Hear that, Lamont people? Just take your dog-eared copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and go home already.
Via DailyKos [1]:
Asked specifically if he felt that the wave of opposition to his candidacy had anything to do with his religion or his support for Israel, Mr. Lieberman paused, stepped toward the blue sedan that would speed him to a meeting outside of Hartford and said, "That's too big a question to answer on one foot. We should come back to answer that one." This extraordinary interest has led to some uncomfortable moments. Mr. Lieberman's supporters have come to suggest that much of the burgeoning liberal opposition to his candidacy is motivated by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment. Mr. Gerstein says he has detected what he calls a "growing strain of anti-Semitism on the far left," which he believes is in part fueling the strident opposition to Mr. Lieberman.
Gee, where to begin?
Let me start, perhaps, with my own experience. I met Ned Lamont at the DL21C / NDM / MYD Mark Warner event [2]; and even though we chatted for about ten or fifteen minutes, we did not once talk about instigating the burning of a synagogue, raising funds for Hamas, or for that matter about organizing a pogrom in Delaware or elsewhere [3]. In fact, even though I quizzed Lamont to some depth, anti-Semitism didn't really figure in the conversation - at all.
Oopsie.
So perhaps Joe Lieberman is just a lying, and increasingly desperate, sack of shit. Let's investigate that thesis, shall we?
Exhibit A is the most recent Q-Poll [4], which shows Lieberman leading Lamont, but with shrinking levels of support. The numbers still look pretty good for Holy Joe (Oops, there's that anti-Semitism again! Sorry about that), but by the conventional wisdom, he should be doing quite a bit better, what with being a three-term incumbent and all.
Exhibit B is Lieberman's decision to run as an independent should he lose the primary [5]. That's as if Jacob Javits had ignored the primary he lost against Al D'Amato - unheard of. And desperate.
Exhibit C are the numerous attempts by Lieberman allies to portray the Lamont challenge as, depending on which day of the week it is, either republican-lite [6] or a far-left Bolshevik purge [7]. That does go to credibility, counsel.
So is Lieberman desperate? You betcha. Is he lying? Well, what do you call someone who makes mutually contradictory statements about his opponent?
But is he a sack of shit? Consider the evidence: According to Holy Joe (oh, again, sorry, my bad), opposition to the war in Iraq is largely indicative of anti-Semitism, in much the same way as disagreement with the neo-con cabal at PNAC is tantamount to torching your neighborhood synagogue. David Brooks actually made much that point in a 2004 op-ed. Just a thought: if that were true, this country would be a nation of brown-shirts, what with over half the country opposing the war [8].
Here's the thing: there is anti-Semitism in America. When Jewish families flee a Delaware chool district in fear of their lives [9], that's a safe statement to make. To have Lieberman bandy the term about to give himself a higher margin of safety in a primary equates this real anti-Semitism with Lieberman's partisan convenience. By Joe's logic, if you're running against any Jewish politician, you might as well burn a cross on his lawn, deny the holocaust or take an Auschwitz camp guard to dinner.
And for that, yes, Lieberman is a sack of shit.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
[Update]: As Gatemouth informs, Senator Javits did indeed ignore the primary results to run on the Liberal Party line. My mistake; but that does not in my mind contradict the observation that an independent Lieberman run would be a slap in the face of Connecticut Democrats.
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12] | 
[13] | 
[14] | 
[15] | 
[16] | 
[17] | 
[18]