More Truth on Lieberman's Record
The Connecticut Post today became the latest state media outlet to publish an analysis piece busting the myths about Joe Lieberman's Democratic credentials and reaffirming that Lieberman is more than within the Democratic mainstream.
The article by Peter Urban is particularly noteworthy because it examines Lieberman's voting record in the Bush era, not just over his entire career. Here's the key graphs:
Since winning re-election in 2000, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman has been a more dependable Democratic vote than during his two prior terms.
When Democrats and Republicans disagreed, Lieberman voted 90.5 percent of the time with his colleagues in roll call votes cast during his third term.
He sided with the majority of Democrats over Republicans only 78.9 percent of the time over the previous 10 years.
The 11.6 percentage point swing belies assertions by his critics — including Ned Lamont, his challenger in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary — that Lieberman has moved away from the Democratic mainstream. . .
The Connecticut Post examined 5,338 roll call votes cast in the Senate between Jan. 1, 1991, and June 22, 2006. Casting aside the votes in which the majority of Democrats and Republicans agreed, Lieberman stood with Democrats on 2,369 of 2,871 roll call votes, or 82.5 percent. Dodd voted 90.9 percent of the time with the Democratic majority during the same period.
But Lieberman's record shifted over time to support Democrats more often in his third term than he had in the previous decade.
Since winning re-election in 2000, Lieberman has sided with Democrats over Republicans on 813 of 898 roll call votes where the parties disagreed, or 90.5 percent. From 1991 through 2000, Lieberman sided with Democrats on 1,556 of 1,973 votes, or 78.9 percent. Lieberman and Dodd voted the same way on 2,460 of the 2,871 contested roll call votes — or 85.7 percent of the time. The two shared similar views on almost all the "key votes" that the National Journal identified in the 108th Congress. On those dozen votes, they separated on a single issue — restricting deployment of the Bush administration's missile defense system. Lieberman was for it, Dodd opposed.
They voted together in opposition to oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bush's tax cuts and energy policy. They voted together in support of abortion rights, extending an assault weapons ban and funding the Iraq war.
Lieberman receives a ranking of 76.4 percent from ProgressivePunch, a nonpartisan searchable database of Congressional voting records from a liberal perspective. The score, however, was deflated because of votes missed while Lieberman was running for president in 2003. He scored 85.5 percent among the 414 votes evaluated in which he actually voted. Dodd scores 87.2 percent from the liberal group.
The article by Peter Urban is particularly noteworthy because it examines Lieberman's voting record in the Bush era, not just over his entire career. Here's the key graphs:
Since winning re-election in 2000, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman has been a more dependable Democratic vote than during his two prior terms.
When Democrats and Republicans disagreed, Lieberman voted 90.5 percent of the time with his colleagues in roll call votes cast during his third term.
He sided with the majority of Democrats over Republicans only 78.9 percent of the time over the previous 10 years.
The 11.6 percentage point swing belies assertions by his critics — including Ned Lamont, his challenger in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary — that Lieberman has moved away from the Democratic mainstream. . .
The Connecticut Post examined 5,338 roll call votes cast in the Senate between Jan. 1, 1991, and June 22, 2006. Casting aside the votes in which the majority of Democrats and Republicans agreed, Lieberman stood with Democrats on 2,369 of 2,871 roll call votes, or 82.5 percent. Dodd voted 90.9 percent of the time with the Democratic majority during the same period.
But Lieberman's record shifted over time to support Democrats more often in his third term than he had in the previous decade.
Since winning re-election in 2000, Lieberman has sided with Democrats over Republicans on 813 of 898 roll call votes where the parties disagreed, or 90.5 percent. From 1991 through 2000, Lieberman sided with Democrats on 1,556 of 1,973 votes, or 78.9 percent. Lieberman and Dodd voted the same way on 2,460 of the 2,871 contested roll call votes — or 85.7 percent of the time. The two shared similar views on almost all the "key votes" that the National Journal identified in the 108th Congress. On those dozen votes, they separated on a single issue — restricting deployment of the Bush administration's missile defense system. Lieberman was for it, Dodd opposed.
They voted together in opposition to oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bush's tax cuts and energy policy. They voted together in support of abortion rights, extending an assault weapons ban and funding the Iraq war.
Lieberman receives a ranking of 76.4 percent from ProgressivePunch, a nonpartisan searchable database of Congressional voting records from a liberal perspective. The score, however, was deflated because of votes missed while Lieberman was running for president in 2003. He scored 85.5 percent among the 414 votes evaluated in which he actually voted. Dodd scores 87.2 percent from the liberal group.
68 Comments:
Thanks for this article.
I think the best analysis I have read so far on the Lamont-Lieberman race was just published by Mark Schmidt, at TPMcafe, the centrist website that has been fairly evenhanded.
It is worth a read
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/jul/31/the_end_of_checklist_liberalism
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
God in heaven. What will the millionaire laywer stoop to next?
Sheesh.
So tell us, what were those ten percent of votes that Lieberman was not reliably Democratic on.
Stop with this silliness if you want to make a serious argument.
A nd deal with Senator Lieberman is public figure as well.
For example, Michael Schiavo had something to say at daily kos about Mr. Lieberman and his attitude towards the disgraceful performance of the Congress in the Schiavo affair.
That won't show up in your silly posts of course.
Joe ma win this race, but he surely has been exposed for the petty, mean, disloyal, and most damning, misguided politician that he is.
He will be known now and forever as a Fox Leibercrat. And his public condemnations of his own party will now be toothless.
It must hurt him and his followers to know that the charade of Lieberman the Democrat will never be the same, no matter what the result of this election.
Great article.
Kos today has posted pictures of Ned Lamont. In a move that, once again, is dishonest. He shows Ned Lamont with tons of people, failing to note that Lamont showed up at the Irish festival. Kos wants us to believe that all these supporters turned out for him.
vote4joe is right. Don't vote on Aug 8 for KOS as Democratic nominee for CT senator.
That Nutty Ned Lamont and all of those swarms of Connecticut voters - who the hell do they think they are?
Wow...L4L is really busy creating "anonymous" posters to agree with him.
Pretty much no one reads the comments besides the people who write them, so he doesn't realize that no one cares.
Help. I'm a centrist Democrat and I have been supporting Joe Lieberman because I am nostalgic for the good old days when moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans worked together. I think Joe had helped unify this country at a pretty divisive time.
Now I read that the Lieberman campaign is distributing flyers, under the radar, at Black churches, accusing Lamont of being a racist. I don't understand why so much of the Lieberman campaign has been about personal attacks on his opponent. But this seems to go too far.
I hope that the remainder of the campaign will be about the issues. Not just about Lieberman defending himself as being entitle to re-election because he is not too conservative, or because he is progressive enough. What are the differences ON THE ISSUES between the candidates, according to the Lieberman campaign?
And why is Lieberman allowing his campaign to use such divisive and underhanded attacks. These leaflets are like Lee Atwater and the Willy Horton tactics of George H.W. Bush. I would have expected better of Lieberman.
no one cares? Then why are you posting so much, centristdem? Are you being paid?
Hey Lieberman supporters - looks like that race-baiting tactic has been a big success. Have you seen how much money the Lamont people have been raising today?
THANKS FOR THE HELP!
Has anyone actually seen this flyer? Or is this another product of the Lieberman-hater echo chamber, like the BS about the blogger at the Clinton rally?
moderation, you work for the Lieberman campaign, so stop pretending you don't know about the race-baiting flyer. Thank you.
babablacksheep...
Don't you realize that in America, elected officials are entitled to re-election unless they are involved in a scandal. If you vote the way your constituency wants most of the time, there is no reason for people to get upset about your outrageous statements and votes on the most important issues.
I live and work in Canada, so it would be pretty tough for me to work for the Lieberman campaign.
Pay him no mind, moderation. He is one of the many Lieberman-haters that are so arrogant that they believe no sane and rational person could ever possibly support Lieberman unless they were being paid to do so.
It's the mentality that drove Sundog off their ranch.
Hey L4L - you grow a backbone yet? Apparently not, because you still just can't bring yourself to actually respond to the post.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
GoJoe.
Where is Joe on the Iraq War? The top Dems just sent the president a letter on the subject, and it doesn't look like Joe signed it.
The Democrats are sending a unified message to the White House about increasing troop levels. This is time for Sen. Lieberman to take a principled stand, before his party leaders get too far and compromise the credibility of the president at a time of war. This is getting perilously close to, well, you know, a real debate.
Stand up Joe, we need you NOW.
Hopefully, after the election, Joe can take another trip to Iraq to tell us how good things are going there, because the message didn't seem to hold the last time.
huh? Why would Lamont supporters not vote for the winner of the primary? They are united in opposition to Bush and the Republicans, and are disappointed in Sen. Lieberman not standing with them in this opposition. But that is no reason to not support the Democrat in the general election.
Lieberman voted "nay" on Thomas.
nice try though.
Badger said...
Lieberman voted "nay" on Thomas.
Yes, after he made that outrageous speech on the floor of the Senate. Read the whole article.
Sundog,
I don't want to burst your bubble, but please don't be too upset or shocked if there are not many people who care about your personal life story or the evolution of your thinking about the Lamont-Lieberman race. It might be different in the future, if you establish yourself as a blogger with a following or a reputation.
One of Joe's great strengths has always been his great sense of humor. It has help him build powerful relationships in Connecticut and in Washington that have made him so effective as a Senator.
This video features Joe's great sense of humor, winning laugh and magnetic smile. Anyone who loves Joe needs to watch him in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9EbssUgHj4
This is very funny, but it also rminds me how important it is that Joe should not loose to a ONE-ISSUE candidate!
Lieberman never said Democrats should not criticize Bush on the war; merely that they should be measured and reasonable when they do so. That was the point of his speech that the Lieberman-haters so love to cite - that it's ok to have disagreements with one another as long as you can come together on the wider issues.
seedfreak said:
You've got a bunch of keyed up people, fed on rage, and after the election they have nothing to focus their rage on. If they riot and destroy public property will Lamont foot the bill for the clean-up? Will he be responsible for his supporters (re)actions?
I think this comment is way over the top. There's lots of criticism of L4L and SunDog, and perhaps some of it is reasonable, but this is not it. Seedfreak, I invite you to retract and apologize for the above statement.
Lamont supporters are not anarchists, or rioters, or criminals, fueled by a blinding rage. That kind of overgeneralization of a group of people is what fuels bigotry. I hope you're better than this.
CentristDem, LieberDem, CMBurns, Ken Balbari- do you stand with this Ann Coulter wannabe when he claims that Lamont supporters are so full of rage that they might riot and destroy public property? Is this what I would stand with when I support Joe Lieberman in the general election, if he won the primary? Is this what being a Lieberman Democrat is all about- attacking and ridiculing the opposition?
Here are some of the things that I disagree with, but will have to swallow and go along with if Joe wins the primary:
- Iraq is "just another issue" and not as important as some other issues on the liberal checklist(CentristDem)
- We should commit more blood, money and time to Iraq (Ken Balbari, CMBurns)
- Fighting Alito and losing wasn't worth standing on principle on behalf of the American people (various)
- Gay marriage should be opposed, and gays should be happy with "separate but equal" civil unions (CMBurns)
I disagree with it, and it will be hard for me to swallow, but in the interests of a unified Democratic Party, I'll do it. I'll support Joe Lieberman in the general election if he wins the primary.
Seedfreak, CentristDem, CMBurns, LieberDem, Ken Balbari- will you do the same?
CentristDem said:
Lieberman never said Democrats should not criticize Bush on the war; merely that they should be measured and reasonable when they do so
You're being intellectually dishonest here, because neither you, Joe Lieberman, nor for that matter President Bush specify how exactly criticism should be modified to be made "reasonable".
President Bush has frequently said that "reasonable" criticism is okay, but he and Joe Lieberman both neglect to mention what they consider to be "unreasonable" or "reasonable". Without that, it's nothing more than a smear on the opposition by labelling them as "unreasonable", "extreme", "not measured", etc.
Both Joe Lieberman and President Bush come across as paternalistic and arrogant in that regard, which is especially infuriating considering two salient facts:
1. They're both VERY, VERY WRONG about the Iraq War. Criticizing someone who is VERY, VERY WRONG about something is by definition reasonable.
2. The implication is that by wishing to "measure" or inject more "reason" into a debate without specifying how to do that, they simply wish to restrict the debate and step on people's right to free speech.
F--k them both.
Dan Gerstein, you should ashamed of yourself. Why did you hide your affliation with the Lieberman campaign?
CentristDem,
Who the heck is Holy Joe to decide what speech is reasonable and what is perilous to our country? Was he electe to this role or annointed by some supernatural power.
I'm not sure how this process works in a Democracy. Let's see, we have some sanctimonious person with an exaggerated sense of entitlement who get's to tell people in his own party when is is OK for them to take a certain position, and if he doesn't deem it reasonable. then he can publically condemn and shame them by saying they endanger our country (is that like being a traitor, Ann Coulter?).
SeedFreek,
You're quoting RealClearPolitics.com in support of Lieberman.
Did you ever stop to wonder why a right wing website would be so enamored with an allegedly liberal politician?
Liar, liar, campaign on fire.
The commenters are correct Sundog.
"This website is not funded by, authorized by, or affiliated with any campaign or candidate. "
This is a blatant lie.
It is not just the dishonest disclaimer of this website. Look at the subheading...
"The (unofficial) blog for practical progressives."
"unofficial" - my a$$
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
I'd rather have my teeth extracted than put up with another six years of Joementum.
Since this blog isn't officially associated with the Lieberman campaign, there should be no problem doing a post on the Iraq War, right? Right?
When was the last time a contributor posted about Iraq and opened the discussion up for solutions? How deep should I go into the archives?
I have to wonder how many more posts are going to be of the "Lamont supporters are lying because Joe Lieberman really IS a liberal" nature. Of course, once you actually read further you find out that, in reality, Lamont supporters DO have their facts straight, they're just overemphasizing or misinterpreting the importance of those facts. (sigh) Whatever.
It's time for this blog to get some balls and post about Iraq. Dan Gerstein, one of the regular contributors to this blog, probably is under orders not to talk about Iraq, but what about all the other contributor(s) that aren't affiliated with the Lieberman campaign?
Joe Lieberman doesn't want to talk about it anymore, but that doesn't mean Lieberman supporters can't talk about it. A large majority want to find a way out of Iraq, soon. Why doesn't LieberDem want to post about that?
It's time for LieberDem to post about Iraq. Otherwise, I (and other Lamont supporters) will continue to be criticized for commenting "off-topic". Iraq is a big issue, and ignoring it won't make it go away, for LieberDem or for Joe Lieberman.
I was glad to see the Courant endorse Lieberman over the weekend.
I wonder if Joe feels that getting the endorsement of a paper that endorsed Bush in both 2000 and 2004 is a good thing?
Has Lamont actually come up with a PLAN for the end of the war? I haven't seen that on his site.
Well, it took all of 5 seconds for me to find it.
Have you tried looking for it with your monitor turned on?
seedfreak, my point was that rather than have Lamont supporters get criticized for posting off topic (even though I didn't see LiebermanDemocrat get criticized for the doing the same thing this past weekend), why doesn't LieberDem do some posts on Iraq? And now, technically, you're posting off-topic as well, since you're talking about the war. Should we criticize you for getting off-topic?
Since LieberDem isn't officially affiliated with the Lieberman campaign, and since this is undoubtedly a huge issue for America, Connecticut Democrats, and the Lieberman campaign, I think it would be entirely appropriate to start a discussion on this. Or are you under orders not to talk about this too?
Is it just me, or are there "Fight Club" rules in effect for the Iraq War and the LieberDem blog?
And regarding your dickish comments about us Lamont supporters rioting if Lamont loses, I'm still waiting for you to retract and apologize. Since I doubt you will do that, I have this to say:
YOU'RE THE REASON WHY I WON'T SHED A TEAR FOR JOE OR HIS SUPPORTERS AFTER HE LOSES. GETTING RID OF JOE LIEBERMAN BRINGS US ONE STEP CLOSER TO GETTING OUT OF IRAQ. HE WON'T BE MISSED, AND NEITHER WILL YOU.
cfaller - Thank you for those powerful thoughts. I and many others here in Lieberworld appreciate your integrity.
tonyd and moderation: no. nobody has seen the flyer. but kos is posting as if he has and links to other blogs who pretend they have and as proof they link back to kos. Once again, dishonesty. If you are going to said that Lieberman is race baiting, have the decency to link to a scan of the flyer so that we can decide for ourselves if it's true or not. Don't tell us what to think and then hide the evidence (if it exists at all).
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with Lieberman advertising his support for Civil Rights during the 60s (my goodness, the man went down to Mississippi to help blacks register to vote when people were killed for that)! I think it's fine that he also shows that John Lewish supports him now and will support him in the general regardless. I also think it is fine to question why Lamont joined a country club that was nearly all white, but quit right before he decided to run. Why did he join in the first place?
Regardless, I'm still waiting to see the flyer, but the blogosphere is acting as if it's true, even though NOBODY COMMENTING ON IT HAS SEEN THE FLYER. Problem with that?
seedfreak, there are still a few unanswered questions:
1. Will you support Ned Lamont in the general election if he wins the primary? I, Ned Lamont, and many Lamont supporters have pledged to support Joe Lieberman if he wins. Will you take the same pledge? Will CentristDem, Ken Balbari, CMBurns, LieberDem, and other Lieberman supporters?
2. Will you apologize for accusing me and other Lamont supporters of being so fueled with rage that we might resort to violence after the primary? Will you retract those ridiculous claims?
3. Will other Lieberman supporters (specifically CentristDem, Ken Balbari, CMBurns, and LieberDem) disavow the remarks of seedfreak?
4. Are "Fight Club" rules in effect for the Iraq War and Lieberman supporters? If not, then when will the LieberDem blog post about the Iraq War?
You can keep smearing me if you want to, but these are legitimate questions. Ignoring the Iraq War won't make it go away- for you, or for Joe Lieberman.
(A hushed silence envelopes the crowd...)
vote4joe said:
nobody has seen the flyer. but kos is posting as if he has and links to other blogs who pretend they have and as proof they link back to kos. Once again, dishonesty...Regardless, I'm still waiting to see the flyer, but the blogosphere is acting as if it's true, even though NOBODY COMMENTING ON IT HAS SEEN THE FLYER
Oh, for the love of God. I'm getting really tired of all the "anti-Lieberman crowd is dishonest" bulls--t, and vote4joe is yet another example. The flyer exists, it has been seen by many people (including myself), and Dan Gerstein himself confirmed that it came from the Lieberman campaign.
Hey vote4joe, here's a link:
http://tinyurl.com/pcz3j
And here is commentary on it, from the same source:
http://tinyurl.com/mpk46
I found it in about two seconds on TalkingPointsMemo.com. They commented on it, and they saw the flyer, and Dan Gerstein confirmed to them that the flyer came from the Lieberman campaign. Care to retract your "dishonesty" claim?
Maybe next time before you start accusing people of dishonesty, check your facts and do a little research. It looks like you're the one who's being dishonest.
BTW, do you work or volunteer for the Lieberman campaign?
Lie4Lie, thanks for the link to the flyer. Oddly, it took a long for blogs (daily kos included) to link to the flyer before they started dissecting it. Having looked at it, it doesn't seem like race-baiting to me. I echo what I said before:
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with Lieberman advertising his support for Civil Rights during the 60s (my goodness, the man went down to Mississippi to help blacks register to vote when people were killed for that)! I think it's fine that he also shows that John Lewish supports him now and will support him in the general regardless. I also think it is fine to question why Lamont joined a country club that was nearly all white, but quit right before he decided to run. Why did he join in the first place?
Lie4Lie - please provide a source that shows that Lieberman belongs to such a club.
cfaller96, it was not dishonest. Dailykos posts about the flyer on the front page, but provides a link to firedoglake blog, which does not contain a picture of the flyer. It contains a picture of Gary Coleman. firedoglake links to mydd, which does not have a picture of the flyer, and to tpmcafe, which does not have a picure of the flyer. Apparently, it is ok to discuss the flyer so long as one has to search for it. Why are these blogs afraid to post a direct link to it?
How many prominent African-Americans see fit to campaign with Senator Shortride?
Have you not been reading the front page?
http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/john-lewis-endorsescampaigns-for-joe.html
I'd take John Lewish over Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson any day.
Lie4Lie: you have to be kidding me. You make a statement that Lieberman belongs to a club that has only one African-American member and then you say *I* have to disprove it? Sorry, the onus of responsibility falls on you. Consider your claim bunk until you do. Especially coming from a guy who says no prominent African-Americans are supporting Lieberman, completely ignoring John Lewis. Methinks it's you who should do the research.
Could we POSSIBLY inject just a LITTLE more ridiculous baiting, over-the-top-paranoia, fratricide and maybe just a TOUCH more WTF element, please? It's not weird enough for me yet.
Sundog
Sundog, Lie4Lie is very good at eliciting a WTF response. That's what happens when you make up stuff and pass it off as the truth.
Well, v4j, I won't argue that one with you... but you got a WTF out of me too. First you vehemently deny the flyer's existence, then you deny the words on the page, they you ask why bloggers are "afraid" to link to it.
WTF? ;)
If it means something other than what the obvious words on the page say, it would benefit everyone to know what that meaning really is.
Enough for me... real life calls.
Sundog
Well, I'm sorry that i WTFed you. I don't think I denyed the words on the flyers page. I do question, however, why none of the big blogs provide a link to the flyer, but are happy to talk about how the flyer race-baits. I appreciate Lie4Lie searching for and finding a link to the flyer for me. I looked at it, and I do not see it as race-baiting. I wonder why the big blogs don't want to link to it but are willing to condemn it - are they afraid that their readers will think otherwise?
I think by the club that has just one black member, Lie4Lie means the US Senate. Pretty clever, eh?
The left-wing blogs didn't post a link to a picture of the flyer, because if they had, everybody would have known there was nothing wrong with it. Typical campaign stuff, completely factual. The stuff about the country club was needed to provide proper context for Lamont's saying that he didn't pay much attention to race until the campaign.
Rachelrachel, we haven't spoken before. Pleased to meet you. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, I guess; to me it's obviously over the top. Imagine your reaction if the tables were turned.
Vote4Joe, I confess I don't understand this point. There is no "bigger blog" than TalkingPointsMemo.com, my very first blogstop every day. (Did I just coin a word?) He had it up almost immediately, in his documents section. I guess the argument that the lefty blogs have something to hide is going over my head. When I finally saw it, it said pretty much what it had been represented to have said.
These are really not very good arguments, you guys. You've done better. It's OK to admit when your guy fouls up. This is something Republicans need to learn too.
Signed, Sundog!
Wow indeed. I'd like this one answered too.
I guess we know what Dangerstein's blog will be about tomorrow.
What a great secret agant name, though, eh?
I said I was leaving for the night, didn't I? Goodnight.
Sundog
Vote4Joe, I confess I don't understand this point. There is no "bigger blog" than TalkingPointsMemo.com, my very first blogstop every day. (Did I just coin a word?) He had it up almost immediately, in his documents section. I guess the argument that the lefty blogs have something to hide is going over my head. When I finally saw it, it said pretty much what it had been represented to have said.
Dear Anonymous (Lie4Lie posing as Anonymous again?): I'm sure you must realize that the biggest blog is DailyKos. They get 500,000-600,000 hits a day. They provide no link to the flyer and yet Kos criticizes it and expects others to follow suit without looking at it.
I am glad that Talking Points Memo provides a link to the flyer. I also note that they do not offer criticism of the flyer - they stay unbiased in reporting the flyer. Not so with Dailykos. Furthermore they discuss the flyer as portraying Lamont as "soft on race and civil rights," not as race baiting. DailyKos, however, does not provide a link to the flyer, but says Lieberman is portraying Lamont as racist. I don't see that at all when I look at the flyer, nor does TPM. I admire TPM's willingness to allow the reader to think for himself/herself. I do not admire DailyKos's manipulative write-up of the flyer.
I think the anonymous was sundog, not lie4lie.
Bill Clinton does robo-messages for Democrats all over the country. I remember getting a call from him, "This is Bill Clinton . . . " and for an instant I thought, Wow, this is great! Bill Clinton on the phone! A moment later I realized it was just a recording. He was reminding us all to vote for Jon Corzine.
Josh Marshall of talkingointsmemo isn't a booster of either candidate, and in any case respects his readers too much.
Danger Danger, Mr. Dan Gerstein, or Mr. Dangerstein,
Please explain how in the same day you can be one of two contributors to this blog that is "not ... affiliated with any campaign or candidate" while at the same time you can be...
"Dan Gerstein, an adviser to Lieberman speaking officially on behalf of the campaign...."
Somethings very fishy here???
Why hide your relationship (employment) with the Lieberman campaign from the readers of this blog? Remember even Lee Atwater had remorse in the end.
Methings that with all the cutting and pasting that he does, Lie4Lie is RoboLie4Lie
vote4joe said:
Dailykos posts about the flyer on the front page, but provides a link to firedoglake blog, which does not contain a picture of the flyer...They provide no link to the flyer and yet Kos criticizes it and expects others to follow suit without looking at it.
vote4joe, here is what you originally said:
vote4joe at 7:45 PM Eastern said:
nobody has seen the flyer. but kos is posting as if he has and links to other blogs who pretend they have and as proof they link back to kos. Once again, dishonesty...Regardless, I'm still waiting to see the flyer, the blogosphere is acting as if it's true, even though NOBODY COMMENTING ON IT HAS SEEN THE FLYER
The complaint about the posting on DailyKos was for a post early in the day. About an hour later Kos did link to the flyer, because he linked to TalkingPointsMemo.com. That was still hours before you made your post, claiming that Kos didn't link to the flyer, and that nobody had seen the flyer. Absurd...
You had plenty of time to check this out before you claimed Kos was being dishonest and nobody had seen the flyer. Maybe you were mistaken, but you made a false claim nonetheless.
I wouldn't call the flyer an accusation of racism, but I would call it desperate. I would also point out that this is not exactly exemplary behavior from the Lieberman campaign, but hey, politics is a contact sport. If the Lamont campaign cannot figure out how to handle this, then they don't deserve to win.
I doubt it will have much effect either way.
L4L - great post, thanks
What a load of horsepucky. Here's some "TRUTH" for you: Joementum voted for cloture on Alito. Joe Loserman presumed to lecture Clinton on personal issues while supporting a BS war of agression that has killed or wounded over 20,000 of our sons and daughters. Joe has been complicit in letting the Bush administration run roughshod over the checks and balances our congress is supposed to provide.
We've had enough. Time for Joe to Go.
But.. but.. Joe Lieberman marched for civil rights in 1800!
Vote Joe Lieberman on August 8th
Joe has a Romantic Vision for the Future
seedfreak, you at least did your part and answered some of the questions, and I appreciate that.
Yes, yes, there are motherf--kin' snakes on the motherf--kin' plane, and I'm only pixels on a screen, I've got a big ego, I don't tolerate disagreement, I'm obsessed, just like all us crazed Lamont supporters yada yada yada- we've heard it all before. I took strong exception, however, to your implication that Lamont supporters are so violent that they might riot if Lamont lost the primary.
You still cling to the belief that Lamont supporters will "erupt" and "riot", despite the fact that I, Ned Lamont, and other Lamont supporters have already vowed to support Joe Lieberman if he wins the primary. I think that proves your belief is loony and offensive, but fine, we disagree. I guess we'll find out who's right- if Lamont loses the primary.
Since you didn't get the reference, the first rule of "Fight Club" is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB! I'm wondering if the same thing is going on here- the first rule for Lieberman supporters and the Iraq War is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR! Talk about his stellar voting record according to issue groups' checklists, talk about the "lies" spread by Lamont supporters, talk about the endorsements he's received, but the first rule is DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR!
LieberDem hasn't recently posted about the Iraq War, and since Dan Gerstein works for the Lieberman campaign, we know he won't talk about it either. Joe Lieberman definitely does not want to talk about the Iraq War.
That's a shame, for all of us. I think it's high time this blog talked extensively about the Iraq War. I think LieberDem should post on it. At least then us Lamont supporters won't be criticized for straying off the topic of the post, to dare talk about one of the most important issues of our time, if not the most important issue of our time.
TRUTH - on this site?
HAHAHAHAHA!! That's funny!
Joe is done! There is no argument desired or requested. I see Lamont signs in the front yards of folks in other states. That tells us the people whom Joe was supposed to represent have decided his Bush kissing, Fox shilling, Hannity hugging mug is no longer welcome “Among” the real Democratic Party. He has betrayed the people and the Democratic Party by selling out his principles for political expediency. Selling them to the likes of the faux propaganda group and the G.utless O.ld P.ricks makes me want to vomit! Telling the democratic voter he will run as an independent, if he loses the democratic primary race, is like pissing on my shoe!
This has sent a message to Clinton, Schumer and anyone in the DLC. They had better back off! “We the people” in all parties are getting damn sick of the party bosses in Washington picking our candidates, especially in the primary races. If they don’t stop this attack on democracy they will be the next ones to get the boot!!
Shame on all of you damn “Insider’s Club” Dems who came and prostituted yourselves for the likes of this sell out! We need some spine and not this, I will kiss your butt if you kiss mine.
Attention all congressional Dems you had damn well better start representing your base and tell these treacherous lobbyists that the people will one day get off their asses and vote any sellout of any party to the curb. Shame on the DLC & Co for these gutless patronizations for such an undeserving turncoat!
Kick all lobbyists out of Washington. Straight public financing of elections!
Clean the filth out of congress and put America back on track!
<< Home