Thursday, September 14, 2006



Joe Lieberman has had something of a busy week, or rather his surrogates have been out digging holes for the erstwhile Connecticut for Lieberman candidate for the Senate.
Earlier this week, former president Jimmy Carter called out Lieberman for implying that those who are against Bush's policies in Iraq were supporting the terrorists. Carter: "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 wish to see him re-elected."
Naturally, the Lieberman camp attempts to deny it, in the form of spokesperson Tammy Sun, who said, "[I]t is entirely false to suggest that Joe Lieberman in any way equated dissent about the war with supporting terrorists."
But of course, anyone with half a brain and a google search engine can easily find at least one instance where Lieberman has said just that: "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 wanting to be outdone, the total trainwreck and Lieberman communications director known as Dan Gerstein, who has set out to attack Ned Lamont because ... he volunteers to teach part time at inner city schools? From Gerstein: "The reality is Ned Lamont has trouble with the truth. 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.
Actually, from the very beginning, Lamont has been completely upfront on this. He has never once claimed to being a teacher in the Bridgeport public schools. This just a pointless attack that, like Sun's stupidity, is easily verifiable and shot down. Lamont has always contended that he volunteered part time to help with a business class. Honestly, and this is just my opinion, volunteering sounds better to me anyway. Why would the Leiberman camp make an issue of this? All it really stands to do is highlight that Lamont volunteered at an inner city school. He volunteered, as in he didn't have to do it. But he chose to help his community by volunteering his time for a good cause. When's the last time Lieberman volunteered for anything? From what I understand, many people in Connecticut feel that Lieberman has barely spent any amount of time in the state the past six or so years, which is probably why he's in this electoral pickle he finds himself in anyway.
I sort of wonder if there's ever been a major campaign run by such absolute imbeciles. I can see what they're trying to do here to Lamont - they're attempting to define him as someone who is untruthful and associates with others who are untruthful. It's just that these guys are so inept at developing a narrative on Lamont that they seem to be tripping over themselves to say the next dumb thing that hurts their candidate. Not that Lieberman needs any help when it comes to saying dumb things, or course.

I'm sure that if some reporter actually calls the Joe Camp on these outright lies and misrepresentations, he'll spin it that the evil bloggers are being mean to him, just like they were when they shut down his website and cost him a primary victory. Remember, in the event of being called on one lie, say an even bigger lie. It distracts the sheeple.


CaolinaJoe said...

Political pickle? has him up 51-39. 12 points is a lot.

As far as your quote from Leiberman goes, I don't really see where it says that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism. All it says is a date will be viewed as a victory by the terrorist and embolden them.

Also, isn't running for office to serve your state and country kinda like volunteering?

budpaul said...

1. The "pickle" I refer to is the fact that Lieberman found himself losing the Democratic nomination in the first place. He lost touch with the voters in his state and he paid a price.
2. This is semantics. Those who support a date of withdrawal are giving the terrorists a tremendous victory (Joe's words). If providing terrorists with a "tremendous victory" isn't supporting them, that I don't know what is.
3. Volunteering (in this instance) implies that one isn't being paid. I volunteered at a hospital for a few years when I was a teenager and was not paid for my services. Ned Lamont was not paid for his services while volunteering at an inner city school. On the other hand, Joe is adequately compensated for his services as a member of the United States Senate.