The soon-to-be-retiring junior Senator from Connecticut has delivered a speech that will define his 18-year career and his legacy. And it's full of half-truths and false assertions. From T.Party's post at LamontBlog:
The New York Times describes Joe's speech tonight as a last-ditch effort that was hotly debated within his own campaign, and hastily re-written up until it was given minutes ago:
The speech, which was added to Mr. Lieberman’s schedule at the last minute, represents a very late attempt by Mr. Lieberman before Tuesday’s election to neutralize or at least limit the threat that his support for the war poses to his re-nomination.Except there is nothing new about Iraq in this speech. Just more of the same. More equivocation and lack of leadership, like he showed on ABC this morning when he sheepishly called Iraq both "better and worse":
Mr. Lieberman’s advisers said their campaign had been divided on whether the senator should confront his critics head-on and defend his position on the war with new, more pointed language or stick to his game plan of defending himself when the matter arose with reporters or voters.
As late as Saturday night, the advisers said, it was not certain that Mr. Lieberman would deliver the speech. But aides were furiously writing and rewriting it by this afternoon...
It is better now…it, it, it’s better and worse if you’ll allow me to put it that way.In fact, the only note this speech contains (full prepared text via Steve Gilliard) the same exact note Lieberman has been hitting since day one - projection.
* The candidate who has outraised and outspent his opponent 2-to-1 says:
Sadly, my opponent has done his best to distort my record, spending at least $4 million of his own money to mislead people into thinking that I am someone I am not.* The candidate who has continually used tactics worthy of Karl Rove offensively claims:
Not unlike what happened to Max Cleland four years ago.* The candidate who has avoided talking substantively about the issues the entire race, focusing instead on personal attacks against his opponent (even in radio ads airing today), whines:
The more I have talked to voters in these closing days, the more I am concerned they have been shortchanged in this campaign.... Instead of having an honest discussion about your future, we’re getting negative politics at its worst.* The candidate who has argued for months that his opponent was actually a Republican, and who even said today that his opponent was a "center-right Democrat," confusingly asserts:
That’s something that separates me from my opponent – I don’t hate Republicans. I know that some times the best way to get things done in the Senate for my constituents is through bipartisan cooperation.* And finally, the candidate who will not commit to abiding by the decision of Connecticut Democrats on Tuesday says:
If after hearing the truth about where I stand on Iraq, you still want to cast your vote solely on that one issue, then I respect your decision.(This is an interesting secondary definition of the word "respect," one that Sen. Lieberman uses often: "to screw over while pretending to care about.")
One more last-ditch effort from a flailing, haphazard campaign. A campaign which, at it's core, has not been about any issues, but about one thing and one thing only: defending incumbency and retaining power at any cost.
We'll find out on Tuesday if it worked.