Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at a fellow lawmaker's proposal for a timeline for troop withdrawals.
The proposal was floated by Republican Rep. Chris Shays, another Connecticut politician facing a tough re-election battle with an anti-war candidate. Shays has long been a supporter of the war and previously opposed withdrawal timetables.
"It seems to me that Chris is saying, maybe we ought to set some goals for when we want to get out, and I'd like to see what he has in mind before I comment on it," Lieberman said while campaigning in New Haven.
Good Lord! Are you kidding me!?!
Who does Joe Lieberman think he fooling? Isn't this the same Joe Lieberman who ripped Ned Lamont months ago for suggesting the very same idea?
Oh, I get it, Chris Shays is a Republican so it's okay. How foolish of me.
If US Senator Joseph Lieberman chooses to march in this year's Newtown Labor Day parade, he will likely do so as a true independent. Local members of the Democratic Town Committee, including First Selectman Herb Rosenthal and former staunch Lieberman supporter Jim Juliano, agree that the Senator has no reason to believe he is welcome to march beside other endorsed party candidates.
"By marching with members of the DTC and invited Democratic candidates and state leaders, it would give the impression that we support his candidacy," said Mr Rosenthal when asked about the issue late Wednesday.
"I told him through his office, that as a duly elected Democratic official, he's putting me in an uncomfortable, almost embarrassing position. We have a duly elected candidate, who was endorsed by a historic turnout of state Democrats in the recent primary. I don't have to march with [Sen Lieberman], the DTC doesn't have to march with him, so why would he want to make it look like he's in good graces with the Democratic Party?" Mr Rosenthal continued. "He is not in good graces with state Democrats."
Damn right. Lieberman has no business thinking about walking with Democrats anywhere as he is not a Democrat. In fact, it's funny to see that Lieberman is even entertaining the thought of walking in the Labor Day parade...
n fact, Mr Rosenthal pointed out that since he was elected first selectman, Mr Lieberman only opted to march in the town's Labor Day Parade once, prior to the 2000 election.
Former Lieberman supporter Jim Juliano gets right to the point.
"He's not the Democratic candidate, he didn't carry Newtown in the primary, and he didn't receive Newtown's endorsement in the state convention. He's an independent and he should march as an independent," Mr Juliano said.
Lamont campaign blasts Lieberman for "noncombatant" statement
With Joe Lieberman showing his true Republican colors yesterday, the Lamont campaign comes out swinging.
Comments by Joe Lieberman yesterday in New Haven raised troubling new questions about the Senator's support for Democratic efforts to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives this November. In response to questions, Lieberman refused to endorse the candidacies of Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, saying, "I'm a noncombatant. I am not going to be involved in other campaigns." However, Lieberman's dismissal of the Democratic House challengers comes just one day after he campaigned with Republican incumbent Congressman Rob Simmons in Groton and is in sharp contrast to his post-primary statements that the endorsements still stood. Lamont's endorsements have not changed.
"This election is about change vs. the status quo, and once again it is clear that Joe Lieberman has put himself on the side of the status quo," Lamont Campaign Manager Tom Swan said today. "Democrats and independents in Connecticut are working hard to change the country's direction by electing Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney, and Chris Murphy to Congress. Unfortunately Joe Lieberman has chosen to campaign with Republicans rather than support a new direction for America."
"It is outrageous that Joe Lieberman would call himself a neutral in the state's critical House races just one day after campaigning with a Republican Congressman," Swan said. "Who does he think he is fooling? Time and time again Mr. Lieberman has chosen to side with the Bush Cheney team rather than stand with Connecticut voters seeking change in Washington."
In case I haven't whacked Lieberman upside the head enough today...
Here's another video flashback at Lieberman's 42 minutes of fame shame.
If he talks like a Republican, he acts like a Republican, and has best friends who are Republicans...you fill in the blank. (hat tip to Scarce and Media Matters)
Declaring himself a "non-combatant," U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in remarks at a New Haven press event Friday, raised anew the question of whether his "independent" candidacy will help Republicans hold onto three Congressional seats in Connecticut -- and control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Lieberman -- who after losing an Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont has launched a third-party bid to hold onto his seat in the Nov. 7 general election -- was asked whether he still endorses Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, three Democrats looking to unseat endangered Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson.
"I'm a non-combatant," Lieberman declared. "I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it's better if I just focus on my own race."
Lieberman made the remarks at a Friday morning photo op held in the rain under an I-95 overpass in the Fair Haven neighborhood to tout his role in bringing $50 million to the state to help ease transportation gridlock.
"It's a little awkward for me now" to endorse the Democratic candidates in the general election, he said, "since they all endorsed my opponent," Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont.
The comment was significant because analysts from both major parties believe that Lieberman's campaign could help the three Republicans keep their jobs in the face of tough challenges. Lieberman's strongest support -- 75 percent in the most recent Quinnipiac poll -- comes from Republicans. If he succeeds in drawing more Republican voters to the polls to support his candidacy, that could help the Republican Congressional candidates. Those three races are considered among the 10 most competitive Congressional races in the country; both parties consider the races key to deciding which party controls the House in 2007. National Republican strategists and donors have come forward to help Lieberman's campaign; party leaders have abandoned the nominal Republican in the Senate race, Alan Schlesinger. Prominent Republicans like Shays and former Republican House leader Newt Gingrich have endorsed Lieberman.
Selfish, selfish, selfish.
Not only is he actively running a Republican campaign, he has now turned his back on three critical Congressional seats that the Democrats need if they ever have a real shot in taking back the House!
In his own words, Joe Lieberman has turned his back on the Democratic Party. The hell with Murphy, the hell with Courtney, the hell with Farrell, and THE HELL fellow New Haven native Democratic gubernatorial candidate John DeStefano!
Do you really think he'll work with the Democrats senate if he's re-elected? Do you think after his comments and his over the top interview on ultra-right winged, racist, xenophobe Glen Beck's show that he cares one bit about the Democratic Party?
Lieberman said that he will continue to support the Democrats running for Congress even though they now support Lamont.
"It is a little bit harder, but I have endorsed the three of them," he said. Lieberman endorsed Joe Courtney over Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2, and Chris Murphy over Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-5.
Now, if Joe can easily flip-flop like this, what makes you think he won't turn his back on Harry and caucus with the Republicans?
Independent U.S. Senate candidate Joe Lieberman, locked in a close re-election fight after losing the Democratic primary to an anti-war candidate, challenged Democrat Ned Lamont to a debate Friday over the government's response to Hurricane Katrina.
Lieberman, at a campaign stop to tout his role in securing federal transportation dollars, accused Lamont of distorting his record as the one-year anniversary of Katrina approached.
"Any time Ned Lamont wants to debate me about what each of us did with regard to Katrina, I'm ready for the debate," Lieberman said.
Is he kidding. Lieberman hands are all over the nomination of Michael Brown and the screwing up of FEMA.
Has he lost it?
UPDATE: You awsome readers bring up an interesting point. How can there be a debate unless Alan Gold Schlesinger is invited also. Although Lieberman is the de facto Republican candidate, Schlesinger was endorsed by the state GOP so he is entitled to be part of the debate panel.
Maybe Joe's not hittig the bong afterall. What better way to marginalize Schlesinger by not challenging him to any debate and only call Ned out to a debate.
Hmm, I think it's time for a poll! I want to hear from you.
One of the staunchest supporters of the war in Iraq has called hearings to set a potential timeline for handing the country over to Iraqis.
U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th Dist., chairman of a House national security subcommittee, still opposes immediately leaving Iraq, as some Congressional Democrats have proposed. But he said Americans need answers.
[...]
Shays' call for this hearing comes just weeks after anti-war millionaire Ned Lamont defeated U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in a Democratic primary fought mainly over the issue of Iraq. "Joe and I have had the same view of the war from Day 1," Shays said. "His view could not change because of the election and neither can mine."
But Lamont's candidacy is likely to draw a big voter turnout, said Scott McLean, political science professor at Quinnipiac University. That could be bad for Republicans."With anti-war sentiment at its highest level in Connecticut, Chris Shays is showing he wants to be a listener," McLean said. "He's not changing his position, but he's showing his classic image as a thoughtful listener."
[...]
Shays should have scrutinized the war more effectively, Farrell, his Democratic opponent, said.
"In Congress, I will hold the president accountable -- something Republicans, and especially Chris Shays, have refused to do on Iraq for more than three years," Farrell said at a campaign event in Stamford Thursday. "Congressman Shays' failures on oversight, and loss of focus has resulted in a loss of trust."
Watch how the cheerleaders of George Bush try to distance themselves away from him...
In honor of the one year anniversary of Katrina, lets look back at the person who presided over the 2002 Senate confirmation hearings for Michael Brown and who was the biggest cheerleader for Deputy Director of FEMA Michael Brown.
The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency appeared before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, then chaired by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., when he was nominated as the agency's deputy director. The polite 42-minute hearing attracted only four senators, and before it was over, Lieberman offered his support.
Since Katrina struck last month, Brown has been under fire - and the target of angry Democrats who want him to resign - because of his performance in getting aid to storm victims.
His resume has also been questioned. Time Magazine reported Thursday that Brown's FEMA biography says his previous emergency management experience was "serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight."
But when Brown was an assistant to the city manager of Edmond, Okla., in the late 1970s, he was "more like an intern," with no supervisory authority, Time said.
Brown, who is being replaced by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, is not resigning, and administration officials maintain they are not dissatisfied with him.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told reporters Brown "has done everything he possibly could to coordinate the federal response to this unprecedented challenge," the Associated Press reported.
But bloggers on Friday suggested that Lieberman could have learned three years ago that Brown might not be up to such a task. An online debate began late Thursday when Juliette N. Kayyem, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, posted an account of Brown's June 19, 2002, confirmation hearing.
Titled "42 Minutes of Shame," she described how "Mike Brown suffered 42 breathtaking minutes of serious nothingness (unless Lieberman's withering questioning regarding whether Brown would sufficiently keep the Senate informed - duh, yes) to become deputy director of FEMA."
The posting triggered a barrage of comments from bloggers pro and con. Lieberman said Friday in an interview that while "you can always look back," the hearing "was very much like most hearings for nominees at that level."
At the time, Brown, an Oklahoma attorney, was general counsel at FEMA. He got the same kind of quick hearing given to most people nominated to such second-tier posts. Sens. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., introduced Brown and talked about how FEMA helped with recent wildfires in his state.
Brown, Campbell said, had been there "steadfastly and tenaciously" to help. Before Brown began speaking, Lieberman told him, "Mr. Brown, you're off to a good start. Two strong statements of endorsement."
Lieberman talked about FEMA's expanding role, how the disaster relief agency has "got to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks at home." He quizzed Brown about whether the new mission would find FEMA continuing to maintain its network of strong contacts with state and local officials.
"We've already started down that path," Brown said. "Our partnership has to be with all agencies responding to disasters, all first responders."
Lieberman told him, "That's a good answer."
He spent 8 minutes asking Brown a series of questions, including one on chemical and biological preparedness. "Regardless of the cause of the disaster," Brown assured him, "our response is the same."
Later in the hearing, Lieberman returned for a new round of questions, notably one about preparedness in Connecticut in case of a disaster at a nuclear facility.
Brown said FEMA's role was "a very serious one," and he pledged to look closely at evacuation plans to make sure they were adequate.
Such replies were adequate for Lieberman, who told Brown at the end of the hearing, "I certainly will support your nomination."
So there was the man who would carry the water through the desert for the President, Joe Lieberman taking a full 42 minutes out of his busy schedule to question a guy whoes resume who so padded with crap that the reporters at TIME magazine discovered the lies in a matter of nanoseconds.
Lets take a look at the information on Brown's resume that Joe somehow "missed".
Before joining FEMA, his only previous stint in emergency management, according to his bio posted on FEMA's website, was "serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight."The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to him." Brown did do a good job at his humble position, however, according to his boss. "Yes. Mike Brown worked for me. He was my administrative assistant. He was a student at Central State University," recalls former city manager Bill Dashner. "Mike used to handle a lot of details. Every now and again I'd ask him to write me a speech. He was very loyal. He was always on time. He always had on a suit and a starched white shirt."
[...]
Brown's lack of experience in emergency management isn't the only apparent bit of padding on his resume, which raises questions about how rigorously the White House vetted him before putting him in charge of FEMA. Under the "honors and awards" section of his profile at FindLaw.com — which is information on the legal website provided by lawyers or their offices—he lists "Outstanding Political Science Professor, Central State University". However, Brown "wasn't a professor here, he was only a student here," says Charles Johnson, News Bureau Director in the University Relations office at the University of Central Oklahoma (formerly named Central State University). "He may have been an adjunct instructor," says Johnson, but that title is very different from that of "professor." Carl Reherman, a former political science professor at the University through the '70s and '80s, says that Brown "was not on the faculty." As for the honor of "Outstanding Political Science Professor," Johnson says, "I spoke with the department chair yesterday and he's not aware of it." Johnson could not confirm that Brown made the Dean's list or was an "Outstanding Political Science Senior," as is stated on his online profile.
[...]
Under the heading of "Professional Associations and Memberships" on FindLaw, Brown states that from 1983 to the present he has been director of the Oklahoma Christian Home, a nursing home in Edmond. But an administrator with the Home told TIME that Brown is "not a person that anyone here is familiar with." She says there was a board of directors until a couple of years ago, but she couldn't find anyone who recalled him being on it. According to FEMA's Andrews, Brown said "he's never claimed to be the director of the home. He was on the board of directors, or governors of the nursing home." However, a veteran employee at the center since 1981 says Brown "was never director here, was never on the board of directors, was never executive director. He was never here in any capacity. I never heard his name mentioned here."
But reading my old posts doesn't do this enough justice. Let's go back to the actual transcript (if you like, you can download the transcript from here) and Juliette Kayyem's now famous post from TPM Cafe to feel the full effect of Joementum's pathetic role in confirming an idiot to run FEMA.
Well, I just finished reading the confirmation hearings for Mike Brown's appointment to be Deputy Director of FEMA (his previous title). 42 minutes of shame (led by Senator Lieberman as he chaired the Committee on Governmental Affairs when the Democrats were in charge in 2002).
This hearing, in June 2002, was just before the official enactment of the Department of Homeland Security. So everyone knew that FEMA was likely to be subsumed, but it wasn't law yet. In the statute that eventually created the Department of Homeland Security, Section 803, Subsection (d)(2), Congress allowed for previously Senate-confirmed officers "appointed to fill new offices in the Department whose duties are germane to their original offices may be appointed without undergoing an additional confirmation proceeding."
It appears, then, that Mike Brown suffered 42 breathtaking minutes of serious nothingness (unless Lieberman's withering questioning regarding whether Brown would sufficiently keep the Senate informed --- duh,yes) to become Deputy Director of FEMA. When FEMA was, just a few months later, subsumed into DHS, Brown didn't need to be Senate confirmed as his new position -- technically as Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response -- was "germane" to his old position. Guess that's true. But it means that the four Senators who showed up to confirm a deputy director were, in fact, confirming the head of America's entire emergency management apparatus.
Worse, still, besides Brown's obvious lack of qualifications, is the obvious lack of any serious questions about previous disasters, what would he do in a future disaster, his thoughts -- if he had any -- on what should be done.
[...]
Mike Brown didn't appear from Mars. He was appointed by the President (shame on him) and confirmed by Congress (shame on them.) And 42 minutes later, Brown was in charge.
Remember, Joe Leiberman was the Chair of the Committee on Government Affairs when this all happened and he gave the green light to Brown because it was Bush's choice. Never forget that when you see what his actions caused when we re-examine the screw-up in New Orleans over the next week.
Secretary of the State interview on Bruce and Colin
Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz was on WTIC's Bruce and Colin Show and talked about the Joe Lieberman's so-called new party Connecticut for Lieberman and also commented on the thousands of voters who were unable to vote in the recent primary.
Oh, this is sweet, Joe Lieberman trveling across the state rallying up the GOP vote for himself (thus hurting the Democrats chances in capturing three Congressional seats). I guess Neil Newhouse set this whole production up.
Lieberman will appear with two prominent Republicans, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd, to celebrate last year's reversal of a Pentagon decision to close the Groton submarine base.
Too funny. Using the sub-base as the meaning for a political rally for the three Republicans. I'm sure Joe Courtney is happy Lieberman is stumping with Simmons.
Since we're approaching the first anniversary of the Katrina disaster, I finally got around to uploading the entire Ned Lamont rally from New Haven featuring 4th CD candidate Diane Farrell and former Senator John Edwards.
The video is a bit long with Edwards speech being the longest but all in all, it's pretty good.
Spazeboyman has the details on this major endorsement including video. TrueBlueCT has the news coverage from the local media (I love the de facto Republican line).
You know, if I see one more blog use the Minima white template, I'm going to throw up. Well...to be honest, I'm going to debut a new blog real soon and I think I'm going to use the same template.
...oh, Joe Lieberman is going to be REALLY pissed off at me after I launch the new site . You didn't think I forgot about my Face the Nation post did ya?
The winner of the contest will receive a generous donation from Senator Feingold so please show your support and vote for the man who's going to hand Nancy Johnson her pink slip.
The stupidity of Alan Schlesinger: the "no one loves me" edition
Alan Gold Schlesinger just doesn't know when to quit. Seems like our favorite blackjack player is in D.C. crying like a baby about the GOP throwing him under a bus. The former mayor of the beautiful town of Derby went back on Hardball to make his case (I'm surprised Matthews could hold a straight face).
Watch in amazement.
Oh, it's gets better. Seems like Mr. Gold also paid a visit to Young Turks and really let his frustrations out.
Ah, I can hear him now...
Whaa. no body likes me, whaa, the GOP is lying about me, whaa!!!
Look dummy, you have no one to blame but yourself.
No one forced you to lose over 10,000 gambling.
No one forced you to get kicked out of casinos for counting cards.
No one forced you to use a fake name on a casino card.
Trust me, the list of stupid things this guy has done is over a mile long YET he thinks he should stay in the face (although he's polling worse among Republicans than NED LAMONT).
I don't know who's dumber, Schlesinger for running in the first place or the GOP for nominating this moron.
Some two dozen activists, camera crews and reporters squeezed into the narrow entry to the second-floor Registrar of Voters office to present their request to Ferrucci. Ferrucci said she wasn't familiar with the law. In a friendly encounter with the surprise crowd in her office, Ferrucci promised, "I will read it and get back to you" within 48 hours or sooner.
The activists cited Section 9-61 of Chapter 143 of the state statutes in their request. That section allows for a Democrat's party affiliation to be "stricken or excluded" for two years if he runs for office as a candidate of a different party. To read the section of the statute, click here.
Daniel Tapper, a spokesman for the Secretary of the State's Office, said the decision rests first with the local registrar about whether to begin proceedings to remove a candidate's voting affiliation; then with the local party town committee about whether actually to strip the registration. He said another relevant section of the statute is 9-60. To read that section, click here.
The Connecticut American Federation of Teachers (AFT) joined the Connecticut Education Association (CEA) in endorsing Democratic gubernatorial ticket of John DeStefano and Mary Glassman today.
From DeStefano press release.
"The working families of Connecticut have suffered long enough under the Rowland and Rell Administrations," said Sharon Palmer, president of AFT Connecticut. "Connecticut deserves better and they will get it with John DeStefano."
"I am honored to have the endorsement of Connecticut's public school teachers, and all the workers represented by the AFT," said DeStefano. "Our children and teachers deserve to have a friend in the Governor's office - one who will ensure that every 3 and 4 year-old has access to a pre-k experience, one who will lower class sizes, and always keep the state’s promise to teachers by funding their pensions."
The reality is that Gov. Rell has failed our children and failed our families by under-funding education and relying on homeowners to pick up the tab. Adjusted for inflation, state funding for primary and secondary education has fallen by more than ten percent in the past five years. (CT Voices) Over the same time period, funding for early care programs in Connecticut has dropped fifteen percent. According to CT Voices, Gov. Jodi Rell's 2007 education budget "barely keeps pace" with inflation and fails to properly address the state’s educational achievement gaps.
[...]
Palmer says Gov. Rell's failed leadership on health care is another reason AFT endorsed DeStefano, "During the past twelve years of Rowland and Rell, Connecticut’s uninsured and underinsured have grown dramatically," said Palmer. "John DeStefano is committed to providing health care coverage to all Connecticut's citizens, not just the ones who can afford it."
Although I have no way to verify the latest Rasmussen numbers (premium membership req), the poster has reported on polling information in the past and has not been wrong yet.
Here is the latest from behind the curtain of Rasmussen premium membership.Rasmussen did a poll monday and right now it is Lieberman 45, Lamont 43, the gambler 6.Not much information available, all he says is lieberman still has good favorables but is down.
If these numbers are correct, we have a dead heat with Lamont still moving up while Joe still in a free-fall.
I came home expecting to get back to posting at full force when something happened. I sat down and watched Spike Lee's documentary on New Orleans. Now, I'm too upset to even think about posting tonight.
At a press conference today, President Bush said, "We're not leaving [Iraq] so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake."
[...]
BUSH: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve the objectives and dreams which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics - now - either you say yes it's important we stay there and get it done or we leave. We're not leaving so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably you know terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror.
Somewhere, Joe Lieberman is jumping for joy. In fact, didn't Lieberman say the same thing earlier this year (here and here)?
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.
Lets go to the videotape.
Joe Lieberman and George Bush. I can't tell the difference.
My goodness. I never expected to get the type of response to my post on Joe Lieberman's disgraceful appearence on Face the Nation. In fact, the response has been so overwhelming that I don't think a simple post will not do it justice (we are talking about George Bush's favorite Democrat you know).
This is what I'm going to do for you.
I'm going to create a special section devoted completetly to Joe Lieberman, his lies, and his close connection to the Bush administration. The site will be simple and to the point and for good reason, since Joe Lieberman is on his crusade to try and convince people that he's not George Bush, we want to send a message to the public and the mainstream media that not only is Joe Lieberman completetly lock in step with the Bush Administration, that he's also a dishonest Democrat in Name Only.
I'm asking for as much help as possible from EVERYONE! I don't care who you are...you could be a reader of the site, a fellow blogger, or a staff member of Lieberman with a axe to grind (you know who you are).
Now, this is going to be the biggest ConnecticutBLOG project to date and trust me, if this goes the way I plan, Joe Lieberman will have a lot of explaining to do. I'm going to start the site with the results from Lieberman's Face the Nation appearence and expand it from there.
In John Kerry's world, Lieberman is the new Dick Cheney
You didn't think I'd let John Edwards be the last word tonight on this blog. If the former VP candidate has something to say about Joe Lieberman, you know his running mate can't be too far behind.
Nice to see John Kerry come out swinging for a change. If he only responded with the fire he shows now when the Swift boaters smeared his military record...
John Edwards blasts Lieberman, apologizes for Iraq War vote
I've been so busy working on video that I overlooked these key moments from John Edwards appearance when he campaigned for Ned Lamont in New Haven earlier last week.
I went over to Lamontblog and Crooks and Liars and noticed that they linked to my video and quoted a remark Edwards made during the online media press conference:
I do not think Lieberman should be running. I do not believe he should be running as an Independent. I mean, if he ran as a Democrat, he asked Democratic voters to vote for him, they chose someone else, you know, we have to show respect for the people who voted in the primary. So, I would go further than just being for Lamont. I do not think that Lieberman should be running.
"I voted for this war. I was wrong. I shouldn’t have voted for this war. I take responsibility for that," Edwards said. He apologized to the troops stuck in the quagmire in Iraq; unlike the Senate, they did nothing wrong, he said.
Well, reading quotes is one thing, but watching the actual video is another matter so here's my quick video clip of Edwards making these two remarks last week.
I will have the video of the entire Lamont rally from New Haven posted later.
Oh my goodness. There is only one word to describe Joe Lieberman interview from this morning and it's D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E.
Did you see Joe Lieberman on Face the Nation this morning? This will go down as one of the most distorted lying sack-of-crap interviews Lieberman has ever done to date.
Talk about a person who is completely out of touch with reality and will say anything to keep his senate seat.
Not only did Lieberman looked completely uncomfortable answering questions (notice how he didn't directly answer any question), the dishonest buffoon told so many lies and distortions that I couldn't keep track (i.e, trying to link Iraq to 9-11), and basically smeared Ned Lamont (cut and run) and the Democratic Party (I want to give ALL the people of Connecticut a choice in terms of who they want as senator not just the 15 percent who voted in the primary).
There is so much to pick out of his incredibly awful interview that I've decided to play a little game with you guys.
Here's what I'm going to do...
I'll post Lieberman's entire stupid performance from today and you guys help me pick out every silly lie DINOBoy told using the following format:
a. Point out Joe's lie in the interview.
b. Explain why it's a lie and give me evidence to back up your claim (i.e. Joe saying he's been critical of the President's performance in managing the war versus his op-ed piece in which he chastized Democrats who criticize the President). Giving me links to Joe's past comments which contradicts what he's said today is a plus (giving me video is a BIG plus.)
Later, I'll start a post in which I'll display your responses. This will be an ongoing post that should take up the entire blog seeing that Joe told so many fat lies so spread the word and lets all have fun at LIEberman's expense.
UPDATE: The repsonse to this post has been amazing so far with a majority of comments coming from my cross post at My Left Nutmeg but I want to hear form more of you guys. Remember, take a lie Joe told today and show me how it's a lie by using his own words against him (video is a BIG PLUS).
Making Joe Lieberman look like a fool is a no-brainer so check out the video and get in on the action!
UPDATE 2 Okay, I'm going to up the ante on this game. Details to come soon...oh, this is getting really good!
Did Jim Vandehei just call Joe Lieberman a Republican?
Washinton Post reporter Jim Vandehei calls it like he's sees it on Face the Nation this morning regarding the senate race and I'm in complete agreement.
UPDATE: Bonus footage:
Man, Vandehei was on a roll today. Watch as he sets Bob Schieffer straight regarding the latest Q-poll and why Lieberman is ahead of Lamont (why am I not surprised Schieffer didn't bring this up during his interview with DINOBoy).
Hey Jim, when you come visit Connecticut, stop by Sullivan's and the first drink is on me!
Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at a fellow lawmaker's proposal for a timeline for troop withdrawals.
