Sunday, July 09, 2006

His Own Worst Enemy...

Digby has a point when she writes (WARNING - The link will lead you to one of those crazy internets sites where someone with a computer is destroying America one voter at a time. Or something.):

The real joke in all this is the fact that I don't think anybody really thought that Lamont had a chance in the beginning and were just hoping to put some pressure on Lieberman to stop kissing Bush on the lips.
...
Instead, he has been testy and superior, behaving as if he were entitled to the seat --- even saying in the debate this week that his old mentor would have counselled Lamont not to run for the good of the party. This from the man who says he doesn't care what the party decides in its primary. [Typo Corrected]


So, is Joe Lieberman his own worst enemy?

Yes. Yes, he is.

So....... The Senator has a new ad out...

Video here.

Complete story here.

Did no one think to themselves, roughly around the time they were editing the final line of the ad, you know, the one that says, "I'm Joe Lieberman and I approve this message", "Maybe we shouldn't create an ad with a fake Ned Lamont bumper sticker that has a fake website address previously used for a GOP primary in Arizona, and maybe we shouldn't make it look as much like the real Ned Lamont bumper stickers as we can, and maybe we shouldn't use the word "ELSE" (emphasis in ad) to imply that the bumper sticker is actually put out by the Lamont campaign, and maybe, just maybe, if we did all that and it was in the ad that the law requires our candidate approve verbally, it might, I don't know, make him look like a liar"?

Really, how hard is it to get a job running a Senate campaign? I would have thought that it would be harder than getting to be the GM of the Knicks, but apparently it isn't.

One last point (which, in fairness, I am about the last person to write about): No where in the ad or in any text does the campaign mention the word "Democrat". Still "totally focused on winning the Democratic primary" or trying out ads for the indy run?

32 comments:

TrueBlueCT said...

Gabe--

The sad thing is that if the entire Democratic Party were running agains this stupid Neo-Con war, and against the failed Bush/GOP agenda, --we'd be taking back both houses of Congress.

Ned Lamont shouldn't be kicking Joe Lieberman's ass. This type of thing isn't supposed to take root. But the message is that powerful. Too bad both Rahm and Schumer have their heads in the sand.

BRubenstein said...

i agree with trueblue

dumbruss said...

Not saying this will happen, but elections are in November, plenty of time to campaign on an anti-Bush platform.

Anonymous said...

It's very fashionable these days for Democrats not to mention their party affiliation in campaign materials. Maybe it's true of Republicans, too, but I'm not sure about that. I recently received fund-raising letters and materials from two former classmates, one in Wyoming and one in Maryland, neither of which mentioned the party (and I looked everywhere). There may be no better symbol of how rudderless the Democrats are. How are they ever going to reclaim the soul of the American voter if they are too timid to mention the "D" word?

Gio said...

We had an election in 04, an election which was about Iraq, Bush won. For all the anger demonstrated on this site by the liberals, and even the Lamont candidacy, one would surmise a mass movement against the Iraq war. When the left gets together to throw an anti-war demonstration--how many people show up??? The left is beholden and now held hostage by anti war activists who represent a small portion of the general electorate. The McGovern wing has risen like a phoenix. Is that the soul of the Democrats??? It appears so.

Mr. Reality said...

Very smart strategy...run a campaign against someone not running!!

So while Rob Simmons is out there talking about how he saved the sub-base, Joe Courtney should talk about George Bush!! Wow Brilliant!!!

Instead of articulating how they may handle the situation in Iraq, Iran, and N Korea..everyone should just attack George Bush. Talk about being close-minded!!!

Genghis Conn said...

I will say that this strategy didn't work very well for Jim Sullivan against Simmons in 2004. He had an ad (strongly reminiscent of a current Lamont ad) in which Simmons morphed into Bush and back again.

Gio said...

In 2000 Bush won 561,044 votes to Gore's 816,015 votes in CT.

In 2004 Bush won 693,826 votes to Kerry's 857,488 votes.

So in 04, after the Iraq war had started, Bush increased his vote by 23%--while Dems and their fury managed to increase their vote by 5%......

If Bush was so unpopular, the war so bad---How did he increase his votes by 23%???? (And please no Diebold comments)

GMR said...

Gio: I think you should re-do your analysis and combine Gore/Nader in 2000 and Kerry/Nader in 2004. It's likely the only reason that the Democrats vote increased between 2000 and 2004 in CT was that some Nader voters of 2000 "came home" to the Democrats in 2004.

ct_husky said...

Oh how the honorable have fallen...

I used to like Joe. Really. Back in the day (ie, maybe 8-9 years ago or so) he came to address my middle school about civics and all that good stuff. Now, I wasn't too thrilled with his whole anti-video game movement (still not), but it was pretty impressive to hear a US Senator address a group of 13 year olds and seem to geniunely enjoy it. Fast forward to now, and look what's happened. I feel as though he's not the same Joe. I don't know how much of that ad was him, and how much was the aforementioned consulting group, but it certainly is consistent with the path the Senator has been taking this election. Either way, to me its absolutely shameful. Neither of these campaigns have been flawless so far, and Lamont has provided many avenues which Lieberman could have taken in persuing a strong ad, but to make something up like that...it's ameteur to say the very least. If the Senator really does approve that message, I think CT needs to show that we don't approve of his continued service.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone else see Hamzy's editorial on Moody today? Question, does it do more harm than good? Article Here

The True Gentleman said...

Has anyone tried to access Senator Lieberman's campaign website this morning? When I tried to access the site I was greeted with the following:

"by Thehacker Ownz you System"

This is not good. And it really will look bad if this "hacker" is a supporter of Mr. Lamont.

Tim said...

Digby = she

Good post.

Tim

cgg said...

TrueGent did you get a screen capture of that?

ct_husky said...

TrueGent, I saw that a little while after you had posted. It had changed to "This site does not exist". Looks like the Senator's people have things back up and running now though.

The True Gentleman said...

cgg, I'm not sure what a screen capture is (I'm somewhat computer illiterate I suppose). I saw that the site is back up and running.

bluecoat said...

contrary to poular beleif politicians don't save or create jobs:Electric Boat announces 440 layoffs just as the L/LDebate's impact difficult to weigh

BigGulpzHuh said...

A friend of mine called me on Friday and told me to watch Fox News (she knows I can’t stand Fox) because one of their “reporters” was doing a story of Ned vs. Joe. I missed the original report but caught the same on a half hour later. When the reporter started talking about Joe- they showed video clips of Joe AND CHRIS MURPHY campaigning together in a diner!! So what gives Chris- first you endorse Joe, then you appear on evil Fox News with him- what’s next- guest hosting for Sean Hannity??

Anonymous said...

Hi, I'm new to blogging at this site so please bear with me If I am repeating anyone else's past comments..

For me the reason Joe should go is this is the first time in the last six years he has shown much more than just a token interest in his senate seat. Certainly no one could be critical of him running for VP as Al Gore's choice. But I did take issue when he also ran for his senate seat at the same time, with virtually no campaigning here in the state. He just took us for granted as a back up job. A point that I have not seen mentioned was that at that time Rowland was governor, and had Joe been elected VP, Rowland certainly would have appointed a Republican to take his place. If Joe really put his party's interest first, he would have resigned his senate seat to run for VP, and allow another Democrat to chance to have been elected and prevent that certain Rowland move.

Instead, Joe put his own interests first. Then four years later with no need to concern himself for reelection, he then runs for President, and spends another year listening to everyone else around the country. Does Joe want to be Senator, VP, or President? I guess now we are to believe Senator.

He now tells us he will run as an independent, if necessary, to be sure we voters have the chance to vote on his record. But at the same time he almost seems to act as if he is actually insulted that anyone from his own party has the gall to challenge him, and give the voters another choice.

I don't know the reasons why Al Gore after selecting Joe to be his Vice Presidential candidate two years ago choose to support someone other than Joe for President, but it seems Al Gore must have seen something in Joe that bothered him as well.

My gut tells me Joe's current problems have less to do with any support he has given President Bush over the years, and more to do with a growing uneasiness more and more people in this state have with Joe himself.

Just some thoughts from a new guy here... Al

Marv5920 said...

I saw the same thing- Chris is obviously with Joe. What happens Chris when Ned gets the nomination? You may say you will back whoever wins the primary, but we progressives will remember that you weren’t there when we needed you most. You and Joe and Diane have the power to get behind Ned and ensure he wins, but you chose to stand by your man Joe.

coffeeaddict1234 said...

Marv-

Chris is a DBC (Democrat by Circumstance). He grew up in a GOP household and only became Dem once he realized he wanted to run for office.

Anonymous said...

Looks to me like no core values- no wonder Chris can be against the war and support Joe.

Brass Tacks said...

And Joe is a SBC: Senator by circumstance, thanks to the GOP that wanted to "send a message" to Weicker.

Murphy= Second place.

FatGuyinTheMiddleSeat said...

Gio,

"It was my understanding that math should play no role in this debate." Your analysis- and the other observation about the Nader vote- is dead on- 2004 represented a swing toward lighter blue. This Lamont race, if Lieberman plays it correctly, will put him right in the center, which will stand him well against Brand X with the 50% of unaffils in CT.

Most of you guys are not being practical here. As BigGulp observed, Chris Murphy is hurt by this. Simmons is helped, as is Shays. Ned Lamont's experiment will prove costly to the progressive cause.

TrueBlueCT said...

TG--
It's true. [snark] I hacked into Senator's Lieberman webpage and crashed it this morning. I mean I had to because it was getting sooo much traffic, and the content there was so damaging to my guy!

More likely this is a Rovian stunt by the Lieberman stunt to continue with their hope of being able to run against us pesky bloggers, and not their dismal record. Or their tech guy screwed up and decided it would be easier to blame the blogosphere.

Can I ask what you were doing there? Advance work on behalf of Schlesinger?


And Genghis--
2006 is vastly different than 2004. Bush has broken new lows in terms of his unpopularity, and the Iraq quagmire is two years older and seemingly worse. Even my father has changed course and now regrets his vote for Bush. (and will vote towards a Democratic Congress, for a change.)

Gabe said...

Edited for the correct pronoun.

25 comments and not one even mentions the fake bumper sticker?

Paul Vance said...

I did not find the ad to be negative, it was largely a positive ad for Joe. (Let me be clear, I am a Lieberman supporter.)

On another issue, I wonder how the Electric Boat layoffs will play into November's elections in the 2nd CD as well as the state-wide campaigns. Anyone have any comments?

Gabe said...

Paul - let me clarify - my issue with the ad wasn't that it was negative, it was that the bumper sticker the ad is based on does not exist...

The True Gentleman said...

TrueBlueCT, here is what I said:

"This is not good. And it really will look bad if this "hacker" is a supporter of Mr. Lamont."

My commnt was not an allegation that a Lamont supporter hacked the Lieberman website; it was a statement that it would look bad if it was determined that a Lamont supporter had hacked the Lieberman website.

And, yes, you caught me. I was doing reconn on the Lieberman site for the Schlesinger campaign rather than trying to contact each campaign on their candidate's position for an upcoming post. I can't put anything past you, TrueBlueCT.

ct_husky said...

Gabe,
As I posted earlier, the bumper sticker thing is ameteur at best and was another stomach-punch to anyone who had ever viewed Lieberman as a "principled" senator.

ct_husky said...

How funny (in a sad, ironic way) would it be if Lieberman came out and said he never "saw and fully absorbed" the ad before it ran?

MikeCT said...

CT Blogger casts doubt on Lieberman's story that Biden couldn't make it to Lieberman's campaign event because Biden returned late from Iraq. News reports say that he returned from Iraq on Saturday. Add that to the Lieberman campaign fabricating a Lamont bumper sticker, and he is exposed as a liar, liar, liar.

Now you too can join the Joe Party.

And you must check out the new Lamont ad!