According to Crooks and Liars, Jack Murtha announced today that he would not support the Lieberman campaign for Senate unless and until Sen. Lieberman changed his position on Iraq.
Why is this significant? Because elected members of Congress don’t normally speak out about other elected members of Congress unless there is a problem…and Jack Murtha clearly has a problem with Holy Joe. Maybe it was the leading off of the Republican side of the debate on the Iraq issue last week…(yeah, I’m still trying to figure out what the Lieberman camp was thinking with that one, too.).
After yesterday’s drubbing by union member after union member in Connecticut, who had to be begged to just support Lieberman until the primary — and not beyond that unless he actually wins the election fair and square — there has to be someone asking "what are we doing wrong?"
Note to the Lieberman camp: a faster way to get to the root of your problems might be to ask yourself what are you doing right? I’m just saying, that BooBoo bear commercial was crap and I can’t believe you paid someone money to make it for you. You keep this up, Lieberman’s going to be permanently curled up with a blankie in the corner. When people are telling you have to earn their support after all of your years in the Senate — you are doing a whole lotta somethings very wrong.
UPDATE: TeddySanFran has this on the money:
First Senator Feingold pledges on MTP to support the winner of Connecticut’s Democratic primary, now Congressman Murtha deserts Rape Gurney Joe. Haven’t seen Murtha’s quote yet, just the C&L “scoop,” but these guys DON’T have to be saying this stuff.
It’s intentional, this thin wedge. Will more Democrats find the courage to speak out?
Elected Democrats do not have to say anything. Most use wishy-washy language to avoid giving any answer at all. That Feingold, and now Murtha, have been specific is notable. And the backstage intrigue that has prompted this bears some investigation, doesn’t it?