Monday, July 24, 2006

Clinton on Lieberman: "He'll do you proud"

Suffered a minor injury on the way back from work today, so I'm afraid I'm not up for a lengthy update. I'll just quote part of Bill Clinton's speech that he made while campaigning for Lieberman in Waterbury today:

"[We Democrats] don't agree on everything. We don't agree on Iraq...the real issue is, whether you were for it or against it, what are we going to do now? And let me tell you something, no Democrat is responsible for the mistakes that have been made since the fall of Saddam Hussein that have brought us to this point."

"I don't have anything against Joe's opponent. He seems like a perfectly fine man. But I know that on the issues that I believe are critical to our future, Joe Lieberman's past is good evidence of his future...He is a good man, a good Democrat, and he'll do you proud."

UPDATE: From the Danbury News Times's coverage of the rally:

Democrats and the public were impressed by the event.

"It was a highly charged environment," said former Danbury mayor Gene Eriquez. "It shows the wonderful, broad support for Joe that people would come out on a Monday afternoon."

Jasmine Jeffrey of Waterbury, who sat in the balcony, said Clinton's visit was "excellent, phenomenal. It was awesome, so inspiring."

Sandy Healy of Waterbury had planned to vote for Lamont until Monday.

"This will make a big difference," Healy said. "I wasn't going to vote for Lieberman, but I am a big fan of Clinton and with Clinton's endorsement, I am going to do volunteer work for Lieberman."

Sounds like people power to me.

166 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the radical, vicious, shallow minded Kos krowd, Bill Clinton is a right winger.
They're more persuaded that Maxine Walters endorsed Lamont.

7/24/2006 8:48 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I'm so glad somebody mentioned the whole issue of right wingers. Some people think it's strange that Joe Lieberman has "undisclosed location" campaign events, because that seems a very Bush-like modus operandi. It also seems a little odd that Lieberman is so much more interested in talking about Lamont's stock portfolio than the important issues that confront Connecticut and our nation.

Fortunately, some enterprising people on the Internets have made an effort to answer a question that many voters must have - Who is Joe Lieberman?

Debunk Joe Lieberman's many twisted lies

Learn how Republicans are financing his campaign

Examine Lieberman's strong support from Supreme Leader Bush and a gaggle of TV and talk radio wackjobs

7/24/2006 9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He'll do you." Clinton nearly had it right, just one word too many....

7/24/2006 9:51 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Anonymous: I believe you mean Maxine Waters. Maxine actually has real Democratic principles, and has the courage and vision to act on them.

This is in stark contrast to Joe, who only has enough courage to sell out to large corporate donors. A fat campaign account and a plush lobbying job for Hadassah - these are the true passions of Joe Lieberman.

7/24/2006 10:13 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

For those that would like to see what some real Democrats actually look like, please have a look at this fine YouTube footage, which features Maxine Waters and Marcy Kaptur, among others:

Link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EcVgTTqOP_k

7/24/2006 10:33 PM  
Anonymous Leksah said...

lieberman4leiberman:

if you folks would be completely honest what this election to you is all about: wanting Waters and her ideological like, not Leiberman and his like, run the Democratic Party.

Centrists versus uber-leftists.

7/24/2006 10:39 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

We're two weeks from the election, and Ned Lamont still has no policy positions on crime, and no policy position on the budget.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ned_Lamont.htm

Ned Lamont on Budget & Economy:

No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Ned Lamont on Crime:

No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Ned Lamont on Environment:

No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Ned Lamont on Families & Children:

No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Ned Lamont on Welfare & Poverty:

No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

I can't even find positions on these issues on his own website:

http://nedlamont.com/issues

Is he really ready to be a Senator from Connecticut?

7/25/2006 3:35 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

The AP article this morning described Clinton's visit as a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength for Joe.

Clinton's appearance was merely the most visible sign of political distress on Lieberman's part, six years after he was his party's vice presidential candidate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/ap_on_el_ge/clinton_connecticut_1

Nothing seems to be going right for this campaign.

7/25/2006 4:17 AM  
Anonymous xtrarich said...

Ken Blbari asks about Lamont: Is he really ready to be a Senator from Connecticut? because Ken could not find position statements on crime, etc.

This is another area where the Lieberman campaign has acted against its own interests. By continually characterising is challenger as having a "one-issue" campaign, Joe has implicitly conveyed the message that there is no difference between the two candidates, except for the war. Unfortunately, the vast majority of CT voters agree with Lamont on the war.

(Of course, Lamont showed in the debate, and many other venues, that he does not view this as a "one-issue" campaign. It is only the Lieberman campaign that repeatedly makes this obviously false, and self defeating, claim.)

7/25/2006 4:30 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

There's a large difference between the two candidates--mostly it's EXPERIENCE. And Ned doesn't have enough experience as a selectman to do the job for the people. He's Mister Soundbite saying what Kos has told him he's allowed to say. He's not his own man, he's a puppet with at least 2.5 million reasons why the far-left extremists chose him as their marionette of the moment.

7/25/2006 5:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Suffered a minor injury on the way back from work today"

What happened, trip while leaning over to kiss Holy Joe's ass? Too bad it was only a minor injury.

7/25/2006 6:10 AM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

"I don't have anything against Joe's opponent. He seems like a perfectly fine man. - Bill Clinton.

But... but... he's a rapist, racist, anti-semite! He's a puppet! An extreeeeeeeeemist!

Even Lieberman's trump card can't bring himself to slam Lamont. He couldn't even find ONE negative thing to say about Ned Lamont. Why? Because Ned Lamont is intelligent, honesty, centrist, and well-qualified for the job. If Clinton felt otherwise, you'd best believe that the Big Dog would've said so.

Those of you who continue to foam at the mouth with hate and rage against Ned Lamont are far, far, far outside of the Democratic mainstream.

7/25/2006 6:25 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

leksah - If Lieberman were actually a moderate, all of us would probably be voting and campaigning for him. Unfortunately, Lieberman has been a strong supporter and enabler of Supreme Leader Bush.

Worst of all, Lieberman has been a leading warmongerer. Speaking for myself, a lot of passion for this race comes from a strong desire to first curtail and then end all of our indescriminate killing of Arabs in the middle east. It's just plain wrong for the US to be mowing down Iraqi men, women and children just for hell of it.

It's against our "principles", although Joe seems to have no problem with it.

7/25/2006 6:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, its interesting, 1/3 of the Connecticut delegation who voted for Ned at the Hartford convention are NUTTY, FAR-LEFT EXTREMISTS. George Jepson, former head of the Connecticut Democratic party, is a NUTTY, FAR-LEFT EXTREMIST. All of the people in Connecticut who just said they preferred Lamont in the latest Rasmussen poll are NUTTY, FAR-LEFT EXTREMISTS. We're just all nuts.

Oh BTW, what is nutty about Ned:

We should get out of this disastrous war?
We need fair trade agreements?
We need universal health care?
Voting for extremist Alito is a bad thing?
The Democratic party should give REAL opposition to Bush?
Bush's wiretapping is illegal?
Bush is violating our civil liberties?

Goes, that's all just so nutty and extremist, isn't it?

7/25/2006 6:36 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

balbari: While Ned is certainly unknown to some degree you are right about Lieberman. Lieberman is a known quantity.

Lieberman has proven he can't do the job.

7/25/2006 6:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason Bill Clinton doesn't say bad things about Ned Lamont is that he doesn't bash other Democrats.

To be honest, both Lieberman AND Lamont should take note of that.

7/25/2006 6:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's review the list again of why we oppose Lieberman:

* Interference in the Schiavo matter (meanwhile nothing about Texas Futile Care law with which people who cannot afford life support are yanked)

* Support of Nafta/Cafta
* Support of the Bush energy policy
* Willingness to deny rape victims emergency contraception
* Support of someone from the International Arabian Horse Association to run FEMA
* His unwillingness to demand censure on wiretapping
* Support of No Child Left Behind'
* Support of School Vouchers
* Support of a non-provoked attack on Iran
* Interest in privatizing Social Security
* Support of Gonzales and the torture policy
* Vote on cloture for Alito
* Yes confirmation vote on Rice
* Support of the Bankruptcy bill
* Support of Defence of Marriage Act (Clinton did too, BOTH were wrong)
* Supported our ports being run by Dubai
* For telling Democrats they criticize the president at their own peril (of course, NO Republican ever criticized Clinton)
* Friends with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who call Democrats terrorists
* Friends with convicted felon, former governor John Rowland
* Does not comport self like opposition party member, e.g. one of the few Democrat attendees at a Valentines soiree with the Bushes
(http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/02/14/ap2527187.html)

* Supported Bush on faith-based programs that spread lies about choice and abortions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/images/20020207-9.html)
* Has essentially endorsed John McCain for president. “I hope he runs.”
* Against universal health care.
* Against gay marriage, not proposed anything on domestic partner benefits
* On Iraq: Time magazine's Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware: “Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting “

* Yes vote for John Roberts
* Voted to stop federal aid to public schools that used materials "supportive of homosexuality"
* At Memorial day parade, marched with Republican Nancy Johnson while ignoring Dem. candidate Chris Murphy
* Formed his own party, to run AGAINST the Democratic opponent, if he loses the primary
* Was hostile and boorish to opponent Ned Lamont in primary debate, treated Dick Cheney with kid gloves in vice presidential debate.
* Has been seen on Fox News more than in Connecticut
* Has been in downtown Baghdad more than downtown Bridgeport

7/25/2006 6:38 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Ned has nuts...

Yes, that's it. Ned has balls, whereas Lieberman does not. Ned has a courageus and progressive vision for Connecticut and America.

Lieberman only has enough courage to sell out on damn near everything. Pharma/Defense PAC Joe is indeed the antithesis of Maxine Waters or Ned Lamont and his nuts.

7/25/2006 6:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also according to Keith Olbermann:
Clinton came to CT to tell Joe: If you lose in the primary, I'll be back to campaign for Lamont.

7/25/2006 6:42 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Really? Can't do the job? Getting earmarks to Connecticut that have helped create tens of thousands of jobs isn't getting things done? Or pushing through bills on stem cell research that could save untold millions of lives? I could make a much longer list, but you won't care anyway, because you just ignore facts if they disprove your ridiculous arguments.

But then again, no one here expects L4L to say things that make sense. After all, he's...


"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

7/25/2006 6:42 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Anonymous: Nice "laundry list" post, thanks.

7/25/2006 6:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

- The reason Bill Clinton doesn't say bad things about Ned Lamont is that he doesn't bash other Democrats.-

Um, when you're at a campaign event for someone, you generally try to support them. Hell, Clinton even brought up Terry Schiavo, you know where Joe favored government intervention into a family's affairs. Everyone said Clinton's talk was lukewarm re Joe.

7/25/2006 6:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

- Getting earmarks to Connecticut that have helped create tens of thousands of jobs isn't getting things done? -

Which is why Connecticut is 49th out of 50th in the amount we get back for every dollar we pay?
Which is why our Connecticut infrastructure is terrible (traffic gridlock gets worse monthly)
However, Joe is good at giving favors to pharmaceutical companies due to the influence peddling of his wife Hadassah.

7/25/2006 6:47 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

What could be a more of a bellwether Democrat issue that SS privatization? And yet Lieberman was an early supporter on SS privatization. I think this is a great subject because it shows exactly where Lieberman is really coming from.

Lieberman is a Republican operative who panders to the far-right. "The Kiss" is emblematic of this really serious problem. SS privatization is another issue where Lieberman appears to be in cahoots with Supreme Leader Bush and the Righties. Obviously, Lieberman is worried about this issue because the Lieberman campaign felt like they had to lie about it.

7/25/2006 6:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I find interesting about Lieberman is what a hypocrite he is. Oh, you should not remove me from office because I have the experience as your senator. Um, then why try to take out Lowell Weicker, Joe? It's the same thing. Yes, he was a Republican but one of the most decent Republicans I have ever met. So, let's review: If it's Joe doing the challenging, ok. If it's someone challenging Joe, not ok.

7/25/2006 6:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Lieberman for Lieberman. Or let's take another one:
Joe's "It should just take a short ride" comment. He was NOT NOT NOT misquoted and never tried to rectify the quote for months.
So a pharamcist or a hospital can deny someone emergency contraception, birth control, cervical cancer vaccinations based on their beliefs. I find that repulsive.

Or for Joe to say Democrats critisize Bush at their own peril? Imaging if some Republican had said Repubs critisize Clinton at their own peril? That Repub would be skinned alive. I find Joe's comment repulsive.

Joe finds it is his moral responsibility to speak out about Clinton's affair but does not want to scold Bush on illegal wiretapping without a warrant? Repulsive.

7/25/2006 6:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

http://liebermania.blogspot.com

7/25/2006 7:05 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

"He gave us eight years of peace and prosperity," Lieberman said of Clinton. "In the biggest political fight of my life, who better to have in my corner than the comeback kid himself."http://www.newstimeslive.com/news/story.php?id=1006735#tt

Wow, Lieberman really said that yesterday! Everyone else knows that the biggest political fight of Lieberman's life was when, as the Democrats VP nominee, he had the awesome responsibility to fight against the Bush-Cheney ticket. As Joe admits yesterday, this wasn't all that important to him, despite the disasterous results of the 2000 election on this country and the world.

Does Lieberman really think that his ongoing incumbancy is more important than the 2000 election?

What does this tell you about Lieberman's character and principles?

7/25/2006 7:24 AM  
Anonymous leksah said...

lieberman4lieberman:

you can't argue that if you look at his FULL record, he doesn't come out in the CENTER of his fellow Democratic Senators.

its a compete LIE the picture you create of him.

7/25/2006 7:25 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

leksah - you raise an interesting point. If Lieberman is such a "centrist", why has he been on the wrong side of all those issues mentioned above by the anonymous poster?

One of the great Lieberman tall tales of this campaign is the "He votes with Democrats x percent of the time" argument. Yet this argument doesn't really work, because he regularly uses the cloture vote to scuttle Democratic/ progressive initiatives. These cloture votes are not accounted for in his "progressive rating", but they really should be.

Fortunately, there is no lying for me to do. His record speaks for itself.

And because of it Lieberman won't talk about the issues.

No wonder Lieberman seems so interested in Lamont's finances.

7/25/2006 7:29 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

leksah says:

you can't argue that if you look at his FULL record, he doesn't come out in the CENTER of his fellow Democratic Senators.

Well, no, you actually CAN make such an argument. According to the Washington Post:

Of all Northeastern senators, moreover, Chafee is the one whose political profile most closely matches Lieberman's. Over the past three years, Chafee has run up a 65 percent voting record on the scorecard of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). Lieberman's score is
75 percent. The six other Democrats from the nearest states -- Jack Reed from Rhode Island, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton from New York, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry from Massachusetts, Patrick Leahy from Vermont -- averaged 97 percent during those three years. Lieberman's ADA rating of 80 percent last year tied Florida's Bill Nelson for the second-lowest among Senate Democrats.

7/25/2006 7:33 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

babablack: Good point, thank you for this info

7/25/2006 7:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L and his cronies (probably the same person) are boring. It's a deductive way of "proving" their hatred for Lieberman: come up with the conclusion first and select only the quotes and facts that fit. It's the Rovian technique, the freeper technique and Daily Kos technique. True Democrats don't need to adopt those tactics.

Glad Bill came out to support Lieberman. As the only recent 2-term Democratic President, he represents the mainstream. I, too, don't dislike Lamont: he seems nice enough. But what I dislike about his is that he attracts supporters that are extremists. Not all his supporters are, but enough for me to know that those aren't the people that I want encouraging Lamont. I'd rather be in a more mainstream Democratic crowd and share company with Lieberman's supporters.

Go Joe!

7/25/2006 7:38 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

All two of them...

7/25/2006 7:41 AM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Leksah asks an important question and L4L gives the right answer. Yes, his career taken as a whole is admirably progressive. But the issue here is not his career record; the issue is, why has he abandoned those Democratic principles to such an extent? And the obvious follow-up: Why do Lieberman fans keep using this clearly inapt argument? We have no problem with his past. We have a problem with his recent history. All clear now?

The "laundry list" post above from Anonymous is devastating and pretty difficult to respond to except with this weak "he's a lifelong liberal" line. Later in life, he seems to have changed his mind.

7/25/2006 7:44 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Good point about Bill Clinton, Anonymous. I wonder whether that appearance with Joe actually helped. It is certainly true that the crowd was far more receptive to Clinton than Lieberman. And that must have been tough on Joe, given his already bruised ego and fragile psyche.

I feel pretty bad about the Clinton appearance. It seems to have only made things worse for Joe. I believe that it's not too late, but unless Joe starts talking some sense on the issues and apologizes to Connecticut residents for his lies and misdeeds, it may be too late for him.

7/25/2006 7:45 AM  
Blogger Sundog said...

So many "anonymouses", so little time.

The post callink L4L and his cronies boring: Nice way of avoiding answering the questions raised. Simply ad-hominem them all away as "proving their hatred for Lieberman".

"True Democrats don't need to adopt these tactics." Are you insane? Are you blind? Go read a few of Marshall Wittmann's raving posts on the subject and then come back and lecture me about how Democrats should act.

Shame on you for comparing your fellow Democrats to freepers and Karl Rove. Again, if you want to see Rovian tactics, check The Moose.

7/25/2006 7:48 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Information does seem to be the bane of the Lieberdems, what with the record and all.

But it is important to have this conversation, so we will continue trying.

7/25/2006 7:52 AM  
Anonymous HowManyLamontSupportersVotedNader? said...

The Moose is Rovian? Methinks not. I'd call spreading misinformation Rovian. Like when Daily Kos posted that Lieberman was considering to be the Republican candidate - a link to another blog, that did not provide a link, no verification, and then when Lieberman denied it, Kos waited forever to put an update, but still played it off as if it was true. Kind of like how he played it up that Lieberman was going to be Bush's pick for UN Ambassador, or Homeland Security Chief or Defense Secretary. All not true. But truth doesn't matter. That's a Rovian technique. That's a Daily Kos technique.

Frankly, I find it very Rovian when Democrats say that Lieberman is a Republican. Hyperbole anyone? So, yes: DailyKos and Freeperville are two sides of the same coin - misinformation, not truth, seems to be the way to get votes. The ends justify the means. Sounds like Karl Rove to me. Shame on them, shame on them.

7/25/2006 7:56 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Well, I certainly didn't vote for Nader. And it's interesting that you should bring that up, because it's Joe Lieberman doing the cut-and-run routine

Joe Lieberman is the Ralph Nader spoiler in this election. Even worse, instead of bowing out of the Democratic primary, he insists on having it BOTH ways.

But then again, that's just Both-Ways Joe for ya...

7/25/2006 8:00 AM  
Blogger Susan said...

What I have learned about this episode as well as a few others is that the so-called left is as capable of lying as the right.

Yet far too many people believe the nutroots crap.

7/25/2006 8:01 AM  
Blogger Susan said...

If you nutroots are going to bring up Schiavo, at least know what in the hell you are talking about.

There was no federal "interference" any more than there would be federal "interference" in a death penalty case.

The original judge was in error, and a de novo review would have helped reopen the matter.

A lot of Democrats, you know REAL Democrats like Tom Harkin voted for the "intereference," which shows you don't know what you are talking about.

But hey, you of the nutroots aren't very careful with accuracy, are you?

7/25/2006 8:05 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

susan - you may want to learn a little bit more.

This is what Joe Lieberman Calls A "Single Issue"

Our brave men and woman in the Military deserve a government that will value their life and loyalty and not leave them stranded in a bloody civil war so that politicians like Lieberman can claim to make a "principled" stand. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Lieberman still claims that Bush's Iraq Policy is working well.

Lieberman is lying:

"Gloom descends on Iraqi leaders as civil war looms

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months after forming a national unity government, talk in private of "black days" of civil war ahead.

Signalling a dramatic abandonment of the U.S.-backed project for Iraq, there is even talk among them of pre-empting the worst bloodshed by agreeing to an east-west division of Baghdad into Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim zones, senior officials told Reuters."

Joe Lieberman continues to lie to us about Iraq

This is not a nutroots issue. This is not a left, right, liberal, or moderate issue.

This is an AMERICAN issue, a problem for all of us!

7/25/2006 8:06 AM  
Anonymous HowManyLamontSupportersCanArticulateLamontsPositionsOnCrimeOnEconomyOnWelfareOnDeathPenaltyOnIraqETC said...

Cut and run routine? Nah. There is nothing inappropriate about what he is doing. Just as there was nothing inappropraite about Nader running. It isn't a two-party system. If voters want to vote for Lieberman in the Primary, they will. If they want to vote for Lamont, they will. If voters want to vote for Lieberman in the general, they will. It's up to the voters. If they don't want a candidate to win, they won't vote for him. If Lieberman loses the primary, he will most likely win the general because more people will vote for him than the other two candidates. That's not a spoiler: that's allowing the voters to choose the candidate that they want the most. Nader had no chance of winning and that's why people were angry at him running. Lieberman, however, has not only a chance at winning the general, but is most likely the candidate that will win the general - as most polls have shown, more voters want Lieberman as their Senator than the other candidates.

7/25/2006 8:06 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Sorry, you may have your own opinions about this. But prominent Democrats, whether locally here in CT or nationally like Maxine Waters, etc. are in agreement.

Joe Lieberman's cut-and-run act is very harmful to the Democratic party. If Lieberman wants to be a Democrat, he should play by the rules and act like one, as Lamont has promised to do.

People are angry at Lieberman because what he is doing is so divisive, at a time when we Democrats really need to be working together.

7/25/2006 8:12 AM  
Anonymous HowManyLamontSupportersHaveDonatedToDemocratsChallengingRepublicans? said...

Funny, L4L talks so much, it's like he thinks that the more he types, the more his posts become truthful.

I would be more willing to trust L4L if he weren't so selective in the quotes that he chooses, ignoring context, ignoring quotes in their entirety. L4L's philosophy seems to be that if a quote counters the beliefs he holds dear, the quote isn't relevant. Only the quotes that prove him right are the ones that matter.

And, yes, L4L before you chime in with the "funny, when they can't debate the facts, then they attack me", that's exactly what we're doing: because we can't debate the facts because you aren't bringing up facts. Facts are derived from an array of evidence, quite often contradictory, quite often made from shades of grey. They are not derived from a faceless blogger who edits facts as he pleases to find black or white when only middle grounds exist. So until you can have a discussion, it is about you.

7/25/2006 8:13 AM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Heh... "nutroots." I get it. It's because they're nuts. Hahaha. That's funny.

Tell me more about the angry, angry Lamont supporters.

7/25/2006 8:14 AM  
Anonymous HowManyLamontSupportersWantToDefeatRepublicans? said...

Sorry, you may have your own opinions about this. But prominent Democrats, whether locally here in CT or nationally like Maxine Waters, etc. are in agreement.

Funny, I heard a national Democrat - probably THE quinessential national Democrat - talking before a large crowd yesterday, and he wasn't in agreement with anything you've written.

Maxine Waters is no Bill Clinton. You're delusional.

7/25/2006 8:16 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Um.. lemme see, I know that one...

THEY'RE EXTREEEEEE - MISTS

ooh!

7/25/2006 8:16 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

howmany - I found it revealing that Clinton was just as positive about Lamont as he was about Joe.

7/25/2006 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L seems pretty truthful, sorry........

7/25/2006 8:19 AM  
Anonymous HowManyTimesHasBillClintonSpokenAtALamontRally? said...

Hey: I'm positive about Lamont. He's a nice guy, and if Dodd retires to run for Pres, Lamont might want to think about running for Dodd's seat. I am not positive about some of the creepy, lying, cliquish, my-way-or-the-high-way people that Lamont attracts.

anonymous: L4L doesn't seem pretty truthful, sorry....... I'm sure he appreciates your support, though. Or at least, I'm sure he appreciates it if people are assuming that you and he aren't the same person.

7/25/2006 8:24 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

howmany - you might want to change your username.

Lieberman is a Republican.

He may have crashed the Democratic party, but that doesn't change the complexion of the overall situation.

In answer to your question, all Lamont supporters have contributed to defeating a Republican.

7/25/2006 8:27 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

The continued and dishonesty coming from Lamont and his supporters ought to raise some concern for voters. The false claim that Lieberman ever supported Social Security privitization made above, for example, is not merely the ranting of an deluded supporter on the internet; it has been echoed by Mr. Lamont's campaign manager.

Meanwhile, Lamont continues to spin strange tales about his tax return and Haliburton stock holding.

link

"Mr. Swan said that Mr. Lamont would not release the returns of the past five years because he and his wife filed joint returns and releasing them could compromise clients of her firm."

Anyone familiar with the tax return forms knows this is nonsense. There would be no identifiable client information passing through to her personal tax return. All that passes through from the partnership return are a few numbers, like income. What are they trying to hide?

The process by which they "made available" one single years return is also a bit spooky:

"Rennie states the campaign worked very hard at obscuring the $5,385 figure and bootstrapping Ned Lamont onto the amount the trust gave. The campaign manager had an angry tone, directing it at the press. Cameras were not allowed in the room while reporters examined the returns. Copies were collected at the end."

link

This is after falsely claiming in the debate that he had released everything that was asked. But the AP asked for his returns and he still hasn't released them.

And now we have this:

"Lamont said earlier this month that the stock was part of a mutual fund, but his campaign later corrected the statement and said it was part of a managed stock account."

link

A managed account is just a private account. Whoever is managing it will do exactly what Ned pays them to do. That's nothing like a mutual fund where money is pooled with thousands of other investors and you have no direct control over how it's invested.

So does Lying Lamont really not know where he has his money? Or did he think noone would find out?

7/25/2006 8:31 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

howmany -

Don't worry, we all know that L4L doesn't care about facts here. In case you'd forgotten, here's what he said this weekend:

"To me, worrying about stem cell research right now seems pretty frivolous."

"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

(seriously, that should be a tag to every comment made on this board, to remind people what this troll really is)

7/25/2006 8:33 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Concern troll Balbari thinks it's time to post some links

Good idea.

Since Lieberman has decided against doing anything but negative campaigning this election cycle, some enterprising people on the Internets have made an effort to answer a question that many voters must have - Who is Joe Lieberman?

Debunk Joe Lieberman's many twisted lies

Learn how Republicans are financing his campaign

Examine Lieberman's strong support from Supreme Leader Bush and a gaggle of TV and talk radio wackjobs

7/25/2006 8:36 AM  
Anonymous HowManyLamontSupportersWouldRatherDefeatLiebermanThanRegainControlOfTheSenate? said...

L4L,

Funny, I find no record on Lieberman being a Republican at any Republican Site. I do notice, however, that Bill Clinton, who you may recall as the last Democratic President, campaigned for Lieberman yesterday. Surely you are not suggesting that Bill Clinton campaigns for republicans. And didn't you read my post about you using dishonest statements to try to "prove" yourself right. Lieberman is not a Republican. In your mind he is, but in the world where facts exist, he is not.

And, centristdem, thanks for L4L's quote. That's appalling. L4L, I hope that you or a loved one never wind up with a disease for which stem cell research would have brought about a cure. For the record, more people have died of alzheimers, diabetes, paralysis, cancer or any number of diseases for which stem cell research could bring about a cure than all wars combined.

L4L, it isn't stem cell research that is frivolous. It's your posts.

"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

7/25/2006 8:39 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

That stem cell quote is something, but this is another beaut:

"end all of our indescriminate killing of Arabs in the middle east. It's just plain wrong for the US to be mowing down Iraqi men, women and children just for hell of it."

7/25/2006 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

http://liebermania.blogspot.com

7/25/2006 8:41 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Don't you love how L4L puts up some posts as "anonymous" to make it look like more people agree with him? Proof is that he has made that same post from just above before under the L4L name.

It's really sad that he has to create the illusion that people agree with him.

7/25/2006 8:43 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Once again, here is a reminder to everyone of why we're here. Why is Connecticut and America so exteremely fed up with Joe Lieberman?

Could it be his allegiance with the far right?

In a wide-ranging conversation with none other than Sean Hannity, Joe Lieberman, or "Lord" Lieberman as some would say, reveals some of the "principles" that he stands by. In this fascinating piece of audio at Crooks and Liars, Joe:

1. Claims that he loves to "work with" Republicans

2. Claims that debate on the NSA wiretapping scandal is "unnecessary"

and much, much more. Joe goes on to claim that he "doesn't understand how the party has been hijacked" by the left.

For the icing on the cake, Lieberman says to Hannity - "You're a great guy!"

Joe actually said this to the guy who called all of us TERRORISTS.

Wonder why Joe hasn't been on the Hannity program lately? I don't.

Link:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hannity-Lieberman.mp3

Does Connecticut really want a Neoconservative Senator?

Joe Lieberman - America's Fox News Democrat

7/25/2006 8:44 AM  
Anonymous HowManyTimesHasL4LPostedFollowUpSupportForHisOwnPostsUnderTheNameAnonymous? said...

I know! L4L creates anonymous posts so that it looks like people trust him. Kind of creepy.

I'm sorry, L4L, I don't trust a guy who says this:

"To me, worrying about stem cell research right now seems pretty frivolous."

If that's what you believe, then you don't know how the world works and probably should do more listening than typing.

7/25/2006 8:47 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

So I'm a "concern troll" because I thin Lying Lamont should give honest answers instead of false ones when asked about his finances. If he doesn't want to discuss them he should just say so, not lie and say he's released everything when he hasn't or say his Haliburton stock is in a mutual fund when it isn't. The issue here isn't his finances for me, it's the reflexive dishonesty of his answers. And he's got his campaign manager spreading lies about Senator Lieberman. How could I possibley trust this guy?

7/25/2006 8:47 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I would like to thank The Balbari and the other neoconservative apologists on this site for quoting my prose.

It's really quite an honor.

Thank you.

7/25/2006 8:47 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I would like to thank The Balbari and the other neoconservative apologists on this site for quoting my prose.

It's really quite an honor.

Thank you.

7/25/2006 8:48 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"Don't you love how L4L puts up some posts as "anonymous" to make it look like more people agree with him? Proof is that he has made that same post from just above before under the L4L name.

It's really sad that he has to create the illusion that people agree with him."

Yeah that! I know he's been cut and pasting his own posts into every thread, but when he can't even remember who he is...it makes me wonder if we don't have Ned himself posting here.

7/25/2006 8:50 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Hey, we'll quote your callous dismissal of research that could save the lives of people suffering from cancer and paralysis anytime you want.

Obviously we're not neo-cons, and people certainly wouldn't take the word of someone like you anyway.

"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

7/25/2006 8:53 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Nah. Give Ned some credit. He's obviously smarter than this guy.

7/25/2006 8:54 AM  
Anonymous HowManyTimesHasLamontWishedThatL4LWouldStopMakingAFoolOfHimselfBecauseItReflectsBadlyUponHim? said...

I would like to thank The Balbari and the other neoconservative apologists on this site for quoting my prose.

You're welcome. And if you continue to make ridiculous, hurtful, insensitive comments, they will be quoted, too, so that everybody's clear about the context from which your posts come.

7/25/2006 8:56 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Excuse me, but those cheerleader posts are not of sufficent quality to have been written by me.

Beloved LieberDims, you can bash me all you want. But my fellow concerned citizens and I are not going anywhere until after August 8th.

The LieberDems advocate "reasoned discourse" on this supposedly high-fallutin' site. But the truth is all they can do is BASH, BASH, BASH.

Look, it's pretty simple. What all of us are really concerned about is Joe Lieberman's terrible record. Why don't you just respond to the list of issues the anonymous poster (that really wasn't me) put up earlier this morning. Why not do a front-page feature on that?

Is it because you can't?

7/25/2006 8:58 AM  
Anonymous HowManyPeopleDoesL4LKnowWhoCouldBeHelpedByStemCellResearch? said...

The LieberDems advocate "reasoned discourse" on this supposedly high-fallutin' site. But the truth is all they can do is BASH, BASH, BASH.

I'm afraid I have to repost one of my earlier posts:

And, yes, L4L before you chime in with the "funny, when they can't debate the facts, then they attack me", that's exactly what we're doing: because we can't debate the facts because you aren't bringing up facts. Facts are derived from an array of evidence, quite often contradictory, quite often made from shades of grey. They are not derived from a faceless blogger who edits facts as he pleases to find black or white when only middle grounds exist. So until you can have a discussion, it is about you.

Besides, a guy who thinks worrying about stem cell research is frivolous isn't worth debating anyways.

7/25/2006 9:02 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Well gee, mister long-name.

That seems pretty dismissive now, doesn't it.

I guess our fears about this are true.

7/25/2006 9:04 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

"Why don't you just respond to the list of issues the anonymous poster (that really wasn't me) put up earlier this morning. Why not do a front-page feature on that?

Is it because you can't?"

No, because I already reapond to them the first two times you posted it (when it was you). Half of it is just plain false, the other half is merely badly distorted.

7/25/2006 9:05 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

There are several instances of you and an "anonymous" poster saying exactly the same thing, L4L. Although you've cleverly deleted a few of those comments since - just like you deleted the insensitive comment you made about stem cell research. Sorry, but you can't hide the truth.

7/25/2006 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

Say it. Believe it.

7/25/2006 9:16 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Your insults mean nothing. We are here to discuss the lying and malfeasance of Joe Lieberman.

And we're not going anywhere.

7/25/2006 9:21 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Your insults mean nothing. We are here to discuss the lying and malfeasance of Joe Lieberman.

And we're not going anywhere.

7/25/2006 9:23 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

" There are several instances of you and an "anonymous" poster saying exactly the same thing"

Speak for yourself, hypocrite!

7/25/2006 9:24 AM  
Blogger matt said...

Actually, L4L, I am working on a front page post responding to that laundry list of disingenuous charges against Lieberman. You probably will just change the subject again, since I've noticed that you never actually respond to the arguments of others in these comments - all you do is ignore anything that would hurt your argument, and focus on telling half-truths instead.

That laundry list was obviously posted by you since its contents are identical to an email you sent me two days ago. You thought I wouldn't respond? Well, you know what they say about people who assume, L4L.

This is the last time I'll ever directly address you or anything you say, L4L. You are dishonest and closed-minded, and your mentality of ignoring or dismissing anything thing that reveals how thin your arguments is so distasteful that you simply aren't worth the time.

7/25/2006 9:25 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Well, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?

The dishonesty and ad-hominem attacks of the LieberDems are now national lore.

7/25/2006 9:26 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

And by the way, that laundry list was not only not posted by me today, it's not identical to the list I put up a day or two ago either.

Once again, I see you've really done your "research".

Why don't you address it, or explain to us why it's wrong? We really do care about it. Why not do a front-page thing on it and straighten us out with all of your extensive fact-finding?

Don't worry. We're here to ensure that the truth of Lieberman gets told.

7/25/2006 9:29 AM  
Anonymous howmanypostshasl4lwrittenunderthename'anonymous'? said...

We're here to ensure that the truth of Lieberman gets told.

We are. But you and your "anonymous friend" (i.e. you) are not.

7/25/2006 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken Balberi,

Yes, a managed stock account is a private account. But not all managers will do what you tell them to do. Some investment managers give you two choices, you being a wealthy "accredited" or "institutional" investor. Invest with me and give me total control, or don't invest with me at all. Many create their own "funds", over which they retain complete control. You cannot ask the manager of such an account to simply sell a particular stock, because it is often part of a much larger holding. If you don't like what you are investing in you can get out of the "fund", but often with tax consequences (e.g. long term gains become short term ones and are taxed at a higher rate).

I don't know if this was the case with Lamont's account, but it would explain both the "mutual fund" comment (as this is the most basic way to explain such funds without saying "I'm much richer than you'll ever be and you have no clue the investment options I have that you'll never even contemplate) and the lack of initial knowledge over what exactly was held and in what amounts.

I have worked at such investment firms and have been investing in a fund such as this. I didn't like one of the holdings the manager had chosen, so I took a corresponding short position in the stock, zeroing out that particular position. This too has tax consequences and ties up money in both the long and short positions, earning a "negative" interest rate on double the money originally invested in the stock - one needs to pay a fee to short the stock. I did not do it lightly. Most people wouldn't do it at all.

Again, I'm speculating. But if this is what happened, it makes a lot of sense. I doubt Lamont, with his senate ambitions, told his broker to buy 500 shares of HAL at $30 because he thought it would go to 60. For a guy with his money, his ambitions, and his intelligence that would make zero sence.

If he is so rich that a $40,000 position means little to him, so he wasn't paying attention, that makes sense too. But that would be an oversight, not necessarily a judgement problem.

But hey, Martha is a smart lady too, and look what a trade saving her 50K or so cost her in the long run.

7/25/2006 9:34 AM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

howmanyblahblahblah said:
I am not positive about some of the creepy, lying, cliquish, my-way-or-the-high-way people that Lamont attracts

I'm a Lamont supporter. I've written a few posts here and there. What about me do you find creepy? When have I lied? What makes you think I'm cliquish? What gives you the impression that I have a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude?

7/25/2006 9:35 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

"Excuse me, but those cheerleader posts are not of sufficent quality to have been written by me."

Wow...lying and vanity in the same sentence. You sure are being efficient with your sins today, L4L.

7/25/2006 9:45 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Why are the Lieberman people so fixated on Lamont's stock portfolio and finances?

Are you guys all accountants when you're not working on campaigns for neoconservatives?

7/25/2006 9:49 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Whatever happened to "not responding to my posts"?

I really liked that idea.

7/25/2006 9:50 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

LieberDem actually concedes points and has even criticized the Lieberman campaign in his posts, L4L. So his criticisms seem perfectly justified to me, and most definitely aren't hypocritical.

And if the two lists were so similar that he couldn't tell the difference between them, then it just shows that someone copied most of the list, and LieberDem simply overestimated the ability of the Lieberman-haters to come up with original arguments.

It's ok, we don't want you to go anywhere. Your very presence hurts your own arguments because you are...

"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

7/25/2006 9:51 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

He might not. But that doesn't mean we won't call you out on your lies. We don't have to let people forget that you are...

"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

7/25/2006 9:52 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

State Rep. Steve Tercyak on Back-Stabbin' Joe Lieberman

Absolutely fascinating.

7/25/2006 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Leksah said...

Lie(berman)forLie(berman:

the question remains- why don't you put your time, energy, talents to gaining a Dem majority, i.e. defeating Repubs?

you people's obsession with defeating Joe is a boon for the Repubs races nationwide, and is turning off
1: centrist Dems
2: reasonable, non fire breathing folks
3: young folks like me that believe in civility in politics

7/25/2006 10:35 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Look at the record, or even just watch that video I just posted.

Lieberman is not a Democrat

In fact, Lieberman's ADA record is only ten points higher than Chaffee's and that doesn't even account for all of the damn cloture votes and other misdeeds.

Lieberman is destroying the Democratic party from the inside

People care about this, and this is why this race is getting so much attention.

7/25/2006 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Joe Liberman is a democrat, would he support the democratic party nominee from state of connecticut?. It is a biggotry of highest order to say that I am a Democrat only if I am winning party primary. I salute Ned for his courage and steadfatness. He will surely support whoever will be the Democratic party nominee for US senate as I am certain and hopeful that he will be the one on ballot in November and not a biggot

7/25/2006 10:44 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I do think that this is what a lot of people in Connecticut believe.

And sorry, whining LieberDems. No, I did not write that

7/25/2006 10:50 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Wow...Lieberman's ADA rating is only 10 points better than the most liberal Republican of the past 20 years. Yeah. That's a good argument.

Besides, you want vote ratings? Look here:

http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/truth-about-liebermans-voting-record.html

I don't think lie(berman)forlie(berman) (great thinking, leksah!) even read that post. He didn't even address it in his comments. He was probably too busy looking for his next lie.

7/25/2006 11:14 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

We didn't say you do all of them. Just most. It's ok. You spend so much time trolling here that you obviously don't have any friends, so it's not like you have anything better to do.

7/25/2006 11:16 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Whatever happened to "not responding to my posts"?

I really liked that idea

7/25/2006 11:16 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lamont Supporters Harrassed and Ejected from Clinton Event

This just in, from the Lieberman Office of Bush-Like Behavior...

Wow, did the Lieberman campaign really do this? Did they really do everything they could to disallow those with opposing viewpoints from entering their event, even though they had tickets and were Connecticut residents?

Why yes, LiebermanForLieberman. They did.

7/25/2006 11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There goes your civility... HYPOCRITES!

7/25/2006 11:42 AM  
Anonymous Leksah said...

".. Ejected from Clinton Event"

who can blame them?

judging from blogs, lamont supporters are eratic, hatefull & out for the throat!

7/25/2006 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard that person was swearing at the Lieberman staffer...

7/25/2006 12:02 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Nice try, but doesn't that seem kind of unlikely? And just where did you hear that?

To me, both of those kids seemed pretty darned nice for deranged nutcases.

7/25/2006 12:05 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Isn't it odd that the ticket in her hand is intact? But I thought the campaign was supposed to be tearing tickets! Interesting that there's no evidence of this AT ALL.

I guess I was right - lying runs in the blood of the Lieberman-haters.

7/25/2006 12:06 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Why do you believe that blogger any more than the anon one here?

They are both relying on people taking them at their word.

7/25/2006 12:07 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Well, that's quite the leap of illogic.

Hats off, centristdem. Well done yet again!

7/25/2006 12:08 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Why do you believe that blogger any more than the anon one here?

Hmm, let me see, I think I know the answer to this one. Could it be because they just wanted to see the Clinton event, and had no real motive to lie about it?

Sorry, but they don't look like operatives to me

I think you have to be a politician like Lieberman or Boxer to tell a whopper like that and be able to stand by it.

7/25/2006 12:11 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I just find it interesting that in 30+ years of Lieberman running for public office, including runs for VP and President, there is not a single instance of someone from his campaign staff acting like that.

And then an unsourced report to that effect appears just after the biggest rally of this campaign.

7/25/2006 12:11 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Oh, puh-leeze. Their motive to lie about it is to make Lieberman look bad. Same motive you have when you troll and lie here.

7/25/2006 12:12 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Lieberman helped to pass the GOP's bankruptcy bill by voting in favor of cloture. That was the only vote that mattered, since it would have taken only 40 "No" votes to prevent a floor vote. If Lieberman was the true Democratic leader that you claim him to be, he would have led the charge against this giveaway to the credit card companies. Instead, he voted as Joe Lieberman (D-MBNA) and then cast a pandering, meaningless vote against the legislation once its passage was guaranteed.

Lieberman was also among the first, and loudest, Democratic senators to waver and give credibility to Bush's Social Security boondoggle. Look at the kind of brilliant work that Lieberman has accomplished to support real Democratic values here (brought to you by Democratic Party stalwarts "Club for Growth"). For a good snapshot of how Lieberman's flip-flopping, spineless wavering on this issue undermined the Democratic Party during the debate, read this from Joshua Micah Marshall, a blogger who likes Lieberman:

"At the moment, too, the trend of the Social Security story is all running against the president. He can't get the seats filled in New Hampshire, the polls are bad, the Republicans in Congress are increasingly worried, scurrying for cover.

"Give him Lieberman and suddenly the President is making headway in the Senate where the key vote will be made. A high-profile Democrat, like Lieberman, for phase-out would probably nail down three or four Senate Republicans for the president. In similar fashion, it would put an equal number of Senate Democrats back in play. One or two of those Dems sign on and you'll see them bring more with them. With a shift like that, suddenly phase-out is back in business and quite possibly even filibuster proof...

"Even if Lieberman eventually decides to keep his hands clean when phase-out comes to a vote, it might not matter since his individual vote probably wouldn't be needed. The damage would already be done."

Lieberman has made a habit of working against Democratic Party values at critical phases of key debates, then trying to take a bow for "voting" with the party.

Bankruptcy.
Alito.
Social Security.

Sorry... the voters don't buy it anymore. And that's why he's going to lose to Ned Lamont. He's grown far too comfortable with symbolic losing votes on important issues.

And, of course, there's that teensy little issue of Iraq. Lieberman is wrong on the single most profound issue of our time. That matters, no matter how much you wish that it didn't.

7/25/2006 12:15 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Pardon me, but I think it has been shown repeatedly in the court of public opinion that you are the trolls here

7/25/2006 12:15 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

And what court of public opinion is that? The court of people who agree with you? According to Wikipedia, here are a couple defintions of trolls:

- Advertising another forum, especially a rival or a hated forum.
- Messages containing a self-referential appeal to status
- Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.

- Plural or paranoid answers to personal opinions expressed by individuals
(Has anyone noticed how often L4L uses the plural voice here? It's like the royal "we." That's how self-important he is.)

And here's the big one, and my favorite:
Off topic messages: Those that are irrelevant to the focus of the forum. This can also be done in the middle of an existing thread to attempt to hijack the thread, or otherwise change the topic at hand. Off topic messages usually occur when a member has been completely disproved in a serious debate, thus causing that member to use his or her other multiple pseudonyms for the purposes of changing the subject matter. These disruptions may result in the degeneration of a well informed thread into a heated juvenile exchange consisting of insults and childish accusations between multiple parties.



Meet L4L, folks - troll extraordinaire.

7/25/2006 12:21 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I prefer the term "voter".

Because that's what we are - voters concerned about the treacherous, lying, back-stabbing Joe Lieberman.

Let the Democracy-Haters say what they will, we're here to tell the truth about Joe Lieberman.

7/25/2006 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While you're exercising your new-found computer skills, why don't you look up the term "sore loser"?

7/25/2006 12:31 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

How are we "Democracy-Haters?"

Because we think that all CT voters rather than just a few thousand Democrats should get the chance to decide on Lieberman's re-election?

That seems pretty thoroughly Democracy-Loving to me.

7/25/2006 12:33 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

You should read the post by the poster (above) who referred to Lieberman as a "biggot" (wrong spelling) for insisting that the Democratic process should not apply to him.

What is so hard to understand about that point of view? It certainly seems as though he thinks the rules should apply to everyone but him.

7/25/2006 12:36 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

The Democratic process does apply to him. If he loses the Dem primary, he won't be able to run with a D next to his name. But he has every right to run as an independent. He's not breaking any "rules" by doing that.

Hey, I don't like him running as an indy either. It's a bad call and I can see how some can question his party loyalty because of it. But to say that it's somehow "Democracy-hating" or that he's "breaking the rules" is just not true.

7/25/2006 12:43 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Well, you should see what Maxine Waters and most Democrats say about this. From the lowliest town councilman all the way to Maxine Waters, Marcy Kaptur, and others in Congress, most Democrats are calling Lieberman a bad Democrat for his "cut-and-run party of one" act.

If he wants to run as an Indy, fine.

Why the hell is he in the Democratic primary?

7/25/2006 12:47 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Hey, I don't like him running as an indy either. It's a bad call and I can see how some can question his party loyalty because of it. But to say that it's somehow "Democracy-hating" or that he's "breaking the rules" is just not true.

This is the very best that Lieberman's supporters can say about his decision. It's a shame that he's so selfish. And it is yet another reason that he's going to lose to Ned Lamont.

7/25/2006 12:48 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Really? You've talked to all the CT and Congressional Democrats yourself?

Let's say that while most disagree with his decision to run as an indy, most Democrats don't think that Joe Lieberman is a bad Democrat.

Just ask Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, or any of the other tried and true Democrats who are supporting him.

7/25/2006 12:54 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Update on Ticket-Gate

Since centristdem seemed to be thirsty for more details, here they are:

I really wished I had a ticket, but I wasn't willing to give all of my personal info to a Lieberman staffer. The Secret Service was welcome to it (and I've yet to verify whether a social security number is required-though the SSA sheds some light), but I'd prefer to cut out the vengeful middlemen thank-you-very-much. Close to the start of the event, after the police had shooed all of us non-ticket holders down past the barricades, Jane asks if I'm ready to go in. I don't know and I'm not interested in knowing how she got the tickets, but I handed my camera off to a friend and followed Jane to the door. While walking the line passing out kiss buttons, I overheard several announcements that no cameras or video cameras were allowed-and I didn't want a big hold-up on my way into the event.

I was about 10 yards behind Jane, and had just gotten to the door when I was told that no backpacks were allowed in the theater. I could see Jane showing her ticket and presumed that she'd save me a seat, so I bolted to my car to drop off my bag. When I came back but a minute later, a familiar face was waiting for me. It was the Lieberman staffer who exuded so much confidence about Lieberman's ability to change minds in New Britain when speaking at the DTC meeting in June who reached out and ripped the ticket from my hand.

It's one thing to tell me I'm not welcome, it's quite another to actually steal something from me. I insisted on getting the ticket back, but I had walked right into a childish game of "keep-away". I was no longer in front of the Palace Theater in Waterbury, Connecticut but rather standing on the playground at "Connecticut for Lieberman" elementary. I was ready to go play tetherball or four-square when back-up arrived-for the Lieberman staffer.

It was someone a little higher up on the Lieberman food-chain (I can tell this because he didn't steal anything from me) who came over with a police officer and said this about me:

"Officer, he's a known protester"

Link:
http://www.spazeboy.net

Lieberman treats Connecticut residents with contempt.

I believe Ned Lamont would treat us with respect and dignity

7/25/2006 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Connecticut for Lieberman Elementary". PRICELESS.

7/25/2006 12:58 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Funny how there were no witnesses to this. Or any media coverage of it, considering that the media was swarming that rally.

You still haven't explained why you're taking him at his word. He seems interested in the same thing you are - spreading lies about Lieberman and his campaign in order to make him look bad.

To your credit, at least there is usually at least A FEW other people to corroborate your story. But this charge hasn't been backed up by a single other soul who was there.

7/25/2006 1:00 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

centrist, I would point out that this is not a court of law.

7/25/2006 1:01 PM  
Anonymous howmanypeoplefindLie4Lietobeobnioxious? said...

centrist, I would point out that this is not a court of law.

Ah, so then it's ok: go ahead and make up stuff, lie, and use unverified, biased information as evidence. It's not a court of law. Nor is it unethical. Nor does it speak to your lack of character.

7/25/2006 1:12 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Take your long name and stuff it.

7/25/2006 1:14 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

You're right, it's not a court case. Watergate was. So when you use "ticket-gate," remember that you're catapulting a claim made by one (anti-Lieberman) blogger without anyone else backing up their story.

7/25/2006 1:15 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

"Suddenly Sane" Chris Matthews Talks Lieberman

Here's someone who the LieberDems will believe - a talking head in the RightWing(tm) media. Chris Matthews was talking about Joe on Imus in the Morning:

"If you vote for Lieberman, he's not going to change his position. He's going to be for the war, and the first phone call he gets will be from Bush saying, "Congratulations, Joe, for hanging in there." And that's Lieberman's problem. He's gotten connected to this president....

Well [his support of the war is] not a mistake. It's not a youthful indiscretion. Look, he's further right than the president, probably....

This is one of the few times you actually can go to a voting booth and vote for or against the war.... I think everybody should vote and say "wait a minute. This is the rare chance I get to say whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. Whether we should have these policies."...

It's a very important time to vote on something that matters more than all the other things Joe talks about. Was he right or wrong about this war? Because he's going to be for that position again. If we attack Iran, tomorrow morning Joe will be out there saluting. First up - he'll be the first guy to salute in the morning. It's his future policy you're voting for....

IMUS: "You're certainly not helping things here, Chris..."

WOW - couldn't have said it better myself

7/25/2006 1:23 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

But I thought that you all weren't running a one-issue campaign! Oh well. People who live in CT know that things like education, the environment, choice, and jobs matter just as much.

Besides, who would want to hear advice on priorities someone who calls stem cell research "frivolous"?

"LIE(berman)forLIE(berman)": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

7/25/2006 1:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The truth hurts, doesn't it centrist?

7/25/2006 1:38 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

I love the fact that Lieberman's supporters here are willing to engage debate on the important issues of the day (whether someone is a troll, whether Lieberman is a hater of democracy or merely disloyal to his party, whether an uncorroborated report that Lamont supporters were barred from a campaign event is accurate, etc.) and are able to avoid getting caught up in discussion about obscure, petty issues like Social Security, Bankruptcy, Iraq, and the Supreme Court.

Good judgement, and quite persuasive to undecided voters.

FYI, I'm from Illinois. It seems that Mr. Gerstein lives in New York and is a former employee of Senator Lieberman (comunication director, no less) and Mr. Smith is from Pennsylvania. Does Lieberman have any online support from Conecticut residents at all?

7/25/2006 1:39 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Hey, if you Lieberman-haters ever want to talk about the topic of the posts, we'd be happy to. But you never do.

7/25/2006 1:41 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Joementum Rebounds in Waterbury

I can feel the Joementum builidng. Can you? Catch it while you can!

7/25/2006 1:44 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Well I'm here, and I'm certainly a big advocate of Joe.

By the way, sorry about that last post. I just thought it was time to put up one of those "content-free wonders" you're always giving me credit for.

7/25/2006 1:47 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

That's your choice, and the choice of Lieberman's supporters. On the front page of this site (with posts dating back to the early morning of July 17th) there is no substantive discussion of Lieberman's horrifying support of the invasion of Iraq, no mention at all of his votes on the bankruptcy bill, no discussion at all of his wavering on Social Security privatization, no mention at all of his role in the Supreme Court battles... but a lot about Clinton. If that's really all that you want to discuss, have at it.

But again, that is yet another reason why Lieberman will lose to Ned Lamont. He, and his supporters, refuse to discuss the decisions that Senator Lieberman has made over the past six years on the most important issues facing the nation and the world.

By the way, I missed the posts about whether "Spazeboy" is telling the truth, whether Lieberman is disloyal or a Democracy hater, and whether L4L is a troll. Could you point those out for me? These topics seem to be getting discussed quite a bit, so I assume that I missed those posts.

7/25/2006 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Leksah said...

The Kos kooks are shrinking the Democratic Party.
Some way to become a majority party!

7/25/2006 2:14 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Well this "leksah" comment is certainly another piece of evidence in support of y.g. brown's larger point...

7/25/2006 2:17 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

What is Happening to Joe Lieberman?

His support seems to be drying up faster than a puddle in Baghdad.

Could it be because of his record?

7/25/2006 2:20 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Why don't you ask L4L. He's the one who loves bringing them up.

And maybe you didn't read the comment, but LieberDem is responding to that laundry list of distortions that the Lieberhaters have made about Lieberman.

7/25/2006 2:24 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

What ever happened to "not responding to my posts"?

I liked that idea.

7/25/2006 2:26 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Beloved Lieberdems, this day has been so bloody awful for Lieberman that I'm clearly not needed here any more today.

Let's chat tomorrow, shall we?

Ta-ta for now!

Be sure to check out Liebermania!

The Official Home of Lieberman for Lieberman

7/25/2006 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Tipsy McStagger said...

I am getting tired of this "everyone should get a chance to vote for Joe" argument. That's not what a DEMOCRATIC primary is for. Its for Democrats only, unless your state allows crossover voting, like GA does. If Joe wants to let everyone have a say, he should have either, one, behaved in a way that will allow him to win the Demo primary OR quit the Democratic party and run as an independent from the get go. What's the point of having primaries if a crybaby loser simply keeps running as something else afterwards?

7/25/2006 3:26 PM  
Blogger dangerstein said...

A note to Y.G. Brown: I am in fact a native of Connecticut. Born in Newington, raised in West Hartford, and worked for the Hartford Courant (living in Hartford) for four years after college before moving down to Washington. You and your fellow Nedheds may want to check your facts before casting aspersions.

7/25/2006 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/25/2006 3:36 PM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

As a life long Democrat who was critical of the Iraq War. and favors a Gradual Withdrawal and a Staunch Bush Hater- I am endorsing Joe Lieberman for his Senate Re-election Race.
I believe that Joe Lieberman deserves the Democratic Nomination. Despite Lieberman's position of the Iraq War- in which half of the Democratic Caucus voted for including Kerry and Murtha. Lieberman's support for the Iraq war was based on philosophical reasons- Lieberman believed that Saddam was an evil man who was a threat to Isreal and the United States. Lieberman would have supported the war even without the WMD's claims. There were many reasons to support the ouster of Saddam Hussien- Human Rights Abuses of the Kurds etc.
Lieberman stood by his vote on the Iraq War. It is wrong for the Democratic Party which is supposed to be a big tent party to reject an incumbent Democratic Senator because of the war. If the Democrats want to show swing voters that Democrats tolerate dissent- They should support Lieberman
Lieberman has a mainstream liberal voting record on domestic issues.
Lieberman if the Democrats regain Control of the US Senate will become the Next Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Commitee.

If Lieberman wins the Democratic Nomination the Connecticut US Senate Race becomes less competitive. Lieberman wins by a default.


http://cmburnspoliticalanalysis.blogspot.com/

7/25/2006 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/25/2006 4:09 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

CentristDem said:
But I thought that you all weren't running a one-issue campaign!

Well, I'm not running any campaign, but I suppose that's nitpicking.

The Iraq War is an important issue, if not the most important issue facing our country today, period. Regardless of whether Ned Lamont is running a one issue, two issue, three issue, or three hundred issue campaign, it doesn't change the fact that the Iraq War is an extremely important issue, and Senator Lieberman is at odds with the voters of Connecticut and the American people on this issue.

Senator Lieberman hasn't changed his position on the Iraq War one bit, while a large majority of Connecticut voters and the American people have completely changed their minds. Because he refuses to change his mind, Senator Lieberman therefore no longer represents the will of the people on this very important issue.

There is no getting around that, LieberDems. No matter how many times you stereotype me and other supporters of Ned Lamont, the fact remains that Joe Lieberman no longer represents the will of the people.

7/25/2006 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/25/2006 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was a very impressive event.

Have you seen this?

7/25/2006 5:03 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

You and your fellow Nedheds may want to check your facts before casting aspersions.

Dan, you can call me whatever childish names you want. "Nedhead," "Lieberhater," "Nutroots"... these seem to be the stock in trade of Lieberman supporters on this site. Your own Blogger profile lists you from NYC, as does your business address on your consulting site. Thus, I asked (key word there) whether Lieberman has any support from CT residents. I asked this question on YOUR SITE, rather than "casting aspersions". Your answer, despite your petulance, seems to indicate that you are a former resident of Connecticut. Thanks for clearing that one up.

The fact that out of all the issued raised in this thread you have chosen to respond only to that question, in the manner that you have chosen to answer, is laughable. Iraq? Social security? Bankruptcy legislation? Alito? This is what is important to you, as a proud Lieberman supporter? Making clear in as condescending a manner as possible that you used to live in Connecticut?

That's just embarrassing.

7/25/2006 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/25/2006 5:36 PM  
Anonymous Badger said...

I saw an article about the Clinton/Leiberman event this morning where they quoted a guy who came in as a Ned Lamont supporter and left a Ned Lamont supporter (he was there to see Bill Clinton). Hmmm, so doesn't that mean Ned's supporters were allowed in?

7/25/2006 5:45 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Looks like Neddy wants to be politically correct again and finally dumped his Halliburton stock. Seems a little late in the game to try to save face.

http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-25200006.apds.m0219.bc-ct--traijul25,0,6135048.story?track=rss

7/25/2006 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/25/2006 6:54 PM  
Blogger baghdadjoe said...

Joe Sez: Stay Out Of My Bubble!

http://liebermania.blogspot.com

7/25/2006 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow.

"Making clear in as condescending a manner as possible that you used to live in Connecticut?"

Snap!

7/25/2006 7:20 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Ned ups his own money to buy the campaing, but the government prefers an even race.

So where's all the bucks from Ned's Nuts? He's not getting enough bucks from his loyal supporters? Looks like they can't put their money where their mouth is. That's not a reflection of sincere support. Ned's Nuts can bark but they're coughing up hairballs instead of lettuce. I'm seeing now 3 million reasons why Koz picked Ned for his puppet.

It's all about the money.
http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-25200006.apds.m0219.bc-ct--traijul25,0,6135048.story?track=rss
And it looks like Ned ain't gettin' it from his nationwide supporters. How dumb is that?

7/25/2006 7:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/25/2006 7:37 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

"Ned's Nuts." I get it... it's because they're nuts. That's funny. Hahaha.

Tell me again about those angry, angry Lamont supporters. They're so ANGRY!

7/25/2006 7:54 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

That's the first time I've seen Dan mentioned directly in a comment, so it makes sense that this is the first time he's felt the need to respond to a comment.

Dan is working two campaigns right now (read his second blog entry on this site), so it's not like he has time to respond to every criticism that some commenter makes about Lieberman.

So yeah, it's not that embarrassing at all. You directly addressed him, he responded, and told you that you were wrong. I don't see why you're so surprised; someone who tells distortions as much as you do should be used to being wrong by now.

7/25/2006 7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/25/2006 8:30 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Looks like the Lamonsters are getting equated with hatred politics too, not just anger and rage, but hatred. You people have some serious PR work to do to overcome that monicker. How many blogs will have to be erased to prevent the hateful truth about your rage campaign from being read? What's gonna happen when they read Rage Gurnsey Jane? Gawd, what an embarrassing predicament that will be.
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/ci_4090274

7/25/2006 8:38 PM  
Blogger baghdadjoe said...

Lieberman Campaign Gets Old-Fashioned Stormtrooper Spirit

The Lieberman campaign showed off a bit of a blast from the past at Monday's Clinton campaign event. Evoking life in 1930's Germany, only pro-Lieberman "Good Germans" were allowed into the event. Several registered CT Democrats were ejected for the heinous crime of being, well, Lamont supporters.

http://liebermania.blogspot.com

Lieberman - Gott Mitt Uns

7/25/2006 8:43 PM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

Somebody ought to ask Ned if he agrees with his buddy Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, whose opinion of American contractors killed serving their country overseas is "I felt nothing. Screw them." I understand that you have to put all types together in a coalition, but this guy was actually featured front and center in a TV spot.

7/25/2006 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/25/2006 9:16 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

There's a LOT of talk lately on blogs that the Lamonista's quest for political purity is going to cleave the Democratic Party into bits and that, as a result, the Republicans will retain control of everything.

Some wonder is Arianna Huffington is actually a plant--

A Republican in Chic Clothing.

7/25/2006 9:16 PM  
Blogger baghdadjoe said...

NYO: Lost in Space with Joe Lieberman

Terrific article by Mr. Joe Conason on Lieberman's floundering campaign in the New York Observer.

Tasty Tidbit:
"Unfortunately for Mr. Lieberman, he understands none of those things. He doesn’t comprehend that a war costing thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars is not just a “single issue.” He doesn’t realize that repeating White House talking points about the war is not going to win him any votes this year. He has left the reality-based community for the never-land of neo-conservatism—and if he loses, that will be why."

http://www.observer.com/20060731/20060731_Joe_Conason_politics_joeconason.asp

7/25/2006 9:29 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home