Dan Gerstein
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:
(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
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:
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."
- 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).
(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
posted by Matt Smith at 9:22 PM
75 Comments:
Leaving it up to you to talk about reality would be like leaving it up to Stalin to talk about the virtues of democracy.
Maybe he just has more to do in his life than try to find out all the details of Dan Gerstein's life. You know, some people do have lives and need to work for a living...
aren't the hate Joe crowd the most vicious,vile folks?
Joe & his supporters might lose next week.
Kos & his krew already lost- all their humanity, dignity, and decency.
My bet is that yg brown is one of people who sent LieberDem a death threat. He certainly acts like a man who goes crazy when someone dares to disagree with him.
Death threats? Let's see them. Post them.
We'll see what you consider a "death threat", because frankly, people exaggerate that sort of thing.
Matt, I want to thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your site. I really admire your initiative and the thoughtful way you have handled the dialogue here, and wish you the best of luck going forward.
Before I go, I would also like to put the fears of the conspiracy theorists to rest.
Up until Monday, I had no formal affiliation with the Lieberman campaign -- I was just a friend and informal advisor. On Monday, I started volunteering (I am not being paid) in the campaign headquarters to help out in the stretch run (as are many former Lieberman staffers).
I let Matt know about my move, and as he said, we mutually decided it would be best for me to stop posting on this site, which has always been and will continue to be independent of the campaign.
I am sorry for any confusion my transition may have caused. In hindsight, I should have posted the news myself over the weekend. I just frankly didn't think anyone would care. My mistake.
Anyway, I hope you all can now go back to fighting about Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont. I look forward to reading the back and forth, which I am sure will get even more interesting in these final days.
-- Dan
Dan,
That is no excuse. You tricked the readers of this blog and did not reveal your true identity as a Lieberman official hack (race-baiting under the radar at black churches) until babablacksheep uncovered your deception in the comments section of this blog yesterday.
You are pathetic. Please go crawl back under your Republican rock. Isn't Jesse Helms hiring anymore?
Anybody notice how often the liars that run this website repeat the word "truth" in the main posts on this blog. In the 2 posts during the past 24 hours...
"The simple truth..."
"That's the truth..."
" More Truth on Lieberman's Record"
Methinks you protest too much.
Lieberdem, how many showers have you taken this morning. When you lie down with sleazeballs, it takes awhile to remove the stench.
Yes, seedfreak, defending Reagan and defending Lieberman. Are you a Democrat? I didn't think so.
A report from the Lieberman bus tour:
Lieberman... said that there are two big lies in this campaign. The first is apparently that Lieberman is not a Democrat. For the record, we call him George Bush's favorite Democrat, though we tend to acknowledge that he's a Democrat. After repeating the the mean liberal voices he hears in his head, Lieberman said something along the lines of 'I'm a Democrat, I believe in human rights, in government working for the people, etc.' What's hilarious about Lieberman's point is that he not only violated campaign speak 101, which is that you don't repeat your opponent's attacks on you, but he actually invented a new attack line and used it on himself so he could deny it.
The second big apparent slap is even weirder. 'The other big lie in this campaign is that I am George Bush.' With special emphasis, Lieberman said slowly, 'I. am. not. George. Bush.' How do you even respond to that? It's like Lieberman is running against the Chewbacca defense. He's just picking facts about himself, not positions or anything like that, just simple human facts, and saying that we are lying about them. Here's a three line play I wrote to illustrate the dynamic:
*****
Enter Joe Lieberman, stage right
Lieberman: My opponent says I am made of wax. I am not made of wax, that is a total fabrication!
The world: What are you talking about?
awkward pause
The End
*****
In the rest of his speech, Lieberman referred repeatedly to his work in the 1960s marching and registering voters in the South. Even this didn't work, since most people in the semi-crowd weren't actually alive in the the early 1960s. At a certain point during the anecdote, one of his staffers shouted out derisively 'Where was Ned?' Lieberman grinned and said 'That's a good question, where was Ned?' While not a devastating blow, it does seem reasonable to wonder why Ned Lamont wasn't in the South in the early 1960s registering voters like Joe Lieberman was. Apparently, Ned's lame excuse is that he was in elementary school.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/7/31/22578/9235
I have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the left blogosphere when they complain about Gerstein, but it didn't bother them when Kos was on the Dean payroll, and, unlike his partner Jerome Armstrong, didn't cease blogging during the time he worked for the campaign.
Gerstein is a volunteer, unlike Kos.
I'd take almost anything coming out of Jane Hamsher's keyboard with a huge grain of salt. She has NO credibility whatsoever, and I am finding more and more of the A-list "left" bloggers are that way. They get a little bit of "fame," and then they think they can peddle any piece of garbage and their readers think it's gospel.
People need to read from a lot of different sources to be informed.
Has Lieberman asked Dan Gerstein to resign yet?
Maybe you missed it, but Dan ceased to be a contributor on the blog once he started to work for the campaign. So your attempts to call LieberDem a liar or unethical are as laughable as you are.
By the way, why aren't you hollering bloody murder about all the bloggers who ARE working actively working with Lamont's campaign while writing pro-Lamont blogs? Get real.
I actually agree that he should resign...that flyer was ridiculous.
Yesterday John Fund of the Opinion Journal discussed in his column the two primaries next week that he and I both agree will tell a lot about the strength of the hard-left wing of the Democratic party. In CT, primary voters go to the polls to choose between moderate Joe Lieberman and challenger Ned Lamont, whose single issue is opposition to the Iraq war. In my home state of Georgia, leftist Cynthia McKinney squares off against a moderate opponent in Hank Johnson who is wooing liberals with the slogan: “It’s time to restore respect to progressivism.” As Fund concludes, and I am in agreement with his conclusion, voters will reject the more liberal candidate in both races and send the message that the sensible center still has a home among Democrats.
The Democratic party has traditionally been a centrist party. From Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton, Democratic presidents have balanced liberal social policy with conservative domestic and foreign policies. From Truman’s and JFK’s tough minded military policies to Clinton's moderate economic positions, to LBJ’s great society, the country has taken it’s greatest strides under centrist Democrats.
Further, recent polling suggests rank and file Democrats still want the party to be centrist. A Zogby poll found 61% of Democratic voters want their leaders to make compromises on their principles in order to win over voters from the middle of the political spectrum. A Gallup poll of Democratic National Committee members (in February 2005) showed that, by more than two-to-one (52%-23%) the DNC members want the party to become more moderate, rather than more liberal. That view is shared by rank and file Democrats nationally; in a January survey, Gallup found that 59% of Democrats wanted the party to take a more moderate course.
These polling numbers are poison to the the liberal blogosphere, who believe compromise is surrender and the mythical base of the Democratic party will one day soon come to agree with them. That is one of only a few reasons the hard left is trying to unseat Lieberman - because of his ability to reach out to Republicans in Washington and accomplish things - a rare talent these days in a town that used to pride itself in it. While sticking to the fundamental principles that have made the Democratic party great, Mr. Lieberman has been able to work with his colleagues in the spirit of compromise to move legislation forward. That is, after all, what politics is supposed to be about and if the Democrats win one or both Houses of Congress back this fall, the art of compromise will be even more valuable and needed. We should be growing more Joe Liebermans in the Democratic party, not trying to root them out.
Cynthia McKinney is another matter entirely. A personable and talented politician, she nonetheless has squandered her opportunities and is given to wild conspiracy theories and cheap theatrics. While her constituents in Georgia crave leadership that puts them first, McKinney embarrasses them by doing things like voting against a measure commemorating the fourth anniversary of 9/11, introducing a bill “to provide for the expeditious disclosure of records relevant to the life and death of (rapper) Tupac Amaru Shakur,” accepting campaign contributions from Islamic organizations with ties to terrorist groups, and playing the race card whenever it is convenient. Then there is the infamous Capital Hill altercation with a Police officer this year - the second time that has happened - the first being in August of 1993.
I’ve noticed those who trend further left (the ones who call themselves the “real Democrats” with a straight face) are trying to rebrand themselves as “moderates.” That’s right. I’m seeing more and more “progressives” on DailyKOS, Democratic Underground, and a host of other “progressive” websites suddenly referring to themselves as moderates. Maybe it is an effort to try to appeal to more people? Or are they trying to fool people into supporting them? I’m sure we’ll eventually find out.
But let’s hope next Tuesday, the center of the Democratic party, the true ideological heirs to Harry Truman and John Kennedy, send both Ned Lamont and Cynthia McKinney to the political grave yard.
I'm confused, Susan. What is "left" about the Lamont crowd? I thought he was a rich Greenwich racist who voted with Reblican's ninety percent of the time.
Well said, Donkey.
FYI: Lamont is the moderate in this race. Joe Lieberman sold out African-Americans by rubber stamping NOLA Brownie. This action killed untold thousands of African-Amercans.
War with Iran, anyone? What could be better than another pointless war, motivated by nothing more than hatred of Arabs?
Joe Lieberman is your man... but if you vote for him expect to see your kids heading into the military soon.
red state donkey, thank you for the intelligent post. You advocate you position well.
I just have one comment. Some "left" progressives like me do think of ourselves as moderate, because Bush, Rove, Cheney, O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. have so radically moved the country to the right. We are all looking to moderate the country's direction. Even a growing number of Replicans are turned off by the cowboy diplomacy, torture, Katrina incompetency and croneyism, avoidance of global warming, stem cell rearch, etc. These Republicans, and the "left" progressives are looking for an alternative to the Republicans, not a Republican light or Republican wannabee.
That does not mean that Lamont is a radical leftist. I think he is in the mainstream of the Democratic party. No different than Hubert Humphrey, Ed Musky, Mike Dukakis and many other moderates of today and yesterday.
Yes. Joe Lieberman is responsible for the Katrina deaths. Because he didn't raise any objections to Brown's unanimous confirmation by the Senate. That's even more of an insult to people's intelligent than the Lieberman flyer.
Seriously...you can't single out Lieberman for the fact that the entire Senate fucked up.
red state, what exactly does Cynthia McKinney have to do with anything?
(except maybe that she will lose her primary along with Joe Lieberman losing his)
seedfreak, we need some more smart, articulate neophytes in Congress. Here is a Harvard and Yale educated, very successful business man. I think he is quite qualified, and I think most voters see his fresh perspective as an asset, and you are not doing Lieberman any favors by reminding voters of that fact.
Wow...I say "Michael Brown" you think "Iraq." You might want to invest in a second track for your mind, L4L.
seedfreak, you are more convincing when you defend Reagan than when you try to salvage Lieberman's smoldering campaign.
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.
But that's totally different! Ned Lamont isn't the cause of all the world's problems - Joe Lieberman is! So it's totally cool to blog for Our Savior while he works against Satan.
Has Lieberman asked Dan Gerstein to resign yet?
Has Lieberman apologized for his race baiting flyers and other Rovian dirty-tricks yet?
L4L - the article is HILARIOUS!!!
I actually think Lieberman should apologize for it. But has Lamont renounced Kos's connection with his campaign yet? After all, I think that hiring someone who said "screw them" about American citizens dying in Iraq ranks a bit higher on the scale of poor judgment than putting out that flyer.
In this race there is a moderate, and a neoconservative warmongerer.
Lamont is the moderate.
Problem is, Lieberman has stood up to George Bush far more than he has agreed with him. You all keep focusing on the exceptions that prove the rule - no one would care about Lieberman agreeing with Bush on something if he actually was a GOPer or a neoconservative.
What makes it interesting is that he IS a committed progressive, so when he does criticize progressives or agree with Bush, it's noteworthy.
And case you had forgotten:
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&&
centristdem, don't delude yourself. The flyer was an official act authorized by the Lieberman campaign, and it is no different, really, than other things that Lieberman himself has siad, except of course, it was sneakily done under the rader (not on TV, radio, etc.)
As for KOS, first he was criticized for having too much control over his submissive minions, and now you say that he is being controlled by the Lamont campaign. I don't think so. He is an independent voice, like maybe Lieberdem (the person, not the website) is.
Next up: Iran. Want a bigger, better war? Joe's your man.
Anon -
Fair enough, though I never actually said that Kos was controlled by Lamont or that the bloggers were controlled by Kos. I certainly will make no excuses for the flyer, because I find it personally offensive. My point was only that hiring Kos to work on an official campaign commercial was a very poor judgment call as well, since a commercial is no less an official campaign publication than a flyer.
More press coverage of the Joe's bus tour
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/07/lieberman_ralli.php
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Has Lieberman asked Dan Gerstein to resign yet?
Has Lieberman apologized for his race baiting flyers and other Rovian dirty-tricks yet?
Connecticut had its chance to choose their Senator 18 years ago. It's too late to change horses now...
This is America, once you elect someone to the Senate you can't just say "oops" 18 years later. That's Joe Lieberman's Senate seat now.
That damn Ned Lamont and his nut-nut-nut-nut-nutty nutters. Now they've gone and raised more than 200 grand online in less than two weeks.
How are we supposed to drown them in Lieber-cash if they just keep floating back to the surface?
Keep up the good work! So what if those moonbats don't respect Joe's greatness? Keep on fighting the good fight, and we shall be victorious August 8th.
Vote Joe Lieberman on Aug 8th
Joe has a Romantic Vision for the Future
great "lieberman supporter" parody site, will spread the word!
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."
Wow, you can't help but prove him right can you, anon?
You'd have to be a left wing nutcase to not see how Joe Lieberman has worked with our nation's leaders in a bipartisan way to move the country forward.
Go Joe! Stay the Course! Don't let the left wing extremists take over the country! We need another 18 years of your leadership and your success in Washington!
Fred,
I'm not sure if you are serious or not, but don't you think we need someone principled and steadfast like Senator Lieberman to provide leadership on the Iraq situation. During the past four years, during ups and downs, and as the situation on the ground has changed, Senator Lieberman has continued to provide very candid and wise advice to the President about how to deal with insurgency in amongs the radical leftists in the U.S. Congress. Ask yourself, would the country be better off with Saddam still in power? Okay, maybe that isn't the best question these days. But don't you think the Iraqi people deserve democracy! We need Joe Lieberman to make sure they get it.
Joey has dug his own political grave, even those wacko New Hampshire democrats saw through his act and his phoney move-in in their primary.
Missing the funerals of those who have lost their life in Iraq will haunt him.
Next up: Iran. Want WWIII? Joe's your man.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - lying must be in your DNA. Lieberman said that the US might want to consider targeted airstrikes against a few key components of the Iran nuke program as a last resort.
Hardly WWIII.
It is true. Joe Lieberman and G.W. Bush have made a lot of "progress" in spreading "freedom" in Iraq.
Just what is this "freedom"? It seems to mean in some way a total lack of jobs, food, water electricity, health care, sanitation, or future prospects.
Oh, and of course it also means being able to serve as cannon fodder for Sunni gunmen. Forgot that part.
Boy, I'm sure glad we don't have "freedom" here in the US.
Great idea, just a few targeted airstrikes against a few key components of Iran's nuclear program! A surgical strike. That should show all the bad guys that we mean business and that they better change their thinking!
I'm glad that such great mmilitary policy by Bush and Lieberman over the past four years has shown the world how strong and effective we have been!
I;m glad our soldliers didn't die for nothing.
CentristDem said:
Maybe you missed it, but Dan ceased to be a contributor on the blog once he started to work for the campaign. So your attempts to call LieberDem a liar or unethical are as laughable as you are.
Complete and utter bulls--t. Dan Gerstein posted yesterday, but was the "official spokesman" that confirmed the controversial flyers yesterday as well. Dan Gerstein also posted on Saturday and Friday.
When exactly did Dan Gerstein decide to volunteer for the Lieberman campaign? Yes, he says he started on Monday, but when did he make the decision? Was it before or after the post on Friday? Saturday? Monday? CentristDem, do you expect everybody here to believe that Dan Gerstein posted Friday, Saturday, and Monday, without even thinking about volunteering for Lieberman, but then only after Monday's posting, he thought about it for the first time and decided to join the campaign, at which point he immediately became an "official spokesman"? That's absurd and doesn't pass the smell test.
Without getting too far off in the woods, I speculate (emphasize the word "speculate") that regardless of when he began working on the Lieberman campaign, Dan Gerstein was not planning on telling anyone about his volunteer work. He got cornered when his name appeared affiliated with the Lieberman campaign on TalkingPointsMemo.com, and thus, Dan Gerstein had to leave the LieberDem blog.
Speculation, sure, but to me it seems more plausible than the idea that he only decided to volunteer for Lieberman after Monday's post, and was immediately promoted to "official spokesman". I guess it's also just a coincidence that LieberDem posted about this after Dan Gerstein's name showed up on TalkingPointsMemo. Whatever.
Some of you seem to want to play the game of "Look over there! Another blog is affiliated with a campaign!", but the difference between Kos supporting Lamont and Dan Gerstein supporting Lieberman is a matter of openness and honesty. Kos has been very open about his support of Lamont, and makes no apologies for it. The LieberDem blog, on the other hand, makes the claim that it is unaffiliated with the Lieberman campaign, and thus implicitly should be considered a more "credible" source of information about this primary battle.
I think Dan Gerstein could clear up a lot if he answered these simple questions, honestly:
1. When did you decide to volunteer for the Lieberman campaign?
2. In what capacity did you "informally advise" the Lieberman campaign, and how long had you been doing that?
3. What is your official title at the Lieberman campaign?
4. Are regular, grunt volunteers who've only worked for a few hours normally considered "official spokesmen" for the Lieberman campaign?
I love the smell of astroturf in the morning. It smells like...VICTORY!
Joshua Micah Marshall:
So back to yesterday's question: what happened to Joe Lieberman?
Was he angling for the Sec Def gig? Was he going for the highly improbable and fairly lame honor of dual nomination in the home state?
I don't know Lieberman. To the best of my recollection, I've never spoken to the guy. But I have a lot of friends who know him really well. And from them I get a story that has the ring of truth to me and squares with my own experience of the last half dozen years, though that's from a more distant view.
In their view, it all goes back to 2000.
Remember Ann Richards classic line about George Bush? "He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple."
Well, something similar about Lieberman. Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman in 2000. And fairly quickly he starts thinking he's better at running for president than Al. As one close-up Joe-watcher puts it (and I'm paraphrasing) Lieberman was terrible in 2000. And as he travelled the country he was more and more alienated from rank and file Democrats. Only he thought he'd done great.
Let me pick up the thread from another close-up Joe-watcher: "My guess. He watched Gore during the campaign and decided he could do better. He started thinking of the day he'd run on his own. This was first evidenced after the election when he sold Gore out on the soldiers vote issue. Here he's on the ticket and he is pandering to the right to make himself look good. I think he decided that he wins even if Gore loses ... Then he runs in '04 and sees that his success in 2000 as a candidate was not really his but Gore's. He was a great #2 but not a free standing great man. He was rejected. And he became bitter. Very bitter."
I think this is right. Lieberman always played to above-it-all Beltway opinion. But something changed after early 2004.
Republicans friends of mine point to his Iraq position and say it's all about Iraq. And quite a lot of it is about Iraq. But it's not just his position on the issue. Nor is it even that he doesn't cater to the views of the "base" of the party. It's been a lot more than that, at least for the last two-plus years. He's been something like willfully contemptuous of anyone who has strong partisan identification as a Democrat, notwithstanding their ideological hue. And I suspect that embitterment over the exploded sense of entitlement growing out of 2004 is at the root of it.
More about the co-founder of this "unofficial" website that is "not... affiliated" with the Lieberman campaign.
July 28, 2006
Anonymous Lieberman Adviser Who Raised Issue Of Lamont's Commitment To Israel Speaks Out
By Greg Sargent | bio
As I told you below, the Forward yesterday carried an interview with an unnamed "informal adviser" to Joe Lieberman who raised the issue of Lamont's commitment to Israel.
This adviser pointed out that Lamont had campaigned with Maxine Waters and Marcy Kaptur, two Dem members of Congress who didn't vote in favor of a recent resolution condemning Hezbollah for its actions towards Israel. This infuriated many Lamont supporters, who thought the anonymous Lieberman adviser was trying to sow doubts about Lamont's commitment to Israel.
Now I've spoken with the adviser myself, and he agreed to go on the record. The person who made these remarks is Dan Gerstein, a longtime key adviser to the Connecticut Senator who worked for him from 1994 until 2004, most recently as his communications director.
Anon...the part about Gerstein working for Lieberman until 2004 is nothing new. Actually, the fact that Gerstein worked for Lieberman until 2004 is something that both Gerstein and Matt acknowledged.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but Gerstein wasn't a "co-founder" of the site any more than Anderson Cooper is co-founder of CNN. Matt started the blog, and Dan later joined as a contributor.
So one of your points was a dud and another was dishonest.
A dud?? I'll tell you what's a dud. This site is a dud.
I'd rather have my teeth extracted than settle for six more years of Joementum.
L4L: Trolling, lying, creating "anonymous" posters to make it look like people actually like his posts, and calling stem cell research "frivolous" since 2006.
If all those Washington politicians are so evil, why is Lamont trying so hard to become one?
lieberman4lieberman - it's stock issue LieberDem kill the messenger stuff, don't feel too bad!
No Danger Stein?
Of course, he could have been blogging in HOPES of getting hired by the Lieberman campaign.
Not that it matters; it's a non-issue.
I noted in passing that a blogger here asserted Lieberman had "saved" the filibuster -- very much the contrary: the Gang of 14 killed it. It can't be used without the Gang siding with Frist's rules-tampering abuse of power. Frist got his way -- w/o the political cost.
Also, some African-American pastors were saying that Lieberman had not been seen in their churches an neighborhoods in 18 years. Don't know if that's true, but the good Senator's conspicuous silence re Southern Republican senators outspoken desire to kill the Voting Rights Act -- and voting rights in general -- seem fairly telling.
Noted that Lieberman attended the dinner where Bush gave his "can't find the WMDs under the couch" video. Camera shows Lieberman laughing at Bush's jokes, finding them very enjoyable.
This is the guy who presumed to moralize about Pres. Clinton in 1998 about lies and sex. But in 2004, re Bush's lies about the obscenity of an illegal/unConstitutional war, Lieberman's got nothing to say.
What about the children?
What about the Constitution?
What about US soldiers, ordered to violate US law by torturing? Ordered to kill civilians?
Where is Joe Lieberman's morality?
If Lieberman has one damned ounce of sense, he'll ask John Lewis to come campaign for him again this week.
Wait...did you just call John Lewis a sell-out?
Citizen Ned Lamont on Colbert Report last night: "If Joe Lieberman won't stand up to George Bush, then I will."
Point, set, match.
Ever heard of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee? The Freedom Rides? The Salma march?
John Lewis is by far the greatest living leader of the civil rights movement. He's not a nobody, and he's certainly not a sell-out.
A pronounced character trait seen again and again in Joe Lieberman's career is his willingness to wear his morality on his sleeve -- at significant cost to the public interest.
The PMRC thing is case in point. Whether pandering to religious voters or merely exploiting their sentiments, Joe Lieberman felt quite free to press for censorship of, or labeling of, rock music lyrics. Drop their contracts from the record label. Whatever.
Yet he had to consciously choose to reject quintessential core American political principles to do that. No steadfast confidence of the free market. No staunch defense of the rights of Frank Zappa and Jello Biafra to politically organize, to exercise their Creator-endowed, inalienable free speech rights. No concern that the American public square would be made barren and devoid of all but the blandest and most acceptable blandishments.
No. Joe Lieberman presumed to moralize. He raised the Scarlet Letter compulsion above the American character's insistence that abuse of an individual has no justification. The "morality" of some was deified by scapegoating and curtailing the free speech rights of the many.
How is that moral? Or in the public interest?
Well you won't get any argument from me that Lieberman isn't half the man John Lewis is, but then again I don't think there's an American alive who is half the man John Lewis is.
If you want to disparage Lieberman, fine. I don't like him either. But don't insult a true hero in the process.
I have supported Joe Lieberman for decades, since he was our attorney general. I agree with one of the previous comments that this is not about endorsements, but as the incumbent, Joe needs to make the case as to why he deserves another term.
I hope he will stand up and provide some leadership, especially on foreign policy matters. It looks like Israel and U.S. interests are no being well served by the Administration's policy. Joe made this one of his defining issues, writing OpEds in the WSJ and making speeches in the well of the Senate. What guidance and leadership can he provide now, when the country sorely needs it? He seems to be strangely silent.
Joe's guidance for Iraq? "Stay and pray"
Has Joe Lieberman apologized for the race-bating flyer and other Rovian dirty tricks tactics yet?
Hey Joe - Remember when Ned Lamont flip-flopped on his Iraq position? Me neither.
Virtually all "stay-the-course" partisans -- pundits, senators, and other officials alike, always get the meat of the issue wrong.
The ignore the core issue, even though they want to maintain the war was a bright idea (it wasn't). It wasn't responsibly conceived (never mind it being executed incompetently). The "Pottery Barn rule" totally inverts the issue: break something, and the store does NOT let you stay in the shop and continue breaking things. It makes you leave. Sovereignty means never being able to say it's your job to fix things. The damage can never be fixed, and is irrelevant.
THE REAL ISSUE issue is that this war represents a breach of trust with the American people. It was sold on false pretenses, and waged without a formal Declaration of War. A resolution? -- that's just an IRResolution, a failure of will on the part of Congress. Waged w/o just cause, w/o valid evidence, w/o leveling with the American people, w/o due process of Congressional debate and formal Declaration -- in EVERY respect, the war was a betrayal of the character, definition, and meaning of America. Right down to Congress's willing capitulation of its Powers to the usurpation of the Executive branch.
The issue is not whether the war was a bright idea, or a good method of acheiving certain results. The issue is that those "leading the way" betrayed the trust of the American people, their sworn obligation under the Constitution, and the root and trunk of the American nation, and it's purpose and meaning. That's not how we do things here.
Call it breach of trust. Call it fealty to swollen, unaccountable power. Just don't call it service to country.
Yet the egregious, overt lying still doesn't seem to bother Joe Lieberman. The judgement of history will not be kind to the man.
I wonder if Dan is also working with joe's other friends?
Quite a list there eh? How is it that Joe is the only "Liberal" on it?
Laurie Mylroie, Ph.D.
Adjunct Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Adviser on Iraq to Clinton-Gore Campaign, 1992
"Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. The intelligence and policy failure of the post-Cold War era was the Clinton administration's treatment of terrorism as a law enforcement issue and its refusal to recognize the evidence suggesting Iraq's role in that terrorism."
Laurie Freakin Mylroie???
And how could we have known that you were the administrator of this site? Since Dan's name was the first on the list of contributors?
SeedFreak said...
Lamont is against faith based funding for religious organizations. That's a shame as it reduces the funding for daycare, for social service programs, rehabs, youth outreach, AA meetings, etc that are hosted by so many religous centers.
Seedfreak, you sure don't sound like a Democrat to me. Why do Republicans seems to love Joe more than Democrats?
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
l4l - you seem to be confusing "defending" with "defunding". Lieberman has been good at defunding the homeland!
y.g. is so desperate for attention that he posted his rant about how terrible it is that a blog disagrees with him not once, but twice.
<< Home