Sunday, July 23, 2006

Feingold, Lieberman, and Bill Clinton

In September of 1998, Joe Lieberman made a speech in which he said Bill Clinton's actions with Monica Lewinsky were "wrong and unacceptable and should be followed by some measure of public rebuke and accountability." The Lieberhater crowd has repeatedly said that Lieberman "stabbed Clinton in the back" by daring to make that speech, and have used the speech to argue that Lieberman was a disloyal Democrat who helped push the GOP drive towards impeachment.

Such a charge could easily be dismissed as patently false without exposing the implicit hypocrisy behind it. Lieberman never supported the impeachment efforts. He voted to dismiss the charges and end the trial every time such a motion came before the Senate, and he voted against both counts during the impeachment trial (here and here).

In fact, Lieberman never supported impeachment, resignation, or any other official reprimand of Clinton during the months leading up to the impeachment trial. He merely believed that the President's personal conduct with Lewinsky was morally damaging to the country, and felt compelled to say so publicly.

And Lieberman's assessment of Clinton's personal conduct was one that few Americans disagreed with - including Bill Clinton himself (as the thoughtful writers over at The Plank pointed out), since Clinton said this of Lieberman's 09/98 speech:
Basically, I agree with what he said...I have nothing else to say except that I can't disagree with anyone else who wants to be critical of what I have already acknowledged was indefensible. There's nothing that he or anyone else could say in a personally critical way that - I don't imagine - that I would disagree with, since I have already said it myself, to myself.
As Mr. Gerstein noted, many have actually credited Lieberman's speech as providing the Democrats with the position that allowed them to save the Clinton Presidency: Separate the legitimate questions about his personal conduct from the illegitimate legal attacks. Most Congressional Democrats echoed Lieberman's sentiments in the months to come, allowing the Democrats to criticize Clinton without fueling the GOP's drive towards impeachment. No Democrat who knows Lieberman, Clinton included, thought that his statements were indicative of anything but the concerns of a loyal friend and political ally.

But even if we were to accept the absurd characterization of Lieberman's actions as "stabbing Clinton in the back," then Russ Feingold stabbed Clinton in the back, twisted the knife, and shot him with an Uzi.

Among Democrats, Feingold was the most persistent and vocal critic of Clinton and the greatest Democratic proponent of continuing the GOP investigations throughout the period from 1997-1999. During the Lewinsky scandal in particular, Feingold was Clinton's strongest and earliest Democratic critic.

And yes, this is the same Russ Feingold who is a hero of the progressive blogosphere.

When the scandal first broke, Feingold said, "If there is any proof that (Clinton) lied under oath, I will have no trouble voting on his impeachment," making him the only Senate Democrat to openly consider that most extreme measure.

He later said that Clinton should seriously consider resigning. Even in the wake of the House impeachment vote, when Clinton was at his most politically vulnerable, Feingold refused to say say that Clinton shouldn't resign - even as fellow Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl strongly insisted that Clinton should remain in office.

After Clinton apologized for the first time, Lieberman showed his appreciation for Clinton's words, saying it marked the "beginning of a healing process." But Feingold didn't show any appreciation for Clinton "just saying he's sorry." He said:
Explanation rather than contrition is the key...not just saying he's sorry but adequately saying how it occurred so people can feel more comfortable about it. What he has to answer is how he said one series of things and then changed his story about it. He's got to explain this.
At the actual Senate trial, Feingold was the Democrats' Critic-in-Chief, voting to continue the trial and keep the charges on the books right up to the final vote:
Feingold did ultimately vote against removal (as did Lieberman), but unlike Lieberman and every other Democrat, he did not announce his opposition to impeachment until the day of the final vote. Feingold even refused to sign onto Dianne Feinstein's bipartisan resolution to "censure and move on", a resolution pushed by the founders of MoveOn.org and co-sponsored by Lieberman, because it would have undermined the proceedings of the impeachment trial. He only supported censure after impeachment had failed, when censure was the strongest measure left on the table to use against Clinton.

After Clinton's impeachment trial was finally over, Feingold summed up his feelings succintly:
President Clinton has disgraced himself.
At every turn during the trial, Joe Lieberman had voted for the Senate and the country to move on, while Russ Feingold voted to let the public humiliation of Clinton continue. Little wonder that Feingold proposed his censure measure against Bush even though he knew it had no chance of passing: Feingold had already proved during the Clinton years that he had no problem using the Senate to support measures with no chance of passing in a divisive effort to humiliate a President. Lieberman had learned in 1998-99 that such futile efforts are "an unproductive use of our time," even if he believes the President to be wrong.


Feingold's intense and repeated slamming of Clinton was far harsher and more damaging than Lieberman's one-shot critique of Clinton's personal conduct. Indeed, Feingold was less forgiving and more encouraging of the GOP efforts to humiliate Clinton than any other Democrat.

But Lieberman is the one bashed in the liberal blogosphere for stabbing Clinton in the back, while Russ Feingold is lauded along with Howard Dean as the standardbearer of the 'netroots'. Online straw polls have repeatedly showed Feingold to be the favored 2008 presidential candidate among members of the liberal blogosphere. This past week, Feingold blew away the competition in a DailyKos poll on the 2008 contenders, while Lieberman was being bashed for feeding "the hate machine" that pushed Clinton's impeachment.

The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering, and there is no rational explanation for it.

The truth, of course, is that their hatred of Lieberman has absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton. MoveOn.org donated money to Feingold's campaign account, but endorsed Lieberman's opponent and helped raise money for him. Why? Because just six months earlier, MoveOn had said they would help fund a Lieberman challenger because of Lieberman's position on Iraq.

After impeachment, MoveOn showed that they had no intention of forgetting the reasons the group was started. They started a "We Will Remember" campaign to hold accountable those who did the most to fuel the impeachment fire, and raised money to oppose their re-election. But MoveOn's roots have become a victim of Iraq-induced amnesia.

What really matters now is that Joe Lieberman is a pro-war Democrat, while Feingold is stridently anti-war. Consequently, Feingold's trespasses are forgiven, while even the most minor transgressions of Lieberman are artificially inflated into cardinal sins.

It is groupthink worthy of the Bush administration: Don't examine the evidence, then come to a conclusion. Start with your conclusion, then look for evidence that supports it.

Russ Feingold is good, Joe Lieberman is bad, and all evidence to the contrary be damned.

Such an approach may not be rational, but it's the only way to argue that Joe Lieberman has been anything but a loyal Clinton Democrat.

90 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spin it however you like. Democrat-hater Lieberman took to the senate floor (again) to condemn someone ihn his party, namely the democratic presidnet of the united states.

Meanwhile, he has never taken to the floor to criticize president bush, dick cheney,etc. In fact, he has pushed aside questions asking whether bush should be criticized or was deserving of criticism.

Blow jobs, censroing professors (with Lynn Cheney), video games, democrats critical of the president, those are what count for Holy Joe. They earn his scorn and a speech from the floor.

Lying the nation into war? No problem. Sending kids to die in a cluster-fuck of incompetence and corporate greed. "We're making progress." He is so detached from reality he still insists Iraq is making progress.

Accountability for republicans is something he will NEVER sign op to. But give him the chance to usher along a bankruptcy bill that imposes hideous burdens on people hit with catostrophic medical bills or out of work, and Joe is right there voting to end debate and clear the way for the bill to pass. Universal health care? Over Joe's dead body. Just got raped and need an oral contraceptive to prevent becoming the mother of the rapists child. Tough shit. Joe will help the hospital throw you out into the street.

This man is a disgrace to the democratic party and all it stands for.

7/23/2006 5:40 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Lamonsitas need a dose of reality--or shock treatment, which they can get at the all the psych hospital's Lmaont has in his stock portfolio. They can also shop for their hospital jammies over at Walmart--that would also profit Lamont who has a humongous amount of stock in that low-wage outfit.

The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering, and there is no rational explanation for it

There is an explanation and it's one that is both sad and alarming. The Lamonistas are victims of Coercive Pursuasion. Hate dialogue is part of it.
http://anti-lamontist.blogspot.com/

7/23/2006 5:51 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

"he has never taken to the floor to criticize president bush, dick cheney,etc. In fact, he has pushed aside questions asking whether bush should be criticized or was deserving of criticism."

I knew someone would say that, and I was ready. That's so far beyond wrong that the rest of your hysterical, lie-filled rant isn't worth the read...except as fodder for people who want to see how ignorant you are and how desperate you are to find anything to criticize Lieberman on that is not Iraq.

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush on stem cell research:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=258819

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush's economic policies:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207942&&

Here is Lieberman denouncing Bush's stance on affirmative action:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207356&&

On energy and transportation spending:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=251348

On education:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=232428&&


And most of those denouncements were made from the Senate floor.

So you can stop lying now.

7/23/2006 5:55 PM  
Anonymous davebo said...

"Lamonsitas need a dose of reality--or shock treatment, which they can get at the all the psych hospital's Lmaont has in his stock portfolio. They can also shop for their hospital jammies over at Walmart--that would also profit Lamont who has a humongous amount of stock in that low-wage outfit. "

Ahhh.. Shades of the infamous "Bush Derrangement Syndrome" I see.

Not exactly original, but to be expected I suppose.

LOOK! Here's another "leftwing wacko" now.

"Joe Lieberman and I have been friends and colleagues for 38 years. We ran for and won seats in the Connecticut legislature as a team of reformers in 1970. He was my state senator and I was his state representative. He rose to Senate majority leader as I became speaker of the House. With others, we formed the Caucus of Connecticut Democrats, a progressive coalition, to further the causes of peace in Vietnam and justice at home.

I have supported him in every election he has had - until now. This year I am supporting Ned Lamont to unseat Joe. Almost four decades of friendship with Joe has made this a wrenching decision for me."


http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarystolberg0723.artjul23,0,1783559.story

Why do you guys hate democracy so much?

7/23/2006 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We love democracy. We think all of Connecticut's voters should get the chance to vote on Senator Lieberman's re-election.

7/23/2006 5:57 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Why don't any of the Lamontistas address the topic of the post?

What, is the truth too inconvenient for you?

7/23/2006 5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good question. Ten bucks says they keep trying to change the subject.

7/23/2006 5:59 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Sorry, I won't take that bet. They're just too scared to face up to facts that don't support their hysterical arguments.

7/23/2006 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Davebo said...

Wow!

For folks who claim to be progressives it sure didn't take you long to adopt the tactics of the right blogosphere.

Anyone who disagrees with you is derranged! A "Lamontista!"

And yet when Joe claims that knowing what he knows now, he would still have supported the invasion of Iraq, well, that's just a minor difference of opinion. (IE, not the bat shit crazy that even Republicans recognize it as).

"We love democracy. We think all of Connecticut's voters should get the chance to vote on Senator Lieberman's re-election."

They get that opportunity next month, or haven't you heard? Ever wonder why Joe feels he has a good shot of winning as an independant even if he loses the primary?

It's obvious to anyone paying attention.

And I suspect it's obvious to you as well given your "adoption" (who are we really kidding here) of Limbaughesque talking points.

Here's a talking point for you right up your ally.

Joe has made it clear. If he loses the primary, he plans to "Cut and Run".

Gotta make you drool a bit eh?

7/23/2006 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

Say it. Believe it.

7/23/2006 6:10 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

That makes no sense. Not all Connecticut voters get the chance to vote next month.

And what Limbaugh talking points did we use? Is being critical of Bush a Limbaugh talking point?

And he'll still caucus with the Democrats, which is all that really matters in terms of Democratic control of the Senate. But you obviously don't care about getting a Democratic majority the Senate.

And you still are afraid to talk about the topic of the post.

All you're doing is proving LieberDem's point - when you're given evidence that's contrary to your dishonest, hysterical arguments, you just pretend it doesn't exist.

7/23/2006 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any Lieberman-hater want to try to refute the arguments LieberDem made in the post?

Anyone?

7/23/2006 6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't. But I do have a question: Why does Lieberman think that campaigning with Bill "Blow Job" Clinton will help him? Every time I see that poor man all I can think about is how Joe Lieberman helped to destroy his career.

7/23/2006 6:17 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Good point. Bill Clinton is a powerfully divisive figure. Nationally yes, but especially here in Connecticut. Whether its fair or not, Joe Lieberman is seen as one of the principle back-stabbers in fellatio-gate. Naturally, this is not something that reflects well on Joe Lieberman.

People seem to be saying that Bill Clinton could hurt Joe Lieberman's campaign more than help. I think I agree with that.

7/23/2006 6:21 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Did you even read the post? Lieberman didn't help destroy his career. He helped save it:

"Many have actually credited Lieberman's speech as providing the Democrats with the position that allowed them to save the Clinton Presidency: Separate the legitimate questions about his personal conduct from the illegitimate legal attacks. Most Congressional Democrats echoed Lieberman's sentiments in the months to come, allowing the Democrats to criticize Clinton without fueling the GOP's drive towards impeachment. No Democrat who knows Lieberman, Clinton included, thought that his statements were indicative of anything but the concerns of a loyal friend and political ally."


Ah, facts. The antidote to the Lieberman-haters hysterical lies.

7/23/2006 6:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Among Democrats? The last polls I saw showed Clinton's favorable ratings in the 80s among Democrats.

And Lieberman is not widely associated as having stabbed Clinton in the back. No one in the mainstream media (you know, where they have to CHECK FACTS) has ever spun it that way.

Only Lieberman's hysterical opponents have spread the lie that Lieberman stabbed Clinton in the back. Clinton said Lieberman's comments were perfectly appropriate - he AGREED with them. And it ultimately helped save the Clinton legacy by giving the Democrats what became their PUBLIC POLICY on how to deal with the Clinton scandals.

So go attack Feingold, who actually deserves it.

7/23/2006 6:25 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

OK, let's talk facts. 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 6:28 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

The Lamonistas can't handle it because they are so indoctrinized that they cannot think for themselves and can only converse on their own terms to each other using their own manufactured dialogue.

Most of the eight points of coercive pursuasion that are on the Anti Lamonist blog can be easily seen in the immediate replies to this post. As time approaches nearer and nearer for Bill Clinton to take the stage in Waterbury their hysteria will grow and grow--they are in fear of losing their existance and they will fight, spit, claw, curse and all else available through expletive blogging to cling to it. They are at the end of their rope and act as individuals cowering to save themselves when their back is in the corner.

7/23/2006 6:30 PM  
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:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=258819

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush's economic policies:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207942&&

Here is Lieberman denouncing Bush's stance on affirmative action:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207356&&

On energy and transportation spending:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=251348

On education:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=232428&&

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": Deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

7/23/2006 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the irony here is indescribable

7/23/2006 6:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey L4L, why don't you have the courage to answer the questions that were asked to you by liberaldem:

Well, let's see. Let's say I am a Connecticut voter and am trying to decide between my Senator, Joe Lieberman, and his opponent, Ned Lamont. Let's say that the one small thing that is giving me pause is the accusation that "radicals" and "obstructionists" on the so-called "leftist Blogosphere" are among Lamont's chief supporters. I frankly have to say that I don't understand the rationale behind the Lamont supporters seeking to hijack this Blog. I have to say that the display being put on by Lamont supporters here is unseemly. If Lieberman supporters sought to do on DAILYKOS or MYDD what Lamont supporter are doing here, Markos Moulitas Zuniga and Chris Bowers would rightly call them "trolls," "flame them," and expel them. Lamont is likely going to win this election, if the polls are to be believed. However, I doubt if he would appreciate the impression that his supporters are making here. Maybe you Lamont supporters still have an opportunity to ruin things for your man, no matter how bad a campaign Lieberman is running. With friends like you, does Lamont really need enemies? Instead of being obstructionists, why don't you find an appropriate forum to explain to Connecticut voters calmly and rationally why they should support Ned Lamont and not Joe Lieberman? Is that too much to ask?


Come on, L4L. Why are you so afraid of answering questions rather than spinning a web of mistruths?

7/23/2006 6:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read those quotes. They criticize Bush policy not Bush, and they do so in the same gentle tone he used in his kissy-kiss debate against Cheney.

When he criticizes democrats, on the other hand, he calls them immoral and traitors of America. When he debates a democrat, he tries to rip his head off.

7/23/2006 6:33 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

When did he call a Democrat a traitor of America? The answer - never.

You Lieberhaters just can't stop lying.

7/23/2006 6:34 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Joe Sez: I Don't Look Like That Guy From ALF!

Be sure to check out Liebermania!

The Official Site of Lieberman for Lieberman

7/23/2006 6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, I'm sorry. So what do you want to do? Have him say that Bush is a terrible human being?

Give me a quote from a Democrat that you consider "criticizing Bush" rather than "Bush policy."

Don't just bluster. Give evidence.

7/23/2006 6:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He said when the democrats criticize Bush about the war, they imperil America. What does it mean to imperil America? It means you harm it. Does a patriot harm his country, or does a traitor?

7/23/2006 6:36 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Wow, L4L. Still too afraid to answer questions or debate real issues in a rational way.

"liebermanforlieberman": Deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

7/23/2006 6:37 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lamont's worst enemy is his own bloggers.

Bill is coming. Bill is Coming. BILL IS COMING!

And with him is ALL that media attention to highlight his opines about Ned and his Nuts. His divisive nuts. His divisive, cursing, radical, self-claimed jihadist nuts.

Jihadist and Radical are such scary words. It would certainly make me want to get out and vote.

7/23/2006 6:39 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Holy Halliburton - Why is Joe Plummeting in the Polls?

Could it be because of his lying problem?

Many people (myself included) seem to think so. Joe's lying problem is what has put Joe Lieberman in such a terrible position in this primary. The problem starts right at the top with Joe Lieberman himself:

1. Joe Lieberman consistently flings BS at us about Iraq. Just last year he gushed about the "progress" in Iraq. People in Iraq were using cell phones and DirecTV. Woohoo. Nevermind that US soldiers and Iraqis were being killed by the score every month.

2. When Senate Democrats stood up to fire Rumsfeld for the incredible incompetence he's demonstrated in running the Iraq war, Lieberman was right there to defend him:

http://liebermania.blogspot.com

These three things are just the tip of the iceberg. In a very REPUBLICAN way, Lieberman feels the need to try to "create his own reality".

How stupid does Lieberworld think we are? Don't you understand that Lieberman has this track record, and that human beings can remember the lies and misdeeds?

7/23/2006 6:42 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Why don't you give the real quote rather than ignoring the parts that prove how badly you're lying about what he said?

To quote Ken Balbari:
I'll note that Lieberman never said not to criticize, only that we should "acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years".

Here is the full quote of what Lieberman said:

"It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.

It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war."



All you do is prove LieberDem's point. You are either too lazy or too dishonest to look at the whole quote and judge what he said and meant.

You just take the parts that help your argument and throw out the rest.

You know who else does that? Rove, Bush, and the rest of the GOP lie machine. You've certainly learned their methods well.

7/23/2006 6:43 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Wow, L4L. Still too afraid to answer questions or debate real issues in a rational way.

"liebermanforlieberman": Deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.

7/23/2006 6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In matters of war, we undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril"

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/stream/1b6d1fe6a39b07f83c_vum6vug7h.wmv/SpeakingforBush.asx

7/23/2006 6:44 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Haha...that anon. You never learn. Still too dishonest and lazy to give the whole quote in its context.

If you actually want to read the whole quote and see what Lieberman actually said and meant, look above. If you want the Bush/Cheney "let me just pick the parts I like" version, by all means read anon's.

7/23/2006 6:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That statement may be surrounded by puff, but make no mistake, it is a knife he planted deeply in the back of the democratic party and all of those democrats standing up to the president.

That statement made me swear out loud when I heard it. He said it with the sanctimonious sneer he has.

Traitor. He should have been standing up for all the kids sent off to die in that war. George Bush is not his constituent. Dick Cheney is not his constituent. Well, defacto they clearly are.

7/23/2006 6:49 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Actually, everything else he said was just as important. You just dismiss it as puff because it's inconvenient to your dishonest argument.

It's ok. Everyone else who reads this blog can see clear as day how hysterical you are. After all, you claimed that Lieberman called Democrats traitors. But when that argument was clearly debunked, you went and called Lieberman a traitor.

Answering evidence with bluster. Like a true Bush-ite.

7/23/2006 6:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lieberman4liberman: u r a real patriot...............

7/23/2006 6:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, vote for Joe. You want a senator who sees his job as representing the president and vice president, that's your right. Vote for Santorium or Ruddy or Joe.

But that language is not acceptable to me or most democrats no matter how you try to hide it and spin it.

I will be back later...

7/23/2006 6:53 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Gotta go for a bit. Not that it matters. The Lieberman-haters are happily hanging themselves by proving LieberDem right.

See if any of them even come close to proving these statements wrong:

"What really matters now is that Joe Lieberman is a pro-war Democrat, while Feingold is stridently anti-war. Consequently, Feingold's trespasses are forgiven, while even the most minor transgressions of Lieberman are artificially inflated into cardinal sins.

It is groupthink worthy of the Bush administration: Don't examine the evidence, then come to a conclusion. Start with your conclusion, then look for evidence that supports it."


How right you are, LieberDem. How right you are.

7/23/2006 6:54 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Hahaha...even anon's parting shot was a blustering lie with no evidence given. All the times Lieberman has criticized Bush and stood up for progressive causes? They don't matter! Who cares if it's the truth - it doesn't help the Lieberman-haters' argument!

They just can't help proving LieberDem right!

Night all.

7/23/2006 6:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ps i read the whole quote twice and it is vintage Joe dissing democrats under the guise of making himself look like some bipartisian moses.

That's his MO. Elevate his stature by stabbing dems in the back.

7/23/2006 6:57 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Uhhh--let's not forget the Lamont's campaign leader has been a republican--this is no doubt why Lamont hired him and it's obvious that his operatives have trained the bloggers to act as republicans.

It's another reason why Lamont can't be trusted. He votes republican, he hires republicans and trains his bloggers to post like republicans.

Little brainwashed republicans.

It's truly creepy.

7/23/2006 7:01 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Once again, here is a reminder to everyone of why we're here. Why is Connecticut and America so extremely 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 video 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!"

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

7/23/2006 7:04 PM  
Anonymous Rich said...

Wow, this is the first post I have read on this blog, and I am struck by the angry, angry, angry tone.

Can't Lieberman and his supporters promote his candidacy without going negative. Now it's Feingold you are attacking to support Lieberman.

The simple point is that Joe has stated that we criticize Bush, and exercise Democracy, "at our nation's peril." He didn't say that about Clinton.

7/23/2006 7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

Say it. Believe it.
http://liebermania.blogspot.com

7/23/2006 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

best lieberman debunking site i've seen - thx.

7/23/2006 7:18 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Anonymous: My Pleasure.

7/23/2006 7:43 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

rich, we've read the Lamont blogs--now that's real anger--maybe even rage, but I suppose that you're used to that language there and are just suprised to see an opposing view.

Yes dearie, we do have an opposing view. AND we have BILL!

Not that Lamont has Bill, I suppose it would have certainly made his day to get BILL, but it didn't happen for him.....awww. And of course, lets not forget, with BILL comes all that media coverage and they're all gonna look at why BILL thinks Lamont and his Nuts aren't right for America.

Maybe you could buy your Lamont Lost mourning clothes at Walmart--at least Ned will earn a few more coins from your purchase, of course you know that profit doesn't go into any kind of decent payroll for those people who work there, but it does go into the pockets of Walmart's investors.

I thought I read that Lamont was for a higher minimum wage--sorta like him being against the war, but he DOES like his money--that's why he's keeping his profitable Halliburton stock.

Walmart Stock, but higher minimum wage
Halliburton Stock, but against the war
Rich WhiteGuys Country Club, but NIMBY
Republican votes, but I'm the real democrat
Selectman, but I think I can, I think I can.

Phooey. What a phoney.

7/23/2006 7:45 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Truth Alert: At one time (but not now), Lamont had a small ($15-$50K) position in Halliburton via a mutual fund.

Any profit made on this investment was negligible, at least compared to the many millions of dollars defense contractors have contributed to the Lieberman campaign.

Lamont does not have "Halliburton stock", and only did at one point because a mutual fund he owned bought it.

7/23/2006 7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Russ Feingold is good, Joe Lieberman is bad, and all evidence to the contrary be damned.

See, this is why Lieberman is going to lose and lose big.

What the heck does Feingold have to do with the Senate primary in Connecticut? Absolutely nothing. So you dedicate a whole post talking about Feingold when the issue is Lieberman's behavior and how it play with the voters in Connecticut.

Last time I checked, the "bloggers" weren't electing the Democratic nominee. The voters were. So keep focusing on "bloggers" and you hasten your own defeat.

Because Lieberman has a problem with the people of Connecticut. The bloggers are irrelevant.

7/23/2006 7:57 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

I love how the Liebermanatees (if Lamont supporters are Lamontistas and Lieberhaters then we need a counterpoint) want to make the race about whether Lieberman was smart or craven in his speech denouncing Clinton. Here's my answer: I don't give a diddly damn, and neither do most voters. If that was the basis of Lamont's run, he'd be losing 95%-5%.

Lieberman is wrong on the single most profound issue of our time. That's why he'll lose. And, CentristDem, that's why people won't "address the topic of the post." It is a sad little attempt to change the focus of the debate, kinda like Halliburton stock. Sorry... no dice. I'll focus on the last six years instead of 1998. And so will the voters of Connecticut. And that's why Lamont will win and Lieberman will lose.

Debate that.

7/23/2006 7:58 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Anonymous: Amen to that. Couldn't have said it better myself!

7/23/2006 7:59 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

"We also want to pass along a traffic advisory concerning President Clinton's visit to Waterbury.

Police tell us a couple roads near the Palace Theater will be closed to traffic during the visit.

They are East Main Street and Brook Street. The closures go into effect tomorrow morning."

Might as well put the heads back in front of the AFL CIO--might be good to PO them again.

7/23/2006 8:01 PM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

Lieberman is wrong on the single most profound issue of our time. That's why he'll lose.

But Lamont swears he's not running a one-issue campaign! Who's wrong, you or him?

7/23/2006 8:07 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Cut and Run Lamont? That' not very partiotic to put the military or the people of Iraq at risk now is it? Lamont isn't a patriot and his flip-flopping on an immediate pull-out looks dumb. He's ill advised--another reason not to vote for him.

No experience with military advisory at all--nothing new there to add. How the hell does he come off giving advise about how to oversee the war? I mean--he hasn't actually given us a plan yet? Has he? Or is he waiting for someone to tell him what to say--not that he knows anything about it to begin with--I mean really, does he have to wait for Kos to tell him when to speak--does he have his own mind? He's a puppet.

7/23/2006 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What the heck does Feingold have to do with the Senate primary in Connecticut? Absolutely nothing. So you dedicate a whole post talking about Feingold when the issue is Lieberman's behavior and how it play with the voters in Connecticut."

The point was that Lieberman's opponents have accused him of stabbing Clinton in the back. If you'll concede that Lieberman didn't stab Clinton in the back, then we'll leave Russ Feingold out of it.

But if you continue to push that lie, then we have every right to point out that the charge is hypocritical unless you're also ready to condemn Feingold.

7/23/2006 8:13 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

This is what Lieberworld Calls A "Single Issue"

Our brave men and women 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.

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 is being held to account. Lieberman simply has lost any viability as a Senator because of his prominent role in the Glorious War of Iraqi Lieberation. Lamont's plan seems reasonable, but that's almost secondary at this point.

Think about it - if you give the car keys to your teenage son, and he goes and wraps your car around a tree trunk, when he comes home do you let him try again with your other car, and see if things turn out any better?

Hell no.

7/23/2006 8:15 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I think you just conceded the Lieberman didn't stab Clinton in the back.

7/23/2006 8:16 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

y.g. -

It's completely dihonest to say WE are the ones changing the subject, since it's Lamont's supporters that first brought up Lieberman's speech and have consistently tried to use it to bash him.

As I said, if you'll stop spreading the absurb lie that Lieberman somehow stabbed Clinton in the back, then we'll be HAPPY to talk about other issues. Because Lieberman has a solid progressive record, and THAT'S what the Lieberman-haters are so desperate to stop people from seeing.

7/23/2006 8:17 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lieberman bashed himself with that speech

That speech marked one of the lowest points for this country in the past 50 years.

7/23/2006 8:19 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Yo L4L, That's what insurance is for.

Kinda like Bill for Joe. Kinda like an indy run to need be protect the people od Connecticut from a phoney.

7/23/2006 8:20 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Who's replacing our sons and daughers?

7/23/2006 8:22 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

CD--they have to say what the are told to say. It's automatic, they've been conditioned to do so. Obviously, as the hours tick by closer and closer to Bill landing and C-SPAN replaying the event so the whole world can see what the angry, divisive, filthmouth, jihadist Lamonsitas really are all about, they're going to get more and more spooked. They're now struggling with the coming end of their existence. Bill can destroy it. And they are freaking.

7/23/2006 8:24 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

What's Lamont's plan for the end of the war?

Come on--what is it? Has he actually got one or is he really just all fluff and stuff? He's got no bite. Is he stung from getting a whip-down for the last plan--Cut and Run? C'mon, what's your man got? He's got nothing except Kos hand working his strings and flapping his puppet mouth for him.

7/23/2006 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point was that Lieberman's opponents have accused him of stabbing Clinton in the back. If you'll concede that Lieberman didn't stab Clinton in the back, then we'll leave Russ Feingold out of it.

Lieberman did stab Clinton in the back. Whether Russ also did so or not is irrelevant to this race. You are trying to score points against bloggers, when you should be wondering why the people of Connecticut have tired of their 18-year senator.

But again, keep it up. As long as you attack Jane and Markos and Atrios and whoever else, you're firing at completely the wrong target. In fact, that may be the best service done by bloggers in this race -- fooling you guys and the Lieberman campaign into thinking that they have any power or influence.

And incidentally, if you want an answer to this post, mcjoan at Daily Kos provided it.

Link.

"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.

Besides, Feingold has made many other mistakes. He voted to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General. He voted to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice. These were votes of principle for Feingold (like his solitary vote against the Patriot Act). He did not see them as opportunities to apple polish for the media by taking swipes at fellow Democrats. He was not paraded on Fox News to chastise fellow Democrats. Guess who was? (BTW, in bringing Feingold into this discussion, I take it the LieberDems have given up their false smears of anti-Semitism against Lamont supporters.)"

7/23/2006 8:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seedfreek said:
"Jihadist and Radical are such scary words. It would certainly make me want to get out and vote."

Karl Rove couldn't agree more. When one is losing on the issues, the only winning path is hysterical nonsense.

7/23/2006 8:33 PM  
Blogger Nazgul35 said...

Geez...how simple and lame at the same time. The reason no one is addressing the "points" is that there aren't any.

Nothing but strawman arguments and moral equivalancy...I know, surpising coming from a Liebman supporter.

First, way to go with the use of the word "many." You never have to back it up with actual evidence and can then go about your strawman attack and create a false opposition to something that doesn't exist.

For example, the idea that the Clinton "stab in the back" was the only reason Joementum is a disloyal Democrat is disengenuous. People have pointed to this as the start of Sen. Lieberman's slide into irrelevancy. It is also entertaining to see, six years on, that Sen. Lieberman's supporters are so eager to down-play this incident when it was the whole point of his being picked for VP. He dared to call out the president...that shows morals from that dirty Bill Cliton.

No one knew who the hell Lieberman was until DLCers in DC convinced Gore that he needed to distance himself from Clinton's problems.

As far as not voting for it...Sen Lieberman has a history of playing shell games with his voting record. Judge Alito as "exhibit A!" The problem was that his speech was used by the opposition to give them bipartisanship cover and allowed them to waist $50 million on an investigation that led to nothing.

But Sen. Lieberman has not made a single call to investigate any of the current administrations far more serious crimes. Why not use that Fox news time to make some serious effort to protect this country?

He merely believed that the President's personal conduct with Lewinsky was morally damaging to the country, and felt compelled to say so publicly.

OK...so what has Joe said about Bush? One of the worst Presidents in this countries history...and we get scolded by Sen. Lieberman...I guess he never read Ben Franklin.

I hope that if the Senator does survive this challenge he actually learns something, but considering his attitude to date....I doubt it.

PS: Nice examples of projection guys....the Onion couldn't make a better parody!

Keep up the good work.

7/23/2006 8:34 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lamont's plan to draw down our troops in Iraq is described here. Basically it is the same plan that actual Democrats in Congress have already advocated.

At this point, the most important thing is to change course. Why should Lamont even have anything but the vaguest notion of how to execute "the plan" on the ground in Iraq? He is not a general, and does not have any access to the Pentagon or any of that stuff.

Lamont is advocating a sane policy. That is in itself vastly better than Lieberman.

7/23/2006 8:34 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

"Jihadist and Radical are such scary words. It would certainly make me want to get out and vote."

Karl Rove couldn't agree more. When one is losing on the issues, the only winning path is hysterical nonsense."

Trained by a republican to act like republicans...Lamonsitas--the right wing in sheep's clothing.

7/23/2006 8:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's Lamont's plan for the end of the war?

Ha ha. No one has a "plan for the end of the war", much less Lieberman.

Lamont's plan is to get us out of Iraq.

The war was lost the second Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Lieberman decided it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

7/23/2006 8:38 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

When it comes to right wing credentials for a Democrat, nobody else even comes close to Lieberman.

William F. Buckley, the best conservative thinker of our time, has come out in support of Joe Lieberman. You can find his endorsement, along with endorsements from Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly here:

http://liebermania.blogspot.com

The Official Site of Lieberman for Lieberman

7/23/2006 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Joe - Remember when Ned Lamont flip-flopped on is Iraq position? Me neither.

7/23/2006 8:50 PM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

Here's the Lamont "plan" (from his website, linked above):

Our best chance of success requires that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny. America should make clear that we have no designs upon their oil and no plans for permanent bases. While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home.

How does he differ from George W. Bush?

7/23/2006 8:59 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

For one thing, Supreme Leader Bush is doing everything he possibly can to expand the war into Iran. Also, Lieberman is on record saying he supports unilaterally attacking Iran.

That's a pretty big difference.

7/23/2006 9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talk about changing the subject...

7/23/2006 9:30 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Actually, there is no change of subject here at all.

Does anyone else remember "Iraq has WMD" drumbeat to war for Iraq? It was one of the first of many excuses given by Lieberman/Bush/Cheney for the Iraq war.

Now, we are hearing the same thing over again for Iran. Yet the experts claim that Iran's nuclear capability is being vastly overstated.

Sound familiar?

Lamont wants to ramp down our evil middle-east warmongering and killing, instead of doubling or tripling it.

7/23/2006 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's another example of their hypocrisy. Joe Lieberman is often criticized for voting for cloture on Justice Alito's nomination even though he ended up voting against confirmation. But wasn't Russ Feingold -- who is my Senator -- the only Democrat on the Judicial Committee to vote to allow John Ashcroft's nomination for Attorney General to come to the floor? It was ironic because Wisconsin's other Senator Herb Kohl is a much more moderate Democrat and he voted no on the nomination going forward and no on confirmation. Feingold voted yes to both. And somehow, I remember Feingold being critical of Ashcroft's critics and pretty much dismissing some of them as being not credible.

BTW, Joe Lieberman voted against confirming Ashcroft. The other Senator from Connecticut voted to confirm him.

To be fair, many leftists were apopolectic over those votes by Feingold which they saw as selling out his vote for the promise of campaign finance reform. But once he became the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act,all was forgiven.

Of course, if that had been Joe Lieberman who had voted to move Ashcroft's nomination out of committee and then had voted to confirm him on the Senate floor and later had voted against the Patriot Act, the left blogosphere would have been adrift with indigant blogs about how Lieberman was personally responsible for the mess and deriding his vote against The Patriot Act as being "too little, too late."

7/23/2006 10:01 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

The "left blogosphere" ain't Joe's problem

What part of this don't you understand?

Joe Lieberman has been a high profile Democratic sellout and back-stabber for the past six years. Now he is being held to account.

Joe's problem is that Connecticut voters don't want him

7/23/2006 10:07 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 10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L: you're very noisy. I really don't find your posts very persuasive at all. Careful not to froth at the mouth so much. If you drool, you might short circuit your computer.

Besides, if I want biased misinformation and poor writing, I'll head to dailykos or the free republic. Those sites are two sides of the same coin.

7/23/2006 10:38 PM  
Anonymous JoeBob said...

This site is pathetic. It reads like a page from "Carl Rove for Dummies." The consistent self-delusion, attacking messengers, projecting the shortcomings of Lieberman on his opponents, and the uninterrupted sleaze is disgusting.

Before Lieberman began his text-book Republican-brand campaign of smear and sneer I was trying to decide who I wanted to vote for in the primary. That's long since been answered by Joe, himself. I do not want to be represented by a self-centered, loathsome, (multiple)turncoat Neo-Con in Progressive's clothing. I want someone I can trust, someone who puts my interests ahead of his, someone who is more concerned with constitution issues than conjugal ones.

I'm ready to vote for Alan Schlesinger before Lieberman. At least Schlesinger admits who he is, and doesn't try to run away from his documented past. Luckily, I'll have Lamont to vote for, instead.

7/24/2006 12:03 AM  
Anonymous Patrick Henry said...

This is really an Orwellian mischaracterization of Joe Lieberman's 1998 speech on Bill Clinton's behavior & impeachment. This blogpost is dishonorable; the author is misusing his Democratic audience just as surely as Joe Lieberman misuses his Senate office.

In 1998 Lieberman's false moralism came at a critical juncture and reeked of opportunism. It looked as though Clinton might ride out the storm, but Lieberman's stand -- the first by a Democrat to break ranks -- gave impeachment efforts the momentum it needed move ahead. It lent credence to the unprincipled lie that personal matters could rise to the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Painting Joe Lieberman as the Sen. Dale Bumpers of the Clinton impeachment process is clearly one of the most egregious lies uttered in public life today.

Senator Bumpers saved this nation's bacon. Sen. Lieberman exploited the moment for political gain by furthering the unprincpled and immoral notion that the moral issue of consensual sex could EVER be a constitutional issue. That was a grave disservice.

You make a great case that Sen. Russell Feingold is a principled centrist Democrat. In substance, Lieberman is that radical here; Feingold the moderate hewing to principle.

I called Lieberman's office in 1998 about this -- and in 2003 & after when it became clear that Bush lied America into war.

The hypocrisy is astounding. Clinton's petty lies about sex merit Lieberman's scolding -- but Bush's lies about an obscene and immoral war prompt nothing but silence from Joe Lieberman.

It's irreconcilable -- and an untenable position for Joe. Do we really need to cite the human carnage in Iraq to expose Sen. Joe Lieberman's utter failure of moral leadership? But this is also a Constitutional issue of grave import. Lieberman's overt approval of Bush's betrayal of our constitutional process -- the error is the breach of trust is with US -- is a political rupture that capitulates Lieberman's sworn role as a Senator to the Executive branch.

Lieberman's exploitation of moral issues actively betrays American political/legal principles -- beyond the impeachment and war issues. His work with the PMRC paternalistically presumes to protect families -- it does no such thing -- from the "dangers" of rock music lyrics. Yet it willingly degrades the principles of free market, free speech, and political expression. It was just another witch hunt.

Sen. Lieberman has been milking his civil rights work -- from 1964. Forty years ago! Yet he hasn't been to the African-American constituencies in 18 years! And has been equally absent from current debate on the Civil Rights Act, on voting rights in Florida or in general.

Where is Joe Lieberman's moderation now? Where is his devotion to principle?

I repeat: Joe Lieberman is no moderate. He is not bipartisan. His false moralism reeks of political opportunism, and in choosing minor pecadillos rather than "high crimes and misdemeanors" to speak out on, shows a hypocrisy and banality that loses any and all claims to moral leadership.

Lieberman dared to mention Halliburton recently (in the context of Lamont's holdings). But where was Lieberman's moral leadership for the past six years on Halliburton's no-bid contracts, corruption, malfeasance??? Where was his moral stand? His filibuster?

Again, Feingold is the principled moderate here. Lieberman is the radical extremist with refuses to adhere to core princples or the best interests of the country. We don't have an imperial Presidency here; we don't elect tyrants -- yet everything Bush does is just A-OK with Joe Lieberman.

That's in and of itself a wholesale betrayal of Joe Lieberman's sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Feingold voted the way he did to uphold the balance of powers. Lieberman & others were peeved they couldn't control Clinton in terms of foreign policy.

7/24/2006 4:08 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Maybe you are too lazy to look into Lieberman's record to realize the enormous number of times he has criticized Bush. It's ok. I understand. Most Lieberman-haters are either too intellectually dishonest or too lazy to find and acknowledge the gaping holes in your arguments (much less finding the courage to face up to them and address them).

So here are a few choice examples for you. I could find many more, but a guy's gotta work, you know?

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush on stem cell research:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=258819

Here is Lieberman criticizing Bush's economic policies:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207942&&

Here is Lieberman denouncing Bush's stance on affirmative action:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=207356&&

On energy and transportation spending:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=251348

On education:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=232428&&

On giving wilderness lands to the oil and gas industry (a la ANWR):
http://www.senate.gov/comm/governmental_affairs/general/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=R&PressRelease_id=546&Month=10&Year=2003

On Bush's undermining of Federal regulations:
http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=C&PressRelease_id=340&Month=12&Year=2002


So stop spreading the complete BS that Lieberman never stands up to Bush. He does, and frequently. You just choose not to see it because it's inconvenient to your argument.

I gotta agree with that anon - it's a very Rovian mentality.

7/24/2006 6:32 AM  
Anonymous Herbert92X. said...

This blog is really Orwellian. The Lieberman supports come on here, call names, accuse the Lamont supporters of being mentally ill and then accuse them of using Republican tacticts? Anyone else but me see the irony is this.

PS. I am not CT voter, but I am a Democrat from neighboring New York. I have been watching the Lamont/Leiberman campaign quite closely. At first, I was annoyed with it. I thought it was foolish. Then I thought it was divisive. Now, after reading the garbage on here,I am definitely turned off of Lieberman. I supposed I'll support him if he wins the Demo nomination, but if he loses, I will definitely be contributing to Lamont.

7/24/2006 6:33 AM  
Blogger Susan said...

The Orwellians are the Republican enablers who are trying to oust Lieberman in an attempt to purge the party of everybody they think aren't "pure" enough.

They will so marginalize the Democratic Party, the Republicans will never have to rig another election.

7/24/2006 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First on Lie-berman's false rovian smear attempt re: Halliburton....Is Joe a novice? Does he really want people to look into his pro war industry, pro pharma voting record and put it up against his stock portfolio? C'mon....http://connpost.com/news/ci_4077987

Second, this statement creeps me out enough from Holy Joe,

"Lieberman is a study in the dangers of steroidal muscularity, becoming an outlier in his own party. (He has edged to the right as his running mate in the 2000 election, Al Gore, has moved leftward.) His fate was sealed with a kiss, planted on his cheek by Bush, just after the President delivered his State of the Union address. “That may have been the last straw for some of the people in Connecticut, the blogger types,” Lieberman told me. But he is unapologetic about his defense of Bush’s Iraq policy, saying, “Bottom line, I think Bush has it right.” When I asked if he was becoming a neoconservative, Lieberman smiled and said, “No, but some of my best friends are neocons.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/index.ssf?050321fa_fact

And finally this, the SOTU:

"Watch as Bush spins his Iraq message and Lieberman jumps out of his seat faster than anyone else in the place including all of the Republicans."

http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/see-lieberman-jump-for-joy.html

Hard to rewrite history when it can be thrown back in your face in VIDEO.

Oh Yeah...BLOGGER.COM SUCKS! Worst comment posting attempt ever. Blogger, get your errors sorted.

7/24/2006 8:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We know what Lieberman said. He sold out Bill Clinton, just as he will gladly sell out the Democratic party if he doesn't get what he wants.

"Mr. Lamont goes to Washington!"

7/24/2006 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Susuan,
With due respect, you are 100% wrong. No one is tryig to purge anyone is who isn't pure. There is no move to purge Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, who are up for reelection this year. There is no move to stop the election campaign of anti abortion, pro war Bob Casey, Jr. The primary challenge to Hillary Clinton is receiving minute support from the left. Look at the facts, they don't support your claim.

7/24/2006 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I guess you know better than Lieberman and what Lieberman meant in 1998.

More mindreaders! It's amazing! I think all the Lieberman-haters must be temporal telepaths. It's the only way to explain how they "know" what Lieberman's motivations were when he made the speech that gave Democrats the strategy to save Clinton's presidency.

Well, either they're temporal telepaths or just really terrible liars. Which is it, Lieberman-haters?

7/24/2006 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be sure to check out today's DAILY HOWLER. Turns out there were quite a few Democrats who expressed their displeasure with Clinton publicly over the Lewinsky matter. And, gasp!, some of them weren't even from the dreaded DLC!

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072406.shtml

Sorry, I don't know how to do a link here.

7/24/2006 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Davebo said...

"Not all Connecticut voters get the chance to vote next month."

All registered democrats do. That's the way primaries work you know.

Then, normally, a winner is chosen and the losers throw their support to the winner in support of the party.

Then again, perhaps you can't vote in the primary.

Lieberman obviously doesn't grasp that whole "support the party" think that's for sure.

7/24/2006 2:06 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home