Friday, July 21, 2006

This just in from the Hotline...

Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie phones in with a quick rundown on Ned Lamont's tax return disclosure press event...

In what may be the most embarrassing revelation on the return, Lamont personally only claimed to give $5,385 in charitable contributions. The Lamont campaign emphasized that there is a separate Lamont family trust which, last year, doled out $213,750. Rennie states the campaign worked very hard at obscuring the $5,385 figure and bootstrapping Ned Lamont onto the amount the trust gave.
The campaign manager had an angry tone, directing it at the press. Cameras were not allowed in the room while reporters examined the returns. Copies were collected at the end. The press conference had been on Lamont’s public schedule but then the campaign announced in an 11:30 a.m. email that the candidate would not be appearing.
Click here for the full story.

Now, I personally don't care too much about Lamont's taxes, because as I said yesterday, this campaign will probably never be about Ned Lamont.

But the Lieberhaters were so critical of Lieberman for avoiding an anti-Lieberman float, saying it showed he was afraid to face tough questions and so on. Well, Lamont just did an even more obvious dodge with his disappearing act from his own press event. And if the campaign manager did ban the cameras and/or take an angry tone with the press...well let's just say those aren't exactly the actions of a campaign interested in being upfront and open with the people.

As I said, I don't really care about Ned Lamont's finances; as long as no one finds $90,000 in his freezer, he can make as much money as he wants and use it as he sees fit - including on this race. In fact, I prefer self-funded candidates, because they have far less need to take money from special interest groups to get elected. Not to mention that they save the party some money that can then be spent on other races.

But I'm guessing that the Lieberhaters, for all their protestations of how terrible it was for Lieberman to not face a few disaffected voters, will not denounce Lamont's campaign for ducking the tough questions on his tax returns. And that is more than a bit hypocritical.

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

7/21/2006 7:33 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

One of the biggest mistakes any politician and--especially--wannabe politicians can make is to sour the press.

I addressed Lamont's miserly donations to charities in another post this afternoon and won't overly rehash my disdain for this contemptuous skinflint except to say that tithing is not in Lamont's vocabulary but (it appears) pittance is. There are many common citizens who cough up both time and money to 501c3s--and as one of those citizens I can only sneer at his financial rebuke of those who are in need. For Lamont, it is equally embarrassing and revealing of how he stands--with both hands tightly thrust into his own pockets. Tsk.

7/21/2006 7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

$214,000 in charitable donations sounds like a lot to me.

7/21/2006 7:40 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Souring the press with an "angry tone"

This is just like what Joe Lieberman has done

But Joe Lieberman has soured the voters

That's probably a lot more serious.

Speaking of serious, did you hear about how guerillas in Iraq are on the brink of cutting off the supply lines to our sons and daughters? LiebermanForLieberman will bring you an update on that later. But for now, come check us out!

7/21/2006 7:44 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Senator Lieberman's Rant Against Clinton in '98

"Such behavior is not just inappropriate. It is immoral. And it is harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior to the larger American family — particularly to our children — which is as influential as the negative messages communicated by the entertainment culture."

Was this Mister Principles, ranting against the hugely immoral and unjust war in which he and Supreme Leader Bush immersed us?

No, it's just Joe Lieberman sanctimoniously prying into the private lives of Bill and Hill.

In the upside-down world of Principles Lieberman, lying about a presidential blow job is a censuring offense, but lying to start a war is just not a problem. Kudos to Crooks & Liars for this revealing but revolting piece of video.

Link:
http://www.youtube.com/v/taJ6C6kwIfQ

YUCK - I feel dirty now, off to take a shower. This Lieberman work is killing me...

7/21/2006 8:05 PM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Lieberman never supported censure.

Part of L4L's goal of telling 1 lie per hour...

7/21/2006 8:34 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Anon, his familial trust is not him.

Him has an embarrassment of riches.

7/21/2006 9:30 PM  
Anonymous BBBB said...

I agree that people who have money should give it. But giving service to the community is an adequate substitute. Sometimes a better one. Lamont has clearly done that. Your failure to acknowledge his contributions in this regard reveal you to be a hypocrite desperately grasping for anything you can upon which to base an attack...a morally vacuous attack at that.

And I also say to the democracy-haters, this is about public life, not private life. In his public life, Lieberman is among the most immoral of men in the democratic party. He has long wanted to gut social security. He has tried to hide thaat fact, but it is documented for those who care to google and do some reading on the matter.

Most recently, he was hoping to fashion a compromise with Bush, and was the sole democrat in the senate to hold out hoping to do so. It was a compromise that would have ended social security as we know it, and replaced it with private accounts. But when it was clear that the president's plan was going to fail, he finally sided with the dems to avoid the political fallout.

Lieberman fancies himself a moral man, butr his morality is limited to morality for others. For him, lying a nation into war is fine, sending other people's kids to die based on lies and for no moral purpose is fine. Thankfully CT voters see the immorality of his policies and conduct and appear set to trun him out to pasture.

7/22/2006 9:25 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Yo dude--I teach children too, as well as adults of all status. I serve with organizations that oversee the quality of continuing education on and off the net. I know many cont-ed teachers and many deans--trust me on this one, teaching teens a minor busisness management course doesn't equal in educational experience or accumen to being an assistant dean at Yale or editor of Yale Daily(name?)--something Lamont has a long way to go for to reach at that level of expertise.

I find it commendable that Lamont has chosen to teach business management to teens, I have also already, in previous post, commended Lamont for doing so--which I would do for anyone who teaches community ed. I would have higher praise if he taught checkbook and debt management, or how to survive in a stagnant and/or failing economy, or how to get a job higher than busboy or bathroom attendant at an all white country club.

There are significant reasons to show why Lamont should not be a senator--lack of experience is a huge one, followed by extensive hypocracy--Halliburton Stock and exiting from his All White Member Country Club only to be politically correct for his campaign, he is Koz' puppet, his bloggers are a foul-mouthed, lying, zombified, brain-washed embarrasment, his 80% voting record siding with wealthy greenich republicans, and a litany of other sins against the community--including Campus Televideo partnering with Vonage--a disgustingly notorious outsourcer of American jobs.

Lamont is the wrong man--maybe if Kos had the guts to try it himself instead of using puppets then the Pro-Expletive might have a chance at being taken seriously. As Lamont is attached at the hip with Kos and his NUTs he will always be known as the marionette of the mouth that barked but couldn't bite.

7/23/2006 5:09 AM  
Anonymous Rich said...

Dear "Seedfreak,"

I wonder if you realize that the tone of your posts are very angry, and they are not likely to win over any new/old Lieberman supporters.

Do you really think people should vote in the Dem primary based upon whether one or both of the candidates had Haliburton stock in a mutual fund (or a managed portfolio). Should it really matter if a candidate made charitable contributions directly or as part of a family foundation? DOes it really matter what subject Lamont taught as a volunteer high school teacher.

Are you serious, or just a parady trying to make Lieberman supporters sound extreme, angry and just plain silly?

7/23/2006 7:16 PM  
Anonymous Tipsy McStagger said...

Seedfreek,
Exactly what experience is need to become a US senator? Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Mark Dayton, Jon Corzine, Frank Lautenberg, Bill Frist and Susan Collins had never held elected office, not even at the lowly selectman level, before THEY got elected? I am sure you are happy with a few of those people. Also, Lamont is going to be junior senator if elected. There's a huge learning curve in the senate. Junior senators aren't expected to do much their first couple of years anyway, other than show up and vote. Plus, he'll have aides to help him with legislation, they all do. You grow into this job. How will this alleged lack of experience hurt him? We can gain experience in other ways. Local goverment, business and education are three excellent ways and Lamont has all three.

7/24/2006 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't like Seedfreak's tone always, but I hardly think her tone is any worse than some of the Lieberman-haters on this blog.

The truth is that Lieberman is a tried and true progressive Democrat. If you have any doubt about that, just read the post on this blog that talks about Lieberman's voting record. To quote the post LieberDem made today, the mindset of the Lieberman-haters is:

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

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

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

7/24/2006 1:17 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home