Did Lieberman take a page out of a dishonest blogger's playbook?
Insert foot into Joe's mouth.
"In the morning [Lamont] said he was against the Kerry Amendment for an immediate withdrawal," Sen. Lieberman said. "By the end of the day he said he was for it."Now, this is just pathetic and goes to show how desperate Lieberman's campaign is at this time. Now, they're just making shit up.
For this exercise, I'll take a Lamont quote from an article that another "so-called" blogger tried to use against Lamont yesterday.
A second measure offered by Sens. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., would have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. It got 13 votes.
"I would have supported them both, Lamont said. "You've heard me say before, I think it's time to get our front line troops out of harm's way."
Like I said several times before, Lieberman's campaign is grasping at straws and it's pretty obvious that his campaign is going down in flames. At this point, most people who follow politics know that Joe's team is just throwing anything at the wall and seeing if anything sticks. My bet is if Joe loses the debate (which he will) he'll have no choice but to go back on his word and either jump ship (and/or) collect signatures while campaigning for the primary.
I give credit to Ned for his quick response to Joe's dishonesty.
"I want to make it clear that I would have supported both of the Democratic resolutions on Iraq, just as thirteen Senators did," Lamont told reporters in New Haven today. "I issued a statement on the Reed/Levin amendment because I believe that Democrats need to speak with one voice whenever and wherever possible. Both of these amendments are a step in right direction, and I'm disappointed that Senator Lieberman didn't support the Democratic consensus.Out of touch with reality is an understatement. Lieberman's Rove-like tactics will only anger voters who support Lamont and will upset undecided voters who are waiting for Lieberman to finally talk about the issues and defend his record (which he has not done to this point). Just like calling Joe a Republican, then a partisan Democrat, and finally Weicker's cub, this latest attack on Ned is sure to backfire and will hurt Lieberman in the end.
"Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman not only chose to vote against the Democratic proposals, he used Republican time to issue Republican talking points-undermining Democratic priorities everywhere," Lamont added.
Lieberman, who has voted for every authorization to fund the war and who wrote and introduced the resolution calling for the war, voted against both Democratic amendments yesterday. Campaign manager Tom Swan blasted the Lieberman attack on Lamont.
"His efforts to deflect from his record, by misrepresenting Ned's, is purely Rovian," said Swan. "These tactics, along with his votes, are a strong reminder why he is considered by many to be George Bush's favorite Democrat. Attacking Ned is an attempt to divert attention from his own record-in support of the war, voting for the Bush/Cheney energy bill, and in support of right-wing judges and other Bush priorities.
"There is no evidence to support his claim that the war is making us safer," Swan added. "All the experts tell us the Iraq war is not capturing or stopping the real terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Senator Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut and out of touch with reality."
When will Lieberman get around to talking about the issues? The voters in Connecticut are waiting...