Primary Camps Turn Up Heat (Lamont-Lieberman)

[NewJeffCT]

Primary Camps Turn Up Heat
Lieberman Attacks, Lamont Dips Into Own Pockets To Counter
July 9, 2006
By MARK PAZNIOKAS, Courant Staff Writer

With last week's heated debate before an estimated audience of 150,000 television viewers, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and Ned Lamont framed the remaining 30 days of their Democratic primary battle.

Their campaigns intend to reinforce themes sounded and impressions created during the 60-minute pitched battle over Lieberman's commitment to Democratic ideals and Lamont's fitness for office.

On Saturday, those intentions began to take shape, adding a new jolt to a race that already has become a nationally watched test of the anti-war movement's threat to Lieberman and other incumbents identified with the war in Iraq.

Lieberman, 64, aired a new television commercial accusing Lamont of being a closet Republican who has distorted the incumbent's 18-year record in the Senate. The spot said Lieberman votes with Democrats 90 percent of the time.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-doublel0709.artjul09,0,7875943.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

[SoCalDem]

1. Well, Joe....

The 10% of the time you vote with your kissy-face buddies have been some doozies:) and the 90% are often votes that , when combined with the other democrats are still losing votes.. The 10%ers are usually added to a winning combination for the republicans and lots of those votes are pretty close ones.. Turing your back on democrats in exchange for a rosegarden picture of you kissing George's ass, so Karl can add your name and mug to a republican talking point ad is nothing to be proud of.

[unblock]

2. thank you for showing another flaw of "voting scorecards"

and yours has the benefit of being easier to express than some of mine. someone can score well for any party by siding with them when their vote is not critical (throw-away votes), and voting against their party only when it makes a difference.

[ihelpu2see]

30. I live in CT and I can't believe how they(the media)really bend toward Joe

The feel free to mention Lamont's wealth but fail to mention the hundreds of thousands of lobbyist money and big business $$ that Joe is using.

They like to parrot Joe's line about voting with town republicans over 80% of the time but again forget to mention that this is TOWN politics!
I'm on the Board of Finance in Northern CT and well I bet there has not been one NAY at a meeting yet and only one abstension.....
So, that argument is moot!!

:headbang:
I hope on Aug. 8th we all can sing Na Na Na NAA Hey Hey Hey Goood By joe...

[Vinca]

3. Lamont should air an ad that covers all the things that have

gone wrong in Joe's 18 years. It would demonstrate how everything has gotten progressively worse under his tenure, so why elect him to another term?

[Joe Bacon]

4. 2,540 reasons to dump LIEberman

The number of our soldiers killed in Iraq. Of course it goes up every day thanks to Ass-kissing Joe!

The same LIEberman who went on record to dismantle Social Security

THe same LIEberman who schemed to put Alito and Roberts on the Whore Court.

The same LIEberman who said it's OK for Catholic hospitals to discriminate against rape victims.

The same LIEberman who is rigging his re-election in a manner that Karl Rove approves.

The same LIEberman who stabbed Bill Clinton in the back about Monica, yet when his pal Bill Bennett is caught with a Vegas hooker, LIEberman keeps his mouth shut.

The same LIEberman who openly works with Christian Dominionists to dismantle the First Amendment.

The same LIEberman who rubber stamped the "Patriot Act"

The same LIEberman who approves dismantling the Civil Service and returning to the old patronage-based "Spolis System" when he rubber stamped the creation of the Homeland Security department.

LIEberman must GO before he sends us all to the Handmaid's Tale!

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Lieberman would prefer the profile of reasonable bipartisonship when

in fact he generally supports the * Administration. With his influence otherwise utilized, the fillibuster could have kept Samuel Alito off the Supreme Court, cut off some funds to the Iraqi occupation (by which at least the funds could have been made publicly accountable), the federal deficit stabilized if not decreased, etc. But his comments on rape victims having the option of aimlessly driving throughout CT to find a hospital that would dispense the morning-after pill is unforgiveable and telling. These acts and words don't make JL "independent" and his "own man". It makes him a hypocrite to principles of his own political party.

[riona]

6. I don't care about Joe's high percentage

of Dem votes. The bottom line is, his all out support of the Iraq war has a direct influence on practically every interest of the average American. The loss of our men and women is unforgivable. The unbelievable budget for this war has or will negatively impact spending for Social Security, Medicare, Education, the environment - just to name a few programs. The war is not a single issue.

[Rose Siding]

7. Strategic voting makes those percentages murky anyway

His vote against Alito would count as a pro-dem vote, while his vote for cloture -which smoothed the way for the nominee- might not even be figured in there (many dems voted for cloture -still, Joe's pattern of failure in the clutch gives weight to his, imo)

[IndianaGreen]

12. The vote for cloture was the key vote in the Alito nomination

the vote that followed it was a cover-your-ass vote. Like you said, Rose Siding, those vote ratings are murky, in fact, they can be very misleading.

[skyblue]

8. The War is Not Going To End Until Most Americans Say Withdraw the Troops.

CT is not a Blue State. 3 Republican Representatives, 2 Democratic Representatives. A very Popular Republican Governor. Lamont's campaign is being run by Republicans and a big time loser former tobacco lobbyist former Republican ex-governor . Lieberman's being an incumbent makes him far more electable than the fact that he is a Democrat otherwise there would be a Democratic Governor. Anti-war sentiment should be extending into other campaigns and making them successful in the state of CT. Is this happening for a successful result in the General Election. I don't think so. Lamont wants you to vote your dreams instead of voting with your brain.

[NewJeffCT]

9. CT is a pretty blue state

The problem is that our state Democratic party is awful when it comes to statewide races. They gave no support to Bill Curry in 2002 when he ran against Rowland... and nobody wants to buck the system. Lieberman or Dodd could have given Rell a tough race, and Rosa DeLauro, Dick Blumenthal & John Larson were possibilities to give her a run for her money. But, our state Dems are too comfortable in their easily re-electable seats. Now, Larson and DeLauro will win their races with 65-70% of the vote, the same with Blumy.

Would you also say that Massachusetts is not a blue state since they've had Republican governors for over a decade? The same with NY with Republican governors and Republican mayors.

Lowell Weicker ran as an independent when he was a governor and was more liberal as a Republican senator than Joe Lieberman is now - Lieberman ran to Weicker's right in 1988.

[skyblue]

19. I don't know about Mass Or NY I'm talking about CT and Lamont

will have a tough time running as an anti-war Senator in the general should the news about NK make a hawk more palatable to the public.

[calico1]

13. CT is a blue State.

I know, I live here. Don't go solely by who the elected reps are. If we were a red State we would have voted for Bush. Gore and Kerry both won here by wide margins. The Republican reps we have are certainly not wingnuts like Delay or Santorum. If they were they would not be in office. All of them have consistent pro choice voting records, for example. Jodi Rell is popular because after the crook John Rowland she seems like a saint by comparison. And she has not been vocally supportive of Bush or any other wingnut. I am not defending the Republicans here. I'd rather that all Democrats represent the State. But just going by who is in office to decide if a State is red or blue does not tell the whole picture.

[skyblue]

20. CT has 2 Democratic Reps and 3 Republican Reps A HISTORY of REP Governors

[calico1]

23. Well, I live in CT.

Do you? There are very few ultra right wing Conservatives in this State.(voters). And as I mentioned before, the Republicans who get elected do so because they have mostly Moderate views. (All of them are pro choice and pro environment). The very reason why Lieberman is in trouble is for his love of Bush and his policies. A lot of people who voted for him before (including me) have turned against him. And he is a Democrat! You can be sure that if Shays or Johnson went wingnut, started pushing mandatory school prayer or went against abortion rights they'd be thrown out and quick. If you are going to judge a state blue or red based on what party the political representatives are from then yes, that would make CT a red state. But you need to keep in mind that most Republicans in Northern states (especially New England) are Moderate so its not the same as having all republicans in a state like Mississippi. The PEOPLE of CT as a whole are far from RED. We rejected Bush twice because of that. As I said before, if this were truly a Red State Bush would have won easily here.

[skyblue]

45. Shays and Johnson make Millions for the Republican Party. I would not vote

for them. As does the 3rd Republican. They attract people to the Republican party. Yes, I do judge based on what political party the representatives are from not social reasons which probably matter less than a tax cut to many voters who confuse the idea that their measly Republican Tax Cut may also be offered by Democrats. Presidential elections CT tends to vote Blue. If this were a truly blue state there'd be more Democratic Representatives than Republican Representatives, a Democratic Governor, and we could depend on the fact that the Incumbent Senators were not voted in because of name recognition, and experience but rather because of party affiliation.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

14. Living in Oklahoma

Politics are strange here. everyone regardless of repub or democrat has to be christian or not one will vote for them. most people are registered democrat, but we have never voted for a democratic president since 1964. The state senate had it's 1st republican majority since 1920 in the 2004 election. So I cannot figure it out. Is OK a republican or democratic state? Probably the same issue you are facing in CT.

[PassingFair]

33. BS

Lieberman: ProWar
Lieberman: Pro "Faith-Based Initiatives"
Lieberman: Anti National Health Care

Notice is being served by the people.
We are counting on the good people of Connecticut
to serve the papers.

Joe votes yes on clotures, then votes no
when the cameras are running, the votes
are being tallied and the numbers don't
matter.

Screw him and the horses he is riding on.

[monarch]

34. The post by skyblue illustrates

how damaging a dishonest campaign can be. I was tempted to ignore this post because it contains so much wrong information and I didn't want to be nasty to the poster. There is a much larger issue here, however, which is that it is probably up to us to rebut the junk that Lieberman is putting out there, and that includes countering trash in the letters to the editor in the various newspapers.

If an internet-savvy DUer bought Lieberman's outright lie about Republicans running Ned's campaign (There is not a shred of truth to that, by the way) think of how many "low information" voters are buying this and the other trash he's putting out there. Lies do work and we ignore them at our peril! Think swiftboaters when you see this stuff. The campaign has been great about quickly responding to lies like this, but they can't be everywhere.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Lieberman is accusing Lamont of being a closet Republican?

Can you say projection?

Actually, the problem isn't that Lieberman is a closet Republican. It is that he is a closet neoconservatiive, and the closet door is wide open.

[NewJeffCT]

11. As Lamont said in the debate

He compromised with Republicans on potholes, Lieberman compromised with Republicans on principles.

[skyblue]

21. Will Lamont Reveal His Tax Records? Will Lamont's waffling on the M-E

make his candidacy subject to continued questioning by political opponents? Will his employing Republicans to run his campaign look fishy to people? I think so.

[NewJeffCT]

29. I don't think so

There is a difference between employing a Republican and taking advice from a former Republican and kissing one that is WAY farther to the right than Lowell Weicker.

[skyblue]

39. One who is ENDORSED by Labor, Fellow Dems, and other Left wing Groups.

[skyblue]

40. TAX Records are Significant.

[badgervan]

17. Joe IS a Neocon

You make an excellent point, and I hope that Lamont uses it in every appearance over the next 30 days: Joe is a closet neocon. He, bush, and cheney have gone into Iraq for a U.S. presence in the region, with access to oil a strong second reason. A lot of this is protection of Israel, but no one talks about that. I also think that Joe's wife has more influence on his neoconservative views than people realize.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Short critique

Oil is not the secondary reason. It is the primary reason. The US (or any other imperial power) doesn't just move into a place to establish a "presence" in order to promote the local tourist industry. If Iraq's principle product were still dates, as it was when it was called Babylonia, the nobody would give two bits for the place.

As for Israel, although many of Israel's staunchest friends and bitterest critics alike recited the mantra that invading Iraq was for Israel's benefit, I never bought that. If Iraq was not a threat to anybody, then she wasn't a threat to Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. ...and there it is...

The same old tired bullshit crops up, yet again. Amazing that this crap gets to be posted here!

[badgervan]

27. Huh?

Why do you call this "the same old tired bullshit"? My comments are based on Lieberman's votes and speeches over decades. He would even admit to a desire to protect Israel. I don't think that this is a big secret to anyone, yet it explains Joe's unwavering support of an illegal war in Iraq, when our troops should never have been pulled out of Afghanistan. The neocons have always desired a middle east presence, and oil is just one of many reasons. Israel is surrounded by enemies, most of which desire to annihilate her. Its a heckuva lot easier to provide help if you are based in the geographic area, rather than half a globe away. Prove me wrong.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. it is still the same old tired BS

Many politicians support Israel, especially Democrats. However, every time there is an issue with Lieberman the new version of "Jews are more loyal to Israel" gets trotted out in "he bases policies on his support for Israel." The fact is he thought there were WMDs, he thought Saddam was 'out-of-control," yet, none of these proved to be true. But, people still insist that his support of the war, indeed the war itself, was waged on Israel's behalf. It was not!

I desire to protect Israel, but I am firmly against the war in Iraq; so, protecting Israel is more than likely not a mitigating factor. There is NO reason to trot out "Israel" every time Lieberman is mentioned, but it never fails...and that is the bullshit of which I speak!

[badgervan]

31. Joementum Undeserving of Dem Votes

You and I disagree on this. You can think of this issue as "bullshit", but I think that it matters a great deal. Connecticut voters deserve to know just why Joe continues to back a failed illegal invasion - well after Saddam has been put away, and well after all of the original reasons/lies for invading Iraq have been shown to be pure made-up bullshit.
If we are going to put troops in harm's way, it had best be because the United States is directly threatened ( remember the "mushroom cloud" speech? ). This whole Iraq fiasco really steams me, and those who enable bush/cheney to continue the lies, the cover-ups, are despicable - and probably have ulterior motives. Now, you might disagree - but I am not alone in coming to these conclusions. And I say that Lieberman has become a trusted and loyal tool of a dishonest and criminal administration, and Ned Lamont deserves the Democrat vote for Senator from Connecticut. Joe is bush/cheney's pet dem, and gives them political cover with his mouth and crucial votes. Not acceptable.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. I don't think you and I disagree.

I think the voters of CT should decide. I do not support his decision to back (and continue to back) the war in Iraq. However, what I take issue with is the insertion that he is more loyal to Israel than the US. Other than that, he has made his bed, and he must lie in it.

[ninkasi]

15. About Lieberman's voting record

As so many of you have pointed out, the times Joe voted with the Republicans were on key issues that we care the most about. Another thing to consider is that regardless of how he voted, in public he has been lavish in his praise of Chimp. He has acted like a little lap dog, another Blair, willing to let Bush get away with pretty much anything where the war is concerned. Appearances can be powerful, especially for those who don't educate themselves extensively about certain issues. All they see is Holy Joe, smooching on Bush, and whining about fellow Democrats who don't support the illegal invasion of Iraq. That certainly does not help the Democratic party.

[skyblue]

22. Mostly when the Republicans would have won the issue anyway.

[monarch]

36. Matt--

Is that you? I guess I was too kind in my response to your previous post. I thought that the poster was poorly informed, not merely deliberately spreading Lieberman misinformation.

[skyblue]

41. Not Matt, Please read my profile and journal.

[humbled_opinion]

16. Scandalous

I still like Joe and I wish he would not have sided with the Bushies on the War. I don't know Lamont which makes him unelectable in my opinion. CT will vote Liberman in. The only question is will they vote him in as a Primary winning Democrat or as an Independent.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi humbled_opinion!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mvd]

26. Welcome to DU

If Lieberman runs as an independent, we all lose - the Repuke will likely get the seat. Lieberman needs to accept the result of the primary.

[monarch]

35. Once more, s l o w l y--

There is no way the Republicans get this seat! The previous poster thinks that because he/she doesn't know much about Lamont, Lamont can't win. I defy you to find a CT voter who can even identify the name of the Republican nominee when given a choice of 3. Do you know that his single defining issue is criticizing the favorable tax treatment given to the sale of one's home?

CT definitely is a blue state and well-educated state. The Iraq "war" is more unpopular here than anywhere else and anyone who lives here can give you chapter and verse about why we have the Republicans in office that we do.
Just remember that John Droney (of the famous left wing "weirdos" and Jews must support Lieberman gaffes) was the party chairman during the ascendancy of those particular Republicans.

[humbled_opinion]

38. I never said the Thugs get the seat

I said Lieberman retains the seat but as an independent.... Democrat primaries put the Dem up as front runner so lets figure if Lieberman only gets 40 percent democrat vote block in primary he loses but those Democrats will vote for him as an independent. You are right the Repug will never get the seat but 20 percent or more centrist voters and some percentage of Repugs will vote for Joe so he will win the seat.... again in my humbled opinion Lamont may get the nomination but he will never get the seat.. Local elections more about the man then the party.

[RCinBrooklyn]

42. At this point, Joe must be defeated or we get a vengeful prick.

[skyblue]

44. Lamont relies on former tobacco lobbyist Lowell Weiker

Sure the war may be unpopular, but that doesn't mean that they want to pull the troops out immediately or within the next year: also the anti-war stance may not go well for him if north k keeps going the way it is going.

It would be interesting to note whether they will vote based on the M-E or based on the measly tax return they expect to get from Republicans not knowing that Dems will also give them a tax return as well.

The beginning of his campaign would show he would have made mistakes that will make him unappealing to average voters.

Can you trust a candidate who won't reveal his taxes? Will that question come about in the General Election - you bet!!! What types of businesses was his wife involved in? Can you trust a candidate who has waffled on M-E or will you think he's a phony (I certainly think so!). Can you trust a candidate who has waffled in the past by voting with Greenwich Republicans or does that not give you cause to question, and will that come up in the General Election? Do you want someone in this political environment who has almost no experience? Or would a voter decide they want someone who they know where he stands?

The Republican candidate has had no commercials. He probably won't have commercials until after the Primary. Of course noone knows his name. Wait. They're not as vulnerable as you think.

[monarch]

46. So tell me what you know about Lieberman's taxes.

Joe hasn't released his either. I'll guarantee you that he was cagey enough to have Hadassah file hers separately. Ned announced several days ago that he will be releasing his as soon as they're completed. I think Joe's haven't been completed either.

I was obviously only teasing about your being Joe's son but the way you parrot Joe's talking points is more than a little suspicious. I did check your profile before I posted and it doesn't say where you're from--it's obviously not CT since you can't spell Weicker.

I'm not going to bother going point by point but to hit some of the high (low) points. It's no secret that Lowell urged Ned to run but Ned does not "rely" on him for anything. I would think that the occupation (we won the "war" already) of Iraq is the reason that we can't deal effectively with N Korea.

And for all of you who tell me that if you don't consider his position on Iraq, Joe is a good liberal, I would direct you to a post I saw on DailyKos. "Except for his position on civil rights, Strom Thurmond was a good Democrat."

[sendero]

37. I hope Mr. Lamont...

... goes for the metaphorical jugular. Joe is campaigning JUST LIKE the Republican he really is, and Lamont needs to counter strongly.

[RCinBrooklyn]

43. I agree. I hope Lamont has a knock-out punch ready. I'm praying.