I Don't Like the Implications of This

[Dr Ron]

From Political Wire:

There's a guest post on what Lieberman plans to do if he loses the primary:

"Expect Lieberman to can anyone who was associated with 2004 Kerry campaign and replace them with a team of pungent veterans who will take the fight to Lamont. As Lieberman tours the broiling state, you can almost hear the gloves coming off in preparation for a fight to the finish in November."

What are they saying--that Lieberman will lose because of those people from the Kerry campaign who didn't fight?

First of all, while there were things we might have wish were done differently, he did quite good against an incumbent during time of war.

Second of all, I'm not aware of any top Kerry staffers being with Lieberman (not that I really know much about who is on Lieberman's staff). I'm assuming that the people they are talking about were lower level people in the Kerry campaign. If I'm correct on this, it sure doesn't make any sense that lower level staffers be blamed for Kerry's loss regardless of what you think of his overall campaign. If they don't want to hire Shrum and other top people that might be a different story.

[Dr Ron]

1. Good comment at Kos

Kos has a comment on this post. No refutation of the Kerry line, but at least he didn't take the bait and pile on further. The worthwhile comment from Kos is:

"And finally, what's this "take the fight to Lamont" bullshit? They've spent the last four months "taking the fight to Lamont". They've accused him of being a racist, they've accused him of being a Republican, they've accused him of being a left-wing extremist, and they've accused him of trying to buy the election.

"Does this mean that Lieberman, if he stays in the race, plans on throwing away what little of his so-called integrity he might have left?"

[ProSense]

2. What's the implication:

that they had something to do with his atrocious position on the war that caused him to fall out of favor with the majority of CT voters?

There is a difference between fighting lies and fighting to defend an extremely unpopular (clueless) position. In Lieberman's case, he has the support of the corporate media and the GOP, but unfortunately all of them are now having to cover from the fallout over the Iraq quagmire.

[karynnj]

4. I assume that it's because

they likely AGREE with those who have moved away from Lieberman because of his atrocious position.

You're right that is can't be the carnard that they didn't fight back over lies, because - unfortuntely - Liberman's position is truthfully portrayed.

[ProSense]

5. Thanks for posting the snip Dr. Ron. Clarifying:

snarky response not directed at you. The writer's implication is clearly to disparage.

[kerrygoddess]

8. Not sure if

Lieberman actually has former staff members. No link on Political Wire to a news story. My sources say it's bunk - no staffers from 04 campaign.

[karynnj]

3. that is strange and I wouldn't interpert it that way

The big Lieberman/Lamont issue is Iraq. I assume that the top and middle people in the Kerry campaign knew where he was on the war - these were not the DU lefties who plugged their ears and screamed that Dean was a dove and Kerry a hawk - they likely knew his history and his positions. I seriously doubt there were many people at this level who were the type of hawks still with Lieberman.

I can see this saying:

- He wants hardcore DLC people (of the Marshall Wittmann vintage). Wittmann made clear in his spring piece after Kerry's dissent speech that he never like or trusted Kerry.
- He wants to not have anyone in a leadership position who may be behind him in spite of his Iraq position. (Lieberman was even in 2004 closer to Bush than Kerry on Iraq - I seriously doubt anyone agreeing with Lieberman would have worked for Kerry - even if they voted for him.)
- He wants to make the general election a referendum on Iraq.

I would think on the lowest level, you have the loyal party operatives. They are most likely to not even be available to Lieberman - they are committed to the party and are very involved in local campaigns.

If he is saying the Kerry people would not engage in a viscious campaign - that is to their credit. i assume though - the thought is - if a person actively supported John Kerry - with his dovish past - they aren't gung ho Liberman.

[Dr Ron]

6. Strategy over issues

This impression I get from reading this (and the rest of the article) is that the are looking purely at strategy. They don't get the fact that Lieberman might lose due to being wrong on two major issues and being out of touch with the people of the state. (I say two issues because I consider his arguments that we should not critize Bush during wartime, etc to be a second issue, even if closely related, on top of the Iraq issue).

The mind set seems to be that if Lieberman loses it isn't because he is wrong on the issues but because he didn't fight strongly enough (and those weak Kerry people dragged him down). Sure it doesn't make sense, but that's the impression I get of what they are thinking.

[karynnj]

7. Thanks Dr Ron,

I agree with your comments then - and think it is stupid. In a way, if other candidates avoid the Kerry people (which doesn't seem to be the case), it lets him keep those who are good.

[Mass]

9. Josh Marshall has an explanation of why JL has decided to support Bush

that much that could explain why he hates Kerry so much.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009266.php

...

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 dont know if this explanation holds, though JM is usually well informed. If it does, there is no doubt that JL would be bitter when it comes to Kerry, and therefore lead to comments like that or like the Senate speech about iraq.

[karynnj]

12. Interesting insight

It does seem as though it could have merit - I heard Lieberman on the Hannity on the radio a few months ago - and he was speaking about the lack of leadership in the Democratic party - as he mentioned both 2004 and now - and he (and Hannity) bemoaned that the party didn't listen to him.

[TayTay]

10. He wants "pungent veterans"? Oh my!

Encarta Dictionary Definiton of Pungent:

1. strong smelling or strong tasting: having a strong smell or a powerfully sharp or bitter taste

2. caustic: expressed in or showing a witty and biting manner.

Lieberman is going to hire a bunch of smelly guys who, ahm, bitterly bite? Ah, okay Joe, have at it. But if I was a Connecticut voter, these are not qualities that would make me more likely to vote for you. Perhaps pungent veterans are not really what you should be aiming to get. Perhaps a new and more palatable position on the Iraq War and on how to treat fellow Democrats might smell less and, ahm, bite more.

Pungent. Figures.

[karynnj]

11. lol - The word sounded wrong

I guess they wanted pugnageous - but looking at the dictionary definitions - they sound a nasty lot too. We can be tough, but high minded with integrity.

Definitions of pugnacious on the Web:

hard-bitten: tough and callous by virtue of experience
ready and able to resort to force or violence;