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, October 12, 2006



(Update: Forward this article to your friends and family here.)

I just got around to reading the Journal-Inquirer's editorial today:

...It is important for Democratic voters to know where Good Old Joe really stands this year and who his friends are...

At the Monday luncheon he:

- Said House Speaker Dennis Hastert should not resign.

- Introduced two Republican candidates for state office - for comptroller and state treasurer. He didn't introduce any Democrats, who have previously been told not to campaign at these luncheons.

- Thanked his Republican "friends" for their support, and he said he would never forget them.

Last week Lieberman told a Washington, D.C., newspaper that:

- He would also never forget the Democrats, like Chris Dodd, who moved to support Ned Lamont after he won the Democratic Senate nomination.

- If re-elected, Lieberman expects to retain his seniority. Otherwise, he said, he would have to consider not caucusing with the Democrats.

Well, there is only one other group to caucus with - the Senate Republicans.

Connecticut Republicans know what's going on in this election. Their nominal candidate, Alan Schlesinger, has between 3 and 5 percent in the polls. The Republican national chairman has declined to endorse him and Gov. Jodi Rell said he should withdraw from the contest. Republicans know that Joe is their horse in this race.

Democrats who think Lieberman is still one of them need to wake up and smell the coffee.

And voters of all stripes who think Lieberman isn't running one of the most expensive, personal-attack-filled campaigns in Connecticut history need to do likewise:

Once upon a time there was a primary. And in that primary, we ran a campaign that focused almost exclusively on the issues. We talked about Senator Lieberman … often. Of course we did, but we kept it to the issues: Iraq, his support for a deeply flawed president, and votes he cast in the Senate, like his vote for the Bush/Cheney energy policy. In a limited amount of time, we introduced a candidate who would stand up to President Bush on Iraq, would work for universal health care in ways Senator Lieberman never has, and wanted to do something about the earmark process in Washington, D.C.

Senator Lieberman, by contrast, went digging through Ned’s bank account, decided the urban vote was the make-or-break and played the race card excessively (including getting surrogates to lie from the pulpits of churches), talked about Ned’s stock, faked a website hack and smeared us with it, wouldn’t shut-up about tax returns, sent paid thugs to campaign activities, equated support for our campaign with emboldening al-Qaeda, leaked charges of anti-semitism to reporters and much much more.

If you have been an unapologetic cheerleader for a war that has claimed 650,000 innocent lives for no good purpose, then you are an amoral, hollow man. It is the amorality of this supposedly pious man that the voters should be looking at.
I woke this morning to hear Lieberman's whining voice on NPR berating Ned re: the comments made about his participation in the civil rights movement. Later, I heard his ad re: Ned's business practices. If one is caught in repeated lies, then his whole record and pronouncements should be subject to scrutiny. I heard Ned respond to the civil rights issue, no further apology is necessary.

"the person Lieberman really is, is a Bush Republican."

And by extension,


Bush Republican.


Bush Republican.


Bush Republican.


Bush Republican.


Alan Schlesinger?

Average Republican.
Post a Comment

<< Home