking for a reason to come back to Lieberman?"

They are, and they have plenty of reasons to. Joe Lieberman is hardly out of the mainstream of the Democratic party - one need only look at his voting record to see this - and Lieberman's long history of fighting for progressive causes cannot seriously be questioned. Iraq is admittedly a big thorn in Lieberman's side, but less than a quarter of all voters and just 33% of Democrats said Iraq was the top issue for them in this election.

Lieberman clearly can improve if his campaign just reminds voters of how strong he is on the traditional progressive issues of education, the environment, civil rights, choice, worker's rights, and virtually every other progressive cause that you can think of. Those same Quinnipiac polls still show that a majority of Democrats think he deserves to be re-elected, and the loyalty of his supporters runs deep.

The Quinnipiac polls show, as they always have, that Lieberman would easily dispatch of Lamont in the general election. However, it really should not come to that, and it's never too late to break bad habits. There are plenty of reasons for Democrats to vote for Lieberman. He and the members of his campaign need to remind voters of what they are, or else be willing to accept a good share of the responsibility if Lieberman loses on August 8.