They're getting redder every day.

This blurb from The Raw Story details Lieberman's hiring of Marshall Wittmann, former Christian Coalition flunky and general GOP front man, as his communications director.

So much for "Independent."  Maybe he ought to just register with Likud.

Boy, is this (subscription link) not surprising:

Senate Democratic aides are a tad nervous about Sen. Joe Lieberman (Whatever-Conn.) hiring a former GOP spokesman to be his new communications director. Especially those working for potential 2008 Democratic presidential contenders.

Several Senate Democratic aides say they’re uneasy about the notion of Lieberman’s new communications director, Marshall Wittmann, sitting in on their weekly press secretary meetings.

That’s because Wittmann, a darling of the press who gives great quotes, was a spokesman for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) before going to the Democratic Leadership Council.

During his political lifetime, Wittmann has bounced from the left to the right to the middle. Democratic aides say they’re just not sure they can trust Wittmann. He is, after all, still a loyal supporter of McCain, the Republicans’ potential 2008 frontrunner. Can they rest assured that what they say in their private weekly meetings will stay between them and not get back to the enemy?

No. They cannot. But that's the bargain they made with Lieberman. Now Senate Dems will act surprised?

We can't say we didn't warn them.

Two more years. Once the Dems increase their Senate advantage, they can put Lieberman out to pasture in the backbench.

In the meantime, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to freeze Wittmann out.

According to Roll Call (via RAW STORY), several Democratic aides are extremely upset that Senator Lieberman has hired former GOP spokesman Marshall Wittmann, the fifty-two year old political pundit and activist who worked for the Christian Coalition , served as a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), was a legislative director for the conservative Heritage Foundation and once was the communications director to Sen. John McCain, as Sen. Lieberman's new senate communications director.

As pontificator highlights in his diary today, war cheerleader and New Republic, DLC-style "more muscular foreign policy" advocate, Jonathan Chait, is now suggesting that restoring Saddam to power may be the only way to re-establish order in Iraq.

Nevermind how incredibly, insanely pathetic this latest drivel to emerge from the fingertips of this keyboard coward is, but keep in mind that this is the same pundit/genius who penned this gem on September 17:

A liberal hawk strikes back.

(more)

Seems that railing against the netroots and complaining that the American People Just Don't Understand Why We Can't Leave Iraq through the DLC and his blog weren't enough.

Now the former Communications Director for Saint John the Straightshooter is now officially on Lieberman's staff.

(Don't know if this has been diaried yet.  If so, I couldn't find it via tags.  But to paraphrasee Johhny Cochran:  If it's a repeat, I must delete.  ...Well, if someone asks, anyway -- Chumley)

Joe Lieberman made official a love affair that has been raging for years now, between himself and alleged "moderate" blogger Marshall Wittman, late of the Democratic Leadership Council (Lieberman's old haunt), and -- before that -- the Christian Coaltion.   Wittman has been hired as Lieberman's new communications director.

I must assume since Bullmoose is one of the official DLC bloggers that this is not a position that group objects to Wittmann having and presenting so loudly on his blog today.  

It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

And, to be fair, Joe lived up the "principle" of never criticizing the Bush administration:

[I]t is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. . . . Secretary Rumsfeld's removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq.

No longer. Now Joe "emboldens the terrorists," saying Rummy must resign on the Ed Schultz show.

A man of principle?

Sometimes there is a higher calling than partisanship. The country desperately needs the type of centrist leadership that Joe Lieberman has provided throughout his career. Unlike the Liliputians, Joe puts country first. While other notable politicians have flipped-flopped for political expediency, Joe has bravely sailed against the wind.

Uh, looks like the Moose needs a new hero.

Race tracker wiki: CT-Sen

So, I decided to write him with a little bit of snark and my usual civility when I engage those I have distaste for.  My letter is after the jump.

Essentially, Katyal explained that the reason the Bush Administration insisted on its military commissions was because the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 3 of the Geneva Convention preclude the use of coerced evidence (thus, evidence resulting from torture can not be used.) So, for the GOP Congress to give Bush what he wants they have to approve of torture. MORE  

What activists like [Gov. Howard] Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That's the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one.

Lamont's candidacy also has become a priority for many liberal websites, such as Daily Kos -- whose founder, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, recently appeared in one of Lamont's television advertisements. With the involvement of these groups, the face-off between Lieberman and Lamont in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary has emerged as the focal point of tensions between Democratic liberals and centrists over the party's direction.

"This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "It will have repercussions for the 2008 presidential campaign and whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party."

http://www.latimes.com/...

It has some very interesting quotes from Marshall Wittmann, senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

By an overwhelming majority, Joe Lieberman is the officially endorsed candidate of the Connecticut Democratic Party. No matter how you spin it, if you are on the short end of 67 to 33 - you lose - unless if you live in the parallel universe of the netroots. It is there that Howard Dean is President of the United States. In that territory, Rodriguez defeated Cuellar back in Texas.

Ooh, somebody's got a case of the grouchies. How's that saying go? First they ignore you, then they yell at you, then you can't get fooled again (then you win)? It's gonna be fun watching the Moose and the rest of the DLC scream like WATBs during Lamont's March through CT.  It is a little confusing, at first blush, why Whittman is so dismayed by the primary challege to his favorite Vichy Democrat, especially when his blog constantly evokes the image and writings of the man who said "If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month."

Last week, over at Bull Moose (the motto's been changed to "All Bull, No Moose"), Marshall Wittman chose to bring up the mercenaries killed in Iraq last year and Markos' unfortunate "Screw 'em" post (which he subsequently recanted).

Why bring this up? (And continue to bring it up?)

Wittman likes Lieberman. Kos apparently appeared in a Lamont commercial (I haven't seen it, being in Illinois and all). And after the delegate vote in Connecticut, in which Lamont's surprisingly strong showing scared the bejeezus outta the Lieberman camp, Wittman's got an ax to grind.

So Wittman dragged the "Screw 'em" episode out of the attic trunk. Only he didn't say they were mercenaries.

In true Rovian fashion, he called them "American victims of terrorism"...

From the diaries. mcjoan

A friend of mine, Ed Kilgore, who works for the DLC, wrote:

I sometimes despair of convincing bloggers that people like me support what we support and oppose what we oppose for reasons of principle.

When it comes to Ed, I am certain that is true. I am even willing to operate under the premise that others in the DLC operate that way. But here is the DLC's problem - Marshall Wittman works for them:

Unfortunately, American progressives rarely speak about the stakes in the war against Jihadism. They are far too preoccupied with complaining about the Administration's failures in the war. Of course, there is much to criticize. But, the enemy is not this President, but a profoundly reactionary faction that seeks to defeat America in Iraq and then move on to other triumphs. Whatever one's position on the wisdom of removing Saddam's tyranny, that fact should be apparent.

. . . Defeatism prevails in the Democratic Party. While that stance may appear to have short-term political benefits, the party will and should pay a stiff price with both the American people and history if it presses for retreat at the moment our enemy is on the offensive.

Zarqawi understands the stakes. Blair understands the stakes. It's time for Democrats to grasp the stakes, as well.

Let's forget about the inaccuracy of Wittman's analysis. Being wrong is not a sin. What is shameful and despicable is Wittman's continued aping of the Republican Party's New McCarthyite tactic of labelling disagreement with him and Bush as "defeatism." Understand what he is saying - Zbig Brzezenzki, General Wesley Clark, former Reagan Secretary of the Navy and current Dem Virginia Senatorial candidate Jim Webb, former Reagan Administration official Lawrence Korb and over 70% of the American People want defeat for the United States in Iraq according to Wittman.

I am sorry Ed, but Wittman and the DLC, as long as the DLC does not disavow his pronouncements, are not entitled to respect in my view. The D in DLC is supposed to stand for Democratic (I know Wittman claims to be an Independent, though his support for McCain says otherwise). Attacking the patriotism of Democrats for disagreeing with you is not what I expect to hear from Democratic organizations. As many negative things as we have written about Joe Lieberman, we have never, and we never will, question his love for the United States. His loyalty to the Democratic Party? Well, I think he has left himself open to such questioning.

Hillary Clinton is closely identified with the DLC. What is her opinion of these scurrilous attacks on the patriotism of Democrats by Wittman?