« AZ-01: Mud Flies In Nasty Dem Primary | Home | IN-08: Willie Horton Redux: Hostettler Ad Slimes Dem Opponent »
CT-SEN: Karl Rove Offering His Help To Lieberman Indy Bid?
George Stephanopoulos reports:
According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."
Via Hotline. We're working to confirm this.
Advertisement
Judging by Lieberman's campaign tactics, I assumed Rove was already involved.
August 9, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. This will finally put to rest any lingering doubts about the nature of Lieberman's bipartisanship. What will Lanny Davis think?
I wonder how this is done. Does Rove make the call, or does he have someone who doesn't have an obvious tie to Rove? Does Lieberman have a cell with a closely held # that no one else has access to?
August 9, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Greg Sargent, a paid consultant to the Lamont campaign will use the same willingness to post unverified sources, aka lies to try to continue to smear Lieberman that he has throughout the campaign.
I hate Karl Rove because he is a liar and a propagandist.. Sargent's the same as Karl Rove, he uses the same lies and propaganda's, to attack democrats.
If you accept those norms and standards, that is the type of reporting that will not only become the norm, but a defined standard. Sargent not only apes Rove, he rationalizes Rove.
August 9, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Rove believes the Rep. chalanger has no chance...
American Entropy // Drinking Liberally - Charleston, SC
August 9, 2006 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman's best answer would be "No Thanks."
Joe's big problem is that this story, even unconfirmed, is so believable.
August 9, 2006 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. I wouldn't quite go that far, but clearly the Lieberman campaign took some lessons from Rove. For example, loudly and indignantly accusing one's opponent of things that you're guilty of and blaming them for the results of your own mistakes.
August 9, 2006 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lamont's campaign was the one using Rovian tactics. Lieberman chose to be Dukakis. Hopefully -- for the country and the party -- he's learned his lesson.
I'd say this story is most likely bullshit. It's either someone's idea of snark or "the close Lieberman advisor" is a former Lieberman advisor and not someone affiliated with the campaign. Remember the guy who said Jews should vote for Lieberman basically because they needed to stick together? He was not part of the campaign at all; he was a former advisor. I'm guessing so is this person.
By the way, is anyone the least bit suspicious that a "close Lieberman advisor" would be making that claim when the general consensus of opinion is that Lieberman was perceived to be too close to Bush?
And whose campaign benefits from a perception that Lieberman would willingly accept Karl Rove's help? Why Ned Lamont's!
August 9, 2006 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman should give a speech on the Senate floor reaffirming his support for the mission in Iraq, while simulataneously condemning Bush for the lies he told that got us into the war.
Democrats would give him a fresh look, and he might win in a landslide.
If he continues along the path in which he pretends that he alone can define what it means to be a Democrat, he might lose in a landslide, as even the people who have admired him for 18 years could be motivated to vote against him.
August 9, 2006 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Mehlman:
Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman seized on the results in the Connecticut primary to assail the Democrats on national security and called Lieberman's defeat a "shame."
"Joe Lieberman believed in a strong national defense, and for that, he was purged from his party. It is a sobering moment," Mehlman said.
If that's the battle they want to fight, I say bring it on.
Make the election a referendum on whether or not the war in Iraq has strengthened or weakened our national defense; on whether or not the war in Iraq has strengthened or weakened Iran; on whether or not staying the course is in the U.S. national interest.
August 9, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly Rove is messing with Democrats' heads.
August 9, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least someone recognizes the potential of Lieberman as Bush's Trojan Horse this Fall, as opposed to most all other commentators who are treating him as a wayward, defeated Democrat, perhaps even worthy of respect, as Josh Marshall puts it.
August 9, 2006 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't you expect this from Rove? They can only spin what happened as benefitting the Republicans. Privately, I'd guess it scared them. It seems to me that there was also something a little too smug, self-satisfied, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou about Lieberman. This happens to many people who have been in the Senate for too long; they start to think their stuff doesn't stink. Don't discount this as a factor. Lamont looked like a fresh face, very likeable. One additional reason for this loss was, I believe, the Iraqi War and its general dislike by the public, as shown in the polls, which the Republicans can't acknowledge just as they can't acknowledge that Iraq is in a civil war. This hopefully will give some muscle to additional Democrats who will feel free to criticize the War in public. But remember it wasn't a landslide loss; the election was close enough to make you think that, if Lieberman had behaved differently, he might have come out OK. But the spin is on, the Democrats will crow about it, and maybe it will give them what the Tin Man and the Lion wanted.
August 9, 2006 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mary,
Either Greg actually receives a paycheck from the Lamont campaign or he doesn't. If he does, he has no business posting here, but I haven't seen any evidence that he does. And for you to make the claim falsely or without evidence is slanderous.
August 10, 2006 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink