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, September 16, 2006


Speaking of "Loyalty"

New ad running today.

Dodging Dodd

Yet another example of how Sen. Lieberman treats his friends - friends who showed the utmost loyalty to him:

In NH yesterday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) tried to put some distance between himself and fellow CT Sen. Joe Lieberman. Dodd told a group of NH Dems a story of how he was trying to reach Lieberman by cell phone during the week before the primary and he never returned his calls. Dodd said the he was trying to reach Lieberman to prep him for the fact he wouldn't support an indie bid. Dodd also said Lieberman never told him anything about the indie plans. (Hotline sources).


Saturday Morning Round-Up

("Complete Head Case" Edition.)

Friday, September 15, 2006


The Speech Must Have Been "Procedural"

From the Fairfield University Mirror (registration required) comes Sen. Lieberman's newest excuse for not talking about or voting on Iraq - it's just too complicated:

Lieberman did not mention Iraq in his speech, which lasted approximately 20 minutes. In response to a question posed by Fairfield politics professor John Orman, who briefly challenged Lieberman in the Democratic primary last spring, Lieberman said he wouldn't be doing justice to the fight against Al Qaeda or to the war in Iraq if he discussed both in the same speech.

Late Update: Mike from the comments:

So he's saying the invasion of Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror?


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."


A Thousand Words

Sen. Lieberman's car parked at Fairfield University this morning:


Friday Morning Round-Up

"Non-Combatant" Edition:

Thursday, September 14, 2006


On the Record

In recent days, Lieberman's campaign has launched personal attacks against Ned's wife, Ned's personal finances, and Ned's experience as a volunteer teacher.

In the same time period, Ned Lamont has outlined his national security policy, put forward an educational proposal (pdf), and pointed out Sen. Lieberman's miserable voting record.

He hasn't gone after his opponent's personal finances, or his family, or his volunteer experience (wait, does he have any?).

Who's "negative"?

Sen. Lieberman's Term Off

Bueller? Bueller?:

Lieberman skipping “votes on jobs that mattered to people”:
-SKIPPED VOTE to expend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (1/22/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to provide emergency disaster assistance to agricultural producers (1/22/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to provide minimum funding requirements for pension plans (1/22/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to repeal the authorities and requirements for a base closure round in 2005 (6/4/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to extended unemployment insurance (7/10/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to implement the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (7/31/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to implement the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (7/31/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to restore funding for certain programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (9/4/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to provide emergency relief for healthcare/schools/transportation needs & create 95,000 new jobs (10/14/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to pass the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (08/03/06)

Lieberman skipping “votes on defense that mattered to people”:
-SKIPPED VOTE to allow full access to Tricare for National Guard and Reserve Personnel and their families (3/25/03).
-SKIPPED VOTE to Support Department of Defense Operations in Iraq for Fiscal Year 2003 (4/3/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance bill (5/8/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to pass Military Construction and Department of Defense appropriations bills (7/11/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to provide National Guard and Reserve forces access to TRICARE (7/16/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to pass Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 (9/7/06)

Lieberman skipping “votes making the tax code fairer [that] could have protected middle-class taxpayers”:
-SKIPPED VOTE to pass the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003 (3/27/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to accelerate the child tax credit (7/9/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to fund homeland security by reducing the Bush tax cuts for those making $1 million or more (7/24/03)

Lieberman skipping “votes that could have really helped clean up our environment”:
-SKIPPED VOTE to allow the suspension of the renewable fuel program (6/3/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to allow states to participate in the renewable fuel program (6/3/03).
-SKIPPED VOTE to provide for equal liability treatment of vehicle fuels and fuel additives (6/5/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to eliminate requirements for ocean oil drilling exploration (6/12/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to improve the system for enhancing automobile fuel efficiency (7/29/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to impose strengthen automobile fuel economy and reduce vehicle emissions (7/29/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (7/31/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to change requirements of hazardous fuels reduction projects (10/30/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to ensure protection of old-growth forests (10/30/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to pass the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (10/30/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to improve the operation of energy markets (11/05/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to prohibit energy market manipulation (11/05/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to restrict the use of funds for certain conservation programs (11/06/03)
-SKIPPED VOTE to pass the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (08/01/06)


Sen. Lieberman's Favorite Governor

Finally free from his electronic ankle bracelet, John Rowland has a new website and consulting business. Wonder if he'll be doing any work for "Team Connecticut"?

Helen Ubiñas has more. (Hat tip CLP).

Thursday Morning Round-Up

Wednesday, September 13, 2006


Stay The Course

"I support Joe Lieberman because he has consistently said we are going to 'stay the course.'"

- Sgt. James Liska, speaking at a press conference in support of Sen. Lieberman today.

Atrios Again

Tammy Sun says it's a sunrise, not a sunset:

Lieberman spokesmannequin Tammy Sun just issued a statement to CNN regarding Carter's statements:

"[I]t is entirely false to suggest that Joe Lieberman in any way equated dissent about the war with supporting terrorists."

Joe Lieberman:

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

Not to mention - Lieberman:

It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.


Quote Of The Day

He's been strongly in favor of the Iraqi war from the very beginning. He was one of the originators of the public statements that misled the American people into believing that the Iraqi war was justified. He's been an undeviating supporter of the war from the very beginning and still is. He's joined in with the Republican spokespersons by saying that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism. So for all these reasons I've lost my confidence in Joe Lieberman and don't want to see him re-elected.

- Former Pres. Carter on Larry King tonight.

National Security Speech

National Security Speech

Ned emphasized the importance of "strength and judgement" and recalled the history of America successfully winning the Cold War during a wide-ranging national security address at Yale Law School this afternoon. Tim has video and early reports from the press over at the official blog.

Wednesday Morning Round-Up

"No-Show Joe" Edition:

Tuesday, September 12, 2006


In Other Races

Gerstein's ex-boss Tom Suozzi didn't even break the Mendoza line in the NY-GOV primary. (Sen. Clinton won huge, too).

Sen. Chafee (R-RI) seems to have fended off his primary challenge. He should expect a cross-endorsement from the Connecticut for Lieberman party any day now. To do otherwise would mean being a mindless "partisan polarizer." Right?

Sen. Lieberman Silent While Iraq Goes Down The Tubes

OK, forget Sen. Lieberman's missed votes, cheerleading for Bush ("bottom line," Joe thought he had it right), demonizing of Democrats as Al-Qaeda enablers, acceptance of financial support from architects of Bush's war (Bill Kristol) and managers of Bush's post-war policy (Dan Senor), and the all-around and complete lack of any serious calls for accountability from this administration.

Do what Sen. Lieberman wants you to do, think about "good stuff," and forget his failures for the moment.

Sen. Lieberman now says "as a policy maker and elected leader, I am focused on the fact that al-Qaida is there now."

As a policy maker and elected leader, what does he plan to do about this report from the Marines? Anything?

The political and security situation in western Iraq is grim and will continue to deteriorate unless the region receives a major infusion of aid and a division is sent to reinforce the American troops operating there, according to the senior Marine intelligence officer in Iraq.

The assessment, prepared last month by Col. Peter Devlin at the Marine headquarters in Anbar Province, has been sent to senior military officials in Iraq and at the Pentagon....

Without the deployment of an additional division, “there is nothing MNF-W can do to influence the motivation of the Sunni to wage an insurgency,” the report states, according to a military officer familiar with it. MNF-W stands for Multinational Force-West, the formal name of the Marine command. A division numbers about 16,000 troops. The limited number of troops, however, is just one problem in countering the insurgency there, the report says. The assessment describes Anbar as a region marked by violence and criminality. Except for a few relatively bright spots, like the towns of Falluja and Qaim, the region generally lacks functional governments and a respect for the rule of law.

So should we send in another division? The Marines are saying we can't stay the course.

Meanwhile, Michael Ware reports that privately, military commanders are saying we don't just need another division, but three times as many troops in order to maintain order in Western Iraq:


In Ramadi, in western Al Anbar province, we see what can only be described as a black hole in President Bush's global war on terror. As the president is going through his series of speeches to reassure the American people and to inform them about the success and the progress of his war on terror, there in Al Anbar we saw that al Qaeda at its very heart has been found, identified, yet is not being struck at....

WARE: ...Privately, off line, what commanders, again, from Baghdad to Ramadi, will tell you is that they need at least three times as many troops as they currently have there now, be that Iraqi and American or, even better, just three times as many as American troops. I mean, there's an area there north of the Euphrates River that is used by al Qaeda's top leadership that Osama bin Laden himself points to. It's the size of New Hampshire.

This is the same Michael Ware, former Baghdad Bureau Chief for Time Magazine, who said of Sen. Lieberman's policy last December that:

"I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

So what is Sen. Lieberman's plan? Regardless of whatever rhetoric Dan Gerstein and Sen. Lieberman come up with for his speech planned for this week, it's obvious that not much has changed since then.

Plot still lost. Falied policies still being supported.

Comment Of The Day

From gchaucer2:

I hope anyone who had planned on voting for Lieberman decides that their vote is not crucial, that voting for a Senator is only procedural, and stays home.


Tuesday Mid-Day Roundup


No-Show Joe

In addition to skipping out on two critical votes on Iraq last week, Sen. Lieberman also missed six other senate votes for a total of eight missed votes in three days. Some were close, others not:

"Sleeping Bear," anyone?

Lieberman attacked Weicker [in 1988] for missing votes in the Senate; he aired a TV commercial of a sleeping bear, an effective personal shot that ushered in a new era of nasty political campaigning in Connecticut. Lieberman's point was that Weicker had become too cavalier about voting and doing his job after three terms in office.

And Sen. Lieberman's response?

“I plan to return to the Senate for votes when my presence is a deciding factor and important committee business in which my participation is crucial,” Lieberman wrote. “The task of representation is truly a two-way street.”

So unless the vote is 50-50, Sen. Lieberman says he doesn't have to show up.

But this is nothing new. Sen. Lieberman claims to want to hold Bush accountable on Iraq, but has also missed 11 crucial votes on Iraq in recent years:

LIEBERMAN SKIPPING KEY SENATE VOTES ON IRAQ; HAS MISSED AT LEAST 11 IRAQ VOTES SINCE 2003: On 9/6/06, Lieberman missed a critical close Senate vote on Iraq. Specifically, the vote was on legislation to require the Pentagon to provide more information to Congress and the public on the potential for civil war in Iraq. Lieberman missed this critical vote even though the Hartford Courant noted that Lieberman was in Washington that day. In fact, Lieberman attended the vote that immediately preceded this key Iraq vote. That was on a bill to prevent cluster bombing of civilian targets. Lieberman voted against that bill. Lieberman also missed another close Iraq vote the next day – this time on legislation to stop the Pentagon from trying to artificially influence the Iraqi news media in the wake of embarrassing scandals about U.S. government media tampering that have enflamed anti-American passions in Iraq. In all, Lieberman has missed at least 11 Iraq votes since the war started in 2003. [Sources: Senate Roll Call Vote #233, 9/6/06; Hartford Courant, 9/7/06; Senate Roll Call Vote #232, 9/6/07; Senate Roll Call Vote #236, 9/7/06]

LIEBERMAN ONLY SENATOR TO MISS TWO KEY IRAQ VOTES IN 2003: Lieberman was the only U.S. Senator to miss a close vote on a resolution to urge the president to better engage America’s international allies to help bear the military and financial cost of the war. He was also the only senator to miss a close vote on a bill that would have created a federal agency overseeing Iraq reconstruction money so as to prevent war profiteering. In both cases, the votes were very close, and the legislation in question was defeated. [Sources: Senate Roll Call Vote #391, 10/17/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #392, 10/17/03]

Monday, September 11, 2006


"Legalized Bribery"

Lieberman defends earmarks, but former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich has a great post on why they need to be banned:

The stench is worse today than in 1994. The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has ballooned to the point there are over 60 of them for every single member of Congress. They spent $2.4 billion last year. What do you think the lobbyists bought with that money?

A lot of it was for earmarks, obviously -- specific morsels of bacon designed to pay off some big donors back home. Most folks back home don't see a penny of it. It goes into the pockets of conduits like Jack Abramoff. And taxpayers foot the bill for all the earmarks for every specially-favored interest all over the country. Ten years ago there were about 3,000 earmarks. Last year there were over 14,000, costing taxpayers over $47 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

To show voters they've at least done something, the House leadership is set to require by House rules that legislation containing earmarks list members of Congress who sponsored them. But that’s not reform. That’s advertising. There’s no mystery about who sponsors what earmark. Just look at whose district the earmarked money will go to.

The only meaningful reform is to ban all earmarks, period. They’re taxpayer ripoffs. They're legalized bribery. If this House won’t clean up its act, the public will clean up the House and throw the rascals out. If the Democrats don't stop this taxpayer carnage on their watch, the public will throw them out next time.


Monday Morning Round-Up

"America's Next Top Lamont" Edition:

Sunday, September 10, 2006


Shorter Joe

"I shouldn't have to show up for a Senate vote unless my vote will break the tie... Even if I'm in D.C.... And the vote is about holding President Bush accountable on Iraq."

Sen. Lieberman and his surrogates have spent this entire camapaign - from February until today - defending the status quo of politics in Washington D.C. His campaign has called Ned Lamont "naive" for thinking that representing his constituents' views is actually important, no matter what the end result of any particular vote. He has defended earmarks and wasteful spending such as the "bridge to nowhere," as if the system wasn't broken. And after a primary campaign spent burnishing his Democratic credentials, he now routinely hammers home the evils of "partisan polarization," as if Democrats were just as responsible for the disastrous state of the country as Republicans - who represent well under 50% of the country yet control 100% of government power (and sometimes it feels like more).

More than merely expecting Senators to show up for votes, Connecticut voters expect much more than this type of do-nothing cynicism from their elected representatives.

Cheney Echoes Lieberman Twice

On the democratic virtues of debate:

VP Cheney, today:

The vice president said U.S. allies in Afghanistan and Iraq "have doubts" America will finish the job there. "And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we've had in the United States."

Sen. Lieberman, last Decemner:

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said.

On Democrats helping terrorists:

VP Cheney, today:

"Suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists."

Sen. Lieberman, last month:

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."


The Primary Next Door

You wouldn't necessarily know it by the national media's miniscule coverage in comparison to the Lieberman-Lamont race, but the Rhode Island Republican party is holding a primary of its own for Senate this coming Tuesday, with incumbent moderate Sen. Chafee (R) facing off against the hard-right Club-for-Growth-supported Steve Laffey (R). Sheldon Whitehouse (D) is the Democrat in the race, and is currently leading in the polls against both potential Republican candidates (although by a much larger margin against Laffey).

Who is Sen. Lieberman supporting in this contentious race right next door? Between gaining the outright endorsements of Susan Collins (R-ME) and Chris Shays (R-CT), as well as the unspoken endorsement of the bulk of the CT Republican party, his new political base seems very much to be New England Republicans. This opens up a bunch of fascinating questions, including:

In any case, this race deserves more attention than it's been getting, as Ruth Marcus points out in The Day (originally from the Washington Post):

Yet the analogy goes only so far. The Rhode Island race is more complex, certainly odder and potentially far more momentous.

For angry Democratic voters, a Lamont vote was all but risk-free. Rhode Island is Connecticut with consequences: A Laffey nomination in this heavily Democratic state could imperil GOP control of the Senate. A general election race between the Democratic nominee, former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, and a bruised Chafee promises to be close. But nearly the only one who thinks Laffey would beat Whitehouse is Laffey. “I'll crush him,” he asserts.