Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

 

Good For a Laugh

Lieberman responds to NOW's endorsement of Ned Lamont:

Marion Steinfels, a spokeswoman for Lieberman's campaign, said the senator's "entire career in public service has been fighting for women's rights."

"As a defender of a woman's right to choose, he opposes all efforts to undercut Roe vs. Wade," she said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that struck down bans on abortion.


"Opposes all efforts"?

That wasn't exactly how Joe put it to his pal Sean Hannity back in February:

HANNITY: ... by the way, I was mad at you at Alito, and one day I'm gonna pull you aside, and I believe in my heart, I really believe in my heart that if the president really needed your vote, you would have been there.

LIEBERMAN: (Sigh) Well, OK, you pull me aside and we'll talk. (Laughter)

HANNITY: Alright, you don't want to answer that publicly, do you?

LIEBERMAN: (Laughter) Cause I voted no.

HANNITY: I know you voted no but...

LIEBERMAN: But I did vote against the filibuster cause I thought that, you know, it was time to move on.


Update: And don't forget that Lieberman played the same game with Clarence Thomas' nomination, supporting it until the moment it was clear another President Bush didn't need his vote. From the New York Times, Oct. 16, 1991:

Mr. Lieberman said in an interview that he did not decide to oppose Judge Thomas until 15 minutes before the vote.

"I felt he deserved some benefit of the doubt because you wouldn't want to disqualify someone for the Court based on a lone allegation," he said. "But ultimately, what made up my mind was Professor Hill's testimony and then those four corroborating witnesses. Ultimately, it just raised too many doubts in my mind. I decided if I was going to err it was better to err on the side of caution."

Comments:
Lieberman tries to respond to Lamont with an endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign PAC, a gay rights group. A sad and hypocritical statement from this group, which professes support of marriage equality yet endorses Lieberman, who supported the notorious and misnamed "Defense of Marriage Act," aimed at stigmatizing gay Americans.

Here's what the HRC said about DOMA then:

The Senate's passage of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act is nothing more than election-year gay bashing and is destined to be undone, the Human Rights Campaign asserted today. "The Human Rights Campaign is appalled over the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act," said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of HRC, the largest national lesbian and gay political organization. "Denying lesbians and gay men equal marriage rights will not stand. HRC vows to continue to fight this legislatively and in our country's courts of law and public opinion."

Joe's anti-gay record doesn't end there:
He told the New Haven Advocate that “homosexuality is wrong,” joined with notorious homo-hater Jesse Helms in voting to take away federal funding from schools that counsel suicidal gay teens that it’s okay to be gay. On gays in the military, Lieberman has enunciated the now-discredited canard that “homosexual conduct can harm unit cohesion and effectiveness.” (Tell that to the dozens of countries, from England to Israel, that permit openly gay troops in their armed forces.)

In fact, Lieberman worked with Georgia’s Sam Nunn to fashion the destructive “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which resulted in escalating expulsions of gays from the military every year after it took effect. Its Catch-22 provisions have directly stimulated a rising wave of violent gay bashing and harassment in the military because victims can’t complain without “telling.”


How quickly and conveniently HRC forgets. CT activists do not suffer these delusions - Anne Stanback, Director of Love Makes a Family, is in Lamont's camp.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home