Welcome to Joe's 2006 Blog!
Our First Post
(this is a repost of Dan Gerstein's original Blog introduction, posted on September 5, 2006)
Welcome to the debut of Joe's Blog.
As even our friends over at the Lamont campaign will tell you, this is long overdue.
The fact is, for the last several months we ceded the online debate to our rivals.
Well, that changes today.
As you may be able to tell from our new and greatly-improved website, we plan on having a much more robust presence on the Internet for Round Two of this campaign.
Our blog will be a critical part of that effort.
Beyond being a central source of useful information and commentary from our campaign, we hope this will become a gathering place for lively and thoughtful conversation for our supporters – and even our opponents.
Now we fully expect some of our over-exuberant critics to use our blog to attack and insult our candidate and our campaign.
In fact, so does the Lamont campaign. Just read this cynical post on the subject from their Internet guru Tim Tagaris:
“They are going to take whatever questionable comments might appear and pass them off in press releases to discredit our grassroots supporters who actively participate in politics online.We found it quite telling that Tagaris did not caution his more juvenile supporters against posting their typical hate speech on our blog because it was wrong or offensive – just because it might look bad for the Lamont campaign.
“They've done it repeatedly w/ comments on other blogs, and they know your disappointment in his un-yielding support for President Bush and the status quo will likely manifest itself on joe2006.
“Sure… express your disappointment. Tell him he's wrong on the issues you care about if you must. Just know he isn't listening, and anyone that crosses the line is either doing our effort no good, and I'd guess is probably even a Connecticut for Lieberman Party supporter trying to discredit you."
Gee, that line sounds familiar. . . Oh yes, it’s exactly the same excuse the Nedster used for dropping out of his his "too-white" country club after being a member for 16 years.
In fairness, Tagaris did get one thing right. We are not going to censor comments from our opponents, unless they post obscene material.
Instead, we are going to use our free speech to point out any of the blatant lies or crude insults the Lamonsters post to call attention to the kind of negative, destructive politics that Ned and his followers like to practice.
Now that we got that out of the way, gentlemen and ladies, start your search engines. . .
------
Posted by: Dan Gerstein on 09/05/2006 at 2:00 PM
posted by CT Bob at 10:39 AM
10 Comments:
Hello! Welcome.
Senator Lieberman should support the winner of the Democratic primary, Ned Lamont.
Hi,
As a Resident of CT. who is currently working (and Vacationing ;-) ) in Australia, I would like to ask Senator Lieberman a couple of quick questions if I may.
First of all;
1)Do you believe in Democracy (as in each and every Voter has One Vote and that Vote is equal), if so, why did you not except the decision of the Primary Vote by the Citizens of CT?
Question 2;
You have been a long standing supporter of the invasion of Iraq and of President Bush's foreign policy.
2) Do you honestly believe that what is happening in Iraq right now, is a good thing? And do you believe that destabilising regions (as in, what has, and is happening in Iraq right now) is a safe or sensible Policy?
Thank You.
Because of the size of the last post I'll post these questions in a separate post.
As mentioned in my previous post, your support for President Bush appears to be conflicting with your peers in the Democrat Party. My question is;
Is your unwavering support for a Government that has made many bad decisions, continues to make bad decisions, has several of its Leaders either in Jail, being charged or having legal proceedings brought against them, including several Bribery charges, inappropriate sexual advances, Lying to Congress, releasing the Identity of under cover CIA operatives, Spying on millions of completely Innocent Americans, failing to take control and act decisively during Hurricane Katrina, Failing to take control and act decisively during 911, Failing to act when told that the US was in imminent danger in the months leading up to 911, invading Iraq to profit from the war and take control of one of the worlds major oil reserves while telling the Public, the U.N. and Congress that the invasion was for an entirely different reason, therefore misleading the people of the US, the Parliament and the U.N.
be the priority that the Party in opposition should be? (IE, the Party in opposition is supposed to question Government decisions, why do you think they should not?
Perhaps I should rephrase the last question.
You have made several Public statements to the effect that the Democrats should not question the Presidents decisions.
The way that Parliament has been set up and the way it works, is to have a questioning party in opposition.
My question is, Do you believe that the Party in opposition to the Government should just sit there and agree with whatever the Governing Party Say's or does even when these decisions are wrong or as we are seeing now, absolutely disastrous to the country and to the middle East?
You are the reason we lost in 2000. No one really believes you're a Democrat. You're all about power. try doing something heroic for the USA and resign your position. Thanks.
is this the famous post where, in the comment thread response, dangerstein said that Joe beats his wife? Man, it's like a little piece of history.
Anon, no; Dan said that Joe no longer beats his wife. Get the facts straight, buddy! LOL
And I saved the best part of that thread on connecticutbob.com; look in the archives around the beginning of Sept.
Boy, that was a fun time!
Joe What won't you say to keep your ass on the senate floor?
You suck
The Democrate won [Ned] so get lost,or come out of the closet and run as Repuglican.Confession is good for the soul make you feel at home with Bush and peverts.
perverts---G.O.P.
Post a Comment
<< Home