[Marxism] Tactical error by GOP . . . or a double reverse by the NYTimes
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.
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.”
More information about the Marxism