RK ARCHIVE - TRANSCRIPT & ANALYSIS: Jim Dean (for Lamont) debates Lanny Davis (for Lieberman)

Below are the MEET THE PRESS links and transcript from Sunday, August 6 where Jim Dean (a Ned Lamont Supporter) had a debate with Lanny Davis (a Joe Lieberman supporter who disagrees with Lieberman on the Iraq war). This was a very good and informative exchange that Tim Russert described as being a "civilized debate."

Here is the MSNBC video link to watch this program if you would like to see this debate for yourself (you can fast forward to 28:10 out of 49:52 to skip the Condi Rice interview and get right to the Jim Dean/Lanny Davis debate):

1) Lamont is getting most of his support from people who are mainly anti-Lieberman:

MR. RUSSERT: "Even amongst Lamont supporters, Mr. Dean, let me show you, this is quite interesting. Are you voting for Lamont, 30 percent; against Lieberman, 65. Is this a referendum on Joe Lieberman?

It is Lieberman's position on the Iraq war and NOT "a referendum on incumbency in general in Washington, and sort of the inertia that people have become to associate with getting things done in Congress" that is causing Lieberman to be the ONLY Democratic incumbent member of Congress who is being targeted for defeat by many in the far left grassroots of the Democratic Party!

2) The Iraq war is THE PRIMARY ISSUE that is defining the CT primary race and Lanny Davis mentions why he is supporting Lieberman even though they disagree on the Iraq war:

MR. DAVIS: Yes. And I think it is absolutely understandable and legitimate for any Democrat who considers this war the paramount issue and the only issue to vote for Ned Lamont. And I respect that. I+óGé¼Gäóm against this war, as I said, and I disagree with Joe Lieberman on the war, but I hope that Democrats watching in Connecticut, who look at a record of 30 years of fighting for progressive causes, will not allow the distortions of Joe Lieberman+óGé¼Gäós record, the Kiss button, calling him a lap dog+óGé¼GÇ¥outright distortions, ignoring all of the times he+óGé¼Gäós been out there fighting George Bush on every major issue. That should be the dominant issue that counts when people go to the polls."

"Rahm Emanuel would not call a Democrat (Lieberman) who supports 90 percent of his fellow Democrats in the Senate a rubber stamp for George Bush."

3) Lanny Davis said that Lieberman will run as an Independent if he loses the primary:

MR. RUSSERT: "So he+óGé¼Gäóll (Lieberman) definitely run as an Independent?

It is not a matter of what Lieberman SHOULD DO (though it should be), it is a matter of what Lieberman WILL DO that matters. Lieberman should not run if he loses in my opinion but that is his decision to make after the primary no matter how much pressure that he gets from the Democratic Party leadership. The fact is that Lieberman is electable in CT as an Independent and that is why he wants to run!

MR. RUSSERT: "Would you hope that Joe Lieberman would step aside if he loses the primary?

MR. DEAN: Well, you know, I, I+óGé¼Gäóm only thinking one foot ahead of the other, Tim. I+óGé¼Gäóm not the sharpest tack in the world. And you know, I can see my way right now through Tuesday, and then we+óGé¼Gäóll figure out everything else afterwards."

The is being short sighted and is a fatal flaw in Jim Dean's thinking in my opinion. Jim Dean, Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, and everyone else should be looking ahead and trying to "figure out everything else" NOW instead of "afterwards."

"Afterwards" is too late to be "looking ahead" because so much is on the line in this primary. The result of the primary will decide how millions of dollars will be spent by Democrats. Millions of dollars will be spent between Lamont and Lieberman by their respective supporters if Lamont wins the primary and if Lieberman runs as an Independent or next to nothing will be spent if Lieberman wins the primary and runs against a weak Republican challenger IN AN ALREADY SAFE DEMOCRATIC SEAT (even if in name only on Lieberman's part)!

Those are millions of dollars that can go to many other Democratic candidates who are running in key races so that Democrats can pick up the 15 House Seats and/or the 6 Senate seats that they need to win back power in at least one branch of Congress which is the only way how to restore some form of real accountability back to government before 2008! If that does not happen, then what will stop Bush and the GOP leadership from doing anything extreme that they want to with no form of restraint for the next 2 years?

If Lamont wins, then this race will also be nationalized by the GOP attack machine and media as being "there is no room in the Democratic Party for Joe Lieberman or for people who disagree on one issue" and "the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left." I am already hearing that now from them as I do media monitoring!

That will cost Democratic candidates all over the country the votes of many moderate, center, and disillusioned Republican voters which they need to get and could turn certain key races to GOP Bush rubber stamp candidates!

That can also cost Democratic candidates the votes of people who may agree with the GOP on the Iraq war but disagree with the GOP on economic or other issues. The message sent by a Lamont win to these people is that they are not welcome in the Democratic Party. When we are trying hard to get power back, we need to expand the party and not intentionally make any people feel unwelcome!

Here are two links that you can look at both titled "ANALYSIS: Why I encourage Democrats to support Joe Lieberman in the CT primary!" that I wrote which have extensive analysis and dialogue about this issue that I think fairly represent both sides:

My conclusion is that Joe Lieberman is as wrong as wrong can be on the Iraq war, being as supportive of Bush as he has been, criticizing Democrats in interviews with Sean Hannity, etc. but he has been misrepresented to some degree by the Lamont campaign (as is talked about below) and Lieberman (only one Senate seat in one State) is not worth wasting our time on when we have a tall order to fill of winning back 15 House seats and/or 6 Senate seats against a very well financed GOP!

Lieberman is just a waste of our time on a national level when so much is on the line this year with getting back power and having to pick up 15 House seats and/or 6 Senate seats in order to do it. That should be our concern on a national level, not one Senate vote in one State in an already safe Democratic seat!

I am NOT by any means a Lieberman fan or supporter, I am only concerned about Democrats having the best possible chances of winning back power in 2006 (which means money and campaign volunteer time to Democratic candidates in key races instead of to Lamont and Lieberman in a race of choice) so that we can have the power to fix the many problems that are the result of irresponsible, extreme, and arrogant policies on the part of Bush and the Neocon GOP leadership!

Without Democrats having that power, how else will those problems be fixed before 2008?

The opinions expressed here are my own and I take full responsibility for them. I am NOT representing any other person or organization with anything that I am saying.

I also hope that all debate and discussion about this issue can always be "civilized" now and after the August 8 CT primary regardless of who wins!

MR. RUSSERT: Joe Lieberman vs. Ned Lamont. The primary is Tuesday, the debate is right here after the station break.

MR. RUSSERT: Welcome both. Lanny Davis, friend of Lieberman; Jim Dean, friend of Lamont. Let+óGé¼Gäós go right to it.

Here+óGé¼Gäós the latest polling on this Senate race in Connecticut, let+óGé¼Gäós put it on the screen. Now: Lieberman 41, Lamont 54. Six months ago it was Lieberman 68, Lamont 13. What happened to Joe Lieberman? How could he lose 55-point lead?

MR. LANNY J. DAVIS: Well, I think from the very beginning he knew that his position on the war was contrary to the feelings of most Democrats, and that the challenge would be to try to convince Democrats to focus on the facts concerning his 30-year record as a progressive Democrat, and allow him to disagree, at least in part, on the war. He+óGé¼Gäós spoken out strongly against the conduct of the war. But I think he knew from the beginning that the war was a very dominant issue for Democrats, and it would tighten up.

MR. RUSSERT: Even amongst Lamont supporters, Mr. Dean, let me show you, this is quite interesting. Are you voting for Lamont, 30 percent; against Lieberman, 65. Is this a referendum on Joe Lieberman?

MR. JAMES H. DEAN: Well, I think you could probably say that, but I think more so, Tim, that it+óGé¼Gäós really a reference+óGé¼GÇ¥a referendum, excuse me, on incumbency in general in Washington, and sort of the inertia that people have become to associate with getting things done in Congress. I think in a lot of ways, obviously the war, big, important issue among the voters, but I think we+óGé¼Gäóre also need to talk about, you know, the fact that it+óGé¼Gäós been tough getting things done on health care, it+óGé¼Gäós been tough getting things done about our infrastructure and fully funding our schools. And while it+óGé¼Gäós unfair to hang any of that on Joe, because he+óGé¼Gäós fought for a lot of these things, I think there is a feeling that we need a change in Washington.

MR. RUSSERT: In reference to February of +óGé¼-£05, this now-famous picture of President Bush leaving the rostrum at the State of the Union message, hugging, kissing Joe Lieberman...

MR. RUSSERT: ...it evolved into this button that, +óGé¼+ôThe Kiss: Too Close for Comfort!+óGé¼-¥

MR. RUSSERT: And many people refer to this speech Senator Lieberman gave in December of +óGé¼-£05 as a real turning point. Let+óGé¼Gäós listen.

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT): It+óGé¼Gäós 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+óGé¼Gäós peril.

MR. RUSSERT: +óGé¼+ôIn matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation+óGé¼Gäós peril.+óGé¼-¥ Is he suggesting that it is not patriotic to criticize a president+óGé¼Gäós conduct of a war?

MR. DAVIS: Absolutely not. The proof is in the pudding; he has criticized President Bush repeatedly for his inept handling of this war, for the lack of body armor, for the lack of the buildup with allies supporting the war. He+óGé¼Gäós actually said in 2003, +óGé¼+ôIf I were president, I+óGé¼Gäód replace Donald Rumsfeld.+óGé¼-¥ It is ludicrous to suggest that Joe Lieberman is against dissent in war. I was with Joe Lieberman in 1968 when he supported Robert Kennedy against an incumbent president. That comment was made about exploiting the war politically. He was referring as well to Republicans trying to use the war on terrorism for election purposes. That+óGé¼Gäós really the misconstruction of his comment. I think if he had to do it all over again, he wouldn+óGé¼Gäót have used those words.

MR. DEAN: Well, actually, we did a petition drive on that, about those words, because we felt that, you know, there was an inference in here that dissent on this thing was wrong and, and we feel that, you know, we should be asking questions and dissenting on the wrong+óGé¼GÇ¥dissenting on this war. So Democracy for America did a petition drive. I want to add also that Senator Lieberman, after that drive, met with both myself and several representatives of some of the groups in our network in Connecticut, which I+óGé¼GÇ¥means a lot to me, and we had a, you know, a good dialogue about that. But again, you know, we+óGé¼Gäóre in this race because we do believe in a change in Washington and we believe that we need some new voices in there and we believe we really need to consistently stand up against this president.

MR. RUSSERT: The only debate Lamont/Lieberman had, July 6th, Senator Lieberman said, +óGé¼+ôThe situation in Iraq is a lot better than a year ago.+óGé¼-¥ Is that his view?

MR. DAVIS: His view is to look at the facts that have occurred. There has been elections, a lot of people went to the polls under the worst of circumstances. I think every American+óGé¼GÇ¥and by the way, Tim, I+óGé¼Gäóm opposed to this war and I+óGé¼Gäóm for Joe Lieberman. And there+óGé¼Gäós a reason that one can be against this war and in favor of Lieberman because of his progressive record for 30 years. But I was heartened when I saw those purple fingers in the air and I was heartened that people in Baghdad and throughout Iraq tried to show the ability to have democracy. So I think that+óGé¼Gäós what Senator Lieberman is talking about. But he does not deny that the inept handling of this war, that a borderline civil war that looks to be occurring, he+óGé¼Gäós not denying the difficulties that we now face, but he blames poor planning, ill execution, and he+óGé¼Gäós publicly criticized President Bush for that.

MR. RUSSERT: Rahm Emanuel, the congressman, the head of the Congressional Campaign Committee, is quoted in The Washington Post today saying the message out of Connecticut is don+óGé¼Gäót support the president on the war, that if you+óGé¼Gäóre a rubber stamp for the president, it+óGé¼Gäós life-threatening. Do you agree?

MR. DAVIS: I agree that you shouldn+óGé¼Gäót be a rubber stamp for George Bush. And I think Rahm Emanuel was not talking about Joe Lieberman, because Rahm Emanuel knows about the facts. Joe Lieberman stood up to George Bush on every single tax cut for the wealthy, he opposed George Bush+óGé¼Gäós Social Security privatization plan, he led the fight against drilling in the Arctic Refuge, he supports stem cell research, he supports choice. Every major Democratic Party liberal organization+óGé¼GÇ¥labor, environmentalists, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL+óGé¼GÇ¥support Joe Lieberman. Rahm Emanuel would not call a Democrat who supports 90 percent of his fellow Democrats in the Senate a rubber stamp for George Bush. That Kiss button is a campaign of distortion. Just because President Bush reached over and made that gesture, to make that into a campaign issue constitutes a misrepresentation of the facts of Joe Lieberman+óGé¼Gäós record as a Democrat in the Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: I+óGé¼Gäóve read all of Ned Lamont+óGé¼Gäós public comments on the war in Iraq...

MR. RUSSERT: ...and I+óGé¼Gäóm trying to pin down exactly his position. This was June 22nd Hartford Courant. His campaign manager, Tom Swan, +óGé¼+ôsaid that Lamont backed the Reed-Levin plan+óGé¼-¥+óGé¼GÇ¥that was a phased redeployment+óGé¼GÇ¥+óGé¼+ôeven though it was +óGé¼-£watered down.+óGé¼Gäó+óGé¼-¥ And he said, +óGé¼+ôLamont was +óGé¼-£sympathetic+óGé¼Gäó to the John Kerry proposal+óGé¼-¥ of a date-certain withdrawal, +óGé¼+ôbut he wouldn+óGé¼Gäót necessarily vote for it, because he wants to be a uniter among Democrats.+óGé¼-¥

Then the very next day, the same newspaper, I read this: +óGé¼+ôA second measure offered by John F. Kerry, D-Mass. ... would have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by July 1,2007 ... +óGé¼-£I would have supported them both,+óGé¼Gäó+óGé¼-¥ meaning Kerry and the Reed-Levin. What happened in 24 hours, and what is his position? Is he for an immediate withdraw, date-certain of all troops?

MR. DEAN: Right. My feeling is that he+óGé¼Gäós signed on with the Democratic Party leadership to withdraw the troops+óGé¼GÇ¥start withdrawing troops by the end of this year. The...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Kerry says all out by July of +óGé¼-£07 that he would vote of Kerry? So that+óGé¼Gäós his position?

MR. DEAN: Right. Ned wants to get the troops out ASAP. I mean, we, we all do. And the thing about this is is that there+óGé¼Gäós been a lot of, you know, sort of back and forth in this on Congress. The Democrats+óGé¼GÇ¥you know, he+óGé¼Gäós one of those Democrats that+óGé¼Gäós taking a stand to get the troops out, that he+óGé¼Gäós willing to stand up for that and take the heat for doing it. He+óGé¼Gäós willing to sign on to the leadership to start withdrawing the troops by the end of this year, and that is the kind of thing that we need to further this debate and to get the troops out, because if we don+óGé¼Gäót start standing up for these things we+óGé¼Gäóre never going to get them home right now, if we listen to this sort of rhetoric from the administration about staying the course and all of that.

MR. RUSSERT: But would he have voted for John Kerry+óGé¼Gäós resolution to bring all troops home+óGé¼GÇ¥all of them+óGé¼GÇ¥by July of +óGé¼-£07?

MR. DAVIS: Can I comment, please? On the very same day he said he would support Kerry+óGé¼Gäós, then he said he wouldn+óGé¼Gäót support Kerry+óGé¼Gäós, then he said he supported Chris Dodd+óGé¼Gäós position, which was opposed to Kerry+óGé¼Gäós. And here+óGé¼Gäós a fact that everybody maybe doesn+óGé¼Gäót know. In February of 2005, after that shot of President Bush kissing Senator Lieberman, Ned Lamont wrote out a check to the Lieberman campaign. February +óGé¼-£05. If he was so much against the war, why is he supporting Joe Lieberman in February +óGé¼-£05? What is his position on a deadline? Does he feel that pulling out, leaving a rogue state behind, is a danger? He won+óGé¼Gäót answer those questions, and I respect Jim not being able to answer the question, because his candidate won+óGé¼Gäót answer the question.

MR. DEAN: Well, he has answered that question in that he feels very strongly that the key to Iraq becoming its own government and running its own country is for our troops to get out of there as quickly as possible. I think he+óGé¼Gäós been pretty clear about that. He may have written a check to Joe Lieberman in the past, because Ned has been involved in Democratic Party politics for many, many years. And that+óGé¼Gäós, you know, part of what happens when you are involved in politics. And it was also before he was running for office.

MR. RUSSERT: Another big issue in the campaign that emerged is Terry Schiavo. Joe Lieberman was on this program in March of +óGé¼-£05. I asked him about Terry Schiavo, his support of federal legislation to, to review her case, and I asked him this specific question:

MR. DAVIS: His view, along with every Democrat in the United States Senate, was to allow legislation to pass to give the family, the parents, another chance at the Florida court system. That legislation passed by unanimous consent. When Mr. Lamont criticizes Senator Lieberman on that vote in his advertisements+óGé¼GÇ¥another distortion+óGé¼GÇ¥he doesn+óGé¼Gäót say that every Democratic senator took the same position and allowed that legislation to pass.

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah, no Democratic senator objected. Tom Harkin, liberal from Iowa, was the one who was trying to fashion the compromise. Jesse Jackson, who was in Connecticut last week for your candidate, said that it was +óGé¼+ôcruel and crude+óGé¼-¥ to remove the tube from Terry Schiavo. So is it fair for Mr. Lamont to use that as an issue when no other Democrat stood up and opposed it, and Jesse Jackson, his supporter, was saying +óGé¼+ôcruel and crude,+óGé¼-¥ which is basically Lieberman+óGé¼Gäós position?

MR. DEAN: Yeah. You know, I think Ned+óGé¼Gäós position on this is that this isn+óGé¼Gäót and was not then and is not the federal government+óGé¼Gäós business. And I concur with that. I think this is a family decision. They+óGé¼Gäód certainly been through the state court system up and down. It+óGé¼Gäós a gut-wrenching situation for, for both sides of this. And this was not something that the Congress or the Senate or the federal government should be getting involved in.

MR. RUSSERT: I even asked your brother, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, why he didn+óGé¼Gäót speak up during the debate. He said, +óGé¼+ôI wish I would have.+óGé¼-¥

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Ned is extremely committed to the fact that the federal government really needs to stay out of issues like this among family members, as well as a lot of other personal and moral issues. People send their legislatures+óGé¼GÇ¥or people to Congress, Tim, for them to solve the problems that we have of health care, solve the problems that we have of our schools, to solve our foreign policy and national security problems. They don+óGé¼Gäót send people to Congress to start telling them what they+óGé¼Gäóre supposed to do in their personal life or make these difficult moral decisions.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go to the nub of this campaign, because it has been focused on the war and whether Senator Lieberman is a sufficient enough Democrat. The Congressional Quarterly does a comparison of voting records, and this is what they found in 2005. Lieberman+óGé¼Gäós in agreement with the Democrat Party 90 percent of the time, and in opposition to the party 10 percent of the time. That places him equal or better than 17 other Democratic senators of the 44 who are there. Why is Lieberman being+óGé¼GÇ¥alone being picked out for a primary of this nature, and not others, who also voted for the war?

MR. DEAN: Well, I think, you know, it+óGé¼Gäós+óGé¼GÇ¥again, it gets back to this sort of culture of incumbency. And again, I+óGé¼Gäóm not trying to hang Joe on this, but Connecticut is a state that gives a lot more than it gets from the federal government. I think the voters are OK with that there. I think the voters understand that solving some of these difficult issues of transportation and health care in Iraq take some time, but the problem is there+óGé¼Gäós a great deal of frustration among the voters now in Connecticut because these huge tax breaks to the energy companies that are going on, the huge tax breaks to big pharma, the $200 million bridges to nowhere+óGé¼GÇ¥you know, they see their money just going directly out and going down the drain and getting nothing back, and I think that+óGé¼Gäós really contributed a lot. I mean, obviously, Iraq is a big deal. Senator Lieberman+óGé¼Gäós statements supporting the Bush administration, I think, have, have highlighted that quite a bit. But some of these other things that+óGé¼Gäóve been simmering for over 20 years are, are also coming into play here.

MR. RUSSERT: But money for I-95 or for ferries to lessen the traffic congestion...

MR. DEAN: I think he would fight for that. And you know something, Joe has fought for that. But the real problem here is that we live in a system where there+óGé¼Gäós 63 lobbyists for every single person in Congress, and Connecticut is getting the short end of the stick.

No matter who wins this race, Tim, I don+óGé¼Gäót want them, six years from now, saying, +óGé¼+ôI saved 10 defense industry jobs,+óGé¼-¥ because that+óGé¼Gäós all the defense industry jobs we have left in Connecticut. We+óGé¼Gäóre playing a zero-sum game that we+óGé¼Gäóre on the wrong end of, and we need someone who+óGé¼Gäós going to say, +óGé¼+ôthe heck with this culture of incumbency, we got to get something done for the voters and taxpayers of our state.+óGé¼-¥

MR. RUSSERT: Lanny Davis, The New York Times watched this race very closely, and they weighed in last Sunday with an endorsement for Ned Lamont. And they said it this way: +óGé¼+ôIt is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman+óGé¼Gäós ability to command Republicans+óGé¼Gäó attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president+óGé¼Gäós defender.+óGé¼-¥

MR. DAVIS: First of all, I respect The New York Times, but I think the Connecticut newspapers that know the candidates best should probably be listened to more by Connecticut voters. All five Connecticut papers who have endorsed any candidate+óGé¼GÇ¥all five+óGé¼GÇ¥endorse Joe Lieberman, including Ned Lamont+óGé¼Gäós hometown paper, The Greenwich Time.

The New York Times devoted 11 paragraphs to criticizing Joe Lieberman without mentioning all of the specific instances where Joe Lieberman opposed President Bush, as I mentioned earlier, including on Abu Ghraib, in which he said that he was outraged; including calling the surveillance program illegal. The New York Times simply omitted those facts, and I was allowed to write a letter to the editor pointing that out.

But compared to five out of five Connecticut newspapers, including the Greenwich Time, his hometown newspaper+óGé¼GÇ¥and if I could just respectfully suggest to my friend Jim--90 percent voting with Democrats is a fact. Another fact is that Ned Lamont, when he served on the Board of Selectmen, bragged, bragged to The Greenwich Time, the same newspaper that endorsed Joe Lieberman, +óGé¼+ôI support 80 percent of the time what my Republicans on the Board of Selectmen.+óGé¼-¥ So those are facts that Mr. Lamont is not mentioning in his ad. When he clones and morphs Joe Lieberman+óGé¼GÇ¥from the face of Joe Lieberman to the face of George Bush, that is a distortion of what you put on the screen, that Joe Lieberman votes 90 percent with the Democrats.

I+óGé¼Gäóm accustomed to Republicans distorting Democrats in campaigns. We saw what happened to Max Cleland, being morphed into Osama bin Laden. When Joe Lieberman is morphed into George Bush, and Ned Lamont doesn+óGé¼Gäót say that he votes 90 percent with the Democrats, that+óGé¼Gäós a distortion, and the people of Connecticut should consider whether distorting Joe Lieberman+óGé¼Gäós record is a fair thing, and whether that+óGé¼Gäós something that Mr. Lamont should regret, before they vote for him.

MR. DEAN: Yeah, sure. Well, first of all, you know, I think that 80 percent with the Republicans has been a little bit blown out of proportion. This is a select committee that+óGé¼Gäós dominated by Republicans, and we+óGé¼Gäóre talking about pot holes in streets, here. But let+óGé¼Gäós go up to not 30,000 feet on this thing, Tim, but about 100 feet. If you look+óGé¼GÇ¥I mean, both campaigns have given as good as they+óGé¼Gäóve gotten in this race, on both sides of it. But the overwhelming tenor, or, or, view of the totality of this race is the fact that the voters are getting very, very excited about the fact that they are empowered to set the course for Connecticut, set the course for their party. We have a situation right now where 11,000 people have registered, reregistered from being Independent to being Democrat. We have a lot of people that are engaged in this debate and getting very, very excited. And I think, really, that+óGé¼Gäós been the temper of this debate, and that+óGé¼Gäós, and that+óGé¼Gäós been the, the tone of this election more than anything else. It+óGé¼Gäós been extremely positive.

And I+óGé¼Gäóll say one thing about the party brass, most of whom were in Joe+óGé¼Gäós corner because of the convention, they+óGé¼Gäóve done a great job at handling this and keeping this debate civil. Nancy DiNardo, head of the party, it+óGé¼Gäós not been an easy three months, she+óGé¼Gäós done a great job. Chris Dodd with his statesmanship. This has benefited the three outstanding congressional candidates that we have: Diane Farrell, Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney. You know, that+óGé¼Gäós really been the tone of this. And there+óGé¼Gäós been some stuff in the direct mail on both sides of this. But that+óGé¼Gäós not really the+óGé¼GÇ¥it+óGé¼Gäós about this big compared to everything else that+óGé¼Gäós going on.

MR. RUSSERT: In late June, Senator Lieberman said, +óGé¼+ôI+óGé¼Gäóm a Democrat, I+óGé¼Gäóve always been a Democrat, I always will be a Democrat.+óGé¼-¥ Twelve days later he started circulating petitions for an independent run; an insurance policy if he loses the Democratic primary. The last time there was an Independent running for the Senate in Connecticut who was a Democrat was 1970, and here+óGé¼Gäós the result: Lowell Weicker, the Republican, got 42 percent of the vote; Joe Duffey, the Democrat, got 34 percent of the vote, and Tom Dodd, the Democrat running as an Independent+óGé¼GÇ¥father of the incumbent Senator Chris Dodd--24 percent. If Joe Lieberman loses this primary on Tuesday by a significant margin, will he still try to run as an Independent and risk losing the seat for the Democratic Party?

MR. DAVIS: The answer is he will run as a Democrat. He will run, he will win on Tuesday night, in my judgment. The facts will catch up, five endorsements by Connecticut papers. He will win Tuesday.

But in the hypothetical question you+óGé¼Gäóve asked, he is ahead by 24 points in a three-way contest. He will win Democratic support, Independent support, and moderate Republican support. He will caucus with the Democrats, and he will stand for a Democrat who+óGé¼Gäós progressive for 40 years that I+óGé¼Gäóve known him, reaching across the aisle...

MR. DEAN: No. You know, these are really the two big players in this race+óGé¼GÇ¥Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman. I believe that whoever wins the Democratic primary in this thing will, will go to victory, and then keep+óGé¼GÇ¥we+óGé¼Gäóll keep our Senate seat. In fact, I+óGé¼Gäóm quite convinced of that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you hope that Joe Lieberman would step aside if he loses the primary?

MR. RUSSERT: Lanny, you+óGé¼GÇ¥Davis+óGé¼GÇ¥your new book, +óGé¼+ôScandal: How Gotcha Politics is Destroying America.+óGé¼-¥ You+óGé¼Gäóre very tough on the bloggers here. Is Joe Lieberman in trouble because of the bloggers or because of his support of+óGé¼GÇ¥on the war for President Bush?

MR. DAVIS: He+óGé¼Gäós in a tight race because he+óGé¼Gäós on the opposite side of the way most core Democrats+óGé¼GÇ¥I don+óGé¼Gäót blame it on the bloggers. But I do say that the virulence and the hatred where you can+óGé¼Gäót disagree with somebody, you just have to call them evil, is really what I+óGé¼Gäóm addressing in that book, and which this campaign unfortunately has had too much of.

Comments

NewsMax.com: MoveOn.org Pushing Hard to Down Lieberman (Mitch Dworkin - 8/7/2006 10:41:25 AM)

Imagine the good that could be done if all of this time, money, and energy were put in to races that are needed for Democrats to win back 15 House seats and/or 6 Senate seats to get power back and restore some real accountability back to government:

http://www.newsmax.c...

Monday, Aug. 7, 2006 9:56 a.m. EDT

MoveOn.org Pushing Hard to Down Lieberman

Other than the candidates, no one has more riding on this week's Connecticut Democratic Senate primary than MoveOn.org, a liberal organization at the edgy intersection of politics and the Internet.

With victory for Ned Lamont, the group can claim a role in helping an anti-war challenger dump Sen. Joe Lieberman, who supports President Bush's policy in Iraq and has the backing of the Democratic establishment.

A come-from-behind win for Lieberman would mark yet another setback for MoveOn in its parallel campaign - to strengthen its credentials as a force to be heeded by Democrats as they seek congressional majorities this fall.

"The bottom line is: We and our members think you get there by boldly standing up on the most important issues that we face, on Iraq, on energy policy and on health care," says Eli Pariser, the group's 25-year-old executive director. "Some in the party, and Joe Lieberman for sure, don't think that's a winning strategy."

To say that MoveOn represents a departure from traditional political activity is an understatement.

Its political organization claims more than 3 million members, communicates through e-mail alerts, charges no dues and holds no national conventions.

"We're a virtual organization," says Pariser, a Maine resident who, like others, works out of his home. Tom Matzzie is the man in Washington. A Chicago-based firm, We Also Walk Dogs, handles the geeky stuff.

Ironically, one bow to tradition was the hiring of a public relations firm. The task? Promoting the group's activities in the mainstream media, often viewed as so yesterday by MoveOn's younger members.

Still, there's nothing virtual about the money raised.

MoveOn's members ponied up more than $800,000 for Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., in two days last spring.

Contributions to Lamont exceeded $250,000. Overall, MoveOn says its members have contributed over $2 million to candidates since 2005.

They raised another $1 million or more for early television commercials targeting four Republican House members, in Connecticut, Indiana, Virginia and Ohio. They were designed to expand the number of competitive races and leave MoveOn's mark on the midterm elections.

"It's made some impact," said Rep. Chris Chocola, R-Ind., one of the targets. "It's hard to say how much in the end."

At the same time, MoveOn has stumbled.

Several television stations refused to run the commercials, saying their claims were not adequately proved.

The organization has yet to back a winner in a string of congressional races decided so far. Among the casualties was Paul Hackett, an anti-war candidate who dropped out of a Senate race in Ohio under pressure from Democratic party officials.

The Lieberman-Lamont race, coupled with a decision to target Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson, has made Connecticut a battleground for MoveOn.

It claims 50,000 members in the state. And it's unlikely any two are more dissimilar than Wayne Boulton, a Hartford lawyer who describes himself as a former Republican libertarian, and Jeff Munsie, a Middletown architect and peace activist.

"Becoming a member is really just participating," Munsie said.

Munsie said he attended one of several house parties MoveOn arranged on the night of a televised debate between Lieberman and Lamont, the sort of event that builds a sense of community.

He also was enthusiastic about the online primary held to decide which candidate to support. "I loved that, that was awesome. They asked their members in a very American, democratic way," he said.

For Boulton, MoveOn represents "a progressive network to counterbalance what I see as a corporate control of the government," he said in an interview.

His opposition to the war eventually led to political protest, and last spring he dropped his Republican registration so he can vote for Lamont in the primary.

Boulton's description of MoveOn and online groups in general transcends politics, and echoes Munsie's own.

"Maybe they're this generation's answer to community," he said.

MoveOn was formed in the late 1990s, calling for censure of President Clinton rather than his impeachment. Founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades were no techie neophytes - he created the distinctive "Flying Toasters" screen saver.

Pariser began his own online enterprise a few years later, advocating an international response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

A merger followed, and by 2004, MoveOn's political involvement included traditional get-out-the-vote operations. Its embrace of Howard Dean's anti-war candidacy helped fuel his brief rise in the presidential race, and it worked closely with John Kerry in the fall campaign.

But in the end, reviews were mixed.

Some Democrats said MoveOn's liberal positions alienated the swing voters the party needed to defeat Bush and elect Democrats to Congress.

Republicans scoured the Web site for ammunition, and found plenty. A video posted online by one member suggested a similarity between Nazi war crimes and Bush administration policy.

House Republicans aired an ad accusing one Democrat - endorsed by MoveOn - of having the support of a group "that opposes using the military to fight terrorism."

MoveOn also gained notoriety for taking seven-figure contributions from billionaire George Soros. Switching strategy, it now operates under a law that limits donations.

Its objectives are unchanged, though, and the result is occasional jousting with party leaders.

Last spring, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and New York Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the party's campaign committee, appealed unsuccessfully to Pariser and Matzzie not to oppose Lieberman.

More recently, Pariser and Matzzie wanted the Senate leaders to say they would back Lamont quickly if he wins the primary.

The two senators demurred, then had a request of their own: Could MoveOn help Democratic challengers in Montana and Virginia?

Pariser and Matzzie said they would consider it.