Saturday, November 04, 2006

These guys are PROUD of scaring the Seniors!

CT Bob: These filthy people are so mired in Joe Lieberman's slime that not only aren't they ashamed of themselves for terrorizing elderly residents of a public housing complex, but they're PROUD OF IT! Absolutely disgusting. Joe Lieberman's Campaign of Corruption is spreading. Don't feed the beast. Vote from your heart.

Cross Post from The Full Lamonty: The Battle of Charter Oak
We greatly enjoyed reading the Lamont Campaign’s fantastical account of the welcome party our young staff and volunteers threw for Ned’s bus stop across from our headquarters today. That Kool Aid they are drinking these days must be pretty people-powerful.

But since there is a danger that some unsuspecting observers might take
their delusions of failure seriously, we thought we provide an account
of what actually happened.  Here then for the record is our
reality-based chronicle of the Battle of Charter Oak.

We watched as  Ned's gleaming new gold bus, fully equipped
with Arkansas plates, pulled into  the driveway of Percival Smith
Towers Senior Center on Charter Oak Avenue in  Hartford --
across the street from Lieberman HQ.  The Stand Up for
Change  Bus Tour was ready to stand up to the opposition.  As Joe would
say: "Now that's chutzpah!"

Since Ned was in our neck of the woods, our  supporters were
naturally there to greet him.  According to Ned's top
advisors, "a small wildeyed band of paid thugs" swarmed the bus
and  "started a near riot".  See below for said


Yes, after a long day of volunteering and stumping for Joe,
these "thugs" go home to club baby seals,  too.  

So what did our “wildeyed thugs” actually do? They waved “VOTE JOE” signs and cheered. No wonder Ned’s  explosive advisor David Sirota was frightened.

This “violence” was too  much to take for Ann Huntress Lamont as
well.  Soon after climbing off  the bus, she began loudly
lecturing one young supporter: "Would you be doing  this if there
was a draft?!"  We are guessing she wasn't too happy when  he
shot back, "So you made a pretty good 'investment' here, huh?" because
she  stomped off and got right back on the bus.



Ned the Giantslayer was none too thrilled, either. 
He got off the bus, shook hands for less than 5 minutes, then
quickly retreated to his golden cocoon (we’re talking his pimped out
bus, not his life  in general).  After several minutes of
traumatic deliberations, Ned and his team cancelled the event and the
Stand Up for Change Tour quickly got flat out of Hartford.

Our team, meanwhile, was left to ponder the Lamont paradox:

The guy who is banking his whole campaign on  standing up to
the Bush Administration couldn’t even stand up to harmless bunch of
sign-waving 22-year-olds.

Welcome to the neighorhood, Ned!  Come again soon!

Posted by:
Eric Blankenbaker
11/3/2006 at 4:45 PM

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Joe now 5-for-5 with major Connecticut papers

Posted Nov. 2nd - (the day of the debate that Joe it TOO CHICKEN to attend!)

Today Joe got three more glowing newspapers endorsements — the Stamford Advocate, Greenwich Time, and the Connecticut Post -- making him 5-for-5 with major Connecticut papers for the general election.

The joint endorsement of the Stamford Advocate and the Greenwich Time picked up on and validated a central argument of our campaign, that Joe is the only candidate who can fix the partisan gridlock blocking progress in Washington on so many critical issues.

America needs change in Congress. Partisanship and one-party domination often result in divisiveness or myopic national and world views that do not allow mistakes to be challenged on issues like Iraq and the war on terrorism. But some experience and an emphasis on dialogue among lawmakers will be required if change is to be productive. Thus, even though we have been troubled by U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's support for Iraq war goals that seem increasingly stymied, we believe he is the right choice now for both America and Connecticut.

A Democrat running independently for re-election, Mr. Lieberman has stressed cooperation at times with the current Republican majority. In a new Congress, that background and approach could help him become a bridge between some of the current, bitterly partisan positions. Such divisiveness in recent years has produced bad legislation and prevented consensus and reasonable compromise that we think most Americans would prefer.

The Advocate and Time editors also noted the unique value of Joe’s experience, saying at this time in our history, we need a Senator with more experience and demonstrated abilities than Ned Lamont.

We think Mr. Lieberman has shown the required qualities. He is equipped to promote change for the better in a new Congress and two years down the road with a new administration -- perhaps even on Iraq and other international issues -- and help obtain proper recognition of our state's need

The Connecticut Post editorial celebrated Joe’s independent-mindedness and willingness to take tough stands for what he believes is right.

Lieberman is not your orthodox party politician. Time after time, he has risen above partisanship to vote his principles and time after time he has reached across the political aisle to build coalitions based on those beliefs and what he feels is correct for America and for Connecticut.

He is a politician not afraid of taking risks and upsetting people, including his party and his constituents.

And like their counterparts at the Advocate and many Connecticut voters, the Post editors emphasized Joe’s experience and his ability to deliver results for the state.

Ned Lamont, the novice Democrat who won the party's nomination in the August primary, simply hasn't made a compelling case for why he would make a better senator.

Lamont is a successful businessman who is quite intelligent and articulate in detail on issues. Aside from the Iraq war, however, he and Lieberman really don't differ that much on basic issues, especially domestic affairs.

Why trade in experience for a freshman face?. . .

Lieberman, though he may be a petitioning candidate, clearly represents the best choice for Connecticut based on his experience and the hard work that has been characteristic of his overall career in state and national politics.
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 11/2/2006 at 12:33 PM

Wednesday, November 01, 2006


posted November 1st

Today’s Quinnipiac Poll shows Joe leading Ned 49-37 among likely voters.

This is another encouraging poll that shows Joe Lieberman’s message of putting people ahead of politics continues to resonate across party lines with Connecticut voters. But as we predicted, the race has gotten closer, and we expect it tighten even more over the final six days.

The fact is, Ned has a seemingly bottomless bank account and a much-vaunted get-out-the-vote operation behind him, they are going to throw every thing they have at us before Election Day, and we have a real challenge to overcome with our unusual ballot placement.

So we are taking nothing for granted. We will still be running as if we are five points behind and fighting for every vote up until Tuesday at 8 p.m.
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 11/1/2006 at 11:00 AM

Lost in the shuffle: Joe's health care plan

posted on October 31st

Joe took to the campaign trail again this morning – this time giving a breakfast address to the Southington Chamber of Commerce. Joe recognized the success of Southington’s business community, which continues to create high-paying jobs that are attracting more and more people to the Southington area. “That success is a real credit to the business leaders sitting right here,” Joe said.

Joe also laid out his 10-point health care plan to move America closer to universal health care. His plan includes a common-sense approach to lowering health care costs for Connecticut’s small businesses so they can grow and expand and the creation of the American Center for Cures to find treatments for diseases like cancer, diabetes and depression that afflict more than 100 million Americans.

Joe also pointed out that Ned’s health care plan, a mandate that all businesses, big and small, provide health insurance, would be a job and business killer. For more information on Joe’s universal health care plan and Ned’s disastrous approach, click here.

More photos from this morning's event on our flickr page.
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/31/2006 at 7:32 PM

See no slime and evil, hear no slime and evil

posted on October 31st

How bad are things over in Lamont Land?

We have heard from reliable sources within the Democratic firmament that Ned’s top advisors stopped conducting tracking polls more than a week ago, because they were afraid to show the results to the candidate.

We suspect their real fear, of course, is that once Ned sees the bad news he will stop pouring more of his millions into his campaign, and the consultants will no longer be able to squeeze more milk from their commercial cash cow.

That would be shame. We will miss seeing the train, car wreck...on the air.

Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/31/2006 at 3:52 PM

Get Out The Ballot

posted October 31st

Joe officially launched the campaign’s “Get Out the Ballot” (GOTB) initiative today in Hartford to educate Connecticut voters about his unique ballot placement on Election Day. Joe’s name will be listed on the bottom of the ballot in Column 2 on the ‘Connecticut for Lieberman’ line, instead of his usual placement near the top of the ballot as the Democratic nominee.

At a press conference to kickoff the GOTB initiative, Joe unveiled the first television commercial featuring the campaign’s newly-adopted mascot: a bloodhound dog named “Charlie the Ballothound.”

You can watch it below:

Joe also unveiled a new traveling Vote-Joe-To-Go Machine. The mobile voting machine will travel regularly with Joe on the campaign trail through Election Day to give voters an opportunity to see exactly where his name will appear on the ballot.

This week is your last chance to help Get Out The Ballot.

Joe said that the unofficial slogan for the GOTB initiative will be the old adage “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” which is being used on flyers, doorknockers and other literature as part of the GOTB initiative.

Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/31/2006 at 3:31 PM

Monday, October 30, 2006

Our response to the New York Times endorsement

posted by Dan Gerstein on October 30th

We fully expected that the New York Times, given its strong anti-war stance and clear partisan agenda, would repeat their misguided primary endorsement of Ned Lamont for the general election. But we never imagined the Times of all papers would produce such an intellectually dishonest and shoddy editorial as they published Sunday.

To correct the worst mischaracterizations and false claims in the Times endorsement, and show the editors how badly they missed mark, we sent the Times the following response this morning:

October 30, 2006

Editorial Page Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

To the Editor:

Had the New York Times taken an honest measure of the two U.S. Senate candidates in Connecticut, there is no question it would have followed the lead of the Hartford Courant and the New Haven Register in endorsing Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont.

Lieberman’s record of accomplishment, his unfailing leadership on many of the very issues the Times promotes, his personal integrity and even the way he has conducted himself since the August primary – which the Times purportedly weighed in making its endorsement – should have made him the hands-down choice.

Instead, the Times’ ill-informed and tendentious endorsement of Ned Lamont reads as if the editors had outsourced the editorial writing to the same crew of blindingly angry bloggers who have teamed with the Lamont Campaign to twist Joe Lieberman’s record beyond all recognition.

What resulted -– a cant recitation of discredited arguments, along with a willful ignorance of Senator Lieberman’s many accomplishments for the state and the country –- reveals far more about the Times’ knee-jerk biases and lack of rigor than either of the candidates.

The Times most obviously shows its narrow-mindedness by reducing the entire campaign to the war in Iraq, despite the fact that two-thirds of voters in Connecticut consistently say it is not their top concern. Even worse, the Times shows its disinterest in the truth by regurgitating several of the bloggers’ biggest falsehoods and grossly mischaracterizing Senator Lieberman’s position on Iraq.

The fact is, as the Times itself reported last week, Joe Lieberman has openly and frequently challenged the Bush Administration’s conduct of the war -- just not in the shrill and hateful terms that the Times and the blogger extremists confuse with strong leadership.

He had called for Secretary Rumsfeld to be replaced as far back as October of 2003, and he had warned of problems with the Administration’s approach even before the invasion began in a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations.

Senator Lieberman laid this all out plainly in his “Closing Argument” speech the Sunday before the primary. In that speech, he explicitly attributed the misinformation about his record to the Lamont campaign’s relentlessly misleading attacks – he never once blamed his constituents as your editorial falsely claimed.

Also, if the Times had cared to check the record, they would have found that Senator Lieberman has not attacked his fellow Democrats for questioning the President’s war polices.

The fact is, Senator Lieberman has given three major speeches recently in which he made clear that he valued dissent, and that his objection was to partisans on both sides of the war who have been exploiting the divisions on Iraq for political gain. He has never questioned anyone’s patriotism, Democrat or Republican, in this campaign.

Here is an excerpt from his “Closing Argument” speech to prove this point.

I not only respect your right to disagree or question the President, I value it. I was part of the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, so I don’t need to be lectured by Ned Lamont about the place of dissent in our democracy.

My opponent wants you to believe otherwise, to cement his distortion campaign against me. That’s why they keep repeating and misrepresenting a single comment I made in one speech, in which I said we undermine the President’s credibility at our peril.

I know that statement has been widely misconstrued, so let me address it head on. I did not suggest that the President or anyone else -- including me -- should be immune from criticism. The best proof of that is I myself have challenged the President’s policies on many occasions. The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree.

My concern was, and remains, that if opponents or supporters of the war go beyond disagreeing to exploiting the war for partisan political purposes, much like Republicans did to Max Cleland on homeland security, we could lose more than an election. We could put our mission in Iraq, the lives of thousands of American soldiers carrying it out, and our national security at risk. That is what I care about.

Most importantly, Joe Lieberman has said on several occasions during the campaign that a “stay the course” strategy was a recipe for more failure in Iraq, and five weeks ago he outlined a substantive 10-point plan for a new approach. So to suggest that he is blithely refusing to acknowledge facts on the ground is just patently false.

It is just as false to claim, as your editorial does, that “Mr. Lamont is close to the Senate Democrats (minus Mr. Lieberman) who demanded a timetable for withdrawal without being too firm on what that ought to entail.”

The fact is, Mr. Lamont has frequently endorsed a rigid, arbitrary deadline -- not a timeline -- that would have all troops out by July 1, 2007, regardless of the consequences. This naïve and deadly policy was rejected by most Senate Democrats – only 12 out of 44 supported the Lamont position.

Mr. Lamont’s position is so indefensible that even he has trouble defending it, which is why he vacillates back and forth between the contradictory positions of supporting a deadline and saying we should leave the decision to the generals. And the Times had the temerity to say Ned Lamont is the candidate with the most courage to tell the public difficult truths.

All of this goes to show that if anyone is guilty of not facing reality, it is the Times editors. You clearly overlooked all the signs that Senator Lieberman was listening and that his views could and did evolve. Instead, you repackaged the distorted caricature the Lamont campaign has been peddling for several months to serve your own ideological agenda.

The truth is, the only way Joe Lieberman could have won with the Times editors was to compromise his principles and recant his support for the war. And in much the same way, the only acceptable definition of changing course for the Times was a politically-determined timetable for troop withdrawal -– a path that has been rejected as a threat to our national security interests by many critics of the Bush Administration, including the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats, and our military leadership.

The most blatant evidence that the fix was in was your assertion that Mr. Lamont is “the far better candidate” to serve in the U.S. Senate. That is simply incomprehensible – and frankly an insult to your readers’ intelligence.

Have you actually listened to Mr. Lamont on the campaign trail and in the debates? Once he gets past his rote talking points, all he can offer now, nine months after he started campaigning, is a slew of vague generalities. In fact, Mr. Lamont had to be prompted by the moderators at the recent debates to be more forthcoming with his views. And at a NAACP forum Saturday night, he was upbraided several times by a largely friendly audience for failing to answer basic questions.

Did you bother to read Mr. Lamont’s so-called Plan for Change, his best effort to show that he was more than a one-note candidate? We have seen more detail and depth from local city council candidates. And of the very limited ideas he does offer, most of them have already been proposed by Senator Lieberman.

Just consider Mr. Lamont’s economic and jobs agenda. It consists of one paragraph on each of the following three planks: raising the minimum wage (which Lieberman has always supported), fighting for more federal money for the state (which Lieberman has been widely praised for), and adopting more protectionist trade policies (which would be economic poison for a state in which one in five jobs are dependent on trade).

There is no mention of sharpening America’s competitive edge in innovation, or strengthening our education and job training systems to equip workers to fill the jobs of the 21st Century, or promoting the growth of small businesses, which are the leading engine of job growth in Connecticut. And this is from a candidate who is running exclusively on his experience and record as a small businessman.

Speaking of Mr. Lamont’s business record, have you taken the time to examine that? He brags about his ability to meet a payroll, but as your own reporters pointed out, Mr. Lamont actually cut 68 percent of his workforce – a fact that Mr. Lamont has effectively conceded. His excuse? It was 9/11’s fault. Yet that somehow does not stop him from blaming Joe Lieberman for all the other job losses over the last five years.

Now, compare Lamont’s slim reed of a resume with Joe Lieberman’s record in the Senate in just the last six years. Working across party lines in a way the hyper-partisan Mr. Lamont never could, Senator Lieberman has:

* Helped save the New London Sub Base and the 31,000 jobs that go with it
* Passed legislation to accelerate the cleanup of Long Island Sound
* Secured record-breaking amounts of transportation funding
* Created the Homeland Security Department, which the Bush Administration initially opposed
* Established the 9/11 Commission over the Bush Administration’s objections
* Passed the most sweeping reforms of our intelligence system in half a century, based on the 9-11 Commission’s recommendations
* Conducted a tough, exhaustive investigation of the Bush Administration’s failures in responding to Katrina, which led to the passage of a comprehensive FEMA reform bill
* Repeatedly blocked the Bush Administration’s efforts to open the Artic Refuge to oil drilling
* Consistently stood up to the Bush Administration’s efforts to roll back key protections in the Clean Air Act.

It is quite telling that the Times, much like the bloggers who have been trying to purge Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party, failed to acknowledge any of these accomplishments and stands – or to explain why they were not relevant to your endorsement process.

Nor do your editors acknowledge the fact that Senator Lieberman has opposed the Bush Administration on most every major domestic policy initiative.

Or that Senator Lieberman has been endorsed by groups as diverse as the League of Conservation Voters, the Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood and NARAL, the Chamber of Commerce, the Realtors, and Connecticut’s police, firefighter, and building trades unions.

Or, not least of all, the Times editors did not acknowledge the consequences of losing Senator Lieberman’s seniority for the people of Connecticut and for many of the progressive causes the Times has long championed.

That is probably because you long ago convicted him of not being ideologically pure enough and of not being reflexively hostile enough to his Republican colleagues. You clearly wanted another finger-pointer in the Senate, and Ned Lamont wins that contest hands down.

Fortunately, it seems a lot of people in Connecticut do care to know what Joe Lieberman has done to help improve their lives. And we are ready to put Senator Lieberman’s record of experience, independence, and results before them.


Dan Gerstein
Communications Director
Lieberman for Senate Campaign

Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/30/2006 at 12:19 PM

Daily Double

posted October 30th

Well, we have finally discovered one thing that the Daily News and the New York Post can agree on; Joe Lieberman must be returned to the United States Senate.

The legendary feud between the Post and the Daily News wasn’t strong enough to keep them from agreeing that, as the Daily News puts it, “This is no contest. Vote for Lieberman.”

The endorsement in the Daily News, which was published today, talked about the track record that Joe has built up during his 18 years in the Senate, and the promise that the future holds when he returns for a 4th term. Because of his ability to work across party lines, and get things done, the Daily News said “Lieberman has been a distinctive, important Democratic voice.”

Furthermore, the Daily News seems to echo what the polls have been showing, “You don't throw out a top-drawer senator in favor of a political newcomer who scored a narrow victory on the strength of a campaign financed by personal wealth and single-issue emotion.”

So far, of the 5 major papers that have made endorsements, Joe has been endorsed by 4 of the 5 of them. Of the 2 major Connecticut papers that have endorsed so far, Joe is batting 1.000.
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/30/2006 at 3:31 PM

Sunday, October 29, 2006

New Haven Register Endorses Joe

posted on October 29th

The New Haven Register today made it 2-for-2 in major Connecticut newspapers endorsing Joe in the general election. Just like The Hartford Courant, the Register’s editors lauded Joe’s unique ability to rise above politics as usual to solve problems for his constituents and his country, calling him a “thoughtful politician” who can “reclaim the sensible center in American politics from two parties who put their own interests first.”

By contrast, the editorial noted, Ned Lamont would just be...

...part of that partisan divide that results in party interest prevailing over the common good. Where Lieberman voted against the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Lamont says he would have led a filibuster. Where Lieberman has tried to improve access to health care coverage, Lamont would require employers to pay into a universal health care system. Lieberman describes the plan as a job killer for businesses already struggling with high health care costs.

Like many voters, the Registers said they were concerned by Lamont’s inexperience, inconsistencies, and unaccountability:

We are particularly troubled by Lamont’s refusal to disclose his and his wife’s income tax returns for the last five years despite their contributing a jaw-dropping $10.7 million of their own money to finance his campaign.

The editors made clear they don’t agree with Joe on every issue and that they feel he has made some mistakes. That just makes the endorsement all the more credible and effective. We appreciate the Register’s candor and most importantly their support.
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/29/2006 at 11:51 PM