"blaming America first,” Mehlman writes

I recognize that one, it's 1971 culture wars talk, "America love it or leave it." I can't see it working except with the conservative base.

Unless, and this is would be long shot, really unlikely: the Israel situation gets a whole lot worse and the the "it's all 100% America's fault for past support of the state of Israel" contingent gets I.D.'d with the Dem party. (An awful lot of liberal politicians who have supported Israel in general in the past would have to disappear for that to happen.)

As for the isolationist j'accuse, no problemo, the more they scream that one, the better it will be for the Democrats. The majority of Americans are ready to move back towards the natural state of affairs on that, mho.

2. The Icing on the Blunder. Lieberman said he would run independent “for the sake of our state, our country and my party.”

The Lieberman campaign spin is he's running as an "independent Democrat". The media is picking it up and it needs to be cut off quickly. CT State law:

Sec. 9-453u. (Formerly Sec. 9-378m). Reservation of party designation.

(b) The statement shall include the offices for which candidates may petition for nomination under the party designation to be reserved but shall not include an office if no elector who has signed the application is entitled to vote at an election for such office.

(c) The statement shall include the party designation to be reserved which (1) shall consist of not more than three words and not more than twenty-five letters; (2) shall not incorporate the name of any major party;

It's a fiction that Joe Lieberman is running as an "independent Democrat". Elections are about choosing a candidate on a ballot and the only Democrat on the ballot this fall for US Senate is Ned Lamont. By law.

Anytime you see media accounts citing Joe Lieberman's "independent Democrat" campaign be sure to send them the relevant CT law and ask them to stick to the facts. Ned Lamont is the only candidate allowed to call himself a Democrat in the CT Senate election.

Ah, that dangerous contingent, criticizing a policy that has done such wonders for our and Israel's security... Let's hope that the Democratic Party remains that of 2002, when 100% - 1 of its congressional delegation voted to support the Man of Peace's destruction of Jenin and Ramallah. Yes, those brave souls haven't gone away, rest assured.

Mary, From RI you've probably paid closer attention

ha.

I wish I saw someone in this thread pointing out the obvious about Joe's Maxine Waters reference: he is promising to deliver CT from uppity Black people (now that it turned out he couldn't win by getting their ministers to deliver him their passive vote.) In addition to numerous other faults, the guy is a classic white racist pol.

Can It Happen Here?

Really good point. I'd like to suggest that several of us make minimal contributions to Lieberman's campaign, give email address, etc., whatever it takes to be on the mailing list.

I see the Sec'y of State will introduce a law which would keeped failed CT primary candidates from turning around and running again as Lieberman has done. Forgotten the exact wording, but it seemed pretty fair. I think the use of his campaign to gather signatures for an independent run even as he was involved in a campaign as a Dem was, well, very very Joe and why he'd never get my vote. Kind of like DeLay who, forced to stay on the ballot in TX-22, is encouraging a Republican write-in.

And that re-defining includes the party name, now the "Democrat Party".

I saw this over on mydd, and wrote to the readers' rep at the Courant. She wrote back, pretty much immediately, and said I was right, and that she would straighten out the staff, and perhaps make it a topic of one of her columns.

I think if we push back on this, it will stop. Lieberman is no longer a Democratm, and shouldn't be allowed to claim that status.

Happy to see a rapid fire response from Todd G on this. I couldn't agree more with WhiteRoseBuddy's response at 4:24 p.m. to Gitlin's statement "the Bush crowd aren’t content to define the Republicans—they want to define both parties."... Democrats must define not only the party but the entire debate. I think there are lessons to be learned from Berkley linguistic Prof. George Lakoff. There could be a more recent article but this is a good, if lengthy one. http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/8/lakoff-g.html....P.S. I'm sure the righteous wing will have a field day with Lamont's victory speech, especially with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton featured prominently behind him.

I believe in Ohio they call this the Sore Loser Statute , and it is currently preventing the Republicans choosen successor from taking Ney ballot position.

in case you didn't catch it, Josh Marshall sort of addressed your point on TPM:

...I really don't think the Missouri senate race is going to turn on Jim Talent challenging Claire McCaskill on whether she'll endorse Ned Lamont and abandon Joe Lieberman. I don't think most voters around the country really know or care that much about Joe Lieberman. And to the extent that they know who he is, outside of the committed partisans on both sides, they don't realize or think or imagine (as the Russert/Kristol/Matalin/Broder axis does) that he's this symbolically resonant figure on whom the fate of the nation may alas rest.

The heart of the matter here is that everyone knows Joe in DC. They like him. They think he's a nice guy, which he is. His staff likes him, which also makes him seem like a nice guy. He's schmoozed the city for two decades.

But really he's just a pol who ignored his constituents, went into serious denial about a major foreign policy disaster, was more lockstep with the president's non-policy than many Republicans, and got bounced by his constituents.

That's politics. And that's accountability. And, really? It's not that big a deal.

Many Americans are not comfortable with the idea of just pulling out of Iraq. But the war is really unpopular. I think most Americans realize that the president thinks his Iraq policy is a rousing success and most Democrats don't. They get that. They see it. They understand it. If Republicans think the Martyrdom of Joe is going to be their killer issue, let them have at it. They're trying to knock the Dems off their stride but they're showing their desperation. The whole thing is, in both the most serious and frivolous senses of the word, a joke....

The one thing that stands out to me in this whole fiasco is the phrasing Lieberman and the GOP are using. The subtext seems to be that the common everyday folks who voted one way or another are idiots. Lieberman is going to "take care care of" these poor children who just don't know any better. The GOP is going on about how "the extreme left" are causing clouded thinking in these mindless idiots [sorry for the self contradictory wording]. They are saying the vote was wrong. Why do they hate America so much?

dc

Lakoff is often very good, sometimes misses or obfuscates. Another language expert who's weighed in on the problem is Geoffrey Nunberg. Haven't read his book but his interviews have been very, very on point.

A vote for Lamont is a vote for a weak effort against Al Quaeda?

Good lord, I simply burst out laughing at this one. I damn near scarfed my morning cup all over the keyboard.

Dick Cheney said that? Is he on crack? What an amazing lack of self consciousness.

Let's ask Dick one question: "Caught Osama yet?"

Yeah, Dick knows all about weak efforts. He should stick to shooting his pals in the face.

I barely think they have to. This is laughable, and has no traction among voters. At least other than the rabid right wing base, which we don't get anyway.

Give me a break...this is a weak meme that does not NEED a response.

You may think it's weak; I may think it's weak but given read alerts - albeit thanks to the Brits good work - how will Joe-Six-pack and Soccer Mom not to mention the Born-again Christian feel about it.

I think immediate response is very necessary and it should include attacks  on the administration's incompetence in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It should also include personal attacks on Cheney and Bush.  This is no time to be squeamish.

On the other hand Cheney has said that a vote for Lamont is a vote for a weak effort to Al Qaeda

I just wanted to point out to any Democratic Party strategists or elected Dems that this statement by Cheney is a signal for you to attack him and his character in the most personal way possible.
Cheney has just defamed you, your character and the character of your Party. By not answering him you are letting him win and define you.

The type of response you give matters too. So when Russert plays this quip on Meet the Press this weekend you can not simply say "that's not true" or "that's absurd tim", you have to attack Cheney and his party as he attacked you to:
a)show Cheney and the GOP that smear will be met by smear.
b)tell the American public that you will fight for your dignity and by extension the dignity of America if the voters choose you. We saw this with Kerry. Not fighting means surrender. Fighting means victory. Your official position or policy perscription means nothing if you don't answer and fight slurs on your reputation.

I leave it to others to come up will good kill quotes to use on Cheney although I think that based on how much traitor talk the right is throwing our way, we should step up to the plate and just let them have it with both barrels. I think we need spokesmen to say that the Bush Republicans are traitors for using the military to advance their domestic political agenda, that they started the Iraq war to put more Republican's in Congress and that the blood of America's noble servicemen and women are on their hands. Our soldiers are dying in Iraq to keep Republican's in Congress. It's wrong and it's immoral. Let's have a real National Security Strategy that is run by the CIA and the Pentagon professionals, not Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove.

See how they like it. It is a message the American people want to hear to make sense of their suffering. A 1940s Democrat would not hesitate on this, I think people who are put off by the aggressive tone should remember that.

One quick point. The key to making this forceful statement strategy work is by only using it when confronted by your opponents slander. Never initiate but fight to kill if attacked.