Friday, July 07, 2006

Hotline "On Call" Blog's Take

They essentially say that the net impact of the debate will likely favor Lieberman - and pretty strongly.

Mercurio says there are 3 issues that Lamont "handed" to Lieberman:
1) High gas prices
2) Congressional earmarks (Lamont blatantly took both sides on the issue)
3) Failing to answer Joe's question on tax returns and wasting his own chance to ask a question of Lieberman

These issues "will play well with the more practical, less dovish workaday Dems who live far from Greenwich and who have kept Lieberman in office for decades." Mercurio's words, not mine.


Blogger Zengerite said...

We've been posting about the Lamont finances / tax return disclosure at

How the Lamont fortune was built and how it is being maintained is something we know Ned Lamont does not want to disclose through income tax returns. Part of this is that he probably doesn't want Annie's income from Oak to be exposed- might be too interesting for the entities that invest with Oak and for Oak's competitors.

It doesn't take much research to find areas where you just have to wonder about what Ned and Annie are trying to deflect.

Annie Lamont is a director of a company called Psychiatric Solutions, Inc- a portfolio investment of her private equity fund.

I posted an article of concern about from Business Week about PSI. They've had troubles, Annie is involved in their corporate governance.

I'm not saying there's a nexus, but Ned Lamont is forcing us to look further into his family finances by refusing to disclose. Is this about Ned's finances, Annie's or both?

7/08/2006 1:34 PM  
Blogger Ken Balbari said...

Of more concern than what is in those reurns might have been Lamonts blatant dishonesty in answering the question, claiming he'd done "everything asked of him" and released documentation on "everything there is to know".

Apparently "everything" doesn't include his tax returns. And he didn't hear Senator Lieberman just ask him to release them?

It seemed to me that Lieberman for much of the debate was trying to portay Ned as an opportunist who hasn't been clear or consistent about what he really believes. Ned's inability to give a direct answer to such a simple question seemed to confirm the suspicion.

7/13/2006 4:33 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home