Monday, July 31, 2006

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.

136 Comments:

Anonymous AnotherCentrist said...

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

7/31/2006 8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/31/2006 8:45 AM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Hi guys,

Also at TPMCafe, but back in the Mere Mortal section, you might find my blog interesting this morning.

Excuse me plugging this twice, it was at the very end of the last thread.

Have a great day, every single one of you.

Sundog

7/31/2006 8:49 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Can Robo-Clinton Really Save Joe?
What have things come to when Joe Lieberman has to use a recorded message of Bill Clinton to ensure that Connecticut voters won't hang up on him? And why won't Lieberman talk to us about what Clinton calls "the Pink Elephant in the Room" - the Iraq War?

The message on the issues that people really care about has been lost. Fortunately, some enterprising people on the Internets have made an effort to answer a question that many voters must have - Who is Joe Lieberman?

Debunk Joe Lieberman's many twisted lies

Learn how Republicans are financing his campaign

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

7/31/2006 8:52 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Joe Lieberman Race-Baiting in African-American CT Neighborhoods

But, but, Joe Lieberman marched for civil rights in 1800!

So What.

"Joe Lieberman (the civil right supporter) is race baiting in the African-American neighborhoods.

Under the windshield wipers of all the cars in my church's parking lot in Stamford on Sunday morning were two pieces of literature from Joe Lieberman - one, a standard color lit piece that had already been sent to my house from the Stamford DTC, and a photocopied flyer attacking Ned Lamont's "Civil Rights" record.

The back was about Ned Lamont canceling his membership in the expensive Round Hill Country Club in Greenwich, including a quote from the New York times in which Ned acknowledged that most of the members of the club were white. There was nothing about "Civil Rights", just the information on Ned's country club membership.

The contrast between front and back is obviously an attempt to imply that Ned Lamont is a rich racist."

Oh. My. God.

How do you spell P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C?

Link:
http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/

7/31/2006 8:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God in heaven. What will the millionaire laywer stoop to next?

7/31/2006 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/31/2006 9:02 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

No additional critiques of my posts are needed or wanted.

Thank you.

This message brought to you by LiebermanForLieberman -

The Cut-And-Run Party of One

7/31/2006 9:08 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

A Word About Fundraising

I don't know about you, but I'm madder than hell that the Millionaire Lawyer has stooped to race-baiting in this Senate race. It's shameful. The evidence is clear, and we need to speak up about this as a country. It's about our values, dammit.

Please consider contributing a few bucks to the Lieberman opposition. We really do need to get rid of Senator Shortride. Please give whatever you can here:

http://nedlamont.com/contribute

7/31/2006 9:20 AM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

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.

7/31/2006 9:24 AM  
Anonymous GoJoe said...

vote4joe is right. Don't vote on Aug 8 for KOS as Democratic nominee for CT senator.

7/31/2006 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That Nutty Ned Lamont and all of those swarms of Connecticut voters - who the hell do they think they are?

7/31/2006 9:42 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Angry, Angry Joe

Colin McEnroe opines on the Lieberman Situation at Salon today. Excerpt:

"What has saved Lieberman, time and again, has been his famous charm and affability. When politicians and activists march into his office to complain about something he’s done, they walk in mad and emerge calm.

He’s done it to me too, and it's more than smiling and nodding. Lieberman really seems to be listening and considering the possibility that you’re right and he’s wrong. And he usually makes it clear that he still likes you, even though you sharply differ with him.

That charm and affability have deserted him this summer. The 2006 Joe is one angry guy. One of the first signs was an explosion on my radio show this March. Lieberman hadn’t liked a column I had written the previous Sunday, and he blew up at me. The audio clip went all over the Internet on blogs such as Daily Kos and Firedoglake, which marveled at the crack in Joe's legendary composure and crowed, "He's losing it!"

He never really got his smile back. You might call that a political miscalculation, but I don’t think he can help it. Lieberman is truly appalled by the number of former friends who are now foes. He can't hide it. It's all over his face."

It is also appalling that such a large-scale desertion is needed.

Link:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/07/31/lieberman_times/

7/31/2006 10:11 AM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

Is it me or is the Kos Website really the Lieberman Bashing Site. Kos attacks on Lieberman are far worse than Lieberman going on television to criticize the members of the Democratic Party. Unlike Kos. Lieberman's criticism is very constructive.
While I strongly disagree with Lieberman's position on the War. I agree with him that it is in our national interest that US succeeds its mission in Iraq. I also agree with Lieberman that Democrats need to convince the national public that they can be trusted in prosecuting the war on terrorism. Relying on the Bush/Republican Party failures are short-term success for the Democrats but not long term.

For those who are attacking Lieberman for being a Conservative
Look at the Lieberman's ACU-Rating
Lifetime- 17
Lower than
1)Lincoln-AR
2)Pryor-AR
3)Salazar-CO
4)Nelson-FL
5)Bayh-IN
6)Landrieu-LA
7)Nelson-NE
8)Reid-NV
9)Conrad-ND
10)Dorgan-ND
11)Johnson-SD
12)Jeffords-VT
13)Byrd-WV

Lieberman is the 14th most Conservative Democratic Senator
and the second most Conservative Democratic Senator to represent a blue state- right behind Jeffords.

7/31/2006 10:12 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

It's just you. The whole country wants to get rid of Lieberman. This includes DailyKos, but the rantings against Lieberman seem to be coming from everywhere. For example, the anti-Lieberman tirade in the NYT this weekend makes anything on DailyKos look pretty lenient.

And with good reason. After all,

Joe Lieberman is a traitor, a sellout, and a liar.

7/31/2006 10:25 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

It also is "incumbent" on me to point out that Lieberman's legislative record, while vexing, is not really terrible. It's okay.

The problem is that Joe's almost fanatical enabling of and cheerleading for the Iraq War has done the nation tremendous harm. Any legislative "accomplishments" of Joe Lieberman are vastly offset by his support of the Iraq War and Bush's War On America.

Joe Lieberman is Being Held to Account.

It isn't pretty.

7/31/2006 10:30 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

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.

7/31/2006 10:37 AM  
Anonymous TonyD said...

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.

7/31/2006 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no one cares? Then why are you posting so much, centristdem? Are you being paid?

7/31/2006 10:40 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

centristdem: You promised you were going to ignore my posts. I expect you to keep your word on that.

7/31/2006 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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!

7/31/2006 10:56 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

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?

7/31/2006 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

moderation, you work for the Lieberman campaign, so stop pretending you don't know about the race-baiting flyer. Thank you.

7/31/2006 11:03 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

I did not remember Lieberman's support for Clarence Thomas I thought this was a one-issue campaign about Terry Shiavo, or Torture, or Bankruptcy Bill, or Social Security, or Justice Alito, but this blows my mind....

On October 4, 1991, the senator from Connecticut strode to the well of the senate and gave a pious speech announcing his esteem and support for Thomas. Lieberman confessed to his colleagues that his decision to back Thomas' nomination had been consummated at an intimate one-on-one session with the federal judge in the senator's office. "When I met with Judge Clarence Thomas in my office this past summer, I was impressed by his strength of character, independence of mind, and intellect generally. I found him to be an engaging, thoughtful man who clearly enjoys grappling with complex legal issues and delights in the special challenges and responsibilities of being a judge," Lieberman carolled. "His academic and professional achievements are testimony to his appreciation for the value of hard work and determination-qualities that, in my mind, are too often overlooked in evaluating judicial nominees, but the importance of which cannot be overstated because being a good judge requires the willingness to do hard work. Indeed, his entire life is an inspiring example of what an individual who has faith, ability, and a desire to work can achieve in this country, even in the face of the worst kinds of prejudice and adversity. As he himself has said, `Only in America.'"

Lieberman, the former attorney general of Connecticut, claimed to have given Thomas a private grilling on the finer points of his judicial philosophy, his understanding of precedent and the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Thomas passed the Lieberman exam with flying colors. "I was reassured by his answers", Lieberman said. "He did not and does not strike me as a rigid ideologue. In fact, his life story demonstrates that he does not find easy comfort in convention, but challenges settled truths with vigor and intelligence."

While many Democrats, including Gore, were unnerved by some of Thomas' writings and speeches, Lieberman said that it was unfair to evaluate the judge on such arcana. Instead, Lieberman scrutinized Thomas' court opinions and again found no cause for concern. "Judge Thomas' judicial opinionshave a distinctly different cast. They are, on the whole, solid, thoughtful and balanced."

For most liberals and constitutional scholars, Thomas' fanatical adherence to the crack-pot religio-legal theory of "Natural Law" was enough to send him packing. Lieberman, however, not only dismissed this as an issue, he actually made a quasi-endorsement of its legal validity.


http://www.counterpunch.org/thomas.html

7/31/2006 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/31/2006 11:12 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

I live and work in Canada, so it would be pretty tough for me to work for the Lieberman campaign.

7/31/2006 11:13 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Meanwhile, Civil War Looms in Iraq

Glenn Greenwald has some ideas on why Joe "Stay and Pray" Lieberman may be so very reticent on Iraq these days:

"It really seems as though the "plan" now in Iraq is just to step back and allow the whole country to collapse. That impression is strongly bolstered by the fact that war proponents seem eager to ignore Iraq and focus on other matters just as the civil war and destruction of that country seems to be reaching the point of no return. War proponents continuously argued that chaos, violence and instability in Iraq would be a grave threat to American security and a great ally of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. And yet exactly that situation has resulted from our invasion, and now the proponents of the war - and apparently much of the media - want to just forget about all of that."

Link:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/remember-iraq.html

7/31/2006 11:15 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

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.

7/31/2006 11:15 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Hey L4L - you grow a backbone yet? Apparently not, because you still just can't bring yourself to actually respond to the post.

7/31/2006 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/31/2006 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/31/2006 12:16 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

After this is all over, very shortly now, it will be time to close ranks -- whoever wins. It is of the utmost importance that we do so.

Do you agree? I can put aside my misgivings and support Lieberman if the people of Connecticut indicate that those are their wishes.

Can everyone here do the same? Or have we really dealt ourselves some friendly-fire damage with this campaign?

7/31/2006 12:26 PM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

sundog..... Yes, of course the Lamont supporters will support Lieberman if he wins the primary. There has never, and will never, be any question about that.

(Lowell Weicker did not take out papers as an independent. That might have complicated things.)

7/31/2006 12:34 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

"Mr. Lamont is the rich heir to a Connecticut fortune and a political gadfly who is willing to try to buy his election to the U.S. senate."

From:
July 31, 2006
Appointment in Connecticut
By Barry Casselman

For the whole article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/appointment_in_connecticut.html

7/31/2006 12:34 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

"yes, of course the Lamont supporters will support Lieberman if he wins the primary. There has never, and will never, be any question about that."

Is that before or after they riot in the streets?

That's said with more angst than sarcasm.

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?

7/31/2006 12:38 PM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

Lieberman is not the only Democrat that opposes an immediate withdrawal or timetable- Wesley Clark- who was a biggest opponent of the iraq war- opposes an immediate withdrawal or timetable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623.html

7/31/2006 12:40 PM  
Anonymous SandyBurns said...

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.

7/31/2006 12:46 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

seedfreak, it's an open question IMHO whose supporters have more pent-up anger.

I notice you didn't answer the question...

7/31/2006 12:46 PM  
Anonymous Badger said...

Lieberman voted "nay" on Thomas.

nice try though.

7/31/2006 12:48 PM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

cmburns says, "Lieberman is not the only Democrat that opposes an immediate withdrawal or timetable- Wesley Clark- who was a biggest opponent of the iraq war- opposes an immediate withdrawal or timetable."

You just don't get it. The probably with Lieberman is not just his position on the war, but that he says it is illigitimate, partisan, and dangerous for our country when Democrats differ in any way with the Bush Administration on the war. That's why he is a national lightening rod on this issue.

7/31/2006 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Badger said...

Lieberman voted "nay" on Thomas.


Yes, after he made that outrageous speech on the floor of the Senate. Read the whole article.

7/31/2006 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/31/2006 12:53 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

I think babablacksheep has it right. It's one thing to hold a position on the war; it's quite another to deny that anyone has a valid right to oppose it.

7/31/2006 12:54 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Anonymous,

Boy, do YOU have a shock coming, buddy.

7/31/2006 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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!

7/31/2006 1:19 PM  
Anonymous 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. 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.

7/31/2006 1:22 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Posted without comment, just because some thought it didn't exist.

7/31/2006 1:33 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

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?

7/31/2006 1:36 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

The only real criticism I've seen of my comments, besides simple disagreement, is that since I'm not a well-known blogger I should STFU. Which, one has to admit, creates an interesting litmus test for whose comments are worthy and whose are not.

One wishes that people with such views were willing to sign them.

7/31/2006 1:43 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

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.

7/31/2006 1:48 PM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

Here is a Bombshell, folks.

I always thought this blog was run by PAID Lieberman staffers.

Well this is confirmed today by the very credible TPM website:

"Dan Gerstein, an adviser to Lieberman speaking on behalf of the campaign, confirmed that the campaign was behind the flyer and defended the tactic."

And yet this website says in the top right corner: "This website is not funded by, authorized by, or affiliated with any campaign or candidate."

Sneaky, deceitful, dishonet. What do you call this?

7/31/2006 1:49 PM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

Sorry, I forget to give a link for the quote in the previous post.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009260.php

7/31/2006 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan Gerstein, you should ashamed of yourself. Why did you hide your affliation with the Lieberman campaign?

7/31/2006 1:53 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

baba, I think you're mistaken on this point. Lieberdem does not, as far as I know, work for the Lieberman campaign. I understand that Gerstein is a guest blogger.

I think this is fairly common knowledge. I certainly knew who Gerstein was.

7/31/2006 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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?).

7/31/2006 1:59 PM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

No, the first name in the list of two contributors is Dan Gerstein, right about where it says there is NO affiliation with any campaign.

Do you think this is upfront and honest. There is no mention of Dan Goldstien being a paid spokesperson in his bio.

This is fake astroturf politics, very dishonest.

Says a lot about the Lieberman campaign.

7/31/2006 2:05 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Can't agree, my friend. Gerstein's association with the campaign is certainly no secret to those who've been keeping up, and he's using his real name to post with.

While a disclaimer on the blog might be nice, I don't think many others here are unfamiliar with Gerstein's position. It's common public knowledge who he is.

7/31/2006 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Davebo said...

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?

7/31/2006 2:29 PM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

Sundog, some insiders may know about Gerstein being a paid Lieberman hack, but this fact is NOT revealed to the readers and intended audience for thie blog.

The website's disclaimer quite clearly gives the opposite impression.

How ironic that this discussion is related to a post that begins with "The Truth About..."

How outrageuos that he would make long posts on this website (as an undisclosed paid spokesperson of this campaign) when Lieberman doesn't have the honesty and integrity to post his views about the Iraq War on the official Lieberman website!

Why would a campaign spokesperson have a blog like this, that is not on the official campaign website, except to deceive the audience.

7/31/2006 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liar, liar, campaign on fire.

7/31/2006 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Davebo said...

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.

7/31/2006 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not just the dishonest disclaimer of this website. Look at the subheading...

"The (unofficial) blog for practical progressives."

"unofficial" - my a$$

7/31/2006 2:35 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Davebo, why so? Because Gerstein blogs on it?

I'd like to see a disclaimer too. But I happen to KNOW that this website is not funded by or associated with the Lieberman campaign.

How do I know? Super Seekrit Knowledge that I am not yet free to reveal. Soon, maybe.

7/31/2006 2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/31/2006 2:40 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

You know what's amazing? Someone, somewhere, determined to spam this blog, sat down and came up with "Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006" as the most persuasive and/or annoying message they could come up with. What does it even mean?

7/31/2006 2:42 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

The Lamontista hysteria is going to grow and grow as the primary approaches. I predicted this last week and see it is coming to be so.

7/31/2006 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd rather have my teeth extracted than put up with another six years of Joementum.

7/31/2006 2:48 PM  
Blogger Jimbo said...

Sundog - he probably lifted it from some other site and has no idea what it means. It falls in line with their campaign tactics - say something over and over again in hopes that people will believe it, even when it isn't true. It's funny that he is allowed to be an annoyance here, but try posting something on one of their blogs (like My Left Nut) and see how fast you get censored. They typically only censor the good posts though. They hate being told the truth.

7/31/2006 2:57 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Mister Jimbo - that claim is not only ridiculous, it is hypocritical. As a leading spammer over at MLN, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

7/31/2006 3:04 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

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.

7/31/2006 3:05 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

seedfreak: Quoting "RealClearPolitics"?? Hell, why not just ask Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh to weigh in?

7/31/2006 3:13 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I'm waiting for T'wanna Brawley to Campaign for Ned.

7/31/2006 3:16 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

I wish the Lieberman supporters would clear up this talking point too, cfaller. Some seem to be making the case that, of course Lieberman isn't following lockstep behind Bush on the war, that's a dastardly lie. Others say the opposite: of course Lieberman backs Bush on the war, and that's a good thing, because it's a just war and we're winning.

You can't have it both ways. And if the point is that Lieberman is indeed on Bush's side on the war, the Lieberman camp immediately foregoes its right to paint Lamont supporters as out of the mainstream. At least, for anyone who's read a poll lately.

"Stay the course" is a Bush talking point. There just isn't any way around that.

7/31/2006 3:16 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Seedfreak: Will Willie Horton do?

Are you SURE you're a Democrat?

7/31/2006 3:17 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

To cfaller's point, you will notice that the Lieberdem site will not acknowledge the existence of the Glorious War of Iraqi Lieberation, much less discuss it.

I have a feeling they are under orders to make sure that they don't discuss it.

Not to worry, though. Every time they try to change the subject to legislative minutiae or Joe's preferred brand of after-shave, we'll just change it back.

That's why we're here.

7/31/2006 3:21 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/31/2006 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Davebo said...

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?

7/31/2006 3:26 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I remember Joe warning about winning the war but losing the peace. That's what happened. Rumsfeld's own arrogance caused that.

7/31/2006 3:28 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Has Lamont actually come up with a PLAN for the end of the war? I haven't seen that on his site. Also, what's his statement on crime and punishment? Has he issued a statement yet about the Brown appointment to FEMA and the debacle that occured because an inexperienced man was in a high confidence position? Does he have any thoughts on that at all?

7/31/2006 3:32 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Seedfreak: Then perhaps you could tell Joe that his unshakable support for Rumsfeld is misplaced?

7/31/2006 3:32 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I'll let him know over lunch tomorrow ;-)

7/31/2006 3:42 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Good man. LOL.

7/31/2006 3:44 PM  
Anonymous davebo said...

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?

7/31/2006 3:44 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Well, it goes a lot further than that, doesn't it?

The Democrats were gearing up to insist on the firing of Rumsfeld. Who was one of the key people to stand up for Rumsfeld at that time?

Joe Lieberman.

This is why the "Kiss Float" and the "Kiss Buttons" have become such a force to be reckoned with. Lieberman has supported Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney malfeasance almost every step of the way.

Thus, arguing about Rumsfeld's incompetence is hollow, because Lieberman the Enabler ensured that Rumsfeld could maximize the damage to our country and our armed forces.

7/31/2006 3:45 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Does he have something solid, that he isn't going to change? Again? The waffling on Cut and Run is disturbing--it shows weakness.

7/31/2006 3:49 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Seedfreak, if you were a fisherman, I'd tell you to bait your hook before throwing it all over the place. ;)

7/31/2006 3:52 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Again, you can check out Lamont's Iraq plan here:

http://nedlamont.com/issues/27/iraq

It has not changed in many months, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Ned's Iraq plan is really no different from what Murtha and other reality-based Democrats have been proposing for some time. It is in essence the same approach that was successfully used to extract our forces from Viet Nam many years ago.

7/31/2006 3:53 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

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.

7/31/2006 3:57 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Democrats United on Iraq Plan

Well, except for Joe Lieberman - of course! Joe continues to hew to the line that he must for Supreme Leader Bush.

From USA Today:

"Key Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have united to call on President Bush to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, citing an overtaxed military, billions of dollars spent and ongoing sectarian violence.

In a letter to Bush released Monday, the Democrats backed a plan for the "phased redeployment" of troops.

"U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces and force protection of U.S. personnel," the Democrats wrote.

Bush has consistently said there will be no such pullout until the fledgling Iraqi government can secure its position and Iraq's security forces can defend the country.

...snip...

The recent letter, dated July 30, is significant because — signed by every top Democrat on committees with oversight of military, intelligence and international affairs — it solidifies the Democrats' position and presents a unified front as members head into election season."

Joe "Stay and Pray Lieberman of course is Standing With the President on this issue. And why not? Neither he nor any of his loved ones are in harm's way, so why rock the boat?

7/31/2006 3:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cfaller - Thank you for those powerful thoughts. I and many others here in Lieberworld appreciate your integrity.

7/31/2006 4:06 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

cfaller, it will be interesting to see what happens--and neither ofcan see into the future, and only as acting pundits, anything is predicatble. You can say no, and I can say I hope not, but to turn a blind eye to a possibility is something I don't do.

I've believe that your people are victims of coercive pursuasion, and unless they're geared down--which I don't see happening--the frustration can predictably erupt into violence. Is Lamont's team working ardently to prevent this occurance?

Find out and come back with your answer. It is important.

7/31/2006 4:26 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

It is so great that you people in Lieberworld are so versatile!

Are you planning to open an Internet psychotherapy clinic after the election? Probably good money there...

7/31/2006 4:34 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

" It is in essence the same approach that was successfully used to extract our forces from Viet Nam many years ago."

That's scary.

7/31/2006 4:35 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

At Campaign Stop, A Voter Tries To Talk To Joe About The War

F-A-S-C-I-N-A-T-I-N-G:

"I bide my time until Joe settles in. Sidling up to the table, I ask him again, "Do you regret your vote for this war, Senator?"

The goons close in. The big goon in the suit asks, "Didn't he say to call him at his office?" I tell him that have a right to ask my Senator a question in a public establishment.

An aide asks me to get out of the way, he wants to sit down right in front of me at the reserved table. I step aside just enough and invite him to sit. He grimaces. I'm still too close to Joe.

Joe quietly says, "No," he doesn't regret his vote.

"What's your plan to get us out?"

A policeman moves in and takes a firm grip on my arm.

One of Lieberman's minion head-shakes the cop off and asks me to let Joe and Hadassah eat in peace, and then I'll have the opportunity to ask him questions. Fair enough. I go back to my game of eight ball.

I try to keep my eye on Joe while I work sinking the striped balls. Suddenly, Lieberman's gone. My wife tells me that someone leaned over Joe and suggested leaving while I had my back turned. The little weasel escaped again on his Peter Pan bus.

You wouldn't think that a big time, uber-moral senator like Lieberman would be so scared of chatting with a soaking wet, harmless constituent like me. Maybe he could charm me over to his side. Maybe he has logical reasons for his positions that we haven't been exposed to. Maybe there's a secret plan to end the war he could share. I guess not. He ran.

The rain stops. I'm outta here. I'll try to talking to Joe another day. "

Gotta Love How Joe Connects With Voters!

7/31/2006 4:42 PM  
Anonymous vote4joe said...

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?

7/31/2006 4:43 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

For those who cannot seem to use a computer, I have once more posted a link to the scanned-in, way-evil, race-baiting flyer:

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2417

No, evil liberal Martian trolls did not produce this flyer.

Dan Gerstein and the Lieberman campaign did.

7/31/2006 4:48 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

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.

7/31/2006 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(A hushed silence envelopes the crowd...)

7/31/2006 5:08 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

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?

7/31/2006 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

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?

7/31/2006 5:15 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

An interesting factoid:

Joe Lieberman belongs to a club that has one African-American member.

Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?

I'll wager that even Ned's club had better minority representation than that!

7/31/2006 5:17 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to Campaign for Lamont

Hmmm, so now we have Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton campaigning for Lamont.

How many prominent African-Americans see fit to campaign with Senator Shortride?

Zero

7/31/2006 5:21 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

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?

7/31/2006 5:22 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

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.

7/31/2006 5:24 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

vote4joe: It is obviously time to flex your computing muscles a little bit and do a little bit of research. This is something that the high-and-mighty Lieberdems revere. Try it, they'll gush with pride.

You don't need to be spoon-fed everything. Go and look - you'll see that it's true.

7/31/2006 5:25 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

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.

7/31/2006 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

7/31/2006 5:28 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

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.

7/31/2006 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

7/31/2006 5:40 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

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?

7/31/2006 5:42 PM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

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.

7/31/2006 5:44 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

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?


No. I already posted that I will support Joe as a Dem or an Indy.

Will CentristDem, Ken Balbari, CMBurns, LieberDem, and other Lieberman supporters?

You have to ask them.


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?

No. They're not ridicualous and I wasn't typing the words so only you read them.


3. Will other Lieberman supporters (specifically CentristDem, Ken Balbari, CMBurns, and LieberDem) disavow the remarks of seedfreak?

I don't care if they do or don't. Unlike Lamontistas, we're all free to speak our own minds. We don't concur as we're all free-minded.

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?

I have NO idea what you're talking about.

You can keep smearing me if you want to, but these are legitimate questions.

I'm not smearing you. I don't care a R-ts-ss about you and I don't think about you when I'm online or off-line elswhere in my life. Honest to Gawd you've got an ego buyt that's all you've got.

You're pixels on a screen.

Ignoring the Iraq War won't make it go away- for you, or for Joe Lieberman.

No it doesn't. My mostly military family and my mostly employed in military and IT technologies family are loyal patriots.

STOP, trying to wrap your ideology around the rest of the world. STOP getting personally offended when no one concurs with you. So what. You're on your side and I'm on mine.

It frustrates the bejeezus out of you that some of us have deeper ideologies than you try to break or convince otherwise. Now you look for attention in your chest thumping declarations. Holy Cow! A gorilla in a man suit.

You're obsession combined with growing frustration are part of my overall concern that the Lamontistas will erupt.

You are making my point to your leaders. Thank you.

7/31/2006 5:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

7/31/2006 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Signed, Sundog!

7/31/2006 6:01 PM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

"I stopped working for Senator Lieberman in the spring of 2004, and have not been in his paid employ since. I have no formal association with his reelection campaign." - Dan Gerstein, 7/13/06.

"Dan Gerstein, an adviser to Lieberman speaking officially on behalf of the campaign, confirmed that the campaign was behind the flyer and defended the tactic."

Wow... pretty brazen. I guess "official spokesman" is just an informal, unoffical role.

This independent blog brought to you by the Committee to Re-Elect Joe Lieberman.

7/31/2006 6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

7/31/2006 6:10 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

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.

7/31/2006 6:24 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Don't let bedbugs bite ;-O

7/31/2006 6:26 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Can Robo-Clinton Really Save Joe?
What have things come to when Joe Lieberman has to use a recorded message of Bill Clinton to ensure that Connecticut voters won't hang up on him? And why won't Lieberman talk to us about what Clinton calls "the Pink Elephant in the Room" - the Iraq War?

The message on the issues that people really care about has been lost. Fortunately, some enterprising people on the Internets have made an effort to answer a question that many voters must have - Who is Joe Lieberman?

Debunk Joe Lieberman's many twisted lies

Learn how Republicans are financing his campaign

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

7/31/2006 6:47 PM  
Anonymous rachelrachel said...

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.

7/31/2006 6:59 PM  
Anonymous JohnPeters said...

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.

7/31/2006 7:15 PM  
Anonymous Vote4Joe said...

Methings that with all the cutting and pasting that he does, Lie4Lie is RoboLie4Lie

7/31/2006 7:16 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

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.

7/31/2006 7:37 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Sundog mentioned yesterday or closely past, that from work he posts as SunDog but with sign-in from home (for somesuch reason) he posts as anon. However, he has a strong sense of personal dignity and names himself when he does.

7/31/2006 7:43 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

"If the Lamont campaign cannot figure out how to handle this, then they don't deserve to win."

I find it absurd, though from his innocence of politics, that Lamont admitted his decision to quit his country club wasso that it wouldn't "be distracting" to his campain.

For over a decade he wasn't distracted by the differences between the people he dines and plays with and the people who serve him and clean the toilets?

He didn't care until he needed to be politcally correct for a senatorial campaign?

7/31/2006 7:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L4L - great post, thanks

7/31/2006 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Pete said...

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.

7/31/2006 8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But.. but.. Joe Lieberman marched for civil rights in 1800!

7/31/2006 8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vote Joe Lieberman on August 8th

Joe has a Romantic Vision for the Future

7/31/2006 8:25 PM  
Anonymous cfaller96 said...

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.

7/31/2006 8:25 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Could you please reference fight club for me. Honest to Gawd, the term isn't used by anyone I know.

I did begin to talk about the war and you called it OT--IMHO, you're obsessed noodle's got more turns than a box of fusili.

7/31/2006 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TRUTH - on this site?

HAHAHAHAHA!! That's funny!

7/31/2006 9:08 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

How to determine if a group is a destructive cult:

http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm

7/31/2006 9:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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!

8/01/2006 3:08 AM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

Cfaller-
To answer your question

I will not support Ned Lamont if he wins the Democratic Primary- I will support Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary and in the General Election as a Democrat or Independent- Republicans don't have a credible candidate so I don't have to worry about split Democratic vote. Lieberman has an excellent chance of winning the November General Election as an Independent in a three way race.
Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats ala Jeffords if he gets re-elected.

I will not disavow the remarks made by Seedfreak- He has every right to make them.

8/01/2006 12:31 PM  
Blogger CMBurns said...

I say we deport all these anti DLC freaks like L4L,anonomonous,and Cfaller- to Guantanomo Bay Cuba.

8/01/2006 1:12 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home