Sunday, July 23, 2006

DailyKos attempts a rebuttal

DailyKos decided to put my story debunking the myth that Lieberman somehow betrayed Clinton on the front page of their website (I guess I should start by thanking Kos and Co. for driving some more traffic here). She called some of my arguments "absurd at best," accused me of trying to "rewrite history," and said that my pointing out Feingold's role in the impeachment era somehow constitutes "whin[ing] that Russ Feingold has gotten away scot free."

Well, I will now rebut their rebuttal. I have to get up early for work, so I'll only hit some of the parts of mcjoan's rebuttal that address my post directly:
Lieberman, as was and is his wont, craved the approbation of Republicans and the Media, and he got it big time for that speech. Damaging President Clinton and Democrats while aggrandizing himself. Sound familiar?

To put it plainly, I think Russ Feingold was wrong every step of the way in the Clinton/Lewinsky saga. But Russ Feingold did not deliver a speech on the Senate floor intended to garner the approbation of Republicans and the media. Feingold's criticism of Clinton stemmed from his personal sense of disappointment and principle, not for grabbing attention. Indeed, Feingold's position on the Clinton impeachment garnered almost no coverage at all. Funny how that worked out.
First off, this post should be taken note of by neuroscientists all over the world, because apparently mcjoan can read minds! She states with certainty that she knows the respective motivations of Russ Feingold and Joe Lieberman during the Clinton scandals. Well, since she never has talked to either of them about it, the only explanation is that she somehow has the ability to read and interpret their brainwaves from 1998. Professor Xavier would be jealous.

(I'm sorry to be snide, but claiming to know their motivations seems a little presumptuous)

The truth, of course, is that we have absolutely no way of knowing what Lieberman and Feingold's motivations were. All we can do is judge them by their words and actions. On that basis, no reasonable person could say that Lieberman's actions were somehow more critical or disloyal than Feingold's. Lieberman made one speech criticizing Clinton's personal conduct; Feingold said he was open to impeachment, said Clinton "disgraced himself," and was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans on the key motions which could have ended the impeachment trial's public humiliation of Clinton.

I can't explain why the press covered Lieberman's statements more than Feingold's; I don't know the motivations of the press any more than I know the motivations of Feingold and Lieberman. Perhaps the differential coverage was based on the fact that Lieberman had been a longtime political ally of Clinton's, and were both founding members of the New Democrat movement which swept Clinton into office. Perhaps it was because Feingold had already been a critic of Clinton during the GOP attempts to push the Clinton/Gore fundraising stories, so his calls for greater scrutiny seemed less surprising. The point is that there's no way to know. In any case, it's preposterous to blame Lieberman for the actions of the media.

Here's another interesting part of it:
(BTW, in bringing Feingold into this discussion, I take it the LieberDems have given up their false smears of anti-Semitism against Lamont supporters.)
I certainly have never made any such accusation, although I appreciate anything that stokes my ego by associating the entire pro-Lieberman movement with my pen name. If she's referring to me specifically, then I should point out that I have expressly said that I very much disagree with "John Droney's ill-begotten sentiments that Jews should vote for Lieberman just for the sake of 'supporting home cooking'."

If, on the other hand, she used "LieberDems" to mean all of Lieberman's Democratic supporters, then I have no problem agreeing with mcjoan that any Lieberman supporter who thinks that the Lamont campaign is somehow motivated by anti-Semitism is seriously deluding themselves. That's why I've never made any such charge, and never will.

I want to end with one last point - I don't think either Lieberman or Feingold did anything wrong.

My post was not at all about trying to criticize Feingold, since I think all his statements and actions were in good conscience. I personally believe the whole impeachment ordeal was a waste of time and taxpayer money, since it had no chance of actually succeeding and distracted the entire nation from far more important matters. But Russ Feingold thought Bill Clinton had done something wrong, and wanted to see something done about it. I find no inherent fault in that, even though I would not have done the same thing myself if I were in his position.

I only had two points - both of them related, both of them simple, and neither (I think) too controversial:
  1. Joe Lieberman was not disloyal to Clinton, and Clinton will tell you so himself
  2. Singling out Lieberman as disloyal because of his actions during Clinton's impeachment is hypocritical unless others (such as Feingold) are criticized as well

UPDATE: PoliticalWire linked to the Lieberman/Feingold story as well, and (like mcjoan) accused me of trying to "rewrite history."

It's interesting...they didn't take issue with any of the facts or votes cited in the post. So I'm not exactly sure what they're taking issue with.

I'll say it again - I have no beef with Russ Feingold. I'm simply pointing out that, despite the fact that Lieberman and Feingold's respective campaigns (Lieberman for Senate, Feingold for President) are much-talked about in the blogosphere, only Lieberman is skewered by the Kossacks for stabbing Clinton in the back. And since no one can honestly say that they know what was running through the minds of Lieberman, Feingold, and the media in 1998, we can only judge them by their words and actions at the time.

I laid out what those words and actions were, but I wasn't trying to interpret (much less re-interpret) those events and I certainly wasn't trying to pass historical judgment on Feingold and Lieberman. I think we should all leave that to the historians.


Blogger SeedFreak said...

The hysteria from the Lamonistas will grow and build tomorrow as countdown to Clinton works them into a frothing-at-the-mouth frenzy. I doubt that many will sleep tonight and some may even vomit from the stress.

Here is some information that may be helpful--after all, they're victims of coercive pursuasion and we have to show we care.

Rising to the Top: Overcoming Bad Situations

We've all been there, right? We find ourselves living with the weight of our circumstances growing heavier by the day. We agonize over the "what if" questions and wonder just how we'll ever get out from under the burdens we bear. Our thoughts rattle around like that little metal ball in a pinball machine. Growing more and more frustrated, we begin thinking thoughts we never thought we'd think.

Before we go on, understand that some emotional or mental conditions cannot be helped with an article; you might need professional help. Before you do anything impulsive or irrational, seek the help of a qualified mental health professional.

For those little nagging nuisances, consider the following formula for overcoming them. Just remember the word CARE!

Change what you can and ignore what you can't change. Many people spend valuable hours debating situations over which they exercise no control or influence. Put your energies toward the changeable elements of your life.

Ask for the opinion of an outsider you trust. When you are immersed in a situation you sometimes can't see the real problem. When you give someone else the opportunity to evaluate your situation you might discover some insights you didn't initially see.

Relax by doing something that takes your mind off of your situation. When I feel stressed, one of the best things I can do is work in my yard. You might need to read a book, take a walk, or listen to some music. Just take the time to do that thing that has the ability to positively affect your frame of mind.

Eat like you should. Stress does strange things to one's appetite. Make sure you are getting the proper nutrition and stay away from comfort foods that are unhealthy. Your mind needs proper nutrition to function correctly. When you are not eating right, you'll find it hard to think and, therefore, solve problems.

If you will CARE--change, ask, relax, and eat--your problems might not go away. However, you will find it easier to deal with those problems so that you rise to the occasion rather than being crushed by the circumstances. Think about it!

This information can be seen with side links for addtional help at:

Additional information about coercive pursuasion may be found at:

7/23/2006 9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That. Is. HILARIOUS. :)

7/23/2006 10:06 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I would have to say that DailyKos rather successfully rebutted that tripe LieberDem Feingold article.

At least those people over at DailyKos can write.

7/23/2006 10:18 PM  
Blogger baghdadjoe said...

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

7/23/2006 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank goodness for this site - time to debunk the Rovian tactics that DailyKos, MyDD and others have been using. Though I support Lieberman, Lamont seems like a nice enough guy. It's too bad that his supporters remind me so much of Republicans. For that reason alone, he'd never get my vote.

7/23/2006 10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bagdadjoe and L4L: nobody is listening to you. If we want to read biased misinformation, we'll head to dailykos or the free republic. Those two sites are two sides of the same coin.

7/23/2006 10:35 PM  
Blogger baghdadjoe said...

McEnroe: Lieberman has become TOO INTERESTING

Courant Link:,0,5252394.column?coll=hc-northeast-top

Tasty Zinger:

"Recently, though, Lieberman has been not so boring and even borderline interesting, making out with the president at the State of the Union Address and professing his love for Condoleezza Rice, an African-American woman half his age. If this trend continues, six years from now he will be covering his naked body with chicken fat and trampolining on Oprah's couch while he screams about his desire for Anne Coulter. We don't want to be there for that."

Absolutely Correct.

7/23/2006 10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BadgadJoe: I'm having trouble telling if you are one of the guys that regularly post on free republic. Your quote-what-ever-fits-and-ignore-anything-else tactics seem to be their strategy there. As with dailykos. Funny, I think both of those sites are run by Rove: they both help Republicans win.

7/23/2006 10:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awesome Lieberman parody site - will spread the word!!!!!!

7/23/2006 10:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huge fan of Lieberdem's blog - thanks for this site - and for doing your best to show that dailykos may be a popular site, but it's an unethical, hypocritical one. Such Rovian techniques on that site. Dailykos represents the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

7/23/2006 10:51 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Beloved Lieberdems:

People are free to ignore my rantings or not as they choose. It's a free country.

At least it still is at the moment. Lieberman/Bush/Cheney are working hard to change that though.

7/23/2006 10:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L: I think you are hoping people will ignore your comments, since they are filled with misinformation. Additionally, ignoring what people write seems to be your tactic, since you obviously ignore what's on the front page and just use this space to spread dribble.

It's ridiculous to suggest that Lieberman doesn't want this to be a free country. Hyperbole, anyone? isn't that dishonest? Is that how you hope Lamont will win this election? Through dishonest posts all across the internet? Tell the truth: are you working for Karl Rove? Are you a member of his staff? Please say that you are. It would restore my faith in fellow Democrats if I knew that you were really a Republican.

7/23/2006 11:03 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lieberman's record speaks for itself

I don't even need to defend that statement. As a key player in ramming Alito through to the Supreme Court we all know it's true.

7/23/2006 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tee hee! L4L, it's funny how you think you can say that Lieberman doesn't want this to be a free country and then say you don't have to defend that statement. I think you should go back to the where those tactics are more acceptable and you have friends.

C'mon, admit it: you work for Karl Rove, right?

7/23/2006 11:11 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

As an eloquent poster said earlier this evening, your hysterical baloney isn't helping you make your case.

When it comes to avoiding the issues that Connecticut is most concerned about, that is your specialty, not mine.

In that domain, I can only aspire to what you achieve.

7/23/2006 11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L: Your hysterical baloney isn't helping you make your case. More fitting for Dailykos or FreeRepublic (I'm convinced they both work for Karl Rove).

7/23/2006 11:20 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Alrighty then.

7/23/2006 11:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most appropriate post you've made yet: says nothing like the others, but this time, it's a lot quieter.

7/23/2006 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I learned tonight:

1. Russ Feingold is running for Senate in Connecticut.

2. Russ Fiengold apparently asked for the Big Dog's help in the race, got it, and bloggers didn't bash him for his Clinton bashing in the late 90s.

Did I get that right? Because if I didn't, I don't understand what Feingold has to do with any of this. Whatever Feingold said about Clinton, Feingold hasn't gone begging to Bill to bail him out from the hostility of his own constituents.

Then again, Wisconsing LIKES Feingold. He represents their interests in DC. So he didn't need to ask B. Clinton for help.

Oh, and if the issue is that bloggers aren't angry with Feingold, it's because no one is as single-issue as you claim they are. People aren't angry with Lieberman because of one issue, just like people aren't angry with Feingold for his Ashcroft vote. It's the totality of the record that's under a microscope. The ocassional "wrong" vote can be accepted and tolerated. But a career based on undermining one's party? That tends to become problematic.

Not to bloggers. They have no real power. But to the people that senator claims to represent.

7/24/2006 12:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Im pretty confident that Clinton can help Lieberman pull it out, and that will be a good sign for democrats winning in '06 and '08 too, we will have rejected the extremists in the party.

I just hope though that Lieberman learns from this experience and lays off video games, movies etc... If he doesnt, its gonna make me wish Lamont had won.

Great blog, btw. Keep up the good work.

7/24/2006 12:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the point of the DailyKos article, and that no one is highlighting, is that Lieberman felt compelled to chastise Clinton. When it comes to many of Bush's dispicable actions, though, Lieberman has been frustratingly silent. At least Feingold is consistent and speaks up when he thinks a wrong's been done.

7/24/2006 3:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such invective on both sides of this primary - I would be willing to bet that many of the commentators (including me) are not even from Connecticut. Personally, I have no problem with Lieberman, his party affiliation, his motivation, his character, etc. But, were I a CT resident, I would support Lamont precisely and principally because he is an anti-war candidate - in other words, given two Democratic challengers for the same spot, I will use the war as a litmus test to decide between the two.

7/24/2006 4:54 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

This is interesting--

Pollster Peter Brown throws out the possibility here:

The most interesting question about the possibility that Connecticut Democrats could deny Joseph Lieberman renomination is whether that would help or hurt the senator’s political prospects. Or, for that matter, the Democratic Party’s.

That’s because even if Lieberman loses the Aug. 8 Democratic primary - and the newest polling data says that is a real possibility - he would be a huge favorite for re-election as an independent come November.

And if that is the case, it would not be hard to write a scenario in which the real loser from a Lieberman defeat to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont might be the Democratic Party itself

That would especially be the case if Lieberman’s good friend Sen. John McCain of Arizona becomes the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and picks Joe as his running mate.

Then, Lieberman, Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, would become the only person in American history to have ever run on the national ticket of both parties. And Lieberman on a Republican fusion ticket in 2008 might be a huge GOP asset.

Farfetched, perhaps, but no more so than the idea that Democrats would reject a three-term senator who, despite his endorsement of President Bush’s Iraq War policy, has generally toed the party line on most, but certainly not all, issues.

Ah, but, you may say, McCain will not risk angering his new friends on the right that he has so carefully courted. True, but remember, by the time McCain named Lieberman his running mate (hypothetically) he would presumably already be the nominee; his target audience would no be Americans in general, not Republican primary voters.

Will it happen? Probably not…but it’s fun to think about…

This article can be read at Decision 08

7/24/2006 5:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

Say it. Believe it.

7/24/2006 6:23 AM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Lieberman is wrong on the most profound issue of our time. He trusted George Bush to lead us to an unnecessary war of choice war in Iraq under the flimsiest of pretenses.

He will lose to Lamont. But if you want to keep talking about 1998, be my guest. Why stop there? What did Lieberman have to say about the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70s? I'll bet voters want to hear about that, too.

7/24/2006 6:26 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Let's get real here. Lamont only quit his White-Guys-Are-Us Country Club because he thought it would be distracting to his campaign.

So what's up with that? It's okay to be part of a racist enclave if you're not running for political office? It didn't bother him before? It's okay to have minorites clean his toilet and serve his dinner but he won't break bread with them!?!?!?!?

Gawd--he's completely disgusting.

Republican in Limousine Liberal Clothing.
Owns stock in Halliburton AND Walmart.
Parners with Vonage--notorious outsourcer of American Jobs.
Unpatriotic Cut and Run in Iraq.
Kos Puppet

How much more do we need to say that this is the WRONG man for the job.

7/24/2006 6:34 AM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Wow... Lamont is a hateful racist Republican who eats babies for supper and rapes women for fun. Or something. Good argument. Maybe that should be Lieberman's next ad. Please tell me some more about the unhinged anger that drives Lamont supporters.

7/24/2006 6:45 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

On the "Dean Scream" thing, I don't know why someone keeps repeating that without elaboration.

Lieberman is RADIOACTIVE because he has sold out on Connecticut and America . On a day when Lieberman is trying to yet again divert attention from his abysmal record, it's helpful to remember in a succinct way why we're here:


If Bill Clinton were the senate candidate, he could win.

7/24/2006 6:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lieberman's Waterbury event today is like having JFK and Benedict Arnold on the same stage.

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

leiberman: broken link in last post

7/24/2006 7:29 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Anonymous: Thank you, here is that video link:

7/24/2006 7:34 AM  
Blogger Susan said...

I am sure Lieberman wasn't acting on his own when he criticized Clinton on the Senate floor. Clinton probably had something to do with that.

Lieberman didn't approve of any moves to impeach Clinton, but that hero of the nutroots, Feingold, did.

It's hard to argue with cold facts here. Daily Kos readers are typically ignorant and want desperately to twist the facts to suit their own preconceived ideas.

7/24/2006 7:35 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

The only "false smear of anti-semitism" I've seen in this debate so far came from a delusional David Sirota. So I have no idea what McJoan is talking about with that one.

As for the Lieberman's speech on the senate floor criticizing Clinton's behavior, he also criticized "talk of impeachment or resignation" and said "it is important that we provide the president with the time and space and support he needs to carry out his most important duties and protect our national interest and security." In other words, he felt that this talk of impeachment was in danger of undermining our national security.

And yet, the Lamontistas will claim that this is stabbing the president in the back, but that a speech calling for more bipartisan co-operation on Iraq, making exactly the same point, is defending that president.

As for Lamont, his #1 issue seems to be withdrawing from Iraq.

I've checked the above, as well as the Lamont campaign site, and I can't find a position on crime, other than one opinion that jail doesn't work as a deterrent for drug offenses. I can't find anything on the environment other than support for energy independence. I can't find a position on the budget, or on taxes. I can't find anything directly adressing the needs of families, or the middle class. says "no issuue stance yet recorded".

He seems a nice enough man, but he seems to be out of touch with the issues that matter most to the voters of Connecticut.

7/24/2006 8:01 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Since the Freak is making laundry lists, let's have a look at a list of some of the reasons the Graf Lieberman is going down in flames:

* Censureship of Clinton
* Trashing other Democrats on Fox news
* Friendship with Sean Hannity who has called us Democrats terrorists - like the ones who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11th.
* Interference in the Schiavo matter
* 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 Assocation to run FEMA, leading to NOLA catastrophe
* His unwillingness to demand censure on wiretapping
* Support of 'No Rich Child Left Behind'
* Support of School Vouchers
* Support of a non-provoqued 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

Joe Lieberman has betrayed Connecticut and America

7/24/2006 8:08 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

distortionafterdistortion is sadly another toss-away victim of coercive pursuasion. I believe that for some, it may be a lost cause to try to bring them back, and others no one may want back.

7/24/2006 8:29 AM  
Blogger Brendan said...

The author claims that it's impossible to know what was on the respective minds of Senators Lieberman and Feingold back in 1998, but I think that's disingenuous. Everyone makes assumptions about other peoples' motivations for their actions. Especially when you factor in their prior and subsequent behavior.

Feingold voted to hear the evidence for impeachment, perhaps because he was genuinely curious as to whether a high crime had been committed by the President. And mind you he ended up voting against conviction.

On the other hand, even though Lieberman decided without hearing any evidence at all that no crime was committed, he nevertheless used Clinton's philandering as a stump subject to shore up his own family-values credentials. As Vice Presidential nominee, he ran more passionately against Clinton than Bush or Cheney.

But the fact that Lieberman supporters are dragging Feingold into this argument at all is pure hypocrisy: Assailing a sitting, duly-elected Democratic Senator because he represents what is, to them, an undesirable wing of the party. What idiocy.

And now accepting Billy Clinton's help after Joe made the latter half of his career by wagging his finger at the former President, and after the two of them colluded considerably in turning what was a liberal and succesful party into a group of lite-Republicans, but without the will to win elections, it's just baffling how anyone calling themselves a Democrat is still boosting this guy.

7/24/2006 8:30 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Holy Halliburton - Can Bubba Really Save Lieberman?

Be sure to check out Liebermania!

The Official Site of Lieberman for Lieberman

7/24/2006 8:32 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Lieberman has criticized Bush far more than he has criticized any Democrat - and far more than he has expressed agreement with Bush.

To name a few:

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush on stem cell research:

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush's economic policies:

Here is Lieberman denouncing Bush's stance on affirmative action:

On energy and transportation spending:

On education:

And he ran against him for national office. Twice.

Sorry that all that just isn't good enough for you.

Besides, your opinion doens't carry much weight around here, remember? After all, you're:

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

7/24/2006 9:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

Say it. Believe it.

7/24/2006 9:31 AM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

L4L can't seem to get facts straight.

* Lieberman voted against censure of Clinton. As a result of that vote, Clinton was never censured. Censure was only suppported by Lieberman, and by most Democrats, if it could be brought as an alternative to impeachment. was originally called "Censure and Move On" for that reason.
* Lieberman doesn't "trash other Democrats"
* Nafta/Cafta create jobs in Connecticut. They are supported by the majority of economists.
* The energy bill passed by the Senate 88-11. It was not the Bush policy. It banned drilling in Anwar. It banned MTBE. It increased efficiency standards for air conditioners. It funded clean energy techmolgies and provided tax incentives for hybrid automobiles, and for home solar panels. Only 8 Democrats opposed.
* Lieberman opposes compelling private charitable organizations to provide abortion services. Does Lamont support forcing Catholic hospitals to provide those services? Doe he realize many of those emergency rooms would instead shut down? Liberman has consistently supported abortion rights and is endorsed by Planned Parenthood.
* Has only supported school voucher pilot programs, and for poor children in failing schools. He does not support taking funds away from public schools.
* Does not support a "non-provoked" attack on Iran.
* Has never in any way supported privatizing Social Security, and has been one it's biggest defenders.
* has never supported "torture policy". Voted for Gonzalez Attorney General nomination, but against AShcroft, who is/was far more conservative than Gonzalez.
* Voted for cloiture on Alito as part of deal which stopped two conservative appeals court nominations. Voted against nomination.
* Opposed Bankruptcy Bill.

7/24/2006 9:37 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Interesting point on Social Security - The notion that Lieberman has "always opposed" SS privatization is FALSE:

Senator Lieberman Lie: "On the day that President Bush started his campaign to privatize Social Security in 2005, I was one of 41 Democratic senators to say explicitly that I think it's a bad idea, it would hurt Social Security." (link)

Uncovering the Truth: "Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., is undecided about the concept of using payroll taxes to fund private Social Security accounts, bringing to three the known number of Senate Democrats who have yet to publicly rule out the idea."

Being "undecided" on SS privatization is not OPPOSING it

What could be a more bellwether issue for actual Democrats than the defense of Social Security? Lieberman has shown that he will support Social Security - but only when it is politically a necessity for him to do so.


7/24/2006 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LieberDem and Ken Balbari are unfamiliar with the charges of antisemitism made by person associated with this site? Rewriting history again. Let me refresh your very bad memories:

"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."

That would be DAN GERSTEIN, the founder of this web site.

Link -

I would expect a correction in your post if I thought you had any respect for the truth.

As it is, I imagine you;ll ignore this.

7/24/2006 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

where would this site be w/o L4L? sheesh.

7/24/2006 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, Matt Smith founded this website, not Dan Gerstein. Gerstein is just a contributor.

You have a beef with Gerstein, take it up with him. Smith never said anything of the sort, and you know it.

7/24/2006 10:51 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

The WASP country clubber, limousine liberal isn't winning any points with people who don't look like him--this guy quits his rich-white-guys-are-us country club so he can be politically correct for a campaign?

C'mon--like he's Mister Love-Thy-Brother.

There is a serious problem with the ProExpletives that have been taught to disseminate hate--they feed on it and are the spawn of it.

AFIC, Lamont has brainwashed peaceful citizens into an angry, uncivil, foul-nouth mob, he should be held accountable for their deprogramming.

7/24/2006 10:51 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

How's he rewriting history? Does Smith speak for Gerstein just because Gerstein is a contributor to his blog?

There isn't one thing in that post that's untrue, and you know it. Stop trying to twist people's words because you can't find real holes in his argument.

7/24/2006 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Are you this obtuse? The dkos post said "the LeiberDems" plural.

LeiberDems is the name of THIS site.

Dan Gerstein is his coblogger, a fellow LieberDem. He prominently made the charge.

What is it with you? Obtuse or dishonest?

7/24/2006 10:58 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

CD--they can't think for themselves, they're not allowed to.

We have to start considering what society is going to do with this angry mob once the elections are over. They will have nothing to vent for, the frenzied moment they've been tuned to surge on will pass and they will be left huffing into stale wind. It's going to be a societal nightmare when all this anger is moves off the net and is released onto the street. Lamont/Kos/Dean are going to have to take a public position and cough up the bucks for the deprogramming.

7/24/2006 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sheesh. Are you people really this dumb?

Smith and Gerstein are the two contributors to a site called LeiberDems.

In this very post, Smith writes of DRONY's remarks, NOT Gerstein's remarks.

His post either has an error or is dishonest. The dkos post was clearly referring to Gerstein false smear.

This is pathetic from the supporters of Liebrman and the LeiberDem site.

7/24/2006 11:03 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lamont is Changing Minds

There are so many reasons why the Lamont campaign is changing minds. Sure, the LieberDems are contributing with their hysterical nonsense. But more and more people are realizing that Lieberman has betrayed our values.

Irv Stolberg and Carl Freen VIDEO

Text from the Lamont campaign site:

"Today, our campaign racked up two more impressive local endorsements, both former high-profile supporters of Senator Lieberman: Former Speaker of the House Irv Stolberg and the Finance Chair of Joe Lieberman’s first campaign, Carl Feen.

“I had the pleasure of being involved on a primary campaign with a young progressive who was not afraid to challenge the status quo and speak his mind. A challenger who was not afraid to run in a primary against an intrenched incumbent. A Challenger who was not afraid to speak out against a war that was wrong. I had the pleasure to work on the campaign with Bill Clinton. That challenger used to be Joe Lieberman, but he has lost his way and I am now supporting Ned Lamont who has the courage to proudly speak out about Democratic principles.

7/24/2006 11:17 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

At the end of the day, Freen is small potatoes. Lamont can bring in whoever he can get--but at the end of the day they aren't Bill Clinton.

Lamont's courtry club racism, his Halliburton and Wallmart stocks, his inexperience--don't forget that one--his INEXPERIENCE, his republican votes and republican aides, his divisive attempt to divide the Democratic party, his association with his puppet master Kos, his partnerering with outsourcer Vonage, his unpatriotic flip-flopping on the war, and so much more are going to get put on national C-SPAN broadcast with Bill telling the world what Lamont and his Nuts are all about.

Looks like were now to 100 minute countdown to the beginning of the Lamonista end. Bill campaigning with Joe surely is a crushing blow to Ned and his Nuts.

7/24/2006 11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Seed freak,

You seem to be trumpting BJ Bill as Baghdad Joey's savior and seem to have a problem with Ned Lamont belonging to an all white country club. Do you remember who else had to quit and all white country club during an election?

7/24/2006 11:37 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

I do wonder whether Bill "Blow Job" Clinton campaigning for Lieberman is a net positive. I do think Hillary might help, though.

Either way, it's good to know that both Clintons will be campaigning with Lamont after the primary.

7/24/2006 11:41 AM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

It IS an issue--if it wasn't you wouldn't have confirmed it by your reply.

This must be really scary for you people.

Try drinking a 1/2 tsp of baking soda dissolved in a cup of tepid water if you're stomach gets gassy from the stress. You'll feel a lot better after you burp.

7/24/2006 11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

freek: ridiculing prominent local dems - that's smart

7/24/2006 11:57 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

What is happening to Joe?

Why is his support here in Connecticut drying up faster than a puddle in Baghdad?

Could it be hisshameless support for the Bush's War?

Connecticut Jewish Ledger. Text:

"I'm upset with Joe because he supports the Bush administration and he has supported this war in Iraq and he has supported this brutal, big stick policy which, without conversation, doesn't work. It only works if you're willing to annihilate your adversary. . . Joe thinks we should support him because he can do a better job. But I think that after 18 years he 'has proven he can't do a better job."

Amen to that.

7/24/2006 12:14 PM  
Blogger matt said...

I hadn't heard or read of Mr. Gerstein's remarks before you just mentioned them. Believe it or not, I had never had any contact with him before two weeks ago.

If the quote you gave is really from Mr. Gerstein, then I have no problem saying I disagree with it. I don't speak for him, and he doesn't speak for me.

Sorry if there was any confusion. The point I was trying to make was specific to me; I certainly wasn't trying to defend the statements of all Lieberman supporters everywhere. I didn't realize until this moment that my moniker was being used to denote all pro-Lieberman Democrats (thus the bad joke to that effect that I made in the post).

Now back to work.

7/24/2006 12:55 PM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

Let's remember that a main reason why Gore picked Lieberman as running mate was because he was running away from Clinton.

Anyone who is at all aware of the 2000 race realizes that Gore wanted to separate himself from Clinton, to show that Gore was his own person and to distance himself from Clinton's negatives.

In the public's mind, Lieberman represented this distancing from Clinton. Fiengold did not have this reputation nationally.

BTW, many believe that Gore would have done better if he did not run from Clinton.

7/24/2006 1:02 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

LieberDem Email

Isn't it nice to get email? I'm sure LieberDem must have a lot of fans by this point. One "GregR" over at MLN sent this thought-provoking email to LieberDem. The LieberDems must be very busy, as they have not had time to mention it.

I thought it might be nice to help them out by cross-posting Greg's letter here:

Dear Friends,

I could not help noticing the recent discussion of your blog on DailyKos ( and I felt compelled to comment here.
Yes, I am a Ned Head and I am very much against Senator Lieberman because he has let me and my state down again and again. In your piece on Lieberman and Clinton, you go to very great lengths to justify the Senator's comments re Clinton. So I was wondering if you have justification for the following:

- Joe feels that publically "scolding" President Clinton about lying about a sexual affair is bad but did not feel this is warranted when Bush broke many laws illegally eavesdropping on all Americans. If Joe is so strong on principle, should he have no spoken up here too?

- Joe feels that if you have certain religious beliefs in Connecticut, you can deny a rape victim emergency contraception and send her to other hospitals, sometimes 30 miles a way, after being raped. Do you agree with this? If you do, what if someone is "religious" and refuses to sell your wife/girlfriend contraception or fails to give a girl a vaccination for cervical cancer, that is what this opens the door up to.

- Joe supported Alberto Gonzales and his pro-torture policy. Do you find this acceptable?

- Joe felt it was acceptable for the congress to intervene in the Terri Schiavo matter, virtually the only Democrat to do so. Do you think that is acceptable? Do you wonder why the senator has never come out against the Texas Futile Care Law, signed by Bush as governor, where poor people who cannot afford care have their family members yanked from life support. Do you not find this hypocritical?

- Joe refused to vote for cloture on Samuel Alito, a man who is anti-choice, may well erode or overturn Roe v. Wade and against every pro-individual protection since the New Deal. Joe said that he did not see "extreme circumstances". What, in your opinion would have been more extreme circumstances than that?

- Joe is close friends with Sean Hannity who has directly and indirectly called us Democrats terrorists, i.e. like the monsters who killed 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11th. Do you appreciate that the senator is close friends with someone who calls you and me terrorists?

- Joe supported the Bankruptcy Bill, meaning that even people who go bankrupt due to divorce, loss of a job, medical crisis or a failed business can vritually never get out of debt. Do you find this acceptable?

- Joe is for school vouchers - meaning that we should abandon poor schools and go to for-profit prrivatized schools. Results that came out last Friday showed private schools do worse in performance than public schools. Do you support Joe on this?

- Joe was the very last Democrat to back down from the plan to privatize social security, something Americans massively rejected. Do you support Joe's stance on privatizing Social Security?

- Joe was for Cafta and Nafta. We have now seen that Ross Perot was right and all these free trade, not fair trade, programs do is eliminate American jobs to create cheap labor over seas. Do you support Joe's support of outsourcing?

- Joe supported No Child Left Behind. Care to lists some of the benefits of that program? (I have counter-info from thousands of teachers who say it is a miserable failure)

- Joe was one of the first Democrats to say that "Force is on the table" for a non-provoqued attack on Iran. Are you for this?

- Joe rubber-stamped someone from the International Arabian Horse Association with ZERO disaster experience to head FEMA. Now hundreds to thousands are dead. Do you have a justification for this?

These are the questions people like me are asking.

7/24/2006 1:37 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Here's a question for l4l:

You still haven't told us: Why is saving millions of people's lives through stem cell research frivolous?

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

7/24/2006 2:01 PM  
Anonymous xtrarich said...

Can someone explain to me how it could be that Joe's daughter, Rebacca, originally scheduled her wedding for Sunday August 6, less than 48 hours before the primary, and only recently and bitterly changed the date, according to the Lieberman profile in New York magazine (

I assume that Rebecca checked with her dad when she made the wedding plans. And I assume he said that he would be able to attend on that date. Logically, that means that Joe did not anticipate that he would have to, or should have to, campaign for the primary.

With such an attitude, no wonder he has acted so indignant that anyone would challenge him in the primary.

What puzzles me is that Joe raised some $6 million of other people's money for the campaign. But obviously he didn't feel there was any need to actually campaign. So why did he raise all this money, or why did all these interests give him money?

Here is the quote from New York magazine:

“My father is not the personification of evil,” says his daughter Rebecca, who had initially scheduled her upcoming wedding for two days before the primary but pushed it back a week out of concern for her father’s campaign. “This is incredible.”

7/24/2006 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

don't see why they should bother with that e-mail.

You see, LieberDem has shown a tendency to do this thing called "research" for his posts. It's quite a time-consuming venture, but it results in the posts he makes being filled with accurate statements rather than the distortions, half-truths, and misinformation that define your comments, which insult the intelligence of everyone who reads them.

Research, and looking for both sides of the story. You should try it, L4L.

7/24/2006 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's rich.

7/24/2006 2:12 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

xtrarich, have you ever met Rebecca? I doubt she would ever do anything bitterly when it comes to her father.

You're way out of line, you're so far from reality its laughable and you HONESTLY don't know what you're talking about.

7/24/2006 2:18 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Anonymous: They must mean learning all of the facts behind an issue, so that they don't go off half-cocked. Like with that whole Halliburton thing of theirs. They'd really studied that up.

7/24/2006 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is interesting that Lieberworld won't even take a shot at any of the "GregR" questions.

Then again, these are the questions they're trying to avoid, so maybe they won't even try.

7/24/2006 2:22 PM  
Anonymous xtrarich said...


I don't know Rebecca. But I do know that the Lieberman family scheduled a wedding TWO days before the primary.

Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? I don't know how to explain that except to attribute it to Joe's arrogant assumption that he would not, and should not, have to campaign for the primary.

What is your explanation?

7/24/2006 2:23 PM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

This is incredible!

“My father is not the personification of evil,” says his daughter Rebecca, who had initially scheduled her upcoming wedding for two days before the primary but pushed it back a week out of concern for her father’s campaign. “This is incredible.”

Scheduling her wedding two days before her father's primary?! What was she thinking?

New York magazine may have misquoted her, but how can anyone explain what the Lieberman family was thinking when they scheduled the primary?

How unkind of Lamont to run against Lieberman! Didn't he know Joe's daughter was getting married right before the primary? Was he trying to ruin Rebecca's honeymoon?

Rebecca is right. THIS IS INCREDIBLE? That nasty bear, Lowell Weicker must have put Lamont up to this!

7/24/2006 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's Joe Lieberman's Senate seat. It's his, why should he have to campaign for it?

7/24/2006 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

good job today L4L, thanks..

7/24/2006 2:44 PM  
Blogger pro-joe progressive said...

I hate the bloggers that criticize Lieberman for something he didn't do (support the bankruptcy bill; he voted against it and indicated his dissent on the Senate floor). BTW, thanks a lot to Matt Smith and Dan Gerstein for finally giving a voice to liberal and moderate Connecticut bloggers that actually support Joe Lieberman. The truth is that there are at least 15 senate democrats that are more conservative than Lieberman, and Joe doesn't deserve a primary any more than Maria Cantwell or Herb Kohl. I also want to mention that from experience phonebanking for the Defano campaign, I can say that the Lamont-Lieberman race is killing the Democrats in the gubernatorial race. So many people either had never heard of the candidates, didn't know that the democratic nominee for governor would be elected on Aug. 8, or - worst of all - SUPPORT BOTH RELL AND LAMONT!!! That ignorance seriously make me want to kill somebody. However, the pro-Joe anonymous blogger who says that Joe should lay off the anti-video game/violence crusande and other similar behavior when he returns to the senate is absolutely right. The Joe who returns to the senate after this ordeal will be more progressive, more in touch with all Connecticut citizens (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents), more proactive, but most important, just as honest and likeable. BTW, how would I go about volunteering for the Lieberman campaign?

7/24/2006 3:00 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Unfortunately for Joe Lieberman, Lamont is the moderate in this race.

You can examine Lieberman's strong support from Supreme Leader Bush and a gaggle of TV and talk radio wackjobs here.

7/24/2006 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Davebo said...

"BTW, how would I go about volunteering for the Lieberman campaign?"

Hmm, you claim to have been involved in local politics in the past even manning phone banks, yet you have no clue how to go about volunteering for Joe?


7/24/2006 3:25 PM  
Blogger baghdadjoe said...

Letter from Afghanistan

Not surprisingly, our duplicitous Senator tells us that "he supports the troops". Naturally, actual soldiers out in field with the US armed forces have a very different tale to tell:

"Lieberman's office left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion, some whom have been on as many as five deployments. The others in Washington were not so quick to abandon us..."

Town Times Link:

Powerful stuff

When it comes to our troops, Lieberman has repeatedly shown he is all hat and no cattle.

7/24/2006 3:27 PM  
Blogger Susan said...

The point of the two posts here is that the nutroots is being hypocritical about Lieberman and Clinton while at the same time anointing Feingold as the next savior of the Democratic Party.

This isn't rewriting anything, but the nutroots knows that.

7/24/2006 3:30 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Davebo--if you knew about volunteer operations at an HQ, you would know that oftentimes bus or carloads of people come in from one location, like a union meeting hall or worksite. Many people sign up at work or with their clubs but don't contact the organizer or campaign office themselves.

Pro-Joe, nice to meetcha!, you can go to Joe's website and hit the link for volunteering and take it from there.


7/24/2006 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Occam's Cordless Razor said...

The Lieberman supporters accuse Lamont backers and/or Joe detractors of being one issue voters. I am here to say that for me, it just ain't so. Here is my bill of particulars against Lieberman:

1. The war. Its a huge issue. 2,500 Americans are dead and thousands more wounded, many seriously because of it. Its not just that Joe voted for it. Its' that he shills for it.

2. The 2000 election. His performance was disatrous. He forfeited the VP debate with Cheney, by issuing a stupid platitude about "Not saying anythign if you can't say somethign nice" when he knew damn well cheney would make no reciprocal promise. He also undecut the ticked by hedging his bets and running for reelection too, sending message that he wasn't sure about Gore's chances.
3. The Clarence Thomas vote. Yes, he voted the right way, but he was a wet finger in the wind. He waited to see what the vote was and made sure a "no" vote wouldn't sink him. What a coward!
4. The Sciavo mess. He got involved and pandered to the pro life crowd. Pure grandstanding.
5. The Anti Clinton speech in 98. This was pure garbage. Far from helping the Democrats fight impeachment, it provided bi-partisan cover to the fanatics who wanted Clinton out.
6. School vouchers. He supported them. These will hurt our public schools, which he claims to support.
7. Sean Hannity: What decent human being would willingly appear on his ultra right radio show and suck up to him.
8. Bob Grant. A vile, contemptable racist. Yet Joe frequently called the show to make nice and even wish Bob a happy birthday.
9. This independent bid. Its divisive. It will force loyal Democrats into a very awkward position. Imagine Chris Dodd's choices if Joe loses the Democratic primary then goes to run third party. He can either abandon his party that he's been in all his adult life or abandon a senate colleague since 1988, and someone he's probably known much longer. I would never put a purported friend in this position.
10. video games. A stupid issue aimed at pandering to the Bill Bennett crowd and for no good reason. The fundies won't like joe any better because of it.

7/24/2006 4:12 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Holy Halliburton - CT Bloggers Expose Secret Joe Campaign Event

You have to give those plucky bloggers some credit. Joe had a "with Boxer" secret media-only campaign event at "Sweet Rexie's" in Waterbury. Unfortunately for Lieberman, the heroic CT bloggers found out about it and got the whole thing on videotape.

What's especially remarkable about this footage is that Senator Boxer insists on a bald-face lie to CT resident Maura. Boxer insists that Joe did not say what he said about emergency contraception.

Very disturbing, and a rather dark day for Senator Boxer.

Read/watch it, it's amazing


How many Democrats will Joe destroy on his way down?

7/24/2006 4:24 PM  
Anonymous dwbh said...

As a Lamont supporter, let me just point out the following:

(1) These claims on the Internets that this is "for the soul of the Democratic party" is just nonsense. Lieberman does enable the GOP too much, with his appearances on Hannidate and Fox News, but I could say the same thing about lots of other Dem senators to some degree. I could say the same thing every time a senator goes on TV and doesn't adhere to the straight Dem line. How, exactly, is this for the soul of the Democratic party when there are so many senators who do exactly what Lieberman does?

The truth is, if you elect Lamont to the Senate, there will be another Democratic "enabler" to take Lieberman's place. Could be Biden, could be Schumer, could even be Dodd. This is because the Dems are the minority party, and it's more expedient for Dems to go along with the majority plans to get pork for their state. "Going along" doesn't have to mean votes -- you could be talking about saying not-so-nice things about other Democrats, or providing political cover on Fox News. All of these rabid supporters are misplacing their anger on Lieberman, when they should be placing their anger on having only 44 senators.

It really is such a shame that so much angst and energy is being wasted on a race between two Democrats. Can't we all put this much passion behind, oh I don't know, a race where a Democrat is trying to beat a Republican?

(2) All the nastiness being tossed about is ten times more damaging then it would be in a general election, since the winner will still have to actually win the seat in November. Usually, I believe primaries help the party, but this is an exception to that rule. In three weeks, either the nutjob Lamont backers are going to have to eat their words, or the nutjob Lieberman backers are going to actually have to work to defeat a Democrat. I honestly can't remember a primary that's been as full of vitriol, distortion, and blind groupthink as this one, and I have a pretty long memory.

(3) I'm not a Lamont supporter because of his stance on Iraq, or what Lieberman said about Clinton in 1998 (that was eight years ago, for crying out loud!), or all of these other things that the Kossacks and Eschatonites are taking way, way too far. I'm a Lamont supporter because Joe has made no secret that if he doesn't get the primary result he likes, he's taking his ball and running as an indy, consequences be damned to the Connecticut Dems in downticket races, or to the national party, or anything else that isn't Joe Lieberman. That's really the only reason. He's shown himself to be more concerned about his own self-interest than Democratic principles. It's Lieberman's right to run, sure, but it's also my right to be completely opposed to it and work to defeat that kind of selfishness. And that's the one thing that could really turn off Dems, Indies, and Repubs alike. This is nothing like Bernie Sanders -- the minute he leaves the party and becomes a turncoat, support for Joe will plummet, and rightly so.

7/24/2006 4:27 PM  
Anonymous dwbh said...

Not Bernie Sanders -- I meant Jim Jeffords. Doh.

7/24/2006 4:28 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lieberman is in effect a Republican

That is the whole problem.

7/24/2006 4:30 PM  
Blogger Mike M. said...

One question for Dan Gerstein: didn't you work on Lieberman's speech about Clinton? If so, then you probably do know what Lieberman's motivations were. Why not spell them out for us?

7/24/2006 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L - joe's right... "we're not gonna stop"

7/24/2006 4:57 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Does anyone have a date or time yet on CSPAN's coverage of the debate?

7/24/2006 5:15 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

1. Lieberman, like Joe Biden, voted in favor of the bankruptcy bill at the pivotal cloture vote. Then he pandered by voting against the legislation once it was a foregone conclusion that it would pass the GOP dominated Senate.

2. "Nutroots"... I get it. It's because they're nuts. That's funny. Again, tell me about those angry, angry Lamontitistas.

7/24/2006 5:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

y.g. brown - thank you for the truth....

7/24/2006 5:27 PM  
Blogger pro-joe progressive said...

Brilliant. I found the link on the joe2006 website for volunteering. I had missed it before because it was so damn small.

7/24/2006 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, yeah. That cloture vote was so close. That's why it carried with 9 votes to spare.

The Lieberman-haters love to point at cloture votes that carried by huge margins as "evidence" that Lieberman somehow could have stopped a bill from passing. What a crock.

7/24/2006 6:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

pro-joe: get serious.

7/24/2006 6:22 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

It's ok. We're used to Lieberman-haters being dismissive of us here. It's ok...we'll keep making reasonable arguments, and they'll keep ignoring them.

7/24/2006 6:27 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Humph. Phooey on you centristdem.

What a load of crap.

7/24/2006 7:07 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Anonymous: I believe that the point that poster was making on the cloture vote is that Lieberman was demonstrably on the wrong side of the issue at the cloture stage.

That is undeniable. Whether the vote was a close one is not immediately relevant.

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

Bill Clinton Talks Lamont

In a 20-minute speech to a capacity crowd in an ornate theater, Clinton went easy on Ned Lamont, whose challenge gained traction when he accused Lieberman of being too close to Bush on the war and other issues.

"He seems like a perfectly nice man. He's got every right to run and he's waged a vigorous campaign," the former president said."

As an added bonus, that nice fellow Lamont seems a whole lot more truthful than Lieberman.

I think I might just vote for him...

7/24/2006 7:34 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I think the point is simple, although lost as usual on your razor-sharp wit. The cloture vote was going to pass anyway. Why make a useless symbolic gesture and piss off the Gang of 14 which formed the pact that SAVED FILIBUSTERS?

He voted against the final bill - even though most of the Dem caucus voted for it.

But that's ok. We know you aren't so big on facts L4L. After all, you're...

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

7/24/2006 7:56 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...


Nope, I like Lieberdem, have never before seen that quote from Dan Gerstein. It has never before appeared on this site. The only such charge I've seen previously here was David Sirota's complaint over Gerstein saying that some of Liebermans opponents "think Lieberman is wrong on trade and Israel and other pet issues of the angry activist base".

Sirota in that instance seemed to mistake differing over policy towards Israel with anti-semitism. A similar line of thought is implied by the questioner who asked "if he felt that the wave of opposition to his candidacy had anything to do with his religion or his support for Israel". Why conflate religion and support for Israel in asking the question?

I can't blame Lieberman for not wanting to give a quick answer to that. Of course some of the opposition to Lieberman is over his support for Israel. There are plenty of people who have reasonable disagreements over policy towards Israel and the Middle East. But there is no reason to equate that with anti-semitism.

And perhaps Mr. Gerstein is right that there is a strain of anti-semitism on the far left. But even if there are a small number of such individuals, it is unfair to imply that they would make up a significant portion of Lamont supporters. It is likewise unfair to attribute the views of Mr. Gerstein to Lieberman supporters generally, or to a significant number of them, as both McJoan and Mr. Horowitz, the author of the Observer article in question, seem to be doing.

7/25/2006 3:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken Balbari:

You really hve a problem with the truth.
mcjoan's post attirbuted the statement to GERSTEIN, one of two contributors of the blog LIEBERDEMS.

Are you unable to tell the truth?

7/25/2006 5:31 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

"(BTW, in bringing Feingold into this discussion, I take it the LieberDems have given up their false smears of anti-Semitism against Lamont supporters.)"

Where does she attribute Gerstein? She doesn't. At all.

You obviously ARE unable to tell the truth.

7/25/2006 6:13 AM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

LieberDem said:
On that basis, no reasonable person could say that Lieberman's actions were somehow more critical or disloyal than Feingold's

Sure you can, and here's how. Senator Feingold was critical of President Clinton for his disappointing and immoral behavior, and was also critical of President Bush for his illegal, immoral, incompetent, arrogant, etc. behavior. Senator Lieberman was critical of President Clinton for lying about a blowjob, but was supportive of President Bush for lying America into a foolish, expensive war with no end.

When Senator Lieberman scolded Democrats (all Democrats, not just the politicians) for criticizing President Bush, I was highly offended and disgusted. How can such a "principled" man be so careless with the principles of our country? How dare he tell me what to say about the President! And thus began my support of Ned Lamont.

Senator Lieberman has a double standard for criticizing the President, and gee, what a coincidence, it's the Republican President who benefits from Lieberman looking the other way AND telling other Democrats to STFU and stop criticizing President Bush.

Lieberman is far more critical and disloyal than Feingold, because his "principles" change based on which party holds the President's office.

See? That wasn't so hard, now was it?

7/25/2006 8:50 AM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home