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).

Saturday, June 03, 2006


Live From Meriden, It's Saturday Afternoon

Or sorta half-live, anyway. Over at the official blog, Tim has a recap (with video and photos) of the unpublicized, yet very well-attended, volunteer meeting in Meriden eariler today. Here's Ned addressing the crowd:


DWT Contest

Howie Klein at Down With Tyranny has a great roundup of progressive challengers running against other Lieberman-esque out-of-touch incumbents, including Jerry McNerney, who is running for the nomination to take on Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) in November, and Donna Edwards, who is taking on Rep. Al Wynn (D-MD) for, among other things, his pro-Bush votes on the bankruptcy bill, the energy bill, and Iraq (sound familiar?)

He quotes a bit from Sirota's book about Lieberman's duplicity on the bankruptcy bill (voting for cloture, then against the bill), and ends with this challenge/contest to Lamont supporters:

OK-- that made me think of a contest. Lieberman has liked this tactic of deception-- making sure to support his Republican allies where it really counts and then claiming to vote with Democrats when it doesn't. The 10 best essays or paragraphs with examples of Lieberman's duplicity along these lines will get a rare and valuable CD that can't be purchased in any stores and has music on it by a variety of ultra cool artists like The Ramones, Green Day, Body Count, Fleetwood Mac, The Smiths, Enya, Eric Clapton, Joni Mitchell, Depeche Mode, Wilco, Neil Young, Lou Reed and John Cale, Talking Heads, Armageddon Dildos and more (including some songs that are otherwise unavailable). Send your answers to downwithtyranny@aol.com

I've got one for Howie, and it's old-school and kind of backwards from the way Joe usually works these things: his 1991 vote against Clarence Thomas' confirmation.

On October 4th, 1991, Lieberman spoke on the floor of the senate in glowing praise of the future Associate Justice. He had met with Thomas privately and was convinced of his qualifications for the position. Even after the Anita Hill accusations came out, Lieberman stood by his statement of support. But he was feeling the pressure back home, both within his family and among his constituents in Connecticut. On the day of the confirmation vote, he admitted himself to the New York Times that he didn't decide how he was going to vote until 15 minutes before the roll call. He changed his mind and voted "no" after it was clear Thomas had the votes anyway (11 other Democrats would vote in favor).

He claimed to have just had a last-minute change of heart based on Hill's accusations. But other sources remember it differently:

"My recollection on the day of the vote is that Lieberman told us that his daughter and wife were very upset that he was going to vote to confirm then Judge Thomas," says a former Bush administration official who was involved in the confirmation process.

"As a result," the former official says, "he said he was going to vote against Thomas unless his vote was needed to confirm Thomas. As reflected in the roll-call vote, Lieberman waited until after we had 50 votes to vote 'no.'"...

So Lieberman supposedly said he would have been there for Bush Sr. if he had needed him on Thomas. I wonder if that's why Hannity thought Joe would have been there for Bush Jr. if he had really needed him on Alito 15 years later.

DFA/MoveOn Rally for Ned Lamont

This Thursday, June 8th, at 12 noon in New Haven:

In conjunction with MoveOn Political Action, Democracy for America is holding a kick-off rally for Ned Lamont's campaign at the Omni Hotel in New Haven at 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, 6/8. DFA Chair Jim Dean will announce DFA's official endorsement and introduce Ned Lamont.

Thursday, June 8, 2006, 12:00 PM

Omni Hotel
155 Temple Street
New Haven, CT06510

Friday, June 02, 2006


Friday Round-Up


The Nail in Big Oil Joe's Coffin

From the beginning of this campaign, in desperate need of anything to convince Democratic voters that he is in fact a Democrat, Sen. Lieberman has pushed his stance on the environment as the single most important of his progressive bona-fides. (In his excellent interview with Jonathan Singer, Ned made sure to point out his disappointment with the senator's changing stance).

But it's tough for the senator to pull this off when he was the only New England Democrat to vote for the Cheney energy bill in 2005.

And it's even tougher when, at the very same time the energy bill was being debated in the senate, Lieberman Communications Director Matt Gobush left his job...

to become "Manager of Executive Communications"...

for Exxon Mobil.

Update: See this recent post for more on Big Oil Joe's support for energy companies reaping obscene billions off the backs of Americans.

Update 2: June 15, 2005 - the day Gobush left his job with Lieberman in order to join ExxonMobil - was the very same day the oil company announced they were hiring Philip Cooney, the chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality who had resigned 5 days earlier, and who had come under fire while in office for altering scientific reports in order to downplay global warming.

It was quite fortutitous that on the day ExxonMobil hired a controversial Republican official who had basically done their bidding in the White House, they would have also had a "Democratic" hire ready to go, with whom they could counter charges of corrpution:

ExxonMobil defended its hiring of Cooney by stating that they hire from both sides of the aisle. In a written statement to Democracy Now! The company wrote that "ExxonMobil hired Mr. Cooney at about the same time we hired Matt Gobush, who was the Communications Director for Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. We have always hired highly qualified people for their talent--not their politics."

Gobush's hiring provided cover for Bush, Cheney, and Big Oil - just like his boss would a few weeks later when he voted for the energy bill.


Via Political Wire, the WSJ's Washington Wire brings up something that will inevitably (and perhaps greatly) affect races across the country in the next few weeks - Alito is going to have his coming out party on SCOTUS:

Justices prepare to rule on series of controversial issues at close of first session under Bush’s new chief justice. Each side hopes that decisions, to be issued at 10 a.m. each Monday this month, will fire up ideological base as Republican and Democratic candidates square off for control of Congress.

Rulings are expected on military trials for Guantanamo detainees, Texas redistricting driven by DeLay, Vermont’s campaign-finance laws, and application of Clean Air Act. With O’Connor gone, close cases may turn on maverick Justice Kennedy, who has infuriated conservatives by citing international law and opposing a voter initiative challenging gay rights.

If any of these decisions are 5-4 with Alito in the majority (like last week's decision against the rights of government whistleblowers), Lieberman, more than any other candidate, will catch a huge amount of flak.

Lieberman, who refused to admit to his "pal" Sean Hannity that he actually stood by his (albeit meaningless) "no" vote on Alito:

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.


Website Update

Video and pdfs are now up at the official website's new "online resource center," where you can also easily write a letter to the editor. There are also links to set up your own blog or ActBlue page. I really like the supporter-driven approach to these online tools.

(Not to be confused with the unofficial and similarly excellent Ned Lamont Resource.)

Thursday, June 01, 2006


So Much For Seniority

Having the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee is working out just great for Connecticut.

Thursday Mid-Day Roundup

Busy day around the blogs so far:


Lieberman in Serious Trouble

You can tell it from his skittish behavior. You can tell it from his desperate negative attacks. You can tell it from his refusal to rule out an independent run.

And local politicos, national pundits, and now even political science professors like author David Lublin are all rapidly realizing that defeat on August 8th is a real possibility for the senator:

Joe Lieberman is in deep trouble in Connecticut. His overall approval rating according to SurveyUSA is a healthy 59%, compared with 37% disapproving. While Sen. Lieberman should have little trouble with those numbers in the general election, he is the rare senator who seems likely to lose in a Democratic primary.

Wednesday, May 31, 2006


Liveblogging Highlights

From Ned's one-hour online Q&A at dKos tonight:

On Lieberman's desperate attack ads:

"The attack ads take budget votes from 15 years ago; the claims are false and it is disappointing that the senator wants to talk about anything except for the issues which people across this state ask me about everyday. My votes have always made education a top priority, and they always will."

On the corrupting effects of Washington:

"I am not taking any lobbyist money, I am clearly not obligated to the political brass; I am only obligated to the thousands of grassroots people who have supported my campaign, and my outspoken kids who keep me honest."

On representing the people of Connecticut:

"I believe that the Senator is representing himself, not the people of CT who believe as I do that staying the course in Iraq is not a winning strategy."

On his showing at the convention:

"Our delegates showed alot of guts at the convention.It was a public vote and many of the party brass were looking over the shoulders of delegates as they voted. This is how progressive movements begin."

On Lieberman running as an Independent:

"If Senator Lieberman runs as an independent, he will split the Republican vote."

On the opinion of party big wigs:

"Publicly the party brass do not think much of primaries, but privately many of them are saying 'go for it,' the Party needs a shot in the arm."

Ned Liveblogging

Update: Here's the post.

At Daily Kos, tonight, 7pm.

In the meantime, check out CTBob's two new videos.

Lamont Campaign Responds to Lieberman's Misleading Attacks

From an email (full text here):

This past weekend, as we reflected on the sacrifices made by American service members and their families during wars past and present, Senator Lieberman launched a full-run of television attack ads against Ned Lamont. Just like President Bush did to John Kerry in 2004, the ads are so devoid of context they would make Karl Rove blush. And while their content is highly suspect, the money paying for them is undeniable. This election cycle, Senator Lieberman is the U.S. Senate's top recipient of campaign contributions from the defense industry, second largest recipient of pharmaceutical manufacturer donations, and has collected over $1 million from political action committees. From now until the end of the campaign, every time you see a Joe Lieberman advertisement, flier, bumper sticker or button, you know who's paying for it.

...Lieberman's ad claimed Ned voted against cleaning asbestos out of a local public school. But what the ad didn't say was that it was part of a larger $45 million appropriation of which less than 5% was slated for asbestos removal. Those bills are all-or-nothing, and Ned thought a good amount of the spending in the bill was unnecessary, so he voted the whole thing down. It's the same kind of attack President Bush launched when he screamed over and over that John Kerry voted against the now infamous $87 billion to provide troops with body armor. That vote too was part of a much larger spending bill that resulted in billions of wasted dollars. Senator Lieberman has always been too close for comfort with President Bush on issues like Iraq, Social Security, and the current energy policy, but who knew they have been trading advice on campaign tactics during their time together. We need your help to fight back.


Tom Swan
Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate

Fight back against Lieberman's smear tactics here.


Over in New York, a challenger to a big-name incumbent senator who wants to introduce an anti-war resolution at a state Democratic convention today is being stifled by party leaders who want to prevent any discussion of Iraq in order to protect the out-of-the-mainstream views of this sitting senator.

Sound familiar?

It's not that Hillary Clinton has to go, or that her challenger has any shot of pulling it off (the former is a debatable question, the latter really isn't). It's that the Democratic party across the country is trying to prevent discussion on the most important issue facing this nation in order to cover for incumbents whose views don't even represent their constituents. And that's both morally unforgivable and politically stupid.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006


Dodd vs. Lieberman

Here's a graph comparing the support of Connecticut's Democratic senator to that of the state's other senator, as discussed in this earlier post (blue is approval, red is disapproval):

Dodd vs. Lieberman graph

Republicans, conservatives, and pro-lifers all give Dodd negative approval ratings. But they are Lieberman's most ardent supporters. (As highlighted in yellow.)

Liberals give Lieberman a negative approval rating. But, along with Democrats as a whole, they are among Dodd's most ardent supporters. (As highlighted in green.)

Connecticut has one senator whose base of support is Republican, conservative, and pro-life, and another whose base of support is Democratic, liberal, and pro-choice.

Connecticut has one senator who has never hinted of leaving the party, and another who repeatedly refuses to rule out doing so.

Connecticut has one Democratic senator, and one other senator.

More Troops to Iraq

I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time. But I think the level of activity that we see today, from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.

- Dick Cheney, one year ago today.

The top American commander in Iraq has decided to move reserve troops now deployed in Kuwait into the volatile Anbar Province in western Iraq to help quell a rise in insurgent attacks there, two American officials said Monday.

Although some soldiers from the 3,500-member brigade in Kuwait have moved into Iraq in recent months, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. has decided to send in the remainder of the unit after consultations with Iraqi officials in recent days, the officials said.

- "U.S. Is Sending Reserve Troops to Iraq's West ", New York Times, today.

We're talking about 2006, 7, 8... that's three years. And I believe that a lot of very good things can happen in three years in Iraq that ideally would allow us to remove every American soldier who's there today.

- Joe Lieberman, two months ago.

Our troops must stay. ...Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do.

- Joe Lieberman, six months ago.

Tuesday Mid-Day Roundup

Monday, May 29, 2006


"Meet Ned Lamont?"

That's the title of Joe Lieberman's desperate and pretty lame attack ad running on TV stations across the state right now.

But ironically, when given the chance to do just that - to meet Ned Lamont - Joe chose to ignore him this weekend.

At the Waterbury Memorial Day parade on Sunday, Ned showed up with an excited group of friends, family, and supporters to march and honor the holiday. He was placed right in back of Rep. Nancy Johnson (R, CT-05) and, after some minor wrangling between the campaign and organizers of the parade over whether signs and t-shirts bearing the candidate's name were allowed (they weren't), the parade got off to a start.

A couple of minutes into the parade, Joe Lieberman slickly and quietly appeared and inserted himself right next to Rep. Johnson. A minute or so later, at a stop in the parade, Ned advanced and very politely approached the senator. He got up to him, wished him a happy Memorial Day, and offered him his hand. Sen. Lieberman pretty much refused to acknowledge his opponent's existence. Ned retreated back to his spot and marched the rest of the parade with supporters, friends, and family, while Sen. Lieberman marched the rest of the parade hand-in-hand with Nancy Johnson.

On Sunday, Sen. Lieberman had the chance to really "meet Ned Lamont," his fellow Democrat, who has - unlike the senator - both promised to support the winner of the primary and always acted in a polite and genial matter towards his opponent.

Instead, he decided to act like a petulant adolescent for the entire day, even mouthing off - unprovoked - to Lamont supporters on the sidewalk.

What a sad sight it was to see a once-respected senator reduced to this.

"I'm Joe Lieberman and I Approve This Baseless Negative Ad"

Spazeboy spent over a day going through Tivo loooking for Joe's desperate and hypocritical attack ad on Ned Lamont. He found it. Show the Ned Lamont Resource (and the blog at La Resistance) some love:

Wow. Who knew Ned Lamont was pro-asbestos! Good thing Joe hasn't found out about his pro-puppy killing policies yet.

It's so sad to see Joe sink to such depths, after having once claimed that such baseless negative attacks on some minor and long-forgotten votes in an opponent's record were below him.

This is not the same senator Connecticut Democrats voted into office 18 years ago. He is now a cranky, testy, out-of-touch and sad man who feels he is entitled to his job and doesn't deserve to suffer the inconvenience and indignity of the democratic process.

Sunday, May 28, 2006


Memorial Day Weekend