Maybe Lieberman Should Just Give Kos Money

While DailyKos blogger Markos Moulitsas is busy trashing Senator Joe Lieberman for his position on Iraq, he's constantly singing the praises of another individual he's taken money and assistance from whose positions on Iraq are identical to Senator Liebermans.

While Lieberman earns all kinds of insults, here as recently as July 6th he calls him a liar and hands off to blogger Matt Stoller to flesh out the details. Kos knows full well that Stoller has worked for Simon Rosenberg.

Here's Kos on Simon Rosenberg at his blog from June 19:

After this Thursday event I will head down to DC for NDN's annual meeting. NDN has done a stellar job of transforming itself (under Simon Rosenberg's leadership) from a "centrist" organization backing "centrist" candidates (with roots at the DLC), to a real incubator of new progressive tactics and policies.

As I've already pointed out, Rosenberg gave what was Kos' BlogPac $4,000. Rosenberg gave Crashing the Gate a big lift by writing the foreword. And Rosenberg recently took an average out of work lawyer named Greenwald and helped prop him up to write a book.

Simon Rosenberg stepped up, and offered me a fellowship with his New Politics Institute (of the New Democratic Network) to help develop the idea.

Rosenberg is a friend and big supporter of Lieberman, who apparently helped him get his latest political initiative that's benefited Moulitsas on track.

As I wrote the other day, Joe Lieberman is an old and good friend of mine, and I am supporting him in the Democratic Primary.   He and I come from the same county in Southwestern Connecticut, where most of my family still lives, and he was instrumental in helping me get NDN off the ground ten years ago.

Given that Kos himself acknowledges Rosenberg as a significant thought leader in Democrat politics, why no criticism, or confrontation? Was it the foreword, or maybe just the four thousand bucks?

Update: Yeah, what they said. Gawd, agreeing with something in the LA Times could cost me my conservative bona fides. But, face it, most all Dems are loony, according to them. And obviously, they'd know.

NED LAMONT'S challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman in next month's Connecticut primary has blossomed into a full-scale Democratic civil war. What's at stake is the legitimacy of partisanship.

A good window into the competing mentalities can be found in two arguments, one by prominent Lieberman supporters, the other by a prominent critic. First, the supporters. Writing in the Hartford Courant, Marshall Wittmann and Steven J. Nider of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council complain that "far too many Democrats view George W. Bush as a greater threat to the nation than Osama bin Laden."

Comments

[RedDan]

Except that if the whole "pay for play" bullshit were operative, wouldn't you kinda expect that Kos would be remaining silent (at least) or be on the other side of the battle lines?

After all, if Rosenberg is one of Kos' funders and promoters and sponsors...to the tune of four thouuuuusand dollars (ooooh!)...why wouldn't the corrupt mafia don kingpin of the lefty blogosphere be supporting the ally and friend of his padron, Rosenberg???

Doesn't quite fit with the story line you are trying to cobble together.

[Dan]

What I think it points out is that he's a total amateur - and ill-suited to lead anything. One minute he professes purity for the cause, but he's playing footsie with the Democrat main stream. So, which is it? You can't tell from one minute to the next. I don't think even he knows. And that immaturity runs the risk of damaging our two party system. If I were a Republican, I'd want kos to succeed.

All he has succeeded in doing is giving Dems a major headache. You can't point to a set of examples where kos has applied a consistent set of principles across anything. And your response points that out. I have never suggested he's done things quid pro quo. What he is, is so erratic, he appears to be influenced by almost anything from one candidate to the next.

[Armando]

Dan:

You are getting weaker and less credible by the day.

Embarrasing for you.

To think I had a pretty high opinion of you at one time.

Smears just flow from you like rain now.

Pretty much makes you someone not to take seriously.

[RedDan]

So which is it? Total amateur and neophyte, or corrupt, pay-for-play moocher and nefarious double-dealer on the take?

My opinion is highly suspect, of course, but my two cents is that Markos et al survey the "field of play" and try to throw support behind candidates that they think will win based on the combination of information available, evidence for online organizing and support, and potential to increase the visibility and viability of online organizing and political activity...

I think that there have been some pretty serious blunders (Hackett, Cegelis, Penacchio, and more)...but that those blunders are part and parcel of trying to divine the political winds and filter out the political white noise being generated by all participants.

Tell me there's a difference between RedState supporting Toomey against Specter and DailyKos supporting Lamont against Lieberman, and I will laugh out loud.

[Dan]

My opinion is highly suspect, of course, but my two cents is that Markos et al survey the "field of play" and try to throw support behind candidates that they think will win"

For that to be true, Lieberman would have to have been at risk in CT - he wasn't. He would win in a walk. Sort of defeats your rationale. And I'm not going to continue to defend against having charged him with pay for play, outside of citing the Dean incident, I haven't. And no one has accounted for the love for Rosenberg at the same time there is nothing but hate for Lieberman.

Why not try and explain that instead of attacking me. Rosenbergs pro-war position impacts the debate and your party just as much if not mroe than Lieberman. Liebs is just one vote, Rosenberg is head king maker behind the king maker's throne, yes?

[RedDan]

"For that to be true, Lieberman would have to have been at risk in CT - he wasn't."

CT politics on the ground apparently showed (quite strongly) that Lieberman was vulnerable.

There have been bloggers and activists organizing a run at Lieberman for a long time...as the Dem. Convention/Caucus in CT showed earlier this year, Lieberman was and remains highly vulnerable in a state where Bush has <30% approval and Lieberman has been spending way to much time (in most Liberal/Democratic eyes) approving of and defending Bush and Bush's policy.

The continued reference to "all the money" Kos is recieving is a continuation of the "Pay for Play" vein that is so popular right now. The amounts of money being talked about are miniscule to the point of being laughable, and the evidence for any pay for play is sorely lacking....but still the "kos took money here and kos took money there" business keeps on coming...show me. Prove it. Prove that money made a difference (keeping in mind that the attacks on Lieberman and support for Lamont are a direct and blatant counter-example).

As for the love for Rosenberg vs the hate for Lieberman? That's way, way too easy:

1) Lieberman is on Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN all the time, slagging Democrats, hammering Democratic statements, policies and ideas, and reprimanding Democrats for "undermining our president" and doing so "at our peril"...imagine if you will someone like Trent Lott getting up in front of the cameras and reprimanding the GOP base for "undermining Clinton at our nation's peril" - the reaction? Riiiiight.

2) Rosenberg is hardly a Kingmaker...he's a one-time ally/protege of DLC types who has apparently (but who really knows or cares these days) gone his own way for his own reasons. He supports networking activities, supports building communications and messaging infrastructure, and is willing to cooperate with and work with people with whom he apparantly disagrees on political issues. Gasp! Cooperating with people even when you disagree about some points...all in service of a larger goal!!

O. My. Gawd!

How about this for contextualizing your "questions" about Kos, non-kos bloggers and online organizers, and the general trend of the Liberal/Left online and off.

Many of us are willing to experiment with a novel idea (that we stole from the Right, btw...who stole it from the Left back in the 50's): Work together on large-scale, playing-field-changing political frameworks, agree to disagree on some of the issues for now, and work to win in areas where winning was seemingly out of the question in the recent past... Push the entire spectrum back in our direction wherever and whenever we can. Swallow our bile, pride and disagreement as much as we can (up to a certain point), and shelve those bitter battles for after that time when we have breathing room and political power enough to afford those fights.

It's bitterly cynical political gamesmanship at its worst and at its best.

It results in progressives biting their tongues and reluctantly supporting Casey, even though we liked Penacchio (and we are remembering every single stab in the back on that front, and will get our own back, later), reluctantly supporting Duckworth even though we loved Cegelis, and so on...

We progressives who ARE (and many are not, and I understand why even though I disagree) willing to bite our tongues, buckle down and pull...are NOT going to forget what went down...and when the time comes, Casey, Emmanuel, and all the rest of the "triangulators" will face primary challenges and opposition in their home camps.

I am sure they know that, and I am sure they are stashing some of their own ammunition in preparation for just that battle.

For now, however, winning back control over House, Senate, nominations, investigations, appropriations, ethics oversight, and so on wins out.

That's what's happening.

There are a LOT of progressives, lefties, and liberals who HATE the way this is happening...and I understand why. It's ugly, it's dirty, and it stinks...

But there really is no other way absent a mass uprising or popular overturn. Something that just ain't in the cards right now.

Is Markos playing the game well? Who knows? I tend to think he's doing a fair to middling job, and that he is much more of a megaphone than a driving force. He didn't start the Lamont campaign, nor did he oversee, promote, or help with the bulk of the Lamont organizing until pretty late in the game. The same goes for a LOT of the candidates Kos personally, or Dailkos in general, or even "netroots" (Kos, MyDD and etc) support. Tester didn't start with Kos, McNerney didn't start with Kos, Courage didn't start with Kos, Lampson didn't start with Kos, Rodriguez didn't start with Kos...and so on. Kos/DailyKos/Netroots can and does certainly give those campaigns much-needed boosts at critical junctures, but the basic work is not done by Kos, with Kos, or on Daily Kos...nor is it done by Rosenberg. It's done by local folks with local energy.

The myopic navel gazing on the blogosphere when it comes to All Things Kos is pretty amazing, really.

In any case, that's enough from me...I think you get the picture as to where my opinions are coming from.

[Dan]

CT politics on the ground apparently showed (quite strongly) that Lieberman was vulnerable.

Nonsense, every poll had him winning walking away and he's still favored in a two or three way race. Come on, let's debate straight. And the fact is, Republicans (of which I AM NOT one) are supporting Chaffe, Snowe and others. McCain sure had enough bad to say about the President. No one is throwing him from the party. If Dems want to go back to the wilderness that comes from a small tent, so be it. But like it or not, the GOP has been ever broadening their tent in the last 20 years.

It's required to be a majority party. That the Left wants to purify the Dem Party and claim to be fighting to be a 50 state majority party at the same time is naive, at best. And stupid, at worst.

[RedDan]

The GOP is supporting Chaffee...and there is also strong GOP support for Laffey. The GOP was supporting Specter...and there was also strong GOP support for Toomey.

Polls in CT showed Lieberman with strong support...that is, until the polls started showing strong support for a challenge to Lieberman. That strong supported started at the grassroots level and has grown with each Lieberman gaffe.

McCain had lots of stuff to say about the President...and some of it was even nearly somewhat kinda maybe negative...except when it wasn't...which it mostly isn't. And the price that McCain has paid and will continue to pay? It's huge. He's either going to have to "come to Jesus" (as he is desperately angling to do) or lose the chance at the nomination to someone like Giuliani or Allen - something that is very, very likely going to be the case.

Lieberman engineered the gang of fourteen, snafu'd the filibuster on several important issues that are critical to several "pillars of the base" by voting for cloture on a couple of really important issues.

Lamont did not get into the race on a lark, and would never have gotten in if he did not think that there was something to be gained. The amount of anger at Lieberman in CT is quite large, and was apparently not captured by the polls...still isn't, based on the disconnect between the (still rumoured) internal Democratic Polls and based on Lamont's performance at the caucus and in terms of gaining support in large grassroots and advocacy organizations.

You keep talking about purifying the party, talking about the Left, and talking about Kos and the 50-state strategy as if they were part and parcel of the same groups' actions. They are not.

The purifying crowd are those who are bolting the fold based on the dissing and/or downgrading of leftwing candidates like Cegelis or Penacchio...they are much more interested in removing the likes of Casey from the Democratic party entirely, and are (as we speak) sitting out or threatening to withhold their votes in the Pennsylvania race (and others).

Kos is hardly about purifying the party, and is hardly (both as a blog and as a person) representative of "the Left." Kos the blog and Kos the person, as well as the "netroots" crowd, are being very cynical about the various candidates that get support. Hackett was dumped for Sherrod Brown for no other reason than it appeared Brown had a better chance to win. Same for Casey, same for Webb, same for any number of candidates who share no political ideology or political outlook other than that they have a D after their name and that they have a chance to win in key districts.

The 50 state strategy is the DNC/DFA crowd, working on two things: building state parties and getting Democrats elected at every level of local, state, and federal office.

You are lumping grassroots and "netroots" without any rhyme or reason, and are lumping vastly different factions of the on- and offline Democratic partisans together in ways that neither make much sense nor reflect the reality on the ground.

Kos is not DFA/DNC, Neither are "Left" and neither are interested in "purification." If Kos/DailyKos/"netroots" were interested in "purifying" there would be NO support for Casey, NO support for any number of ideologically moderate/centrist candidates. None. Frankly, if purity was at issue, there would be no support for Lamont, Webb, Menendez, or any number of Democrats who really do not fit any kind of populist/progressive cookie cutter framework.

[Dan]

Lamont did not get into the race on a lark, and would never have gotten in if he did not think that there was something to be gained.

Really? But he was giving money to Lieberman not THAT long ago. To be honest, I thought he was pretty bad in teh debate. I thought he looked weak - and while I dont buy the whole "he's a Republican" schtick from the Lieberman campaign, I still think he's a cipher who thinks it would be great to be a Senator and he can afford it, so why not. That's just my take. I also think he may loose to Lieberman in the primary.

But if he wins and Lieberman wins in a 3 way race, what good did it do the Dem party? Tossing over a three term Senator who was once the party's VP nominee is poor strategy imo. And I'm criticizing it.

Also, you pointed out how tactics come into play in politics. Yes they do. And people going after Kos is a tactic to be expected given his visibility. I believe it was he himself who said he'd rather be where he is because he felt more "power" than a legislator. Well, with that comes scrutiny - eh.

Night.

[RedDan]

Oh, criticize away - no one is stopping you or demanding silence of you on that point.

But criticize from strong points, not from ginned up, patently weak, and cobbled together suppositions about "pay for play" nonsense that has absolutely no basis in fact.

If and when someone provides actual facts showing any kind of pay for play, then go for the gold and hack away...but until then, it is my opinion (as a relative nobody with no blog and no real power on any blog), that your substantive argument suffers by association with a pretty weak, cherry-picked, and circumstantial "evidence" of bad faith.

It is possible to criticize without accusing.

[Dan]

suppositions about "pay for play"

You keep going back to pay for play as a strawman when I haven't made the charge. Influence through association which benefits someone financially isn't the same as pay for play. Rosenberg has given financially to his cause, kos has nothing but praise for him despite his pro-war stance, never mentioning it, as far as I can tell. That isn't pay for play, it's kowtowing to someone who can help you and inconsistent with his public statements on the war.

[Joe Scordato]

Dan

In all politeness, let me explain why you are clueless on this topic and how I know.

First, how I know: In addition to being a CT Democrat and a strong Lamont supporter, I am a NDN member and a friend of Simon Rosenberg, having supported him in his campaign for the DNC chairmanship. I read Daily Kos, among many other blogs, have met Markos, and recently have had discussions with him and Simon together about the Lamont- Lieberman race.

Why you are clueless: Simon is supporting Joe for the reasons he states in his blog post - he has said the same things to me since Ned's candidacy began earlier this year, and in fact, even earlier, in conversations we've had (starting in 2005) about Lieberman and his behavior. While Simon and I (as well as Simon and Markos) disagree on the primary race, there is no disagreement on the goals of achieving a progressive Democratic majority. Markos is not the wild-eyed lunatic the right-wing likes to portray - he is just fiercely partisan. Simon is one of the straightest shooters I know, in or out of politics. His campaign for the DNC chair and his work at NDN and the New Politics Institute are about bringing new tools to the Democratic party to this end. Simon has understood the power the blogosphere can bring to this end for the Democrats, especially in terms of ideas and commitment. Perhaps you haven't actually read Crashing the Gate - if you had, you'd seen the common thread of Simon and Markos is not ideology but is how to win a more or less progressive majority of Democrats that could then hammer out particular issues. I give Simon a vast amount of applause for having seen this aspect of the blogosphere long before others in the DC establishment.

The whole problem with Lieberman is not so much his ideology but the cover he gives Bush and the Republicans as a "Democratic spokesman", especially his constant repetition of Republican talking points in right-wing media outlets. The list of his transgressions in this regard is long: from the blank check he wrote Bush for the Iraq War in 2002 (undercutting the alternative Democratic resolution) to attempting to play "statesman" and undermining Democratic unity on Social Security, and finally his Panglossian view of the situation in Iraq today with his admonition that we should not criticize Bush on this topic. On progressive issues he has similarly tried to have it both ways by voting against cloture when his vote really mattered (Alito and the bankruptcy bill are two examples) and then touting his meaningless vote to appear more progressive than he is.

Lamont is not some millionaire on a lark. CT Dems no longer believed Lieberman was representing their viewpoints. He is more popular amongst Republicans, undoubtedly from his whole-hearted backing of Bush and the Iraq War. Many CT Democrats were in despair about Lieberman's behavior but no one in the state Democratic establishment was willing to take him on. His high polls reflected mostly name recognition and the lack of an alternative. The polls you cite are from early June and I believe no longer reflect reality on the ground. Ned along with many others tried to get someone to run, but finally was left in the position that if he didn't no one else would, and more importantly, could run. Ned asked for in-state volunteers before he declared: he got over 1000 in less than a month. What you see in Ned is what you get. A small businessman who has moderately progressive views on why this country is going in the wrong direction and how to fix it. He is not a professional politician (unlike Joe Lieberman). He actually would be a refreshing voice in the Senate: someone who has lived in the real world, outside of politics and DC, who knows what it takes to build and run a business, while being a decent human being. In person, he is authentic, direct and substantive. He speaks against the Iraq War because it is the worst strategic blunder the US has ever made, but he also speaks for moving in the right direction of better health care for CT citizens and alternative energy solutions that address the issues of terrorism and the economy, including manufacturing. No one is pushing Lieberman from the Democratic Party - we're just getting a better Democrat to represent Connecticut.

[Dan]

Joe, I appreciate the comment, unfortunately, I take exception to some of your "facts". Lieberman is ahead in all polls and moreso when one takes into account a general election. Ned is no "small businessman". He's a Morgan grandkid with a fortune. There aren't twenty votes in the Senate for the position Ned takes on the war because it is out of synch with the country - that's not a path to a majority. Lieberman has been critical of Bush on Iraq re strategy almost from the start. What he does is recognize that America is at war, war sucks, but sometimes must be fought. And turning out a three term Dem Senator with a 90% D voting record is dumb strategy. And Rosenberg's politics, with which I probably agree far more often than kos' are mainstream DNC - against which kos rails. Yet, Rosenberg escapes kos' wrath. And you alol but admit it's because Rosenberg is willing to support kos by reaching out to blogs. So, where is the principle in that for kos? It sounds more like the test is, do you support me, or not, as opposed to do you support progressive policies. And I am simply calling attention to that point.

[rhodeymark]

"He speaks against the Iraq War because it is the worst strategic blunder the US has ever made"
And therein lies the seriousness of the Dem position. It's seriously unserious. The idea that Saddam was a necessary foil to Iran entailed willfully turning a blind idea (to this day!) to the documented evidence relating to the Baathist's long term goals. Playing those regimes against each other was no longer the best long term strategy. The fact that Dem's now trumpet the "end of cowboy diplomacy" (Huzzah!) yet complain that Bush refuses to negotiate mano-a-mano with NK shows their internal dissonance. Perhaps they long for the days when Jimma could come home with his pants pulled down whilst declaring that moral superiority prevailed (?)

[Joe Scordato]

Dan

Let's go through your points one by one.

The polls you cite are about a month old now. Lieberman's support among Democrats in the state has been brittle - thin and easily broken - for a long while now. With a real candidate to oppose him, there was something to coalesce around. Think about it: from out of nowhere in January, Ned has come a long way, and it ain't the blogosphere, since most local Dems are not netizens. Ned's strong support at the state Democratic convention and Lieberman's internal polling has shown that, which is why Joe's bolting from the party for the general. Also, a lot has happened since these polls, and my admittedly unscientific sampling on the ground of CT where I reside is that Lamont is clearly gaining on, if not already passed, Lieberman amongst Democrats. Lieberman's declaration to run as an independent in particular has quite annoyed Democrats and only emphasized what they don't like about him.

Lieberman's higher approval numbers in the past and in the general three-way (from the same time period of a month ago) have stemmed from three factors: name recognition, no opponent, and the support Joe receives from Republicans and those independents who lean Republican. Why do you think the Republican candidate is a no-name from nowhere? There's no point to running anyone credible when the Democratic opponent gets more Republican votes than almost anyone from the Republican party. So I think the next poll will show much stronger numbers for Ned in a three way. Lieberman is just as likely to split the Republican vote as he is the Democratic vote in November. It will be an interesting and hard-fought race but Lamont can definitely win it.

On Lamont's wealth: again sorry you need to pay more attention to the real facts. He is a descendent of JP Morgan's partner, not JP. While I'm sure there is some Lamont family money, I don't think that is the source of most of his family's net worth. Ned has built his business from scratch, not inherited it. And his wife has been a general partner of Oak Investment Partners, a very successful venture capital firm, since 1986. While I cannot say how much each is worth, I suspect that the interests in Oak comprise a much greater portion of the wealth than Lamont Communications or any inheritance. Ned runs a small cable company, which in my mind qualifies him as a small businessman. In the words of many a Republican - he knows what it means to meet a payroll.

The latest poll shows 56% of the public believes we should withdraw either under the Murtha time frame which is what Lamont supports or a slightly longer time frame which was the alternative Democratic Senate resolution. Lamont was OK with that resolution as well. I hardly think that shows Lamont is out of step with the public. Btw, the numbers for withdrawal in CT are even higher, and since Lamont is running to represent these voters, his position is perfectly in line with his electorate.

(On substance, the Iraq War is completely FUBAR and has harmed America's security immeasurably more than it has helped. It was and continues to be a complete sideshow from dealing with Al Qaeda and the threats that face the US. Let me state again - it was a stupid idea from the very beginning. And let me add - thinking so doesn't make me or anyone else anti-war against Al Qaeda, soft on protecting the US, or a traitor. rhodeymark: Assuming I completely understand your post, let me offer you this. The setting off of Iraq against Iran was a Reagan-GHW Bush-Rumsfeld strategy. Keeping Saddam contained did not require us to destroy the US's military credibility or moral superiority through an ill-conceived and worse-planned invasion based on mis-representations, prior to taking out bin Laden in Afghanistan. Btw, "worst strategic blunder" is not only my view but that of many Army Generals starting with Odom and Clarke. What is unserious is staying the course when you are driving over a cliff.)

Thanks for the advice and concern, but it's not a dumb strategy to replace a Democrat who may have a 90% voting record, when it's the 10% that may really matter and who constantly undermines the party by giving verbal aid and comfort to the Republicans. You don't see the same against other Democrats with similar positions to Lieberman because they are in red states and we would get worse. Ned is an improvement in voting and a huge improvement in tone. We like our strategy just fine.

Markos and Simon are allied in using all the tools we can to win elections for progressive candidates. They may have different positions on different policies from time-to-time but there is pretty broad agreement amongst them. The railing Markos does is an intramural squabble against what he sees as counter-productive tactics from the DLC. Simon's NDN and NPI are not the DLC. NDN and NPI are in the forefront of bringing new techniques and tactics to winning elections with progressive candidates. That is what is in it for Markos and for Simon both. I view both Simon and Markos as above all progressive strategists and tacticians, much more so than policy wonks. They have their points of view on policy as do we all but it is not the primary battle right now.

[gahrie]

You know I am getting pretty tired of reading about Markos et al. Get back to me when they are finally successful with something besides rabble rousing. What's his record now...0-23 or something?

[rhodeymark]

"Keeping Saddam contained..." I'm sorry Joe, but at some point you should admit that is a rosy phrase that belied the U.N. corruption and willful shell games that were the reality. Saddam wasn't contained, he was just playing his current hand. I didn't reference N. Korea lightly, because I do feel it is representative of what "nuance" still gets you in todays world. "Btw, "worst strategic blunder" is not only my view but that of many Army Generals..." Not to mention the career bureaucrats who run to the press as anonymous sources for National Security leaks. Yes, we know there is a war on the "War on Terror". The Generals who resign or express their reservations through official channels aren't the problem, it's the shadow dissent. No one should be that convinced of the validity of their position unless they are prepared for a different type of martyrdom (well deserved at that). You see, Joe, why should I ever trust the Wilson's, Clarke's or Burger's to stand guard again? Their allies are still behaving duplicitously.