Lieberman isn't even trying any longer to pretend he has any sympathy for the Democratic cause.
He and Dan Gerstein have launched a full-throttle attack on a number of Democrats and liberals.
Let me repeat this because it's important to note who he is and is not choosing to attack: Lieberman feels it most productive right now to attack Democrats and liberals rather than this administration and its party:
Gerstein posed "a question" for Lamont.
How could he expect to convince "moderate Democrats, Republicans, and most importantly, unaffiliated voters" that he "would be anything other than a rigid partisan rubber stamp in the Senate," the Lieberman spokesman asked, "when the only proof of his independence he can show is that he is slightly to the right of socialist Bernie Sanders on fiscal policy?"
"Why should anyone outside the Sharpton/Kos wing of the Democratic Party believe Ned Lamont will represent their views in Washington?" he added
There is NOTHING in his statement concerning the policies perpetuated by Republicans.
It's important to note that the latest line of attack coming from conservative quarters in Connecticut is that Ned Lamont is, if not a Communist, than a Socialist. It started with an editorial by the extremely right-wing editorial board of the Waterbury Republican-American linking Ned to his grandfather and great grandfather:
His great-grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, was chairman of J.P. Morgan. A wealthy progressive pacifist, he was the sugar daddy for the American Communist Party and other extreme left-wing organizations. His wife, Florence, belonged to such subversive groups as the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship and American Committee for Friendship with the Soviet Union.
Their son, Corliss Lamont, was an unapologetic Stalinist and atheist. Congress once declared him "probably the most persistent propagandist for the Soviet Union to be found anywhere in the United States." As national chairman of The Friends of Soviet Russia, he refused to condemn Josef Stalin's show trials in the 1930s. For 22 years, he was director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been financed by communists and dedicated to advancing Marxism since its inception and to this day seeks to impose socialism and atheism on America. He also chaired the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee for 30 years, during which time he fought efforts to root out Soviet spies and sympathizers in the U.S. government and military. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate from New York in 1952 with the American Labor Party and in 1958 with the Independent Socialist Party; both parties fronted communist causes. Near the end of his life, he befriended Cuba's Stalinist tyrant, Fidel Castro.
Okay, so Ned's family was rather left leaning. How does that prove Ned's the same way? Because of his present associations:
Race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton stumped for Lamont and were present for his victory party Tuesday, as was Castro sophist Lowell P. Weicker Jr. "We have long known that the majority of the so-called black civil-rights leaders and black preachers are communist-socialist pigs who hate America and hate Israel, passionately despise President Bush, and can't stand the melting of their once widespread power since 9/11," the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, wrote in a 2003 commentary. The Communist Party USA endorsed Mr. Jackson's presidential bid in 1988 and Mr. Sharpton's in 2004. In June, the party's convention declared that Lamont "can make a positive contribution toward changing control and direction of Congress."
The last sentence is the coup de grace and takes the prize for being the most over the top statement this cycle:
Red Ned may label himself a progressive, but when he espouses goals shared by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, et al., he gives away his true color.
Why do I recall this horrific editorial? Because just as Lieberman seems to be co-ordinating with Cheney to label his own party soft on terrorism, he's working in co-ordination to spread the shit put out by this extreme Wingnuttery:
Gerstein said today that he never intended to red-bait Lamont, saying, "We never raised anything like what the Republican American did."
"I was just being light," he said, adding that Sanders is "not a communist, but a socialist."
I guess this Cold War rhetoric goes along with Lieberman characterizing Islamic terrorism as more dangerous than Nazism and Soviet Communism. Add in this talk of the a return of McGovernism and Lieberman has a great campaign on his hands -- if he ran it maybe 30 years ago.
Thank God Ned's campaign won't let this Red-baiting Swiftboat campaign stick:
Liz Dupont-Diehl, Gerstein's counterpart in the Lamont campaign, reacted today by saying that, "the 140,000 people who voted for Ned Lamont would be very surprised to hear they are communists."
"Ned Lamont is someone who has run a business for more than 20 years, he is an entrepreneur, he's got a bank loan, and he has met payrolls and provided jobs with benefits for dozens of people," she added. "He's not been on the public payroll, and he can work constructively with people of varying backgrounds, ideologies, and motivations for the common good.
"This is just another attempt by the Lieberman campaign to distract attention from his own record."
Meanwhile, Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager, charged in his own e-mail to supporters that Lieberman had engaged in "Bush-speak" in "a direct attack on Ned and the Democratic Party"...
"He even went as far as calling you 'anti-security before the election," Swan wrote to Lamont supporters. "Sound familiar? Of course it does. The politicizing of terror and fear-mongering peddled by Senator Lieberman and his favorite president for the past five years is part of the problem in Washington, D.C. and it's why the people of Connecticut voted for change on Tuesday."
Lieberman is so out of touch with his own state that he doesn't realize he's running for election in Connecticut, not Texas. If anyone wanted proof that Lieberman took Karl Rove up on his offer for help, this article is it.
Update [2006-8-14 22:52:31 by John Campanelli]:: I think it should be noted that Lieberman had sought Al Sharpton's endorsement before the primary :
Sharpton and Lieberman were friendly rivals in the 2004 presidential contest, when both mounted short-lived campaigns for the Democratic nomination. Lieberman also was the Democratic Party nominee for vice president in 2000.
Sharpton said Lieberman called him over the weekend to ask for his endorsement, but Sharpton told him he disagrees with him on too many issues.
But I thought Lieberman was a man of principle. Why the demonization of Sharpton now after he previously wanted his endorsement? Can you say "flip-flop"?