[Marxism] Tactical error by GOP . . . or a double reverse by the NYTimes

Brian Shannon Brian_Shannon at verizon.net
Fri Aug 18 21:45:42 MDT 2006


At first glance, there is nothing extraordinary here. The Republicans  
would rather Lieberman win than a Democratic critic of the way the  
Iraq war has gone.

But to do this openly puts the ball back in the court for Lamont.  
Lieberman thus becomes the Republican candidate and a vote for  
Lieberman means a vote for Bush. It would be a great tactical mistake  
for the Republicans to so openly identify with Lieberman, for the  
Lamont campaign could run with it.

So here goes: It is not the Republican party that is doing this so  
openly, but the NY Times that is setting this up (or seizing on it)  
in order to label Lieberman as the Republican candidate, thus giving  
stronger legs to Lamont who can now point to the Times article as a  
reason to vote against Lieberman--the Bush stand-in.

Still to come: making sure that Lamon'ts statements don't go to far  
to the left. I haven't followed it that closely so he may already  
have pulled a Barack Obama on the issue. At the end he has to get  
cozy with the Clintons and others--one big happy family.

Brian Shannon

______________


August 19, 2006
G.O.P. Deserts One of Its Own for Lieberman
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT

Facing Senator Joseph I. Lieberman’s independent candidacy,  
Republican officials at the state and national level have made the  
extraordinary decision to abandon their official candidate, and some  
are actively working to help Mr. Lieberman win in November.

Despite Mr. Lieberman’s position that he will continue to caucus with  
Democrats if re-elected, all three Republican Congressional  
candidates in Connecticut have praised Mr. Lieberman and have not  
endorsed the party’s nominee, Alan Schlesinger. An independent group  
with Republican ties is raising money for Mr. Lieberman, who has been  
a strong supporter of President Bush on the Iraq war.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, while saying he would support the  
Republican nominee, is not planning to campaign for him, and even  
allowed two of his aides to consult with the Lieberman camp before  
the Aug. 8 Democratic primary. And Newt Gingrich, the Republican who  
once served as House speaker, has endorsed Mr. Lieberman’s candidacy.

While some Republicans are quietly rooting for his Democratic  
opponent, Ned Lamont, because they feel he would be such a polarizing  
liberal target, many leading Republicans say it would serve the party  
better to have a centrist like Mr. Lieberman remain in office,  
particularly after being spurned by his own party.
. . .
The White House took an even more passive approach this past week.  
Mr. Snow, the press secretary, said the administration had been  
advised by the state party in Connecticut not to make an endorsement,  
and insisted this was not unusual.

Mr. Snow said the administration had taken a similar course in past  
races where candidates “didn’t meet the expectations of the local  
parties,” although he could not immediately think of any.

Later, the White House issued a statement citing a number of examples  
dating to 1970.

“I read Tony’s comments and it immediately jumped out at me what he  
was doing,” Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary,  
said about the strikingly noncommittal remarks made by Mr. Snow.

“It would be far better for Republicans if Joe Lieberman won than  
Lamont,” Mr. Fleischer continued. “There are enough liberals for  
Republicans to point to — from Russ Feingold to Hillary Clinton to  
Nancy Pelosi — that we don’t need another one to make our case. But  
what kind of message would it send if a strong defense, pro-Iraq  
senator won in this environment? It would prove you can be for what  
George W. Bush is doing in Iraq and still win, even in the Northeast.”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/nyregion/19conn.html? 
hp&ex=1155960000&en=cf0c403c75a866b9&ei=5094&partner=homepage>






More information about the Marxism mailing list