Wednesday, August 02, 2006

104 degrees...

That's what The Weather Channel says will be the high in Philly today. I'm seriously hesitant to step outside for lunch.

If you haven't yet, go to:


Anonymous CentristDem said...

Have personal air conditioners been invented yet?

8/02/2006 9:25 AM  
Blogger babablacksheep said...

Matt Smith, you write,

you should comb the site for anything saying that I would personally vote for Lieberman if I had the opportunity to do so.

Are you saying that you are not voting for Lieberman? Then, I don't get what LieberDem means.

In this post, you imply you are living in Philly. What gives?

The whole deck of cards seems to be coming down! DangerStein is a Lieberman past and present employee, and now we seem to be learning that Matt Smith is not from CT?

Please, no. Say it ain't so!

Aren't there any real voters who will stand up and give us a reason to support Joe?

8/02/2006 9:34 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

Dude, he's said 100 times that he's from Philly and not CT. Hell, he said it in his last post too. And if you'd ever bothered to read his profile, you'd know that too. Besides, how many of the pro-Lamont bloggers are actually from CT? Is Kos? Nope, California? Chris Bowers? Oh wait, he's from Philly, like LieberDem. Get real.

On the other is curious that he never has said he personally supports Lieberman. I actually don't think he's ever even specifically endorsed him, although Gerstein obviously has. Odd.

8/02/2006 9:51 AM  
Anonymous CentristDem said...

I'll be out of reach for the next few days...see you all after the primary.

8/02/2006 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrew Sullivan, popular conservative blogger writes...

If I were a Democrat, I'd support Joe Lieberman next week. I don't believe the agenda of Ned Lamont will help either the U.S. or the Democrats. But, then, I'm not a Democrat. At this point, I'd best be described as a conservative independent. And compared to this conservative independent, Lieberman has been ridiculously obsequious to a Republican president who has made an appalling hash of a vital war. The notion, advanced by Lieberman, that criticism of the president's war leadership is somehow inappropriate when the country is in danger gets it exactly the wrong way round, I think. It is precisely because the danger is still so great that criticism is so necessary. That's democracy's strength. You could understand, if not forgive, this abdication of leadership if Lieberman were bound by partisan loyalty to Bush. But he isn't. And even those who are - like Chuck Hagel and Lindsey Graham and John McCain and John Warner - have had more astringent criticisms of the the conduct of the war than Lieberman. My guess is that he's still lobbying hard to replace Rumsfeld later this year and, by all accounts, probably will. Any replacement for Rumsfeld can only help us win this war, and Lieberman's ethical compass, unlike Rumsfeld's, would perhaps mitigate some of the depravity enabled by Captain Queeg. But I can understand those Democrats who do not think it is their role next week to give Bush their party's cover for his war-mismanagement. I'd still back him myself; but it's silly to believe it's nuts for Dems to choose the other guy.

8/02/2006 10:14 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Is Joe Lieberman Really A Republican?

Watch the video

This video also highlights Joe Lieberman's far-right roots.

8/02/2006 10:35 AM  
Blogger Y.G. Brown said...

Aren't there any real voters who will stand up and give us a reason to support Joe?

Not on this site. I can't wait for the BBC, The Nation, and all of the other prestigious organizations that are hanging on Mr. Smith's every word to read the last 48 hours of work on this site.

This site is just like a mini-Lieberman campaign, straight down to the supposedly independent "voters" who are actually out-of-staters, Lieberman staffers, or both. It's delicious.

8/02/2006 10:48 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Whoops - Looks like Matt decided to quickly change the subject on the basis of this cfaller post.

Let's have another look, shall we??

cfaller said...
I find it interesting that Matt Smith considers education to be more important than the Iraq War. That's way out of the mainstream, and I doubt anyone will decide to vote for Lieberman based on that.

I find this view especially interesting, considering that Joe Lieberman disagrees with Matt. Joe Lieberman thinks the Iraq War is VERY important, presumably far more important than education:

Here's Joe at the Brookings Institute on 4/26/04:

"I repeat, the outcome of this new war in Iraq will have enormous consequences for the people of Iraq, America and the world. If our enemies prevail and America retreats, Iraqis will face chaos, or a dictatorship, or both. The Iraqi domino could fall backwards as easily as it could fall forwards, and topple hopes for democracy throughout the Middle East. The region would be profoundly destabilized, which would gravely endanger American security, and the fanatical Islamic terrorists will be emboldened to take more aggressive actions against people in America, Europe and the Islamic world. The safety of our children’s future would be greatly endangered."

One candidate thinks the Iraq War will guarantee the "safety of our children's future", clearly placing more importance on the Iraq War than the educational system of today. Another candidate believes that the money we spend in Iraq would be better spent on education and other programs. On Matt Smith's most important issue, guess which candidate he prefers?

Curiously, Matt Smith doesn't really consider Ned Lamont to be a better alternative to Joe Lieberman on his most important issue, education, citing "experience" as the key criteria.

But with the "experience" that Matt Smith wishes to lavish on Joe Lieberman, Matt overlooks the fact that with "experience" comes "accountability" and "responsibility". Matt Smith cites a lot of "vocal" support, and "fights" for grant increases, but he chooses not to cite any actual, real accomplishments during Joe Lieberman's 18 year tenure. I guess "accountability" and "responsibility" are words only to be used against Joe Lieberman's enemies, but never to be applied to Joe Lieberman himself.

Here's a question for you, Matt:

If Joe Lieberman has 18 years of "experience" on improving our educational system, and our educational system is "broken" in your own words, shouldn't Joe Lieberman take just a little bit of responsibility for presiding over the "breaking" of the system that has been occurring for the past 18 years?

Matt Smith shouldn't punish Ned Lamont for a mess that he didn't take part in creating, yet that's precisely what Matt wants to do. If the educational system is such a mess, why does Matt Smith refuse to hold Joe Lieberman accountable for that mess?

On the issue that is most important to Matt Smith, he fails to point out any major policy differences between Lieberman and Lamont, and fails to understand (or willfully ignores) how condoning the continuance of the Iraq War (i.e. voting for Joe Lieberman) hinders education spending.

On the issue that is most important to Matt Smith, he seems willing to settle for a guy that would rather spend $250 billion in Iraq than spend some of that money on schools.

On the issue that is most important to Matt Smith, why won't he fight for a better Senator?

8/02/2006 11:01 AM  
Blogger matt said...

Check the timestamps - my new post was posted over an hour earlier.

Now back to work.

8/02/2006 11:08 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Evedently true, but that's not much of an argument, Matt. Why not to answer some of those cfaller questions? They all seem pretty relevant to the case you're trying to make.

8/02/2006 11:16 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

College Republicans Campaigning for Lieberman in Democratic Primary

Hmmmm, mighty odd, isn't it?

8/02/2006 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, awfully quiet around here. Are there any Lieberman supporters left, except people officially connected with the campaign?

8/02/2006 12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seriously, not even Seedfreak is in sight.

8/02/2006 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello? Anyone here? Anything good to say about Joe Lieberman? I here rumors that he is going to give a big mea culpa on the War. Seriously. His own polls must look pretty depressing.

8/02/2006 12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where are these rumors? I haven't seen anything about them...

8/02/2006 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sniff... sniff... sniff... hmms... smells like something rotting or dying.

"Lieberman Plans for Loss"

8/02/2006 1:03 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Jane Hamsher pulled a pict off her blog, but it's been captured elsewhere.

She's freakin lost it. Has anyone talked to Lamont about this?
Don't tell me that the far left isn't antt-semitic. That little neo-naziette just lost all respect that most people might have had for her.

Here's a link to a photo capture--

And here's a link ot Rage Gurnsey Jane at Huff--she pulled the pict but this is far from over.

8/02/2006 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

8/02/2006 1:14 PM  
Blogger Susan said...

Jane Hamsher has ALWAYS had problems with the truth. I find her blog a piece of garbage like a few more "left" blogs I could name.

The most depressing thing to me is that far too many on the "left" in the blogosphere are just as cavalier with the truth as those on the right. And they don't have to be.

8/02/2006 1:47 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

To All My Good Friends At Lieberdem:

I am truly sorry that your campaign is ending so tragically.

The unfortunate truth is that Joe Lieberman is running a vast karma deficit. That is his biggest problem, and that's his fault, not yours. We all appreciate the skill, professionalism, and heart with which you've approached this campaign.

Hopefully, you will all now come to your senses and rally around a better cause.

8/02/2006 2:05 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Yeah, I wondered if I was the only one appalled at the blackface thing. What it has to do with anti-Semitism I'm afraid I don't get, though. Seems like that's the popular accusation this week, everyone's an anti-Semite. I get the feeling if Lieberman were Lithuanian, accusations of anti-Lithuanianism would be getting hurled around.

I won't defend this for a second. Anyway, I'm through defending lefty bloggers; they can defend themselves if they're so inclined.

Susan: Totally agree. Between the trash hurled from the left and the trash hurled from the center, I'm having a hard time understanding either side's supporters.

I keep coming back to this point, though; what each CANDIDATE is responsible for is what his CAMPAIGN has put out. It really is irrelevant talking about anything else. Bloggers will be bloggers, surprise, surprise.

8/02/2006 2:08 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Like Anti-Semitism and Racism? You support that?

Rage Gurnsey Jane, who already lost Barbara Boxer and NARAL, is now losing the Jewish vote and the Black vote for Ned too.

8/02/2006 2:11 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Lamont and his racist bloggers.

Good team--they're inseparable.

8/02/2006 2:20 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

Looks like Lamont's supporter is petering out--

"— U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman won the battle of campaign signs Wednesday, during a raucous noontime encounter with Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont.

The Democratic primary contestants were ostensibly supporting a nationwide, union-backed initiative to shame Wal-Mart into enhancing employee health and pay benefits.

But during a 45-minute rally on the baking sidewalk outside the City Hall Annex, Lieberman and Lamont met face-to-face briefly for the last time before Tuesday's crucial vote.

The politicians looked each other in the eye when they shook hands, but from then on, Lieberman's campaign firepower, including about 100 young, T-shirted staffers thrusting up signs for news photographers, seemed to win the media event.

Only a handful of Lamont signs were peppered throughout a crowd of about 300 people, including local politicians and union leaders from across the state who support the "Wakeup Wal-Mart" campaign.

"Here's the great news, we're all together today in wanting to wake up Wal-Mart and say to treat your workers fairly," Lieberman said as his staffers screamed support. Lieberman bashed what he said were President Bush's "anti-labor policies," which hurt working families, as well as corporations such as Wal-Mart, which made $11 billion in profits last year. "We are not going to stand for this multi-billion-dollar corporation not paying a decent living wage, providing affordable health care to their employees," Lieberman.

When a Lamont supporter heckled Lieberman on accepting PAC money from the Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, Lieberman shouted "Good work. Let me just answer that lie with a fact," he said. "Wal-Mart PAC sent my campaign a check in March and we returned it in less than a week later. Stick with the record, deal with the facts." Wearing scuffed loafers and an open-collared shirt, Lieberman climbed off his "Joe's Tomorrow Tour" bus and was immediately mobbed by young campaign workers, who escorted him in a scene of near chaos that was choreographed to appear spontaneous.

One campaign aide, 25-year-old Adam Arifaj of Trumbull, was dressed in a banana costume, carrying a sign saying: "Like Lamont, Wal-Mart is bananas."

Lamont is Bananas--goes well with his Nuts. Has he sold his Wal-Mart stock yet? I'm sure he doesn't want to look two-faced, I mean, if he's making so much dough off of them, he isn't gonna cut into his profits by actually supporting a raise for their workers.

Here's a link to the full read:

8/02/2006 3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course the people holding signs for Lieberman were from NJ and paid $60/day or members of the College Republicans.

8/02/2006 5:23 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home