CT-SEN: Chris Matthews - "Vote your brains"

Chris Matthews (who I think we give more agency too than anyone else, so this could mean nothing) just looked right into the camera and, after making a noteworthy and generally proper critique of the Lamont campaign, said "vote your brains" to Connecticut's electorate.  He's clearly not following the race closely, and in this case I think that's a good thing, because he sees right through the bullshit smokescreen Lieberman's put up over the war, over the importance of local issues and bringing home the bacon, over everything.  Lamont could learn A LOT from the following exchange, I hope someone in his staff was watching.

Transcript on the flip:

The roundtable featured Tweety with Time's Mike Allen and Slate's John Dickerson.  The discussion went from bloggers (the "pajamahedeen," as Tweety called him, and then he tried to make the insane analogy that bloggers "can't find the voting booth") to Lamont.  I thought this was valid:

MATTHEWS: I think his mistake was to go on vacation after he won the primary.  You know, you got to do it like Schumer did in New York, go right at D'Amato'd jugular.  When you win the nomination of your party, that says 'Go for it.'  It doesn't say take a vacation.

You press your advantage when you have it.  That's what we need to do across the country right now.

But then Mike Allen busted out the warmed-over pabulum that stands in for political punditry these days, and to his credit, Matthews would have none of it.

ALLEN: Well the other thing is that in a general election you're appealing to normal people.  In a primary, you've got these very narrow bands of people that it's much easier to target, much easier to get riled up.  And easier to connect with a message that does not connect with people out on little league fields...

MATTHEWS: The war in Iraq is hurting working people more than the elite.  So why can't he talk to them out there?  Why do you hear that the working people out there, the regular ethnic Democrats are going to Joe, who's the biggest hawk on the planet?  Explain that to me.  People are voting for a war they hate?

DICKERSON: Well, they're voting for a guy they like and who they trust after a long period of time.  They're not going to let go...

MATTHEWS: They trust him to be a hawk.

DICKERSON: Well, but they trust him on those other issues.  They've known him for a long time...

MATTHEWS: (looking dead into the camera) OK.  Just let me say this to Connecticut, if we have a war that keeps going after this election, don't sit back and say, "I did my best."  Because the best thing you can do is vote against the war, right?

(speechless)

MATTHEWS: If you're against the war, vote against it.  You only get one vote.  Shouldn't you vote against it, if you care about it?  If you care about other issues more, fine.

(crosstalk)

DICKERSON: That's where they're coming down, is they're saying they like, you know, the war is complicated, a lot of positions, they like Joe.

MATTHEWS: There's nothing complicated.  Use your intelligence and vote your brains.

Chris Matthews obviously has no idea that Joe Lieberman's an antiwar Democrat now.  Joe's managed to bamboozle Connecticut voters into believing that he wants to get our troops out of Iraq.  But he's not getting that fastball past Matthews.  He's been around Washington too long.  He's seen Joe at too many speeches and cocktail parties.  He knows that leopard can't change his stripes.

I believe that Tweety literally doesn't know that Lieberman is lying, using his long history with Connecticut voters to spin them on his position on Iraq.  And it may not exactly work to have Lamont say "you're lying" either; that would be seen as politics as usual.  But whether it's in an ad, or from a surrogate, or a media figure, the campaign has to come down to this choice.  Like Tweety or hate him, he recognizes that this election doesn't have to be complicated.  Frankly, it's the media's JOB to uncomplicate matters, unlike useful idiots like John Dickerson who say "who knows what anyone thinks, they just like their buddy Joe!"

You either support Ned Lamont or you support endless war in Iraq and throughout the world.  Why did it take this long for someone to break it down so easily?

Meanwhile, Joe's keeping a slush fund of "petty cash" that he's used to the tune of $380,000:

LIEBERMAN REPORT SHOWS UNPRECEDENTED $387,000 SLUSH FUND: Lieberman’s most recent FEC report shows $387,561 spent on “petty cash” – unaccounted for cash that was not itemized at all. To understand what an abuse this is, consider that FEC rules dictate that all expenditures over $100 must be itemized.

LIEBERMAN SLUSH FUND COMPRISED ONE OUT OF EVERY 12 DOLLARS SPENT: Lieberman’s massive slush fund comprised almost 8 percent of all of his expenditures in the reporting period. That’s almost one out of every $12 that Lieberman is effectively hiding.

LIEBERMAN FUNNELED OUT $32,000 A DAY IN UNACCOUNTED CASH: Lieberman’s campaign disbursed $387,000 in unmarked “petty cash” in just 12 days. That’s $32,000 every single day, with no accounting at all for how it was spent.

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR: Most mundane expenditures from Lieberman’s campaign such as salaries, printing, food, and other “petty” expenditures were already itemized on Lieberman’s FEC report, begging the question: What did Lieberman do with almost $400,000 in unaccounted for cash in 12 days?

THESE EXPENDITURES APPEAR TO VIOLATE FEC STATUTE: Title 11 C.F.R. §102.11 (2 U.S.C. 432(h)(2)) (Petty Cash Fund) provides: A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements. This written journal shall include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. In addition, if any disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) sought by such candidate.

Lamont has filed an FEC complaint about this. I'm guessing Lieberman doesn't want to disclose that money because it comes from Republicans. He's been hiding his true colors this whole race. Saying he's antiwar when he's a neocon. Saying he's a good Democrat when he's fully funded by Republicans. It's what the Lamont campaign, currently lagging in the polls, needs to do to frame the election and get people to understand, yes, the stakes.