Progress Pond

Sealed with a KISS: Strange Bedfellows — Lieberman and the GOP

GreyHawk

by GreyHawk, luaptifer, wanderindiana, intranets and Avahome

Crossposted from DailyKos and ePluribus Media.

The high-power world of politics often makes for strange bedfellows.  Forget images that call to mind card games and hookers at the Watergate hotel or gay prostitutes posing as reporters in order to <s>propagannon</s&gt propagate Republican talking points. Envision a majority party supporting an opposing candidate, such as the GOP ditching one of their own to muster support for Joe Lieberman, whose party snubbed him after 18 years of “loyal” service for an upstart challenger.

We first reported our suspicions on August 10th, after a new domain called “IsupportJoe” went `live’ for the CT primary.   When the spinup cycle tracked with the initiation of its virtual neighbor “Veterans for Freedom Action Fund,” we discerned the outline of a Swiftboaty-like ploy through the thick smoke, hosted by GOP front agent Campaign Solutions.

Join us as we delve the ramifications of CT-Sen 2006 election and explore  new revelations regarding Vets for Freedom, “The Kiss,” the candidates and the nation in what appears to be yet another case of strange bedfellows for the Republican party.
To Recap

ePM investigators noted that the domain name “ISupportJoe” was registered on August 3 and speculated it might have something to do with the coming CT primary.  Within the 24 hours of CT’s primary and Joe Lieberman’s announcement to run as a petitioning candidate, we detected that ISupportJoe.com had ‘gone live’ on the system of well-known GOP operative, Campaign Solutions.  Whether it was a response to our poking around or preconceived to hide any elephant tracks leading back to Republican waters, the newly launched “ISupportJoe” was reassigned to a different commercial provider by the time we revised and broke the story on August 10th.

“ISupportJoe” remains unpublished since redeployment but the timing of its footprint, its association with Donatelli’s operation, the coincidental arrival of Swiftboaters in the form of the Vets for Freedom Action Fund and an army of GOP pundits with new talking points all indicated that something big was happening.

We sensed then that the story was more about shifting ties between Lieberman and the Republican party, and that GOP involvement in the CT-Sen race was not going to end with their own candidate.  What we didn’t expect was the immediate distancing of Republican support for one of their own, in lieu of attempting to swing support toward Joe.  In light of this, we believed the main follow-up story to be the inevitable talking point propaganda and attempted “swiftboating” of the Lamont campaign, trumped-up terror alerts and a short hop through allegations of hacking that were reported to the FBI by Lieberman’s campaign.  We were wrong.  There was — and is — more.

A Curious Matter of Timing

According to a piece published by SourceWatch’s John Stauber (“Vets for Freedom” Fight for Rove and Lieberman):

Vets for Freedom (VFF) made lame claims to be “non-partisan” when in early 2006  it first appeared out of the blue online and in  op-ed pieces in the New York Times and other major papers and in TV interviews.   An investigation of the group  by citizen journalists at SourceWatch and by the Buffalo News blew the VFF claim of non-partisanship out of the water.  For instance, the Buffalo News revealed in June that former White House flack Taylor Gross, who left Scott McClellan‘s office in 2005 to start his own PR firm, represented VFF and pitched them to papers as non-partisan journalists who would embed for these newspapers  and report accurately and cheaply  for them from Iraq.  Now  the camouflage has fallen completely off. Vets for Freedom has registered itself as a 527 committee and is going  to run a full page advertisement in Connecticut’s Hartford Courant on behalf of Joe Lieberman‘s renegade run for re-election to the US Senate as a ‘stay the course in Iraq’ candidate.

initial claims by the Vets for Freedom of a non-partisan standing were blown out of the water when the group filed with the IRS for “527” status — establishing themselves as distinctly partisan.

Dave Johnson: “Behind the Front: The Creation of the Vets for Freedom” helps to crumble arguments that Vets for Freedom is anything other than a Republican front group in a detailed roster of Donatelli’s high-profile partners and low-profile bedfellows:

Almost immediately following the The Herald Group’s formation (September), client-organization Vets for Freedom was launched (January), describing itself as:

“…a nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote the unbiased, nonpartisan truth of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, to educate the public and mobilize public support for the Global War on Terror.”

This “non-partisan” organization’s website was designed by The Donatelli Group/Campaign Solutions, which previously had worked with the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as well as the White House-associated Judicial Confirmation Network, yet another well-financed, party-affiliated front group. Other Donatelli Group/Campaign Solutions clients include Bush-Cheney 2004, The Republican National Committee, the 2004 Republican National Convention, several state Republican Party organizations, the Republican Attorneys General Association, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Citizens for a Sound Economy and Tom DeLay. (To really get the picture go see the whole list. Really.)

The “non-partisan” Vets for Freedom originally had a privacy statement on their website that read, “We may from time to time share the information our visitors provide with other Republican candidates and other like-minded organizations.”

The Vets’ working relationship with the Donatelli Group / Campaign Solutions is the telltale binding between the poltical front group issue maker and GOP machine.  The successful formula is recycled throughout the GOP’s inbred world of funny money front organizations.  They’re connected in a shifting and elaborate web of special interests that lobby in DC, contribute to election campaigns for access to influential politicians, float media PR campaigns, and field fake `grassroots activist’ coalitions (“astroturfing”) in order to manipulate public perception favoring their issue.

ePluribus Media’s previous research of Donatelli interests identified consecutive IP addresses hosting Campaign Solutions clients including GOP concerns such as  nygop.org,  libbylegaldefensetrust.org,  scooterlibby.com,  reforminstitute.org, whereisbobcasey.com, and CounterClintonLibrary.com — just to name a few among a veritable rogues’ gallery.  “ISupportJoe” was a Republican for only the day that Joe Lieberman lost when it joined the rogues gallery live at CampaignSolutions.com’s IP address.  VetsforFreedom.com maps to the next sequential IP address:

Original Home of iSupportJoe — 64.203.98.195
Campaign Solutions                      — 64.203.98.195
Home of Vetsforfreedom           — 64.203.98.196

Another closely-timed coincidence was the initial filing by VFF of the Action Plan fund with the IRS on July 26, 2006 only a week before “ISupportJoe” was registered as dot com, net, and org domains.

A further effort to unravel the tangle of interwoven connections that tie the Vets for Freedom back to the Republican party has resulted in a very easy-to-read information graphic created by Simon Woodside.  Here’s a small version of it, and Simon provides a link to a full-sized version (suitable for printing and or framing) on his site:

With this sprawl of information, it’s sometimes difficult to keep the various implications of the overall depth and breadth of these machinations straight.  Let’s back up for a moment, to consider the issues in play before this election cycle began to heat up.  We’ll then explore some likely GOP strategies and tactics underlying the Vets for Freedom and the curiously as-yet undeveloped “ISupportJoe” domain.

Prelude to a Kiss

Politics in the United States has evolved into a carefully orchestrated dance of deadly propaganda, conducted by spinmeisters wielding verbal machetes while directing their troop deployments to the trenches armed with an ever-increasing array of dirty tricks, catchy slogans and manipulative tactics.  The last ten years in particular illustrates the culmination of these tactics as the wall between truth and lies was removed, covering the playing field with a thick veneer of slick smoke and mirrors.   The Republican propaganda machine has, in particular, worked hard to finely hone the skills of manipulation and deceit.  The Bush Administration, itself, has repeatedly been implicated or caught in misdirection of public opinion by such as Jeff Gannon’s theater of the White House Press Corps.

One key example of this is the creation and use of the organization “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” during the 2004 Presidential Election cycle.  The rise and impact of the group, still strong even after their claims of “truth” were solidly debunked, gave rise to the new term “Swiftboating” in political mudslinging campaigns.  The use of veterans to impact the public’s perception and emotional involvement has always been a powerful tool, and the 2004 election cycle was a prime example of just how powerful such efforts and organizations could be.

Prior to this election cycle, the nation has seen the extended use of political propaganda in order to distract people from the underlying realities of issues, playing instead upon reflexive emotion and images of patriotism.  All the while, substantial issues were foisted aside or undermined by political “gold” designed to elicit strong support from the Republican base.

The claim of “moderate” — regardless of the claimant’s source party — has often come into play during this period accompanied by the use of the word “bipartisan” to indicate that the claimed moderate politician could work effectively with moderates from the other side of the isle.

Joe Lieberman, usually cast as a “bipartisan moderate” in his role in the Senate, is one such example.   A highly controversial incident that took place within the Senate in early 2005 illustrates the importance and potentially critical role that “bipartisan moderates” can play: the threat of filibuster by the Democrats during the Alito nomination and the subsequent threat by the Republicans of pulling “the nuclear option” to remove the filibuster from play was rendered moot by a group of politicians from both parties called “The Gang of 14“:

The Gang of 14 (sometimes called the Mod Squad, with “mod” standing for “moderate”) was a term coined to describe the bipartisan group of moderate Senators who successfully negotiated a compromise to avoid the deployment of the so-called nuclear option over the organized use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats in opposition to judicial nominees in the U.S. Senate in early 2005. It consists of 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats led by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and John McCain (R-Arizona). The informal group was active again in July 2005, attempting to advise Bush on the choice of a nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. On November 3, 2005, the group met to discuss the nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court, but came to no conclusions, noting that the hearing process has only just begun. On January 30, 2006, the members of the group unanimously supported a cloture vote in the Alito nomination, providing more than enough votes to prevent the filibuster.

The pivotal role that this type of “bipartisan” decision can have in the course of our nation’s politics is important.  And the seats that Lieberman holds in Senate committees also have a major impact on how the nation’s business is decided, both now and in the future.

The Stakes

Much of the discussion following the election interpreted the Connecticut primary as a referendum on the Bush Administration, the Republican congressional majority and — most significantly — the Iraq war.  While there is a basis for all of these cases, the GOP has attempted to brand it simply as an “anti-war” frame in an apparent attempt to play upon emotional patriotism.  Good luck to them on that.  They’ll need it, particularly in the ongoing wave of scandals.  

The traditional media has begun to challenge various talking points spawned by the pundits and political shock troops.  The bubble is bursting, and the public is less tolerant of manipulative propaganda as a substitute for actual analysis.

That’s where we come in.

A genuine question that springs to mind when considering the “why” behind the sudden shift of support by Republicans to the Lieberman camp is what is it that Joe has that they need?  We’ll start by looking at his current responsibilities.  Senator Lieberman’s positions on several Senate committees are only one part of the stakes for the upcoming November elections, but they may be a crucial issue for the Republicans.  

Let’s take them one at a time, shall we?

Environment & Public Works

Senator Lieberman is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is responsible for protecting the nation’s natural environment, including its air, water and wildlife. The Committee also regulates nonmilitary nuclear power and oversees the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure.

Let’s see — protecting the nation’s natural environment — would that mean input into discussion and evaluation of ANWR?  Or perhaps oversight of some of Mr. Pombo’s numerous and nature-unfriendly activities?  Non-military nuclear power — as in, perhaps one of the new Cheney Energy Task Force initiatives?  And hmmmm…surface transportation infrastructure.  Could the Texas/NAFTA Transportation Corridor fall into this category?   A “Republican-friendly” Democrat could be an ace in the hole on such a committee during close votes.

Homeland Security and Government Affairs

Under the chairmanship of Senator Lieberman in 2001 and 2002, the Governmental Affairs Committee focused on the nation’s homeland security, corporate accountability, and the Bush Administration’s weakening of environmental regulations. Committee legislation enacted into law under Senator Lieberman’s leadership includes laws creating the Homeland Security Department, establishing an independent commission to examine the causes of the September 11th attack, and facilitating the transition to electronic government, by requiring the federal government to make more information and services available to the public online.

With many in agreement that our nation is not more secure, and with corporate scandals still rocking the financial world while environmental regulations are further weakened by the Bush Administration, this would appear to be a committee where one could get things done.  Or, not.

This particular committee has three current subcommittees:

Of the 3 current subcommittees, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is the oldest being created at the same time as the Committee on Government Operations in 1952. The Subcommittee on the Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia came into being after the creation of the Committee on Governmental Affairs in 1978. The Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security was created at the beginning of the 108th Congress.  (from Homeland Security and Government Affairs)

Together, these suggest some degree of accountability — currently absent in the Bush Administration’s tenure — actually existed somewhere in American government.  While failures of these committees to force accountability can’t be arbitrarily heaped upon Senator Lieberman, his presence on such potentially powerful committees could play an important role in enforcing oversight that mustn’t be overlooked — particularly as we cast an eye toward the possible future that the upcoming November elections may bring.

In the meantime, Lieberman claims on his website that his work on “Intelligence Reform and Prevention” as well as the “Hurricane Katrina Investigation” are examples of his worth — somehow, the efforts appear to be lacking in accomplishment.  (See this DailyKos story regarding what Lamont had to say about Joe’s Katrina accomplishments.)

Armed Services

Senator Lieberman is a member of the Armed Services Committee, where he is Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on AirLand Forces and sits on the Subcommittees on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and Seapower. The Senate Armed Services Committee is responsible for all matters relating to defense policy of the United States, including oversight of the Department of Defense and the nation’s armed forces.

This committee has a pivotal role in our preparation for and execution of war, as well as our capacity to engage in the “Global War on Terror” that the President has unilaterally declared.   Taken together, the three committees represent a trifecta of focal points that could finally force the Bush Administration to be accountable, responsible and effective.  

Or, as mentioned before, not so much.

Lieberman’s presence on these committees — particularly if under GOP influence — may be the crucial part of   the power struggle that will likely ensue in Congress after the November elections.  His presence could also prove pivotal in any potential decision to participate in a new conflict, like Iran.  

Many Democrats have called upon Harry Reid to yank Lieberman’s committee posts since his decision to run as a petitioning candidate against a Democratic primary winner.  That, however, that isn’t feasible — and even if the Democrats take control of the Senate, it may not be possible.  In the recent DailyKos diary “Reid Can’t Strip Lieberman of Committees. Here’s Why” by BigDog04, we’re informed about a little-known aspect of Senate procedure that the diarist culled from an article by Bob Geiger.  Here’s the excerpt cited with the pertinent and meaty tidbit:

while many of the calls for harsh action from Reid may be righteous, bloggers castigating him for not stripping Lieberman of his committee assignments <snip><snip>and urging their readers to call Reid’s office to harangue him about this, are simply wrong and not reporting accurately on what is or is not within Reid’s authority.

    Based on the way the Senate works procedurally, this is simply not something that Reid even has the authority to do.

<snip>

The membership in Senate committees is decided at the start of every Congress with a haggled-out thing called an “organizing resolution.” The entire Senate votes on it

<snip>

        To give Joe his well-deserved comeuppance by taking him off committees and effectively making him the most junior member of the Senate, Reid would have to formally propose an amendment to the current organizing resolution, manage to get it to a vote and then get every Democrat and a handful of Republicans to vote for a new committee organization sans Lieberman.

Reid’s hands are tied, and will likely remain so — unless Lieberman loses the November election.  The suspect loyalty of Joe Lieberman makes his loss in November critical in order to guarantee that a “real” Democrat can be put onto the committees that Joe currently serves.

There isn’t much the Democrats can do, other than to give Lamont their support.  Now let’s  look at the GOP options, as that’s where the meat is in this story.

GOP Strategies and Options

There are at least three strategies or options that the GOP could be planning to maximize the play out of Lieberman’s status as a petitioning candidate.  

1.    Divide and conquer

Divide the Democratic party against itself; point to the disarray and pummel home the point that the Dems can’t agree on anything, and are bad for the nation.

2.     Split the difference

By acknowledging their own candidate is a lost cause and openly backing Lieberman, the GOP may rally Republican votes out for Joe in order to ensure a compliant seat remains in Congress.  If the Dems look as though they would reassign the committee positions, elevate Lieberman through a Presidential appointment and have the Gov of CT — a Republican — appoint an interim Senator…most likely, also a Republican.

3.    All of the above

If capable of sowing disarray in the Democratic leadership — or selling the perception of disarray to the public — while preserving the seat of their preferred candidate, the Republicans stand to accomplish several objectives.  First, they can help defuse the belief that the Lieberman-Lamont race is a referendum on the Iraq war, the Bush presidency and Republican control of government.  Second, they can establish an  impression of “inept” Dem leadership.  And third, they retain controlling influence over their “stealth” committee assignments.  While Lieberman may not retain his assignments after running as a petitioning candidate, by keeping him in the Senate instead of Lamont — an unknown quantity — they maintain at least one sympathetic voter within their opposition party, cleverly disguised as a “bipartisan moderate.”

If the Republicans lose capital ‘R’ seats, the best alternative they can hope for is to protect sympathetic `D’ seats that caucus as Republican on critical issues.

Looking at the race in terms of keeping Lieberman in the Senate for his value as a member of the critical “trifecta” of committees, it becomes clear why the Republicans are so desperate to see Joe win — even if that means abandoning their own candidate.  The official party line regarding Connecticut is to voice sympathy for Joe, and not to endorse Alan Schlesinger, their own candidate.  From Hardball with Chris Matthews, Aug 25, 2006:

MATTHEWS:  Do you support Alan Schlesinger up in Connecticut?  The party candidate?

GILLESPIE:  The party there has urged neutrality there, in that–

MATTHEWS:  So you don`t support him, Alan Schlesinger?  The gambling man?

GILLESPIE:  That`s for the folks of–

MATTHEWS:  Blackjack–“Blackjack” Schlesinger.  You don`t endorse him?

GILLESPIE:  I defer–look–

MATTHEWS:  This is amazing.  A guy is a nominee of your party and you don`t endorse him.

Ed Gillespie, Enron lobbyist and former RNC chair, refusing to back the GOP candidate.  Watch for the new talking point, too — “That’s for the folks of Connecticut to decide.”  It’s begun to make the rounds among all GOPers who are being asked about the CT-Sen race.  Amazingly, the hypocrisy of some of the Republicans never occurs to them, as big name folks may give that line while at the very same time appearing at a function to stump for a fellow (non-CT) candidate.

The Sum of All Things

So, what have we learned from all this?  

  • The Campaign Solutions-connected “Vets for Freedom” created a 527 (partisan) fundraising arm shortly before the Connecticut primary, Vets for Freedom Action Fund, whose online fundraising is serviced by Donatelli.  
  • Next to the new Action Fund, in both time and IP space, to the new Action Fund, anonymously-registered “ISupportJoe” domains were reserved with the “dot com” later assigning to its Campaign Solutions IP address on the morning of the CT primary.
  • On the day of the primary, as the Lieberman campaign alleged a website hack, Republicans came out in support of Joe from all quarters, including the White House.  
  • Within a short time following the primary, the White House announced the arrest of terror suspects in the UK and raises the terror alert level while equating the Lieberman loss to “empowering terrorists” and undermining the war effort.  
  • A scant few days afterward, it’s revealed that the terror arrests were precipitated by WH interference, and that the push by the US government to make the arrests before the primary may have compromised one more in a growing list of US-botched terror investigations.
  • All the while, the Republicans have been ignoring their own party candidate in the CT-Sen race, focusing instead on bolstering Lieberman’s sagging numbers.

The Republican party has good reason to be concerned about losing Joe, and about the upcoming November elections.  If they lose control of one or both chambers of Congress, they face the likely call to account for the myriad of failures and scandals that have rocked our nation — and the world — for the past six years.  The Bush Administration has far greater reason to worry: with the illegal warrantless wiretapping scandal, the torture scandals, the “secret rendition” policy and the litany of lies told to embroil us in the Iraq war, the threat of impeachment or charges of treason may loom large on the horizon.

And to think that it all started with a simple kiss.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Exit mobile version