As we all know, Joe Lieberman is trying to seem all calm and unconcerned about Ned Lamont's challenge for the CT Democratic Senator nomination. Meanwhile, he makes silly anti-Lamont ads with
cartoon bears suggesting that Lamont is merely a proxy candidate for Lowell Weicker. This is all because Weicker has offered his support to Ned and is helping him fundraise: clearly then he MUST have been behind Ned's very idea to run, right? In another commercial...
Joe attacks Ned for some votes Ned cast in his past as a Selectman in Greenwich. Never mind that these votes were taken more than ten years ago, or that Joe
whined when similar tactics were used against him by Weicker in the past (New Haven Register via
My Left Nutmeg):
Using obscure votes out of context, however, was something Lieberman himself decried in his book, "In Praise of Public Life," when he ran successfully against former U.S. Sen. Lowell Weicker in 1988.
"One of those ads was technically accurate, but didn't mention that the tax votes cited were cast seventeen years earlier," Lieberman wrote at the time of the race against Weicker.
The biggest problem with the attack ads is well...they aren't really true. This letter (scroll down- it's the second letter) in the Greenwich Citizen points out some of the misleading and dishonest "facts" used in Joe's ad. For example, Joe tells us in his commercial how Lamont voted against cleaning asbestos out of the high school (presumably, Ned hates children while Lieberman just loves [getting photographed with] them...). Here we learn:
Actually, Lamont wanted a second opinion, as he believed the proposed costs were too high. While competitive bidding seems to have become passé in this Bush-Cheney era of no-bid contracts, it nevertheless remains the fiscally responsible approach. In Bush's world of record deficits, the country could use a Connecticut senator who knows how to add, subtract and manage fiscally responsible budgets. Ned Lamont is that man.
There's more in there but the link is provided above. The bottom line is that while there are obviously important races where Democrats are running against Republicans, Joe is:
1. using Republicanesque smear tactics to attack his opponent.
2. trying to paint his opponent as unwilling to spend money to help his town (a la Republicans)
3. actually far closer than Ned to being a Republican himself!
Joe gets the positive voting ratings but he just works the system to seem more liberal than he really is. It's all in this wonderful article by Paul Bass. Joe is the consummate politician. We could really do with fewer of these professional politicians. As Ned has said, unlike Joe, HE won't be George Bush's favorite Democrat.
It isn't just the war either. It's about Joe's anti-gay sentiment and misguided attack on violent video games (while supporting the REAL violence of actual war: fought as we all know for ever-changing and disingenous reasons). It's about Joe's support for denying habeas corpus to detainees in Gitmo (if they're so guilty, why don't we give them trials?). It's about the lack of oversight Joe cares to give the Republican machine that tramples liberty at home while professing the desire to spread them in Iraq (though many of Paul Bremer's edicts seem more designed to liberate Iraqi capital to outside businesses than to liberate the Iraqi people...and nevermind the permanent US bases...but I digress...sorry!)...
The point is, there's a difference between being inclusive and including ideas that undermine the Democratic party itself. Is there a place for Rove in the party? How about for his smear tactics? What harm could there be in bringing dignity to this office by supporting the candidacy of Ned Lamont? Joe is politics as usual, as performed by the GOP. I don't want to divert resources or attention away from the crucial Congress races. However, I can't imagine we need any more Joementum bringing down the state or the Democratic party itself.