In terms of imagery as an independent candidate, Joe Lieberman is now in big trouble due to this:
The White House funneled millions of dollars through major Republican Party contributors to Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s primary campaign in a failed effort to ensure the support of the former Democrat for the Bush administration.
A senior GOP source said the money was part of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove’s strategy to maintain a Republican majority in the Senate in November. The source said Mr. Rove, together with Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, directed leading pro-Bush contributors to donate millions of dollars to Mr. Lieberman’s campaign for re-election in Connecticut in an attempt that he would be a “Republican-leaning” senator.
“Joe [Lieberman] took the money but said he would not play ball,” the source said. “That doesn’t mean that this was a wasted investment.”
The last statement reeks of a CYA statement that a source gives a journalist to short-circuit and protect someone who is being mentioned in a quote that could spark an outcry against the person being mentioned (yours truly knows this because as a full-time journalist he was faced with lots of statement such as this on sensitive stories).
But Lieberman probably did indeed say that and believes it: just because he took the money doesn’t mean he has been bought by people with an agenda at odds with what has been his party for many years.
On the other hand, let’s get this straight:
(1) So if during the 1950s the Communist Party gave thousands of dollars to Mr. Y and he took it, but said he wouldn’t play ball, the government and many citizens would still consider Mr. Y completely independent and not prone to sympathize and cooperate with the Communist Party?
(2) And if during the early 21st century Al Qaeda gives Mr. Z in Peoria $4,000 and Mr. Z takes the money but says he won’t play ball with Al Qaeda the government and most Americans would consider Mr. Z completely independent and not prone to sympathize and cooperate with Al Qaeda?
NOTE: Those aren’t meant to be inflammatory examples or to imply that the GOP is at all similar to a Communist or Al Qaeda group. But those are the two groups that during the past 60 years have been most seen as having covert, fellow-traveler members.
So if that bothers you, here’s an alternative way of looking at it:’
(3) So if the NRA gives Mr. Z in Oriskiny Falls, New York $4,000 and Mr. Z takes the money but says he won’t play ball with the NRA many citizens would still consider Mr. Z completely independent and not prone to sympatize and cooperate with the NRA?
(4)So if the NARAL gives Mr. A in Boca Grande (a city for people too big mouthed to live in Boca Raton) $6,000 and Mr. A takes the money but says he won’t play ball with the NARAL many citizens would still consider Mr. A completely independent and not prone to sympathize and cooperate with the NRA?
Also, what is the news source for this story? Is it The Nation? Daily Kos? Nope. And nope again.
The news source is Insight Magazine, which is run by the Washington Times (we got the link from a reader who saw it on Americablog). So it can’t be dismissed as part of a mainstream media plot to get Lieberman — or as a news story put out there by the far left to discredit Lieberman in a leftist publication. MORE:
Mr. Rove has been responsible for the White House’s effort to ensure a GOP majority in Congress for the last two years of Bush’s presidency. Internal party polls show the GOP could lose between 30 and 40 seats in the House as well as its majority in the Senate. A Democratic majority in the Senate would require the GOP to lose at least six seats.
The source said that under Mr. Rove’s direction, the GOP has abandoned its Senate candidate in Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger, who has dropped to about five percent in the polls. Mr. Schlesinger has failed to win the support of any national Republican and has virtually no contact with the White House.
In contrast, Mr. Lieberman, who has called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was deemed a major component of the GOP strategy in November. Mr. Lieberman is expected to win the general election after losing the Democratic primary to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. However, the race with Mr. Lamont has been tightening considerably.
The impact of this?
It’ll be noticed by some bloggers and by some in the media, but it probably won’t get a ton of attention (we could be wrong about this). Lieberman’s critics will seize on it, and run with it just as Lieberman’s defenders will do the Political Macarena to justify it or go on the attack against those who use it to deflect what its significance.
(Blogs including this one have Tip Jars but we seldom know anything about who decides to donate: it’s just a name and an amount coming to you via Paypal or Amazon. It’s not the same with politicians and their contributions.)
What this all means means is that it’s not just a mere assumption anymore: the White House wants Lieberman in there because he is considered on their team.
So GOPers can vote for Lieberman, figuring they’re voting for a candidate that supports the administration. Anti-war and anti-Bush Democrats can in good conscience vote against Lieberman, now knowing that he has taken money from the White House which didn’t give this to Lieberman’s Tip Jar but specifically because they believe he will help them control the Senate.
And truly independent voters?
If they’re following this race (those in Connecticut and beyond) they cannot help but conclude that there’s a bit of deja vu here because of this in Pennyslvania.
Indepedendent? Not quite.
And as Jerry Seinfeld would say, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that….” Who says there is intrinsic value in being independent?
But it’d be nice to be honest about what he is and isn’t.
And this article is a start.
UPDATE: A new poll finds Lieberman opponent Ned Lamont way behind — so far behind that it seems highly likely that Lieberman will win re-election…even more likely than it seemed after the initial post-primary polls put Lieberman ahead.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.