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).

Friday, September 15, 2006

 

Sen. Lieberman Still Mum On Iraq

In a 2,600+ word speech on "national security" this morning, Sen. Lieberman did not mention the word "Iraq" once, according to his prepared remarks.

So much for Iraq being a central part of the "war on terror." It didn't even merit a single mention in a major address on the topic.

Meanwhile, Ned Lamont held a press conference in Hartford today with Mayor DeStefano and State House Maj. Leader Chris Donovan, calling Sen. Lieberman out on his missed votes on homeland security funding:

Lamont on Friday also chastised Lieberman for missing what he said were key Senate votes on homeland security, a theme he has echoed throughout the week. He said Connecticut gets less homeland security funding than its neighbors.

"We need people down there in Washington D.C. who are going to be fighting for the state of Connecticut, fighting for our rightful share," he said. "You'd hope that the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee would be able to do more for us."

Comments:
I'm thinking that "No Show" Joe figures that if he doesn't mention Iraq, and misses half the votes concerning said war, maybe all the voters of Connecticut will forget the Iraqi war also.

I got the No Show Joe from another website. I think it has a great ring to it!
 
Joe will be on Face the State (WFSB) on Sunday morning, and was interviewed by Ray & Diane on WTIC today.
 
OMG, not even a mention of Iraq. On quick perusal, I think this is my favorite quote: "We have brought many members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups to justice". How many convictions Joe? ZERO. Thanks so much!

J
 
No Show Joe® it is!

Joe "Voting Is Partisan™" Lieberman:

"I've never seen a vote I couldn't miss."
 
DINO Joe

[To: "Jambalaya"]

DINO Joe, he gotta go, me-o, my-o.
Stuck like glue to Double-U, makes me cry-o.
As if he won, he's gonna run, me-o, my-o.
Son-of-a-gun, it's time he's done, say "good-bye-o."

CHO:

Joe-bye-bye, in your eye, what a loser,
Sings the blues on TV news, what a snoozer.
G.O.P. star, loves the war, me-o, my-o.
Son-of-a-gun, it's time he's done, say "good-bye-o."

People's vote sticks in his throat, can't take losin',
Second place, do-over race is what he's choosin'.
Keep his seat, with no retreat, that's what he's thinking;'
I wanna know, DINO Joe, what you been drinkin'?

REPEAT CHO:

©2006 Bob Clayton & Ed Drone
 
We'll see if his "me no mention Iraq" strategery works come November.

Obviously he's pandering for votes.
 
I hope Ned Lamont can expand his defintion of 'fighting to our rightful share' to 'fighting for our rightful share based on risk'.

The 9/11 commission and recommendation of the current Democratic leadeship is to employ 100% risk-based funding for Homeland Security dollars. I'm not opposed to an assessment that finds fire/police/ems services to be 15-20% responsible for mitigating risk and providing additional funds based on population. But to just hand out 40% of the funds as pork as Sen. Lieberman [and Collins] have so vigorously supported is just stupid.

Here's an excerpt from a NYT editorial (via Dianne Feinstein's Senate website!):

"Security Loses; Pork Wins
July 14, 2005
This was a sad week for the war on terror. The Senate voted, disgracefully, to shift homeland security money from high-risk areas to low-risk ones - a step that is likely to mean less money to defend New York and California against terrorism and more for states like Wyoming.
. . .
Senators had a chance to fix next year's formula, but they voted to make it worse. The original homeland security budget would have allocated 70 percent of the money according to relative risks. Senators from the highest-risk states, led by Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, introduced an amendment to raise that number to 87 percent. Ms. Collins, supported by Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, introduced an amendment to lower to 60 percent the amount given out according to risk.
. . .
The whole Senate let the country down this week, but Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman deserve particular blame. As the chairwoman and the ranking Democrat, respectively, on the Senate's domestic security committee, they have a duty to put the national interest ahead of parochial interests. Their performance looks all the worse compared with Mr. Chertoff's forthright stand. If Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman are not committed to doing everything possible to avert another attack - which includes directing every dollar of antiterrorism money to where it is needed most - they should yield their positions to people who are."
http://feinstein.senate.gov/news-security71405.html

There are federal programs that CT should get a better return on like transportation funds but homeland security dollars should be distributed based on risk. I know Homeland Security funds have been a big issue in CT based on a large front-page story in the Hartford Courant...

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-homeland0910.artsep10,0,7125164.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

...but the argument should ALWAYS take place in the context of risk. As Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said in criticizing the Lieberman pork approach, "“We need to adjust that funding; we really do,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “If that means Arizona may get less funds, then my constituents will understand. It’ll be tough, because everyone wants to get their share of the pie....“There is an overwhelming group of experts who tell you that there are some areas to which the threat is a greater threat. Are [terrorists] going to go to Gila Bend, Ariz., or Badlands, S.D. or Los Angeles, Calif.?”.



http://www.hillnews.com/news/040704/security.aspx

Lieberman has done a horrible job of oversight in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee so BOTH the pork and risk based components are broken. But the criticism from Lamont should focus on the pork aspects of the grant formula and oversight.

None of this is incompatible with the existing message. Lieberman will blame all the problems on Bush not funding DHS and call Lamont a whiner but leadership is making the best with available resources, not whining about it. The people of Connecticut understand it's better use of their tax dollars to spend $9.5 million dollars funding nuclear and chemical plant security than to have 10,000 towns like Chester, CT buying their own $950 language translation machine that translates Farsi and Arabic. A 25c phone call and the appropriate fee can get you a translator in any language AS NEEDED, same as the CT court system.
 
I wish Lamont would make more of the fact that in the primary Lieberman kept saying the war "is just one issue." When you think about it, it's really a horrific thing to say. Callous doesn't begin to cover it.

And then segue into the missed votes.

Despite the fact that young American are dying every day and as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians -- men, women and children -- have died so far, Lieberman says "i's just one issue. Well, if it's just one issue and not something on which the security of the country depends, why are we there at all? And if it is worth sending our children to their deaths for, couldn't Lieberman have the decency to show up for the votes?

As for the charge of negative campaigning, if calling attention to the Senator's record is negative, that says more about his record than it does about the tactics of the Lamont campaign. I mean, the man is running as the 18-year incumbent. What are we supposed to talk about? Baseball?
 
"Showless Joe" could also work as a moniker for Lieberman.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home