Argh...Lieberman is so infuriating.

We have to win this.

From the president of the Waterbury branch of the NAACP and former state president of the NAACP...

   For Immediate Release

   Jimmie L. Griffin, a long time outspoken civil rights leader today expressed disappointment in the very partisan attack by black democratic leaders in Connecticut against Senator Joe Lieberman's civil rights activities.

   Griffin said, "I have a lot of respect for Hank Parker but I will not stand by and let the community of Connecticut be misled by this uncalled for partisan attack against a friend of the civil rights community." Griffin who is an unaffiliated voter who has been both  a democrat and republican added, "I am tired of our people being used a political pawns when a tight race reflects a need for their votes".

   Griffin said as a president of a local branch of the NAACP and former state president I have not endorsed any candidate but I am fully aware of the civil rights record of Joe Lieberman and would be remiss in not sharing his excellent ratings, given in the NAACP report cards produced out of our Washington, DC office.
======

Tsk. What was Ned thinking?!?!?!?

Lamont has to do a better job than he did in the primary debates if he hopes to defeat Lieberman in the general.

The false claims in this ad are so easy to knock down, it should be possible to do so in a 30 second ad. If you show that one Lieberman ad is a complete set of fabrications, people will be less likely to believe ANY of Joe's negative attacks against Ned. I hope the Lamont team takes advantage of the terrific opportunity it has been handed here.

The response should have Ned saying on camera exactly what is laid out on his blog paged linked above along with his signature "Aren't you sick of..." line.

Hey Ned,

HOW DID THAT UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT RIGHT AFTER THE PRIMARY WORK OUT FOR YA???

Lamont is in trouble.  We can point out Lieberman's lies to each other, try to look for scrappings of good news in terrible polls, but it feels more and more like putting lipstick on a pig.  No matter how you smear it, things look ugly.  

I'm not up on corporate salaries, but $568K for a CEO seems almost communistic.

Poor Ned Lamont.

From Taegans Website--

October 12, 2006

Lamont's Worst Week

When Ned Lamont infused another $2 million of his vast fortune into his campaign on Tuesday evening, he probably didn't have it allocated to damage control. He'll have no choice if he is to continue to be seen as a contender in the race for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut.

Incumbent independent Joseph Lieberman has maintained a firm lead in polls for the past month. Lamont, who has contributed close to $9 million to his campaign, has run a long series of negative ads against Lieberman but gained no ground of late. He appeared to be trying to alter the focus of his campaign this week with a speech on change and the future, a bow toward adding some substance to his campaign's scrawny frame. He needed to talk about something other than Iraq. He'll have no choice now.

His plans were upended by a self-made calamity on Wednesday when Lamont joined prominent Connecticut African-American Democrats to receive their endorsement. In the bitter contest, however, the Lamont campaign cannot resist taking a few whacks at Lieberman instead of featuring a purely positive endorsement event.

The Wednesday press event included another letter from the Lamont campaign to Lieberman (St. Paul didn't write this many letters) criticizing him for mentioning his support of civil rights as a young man in a television ad. As Lamont stood by, former state treasurer Henry Parker accused Lieberman of lying about his trip to Mississippi in the fraught early 1960s and attending Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.'s August 1963 march on Washington. Wags insisted that the record should note that the press conference was not at the all-white Round Hill Club that Lamont resigned from, after 16 years as a member, before launching his Senate campaign.

Lamont seemed clueless that a vicious slander was taking place in his presence in the name of advancing his campaign. Now we know that the face of an imploding campaign is both impassive and clueless.

Lieberman seized the moment and summoned the press to denounce the ugly attack. The fight dominated the news in the state today as politicos were buzzing that Lamont and his team are looking like amateurs despite the millions showered on the campaign.

Parker recanted by midday Thursday. Lamont himself continues to labor in silence, whether it is stunned or studied, we don't know. For mannerly Connecticut, the Lamont campaign smear of Lieberman is far out of bounds.

Lamont will have to shape a response by Monday afternoon when he is scheduled to meet Lieberman in their first debate since July. A shrug accompanied by pointing at the aged and addlepated Parker won't suffice to change the subject. Some crow ought to be on the menu.

With his campaign in precipitous decline, Lamont can look forward to rougher treatment from Lieberman and his team as they smell the chance to put away the Democratic insurgent in the next week. More grainy photos will be gracing television screens.

As the week ends, events give rise to a sentence that may have never been written before: Poor Ned Lamont.

You guys are brutal. Knock it off. We are trying to win this election here in CT.

...matters a whole helluva lot to the mostly white CT electorate.

If the mainstream pundits pick up the GOP spin, of course, it won't help Lamont much.

My first take on the Lieberman ad was, what are his private polls saying that made him want to take off the gloves. Maybe the "put him away" argument is correct, but a lot of fighters have found that it didn't work and they didn't have enough for the late rounds.

I'm not sure what to think, but I'm not ready to go home and pull the covers over my head. I think Lieb's negatives have plenty of upside. Now would be a pretty good time to start driving them upward.

1. He's a phony Democrat.
   
2. And, he's a phony Republican.
   
3. He's a special interest money-monger--hardly Independent.
   
4. He's an apologist for the Iraq War.
   
5. He's an apologist for the GOP child molesters.
   
6. He's lost all his seniority in the Senate by running against the Democratic Party--see the HHH and Frank Lautenberg precedents.
   
7. He let Cheney savage Al Gore in the debates.
   
8. He's the original CT dirty campaigner--see Lowell Weicker, independent Lamont supporter.
   
9. He let Bush steal the election in Florida.
   
10. He's a liar, has-been, hypocrite, and three-time loser (VP, Pres. and Democratic Nomination).
    
11. CT needs him like toxic waste. global warming and a case of the crabs.
    
12. He takes phone calls from Karl Rove--will he go visit him in prison?
    
13. Maybe worth repeating: He likes Bush and Hastert. There's a pair to draw to.

Somewhere in there should be the germ of a campaign commercial.

The most telling thing about Lieberman's sorry campaign is that the guy is an 18-year veteran of Congress and can't manage to run on his record.  If he had been doing anything worthwhile in his 3 Senate terms there would be no need for him to go negative on Lamont; he could simply run on his own record.

There's only one response. Hit back hard. Make joe wish he hadn't opened his mouth.

Use the lieberman foley position switch. Use the Cheney greeted with flowers comment. Use the Lieberman endorsement of the adminsitration.

If Lieberman wants to go right you got force him so far right he goes off the road.

Also ned needs to be calling up all the other senate dems because if Lieberman wins and we don't take 7 he's in the cat bird seat.

Ned has to ask every other senator if they really want to be held hostage to Lieberman for the next two years? Because that's what a lieberman win will mean.

Ned needs to be getting extra donations for blanket commercials between now and november from other senatorial campaigns.

Here is where you can suggest questions that should be asked at the debate:

http://www.nbc30.com/politics/9437547/de tail.html

Lieberman isn't fooling the editors at the Journal-Inquirer in CT:

-----------------------------------

GOP Joe

10/12/2006

On Monday of this week Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared at a well-attended luncheon at La Renaissance restaurant in East Windsor, hosted by the radio host Brad Davis.

It was a remarkable performance for two reasons. First, it showed, again, that Lieberman is possessed of great political skills. During the primary campaign, the senator seemed to have lost those skills. But now he has been freed to be who he really is. He's comfortable and effective again. Second, the person Lieberman really is, is a Bush Republican.

His speech to an enthusiastic crowd of more than 600 left no doubt on either point.

Lieberman will fight hard to keep his seat and he knows how to fight hard.

Second, he will do so as the de-facto Republican candidate in this election - with the support of Republican voters, and, it's a good guess, financial help from GOP donors and organizational help from GOP strategists, from Karl Rove on down.

Lieberman has the right to do all of this, as an independent, petitioning candidate. After all, the Democrats rejected him. But it is important for Democratic voters to know where Good Old Joe really stands this year and who his friends are. And it is important to recall that Lieberman still says he is a Democrat, and that he sought the Democratic nomination.

Usually, when a member of the Democratic Party seeks its nomination and does not get it, he supports the person who did get it.

Usually, when a person says he is a Democrat, he supports Democratic issues and candidates.

So is Joe Lieberman really a Democrat anymore?

Will he really vote with the Democrats in Washington?

Consider his speech Monday.

He talked about patriotism and doing what's best for America and facing the fact that radical Islamic and aligned terrorists represent a real threat to America.

Well, radical Islam is a threat. And madmen are always to be taken seriously.

But only the Republicans say that they alone perceive the threat and they alone love the nation and will protect it. Only they contend the other party lacks the will to fight for America. It's an unfair and untrue contention. But this has been going on since Nixon and Agnew. And on Monday, Lieberman and Davis sounded like Nixon and Agnew.

Do only they want to "do what is right" and "stand up for America"? No. And Joe knows this if Davis does not. But that is the Republican stance.

Second, Lieberman equated fighting terror and radical Islam with fighting the war in Iraq. It is not clear how the quagmire in Iraq helps to do that. It is not clear how it helps to combat the enemies Lieberman says want to kill us all. It is not clear to the federal government's intelligence agencies, which have found that the war in Iraq has slowed our efforts on terror and made us more enemies. But that is the Republican stance.

Joe went on to talk about the dangers of the Internet and how all of our children - indeed the family itself - are at risk from electronic bilge.

Saying there is a lot of dehumanizing sewage on the Internet is a truism, as true as saying the United States has enemies and we need to face that fact. But only a Bush Republican thinks that the way to solve the problem of an increasingly decadent and cheap popular culture is more federal police power. Joe wants more regulation of the Internet by the feds and a tax, for example, on pornography. That's a Republican stance.

The Republicans are running on fear and taxes this year. That's all they have.

Lieberman is running on fear and more fear: The terrorists are coming and so are electronic predators.

Lieberman hasn't got much faith that the United States can defend itself against all enemies foreign and domestic, at least with a policy debate going on. And he hasn't got much faith that free speech can regulate itself, or that decency, humanism, religion, and good parenting can combat violent video games, bad music, and Internet crud.

Lieberman is entitled to his pessimism.

And maybe we do need more legal tools to catch and prosecute Internet predators.

But trying to shut down the debate about how to deal with terror has not made us more effective in fighting terror. And none of Lieberman's past campaigns to "clean up" TV or popular music have gotten anywhere.

Maybe the answer is not a police state, but education and ethics.

The point is, if you oppose a police state, if you want to hang on to the Constitution and free speech - even in time of war and even when you want to protect your child's innocence - you have to, today, be a Democrat.

And if you want to stay in Iraq and are willing to abridge the Constitution to "defend" our country and its "values," you have to join the Grand Old Party, in one guise or another.

This is what Joe Lieberman has done. And he is not being as subtle as you might expect.

At the Monday luncheon he:

- Said House Speaker Dennis Hastert should not resign.

- Introduced two Republican candidates for state office - for comptroller and state treasurer. He didn't introduce any Democrats, who have previously been told not to campaign at these luncheons.

- Thanked his Republican "friends" for their support, and he said he would never forget them.

Last week Lieberman told a Washington, D.C., newspaper that:

- He would also never forget the Democrats, like Chris Dodd, who moved to support Ned Lamont after he won the Democratic Senate nomination.

- If re-elected, Lieberman expects to retain his seniority. Otherwise, he said, he would have to consider not caucusing with the Democrats.

Well, there is only one other group to caucus with - the Senate Republicans.

Connecticut Republicans know what's going on in this election. Their nominal candidate, Alan Schlesinger, has between 3 and 5 percent in the polls. The Republican national chairman has declined to endorse him and Gov. Jodi Rell said he should withdraw from the contest. Republicans know that Joe is their horse in this race.

Democrats who think Lieberman is still one of them need to wake up and smell the coffee.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news .cfm?newsid=17318179&BRD=985&PAG =461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6

I keep reading on this site and on other netroots sites that the old political media guys are dinosaurs.  And I see absurd levels of praise for Lamont's utterly incompetent, pointless, cutesy-poo ads.  And yet here we see that the old media guys just stuck a fucking shiv in Ned Lamont's back.  

Lamont is done for.  He was done for before this, but now Joe's people just gutted him.  

It's time for DD and Kos and Americablog to stop taking shots at Lieberman and start praying he caucuses with us.  

When you strike at a king you must kill him.  You struck.  You didn't kill.  And now if this goes 50/50 in the Senate Joe Lieberman is going to own the Democratic party.  So do us all a favor and stop taking shots at Lieberman because guess what?  It's over.  And if this comes down to a split decision and Lieberman crosses the aisle it will be the netrooots that get blamed for losing the Senate.

" And yet here we see that the old media guys just stuck a fucking shiv in Ned Lamont's back."

Nonsense. Ned did it to himself.

The netroots are enabling Joe Lieberman to become the most powerful man in the US Senate.

Thanks Ned.

I dislike Mr. Holy Joe, but I don't see how Lamont wins at this point, since he kinda backed off blasting Joe fora while, kinda went off into God knows where, while Joe, freed from being a Democrat, could go for Republicans and not worry anymore.

I'd like Lamont to win, but every single poll I see has the incumbent ahead and it's hard to take out an incumbent, regardless of non party status.

Sure, he's lying like crazy and would kick his dead dad in the nuts if he thought it'd scrape a few votes, but it seems like Lamonts limits kinda showed up post primary day. And of course, it does not help that the Senate Democrats sell him out daily to a guy who'd suck off Dick Cheney in a minute if he could.

If Lamont wins, I'm going to buy all of my friends who support him a beer.  To share ;)

If it is not true and a lie then it is Rovish or deceptive.

Therefore it is not a good ad.

A good Ad is if it is right on the mark.

If it is not true and a lie then it is Rovish or deceptive.

Therefore it is not a good ad.

A good Ad is if it is right on the mark.

I see that we have an unusualy heavy infestation of concern trolls here this evening.

Thanks guys, your heartfelt sentiments are deeply appreciated.

Lamont should say this in the debate in a calm but forceful manner "Mr Lieberman, your campaign slandered me" Here are some facts. and since you talk so much about money, I am curious why you dont mention your assets. I am curious that you find my salary offensive despite it being earned honestly, yet you have not worked extensively in thge private sector, yet you have made enormous amount of money. I think the voters would rather see me make money honestly through good old fashioned capitalism than have someone and their family get jobs through the help of lobbyists.

Or he could just ask Lieberman why he never went after Cheney's assets? Or Halliburton?

Look, for lamont to win, schlesinger will have to be the star of the debate, so i would advice you to help schlesinger with some talking points.

I dont think there's anything lamont can do anymore to bring lieberman down and our only hope is for schlesinger to sound like a respectable candidate and we will need the strongest GOTV in CT's history to pull this off..I just wish schlesinger can hit 10% and add this to lieberman bad positioning, maybe we could win this.

But anyway, lamont has made to many mistake and one of them was shutting down after the primary, therefore, i think we will need a hail marry from schlesinger to show up ready to take his fanbase back from lieberman.

Senator Lieberman, you stated that the problem with liberals was that they did not know a "good war" when they see one.  That war has now cost an estimated 650,000 deaths of innocent Iraqis.  Are you still proud of your unapologetic, unquestioning support for a war that has brought nothing but mass death?