7/6: You Don't Remind Me Of Anyone And We Love Gum

As The Blogometer plows through the CT SEN 'swarm, we're reminded of that Seinfeld episode where George is told his girlfriend Janet looks just Jerry and then spends the rest of the episode looking for any reason besides looks to justify the relationship. Cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) would not even be running were it not for the Iraq war (Lamont describes a pro-Bush Iraq Sen. Joe Lieberman WSJ editorial as "decisive" here) yet as the two candidates head into 7/6's debate pro-Lamont bloggers are pushing every issue but Iraq. Why? Are they afraid the MSM will portray Lamont as a one-issue candidate? Or that they will? Either way the blogging left is demanding that all Sen Dems commit to supporting the winner of the 8/8 Dem primary. Not even traditional blogger favorites like Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) are safe.

Progressive bloggers have taken to channeling Pres. Bush's infamous 11/6/01 line substituting only "in the fight against terror" with "in the fight against Sen. Joe Lieberman (D)." DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas sets the tone: "This has now become a question for every Senator. ... On the right side: Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold. On the wrong side: Ken Salazar." Populist David Sirota wants his readers to "contact your Democratic U.S. Senators and ask them what their position is." Even Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is targeted. Matt Stoller at MyDD: "I bet that Obama, who went to Connecticut to stump for Lieberman, really wishes he didn't have to choose. I imagine it'll be tough for him to go with Lieberman, since Obama's stump speech has as its central plank the importance of voting. But then again, he voted for the Oman trade deal. He's somewhat of a maverick himself."

Kos promises to keep score as Sens commit: "Those who would support the Democratic nominee: Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Bob Menendez. Those who would support a Lieberman independent bid: Ben Nelson, Ken Salazar. ... Why is this important? Because there are people who are sick of clubby DC disrespecting the Democratic rank and file. There are those in DC who understand and respect the fact that power resides with the people, and that the will of the voters must be respected. Then there are those who value power above all else, who don't think they should remain accountable to their constituents, and who will support the efforts of their colleagues to subvert the will of the people in order to keep their incumbency protection racket intact." Salazar's announcement drives The American Street to ask, "Does The Democratic Party Deserves to Die?" and writes: "Something has to give. I'm tired of doing all the giving while my party flips me off."

The unofficial Lamont Blog wants everyone to understand that bloggers are not trying to drive Lieberman out of the party: "No one - certainly not Ned Lamont - is trying to 'force' Joe Lieberman out of the party. Ned has repeatedly challenged Joe to stay in the party and support the primary winner (that's what members of parties do, Joe). Lamont supporters want Joe to remain a Democrat. We just don't want him in the Senate anymore. Please understand the difference."

Meanwhile Jane Hamsher at firedoglake is worried what a contested general would do to down-ticket Dem chances: "There are three tight races for congressional seats here in Connecticut, and the concerns of those involved in all levels could not have been clearer. If the Democrats resolve their ticket in August and move forward with a consolidated party effort toward November, the races are tough - particularly Diane Farrell's - but winable. If Joe defies and divides the party, sucks all the oxygen out of the race, hijacks all the money, media time, volunteers and resources to this specific contest it's going to be tough going in November. Make no mistake about it - Joe Lieberman's decision to run as an independent could throw three Congressional seats to the GOP, and destroy Democratic hopes to take control of the House in the fall.

When progressive bloggers aren't making sure elected Dems commit to supporting the Dem primary winner they are busy explaining that the primary is not about Iraq:

• Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "I actually think this is great, because one of the big reasons I came to Connecticut was to counter the ridiculous notion that opposition to Lieberman was "all about the war." Boxer stumping for Lieberman and saying how wonderful he is on women's issues in a state where 78% of the population thinks that emergency contraception should be available at Catholic hospitals (including 74% of Catholics) could be the perfect opportunity to telescope attention onto the issue."
• Atrios: "Look, people, opposition to Lieberman isn't just about the Iraq war. It's about him "compromising" Democratic principles when he didn't have to, it's about selling out women, it's about thinking "bipartisanship" involves selling our your party so that Tim Russert will pat you on the head for your bravery, it's about dishonesty on things like the Bankruptcy Bill, and now it's about his contempt for the Democratic voters in his own state."
• Kos: "It's not just about the war. Lieberman and his allies keep talking about this race as though the Iraq War is the only issue on the table, and they keep talking about the party needing to be tolerant of his war cheerleading and not have a litmus test on the issue. Howgwash. Litmus test? What litmus test? The Democratic Party establishment is firmly behind Lieberman. ... Lieberman's problem isn't with the party. It's with the voters."

Michael Tomasky at liberal hang-out TAPPED is worried about how the MSM will portray a cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) primary victory: "If that happens, certain MSM liberal and centrist pundits will start writing immediately about how the Democrats have lost their soul, gone radical, cashiered the last good man (I know, but they will). That will set a tone: Virtue will triumph only if Lieberman pulls it out." Tomasky then outlines three steps necessary to make sure this doesn't happen: "First, other Dem senators must follow Hillary's lead (and come on, folks, give her props) and say they'll support the Democrat. Second, Lamont himself -- and this is the bitter medicine for some who are supporting Lamont thinking that he's some kind of 1970 protest candidate -- needs to reassure the power elites that he is not some kind of one-issue extremist. Third, centrist Democratic organizations in Washington that might be tempted to follow the line of the above-noted MSM pundits need to be persuaded that the operative adjective is not centrist, but Democratic."

The DLC's Bull Moose looks at Dem division over Lieberman and casts doubt on the entire progressive blogger project: "Over and over again, the lefty bloggers contend that their major objective is not an ideological one but rather a partisan one. They claim that they want to win. Badly. The Moose begs to differ. It is not the goal of the left to prevail, but rather to purify. That is what the Great Lieberman Purge Attempt is all about. Actually, this is very much an ideological movement that is driven by a neo-isolationist, MoveOn.org, Pat Buchanan-lite imperative to rid the Democratic Party of the centrist hawks. ... Let's be clear - these bloggers are the left-wing equivalent of the Freepers. ... The left's agenda is not to defeat the Republicans, but to purify the party. That is their great conceit."

Conservative HRC watchers have been intrigued by HRC's stance on the Lieberman issue and promise to monitor her future actions closely. Right Angle: "While Sen. Clinton says she supports Lieberman's Democratic candidacy in theory, and her HILLPAC has given $10,000 to his re-election campaign (as her PAC gave to all Democratic Senate candidates in cycle), an appearance in the state on his behalf would speak volumes, especially to the antiwar segment of the party. We will be watching Hillary closely to see if a 30-year friendship warrants a visit in the next few weeks."

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has been criticized by lefties for endorsing a myth about Dems and liberals being hostile to religion or religious people. Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly writes that Obama hedged and did not use a straw man argument because as "it turns out that in a speech of 4,600 words -- mainly about his own religious journey, the liberal message inherent in the Bible, and the importance of the separation of church and state - he really only discussed liberal attitudes toward religion in four places.... The plain fact is that he was careful in his speech and also plainly correct: 'some' liberals are uncomfortable with any mention of religion in the public square, and he thinks this is too bad.... It's a funny thing. When I post about religion, I usually get two kinds of comments. The first is people telling me that I'm falling into a conservative trap by even entertaining the idea that some liberals are contemptuous toward religion. The second is snarky liberal secularists telling everyone else to take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine."

Meanwhile, if some lefties don't cut Obama slack for his religion remarks, his work with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to create a searchable, online data base of Congressional spending should bring back that loving feeling on the left, and even help him with righty bloggers like W.C. Varones of PoliPundit who thinks though the pair sounds "like a country act...Obama and Coburn is actually a Senatorial duo with a great proposal.... Coburn is already one of my favorite Senators. And I know that Obama has his lefty problems, but he does the right thing pretty often. Sunlight is the best disinfectant!"

The Blogometer notices that Rudy Giuliani has been getting some great blogosphere press on the right recently. GiulianiBlogger at Red State touts Giuliani as the conservative alternative to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and points to a straw poll in Newt Gingrich's Cobb County, GA in Congress: "What does come as a surprise is who comes in a strong second in this pivotal suburban county, the GOP heartland of Georgia:"

2008 President
Newt Gingrich 132 (38.7%)
Rudy Giuliani 73 (21.4%)
George Allen 59 (17.3%)
Mitt Romney 35 (10.3%)
John McCain 31 (9.1%)
Bill Frist 11 (3.2%)

"Another day, another poll showing Rudy besting McCain (and most of the field) with the rank-and-file."

If CT has the most interesting Dem primary, HI is a close second with Rep. Ed Case (D) challenging Sen. Daniel Akaka (D). Dem blogger James L at Swing State Project believes Case is "kind of like a bizarro Ned Lamont. His bid for Governor in 2002 drew support from a deep reservoir of discontent with the atrophied Hawaii Democratic Party, while the old guard watched him with an unfriendly eye. While he lost a close primary, he won election to the House on Nov. 30, 2002 in a special election following the death of Congresswoman Patsy Mink. However, in Congress, Case has left a mediocre-to-disappointing record, ranking as 164th in the Democratic caucus on progressive issues. Akaka, meanwhile, is ranked 12th in the Senate. I'm not in favor of litmus tests or ideological rigidity, but replacing an anti-war incumbent with someone who boasts about how he would have voted for the Iraq War Resolution (had he been in Congress at the time) is borderline insane. If Akaka is knocked out on the Sept. 23 Democratic primary, we may be finding ourselves taking one step back for the step forward that we may get with Ned Lamont. ... I wonder when folks like Ken Salazar and Ben Nelson will fly down to help out Akaka."

Treas. Bob Casey (D) was interviewed by Johnathan Singer at MyDD. Casey largely avoided specific answers, speaking in general tones and waxing about the need for a senator who can be "independent." Other highlights include:

Singer : "One concern that many in the progressive blogosphere have about your campaign is your stance towards social issues, particularly the issue of abortion. To what extent will these social issues drive your actions in Congress? Or, put another way, would you seek a spot on the Judiciary Committee or other committees that are very focused in the battle over the social issues?"Casey : "Despite all the division about it there is, their honest differences, I think there's a great consensus in this country, whether it's from the left or the right or the middle, that most Americans and most Pennsylvanians want to reduce the number of abortions, want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.... And I also don't support litmus tests for judges and presidential candidates like Rick Santorum, who will always support the Republican candidate for President, I always support the Democrat even when that Democrat disagrees with me on an issue like abortion or any other issue...."Singer : "Let's move over to an international issue, Iraq specifically. Where do you come down? Do you believe that we should set a timetable? Do you support the Levin-Reed amendment that would have called on the White House to begin withdrawing troops in the next year? Or do you see a different path that should be taken?"Casey : "I don't support a timetable or any kind of immediate withdrawal. At the same time, I don't think what the President has been saying in the last couple of months - or frankly in the last couple of years - is acceptable. ... So I think the most important responsibility of any US Senator right now, any Senator in the next term of Congress when it comes to war and the horror that can be visited upon our troops in combat, is to make sure they're getting all of the help that they need no matter what the cost, and that requires Senators who are going to be truly independent...."

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Labor's Newest Enemy?>

After looking at three 7/5 The Hill articles covering CT SEN, labor support of GOPers, and lefty blogger support of DemsTAPPED 's Garance Franke-Ruta sees "the emergence of real power struggle within the Democratic Party between old and new interest groups in key races this fall." Franke-Ruta compares the labor backed GOP candidates in one article with the progressive blogger backed candidates in the others and notes: "That's at least three contests -- the races against Weldon, Shays, and Gerlach -- where the Netroots are going up against, or potentially going to impact, races where the unions are backing Republicans."

GFR then asks: "Can the Netroots make up for the defection of the unions to the Republican camp in these key races? So far they haven't developed a strategy to try, but if they did, I would think they could -- at least when it comes to fundraising. And maybe they should. ... Now, I'm not at all sure that the Netroots can make up for labor's GOTV efforts, since so many blog readers (and, presumably, donors) are based in places like California and lack the local networks and appropriate geographic placement to swing elections on the ground ... Right now the Netroots vs. Unions dynamic seems to have sprung up somewhat by accident. Netroots leaders should seriously consider making it real by design."

Left-of-center Noam Scheiber at TNR picks up on Franke-Ruta's observation and asks a slightly different question: "To my mind, the really interesting question isn't whether the Netroots will help offset the occasional defection by a traditionally Democratic interest group--by definition, the occasional defection doesn't happen that often. ... The really interesting question is whether the Netroots is eroding the influence of these interest groups within the Democratic Party. ... If the bloggers continue to gain influence within the Democratic Party, I don't think it's crazy to expect that the traditionally Demcoratic interest groups like labor, abortion-rights advocates, and environmentalists will lose some of theirs. Influence tends to be pretty zero-sum."

Scheiber finally wonders if this development is good for Dems generally: "I can see the arguments on both sides. On the one hand, politicians in a party where the Netroots eclipse the traditional interest groups will be less likely to fall on their sword over any one issue, which is probably a good thing. It's obviously less than ideal to be perceived as a captive of special interests. On the other hand, I think the trend ultimately gives Democratic politicians less flexibility, because while the Netroots care less about any particular issue than the corresponding interest group, they tend to favor candidates who are more outspokenly liberal in general. ... I think Kos would probably say he'd support a moderate Democrat in a district where only a moderate could win; he's basically just after the most liberal electable Democrat in any given state or district. But I think that's too easy. If we knew how liberal a candidate could be and still win, there would be no problem. But we don't, so often times you've got to err in one direction or the other."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Jeffersonian Libertarian Democrats

Right before YearlyKos, DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas unveiled his description of what he wanted Dems to become: Libertarian Democrats. Ex-DNC aide Terry Michael has now seemingly seconded Markos' call for a new Dem label in his lengthy manifesto: "Re-claiming our Jeffersonian liberal heritage, with a back-to-the-future re-branding of the Democratic Party." Highlights include:

You might reduce the resulting GOP brand, which helped produce Republican victories in seven of the last ten national elections, to this: "Government bad. America good. The marketplace will provide. In God we trust. Meritocracy, but not equal outcomes, for all." ... What's the story behind today's Democrat brand? I continue to be a partisan Democrat, but I'm not sure. I believe it's something like: "Government isn't all that bad; look at Social Security and Head Start. America isn't always that good; we try to impose our will on a multi-cultural world. The marketplace is full of bad guys who need to be restrained, including their greed-driven political speech. Hey, we're religious, too. And, not just equal opportunity for all, but re-distributive social justice entitlements for special 'minority' victims, because, except for me and my friends, racism endures."

Believe what you will about each message, the Republican story had clarity going for it. The Democratic narrative - as I have caricatured it, but I think accurately - sounds like a Hillary Clinton or John Kerry speech, a little of this, a little of that. ... We Democrats need something radically different from those two tired story-lines. And we need to stop fooling ourselves that we lose because the GOP outguns us with money and tactics. Former Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, in the 2004 cycle, did the party a huge favor by putting to rest that nonsense. We're losing because of message, not campaign cash.

We need a new story. Here's a rough cut, a little more than can fit on a bumper sticker, assembled around the three fundamental issue frames of politics - economic, social, and foreign policy: "Government: assure liberty by staying as far away as possible from our bank accounts, our bedrooms, and our bodies. Spread pluralistic democracy and free markets by example, understanding that neither can be planted by force on political real estate lacking indigenous cultivators for their growth. Restore the moral authority of mid-20th century "civil rights," fashioning public policy around individuals, not tribal identity groups."

LEST WE FORGET: Either Way, Ruppert Always Wins

Slate has a bit of fun with a parody of what a Rupert Murdoch MySpace page might look like. Blog entries include: "Warren Buffet=Communist" "The Simpsons vs. Family Guy: Either Way, I Win" "I Killed Arrested Development - and I'd Do It Again, Nerds."

Ruppert's interests include: Media, "Journalism," Politics, union-busting/French-bashing(same difference-ha), Rugby. He's like to meet: Consumers 14- to 34-years-old, clever estate attorneys, someone with a business plan for this claptrap.