Friday, August 04, 2006

What a week...

So at a campaign stop for a CT-Sen candidate yesterday, a group of people supporting the rival candidates aggressively confronted the candidate, loudly asking him leading questions in the presence of the cameras and the other voters at the venue.

Sound familiar? Well, it should. Except this time, Ned Lamont was on the receiving end of the verbal barrage rather than Joe Lieberman.

There are a couple of universal (i.e. applying equally to both sides) observations to be made about this. First off, the First Amendment obviously gives supporters on both sides the right to verbally confront the rival candidate while he's campaigning. Unless they cross the line into harrassment or physical assault, it's legal and - in some ways - healthy for democracy.

But at the same time, it's also pretty damned silly, and is certainly an unwarranted distraction. The purpose of such confrontations is to embarrass the rival candidate or keep him from being able to speak his mind, and is most definitely not to ask the candidate insightful questions on the important issues. It's a grab for attention and an attempt to disrupt.

But the thing that struck me most about all this was the response of the anti-Lieberman camp to this. When Lamont supporters verbally confronted Lieberman, it was called a healthy display of the voters' anger. When the Lieberman campaign did it, they called it "thuggery," "Rovian," and accused the Lieberman supporters of trying to incite violence. They say Lieberman ran away and attempted to hide from the voters, while Lamont "escaped" the "hooligans."

They say one reporter caught an elbow and got a bloody nose, but does anyone here really think that the mainstream media wouldn't pick up on the story if Lieberman supporters got physically violent at a campaign event? Reporters were obviously at the event; if the Lieberman supporters had gotten physically violent, you can bet your life that they would all be rushing to produce a story on it - or at the very least, the reporter who got a bloody nose would make sure a story was printed on it.

I've checked Yahoo News, Google News, the National Journal's Hotline Blog (which picks up on everything), and no one is talking about this encounter outside of the anti-Lieberman blogs. There was one amusing article on the encounter in a small neighborhood paper called the Record-Journal which carried an amusingly tabloid-esque headline and was decidedly sympathetic to Lamont, but even that did not seem to mention anything about the Lieberman supporters engaging in physical violence. The progressive blogosphere's echo chamber is the only place where this can still be heard, and the story appears to have fizzled out even there. I suspect an objective account of what happened will never be printed.

All that being said, I repeat that the use of these "disrupt and harass" tactics by both sides is, shall we say, unproductive. I'm sick of this whole campaign at this point. There's obviously no hope that there will be a substantive discussion of the issues between now and Tuesday. The only two things we've learned from the past few days are that the Lamont camp can dish it out a lot better than they can take it, and that BOTH camps are thin-skinned. This campaign has devolved into fratricide, and regardless of the outcome, it will be a blessing to the Democratic party when it ends.


Blogger Sundog said...

What he said.

8/04/2006 7:22 AM  
Anonymous wonder dog said...


8/04/2006 7:34 AM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Let me clarify. "What he said" as far as being disgusted with the campaign in general.

But on this latest craziness:

First of all, if either campaign directly organized the thuggery on their side, I have a real serious problem with that.

Second, this is indefensible in the first place, whatever the Lamont supporters are doing. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Third, this plays right into the hands of people whose (correct) point is that it's the Lieberman campaign who is flinging most of the mud in this race. Downright stupid if you're trying to convince someone like me. But as I've said before, by all means, please keep it up for just a few more days.

And finally, either candidate can stop this today by putting his foot down, and we should demand that they do so.

8/04/2006 8:35 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Here are some links to some media coverage of last night's Lieberman campaign "Stormtrooper Burgers" event. This article was in the Meriden Record-Journal:§ion=Connecticut&filename=M04804.pdf.0&artId=1

I think it's good for everybody that these tactics are being given some scrutiny.

The Lieberman Brownshirts got front-page coverage in the Record Journal, there's a PDF snapshot of the front page here:

Gotta Love That Old-Time Stormtrooper Spirit!

8/04/2006 8:37 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Man, that First Amendment really pisses you off, doesn't it? Calling someone a Nazi for daring to ask Lamont a question.

8/04/2006 8:47 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Shouting at Lamont while he tries to answer said question is not "asking a question".

Bloodying the nose of a photographer with a blow to the face is not "asking a question".

I suggest you work to further your understanding of the English language.

8/04/2006 8:52 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

If a reporter's nose was bloodied by a Lieberman supporter, why didn't the Courant or the Register pick up on it? They've been tailing both candidates for weeks, and there's no way that political reporters let a thing like that go.

8/04/2006 8:56 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

That is a ridiculous and specious argument. You know as well as I do that reporters report what they want to report.

The fact that that particular detail is not in the Record-Journal article does not mean it didn't happen. Period.

8/04/2006 8:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe that reporter wasn't there at the time blood was drawn?

8/04/2006 9:03 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Hahahahaha!! That's amazing! Your argument is essentially "You can't prove it didn't happen."

Isn't the whole concept of our society that you have to prove that something DID happen, not just say that you can't prove it didn't?

Let's use that line of logic. There's no article saying that Venus isn't populated by Siberian Tigers, so therefore it must be!

8/04/2006 9:06 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Well there seem to be several corroborated reports that the bloodshed did happen. Here are a few of them:

Assault, Battery and Other Desperate Loser Tactics

This piece was written by a prosecutor. It also contains legal explanations for the terms "assault" and "battery", both of which seem useful under the circumstances.

Another report on the injured photographer can be found here:

And, finally, there are exactly the same accounts at the Lamont campaign website, but surely you would disavow them.

I guess the Lieberdems are invoking the "if a tree falls in the forest" argument with the blog reports. I daresay that argument hasn't panned out too well for the Lieberman thus far.

8/04/2006 9:21 AM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Same old same old. "You're lying, it didn't happen at all" followed closely by "It's not as bad as they say", followed any minute now by "Well, I'm glad they did it."

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

8/04/2006 9:27 AM  
Blogger Jimbo said...

You can not reason with the Ned Nuts. I've come to the conclusion that they are totally wacked out beyond belief. A case in point is the outcry over the situation that unfolded at Ted's yesterday. These same Ned Nuts who are outraged have been stalking Joe Lieberman around the state for the last few months. Now they are mad when it happens to their candidate - are they for real? I'm telling you, these people aren't playing with a full deck. This primary is going to be the Katrina for the Democratic party. The storm will pass quickly, but the deep chasms will remain for a long long time.

8/04/2006 9:27 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

All I'm saying is that we don't know AT ALL that there was anything, but L4L are others are acting as if it's a fact.

If a tv station or newspaper reports that there was some sort of physical attack by the Lieberman supporters, I will say right away that it was wrong and despicable. But let's not treat a few anti-Lieberman blogs reporting speculation as if it's a fact.

Come on, people. Don't convict someone without evidence. At least grant me that.

8/04/2006 9:35 AM  
Blogger Jimbo said...

It's funny that you cite "firedoglake" and MyDD as your sources of information on the bloodshed. How about some unbiased reports for a change? I can read about lies all day long on the anti-Lieberman blogs. The real truth is that you don't have any independent sources now do you? Maybe Jane "blackface" Hampshire can weigh in on this one, I'm sure she was on the tour with Ned.

8/04/2006 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lieberman: Connecticut Girl Crushed By Lamont Signage

See the shocking photo here

8/04/2006 9:40 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

jimbo -

Very agreed with the sentiment that the anti-Lieberman blogs are hardly an unbiased source. But could you leave the charges of mental insanity aside for the moment? It's almost as bad as them calling Lieberman supporters Nazis.

And if I haven't said it yet - a big "hear hear" to that last paragraph in the main post.

8/04/2006 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006

8/04/2006 9:58 AM  
Blogger Sundog said...

So let's talk about what we DO know, the newspaper account. That's quite enough to disgust me.

Now I know more and it appears that these were PAID LIEBERMAN PEOPLE doing this. HIRED THUGS disrupting an event and frightening people.

Maybe it's just me, but after this, there is nothing on Earth Joe Lieberman could do to gain my support.

8/04/2006 10:18 AM  
Blogger Jimbo said...

Another endorsement for Lieberman today. This time it's from Ned's home town newspaper the Greenwich Time. This is a slap in the face to Ned in his own back yard. It's ironic how Lieberman is getting the endorsements from CT papers, and Ned gets the backing of the leading NY newspaper. Sorry NYT, but you only get to have two senators from NY. Read the whole story.,0,2082552.story?coll=green-editorial-headlines

8/04/2006 10:22 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Fear Not, Lieberdems. Joe's Support is Still Strong

Big players are already stepping up to the plate in support of the Millionaire Lawyer's Cut-and-Run Party of One and his independent run.

Sean Hannity has announced that he'd support our Fox News Democrat in the fall:

Even better, I'm sure Joe Lieberman will be gracing our lives with his "principles" again soon from Sean Hannity's scintillating TV program.

8/04/2006 10:25 AM  
Blogger Politicgeek Pro said...


If a tv station or newspaper reports that there was some sort of physical attack

An old song comes to mind: "I know it's true - oo oo ue - ' cause I saw it on TV.

Granted, most of the the sources on the incident aren't netural in the race, of course, but none of them have any record of claiming things that have turned out to be false, have they?

Also: A primary challenge is not "fratricide", it is called intra-party democracy. At least as long as it is about honest disagreement of issues and political strategies, as is the case in this race. These things are supposed to happen within a narrow window occuring once every six years. Falling in line is for the rast of the time.

Not sticking to the results of primary results, though, that's really fratricidal - possibly mutual.

8/04/2006 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this LieberTHUG controversy is distracting the Lieberman campaign for its strenuous efforts to avoid talking about issue, especially the War, and to avoid talking about Joe's independent run against the Democratic Party.

8/04/2006 10:38 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

A Word of Warning To The Lieberthugs

It appears that the Lamont people will be creating multiple video camera records of the proceedings of all Lamont campaign events from now on.

Feel free to send your rollicking Brownshirts to these events, but you should know this:

Their antics will be on YouTube for Connecticut, the nation, and the world to see.

8/04/2006 10:42 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

And if they never show any examples of the Lieberman supporters inciting physical violence, what will you say? Because right now there is no video, photo, or media report that shows Lieberman's supporters have ever been violent.

I agree that paying people to disrupt a campaign event is despicable. But loudly asking questions doesn't make someone a Nazi.

8/04/2006 10:47 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

You have used that word. I have not.

My terminology has been completely appropriate given the facts of Lieberman campaign behavior.

If you want people like me to stop saying nasty things about what the Lieberman campaign is doing, the Lieberman campaign must behave itself in a civilized manner.

8/04/2006 10:51 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Brownshirts were the Nazi stormtroopers, so you were Lieberman supporters Nazis. Don't insult people's intelligence.

They verbally disrupted campaign events, and I agree that's obnoxious, pathetic, and despicable. But it doesn't make them Nazis, and you don't realize that your use of such terms undermines any valid argument you make, particularly to people (like myself) who are the children of Holocaust survivors, and know what REAL Brownshirt tactics are.

You want to criticize their tactics, fine. Call them Rovian. But you're insulting the memory of Holocaust victims by using that language.

8/04/2006 10:55 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

At the beginning of Adolf Hitler's rise to power, people behaving exactly like the Lieberthugs disrupted political events in Germany using exactly these tactics.

This is what a "Brownshirt" is. You'd think that because of all of the negative connotations that go with that, including insulting the memory of holocaust victims, that the Lieberman campaign would not use Brownshirt tactics.

Yet that is exactly what they're doing

You people are going to have to live with that - it sure as hell wasn't my idea.

8/04/2006 11:00 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

First you say that you weren't callign them Nazis, and now you admit that you are but claim its a fair comparison.

Even in the early days, the Brownshirts generally showed up armed and killed anyone who stood up to them. I can't even tell you how outrageous it is that you have the audacity to continue defending the use of that term.

You are equating someone yelling at a campaign event with parents being dragged out in the street and SHOT in front of their children.

Every time you repeat that term you are trivializing the deaths of every single Holocaust victim. That's absolutely disgusting.

8/04/2006 11:11 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

You are so right.

It's disgusting that the Lieberman campaign would trivialize the deaths of every single Holocaust victim by adopting Brownshirt tactics.

8/04/2006 11:15 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

You just don't get it. Brownshirts shot people. These people yelled at a campaign event. What in God's name is comparable about that?

You are an absolute disgrace and have proven that you have no respect for the memory of Holocaust victims by repeating the comparison.

8/04/2006 11:24 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

"Brownshirt" is the correct term and accepted term. If you are unfamiliar with this you need to go do your homework.

Wikipedia is a good start - look up Brownshirt, the applicable definition is at the bottom of the page.

8/04/2006 11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enouth of this nonsense.

Let's get back to the real issues of Lieberman avoiding talking about the war and avoiding talking about his plans to run as an independent against the winner of the Democratic primary.

8/04/2006 11:41 AM  
Anonymous moderation said...

There's a reason that any use of Nazi imagery or terminology is off-limits in politics. It's because the only reason to use those terms rather than less historically loaded ones is to bring up the images associated with the extremes of Nazi tactics.

That's why I said - use "Rovian", use "disgusting", use "disgraceful." But using terminology related to the Nazis is an unforgivable insult to those who lost their lives under the guns of real Stormtroopers. That's the reason that not even the pro-Lamont blogs are using that language. Only you are.

I would say this same thing to anyone else who uses the term, and so would the Anti-Defamation League.

I'm not going to even press this point anymore. Anyone who reads through your posts on this is only going to be offended that you used the term.

8/04/2006 11:43 AM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Let's talk about the war then...

Joe Lieberman Unveils Iraq Flip-Flop to Sway Voters

SUDDENLY, Joe has something to say about the war. And it's the Mother of All Flip-Flops:

Embattled Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman - facing a possible primary defeat Tuesday because of his strong backing for the Iraq war - yesterday launched a Hail Mary attack on the Bush administration's handling of the war.

"I supported our war in Iraq but I have always questioned the way it was being executed," Lieberman said.

"This administration took far too many shortcuts. We continue to suffer the consequences, as do the Iraqi people."

Lieberman, an 18-year veteran of the Senate and a former vice presidential nominee, has been stunned by polls showing anti-war challenger Ned Lamont might win the Democratic primary.

"It sounds like he's finally starting to wake up," said Lamont spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl.

Who could forget these eloquent words on the floor of the US Senate, spoken by Joseph I. Lieberman?

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

Does this sound like "questioning" to you?

8/04/2006 11:44 AM  
Blogger Politicgeek Pro said...

Godwin's law applies. Move along.

It seems rather clear that someone associated with the Lieberman campaign, or at least coordinated supporters, disrupted the event, as a group. That is not in dispute (even if claim that there was physical violence is).

As far as I know, the Lamont supporters have _not_ disrupted any of Lieberman's events (except if you cont the one person shouting at the anti-Wal-mart-rally). Asking questions in a polite but persistent manner or staying in the back with banners or the kiss-float is not "disrupting". Filling up all the space and behaving like the media report mentioned above discribed it, is disrupting an event.

Hence, comparing the two doesn't make them equal. Free speech is fine. Hindering other people's speech is not.

Hence the outrage from the Lamont-camp is justified.

8/04/2006 11:47 AM  
Anonymous Davebo said...

Look, there apparantly aren't enough College Republicans to enlist in Joe's get out the vote campaign so he has to make the best use of the operatives he does have.

8/04/2006 12:04 PM  
Anonymous lamont/hamsher08 said...

Now this does sound like questioning to me:

Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, said Monday he was troubled by the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, and he called the Bush administration's handling of postwar reconstruction "remarkably unprepared."


ANNOUNCER: George W. Bush courts the National Urban League today, and seven of his Democratic challenges tag along. We'll tell you about the campaign to woo black voters.

As the search for Saddam continues, more U.S. soldiers die in Iraq. And another '04 Dem accuses the White House of bungling the peace.

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: The Bush administration threatens to give a bad name to a just war.

He said almost the exact same thing yesterday. We all knew Lieberman thought the war was "just," and we all know that he has criticized Bush's handling of it before. So none of this is anything new, except the lies of you and Jane "Blackface" Hamsher.

And of course, the whole quote:

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.

It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism."

Sounds like a man trying to unite the country. Too bad you're too dishonest to acknowledge that is the main point of the speech.

Go cry about it to Jane "Blackface" Hamsher!

8/04/2006 12:04 PM  
Anonymous moderation said...

There I'm with you. Joe's losing and so he's resorting to stupid tactics that will get him nowhere.

8/04/2006 12:05 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Did someone say Jane "Blackface" Hamsher?

Why yes, Lieberman for Lieberman, I believe that they did!

Great article on Jane's photo-shopping prowess here

8/04/2006 12:12 PM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Heh. Well, at Liebermania's a clever website. That's puts their distortions one level above Jane's.

8/04/2006 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Lamont Truth Teller said...

How really awful is Ned as a candidate when his onw HOMETOWN Paper won't endorse him?!?!?!?

Senator has earned Democrats' support
August 4, 2006

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's support for the Iraq war has earned him the anger of many in the Democratic Party and the first legitimate challenge to his Senate seat since he took possession of it 18 years ago.

But his stance on Iraq is indicative of what may be his greatest strength: Mr. Lieberman is willing to break with his party or what is popular on matters of principle. And while we have not always agreed with Mr. Lieberman's position on the war, we still believe he deserves to be nominated for a fourth term in the Senate.

A two-party system needs people willing to cross party lines when they think it right. The system works best when politics takes a back seat to governing, unlike today when it appears to own the wheel. Particularly in this bitterly divided era, the Senate needs more people open to "the other side." That goes for the House of Representatives, the White House and the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be above politics but surely is not. And it goes for both parties.

In another era, Mr. Lieberman might have been praised for his open-mindedness and willingness to risk politics for principle. Today, he is more often considered a sell-out. That is something the country needs to change, not Mr. Lieberman.

Besides, Mr. Lieberman's record, while moderate, is solidly Democratic and strong on issues from gay rights and women's rights to the environment and transportation.

On the other hand, for too long he has been able to take his job security for granted, a point made clear by Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, whose campaign to wrest the Democratic Senate nomination away from Mr. Lieberman has gained startlingly swift support. Riding a wave of constituents who think the senator has lost sight of them, Mr. Lamont has challenged the incumbent on topics ranging from the role of government in private lives to education spending to Washington's lobbyist culture.

Clearly, however, this race is about the war above all else. Although he has criticized the Bush administration's planning and conduct of the war, Mr. Lieberman has been one of the president's most valuable allies in the effort, a position that often has put him at odds with Connecticut voters and some of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. Mr. Lamont, who supports imposing a deadline for troop withdrawal, has made the war the linchpin of his campaign, and it has resonated with the voters.

Many Democrats stop right there. But the differences between the two men do not. Mr. Lamont has campaigned hard to show he is not a one-topic candidate and he has clashed with Mr. Lieberman over Terri Schiavo, No Child Left Behind, school vouchers, approaches to free trade and government support for faith-based initiatives.

Of course, the most glaring disparity between the two is experience. Mr. Lieberman has tons. Mr. Lamont -- a former Greenwich selectman and finance board member -- very little. While the challenger has tapped into the strong surge in this country to rid Congress of the old guard, the weight Mr. Lieberman carries in the Senate is a clear asset to the state. He showed that recently when he helped win $50 million to decrease congestion on Interstate 95. Mr. Lieberman also played a significant role in saving the Naval Submarine Base in Groton from the gallows.

But his loyalty has been questioned elsewhere. Something that genuinely could hurt Mr. Lieberman on Tuesday is many Democrats' perception that he is willing to place himself over party. At a time when Democrats are looking to retake control of one or both houses of Congress, Mr. Lieberman's intention of running as an independent should he lose the primary could put party ownership of his seat at risk. It is similar to his insistence in 2000 on running for re-election to the Senate at the same time he vied for the vice presidency, a move that greatly endangered the seat. Mr. Lieberman counters that the party chose him at its nominating convention, and that it's Mr. Lamont who endangers the position by bucking that choice with his primary run.

Though green, Mr. Lamont has made an attractive candidate. His abilities as a businessman are without question. And as a member of Greenwich government, he was well-liked and respected, and he served the town well. But Greenwich Town Hall is not the United States Senate.

Mr. Lieberman's record argues for his election on Tuesday. He has fought for Connecticut, and though he can anger people, he doesn't change positions with political winds. Perhaps most important, he is genuinely bipartisan at a time when a bitterly divided country needs it most.

Mr. Lieberman should take this challenge and the strong emotion he's roused in this state as a serious wake-up call. He no longer can assume the seat is his as long as he wants it. But he's earned the right to return to work and deserves to represent his party in the November election.
IMHO, there's now a new meaning to Greenwich MEAN Time, looks like Greenwich Time is well, being mean to Ned.


Po' widdle Neddie, he can't even muster support from his own village. Tsk.

8/04/2006 12:22 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Am I insane, or does anyone but me remember a universe in which the term "stormtroopers" is quite commonly used for such tactics?

No one is denying the etymology, but equating that with calling someone a Nazi is preposterous. It's common slang that has entered the language. Talk about side-issues.

8/04/2006 12:24 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...


I like this part the best--as it's certainly a MAJOR point.

the most glaring disparity between the two is experience. Mr. Lieberman has tons. Mr. Lamont -- a former Greenwich selectman and finance board member -- very little.

8/04/2006 12:25 PM  
Anonymous moderation said...

I don't remember hearing the term used like that before.

"Gotta Love That Old-Time Stormtrooper Spirit!"

Do you really doubt what images are meant to be invoked by that?

8/04/2006 12:26 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Hmm, let me see. I think I know the answer to that one. The images of fascism, as promulgated by Lieberman campaign activities.

I agree that Connecticut and the nation is really turned off by the fascist ideals represented by Bush/Lieberman. That's one of the big reasons Lieberman doesn't seem to be doing real well in his re-election bid.

8/04/2006 12:32 PM  
Anonymous moderation said...

Well, there you go Sundog. What do you say? You've been a reasonable person through most of these discussions. I know you don't think that the most obnoxious legal campaign tactics are worthy of equating with fascism.

The images L4L is trying to conjure up are clearly those of goose-stepping Nazi soldiers at a Hitler rally, which are linked in people's memories to the deaths of Holocaust victims. Is that the level we want this thread to be at.

I have familial connections with Holocaust survivors, so I don't stomach the comparison well. But this is the last I'll say on the issue.
Respond or not - it's your call.

8/04/2006 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His experience and seniority are meaningless since Lieberman refuses to represent the people of Connecticut.

8/04/2006 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would seem that 51% of CT voters disagree with that, according to the most recent Q poll on the general election.

8/04/2006 12:39 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

The Lieberman campaign is putting fascist behavior on display.

I am merely an observer.

If the Lieberman people do not like such things being said about them, they need to change their behavior.

8/04/2006 12:40 PM  
Blogger LiebermanForLieberman said...

Lead Lieberman Brownshirt is Lieberman Lobbyist

This is rich!

Well, Election Central just reached out to the office of registered-D.C.-lobbyist Richard Goodstein, got his cell number, and reached him. When I asked him if he was a Lieberman supporter and was the man in the pic on the front of the Herald-Record, he confirmed that, yes, he was a Lieberman backer and that he was the same man as pictured on the paper's front page.

Then the conversation went south. When I asked him if I could confirm that he'd said what the paper said he had, Goodstein asked me why I wanted to do that and whether I worked for the paper. I said I didn't and noted that I wanted to get confirmation of his quotes straight from him.

After a somewhat abrasive back-and-forth, Goodstein said: "Do me a favor email me the last good story you wrote about Joe Lieberman." When I asked why that was relevant, Goodstein said: "Bye. Bye" End of conversation. Well, at least now we know who the mystery heckler was. But I didn't get to ask him about the nature of the heckling operation, or about the nature of Goodstein's relationship to the campaign. I've got a call into the Lieberman campaign about this. Hopefully we'll have more soon.

A lobbyist, leading an organized paid-for Brownshirting of Lamont?

Lieberman can no longer claim to represent Connecticut

8/04/2006 12:47 PM  
Anonymous Lie4Jane said...

It must be heartbreaking for Ned, and especially his wife and children--very embarrassing. He couldn't even get the support of the local rag. My my. They can't go home again with their heads held high, and probably, it will be very hard for them to find another rich-white-guys-only country club to take them in--with guilt by association and all that, who would want them?

What is apparent from the last few days in other blogs and this one, is that Lamont's own bloggers, by association, are connecting Neddie with being a racist--thanks Jane! And dear little Lie4Lie is now connecting Ned with anti-semitism as well. With campaign connected-at-the-hip bloggers like Jane and Lie4Lie, it's no wonder that Ned lost Greenwich Time's endorsement. Geez--that grand old town--they're now the pariah-ville of racism and ant-semites.

I wonder what his neighbors think as they're being poured down the same abyss as Neddie.

8/04/2006 12:50 PM  
Anonymous liebermanforlieberman said...

Ned and his Nuts! They're quite a pair!

8/04/2006 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like there are a lot of Beltway people like Goodstein that want the Joementum gravy train to KEEP ON ROLLIN'....

8/04/2006 12:53 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

L4L, did you troll yourself?


8/04/2006 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Constitution State deserves a Senator that will stand up for the Constitution

8/04/2006 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Lamont Truth Teller said...

The Nutmeg State deserves a Senator who brings experience to the job, not a neophyte with cracked nuts.

8/04/2006 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd rather have my teeth extracted than suffer through another six years of Joementum.

8/04/2006 1:25 PM  
Anonymous liebermanforlieberman said...

Without teeth you can't digest Ned's Nuts.

You're just going to have to gum and bare it.

8/04/2006 1:43 PM  
Blogger SeedFreak said...

I’ll be honest, there seems to be a lot of premature celebration right now for a race that’s a whole hell of a lot closer than a the 32 point spread in the football game, or even the 13 point lead Quinnipiac gave us yesterday. I can tell you one thing, our numbers don’t show us up 13 – and that is no spin. Now that all the Democratic D.C. insiders and political pundits have declared us some sort of winner before the first vote is cast, I get even more worried. When was the last time they were right? Finally, how many times do we have to watch Sean Smith attempt to use the expectations game as a complacency enducing tool this campaign? Have we already forgotten the convention back in May?

Hmmm---is Lamont's team starting to prepare their people for a let down?

Do you guys wanna drag the AnimalHouse Heads to another union rally? I'm sure the AFL-CIO "get out the vote team" will be inspired.

8/04/2006 2:05 PM  
Anonymous liebermanforlieberman said...

Ahhh--the convention--that tin foil hat place. Here's a link to show our thinking-cap fun!

8/04/2006 2:15 PM  
Blogger Sundog said...

Moderation, I'll only say that IMHO it's silly to call Godwin's Law on the word "stormtroopers", and that if the arguments have come down to that, someone is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Much of this discussion resembles a slapfight, on both sides.

8/04/2006 2:29 PM  
Anonymous Badger said...

Just where does it say that Mr. Goodstein was being paid by the Lieberman campaign?

All I see is that he confirmed he was the disruptor and that he got testy with a blogger.

8/04/2006 3:19 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home