This election is about improving the state of Iraq, improving the war on terrorism, and basically returning some semblance of debate and discussion to Washington. It’s time to end one party rule, and then work to fix so many things.

Joe Lieberman has indicated that he’s going to caucus with the Democrats if he wins, and a lot of people believe that voting for Joe is in the end the same as voting for a real Democrat. This is a mistake and Joe Lieberman has given yet another example of how he’s more concerned about aligning with the President than he is for a new infusion of ideas and debate. From today’s Hartford Courant:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat and student of politics, blanked when asked if America would be better off with his party regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

…

“Uh, I haven’t thought about that enough to give an answer,” Lieberman said, as though Democrats’ strong prospects for recapturing the House hadn’t been the fall’s top political story.

Yeah, he’s planning on staying with the Democratic caucus after the election. Right.

Look, it’s really simple. Yes, Joe Lieberman seems like a nice guy, but he’s completely rudderless right now. He’s a loose cannon and more likely to join with Republicans on all of the major issues of the day. We’ve royally screwed up another country and have had little oversight over basic issues like how contracts are being executed in Iraq. All we need to make a substantial improvements in Iraq is a Congress (even one house) that is committed to real oversight and real investigation.

Joe Lieberman isn’t committed to that plan, and he’s not committed to oversight. It might just be that he’s afraid because on most of the issues that require investigation and oversight, Joe Lieberman has sided with the administration. He’s more interested in just staying in Congress than actually doing his job when he’s there. Add to that the sheer dishonesty with which Lieberman and his spokesman Gerstein have run his campaign and the choice is clear.

The only choice this fall for Senator is Ned Lamont. Vote Ned in 2006!

Just a reminder, today is primary day in CT. Whoever you vote for, get out there and vote!

If you’re a Democrat, consider voting for Ned Lamont. We need a better Senator than have-it-both-ways Joe Lieberman.

Only 2 days before the primary election and finally, finally Sen. Lieberman addresses the quote:

I know that statement has been widely misconstrued, so let me address it head on. I did not suggest that the President or anyone else — including me — should be immune from criticism. The best proof of that is I myself have challenged the President’s policies on many occasions.

The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree. My concern was, and remains, that if opponents or supporters of the war go beyond disagreeing to exploiting the war for partisan political purposes, much like Republicans did to Max Cleland on homeland security, we could lose more than an election. We could put our mission in Iraq, the lives of thousands of American soldiers carrying it out, and our national security at risk. That is what I care about.

It’s too bad for the Senator that this statement is one of many he’s made along the same lines. It’s simply the most concise expression of his views on dissent and the role of the minority party. Lieberman seems to be unable to connect the fact that disagreeing without actually winning elections results in a lot of hot air and no action. In his world, exploiting for political purposes is anything that allows a party to campaign and win.

The Republicans don’t care about what the Democrats have to say. They simply don’t give a jot. Without actual debate and effective compromise on the part of Republicans, Democrats have no choice but to get elected to change policy. That means talking about the war in a partisan way, with a political context. You can’t get elected if you can’t tie your election to results.

That’s what Lieberman doesn’t understand. He’s very proud taking bipartisan action. Unfortunately, those bipartisan agreements are shams. Too often, Lieberman values bipartisanship over actual leadership.

Even all of that is less important than the final reality. He’s moved far away from what his constituents, especially in the Democratic party, want. A lot of people (we’ll find out how many come Tuesday) simply don’t agree with the Senator on many of the major issues of the day. We feel like he is more interested in talking about his so-called convictions and talking to Sean Hannity and getting on Fox News than actually representing his constituency.

He’s a great Senator when it comes to showpiece votes that don’t matter. When faced with an opportunity to exercise leadership, he does nothing. That is the real Joe Lieberman, and that’s why we’re even talking about Ned Lamont.

Stephen Colbert is my hero:

Via My Left Nutmeg.

The video below contains one of the parts of the Lamont/Lieberman debate that left me conflicted. On one hand, I completely agree with Lamont. Earmarks are the worst way to bring money home to Connecticut. They represent the least transparent way to add money into contracts and the least efficient way of bringing jobs to the state. On the other hand, the cynic in me knows that any effort on the part of Lamont to deal with this will hurt CT in the short run because Lamont will be alone... Earmarks aren't going to be outlawed.

A group out there chose their position and produced this video:

More on this video at MyLeftNutmeg.

Update: I forgot to post that the Courant talked to the Republicans that worked with Lamont when he was a Selectman. Just in case people were wondering about those statements by Lieberman, there's your answer.

I couldn’t say this any better:

Still, for those of us outside The Land Of Steady Habits, there was a little too much about the Greenwich Town Council and submarine bases and who said what when and to whom. But there was one quote that didn’t come up, and it’s the only quote that should matter to those of us outside Connecticut. It’s this one:

“It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years,” the senator said. “We undermine the President’s credibility at our nation’s peril.”

You may recognize that final sentence as the soft outer frontier of the rhetoric that ends up in a place where newspeople are accused of treason and where roam free the eliminationist fantasies of the lunatic right. It’s where we find “reasonable” people treating John Yoo’s authoritarian delusions as though they had something to do with America. I couldn’t care less if Ned Lamont once took a Republican stand on water rates. I saw enough last night to know he’d never say anything like that.

It matters to those of us inside Connecticut, as well. It’s part of the theme of arrogance and disdain this administration shows to our core American values. On global warming, WMD, post-war planning, stem cells, plan B, and, well, everything, the Bush administration believes they are smarter than experts who spend years on these issues. Lieberman works with Republicans to make these policies happen, provides “bipartisan” cover for them, and then turns around and tells us that we should not undermine the President’s credibility. You don’t deserve to be in Congress with an attitude like that, I don’t care what party you’re in.

(via Atrios)

A little tough on Lamont's suit, but beyond that, an interesting rundown on the debate:

After watching the Lamont/Lieberman debate tonight, Heidi and I headed down to Tisane for a Lamont meet-and-greet. Got to shake his hand, mutter something incoherent because I was a bit star-struck, not so much that he was a star, but that I really didn’t have anything to say. Nice job, go get ‘em?

I have a lot of trouble with things like this because I’m not a fan type. I also feel pretty strongly that I don’t want to bother the guy, since I put myself in his place and think about always being “on” for hours at a time, making sure to be nice and chit chat with lots of people. So many supporters were there that I’m sure he was ready to get out of there by the time we finally caught up to him (he was actually out the door at that point).

Anyway, the debate I thought went pretty well for Lamont. Lieberman is definitely the more polished of the two, as he smoothly worked campaign clichés into each answer. In the end, however, I was reminded of the Bush campaigns of 2004 as Lieberman pulled out a script that looked too much like the Bush card. He called Lamont a flip-flopper, a liar, and in bed with the far left. Of course, Lieberman also accused Lamont of being too close to Republicans, so coherency wasn’t exactly at the top of Lieberman’s list of accomplishments.

The one salient point that Lieberman was able to drive home, and it was clear that this was an area where the candidates are truly different, was the fact that Lieberman brings home the bacon. For all the talk of having a lobbying-free Congress, the fact of the matter is that people love government contracts. Government spending creates jobs and people respond to that. The saving of the sub base in New London was a big deal around here, and the new contracts for Electric Boat were also well covered in the news. Lieberman has some seniority after 18 years and it clearly will be a loss for the state if he loses.

Lamont took the principled position on this issue (earmarks should be eliminated), and ultimately that’s what this race is going to be about. Having an 18 year incumbent guarantees a lot of pork and a place at the front of the line for funding. On the other hand, Lamont brings a fresh energy and very different and popular positions on issues from Iraq to healthcare reform.

So, it comes down to how many voters identify will value the pork over the legitimate issues with Lieberman’s recent behavior. It will be a tough race, but I think Ned Lamont can pull this off.

Update: CT Local Politics has an excellent summary of the debate up. I couldn’t agree more about the “angry Joe” comment, by the way. He behaved like an arrogant jerk during the first 15 minutes, wagging his finger and trying to talk over Lamont. It’s funny, because that’s a theme in this race. A lot of people, myself included, are impressed with how “normal” Lamont seems while Joe seems to personify the arrogance of this administration talking down to experts and the public alike.

I took a closer look at the numbers from opensecrets.org and have decided that saying Lieberman has outraised Lamont by an order of magnitude is probably inaccurate. I say probably because opensecrets.org only has numbers from the April 2006 report. Lamont donated $1.5 million of his own money into the race. Reports say he’s raised another $500,000 via different online organizations, notably over $250,000 via ActBlue (that’s the donate link in the sidebar).

The Courant article I linked to above also claims that Lamont has outspent Lieberman over these last few months on TV ads, spending $700,000 to Lieberman’s $500,000.

Anyway, it was such an important point to my earlier post that when I found this out, I had to pass it on. Lieberman still has a huge fundraising advantage, and Lamont is no billionaire like Bloomberg. I think my general point still holds, but I just wanted to be accurate.

You can watch Sen. Lieberman explain it all, including his attempt to imply that Lamont will buy the seat, even though Lieberman has out spent and out fundraised Lamont by over seven times. Despicable.

Excerpt:

I had trouble coming up with a headline because he makes so many outrageous claims. He said he’s taking out an insurance policy. Write your own headline…

One other note: King, who’s interviewing Lieberman in this video clip, generally is sympathetic to the White House in his reporting. He’s CNN’s White House correspondent and generally seems to believe what they tell him. Don’t think it matters in this particular case, but I’ve watched him a lot on TV.

Update: Slight correction to the fundraising numbers. I don’t think it’s quite 7 times. Check out my update for more info

This is the sort of stuff that gets me upset. I can support a candidate I disagree with on certain issues, even if they’re important issues as long as, on the balance, I agree with most things the candidate stands for. Sen. Lieberman almost comes out on the plus side for me, but it’s the utter and complete nonsense that he’s been spewing lately on everything that makes me want him gone. Take this typical example I found at Obsidian Wings:

Lieberman’s statement is completely disingenuous. He says that he’s worried that Lamont might outspend him:

“what if my opponent, who says he is worth somewhere between $90 and $300 million decides to write bigger and bigger checks in the last weeks of the campaign?”

That’s just laughable. Last I heard, one of the main reasons Lamont didn’t do even better in the state convention was that Lieberman brings in a lot of campaign contributions that other people in the party depend on. But I decided to check with OpenSecrets to see whether Lamont’s fundraising had outstripped Lieberman’s while I was busy reading Hamdan. But no: as of June 1, Lieberman had raised almost ten times as much as Lamont, and had spent $3,929,450 to Lamont’s $597,279. Despite spending nearly seven times as much as Lamont, Lieberman continues to drop in the polls. Somehow, I don’t think that money is Lieberman’s main problem, nor do I think that what he’s really worried about is Lamont outspending him by so much that it somehow blocks the will of the people.

As an aside, I like Obsidian Wings because it has writers on both sides of the aisle that try to actually debate with facts rather than the attack debates practiced at many other blogs. It’s what I had hoped FatMixx would become. Highly recommend ObWi.

Anyway, Lieberman is trying to plant the notion in the public’s mind that somehow Lamont is outspending him. It’s not even close. And it’s the same garbage that the push pollers pulled in South Carolina against McCain in 2000 (though that was far more despicable). All Lamont needs is a nice little graphic to describe the fundraising difference. Hmmm, that’s not a bad idea. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Senator Lieberman over the past few months as I’ve seen how he behaves as he realizes he might lose.

Lieberman is also trying to make this seem like a one issue campaign. It’s most definitely not. There definitely are old school Democrats and liberals here who cut their teeth during the Vietnam era and feel very passionately about the war. It is overriding for them. There are just as many if not many more liberals and Democrats like me, though, that feel like Lieberman has abandoned us.

His stance on the war was forgivable, in my mind. It’s everything else he’s done (or not done) that bothers me. In particular, he joined with Republicans on issues without substance when any honest political observer (on either side) should’ve simply called BS on the whole damn thing. The whole Schiavo debacle comes to mind, as does his defense of blind obedience to the President.

To me, keeping government out of personal moral decisions is paramount as is a healthy, honest debate on all issues. This is as close to an absolute as you’ll hear out of me. These are guiding principles, not simple issue positions. Lieberman doesn’t seem to agree with me, so he won’t get my vote. Lamont does agree with me, and so he will get mine.

Sen. Lieberman has announced today that if he loses the primary on Aug. 8th, he’s going to run as an independent candidate. Democrats who are choosing to vote in the primary should remember that when they head to the polls in August. He doesn’t care what you think, he just wants to be in Congress.

Granted, he’s probably going to win a three-way race, so this makes perfect sense for him. If he does win the general election in spite of jumping ship, then clearly he deserves to be there. This doesn’t really change that. What it points to, though, is the complete and utter hypocrisy of his “I’m really a Democrat” ad campaign.

This brings up an interesting quandary for Sen. Lieberman. Does he fight for the Democratic nomination? Or does he save up and plan to crush Lamont with his treasure chest come November? Will Republicans choose Joe over the Republican candidate to beat Ned this November? This should be interesting.

Hopefully Ned Lamont will win the Democratic primary so at the very least we don’t have to hear Liberman quoted as a Democrat anymore. That alone would make me happy.

Update: Of course, LamontBlog has something to say about this. As they remind us:

Just like when Joe ran for Vice President and Senate at the same time in 2000 - meaning that if he and Gore had won, Democrats would have lost a senate seat to a Republican appointment - he is again putting his own career and self-interest ahead of his constitutents and his party (or now ex-party).

I don’t believe that it’s a lock that Lieberman will lose the primary, so I have to disagree with LamontBlog on that. I think that Lieberman is doing what he did in 2000, making sure he has a job instead of thinking about what’s best for country and state.

I’ve been laying off the rah-rah Lamont stuff on FatMixx because I know that most of the regulars at FatMixx just don’t care at all, but just based on this story today I have to point out that around my neighborhood, I’ve seen zero Liberman signs and a number of Lamont signs out on yards. There are 4 just on the half-mile drive to the highway onramp, including mine. We drove up to Bloomfield yesterday to go to Lowe’s and saw a lot of Lamont signs. We did see a number of Lieberman signs, too, mostly in front of the mansions up on Prospect. In general, we saw way more Lamont signs. I’m pretty sure I know how the Democrats of Connecticut’s first district will be voting. Of course, Lieberman is from down by New Haven, I think, so it will be interesting to see how the other districts go (Lamont is from Fairfield county, also a wealthy part of the state).