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).
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Thursday Morning Round-Up
- Reviews of Ned Lamont's national security address yesterday are in. The NY Times links to the full speech from their website, and writes:
Delivering his first major speech since defeating Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in the Democratic primary last month, Mr. Lamont gave a broad outline of his foreign policy, suggesting that the United States should negotiate with Iran and Syria while continuing to support Israel.
Mr. Lamont also reiterated his call for a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, saying that the war had proved to be “dangerously wrong.”
“I supported our invasion of Afghanistan — that’s where Al Qaeda was, that’s where terror was breeding,” Mr. Lamont said. “Each day Afghanistan falls further and further towards chaos.”...
The speech is another step in a new offensive for Mr. Lamont, who is trying to assert himself on a variety of issues, including military force and troop withdrawal. His advisers say they are also trying to force Mr. Lieberman, who is now running in the general election on his own party line, to defend his support of the war. - The Courant notes Ned's "surprising" references to Republican Presidents in the speech (shouldn't be "surprising," reallly, since he has advocated a return to our post-war common-sense, bipartisan foreign policy this entire campaign):
Lamont, who defeated Lieberman in a Democratic primary as the champion of anti-war liberals, placed his world view in surprising company, praising Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush....
Reagan may be anathema to liberal Democrats, but Lamont said the GOP icon toppled the Berlin Wall by following a U.S. tradition of bipartisan foreign policy and by marshaling world opinion. - A letter in the East Hartford Gazette asks why the Senator gets to work part-time:
Recently, Sen. Joe Lieberman failed to vote for or against a budget that included $50 billion for 6 months of action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lieberman failed to vote for or against requiring the administration to report to congress every 3 months on whether Iraq is in a civil war.
Lieberman failed to vote for or against adding $200 million to hunt down terrorist leaders. Lieberman failed to vote for or against adding $20 million for a public relations contract to generate positive news coverage about Iraq.
Why is Lieberman not voting on these bills? Could it be that he is paralyzed by the upcoming election and is now not even willing to vote his convictions? What kind of message does this send to the citizens of Connecticut?...
Donald M. Currey
East Hartford - And, finally, Dan Gerstein, who we can always count on to address the important issues of the day, attacks Ned Lamont for being a volunteer teacher:
"Ned Lamont has loudly and widely trumpeted his credentials as an educator and in doing so has unequivocally given people the impression that he is currently a teacher in the Bridgeport public schools. Since Mr. Lamont is touting this credential, there are legitimate questions," Gerstein said.
"He has distorted Lieberman's record and he has a habit of mischaracterizing his own positions on Iraq. If he is not teaching, why does he continue to mislead the voters about his role in the Bridgeport public schools?" Gerstein said.
What is Sen. Lieberman's volunteer teaching experience, again? Update: Sirota has more:I’ve worked on a number of political campaigns, and I must say - this is the first I’ve seen a career politician attack his opponent for actually volunteering time at an inner-city school as a way to give back to the community. I mean, really - I’ve never seen anything like it. Worse, to actually come out and just lie about it and say that the factually provable reality isn’t true…there really are no words. It makes you wonder how Lieberman and Gerstein get up in the morning, look in the mirror and don’t feel ashamed of themselves.
Comments:
<< Home
Well then, can Mr. Lieberman actually use the title "Senator" if he doesn't even bother to vote on items brought to the Senate floor?
Voting on 31 of 61 Iraq War items over the last three years would seem to indicate Mr. Lieberman is more of a part-timer.
Perhaps Mr. Lieberman didn't take the oath of office and so is not bound to service. Perhaps there is an exemption to being drafted to vote.
Post a Comment
Voting on 31 of 61 Iraq War items over the last three years would seem to indicate Mr. Lieberman is more of a part-timer.
Perhaps Mr. Lieberman didn't take the oath of office and so is not bound to service. Perhaps there is an exemption to being drafted to vote.
<< Home