Joe's 2006 Blog

The Final Post

2006-11-10T15:26:00.000-05:00

CT Bob: This will probably be the last post of this blog, since the Joe2006 official website now just shows photos of Joe and his friends, and the Blog is history.

Fortunately, I do have a mirrored copy of the Joe blog (much more complete than this simple blog) that will be available to interested parties. I just have to figure out if it'll fit on a standard data CD, or if I need to burn it onto a DVD. The total weight of the baldfaced lies might be too much for a CD.

I started this blog to mirror the Joe2006 blog, which Dan Gerstein promised would remain open for comments; he broke his word and stopped the comments after about five days. I'm still convinced that he fully intended to do that from Day One, since having an open forum where people can express their opinions is the LAST THING that Joe "Talk to the Hand" Lieberman would ever want.

A one-way dialogue is his trademark.

I feel we accomplished something with this blog. People got to comment on the Joe postings by Eric Blankenbaker and Dan Gerstein, and we contributed to the idea of Free Speech that was denied to you by Senator Lieberman. For that, I'm proud.

So now, we end this blog with what may be the saddest example of poor sportsmanship I've ever seen anywhere. Read this post, which was linked from the Joe2006 Blog by Eric Blankenbacker shortly before they purged it, and think about what we'll be in for should Joe Lieberman really have the deciding vote in the Senate.

Something tells me Joe's gonna be all about settling scores.

And...thanks for reading.

Connecticut Bob
======================================
From The Bull Moose (which also doesn't allow comments; does that surprise anyone?)

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

KOSenfreude*

The Moose gloats and kvells.

There is great joy in Mooseland. The nutroots have struck out. Joe Lieberman has prevailed. The vital center is victorious!

Read and weep, dear nutroots,

"Throughout his career, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has proudly proclaimed himself an "independent-minded Democrat." But in the closing days of this campaign, Mr. Lieberman added a superlative, promising to be a "very independent Democrat."

After a brutal fall from grace in losing his party's primary this summer, Mr. Lieberman will return to the Senate emboldened, rather than chastened. All fall, he used terms like "unshackled" and "liberated" to describe himself and called his independent candidacy a "twist of fate." In Washington, he is unlikely to be cast out - rather, he could be courted by both sides on close votes.

"I will go to Washington beholden to no political group, but only to the people of Connecticut and my conscience," Mr. Lieberman told supporters in his victory speech Tuesday night at the Goodwin Hotel here. He said his victory was "a declaration of independence from politics of partisanship," adding, "I will be an independent senator, but I will not be alone."

Yes, there is justice. Joe took a brave stand by putting country before party. Despite the fevered efforts of the McGovenites with Modems, the sensible voters of Connecticut rejected polarization and partisanship.

Don't believe the pathetic nutroots spin. In August, they engaged in premature triumphalism believing that they vanquished the vital center. One even indicated that he had ominous plans to obliterate the organization that Joe once led. No, they did not need the dreaded establishment. All they needed were their trusted keyboards and their internet access.

Bloviating bloggers had rushed to the Nutmeg State to hop aboard the Lamont bus with laptops in hand. Indeed, the candidate was their creation. He was their central project. And this "people power" populist plutocrat poured millions of his own fortune into the race. While the nutroots are fervent, they are also cheap.

As the Moose used to say in Texas, the nutroots were all hat and no cattle. Alas, the internet emperors wear no clothes! MSM take note. Kos and Sirota are out. Gerstein and Sun are in.

Now, these tough blogosphere operatives kvetch, moan and cry. Their champion has lost and these puerile puppies complain that the loathed "establishment" did not stand by their man. They cannot handle the truth. Polarization is passe.

The central reason that the Democrats have achieved their major triumph is that they captured the center that was abandoned by the GOP. The Moose welcomes the new group of Blue Dogs.

Polarization has its limits. And Joe Lieberman will return to the Senate as the leader of the vital center. Indeed, Joe emerges ever stronger and as perhaps the most influential member of the upper chamber! By sticking to his guns, Joe wrote another chapter in Profiles in Courage.

A powerful message has been sent to the '08 wannabees who sent Negative Ned their money and support - you can pander to the nutroots to win primaries, but you must reach out to the vital center to win a general election (even in a deep blue state). More persuasion and less comment threads, please.

The Moose deeply enjoys Kosenfreude*. And yes, Virginia, there is Joementum!

-- Posted
at 8:38 AM | Link
to this post | Email
this post

Postscript: My message to Eric B.

2006-11-08T16:09:00.000-05:00

Hi Eric.

I know you read this blog, so I'd just like to say a few things to you.

First of all, congrats on your boy winning. The voters chose Joe over Ned, and even though I feel they were misled by you and others, I support their decision. That's what Democracy is, the will of the voters.

Of course, I can't say I wasn't dismayed that Joe decided to ignore the will of his Democratic party by running as an Independent, but that's an whole other discussion.

Joe won it. It's official.

Now, while you may think you were doing the best job you could do by bashing and slagging Ned Lamont the way you did, you've sunk so far below the realm of taste and good sportsmanship that everyone who's read your writing is disgusted by it.

You didn't need to fabricate lies the way you did.

I know a lot of young "up-'n-comers" in politics think they have to go beyond the line in order to impress their superiors. Well, if Joe is going to be your boss for the rest of your career, you should be fine.

Nothing to worry about.

But keep this in mind, my young friend. The record of your lies and distortions will endure long after you purge the "Joe2006" website. Unlike a shredder in a politician's back office, your words will be available for anyone who asks to see.

Trust me on this. Don't worry, they're in a safe place.

You will have to live with your actions for a long time, Eric.

I just hope it was worth it.

Sincerely,
CT Bob

JOE LIEBERMAN SAYS:

2006-11-07T12:51:00.000-05:00

"...VOTE FOR NED..."!

(And it was in the Hartford Courant yesterday, so if Eric Blankenknocker doesn't like it, tough titty!)

Email from Joe

2006-11-06T23:02:00.000-05:00

posted on Nov 6th

Email sent out earlier today from Joe:

Tomorrow, voters will head to the polls to make an important decision. They will have a choice between partisan politics-as-usual or a new path forward. My friends, I've been honored to be your United States Senator and I respectfully ask for your vote tomorrow.

We need to work together to overcome the divisive politics-as-usual atmosphere in Washington D.C. , and I know that with your support tomorrow, we will win a resounding victory for the voice of experience and reason. Throughout this campaign, I've been talking about the importance of putting people ahead of politics and standing up for what's right. Voters across Connecticut are responding to my message and now we need to get-out-the-vote to win!

Please remember to vote tomorrow and remind your friends to vote the bottom line. My name will be at the bottom of column two on your ballot tomorrow, so please remember to look past the partisan game-playing and vote the bottom line tomorrow.

Make no mistake - this is a critically important election and every vote counts. Please make sure to vote tomorrow and please forward this email along to your friends and family to remind them to vote as well. Connecticut needs an experienced, independent, and effective voice in the Senate and I would be honored to have your support to continue serving this great state we call home.

With sincere thanks and appreciation,

Joe Lieberman
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 11/6/2006 at 9:36 PM

Closing Argument

2006-11-05T22:00:00.000-05:00

posted on Nov. 5th

Joe delivered his “closing argument” for reelection to the United States Senate on Sunday in a stirring speech at his campaign headquarters in Hartford Sunday night, saying, “If you want to send a real message for positive change in Washington, send me.”

Speaking to a crowd of volunteers, family and friends, and standing alongside Hadassah, Joe asked his supporters for “one, last favor" :

Don’t listen to people who tell you this race is over….I believe this race will be closer than most people think. And if we don’t work hard every step of the way, if we don’t get our people to the polls, and if we don’t let people know where to find me on the ballot, then everything we have worked for together will be lost.

If you want more partisanship and more polarization in Washington, then you should vote for Ned Lamont. But if you want an independent-thinking problem-solver, someone who will put people ahead of politics and work across party lines to get things done for you, then I ask for your vote.”

Joe was introduced by a bipartisan team of volunteers, Jeff McLean and Kitty Parente.

Responding to the cheers and signs held aloft by his supporters, Joe pointed out two signs with his favorite slogans from past campaigns, one reading “Batman, Superman, Lieberman,” and the other simply said, “Viva Chutzpah!”
------
Posted by: Guest Poster: Jim Kennedy on 11/5/2006 at 8:20 PM

Wilton and Darien go for Joe

2006-11-05T12:16:00.000-05:00

posted on Nov. 4h

The Wilton Bulletin and Darien Times lined up this week with over half a dozen other Connecticut newspapers to endorse Joe. Both papers cited the need to strengthen the sensible center in Washington to make progress on the issues that voters care most about. We're grateful for their support, and agree that a vote for Joe is a vote for less partisanship and more progress.

The Wilton Bulletin reminded voters that Joe "has been a strong advocate for Connecticut" for 18 years as "a middle of the road politician [who] has extended olive branches across party lines in a time when too many in both parties are teetering on the edge of the extremist cliff." And the Darien Times wrote that "Washington is becoming more and more partisan...[and] the Senate chamber needs more members like Joe Lieberman, not fewer."

LIEBERMAN FOR SENATE
WILTON BULLETIN
NOVEMBER 1st

Senator Joseph Lieberman has been a strong advocate for Connecticut since his first days in office in 1988. A middle-of-the-road politician, he has extended olive branches across party lines in a time when too many in both parties are teetering on the edge of the extremist cliff. His primary battle against Ned Lamont proved to be a referendum on the War in Iraq, but the general election should be about much more than that. There is much to be done in the months and years ahead, from reforming Social Security to keeping the economy on an upward trend and ensuring American security and safety at home and abroad. It will be moderates, like Mr. Lieberman, who will assure that this do-nothing Congress does a 180 and begins working for the people.

We endorse Mr. Lieberman for the U.S. Senate.

LIEBERMAN FOR SENATE
DARIEN TIMES
NOVEMBER 3rd

While the Democratic primary proved to be the Democrat’s referendum on the war, this U.S. Senate race is about much more. It is about the economy, it is about national security, it is about gas prices, it is about representing Connecticut and helping to lead America. It is about this country’s future.

Mr. Lieberman, while he at times sides with the left and other times with the right, is a leader among the middle. Washington is becoming more and more partisan — a partisan attitude that is seeping into our local politics. The Senate chamber needs more members like Joe Lieberman not fewer. We endorse Mr. Lieberman for U.S. Senate.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 11/4/2006 at 5:03 PM

Halley's Comment

2006-11-05T12:09:00.000-05:00

posted on Nov. 4th

We thought we'd bring this excellent column by Halley Faust to your attention from this week's CT Jewish Ledger. In a single page, Faust was able to 'rock the yacht' right out from under Ned's campaign and expose his one-issue, $16 million investment as an angry, empty folly.

We know it's a foreign concept to our tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist friends in the Lamont camp, but Faust actually employs logic to deduce why Connecticut should stick with Joe on Election Day.

On the Iraq war, she rightly argues that there's no silver bullet solution - so we need "serious, experienced and centrist leaders in the Senate" to help conclude the war in a way that makes us safer, not less secure. And on the critical issue of U.S. - Israel relations, Faust writes that "he's proven his loyalty to our issues; we should prove our loyalty to his candidacy."

Faust also reminds voters that in the Senate, seniority matters.She highlights the implications of Lieberman's moderate, independent position if the country wakes up on November 8th to a split Senate. "Our Connecticut seat makes a difference," she writes.

And finally, Faust rightly declares that our country is one the wrong track and we need a change in Washington, but "the risk of change [only] makes sense if a good justification for benefits and a clear strategy accompanies it. A change without clear direction often worsens rather than improve situations." The fact is, Negative Ned still has no new ideas. Faust echoes this sentiment when she concludes that "nearly all of Lamont's website issue papers are so fuzzy as to be meaningless."

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 11/4/2006 at 5:08 PM

These guys are PROUD of scaring the Seniors!

2006-11-04T07:39:00.000-05:00

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
"thugs":

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.

WHERE'S NEDDIE? IS HE READY?

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 on
11/3/2006 at 4:45 PM

Joe now 5-for-5 with major Connecticut papers

2006-11-02T14:32:00.000-05:00

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

Q-Poll

2006-11-01T12:07:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-01T06:09:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-01T06:08:00.000-05:00

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 wreck...um, car wreck...on the air.

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

Get Out The Ballot

2006-11-01T06:07:00.000-05:00

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

Our response to the New York Times endorsement

2006-10-30T19:35:00.000-05:00

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.

Sincerely,

Dan Gerstein
Communications Director
Lieberman for Senate Campaign

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

Daily Double

2006-10-30T19:32:00.000-05:00

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

New Haven Register Endorses Joe

2006-10-29T12:15:00.001-05:00

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

Joe's New Hit Single

2006-10-28T15:55:00.000-04:00

posted on October 28th

(CT Bob: This song is so godawful bad that I WANT you to hear it! Click HERE to listen to Joe's little ditty. And please parody this thing.

Then click HERE to listen/watch the coolness that's being made for Ned.)

Today, we released our first radio jingle to educate voters about Joe Lieberman's unique ballot placement on Election Day. Lieberman's name will be listed near the bottom of the ballot in Row 2 on the 'Connecticut for Lieberman' line, instead of his usual placement near the top of the ballot as the Democratic nominee.

Lieberman said:

"I want to make sure the voters of Connecticut who are looking for my name know how to find me on November 7th. This is a unique challenge, but certainly not an impossible one. I believe the Connecticut people are smart enough to figure this out, and we plan on doing whatever we can to provide helpful reminders between now and Election Day."

To listen to the jingle CLICK HERE.

SCRIPT for 'THE BOTTOM LINE' JINGLE:

Singing: When you walk into that voting booth, looking for the real truth; well people this year you will find, you're looking for the bottom line.

Joe Lieberman has been the one to say it straight and get it done. He's there for us once again, now Connecticut's there for Lieberman.

Look past the parties and the names, there's no room for political games, Joe's stood up for us every time, it's time to vote the bottom line.

Announcer: This year Joe Lieberman may be a little harder to find in the voting booth, because he's running independently in the Connecticut for Lieberman party, you'll find his name near the bottom of column two on the ballot. So take your time, look carefully and vote for Joe Lieberman.

Singing: When you walk into that voting booth, looking for the real truth, vote your heart and vote your mind, you'll find Joe on the bottom line.

Joe Lieberman: I'm Joe Lieberman, I'm running for Senate, and I approved this message. Paid for by Friends of Joe Lieberman
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/28/2006 at 3:17 PM

Thank you, Norwalk!

2006-10-28T15:22:00.000-04:00

posted on October 28th

We would like to take this opportunity to say a big THANK YOU to the Dems on the Norwalk Common Council who are breaking from reflexive partisan politics, putting Connecticut first, and stickin’ with Joe. You represent the kind of independent-minded, solutions-based politics that Joe is working to bring to Washington in order to get things done for Connecticut, and we’re grateful for your support.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/28/2006 at 2:06 PM

The Hartford Courant Endorses Joe

2006-10-28T15:15:00.000-04:00

posted on October 26th

The Hartford Courant, the largest newspaper in Connecticut, re-endorsed Joe today:

Three months ago, we endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Democratic primary because he is a much-needed diplomat in a warring Congress.

We still believe he is the right choice and warrants voter support on Nov. 7.

The three-term, 64-year-old senator lost the primary election in large part because of Democrats' anger over his support of President Bush's policy in Iraq. He is now running as a petitioning candidate. He remains a moderate respected in Congress for his talent in working across party lines.

This election is not solely about a war gone sour. There are critical domestic matters long simmering -- the solvency of Social Security, health care access, huge budget deficits and more…[And] it will take more members of Mr. Lieberman's ilk to restrain a free-spending, scandal-plagued Congress and an increasingly powerful president, or to turn attention to other urgent matters such as the environment and energy independence.

In 1991, Mr. Lieberman told a conference organized by the Heritage Foundation and the Progressive Foundation that "the old assumptions of the left and right are no longer working" and that the political system needed to embrace "a new consensus that drops ideology and replaces it with rationality." He has been true to this vision the past 18 years, earning bipartisan political capital that will be needed in the difficult six years ahead.

The Courant cites Joe’s solidly progressive voting record on domestic issues while applauding his ability to put people ahead of politics by working with Republicans like Senator John McCain and Senator Susan Collins on policies to improve our national security and protect our environment.

And despite Ned’s misleading attempt to caricature Joe into a Bush lackey, The Courant rightly reminds voters that this is untrue. The editorial points out that Joe hasn’t “given Mr. Bush…a free pass,” citing Joe’s harsh criticisms of the Bush Administration’s environmental record and his threat to subpoena Tom Ridge in 2002 when Bush refused to allow the then DHS Secretary to testify before the Government Affairs Committee.

The Connecticut people got an important reminder from the oldest most continuously published newspaper in America that Joe Lieberman is the only candidate in this race who has the experience, independence, and influence to get things done for them. We couldn’t agree more that Joe’s 18-years of experience have earned him the “bipartisan political capital that will be needed in the difficult six years ahead.”

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/28/2006 at 1:16 PM

Obama Drama

2006-10-28T15:12:00.000-04:00

posted on October 28th

The Lamont campaign yesterday had to “revise” its initial claim that the email Senator Barack Obama penned for Ned was sent to 5,000 people. In fact, Senator Obama sent the email only to a small group of 250 Connecticut voters who’ve also contributed to his own political action committee - HOPEFUND PAC. (We have great respect for Senator Obama and in fact, encourage our visitors to visit his website and make a contribution: www.hopefundamerica.com)

The Lamont camp, meanwhile, on Friday revised the figure it originally provided for how many Connecticut residents received an e-mail from Illinois Sen. Barack Obama urging them to rally behind Lamont.

A Lamont spokesman had said on Thursday that the e-mail from Obama, a prospective 2008 presidential candidate and rising party star, went to 5,000 state residents.

The spokesman said Friday the e-mail actually went to 250 Connecticut residents who are on Obama's list of supporters in the state. When Obama's e-mail was posted on a Lamont campaign blog, it received about 5,000 hits, the spokesman added.

We will leave it to others to determine for themselves why the Lamont campaign might feel the need to exaggerate the number of recipients of the email, or why the good Senator from Illinois might want to limit the size of the list itself.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/28/2006 at 12:14 PM

Get out the vote!

2006-10-27T20:46:00.000-04:00

posted October 27th
(CT Bob: I guess today was a Slow Joe day)

We are less than two weeks out from Election Day and counting. And Joe is counting on you to help get out the vote and get him over the finish line on November 7th!

We cannot stress this enough. The single most valuable thing you can do to re-elect Joe Lieberman and keep his experienced and effective voice in the Senate is to help us spread the word to your friends, family, and neighbors about voting for Joe.

Also, on Election Day, we will have volunteers adopt a poll site to help educate voters about Joe's unique placement on the ballot. In preparation for Election Day poll watching we are offering several regional training meetings.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/27/2006 at 11:11 AM

Mary Landrieu sticks with Joe

2006-10-26T22:20:00.000-04:00

Posted October 26th

Joe accepted the endorsement of Democratic Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu today at the Berlin EMS Headquarters, where the two Senators met with members of the Connecticut emergency response community. Senators Landrieu and Joe also helped deliver “Stars of Life” awards to over a dozen emergency responders from Connecticut who traveled to Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Landrieu said of why she's sticking with Joe:

"I came here today to thank Connecticut’s emergency responders, but I also wanted to give my unequivocal support to Joe Lieberman. He is one of the strongest and most effective statesmen in the United States Senate and I strongly endorse him for reelection. This state and our nation need him back there.

"One of the first calls I made after the levees broke was to Joe Lieberman. In a time of national crisis, Joe had the calm, intelligence and compassion to help get me - and our country - through those difficult months. We have a long way to go in this country to strengthen our homeland security, and Joe Lieberman has the experience, intelligence and integrity to help us reach our goals and make us safer.

"Joe’s record in the Senate, what he’s done for Connecticut and the nation, justifies why I have broken from our Democratic party to endorse him – a party both of us respect. People are tired of the slash and burn politics in Washington these days. Joe is the type of leader who can take us in a new direction."

More photos from today's events on our Flickr page.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/26/2006 at 4:43 PM

Joe delivers again, fuel cell edition

2006-10-26T22:19:00.000-04:00

posted October 26th

Joe joined with Chris Dodd today to announce $10 million in new federal funding for Connecticut’s fuel cell industry. Here’s the press release that the two Senate offices put out earlier:

WASHINGTON - Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) announced that the University of Connecticut’s Global Fuel Cell Center and Connecticut-based United Technologies (UTC) Power received today more than $10 million in research and development grants from the U.S. Department of Energy. The Global Fuel Cell Center received $1.9 million for research into the effects of impurities on fuel-cell performance and durability. UTC Power received two awards, of $6.4 million and $2 million, for the development of advanced seals and cathode catalysts for use in fuel cells. Title VIII of the Energy Policy Act, enacted in August 2005, authorized the Energy Department to award the grants today.

“As the hub of this country’s advanced fuel-cell industry, Connecticut is benefiting justifiably from the federal funding that last year’s energy bill authorized for fuel-cell development grants and other fuel-cell incentives,” Lieberman said. “Today’s grants represent just a small fraction of the federal support that Connecticut’s clean-energy research centers and companies stand to receive under that law. I will continue fighting for federal funds that protect Connecticut jobs while helping to make the U.S. energy independent.”

Fuel cells use hydrogen and oxygen to generate pollution-free electricity (water and heat are the only byproducts). They can power small portable devices, buildings, and vehicles. Connecticut is an important hub of the emerging fuel-cell industry. The state is home to fuel-cell technology companies such as UTC Power, Fuel Cell Energy, and Proton Energy Systems, and the University of Connecticut’s fuel-cell research program is widely respected.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/26/2006 at 3:21 PM

Projo endorses Joe

2006-10-26T22:18:00.000-04:00

Posted October 25th

The Providence Journal became the latest major paper in the area to endorse Joe’s reelection. Like the New York Post before it, the ProJo touted Joe’s integrity and thoughtfulness -- “the party and the state can use a strong and principled leader who is capable of thinking independently and won't wilt under pressure.”

Here’s the full endorsement editorial:

Lieberman for Senate
Providence Journal

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, of Connecticut, has paid a political price for his strong support of America's ambitious, and very badly implemented, effort to topple dictator Saddam Hussein and fight terrorism by nurturing democracy in Iraq. Ned Lamont, exploiting the unpopularity of the war with the left-wing base, captured the Democratic primary, forcing Senator Lieberman to run as an independent to keep his seat.

That was a sharp rebuke to the man who was his party's vice presidential nominee only six years ago. But polls suggest that Mr. Lieberman will win the wider universe of voters who participate in the general election. If he indeed wins on Nov. 7, he plans to rejoin the Democrats -- without losing his seniority, which confers power that helps him serve Connecticut -- when the Senate resumes next year.

That's good, because the party and the state can use a strong and principled leader who is capable of thinking independently and won't wilt under pressure.

To some extent, Senator Lieberman harks back to such Democrats as Harry Truman and Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who believed in the projection of American power to support U.S. security interests. In other ways he is like Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, demonstrating a willingness to defy his party's leaders in behalf of his principles. Such figures tend to open up ideas to debate and moderate their party's more extreme and ill-considered positions. Still, on most issues, Senator Lieberman is a boiler-plate Democrat, and his moderate-to-liberal approach seems to well reflect the values of most Connecticut voters.

Those voters would be wise to return this thoughtful, hard-working, and independent-minded leader to the Senate on Nov. 7.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/25/2006 at 4:26 PM

Another day, another endorsement!

2006-10-26T22:16:00.000-04:00

posted on October 25th

Scripps News endorsed Joe yesterday, calling him “a strong and principled leader who is capable of thinking independently and won’t wilt under pressure.”

Lieberman as a once and future Democrat
Editorial
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut has paid a political price for his strong support of America's ambitious, and very badly implemented, effort to topple dictator Saddam Hussein and fight terrorism by nurturing democracy in Iraq. Ned Lamont, exploiting the unpopularity of the war with the left-wing base, captured the Democratic primary, forcing Senator Lieberman to run as an independent to keep his seat.

That was a sharp rebuke to the man who was his party's vice presidential nominee only six years ago. But polls suggest that Mr. Lieberman will win the wider universe of voters who participate in the general election. If he indeed wins on Nov. 7, he plans to rejoin the Democrats _ without losing his seniority, which confers power that helps him serve Connecticut _ when the Senate resumes next year.
That's good, because the party and the state can use a strong and principled leader who is capable of thinking independently and won't wilt under pressure.

To some extent, Senator Lieberman harks back to such Democrats as Harry Truman and Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who believed in the projection of American power to support U.S. security interests. In other ways he is like Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, demonstrating a willingness to defy his party's leaders in behalf of his principles. Such figures tend to open up ideas to debate and moderate their party's more extreme and ill-considered positions. Still, on most issues, Senator Lieberman is a boiler-plate Democrat, and his moderate-to-liberal approach seems to well reflect the values of most Connecticut voters.

Those voters would be wise to return this thoughtful, hard-working, and independent-minded leader to the Senate on Nov. 7.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/25/2006 at 9:24 AM

Jack Kemp endorses Joe

2006-10-26T22:14:00.001-04:00

posted on October 25th

Joe was also endorsed today former Republican vice-presidential candidate and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, prior to a rally at Stamford High School, Joe's alma mater. Kemp, who holds the rare distinction of being a former member of Congress and a former NFL quarterback, is also a longtime friend of Joe and a nationally-respected advocate on economic development and empowerment issues.

Here is how Kemp explained his reasons for crossing party lines to endorse Joe:

“I believe Abraham Lincoln said it best when he said ‘we serve our party best when we serve our nation first.’ There is no better way to serve this state, our nation, and our union than by electing Joe Lieberman. The toxicity and rancor in Washington D.C. has broken our system of government. I appreciate Joe’s integrity and I love his values. I have only endorsed two Democrats in my lifetime, Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, and Joe Lieberman. Joe comes from the ‘Scoop’ Jackson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry Truman wing of the Democratic Party. He deserves to be reelected, and I strongly endorse him."

More pictures on flickr.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/25/2006 at 8:55 PM

Top Norwalk Dems Sticking with Joe

2006-10-25T20:10:00.000-04:00

posted October 25th

As the Norwalk Hour reported on its front page, Norwalk Common Council President Michael W. Coffey, defacto leader of the Norwalk Democrats, announced that he is sticking with Joe, touting Joe’s integrity and record of results.

Coffey said:

"Joseph Lieberman is someone who does what he thinks is right for the residents of Norwalk, right for the state of Connecticut and what's right for our country. I'd like to see him serve six more years as a U.S. senator for the state of Connecticut. He has done an excellent job."

Coffey’s fellow Councilman Herbert A. Grant also threw his support to Joe, touting Joe’s experience and ability to work across party lines to get things done.

Herbert A. Grant, who represents District A on the Common Council said:

"His experience as a Senator for this area gives him the seniority and the ability to be able to work in a bi-partisan manner to continue to help the state of Connecticut to get its equal share of federal funds, to advance the state as well as its largest municipalities."
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/25/2006 at 6:19 AM

Bob Kerrey, Sticking with Joe

2006-10-25T18:27:00.000-04:00

posted October 25th

This afternoon former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) came to Connecticut to talk homeland security with Joe and formally endorse Joe’s independent run.

They started the day highlighting their work together around 9-11 Commission — Senator Kerrey is a Commission member and Joe co-authored the legislation creating the panel — and their efforts to implement the Commission’s recommendations to fill the holes in our national defenses.

Senator Kerrey praised Joe for working across party lines with John McCain (R-AZ) to build support for the Commission and overcome President Bush’s objections to pass the bill.

And then once the Commission issued its report, Senator Kerrey said that it was Joe Lieberman and Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and McCain who wrote the law adopting many of the Commission’s recommendations.

Senator Kerrey concluded by saying that a lot more work needed to be done to make good on the 9-11 Commission’s findings — and that it was perfectly clear Joe was the right man for that job.

Senator Kerrey said after the discussion in explaining why he was sticking with Joe:

“I think it would be a terrible loss for the country to lose Joe Lieberman at this particular moment when, in many ways, Washington, D.C., is broken. Joe’s one of those guys. He’s very clear about what he believes. He’s very forceful in delivering his views on what ought to be done.”
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/25/2006 at 4:13 PM

New TV Ad

2006-10-25T15:50:00.000-04:00

posted October 24th

We released a new television ad today that exposed Ned Lamont’s hypocrisy on protecting Connecticut jobs. It highlights the contrast between Lamont’s rhetoric about protecting jobs in Connecticut, and Lamont’s investment of up to $5 million dollars in a firm whose companies ship jobs overseas.

SCRIPT:

Narrator: Up to five million dollars. That’s how much money Ned Lamont invests in a firm whose companies ship jobs overseas. Good jobs we could use here in Connecticut.

So when you hear Ned Lamont pretend he cares about jobs here in Connecticut…

Lamont: A lot of good jobs are leaving the state…leaving the country.

Narrator: …Remember he doesn’t put his millions where his mouth is.

I’m Joe Lieberman and I approved this message.

Joe stands tall in final debate

2006-10-24T14:39:00.000-04:00

Posted October 24th

In case you missed the third and final debate last night, Joe was the top of his game.

He stood head and should shoulders above his opponents in his mastery of the issues, particularly in terms of the complex threat posed by jihadist terrorism and the challenge of reforming our broken health care system.

He showed his sense of humor and self-effacing charm, as well as his strength and sense of purpose.

And perhaps most importantly, he made his most compelling case yet in the debates for his unique ability to break through the partisan gridlock in Washington and get things done for the people of Connecticut.

It’s a shame that the boorish behavior of a small group of boorish LaRouche fanatics dominated much of the coverage. But for those who watched, there is no question who the most qualified candidate on the stage was.

Otherwise, a few special thank you’s are in order.

First, to Alan Schlesinger for standing up for Joe when the protestors interrupted his closing statement. While Ned Lamont sat silently and passively as the anti-war fanatics sang their song, Alan leapt up and told the Larouchies to shut up and get out.

Second, to all our supporters who came out for the debate and for the debate parties we hosted at Hanifan’s in New London, Toad’s in New Haven, and Joe Black’s in Hartford. Your enthusiasm in showing your Joe was much appreciated. We hope you had as good a time as we did.

Third, to our bagpiping friends who came by Hanifans to help us celebrate after the debate. We were a little surprised to see them in our party after they played for Ned’s little pre-debate parade up to the Garde Arts Center. But we got the laugh of the night when they told us they were just taking Ned’s money and were all voting for Joe...

Goes to show that the people of Connecticut can't be bought.

More photos from debate night on our flickr page.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/24/2006 at 1:47 PM

McCain Goes for Joe

2006-10-24T14:38:00.000-04:00

posted on October 24th

John McCain, the Dean of the Straight Talk Caucus in Congress and one of Joe Lieberman’s closest friends in the Senate, gave a great plug for Joe’s brand of principled, bipartisan politics today on the Imus in the Morning Show:

SEN. MCCAIN: …I think that this is going to be a very tough election, maybe, if we're digging for the pony, it looks like my friend Joe Lieberman is going to get re-elected and that's great news.

IMUS: Yes, and I'm the one person, perhaps you as well, who did not bail out on him. Even when they were -- I even had this discussion with Chris Dodd and others, even when they were urging him to get out of the race. Remember that?

SEN. MCCAIN: The other aspect of this is Americans, as you saw, have a very low approval rating of Congress. They want us to work together in a bi-partisan fashion. He worked with Susan Collins very closely. I have worked with him on a number of issues. He reaches across the aisle in order to get things done. He's a lovely man in many respects, but the fact that he practices bi-partisanship on issues that require it is one of, I think, one of his greatest talents and why he should be back in the Senate.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/24/2006 at 1:03 PM

Former State Attorneys General endorse Joe

2006-10-24T14:35:00.000-04:00

posted October 23rd

Joe was endorsed today by a bipartisan group of 40 former State Attorneys General from over 25 states, who announced they’re ‘Sticking with Joe’ because of Joe's integrity, honesty and his stellar record of results as Connecticut’s Attorney General.

Joe served as Connecticut State Attorney General between 1983 – 1988. His accomplishments include establishing aggressive affirmative action policies in the Connecticut Attorney General’s office to recruit more women and minorities, protecting the environment, protecting consumers against fraud and price gauging, and standing up to big oil companies that were practicing discriminatory policies to drive up the cost of gas.

The Honorable Robert Abrams (Democratic New York State Attorney General, 1979 – 1993) said:

Those of us who have worked with Joe Lieberman know that he is a person of intelligence, independence, integrity and decency. He is a genuine leader in our nation who is respected for his insights and active efforts to seek solutions to problems. It is important to keep his voice and leadership in the United States Senate.

The Honorable Bob Stephens (Republican Kansas State Attorney General, 1979 – 1995) said:

I had the privilege of working with Senator Lieberman when I was Kansas Attorney General and he was the Connecticut Attorney General. His dedication to public service and his commitment to honesty and integrity convinced me early on that there is not a more honest man in politics. It has always been an honor to call him friend.

Joe said:

I am honored to have the support of this group, so many of whom are former colleagues and all of whom I count as my friends. Connecticut deserves a leader who will put their interests first and, as Attorney General and Senator, I have always worked to put the people of Connecticut before partisan interests.

Former Attorneys General for Joe

* The Honorable Robert Abrams (NY, 1979-1993)--D
* The Honorable Jeff Amestoy (VT, 1985-1997)--R
* The Honorable Francis X. Bellotti (MA, 1975-1987)--D
* The Honorable Margery Bronster (HI, 1995-1999)--D
* The Honorable Richard H. Bryan (NV, 1979-1983)--D
* The Honorable Charles W. Burson (TN, 1988-1997)--D
* The Honorable Robert A. Butterworth (FL, 1986-2002)--D
* The Honorable Steve Clark (AR, 1979-1990)--D
* The Honorable Walter W. Cohen (PA, 1995)-- R
* The Honorable John J. Degnan (NJ, 1978-1981)--D
* The Honorable Herbert F. DeSimone (RI, 1967-1971)—R
* The Honorable Jerry Diamond (VT, 1975-1981)--D
* The Honorable John J. Easton, Jr. (VT, 1981-1985)--R
* The Honorable Tyrone C. Fahner (IL, 1980-1983)--R
* The Honorable Richard S. Gebelein (DE, 1979-1983)--R
* The Honorable Slade Gorton (WA, 1969-1981)--R
* The Honorable John L. Hill (TX, 1973-1979)--D
* The Honorable John A. LaSota, Jr. (AZ, 1978)--R
* The Honorable Robert F. List (NV, 1971-1979)--R
* The Honorable Robert A. Marks (HI, 1992-1995)--D
* The Honorable Brian McKay (NV, 1983-1991)--R
* The Honorable Mark V. Meierhenry (SD, 1979-1986)--R
* The Honorable V. Frank Mendicino (WY, 1975-1978)--D
* The Honorable Andy P. Miller (VA, 1970-1977)--D
* The Honorable Mike Moore (MS, 1988-2004)--D
* The Honorable Richard G. Opper (Guam, 1983-1986)
* The Honorable Edwin L. Pittman (MS, 1984-1988)--D
* The Honorable Warren Price, III (HI, 1989-1992)--D
* The Honorable Clarine Nardi Riddle (CT, 1989-1991)—D
* The Honorable Dennis J. Roberts, II (RI, 1979-1985)--D
* The Honorable Stephen D. Rosenthal (VA, 1993-1994)--D
* The Honorable Gregory H. Smith (NH, 1980-1984)--R
* The Honorable Nicholas Spaeth (ND, 1985-1993)--D
* The Honorable Robert T. Stephan (KS, 1979-1995)--R
* The Honorable Hal Stratton (NM, 1987-1990)--R
* The Honorable Anthony F. Troy (VA, 1977-1978)--D
* The Honorable Michael C. Turpen (OK, 1983-1986)--D
* The Honorable Duane Woodard (CO, 1983-1991) --D
* The Honorable Grant Woods (AZ, 1991-1999)--R
* The Honorable LeRoy S. Zimmerman (PA, 1981-1989)--R
* C. Raymond Marvin, (former Executive Director of the National Association of Attorneys General, 1975-1986)
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/23/2006 at 2:19 PM

NY Post Endorsement

2006-10-22T14:43:00.000-04:00

posted October 22nd

October 20, 2006 -- Voters in have a chance to undo the damage wrought by the state's Democrats in August's primary by re-electing Joe Lieberman to the United States Senate.

Since his surprise defeat at the hands of gadfly multimillionaire Ned Lamont, Lieberman has pursued re-election as an independent - a status that describes both his affiliation on the ballot and his political position. (Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger, drawing single digits in the most recent polls, won't be a factor in the race.)

The Hollywood- and Web-based nuts who have been hauling the Democrats ever leftward seek to exact revenge on Lieberman - the Democrats' vice presidential candidate just six years ago - for his refusal to apologize for supporting the war in.

Read the full endorsement.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/22/2006 at 12:56 PM

Debate Rally and Parties

2006-10-22T07:42:00.000-04:00

posted on October 20th

On Monday night, Joe will be taking part in the third and final general election Senate debate at the Garde Arts Center in New London. Once again, Joe will show that he's the only candidate who can help fix the partisan gridlock in Washington and find solutions to problems Connecticut voters care most about.

There will be a pre-debate rally outside the Garde Arts Center in New London and we would love for all of our supporters to come out and join us to show support for Joe. So come and join us at 6:45 PM in front of the Garde Arts Center at 325 State Street.

The debate will be broadcast live on WTNH Channel 8 at 8 p.m. and because seating is limited in the Center we will also be holding three regional debate parties throughout the state.

There will be free food and drinks, so come out and root for Joe at one of the following locations:

New Haven
Toad's Place
300 York Street
7:45-9:45pm

Hartford
Joe Black's
31 Pratt Street
7:45-9:45pm

New London
Hanafin's
310 State Street
7:45-9:45pm

Make sure you bring friends! We need your support now more than ever to re-elect Joe!
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/21/2006 at 4:07 PM

New TV ads

2006-10-22T07:41:00.000-04:00

posted on October 20th

We released two new television ads today. One ad, titled “Fix Washington,” highlights Joe’s positive agenda for the future and his ability to work across party lines to help fix the partisan gridlock in our nation’s capital. Another ad, titled “Protect,” highlights the work Joe has done to help parents protect children from violence and other negative influences from television and the internet. You can watch them below:

“Protect”

Woman 1: There’s just no time day or night where I feel comfortable letting my daughter watch television alone without me with her.

Lieberman: That’s exactly how I felt about our children and why I worked in Congress to get the rating system for video games and the v-chip for television.

Woman 2: And now with the Internet you don’t know what your kid is watching or who they are talking to.

Lieberman: Well, that’s why I am going to lead the fight in Congress to crack down on Internet predators, so that our kids can be safe.

“Fix Washington”

Lieberman: We all want to fix Washington. The question is: how do we do it?

I’ve always worked across party lines to get results for people, now I want to give a tax credit to home buyers, end our dependence on foreign oil, and bring our troops home from Iraq without compromising our security.

Finger-pointing and negativity don’t accomplish anything. We fix Washington when we put people ahead of politics.

I’m Joe Lieberman and this is my message.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/21/2006 at 1:51 PM

Joe condemns vandalism of Groton sub sign

2006-10-22T07:39:00.000-04:00

posted on October 20th

“This irrational act by misguided vandals disrespects the entire community. More specifically, it disregards the sacrifice and dedication of active and former submarine sailors, their families, and our equally devoted workers at Electric Boat and the sub base. While they may vandalize this sign, they cannot tarnish the spirit which is the “Submarine Capital of the World.” This sabotage simply and inappropriately defiles the legacy of a great community.”
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/21/2006 at 1:22 PM

Sign the Petition

2006-10-22T07:37:00.000-04:00

posted on October 20th

One of our biggiest worries is coming to pass. In a desperate attempt to buy the election, Ned is using a chunk of the $11 million he has given his own campaign to run an unprecedented level of TV attack ads and tear Joe down.

Ned can’t beat Joe on the issues, he can’t beat Joe in the debates, he can’t make a positive argument for his own candidacy, and his negative, no-ideas campaign is showing no movement in the polls.

So what is Ned’s solution? Triple his ad buy for next week and put up more attack ads to distort Joe’s record -- every half hour on every Connecticut network affiliate every day. That’s the most expensive political smear campaign ever waged in Connecticut.

To make matters worse, Ned is still refusing to come clean with Connecticut voters about where his campaign funding is coming from.

The only way to know that information is from Ned’s family tax returns. But no matter how many times the news media or our campaign demands that Ned meet the same standard of disclosure as we do, Ned says it is none of your business.

Well, we believe that democracy is our business. It’s the people of Connecticut’s business. And it’s time for Ned to answer to them and come clean about where his $11 million is coming from.

If you agree, we would encourage you to sign an online petition calling on Ned to release his family’s tax returns. Tell Ned that if he’s going to demand accountability from others, he should start by being accountable himself.

Sign the petition!

And while you are at it, please make a contribution and help Joe fight back against Ned’s unprecedented political smear campaign.

Joe has done his best to build support from Democrats, Republicans, and independents across Connecticut and around the country, and your generosity has been extraordinary. But there is no way he can match Ned’s new onslaught of deceptive attack ads without your urgent help.

So if you want something better from our democracy than Ned’s $11 million tear-down campaign, and if you believe in Joe’s message of putting people ahead of politics, then we ask you today to make a contribution.

And with your help on Election Day, we can show the rest of the country what we know in our hearts– the people of Connecticut cannot be bought.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/20/2006 at 4:47 PM

Oops

2006-10-22T07:35:00.000-04:00

posted on October 20th

Nice try, Tim. But according to this New York Times story it looks like the "oops" on the Menendez story belongs with the Lamont campaign.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/20/2006 at 9:11 AM

The Washington Prognosis: Joe is looking good

2006-10-22T07:34:00.000-04:00

posted on October 19th

We know that we still have a tough fight ahead of us for the last 19 days of the campaign. But we take some comfort from knowing that more and more national political observers are saying Ned’s paté may be cooked.

Today’s prognosis comes from the Washington Times, which ran a story under the headline, “Lieberman seen set to win re-election.”

Three weeks before Election Day all indications are that Sen. Joe Lieberman is headed for re-election after stumbling in his party's primary over the summer.
The Connecticut Democrat, who is running as an independent, leads Democratic nominee Ned Lamont in the polls, has raised more campaign money, and has won a number of endorsements from both parties.

A University of Connecticut poll released last week shows Mr. Lieberman leading Mr. Lamont 46 percent to 39 percent, with 12 percent of poll respondents saying they remain undecided. Republican Alan Schlesinger received just 3 percent in the poll.

The Lieberman campaign also has a fundraising edge, with campaign finance reports showing Mr. Lieberman has raised $14.8 million, compared with $9 million for Mr. Lamont. Mr. Lamont has spent $11 million of his personal fortune on the race, including a $2 million donation made last week.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/19/2006 at 3:07 PM

NJ Senate Candidates give Joe bipartisan support

2006-10-22T07:31:00.000-04:00

posted on October 19th

How's this for bipartisanship?

This afternoon The Empire Zone reports that Democratic New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez and his Republican opponent Tom Kean Jr. both endorsed expressed support of Joe's independent candidacy yesterday at a public forum.

[B]oth candidates were asked about Lieberman’s re-election bid. Mr. Mendenez, who appeared first, said he supports Mr. Lieberman’s run as an independent candidate. “I wish him well,” he said, “and hope he returns.”

He then warned the crowd that Mr. Kean, who was to appear second, would try to tell the crowd that Mr. Menendez supports Mr. Lamont.

About 40 minutes later, when Mr. Kean was asked about Senator Lieberman, he said, “I think he is the right individual and I look forward to serving with him.” After a pause, he added, “My opponent, by the way, supports Ned Lamont.”
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/19/2006 at 2:08 PM

Caught Ned-Handed: AP says Lamont has faded

2006-10-20T08:30:00.000-04:00

posted from the ~~Ministry of Awful Puns~~ The Full Lamonty, Oct 19th

The AP put out a dead-on assessment today of Ned’s struggles to broaden his appeal beyond his narrow anti-war base.

The story notes that two-plus months into the general election Ned is finally trying to shake his well-deserved image as “one-note Ned,” and talking about other issues. Of course, Ned neglects to mention that his plans steal liberally from proposals Joe Lieberman has already introduced or endorsed.

But the story makes clear that this is more than likely a case of too little too late.

Lamont, a cable TV executive whose only political experience is at the local level on two Greenwich boards, got off to a sluggish start after the primary.

He waited two weeks before releasing his first TV ad, giving Lieberman time to rebound.

"I'm not sure the (Lamont) group realized how much energy and how much get-up-and-go it takes," said Ted Cummings, the Democratic town committee chairman in Manchester, a Hartford suburb. "The primary was exhausting, but you've got to get up the next day and step it up and pour it on until the general election."

. . . "He was a national celebrity," Gary Rose, a politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, said of Lamont. "But after he won his primary, it seemed like he became the invisible man for a while. Something was lost there."

"His numbers seem to be frozen right now," said Doug Schwartz, Quinnipiac University Poll director. "He hasn't quite figured out what to do to broaden his appeal."

By contrast, the story points out how Joe Lieberman pivoted right away to deliver a clear and resonant message that cut across party lines.

After his loss, Lieberman quickly shifted the focus from his support of the war and onto Lamont's inexperience. Reaching out to Republicans and moderates, he ran ads stressing his ability to work with both parties to deliver for Connecticut. He highlighted what he did to help save the submarine base in Groton.

That helps explain why even the Democratic voters the AP talked to who were nominally supporting Lamont or even thinking about switching talked up the value of Lieberman’s experience and record of results.

"I hate giving up his strength for an untried unknown," said Laurel Kohl, a specialist in sustainable energy education at Eastern Connecticut State University and a lifelong Democrat who backed Lieberman in the primary

John Orazietti, the Derby Democratic town committee chairman, is officially backing Lamont. But his heart is with Lieberman, who he predicts will win because of his long-standing support for Connecticut's defense industries, a vital part of the state's economy.

"People want to put food on their tables," said Orazietti.

Then again, the AP suggested, the Lamont campaign’s many gaffes have had something to do with it.

He had to apologize after campaign manager Tom Swan called Waterbury a place "where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil." Two former elected officials from Waterbury have served prison time.

Lamont stumbled again when he criticized Lieberman's public scolding of former President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. It turns out Lamont wrote to the senator in 1998 praising the speech.

The campaign waded into controversy, too, after a black leader endorsed Lamont and accused Lieberman of lying about his civil rights activism, before backing off the charges. The Lieberman camp pounced on the episode as evidence of Lamont's negative campaigning.

The bottom line?

Some Democrats wonder if Lamont could become the next Dean, whose insurgent presidential primary campaign energized the party's left wing, but flamed out because he failed to win over more moderate voters.

------
Posted on 10/19/2006 at 6:37 PM

The Washington Prognosis: Joe is looking good

2006-10-19T19:07:00.000-04:00

posted October 19th

We know that we still have a tough fight ahead of us for the last 19 days of the campaign. But we take some comfort from knowing that more and more national political observers are saying Ned’s paté may be cooked.

Today’s prognosis comes from the Washington Times, which ran a story under the headline, “Lieberman seen set to win re-election.”

Three weeks before Election Day all indications are that Sen. Joe Lieberman is headed for re-election after stumbling in his party's primary over the summer.
The Connecticut Democrat, who is running as an independent, leads Democratic nominee Ned Lamont in the polls, has raised more campaign money, and has won a number of endorsements from both parties.

A University of Connecticut poll released last week shows Mr. Lieberman leading Mr. Lamont 46 percent to 39 percent, with 12 percent of poll respondents saying they remain undecided. Republican Alan Schlesinger received just 3 percent in the poll.

The Lieberman campaign also has a fundraising edge, with campaign finance reports showing Mr. Lieberman has raised $14.8 million, compared with $9 million for Mr. Lamont. Mr. Lamont has spent $11 million of his personal fortune on the race, including a $2 million donation made last week.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/19/2006 at 3:07 PM
Return to Blog Index

NJ Senate Candidates give Joe bipartisan support

2006-10-19T19:06:00.000-04:00

posted October 19th

How's this for bipartisanship?

This afternoon The Empire Zone reports that Democratic New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez and his Republican opponent Tom Kean Jr. both endorsed expressed support of Joe's independent candidacy yesterday at a public forum.

[B]oth candidates were asked about Lieberman’s re-election bid. Mr. Mendenez, who appeared first, said he supports Mr. Lieberman’s run as an independent candidate. “I wish him well,” he said, “and hope he returns.”

He then warned the crowd that Mr. Kean, who was to appear second, would try to tell the crowd that Mr. Menendez supports Mr. Lamont.

About 40 minutes later, when Mr. Kean was asked about Senator Lieberman, he said, “I think he is the right individual and I look forward to serving with him.” After a pause, he added, “My opponent, by the way, supports Ned Lamont.”
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/19/2006 at 2:08 PM

Today's debate

2006-10-19T00:20:00.003-04:00

posted October 18th

Joe showed that he is the only candidate in the race who is capable of fixing the gridlock in Washington and finding solutions to the problems that Connecticut voters care about in today's debate.

While Ned attacked from the left and Alan Schlesinger attacked from the right, Joe talked straight about the challenges we face as a country, his ideas for meeting them, and not least of all, why his experience and ability to work across party lines make him uniquely qualified to get things done for Connecticut.

The perfect example of that is the $3 million in funding he secured for the Bushnell. With Republicans in control of Congress, the only way that he could help deliver those dollars was to draw on the good will and relationships he had developed with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Ned, on the other hand, would never have been able to get those results for the people of Connecticut. He has spent this entire campaign making partisan attacks, pointing fingers, and demonizing those who disagree with him, just as he did in today’s debate. And the reality is most Republicans would never lift a finger to help someone like him.

In sum, Joe showed that he is just what most Connecticut voters expect from a Senator — an independent-minded leader who makes up his mind on the issues based on what is right and what is best for Connecticut, who believes neither party has a monopoly on good ideas, and who will put people ahead of politics to get things done for our state.

The debate will be broadcast on WSFB Channel 3 at 7:00 PM tomorrow night.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/18/2006 at 6:51 PM

Ford backs Lieberman

2006-10-18T18:54:00.000-04:00

posted October 18th

We are proud to say that the next Democratic Senator from Tennessee, Harold Ford Jr., re-endorsed Joe Lieberman today for the general election.

As the AP reported today, Congressman Ford reiterated his support for Lieberman Monday on a local radio talk show.

"I support Joe Lieberman. He knows that. I've made that clear from the very beginning," Ford said Monday on the radio talk show of conservative host Steve Gill.

Show your appreciation by supporting Harold Ford.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 11/18/2006 at 5:13 PM

Guess who is betting on Joe?

2006-10-18T18:52:00.000-04:00

posted October 18th

We found this excerpt from a Weekly Standard profile of Kinky Friedman, the independent candidate running for governor in Texas.

What makes this anecdote particularly amusing is that Friedman’s top strategist is Bill Hillsman, Ned’s admaker:

The musical revelry hits a speed bump when we start talking about his close friend Willie Nelson, whom he calls the "hillbilly Dalai Lama," and with whom he currently has a double-or-nothing wager. Willie took him for a grand on how the Iraq war would turn out (Kinky thought Bush and Blair would be "heroes"). Kinky now stands to win two grand if Joe Lieberman beats Ned Lamont--eight thousand if you count his Lieberman side bets with other suckers. Kinky's an inveterate gambler who takes "fact-finding trips to Vegas," though "these days, I'm bettin' on Texas." Still, of Lieberman, he says, "That fucker better win." (expletive reinstated)

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/18/2006 at 11:08 AM

Lamont Hypocrisy Watch: Blogger Desperation Edition

2006-10-17T21:45:00.000-04:00

posted Oct 17 2006
(Woohoo! After all these months, I FINALLY got a mention on Joe's blog! I can't believe it! This is fantastic!

My acceptance speech: I'd like to thank all the people who made this possible...Kirby...Joe Lieberman, of course; Eric Blagnerkerer; Danny Gerstain; the late Sean Smith and Marion Steinfels; and of course, my best friend and buddy, Alan Schlesinger!)

There is no better barometer of the increasing desperation of the Lamont campaign than the reaction of Ned’s biggest blogger boosters to yesterday’s debate.

Instead of touting Ned’s performance, which would have been a challenge for the even the best spinmasters, the usually Republican-hating keyboard jockeys spent an inordinate amount of their hype on Alan Schlesinger.

(You can find some of the more hilarious examples below.)

The reason for this sudden turnabout could not be more transparent. The bloggers know that Negative Ned’s message of blame and blather has totally failed to resonate with voters outside his anti-war base, and that Lamont’s only hope in this race now is to try to peal away Republican voters from Joe Lieberman.

Thus you have the pathetic spectacle of not just angry left-wing bloggers cheerleading for the conservative Schlesinger, but of Ned himself trying to pump his Republican counterpart up. Following one of Schlesinger’s more colorful outbursts yesterday, Ned offered the Round Hill Country Club version of a you-go-girl shoutout:

"Look, you are going to come back," Lamont said. "I got into this race. I had absolutely no support at all." (Hartford Courant, 10/17/06)

Then after the debate Lamont Campaign Chairman George Jepsen did his best to turn Schlesinger into Reagan:

"He doesn't get a forum like this every day of the week," said George Jepsen, co-chairman of the Lamont campaign. "He spoke with great clarity." (Hartford Courant, 10/17/06)

Seems pretty clear to us this cynical tactic is part of a coordinated strategy -- and that it will fall as flat as the rest of Ned’s general election campaign. The next logical step will be for Ned and his more wealthy friends to start funneling money to Schlesinger to try to get him on television.

Now THAT would be quite a change.

AS THE BLOGS TURN, CHAPTER II:
The Schlesinger Swoon

My DD:
Lieberman Crunched, Schlesinger Soars
by Matt Stoller, Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 02:05:39 PM EST

There is just no question that Alan Schlesinger won this debate, Lamont pretty much held his own, and Lieberman lost. Alan Schlesinger was funny, interesting, and passionate. He made compelling conservative arguments, and punctured the myth that Lieberman was a principled independent. Lamont held his own as a credible candidate, standing up to Joe's attacks. Lieberman was somewhat funny, but he couldn't defend his middle of the road mantra when Alan Schlesinger and Ned Lamont were pointing out that his record doesn't match his rhetoric.

Connecticut Blog:

All I can say is WOW! It think Joe Lieberman just lost a big piece of his Republican support base as the true Republican Alan Schlesinger ripped the de facto Republican to shreds at today's debate. Knowing that he didn't have anything to lose, the Republican nominate candidate came out of the gate swinging and really whacked Lieberman upside the head on a variety of issues ranging from North Korea to Social Security. . . At one point while Schlesinger was tearing Lieberman to pieces, I turned around to get a feel of the crowd and a majority of the people were very impressed with Schlesinger. . .”

Connecticut Bob:
Recap part 2
Overall, I think Schlesinger helped himself the most -- by getting fair time to talk and present himself to his Republican constituents. I think he will get a big bump out of this one.

Daily Kos:
CT-Sen: The immigration factor
by kos
Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 04:46:14 PM PDT
It's early in the process, but I haven't heard anyone highlight the significance of this moment in today's debate.

Republican Alan Schlesinger, who was surprisingly impressive in the debate, made a clear distinction between himself and his two opponents on the immigration issue.
------
Posted on 10/17/2006 at 1:29 PM

Caught Ned-Handed

2006-10-17T21:43:00.000-04:00

posted Oct. 17 2006 (yawn alert)

Joe welcomes a chance to compare his record on energy security with Ned’s. As best we can tell, the only thing Ned has done to this point to help make America less dependent on foreign oil to trade in his Lexus SUV for a hybrid at the start of the campaign so he could pretend he cares about the environment.

Moreover, with his energy plan, Ned has shown yet again he has no new ideas to offer – just more repackaged policies, most of which Joe has already proposed, and overheated rhetoric:

The Lamont Plan: “promote energy efficiency, alternative fuels and other renewable sources. He urged tax credits to help companies to buy new fuel-efficient equipment. He also set a goal for America to use one quarter of its energy from renewable sources by 2025.” [AP, 10/17/06]

The Lieberman Record: Last year, Joe joined with three of his Senate colleagues to write and introduce the Vehicles and Fuel Choices for American Security Act, also known as the Set America Free Act. Among other things, that bill would:

* Cut America’s oil consumption over ten years by 2.5 million barrels-per-day – roughly the amount of oil the US currently imports from the Middle East.
* Go on to cut consumption by 10 million barrels-per-day by 2031 – roughly half of current oil consumption in the US.
* Set rising targets for manufacturers to produce flexible-fuel, alternative-fuel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fuel-cell vehicles, and institute loan guarantees, grants, and tax credits to promote sales of those vehicles;
* mandate the development of fuel-efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles
* eliminate the current tax break for purchases of heavy SUVs
* require the federal government to improve the fuel-efficiency of its vehicle fleets
* establish a program for increasing the use of fuel-saving tires
* institute a series of steps for increasing domestic production of ethanol fuel.

The Lieberman Record: In 2003, Joe wrote and introduced with Senator John McCain the Climate Stewardship Act, the first-ever bill to cut global warming emissions from all U.S. industrial sectors using a market-based system.

* By sparking a dramatic increase in energy efficiency and increasing the use of clean, renewable energy sources, the bill would reduce many dangers aside from global warming, including the risk of energy-caused recessions, our dependence on foreign oil, and health-impairing soot and smog.
* In February 2005, the Tellus Institute found that the bill would create a net in crease in US employment – adding 800,000 jobs by 2025 – and that the annual savings to consumers would reach $30 billion in 2020.
* Joe and John McCain have forced the Senate to vote on their bill twice. They will reintroduce the bill next year and keep forcing votes until it passes.

Can Ned beat that? No, of course he can’t. So he’s left copying Joe ’s ideas and calling for the very policies that Joe is already working to put in place.

And in Ned’s so-called “Plan for Change,” which he offered last Wednesday, Ned offered no new ideas and says he supports ideas that Joe has already championed and fought for in the Senate:

Lamont Claims: "It is dangerous to be buying billions worth of oil from a region of the world that is mired in conflict. In ending oil imports from the Middle East, America could deny adversaries the wherewithal they use to harm us. In addition, a reduction in dependence on oil would reduce global warming, protect the environment and make our country safer."

Fact: Sounds good, but also sounds familiar. A year ago, in a speech at Georgetown University, Joe Lieberman said nearly the exact same thing.

"[T]oday we must depend for our oil on a global gallery of nations that are politically unstable, unreliable, or just plain hostile to us. . . . Doing nothing about our oil dependency will make us a pitiful giant – like Gulliver in Lilliput – tied down by smaller nations and subject to their whims. And we will have given them the ropes and helped them tie the knots." [Speech Delivered by Senator Joe Lieberman at Georgetown University, October 7, 2005]

Lamont Claims: "[A] reduction in dependence on oil would reduce global warming, protect the environment and make our country safer."

Fact: Again, sounds good, but also sounds familiar. This summer, at a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Joe said nearly the exact same thing.

"[I]n the process of making our cars, trucks, and busses more efficient and increasing the use of fuels derived from crops, [S. 2025, Lieberman's energy independence bill] would reduce greatly the amount of global warming pollution that our vehicles add to the atmosphere.”

Lamont Claims: I have “a new national energy strategy emphasizing efficiency, alternative fuels, and new technology which will be an economic engine for new jobs in Connecticut and the nation." I would “begin today to provide incentives for converting domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient cars, transitioning the fleet to American made advanced technology vehicles, increasing consumer choice and strengthening the US auto industry.”

Fact: These proposals are already contained in the Vehicles and Fuel Choices for American Security Act (S. 2025) authored and introduced by Joe Lieberman in November 2005.

Lamont Claims: I would “invest in more efficient factories,” “encourage high performance building,” “increase use of energy efficient appliances,” “modernize electrical infrastructure,” and “expand renewable energy development.”

Fact: These proposals are already contained in several bills authored and introduced by Joe, such as the Vehicles and Fuel Choices for American Security Act (S. 2025), the Clean Energy Development for a Growing Economy Act (S. 2829), the Securing America’s Energy Independence Act (S. 2677), in the High Performance Green Buildings Act (S. 3591), the Enhanced Energy Security Act (S. 2747), in the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151) and the Clean Power Act (S. 150).

Lamont Claims: “Lieberman voted for President Bush’s energy bill. He was the only Democrat from the Northeast to vote in support of the lobbyist-written bill, which gives away billions in tax breaks to energy companies.”

Fact: The Energy Policy Act included several things of crucial importance to Connecticut that Joe had been working to get for the state for years, such as:

1. Language calling on federal energy regulators to reconsider a plan called LICAP that would have saddled Connecticut consumers with a dramatic increase in electricity rates. Thanks to that language, the regulators went back to the negotiating table and found a solution that the Connecticut Consumer Counsel supports and that will save Connecticut consumers $800 million as compared to the original LICAP plan.
2. Large financial incentives that Lieberman had cosponsored to promote sales of the clean energy fuel cells that are manufactured in Connecticut.
3. New security measures for nuclear power to protect Connecticut residents from the risk of nuclear sabotage.

Joe also succeeded in stripping the Energy Policy Act of several things that would have been harmful to Connecticut and the environment in general:

* Lieberman personally blocked a provision that would have gutted the Clean Air Act and sent more out-of-state air pollution into Connecticut.
* Lieberman also helped strip a provision that would have shielded oil companies from liability for polluting groundwater in Connecticut.
* Lieberman succeeded in ensuring that this was the first energy bill since 2001 not to include language opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/17/2006 at 4:50 PM

Joe highlights plans to create jobs

2006-10-17T21:42:00.000-04:00

posted Oct. 17 2006

Joe traveled the state today comparing his pro-growth economic agenda with Ned’s misguided, job-killing Plan for Change.

In a breakfast address at the Metro Hartford Chamber of Commerce, Joe highlighted his efforts to help Connecticut companies compete and win in the global economy:

We are poised to seize on the rapid expanding economy – all that we are missing is is a balanced national growth policy

That is why I introduced the National Competitiveness Investment Act, a plan to boost America’s lead in innovative technology and help create the jobs of the future. And that is why I will keep working to help equip Connecticut workers with the next generation skills they need to fill those next generation jobs.

Joe reiterated his support for an entrepreneurial trade policy, which views trade as an opportunity for economic growth. He noted that Connecticut companies exported almost $10 billion worth of products last year and that one out of every five jobs in the state was dependent on international trade.

Joe also said that Ned’s support for protectionism shows his lack of understanding of the new challenges of the new economy:

Lamont wants to close off Connecticut’s economy by erecting barriers and make it more difficult on small businesses to grow and expand by imposing mandates on them.

Later in the day, Joe joined most of the state’s Congressional delegation in New Haven at the Keep Connecticut Moving Summit, where he talked about his successful bipartisan efforts to secure transportation funding for Connecticut.

As a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Joe was able to help deliver $2.5 billion for the state – nearly a 20 percent increase for the state and $1.30 return on every tax dollar spent by Connecticut consumers.

Next to saving the sub base, the transportation bill was the greatest victory for Team Connecticut last year. We worked across party lines to get real results for the people of Connecticut.

Also, because of his seniority, Joe was able to secure an extra $50 million to mitigate congestion and address safety problems along I-95.

Joe later visited the Pez Candy Factory in Orange to talk about his ideas to help keep Connecticut and its workforce competitive today. There are approximately 170 workers at the Pez facility in Orange.

Should have some pictures up later tonight.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/17/2006 at 4:27 PM

Today's Debate in Stamford

2006-10-16T21:12:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 16, 2006)

With today’s debate, Joe decisively showed the voters of Connecticut why he deserves to be reelected, highlighting his strong record of working across party lines to deliver results for Connecticut and his unique ability to break the partisan gridlock that is blocking progress on so many big challenges facing the country today.

When Ned was not acting like an innocent bystander in the debate, he continued his negative and dishonest attacks on Joe, failed to outline any new ideas, and spoke mostly in vague generalities.

In the process, Ned just reinforced our point that he would have no ability to bring people together and solve problems people care about — and that he would just add to the finger-pointing and game-playing in Washington.

Joe, on the other hand, made a compelling case that the only way to fix what’s wrong with Washington is to put people ahead of politics and do what’s right for our state and our country.

That’s just what Joe has done throughout his 18 years in the Senate -- whether it was working with Team Connecticut to save the New London Sub Base, working with the Connecticut Congressional delegation to clean up the Long Island Sound, or working with Republican Senators John McCain and Susan Collins to create the 9/11 Commission, implement its recommendations, and pass a landmark port security bill to fix the holes in our domestic defenses.

And that’s just what Joe will continue doing, as he spelled out in the debate, to help end the war in Iraq without compromising our security, create the next generation of good jobs, fix our broken health care system, provide a quality education to every child, protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare for generations to come, and grow the middle class and keep the American Dream alive for all who seek it.

Ned could not come close to matching that positive vision or command of the issues. And sadly, he too often fell back on repeating the same lame distortions of Joe's record that have been proven to be false or exposed as hypocritical.

Ned knows that Joe is opposed to Social Security privatization, and it is beneath him as a candidate for U.S. Senate to repeat that outrageous lie in front of a statewide audience.

Just the same, he knows his attack on Joe’s voting record is grossly hypocritical and misleading. He knows that Joe’s career voting percentage is exactly the same as his (93 percent). He also knows that the overwhelming number of votes that Joe Lieberman missed came in two limited time periods when he was running for vice president and president to defeat George Bush and make the country a better place, and that outside of those two periods Joe had a 98 percent voting record.

Not least of all, Ned knows that the reason Connecticut gets less federal spending than many other states is that we are the richest state in the union. He also knows that, if you look at a more objective measure, federal spending on a per-person basis, Connecticut ranks 8th in the country.

Ned can attack and distort all he wants, but he can’t change the facts. And he certainly can’t change Washington with his negative, dishonest, no-ideas brand of politics.”
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/16/2006 at 4:33 PM

The Nedulator

2006-10-16T21:08:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 16, 2006)
(and here for the follow-up post...these guys are just SO clever!)

To help voters watching today’s first general election Senate debate in Stamford to keep track of all of Ned’s many negative attacks and distortions, we are releasing ‘The Nedulator,’ an easy-to-use scorecard for adding up Lamont’s desperate debate comments.

Here is how ‘The Nedulator’ works:

* Subtract one point for every negative attack Ned makes on Joe Lieberman
* Subtract one point for every distortion of Joe Lieberman’s record Ned makes
* Add one point for every original new idea Ned discusses that Joe Lieberman has not already proposed
* Subtract two points for every idea Joe Lieberman has already proposed that Ned tries to pass off as his own
* Total it up the points, and you have Negative Ned’s Negativity Quotient.

If you can’t keep score at home, no need to worry. We will be keeping our own totals and posting them here after today’s debate, as well as the two other debates to follow

You can get 'The Nedulator' right here:

(Click link at top of this post to see the lame gimmick)
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/16/2006 at 1:00 PM

Meet Alan Schlesinger

2006-10-15T12:48:00.000-04:00

Eric Blangenbaerker hasn't posted anything new on the Joe blog in 36 hours, so while we're waiting for him to sleep it off, here's the interview with Republican Alan Schlesinger, for any of you Republican conservatives and moderates who might be thinking of voting for Joe Lieberman.

Joe's got "Potomac Fever", and Ned Lamont is the cure!

As the Blogs Turn (on Ned), Part II

2006-10-14T07:35:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 14, 2006)

You know things are getting dicey for Negative Ned when even the leading liberal blog Talking Points Memo runs a brutal piece like this:

CT-SEN: Lamont Smacks Forehead Repeatedly, Berates Self as “Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!”"

It’s been a surprisingly long time since the Midterm Roundup took a look at the Senate race in Connecticut, which for a while there – before Foley, before Macaca, so long, long, long ago – was the very cornerstone of this column. Since Lamont’s whirlwind rise and huge upset in the August 8 Democratic primary, it feels to the Roundup like a sort of “mm, that was fun, wasn’t it, oh well…” indifference has gradually settled back onto the race. Once-giddy Lamont supporters haven’t found their man ahead in a single post-primary poll. And Lamont’s name has been noticeably absent from recent weeks’ headlines.

Until now. Unfortunately for Lamont though, not for the right reason.

Not helping Lamont’s cause the slightest bit was a recent campaign letter criticizing Joe Lieberman’s past stance on affirmative action and a comment made Wednesday by former state Treasurer and Lamont endorser Henry E. Parker. At a press conference, with Lamont at his side, Parker questioned Senator Joe Lieberman’s civil rights work in Mississippi in the early 1960s. “I’m saying that my view is there's no evidence of what he's done. Let him prove that he's been there,” Parker said. “I suspect that he was not there, and the reason I suspect that is because he's a guy who says anything to win.”

The Hartford Courant reports, “Lamont's campaign, which immediately seemed to grasp the political misstep, disavowed Parker's claim even before Lieberman produced news clippings placing him in Mississippi. …

“But the damage was done. The episode gave Lieberman an opportunity to reinforce a constant theme of his campaign - that Lamont has relentlessly distorted Lieberman's record in the contest for the U.S. Senate.”

Read the full TPM post.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/14/2006 at 12:44 AM

Joe on the campaign trail

2006-10-14T07:34:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 14, 2006 - click here to see images)

Joe was met on Friday by a huge group of diners and supporters100_0504.JPG at Coffee An’ Donut Shop in Westport. The small Westport staple (no pun intended for those of you from Westport) was so full that people had to file in behind the counter, including Joe himself. It was a natural fit for him though, as he walked over to some customers, introduced himse100_0515.JPGlf, and asked what he could get them.

One young supporter who was thrilled to see Joe asked about internship opportunities (he was probably 8) but the Senator assured him that when he was a few years older, he would be welcome to join his office in Washington and get an exciting first hand look at our government in progress. Today was another great day on the campaign trail, and with 24 days to go, everyone on the campaign team is filled with optimism!

More photos from Friday on our Flickr page.

Rep. John Lewis speaks out for Joe

2006-10-13T16:23:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 13, 2006)

Below is a statement from Rep. John Lewis, a well-known leader of the Civil Rights Movement.

“Joe Lieberman is my colleague in Congress, my friend and my brother. Anyone who questions his commitment to civil rights is putting politics above the facts. As a young student, Joe Lieberman left the comfort of Connecticut to be a foot soldier in the drive to register black voters.

"Joe Lieberman responded to the greatest moral crisis of our time: He came to the heart of the delta of Mississippi to help tear down the walls of segregation and racial discrimination and he marched with Martin Luther King in the March on Washington. He is a man of principle and faith, who has worked his whole life to help give the hope and opportunity of the American dream to all people, regardless of the color of their skin.”
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/13/2006 at 2:50 PM

Ned's Worst Week

2006-10-13T14:26:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 13, 2006 - click here to see post with clickable links)

Courant columnist Kevin Rennie has probably the best take yet on the Lamont campaign’s uncivil lies about Joe’s record. It pegs Negative Ned so well we won’t even bother summarizing it — here is the whole piece:

POLITICAL WIRE

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.

-- Guest contributor Kevin Rennie is a columnist for the Hartford Courant and a former Republican Connecticut state senator.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/13/2006 at 10:28 PM

Voters deserve to know how Ned is being financed

2006-10-13T14:18:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 13, 2006)

We renewed our call today for Ned to release his family’s tax returns for the past five years. Voters of Connecticut have a right to know where the $9 million that Ned is pouring into his campaign is actually coming from.

This weekend we will be filing our fundraising report with the Federal Elections Commission, which will document the source of every penny our campaign has received over the past two and a half months, and that is as it should be we believe in full disclosure and transparency.

Ned's campaign, on the other hand, will only be disclosing the source of a small percentage of their campaign funding and hiding all the rest. That is because the overwhelming majority of Ned’s campaign funds are coming from the Lamont family’s assets, and Ned has repeatedly refused to let the public see his family’s tax returns, which would show where his campaign funds are actually coming from.

Joe has released his full tax returns from the past five years, but Ned has only released his individual tax return from last year, and that was only because he was pressured into doing so by the news media.

Ned has continued to hide his prior year’s tax returns, which he always filed jointly with his wife until last year. Ned also has not released his wife’s separate tax return for 2005. And he has yet to explain how he can justifying keeping this information secret.

This double standard is indefensible. Just as the public has a right to know how our campaign is being funded, they have the same right to know how Ned’s is being funded too. And the only way to determine that is for Ned to make his family’s tax returns public, so the public can see the source of his and his wife’s income and assets.

Ned and his campaign are planning to comb through our FEC filing and use it to continue their unrelenting negative attacks on Joe. Why should our campaign be denied the same opportunity to ask tough questions about where Ned is getting his campaign money from?

Is Ned’s $9 million coming from investments in the big corporations that he routinely attacks? Is it coming from investments in companies that ship jobs overseas, which Ned also routinely attacks? Is it coming from shady tax shelters that are unavailable to Connecticut’s working families and adding to the federal deficit, which Ned routinely attacks?

These are legitimate questions and they deserve legitimate answers. And that is why we are again calling on Ned to release his family’s tax returns for the last five years.

If Ned really believes in transparency and accountability, and he has nothing to hide, then he will adhere to the same standard followed by Joe and most every other congressional candidate and let the public know exactly how his campaign is being funded.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/13/2006 at 2:06 PM

The truth about the Long Island Sound

2006-10-12T21:16:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 12, 2006)

Leave it to the Lamont campaign to follow up its outrageous lies about Joe’s civil rights by falsely attacking Joe’s unmatched record of results on Long Island Sound.

This is what this campaign has come to — a dilettante whose greatest environmental accomplishment is trading in his Lexus SUV several months ago to ride around the state in a hybrid is trying to say he’d do a better job of protecting Long Island Sound than the guy who created the EPA’s Long Island Sound Office, continually fought to get funding for state cleanup efforts, and whose leadership on this issue has been recognized with the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters.

The only thing that would make the Lamont campaign a bigger joke is if Ned of all people, with his unmatched record of inconsistencies and hypocrisy, directly questioned Joe’s integrity.

Sadly, that is just what Lamont did, ridiculously suggesting that Joe sold of the Sound for campaign contributions.

That is almost as big a lie as their assertion that Joe didn’t participate in the civil rights movement.

The fact is, the energy bill Lamont is talking about does nothing to hurt Connecticut’s ability to protect the Sound. That is a myth the Lamont campaign is cynically peddling in a desperate attempt to hurt Joe with voters who care about the environment. And just last month, Joe successfully worked across party lines to pass the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act, which designates $40 million for a Stewardship Committee that would have the authority to designate crucial parcels as ‘Stewardship Sites’ eligible for special preservation funds.

Moreover, Joe has been very clear about why he ultimately ended up voting for the energy bill. He opposed the big subsidies for big energy companies, and has cosponsored legislation to repeal them. But the bill contained a provision that would help save Connecticut homeowners and businesses close to a billion in lower electricity bills, and that was important enough for him to tip the balance and support the bill.

The real question here, since Ned would have blindly opposed the bill regardless of the benefits for Connecticut, is why he would force Connecticut consumers to pay $1 billion in higher electricity prices? Is being rigidly partisan more important that helping his constituents?

Here are the facts about Joe's record of results on protecting and preserving the Long Island Sound:

* In 1990, Joe Lieberman authored legislation that established Office of Long Island Sound Programs within the EPA under section 119 of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the Office is to coordinate Federal and State activities, assist in public outreach and education, and provide grants to help implement the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Management Plan and Restoration Agreement activities. Since that time, Lieberman has secured millions in funding for the Office, which partially funds the Long Island Sound Study. In 1994, the LISS developed the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Long Island Sound. The plan identifies the specific commitments and recommendations for actions to improve water quality, protect habitat and living resources, educate and involve the public, improve the long-term understanding of how to manage the Sound, monitor progress, and redirect management efforts.
* In 2000, Joe Lieberman successfully fought to pass Estuary Habitat Restoration Act passed in the Senate. It authorized $40 million per year for five years to ensure a safer, less polluted Long Island Sound. This figure represented a 13-fold increase above the previous yearly funding high of $3 million for Long Island Sound programs.
* In 2005, Joe Lieberman helped broker a deal between the EPA, Connecticut and New York that allowed for the designation of two dredge material disposal sites in Long Island Sound. One of the innovative features of the agreement was the provision for the development of a comprehensive dredged materials management plan addressing the entire Long Island Sound. This plan will enable the states to work with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to develop long-term alternative uses of dredged material, including beach restoration and upland disposal, thus eliminating the need for continued open water disposal. Lieberman is currently fighting for federal funding for the plan.
* In 2006, the Senate passed the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act (LISSA), which was introduced by Joe Lieberman in 2004. The bipartisan legislation establishes a broad-based “Long Island Sound Stewardship Committee” comprised of all LIS stakeholders, including federal, state, public interest and landowners representatives. The Committee would be charged with evaluating the parcels of land within the LIS region and designating crucial parcels as “Stewardship Sites” eligible for special preservation funds. Under the legislation, the Committee would give owners of Stewardship Sites financial incentive to sell their land to preservation groups or preserve the environmental and public access features of that land by volunteering to sell development rights to the land to the Committee itself. The legislation designates $40 million for the Committee’s budget, to be taken out of the funds authorized for LIS preservation under the EPA’s Nation Estuary Program.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/12/2006 at 7:08 PM

Unsolicited

2006-10-12T21:15:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 12, 2006)

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.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/12/2006 at 6:40 PM

New TV Ad

2006-10-12T18:21:00.000-04:00

We released a new television ad today exposing Ned Lamont’s hypocrisy on protecting jobs. You can watch it here or after the jump.

The ad focuses on claims by Ned that he knows how to run a business and meet a payroll, even though Ned laid off sixty-eight percent of his workforce while continuing to pay himself a salary of more than $500,000.

SCRIPT:

Narrator: Sixty-eight percent! According to the New York Times, that’s the percent of people Ned Lamont laid off at his cable company. Five hundred forty-six thousand dollars. That’s the salary Ned Lamont paid himself after laying them off. So, when Ned Lamont claims he knows how to run a business…

Ned Lamont: I started up a business from scratch. I know what it is to meet a payroll.

Narrator:…remember how he ran his business.

Lieberman:I’m Joe Lieberman and I approve this message.

FACTS:

* The New York Times reported that Lamont laid off 68% of his workforce. “This change in business strategy led to some layoffs, a touchy topic now that Mr. Lamont has positioned himself as the man who will represent working people in Washington. The number of employees dropped to about 40 today from a high of about 125. All have health care, but the company is not unionized.” (NYT, 8/3/06)
* The New York Times Reported that Lamont earned $546,000 in salary as chairman and chief executive. “All told, Mr. Lamont, who files his taxes separately from his wife, reported taxable income of $2.9 million last year, which included $1.7 million in capital gains and $546,000 in salary as chairman and chief executive.” (NYT, 8/3/06)

Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/12/2006 at 5:05 PM

Campaign calls on Ned to Stop Distorting Joe's Record

2006-10-12T18:20:00.000-04:00

Joe's campaign today demanded an apology from Ned for lying about Joe’s record on fighting for equal rights and his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Ned has yet to take personal responsibility for his campaign lying about Joe’s record, nor has he taken any actions to hold his campaign staff accountable.

At a press conference yesterday with a small group of African-American political activists, Ned stood by as former State Treasurer Henry Parker handed out an open letter on “Paid for by Ned Lamont” paper that openly questioned whether Joe went to the March on Washington in August of 1963 or to Mississippi in the fall of that year to help promote African-American voter registration.

Joe responded immediately:

There are many others who contributed and risked much more than I did. I never put a medal on myself. But was I there? You bet your life I was there, and no amount of deceit by a partisan politician will negate that fact.

Joined today by former Congressman Jim Maloney (D-CT) and African-American and Latino community members, Lieberman Campaign Manager Sherry Brown said:

We are here today to demand an apology from Ned Lamont for his campaign’s scurrilous lie about Joe Lieberman’s civil rights activism yesterday, and to call on him to stop constantly distorting Joe Lieberman’s record and start honestly debating the issues on the merits.

Over the last several weeks, it has become clear that Ned is getting increasingly desperate to make up ground in this campaign, and as a result, that he will literally say or do anything to get elected.

Sherry also pointed to two mail pieces from Ned's campaign this week as examples of Ned Lamont’s campaign of misinformation, distortions, and lies. One mail piece went beyond lying about Joe's position on Social Security privatization and went so far as to claim that Joe is “George Bush’s point man on Social Security privatization.”

The fact is, Joe last year joined 41 other Senate Democrats in signing a letter that “publicly, clearly, and unambiguously” rejects private accounts funded with Social Security dollars.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/12/2006 at 4:53 PM

Ned's Worst Lie Yet

2006-10-12T12:30:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 12, 2006 - click here to see imbedded links referenced below)

Yesterday Ned Lamont’s increasingly desperate and dishonest campaign told its worst and most offensive lie yet, holding a press conference with a small group of African-American political activists to attack Joe Lieberman for supposedly making up his participation in the civil rights movement.

At this event, Ned stood by as former State Treasurer Henry Parker handed out an open letter on “Paid for by Ned Lamont” paper that openly questioned whether Lieberman went to the March on Washington in August of 1963 or to Mississippi in the fall of that year to help promote African-American voter registration.

You can find a full copy of the letter here [PDF].

Then, as the Hartford Courant reported this morning, Parker directly accused Lieberman of lying about his record:

Parker flatly shared his belief that Lieberman lied about marching with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and going to Mississippi. "I suspect that he was not there, and the reason I suspect that is because he's a guy who says anything to win," Parker said.

Shortly after Ned had his event, Joe convened his own press conference at our campaign headquarters to denounce this outrageous smear effort and hold the Lamont accountable for continually lying about his record.

Campaigns that I have been in over the years bring out the best and worst in people and it seems clear to me that this campaign has brought out the very worst in Ned Lamont. As I’ve said before he is using a lot of the almost nine million dollars of his own money he has put in to this campaign to run the most relentlessly negative campaign. Attack! Attack! Attack! That I can remember in Connecticut political history.

Joe then went on to debunk the Lamont Campaign's lie about his civil rights record. As the Waterbury Republican-American reported today:

"There are many others who contributed and risked much more than I did. I never put a medal on myself. But was I there? You bet your life I was there, and no amount of deceit by a partisan politician will negate that fact." Lieberman said at a hastily called news conference Wednesday.

The Lieberman campaign produced news articles on Lieberman's civil rights activities that Lieberman wrote for the Yale Daily News in 1963, including one that cites Lieberman reporting from Jackson, Miss.

Watch the video of Joe’s full statement or watch it below.

You can also find independent accounts confirming Lieberman’s record here and here.

One would think that after getting caught in such an outrageous and offensive lie, the Lamont campaign, which continually talks about the need for accountability, would own up to the mistake and apologize.

Think again.

When initially challenged by reporters, Lamont Campaign Manager Tom Swan tried to pawn off responsibility for the attack, while not denying its premise. According to a transcript, he said:

"We haven't done any research on that question, but we aren't going to question Mr. Parker, either."

Later, after it became apparent that the Lamont Campaign was going to pay a price for this outrageous lie, Swan issued a statement that backpeddled slightly, but still refused to accept responsibility for the big lie and instead tried to pin the blame on Parker. As the Courant reported:

"We have no doubt that Sen. Lieberman was active in a variety of causes prior to his career as an elected official. We have not looked into his involvement in the civil rights movement and will not question Joe's involvement," the Lamont campaign said.

This despite the fact that Ned was standing right next to Parker at a press conference the Lamont campaign organized and that the open letter was paid for by the Lamont Campaign.

Each day we ask, can Ned Lamont get any more dishonest and hypocritical? And pretty much each day Ned shows us he indeed can.

Watch the full press conference below:

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/12/2006 at 12:06 PM
Return to Blog Index

Joe re-endorsed by IAAF and AFSCME Local 15

2006-10-11T22:24:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 11, 2006; click on link to see images)

Joe was joined by two leading Connecticut first responder unions today as they announced their continued support for him in his bid for reelection. Joe was re-endorsed for the general election by the International Association of Firefighters (IAAF), and AFSCME Local 15, the Connecticut Council of Police Union.P1020284.JPG

These unions, who represent 8,000 first responders throughout Connecticut, endorsed Joe because of his proven record of strong support for police and firefighters.

Lieberman has been a consistent and effective advocate for increased funding for Connecticut’s first responders. Since 9-11, Connecticut has received more than $163 million in homeland security funds to support first responders – including assistance for the prevention activities of law enforcement under the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and money for equipment and training for firefighters under the Fire Assistance Grant program.

P1020149.JPG Joe authored and led the fight to pass legislation to guarantee Connecticut a significant minimum level of homeland security funding each year, and to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to employ a risk-based grant system that takes into account the factors that make Connecticut vulnerable to terrorism. Joe said:

The recent anniversaries of 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina reminded us all of the round-the-clock heroism we depend on you for in a disaster – whether at the hands of nature or of terrorists. And the recent school shootings in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Wisconsin remind us of the life-and-death decisions we ask you to make in split seconds under crisis conditions. Those of us who serve in Congress or in state government can never make your jobs risk-free. But we can give you the support you need to get the hard job you do done for us.

Throughout his career, Joe has fought for first responders:

* Joe Has Been a Leader in Promoting and Fighting for Funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services Program. Joe played a substantial role in shaping major provisions of the historic 1994 Crime Bill. This law created the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program that has put 100,000 new police officers on America’s streets and brought violent crime rates down to their lowest levels in years.
* Joe Has A Long History Trying to Stop Juvenile Violence. Joe has strongly supported Democratic efforts to reform the juvenile justice system, cosponsoring, for example, the Youth Violence, Crime, and Drug Abuse Control Act. This bill would, among other things, authorize funding for a number of crime prevention programs, reform the juvenile justice system and provide enhanced penalties for gang activities.
* Joe Lieberman Worked Across Party Lines for Homeland Security Funding that Benefited First Responders. When the President and Congress cut homeland security funding this year, Joe joined with Senator Collins (R-ME) to pass an amendment in the Senate to restore $986 million in funding for first responder and other homeland security needs.

Joe will continue his fight for first responders in Connecticut and throughout the country by:P1020147.JPG

* Fighting for increased funding for DHS first responder grant programs, DOJ COPS funding and pursuing reinstatement of the Cops in Schools program;
* Enacting legislation improving the DHS risk-based grant system;
* Fighting for effective implementation of the Information Sharing Environment;
* Renewing the ban on assault weapons and close the gun show loophole.

More photos from today on our Flickr page.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/11/2006 at 6:05 PM

Demanding Accountability from Ned

2006-10-11T12:50:00.000-04:00

(Posted October 11, 2006)

Ned loves to talk about holding other people accountable. Well, it’s time to for Ned to be held accountable for running the most systematically dishonest campaign in a major race in recent American history.

With his campaign’s latest attack on Joe today, Ned has shown that it is now not enough to just repeatedly distort Joe’s record for him to try to get elected -- he must now openly lie about it.

In their ‘Daily Cup of Joe’ (link) attack piece this morning, the Lamont campaign repeated its claim that Joe is ‘continuing to back President Bush’s stay the course policy.’ That is not just a mischaracterization – it is an out and out lie. And the Lamont campaign knows it.

The fact is, in his major Iraq policy speech on September 25th, Joe explicitly rejected a stay the course strategy and called for a new approach to end the war without undermining our security. Here are the direct quotes from Lieberman’s speech:

I believe it would be every bit as much of a mistake to stay there indefinitely, both for the Iraqis and for us, and I have consistently opposed an open-ended commitment of American troops. That is something Ned Lamont and I do agree on.

Continuing on the same course we are on now is not a viable option either. We have to confront the reality that what we are doing now is not working, and to begin pursuing new approaches for achieving our mission in Iraq.

Let me repeat that, because it is important. Just continuing to do what we have been doing is not a solution. We must begin to pursue new approaches to get the job done in Iraq.

The Lamont campaign’s attack piece goes on to say that Joe is ‘isolated’ from several Republican skeptics, most notably former Secretary of State James Baker. Again, that is an out and out lie.

The fact is, James Baker’s recent statements closely mirror Joe’s assessment.

Here is what James Baker said:

I think it's fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of 'stay the course' and 'cut and run.

He explicitly rejected a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, saying that would invite Iran, Syria and ''even our friends in the gulf'' to fill the power vacuum.

Here is what Joe said in his speech:

I want to get past the false and empty choice between continuing to do just what we are doing and just giving up and pulling out, both of which are recipes for more failure and less security, and put forward some new approaches for getting the job done in Iraq.

The truth is, Lamont’s plan is not a plan for changing course. This is a plan for giving up in Iraq. For giving up on the hopes of the Iraqi people for becoming free and independent. And for giving up Iraq to the terrorists, the sectarian militias, and to the Iranians and Syrians, who would exploit the resulting chaos.

If anyone is out of step with the mainstream, it is Ned. As the facts show, Ned’s naïve and deadly plan for ending the war in Iraq — pulling all our troops out to meet an arbitrary pre-set deadline 9 or 12 months from now, depending on which day you ask Ned — has been explicitly rejected by the overwhelming majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate, as well as by former President Bill Clinton.

The bottom line: how does Ned expect to change anything in Washington when the people of Connecticut can’t even trust him to tell the truth?

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/11/2006 at 12:38 PM

Joe to Receive Major Police and Fire Endorsements

2006-10-11T12:46:00.000-04:00

(Posted on October 11, 2006)

Joe will be re-endorsed for the general election by the Connecticut Council of Police Unions AFSCME 15 and the Connecticut International Association of Fire Fighters in Waterbury this afternoon.

Should have pictures up from the event later in the day.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/11/2006 at 12:23 PM

Lamont Hypocricy Watch: Faux Populism Edition

2006-10-11T11:36:00.000-04:00

(They're late getting a "Blog of Joe" post up today, so for your Freedom of Speech commenting pleasure, I'm posting a copy of their latest smear effort from "The Full Lamonty" October 11, 2006. Yeah, they're a real classy bunch working at the Senator's campaign!)

Just when you think Ned’s chutzpah quotient could not rise any higher, he takes his hypocrisy to new heights.

In his latest shameless claim, Ned says in a letter to supporters that he will stand up and “defend his record of putting people first.”

And what would that record be?

* Oh yes, Ned clearly put people first by trading in his Lexus SUV this year to drive a hybrid and pretend he is environmentally conscious.
* He clearly put people first by resigning his membership in his too-white Greenwich country club after 16 years just to avoid embarrassing his campaign. [Greenwich Time, 4/2/06]
* He clearly put people first by refusing to allow his workers to unionize.
* He clearly put people first by laying off 68 percent of those workers he wouldn’t let organize according to the New York Times. [New York Times, 8/3//06]
* He clearly put people first by refusing to release his tax returns to the public, so they could see how he amassed his $90 million to $300 million fortune. [Multiple, 7/22/06]

That’s the Ned Lamont we know and love — putting posing first.

Lamont's Latest Negative Attack Ad

2006-10-10T18:31:00.000-04:00

(Posted October 10, 2006)

It is official – Ned is on track to set a new record for non-stop negativity in Connecticut campaigns.

The TV ad he is releasing today is his third attack ad in a week, and marks the 11th negative paid television or radio ad he has run since the primary – out of 12 ads total.

That means more than 90 percent of his ads have been totally or largely attacks on Joe – with no new ideas to solve the problems the people of Connecticut care about.

And it’s only going to get worse -- the Lamont campaign told the Hartford Courant that the ad is the first in a whole new series of negative attack ads they plan to run in the closing month of the campaign.

Sadly, with the ad he released today, all Ned is showing the people of Connecticut is his own desperation and hypocrisy.

The fact is Joe has a 93 percent career voting record over his 18 years in the Senate. That is the same exact percentage as Lamont compiled during his six years on a Greenwich town board.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the votes Joe missed were while he was working to defeat George W. Bush, who Ned attacks almost as much as Joe.

In 2000, Joe ran for Vice President to help Al Gore prevent George Bush from becoming president. In 2003, Joe ran for President to change the direction of the country by removing George Bush from office.

If you factor out those two campaigns, Joe’s voting record is 98 percent – he missed 109 votes out of 5295.

Ned should know this history as well as anyone. In the 2000 campaign, he gave $500 to Joe’s Senate campaign and $5000 to support the Gore-Lieberman campaign at a Greenwich fundraiser that Joe headlined.

In addition, in 2003 Ned twice contributed to Joe’s presidential campaign, well after the war in Iraq started.

Clearly Ned could not have that upset that Joe was missing votes in those years.

All of which shows that if it’s time for anything, it’s time for Ned to answer for his constant double talk and double standards.

How can he attack George Bush and the Bush policies and then turn around criticize Joe for trying to do something to stop Bush and change his policies?

Then again, we should not be surprised. This is the same Ned who last month had to reach back eight years to the Clinton impeachment proceeding to find something new to attack Joe, only for us to find that Ned praised Joe’s speech before he attacked it.

The bottom line: If Ned really wants to offer voters a change, he could give them a break from his relentlessly negative, misleading, and hypocritical attacks, and maybe provide just one new idea to solve a problem they care about.

So far, he has had practically nothing positive to offer the people of Connecticut — no experience, no credibility, and no ability to get things done for our state.

It is no wonder that the broad majority of voters outside his anti-war base are rejecting his campaign left and right.

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

* This new ad is his third attack ad in a week, and marks the 11th negative paid television or radio ad he has run since the primary – out of 12 ads total.
* That means more than 90 percent of his ads have been totally or largely attacks on Joe Lieberman – with no new ideas to solve the problems the people of Connecticut care about.
* The fact is Joe Lieberman has a 93 percent career voting record over his 18 years in the Senate. That is the same exact percentage as Ned Lamont compiled during his six years on a Greenwich town board.
* Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the votes Joe Lieberman missed were while he was working to defeat George W. Bush, who Ned attacks almost as much as Joe Lieberman.
* In 2000, Joe Lieberman ran for Vice President to help Al Gore prevent George Bush from becoming president. In 2003, Joe Lieberman ran for President to change the direction of the country by removing George Bush from office.
* If you factor out those two campaigns, Joe Lieberman’s voting record is 98 percent – he missed 109 votes out of 5295.
* Ned should know this history as well as anyone. In the 2000 campaign, he gave $500 to Joe Lieberman’s Senate campaign and $5000 to support the Gore-Lieberman campaign at a Greenwich fundraiser that Joe Lieberman headlined.
* In addition, in 2003 Ned twice contributed to Joe Lieberman’s presidential campaign, well after the war in Iraq started.
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/10/2006 at 3:56 PM

===================================================================

ADDENDUM from Connecticut Bob (B.A.) - Here's the Lamont ad that Eric is referring to above. Judge for yourself:

New Internet Ad

2006-10-10T18:28:00.000-04:00

(Posted on October 10, 2006)

Our first internet ad in the general election calling attention to Joe’s strong voting attendance record of 93%, Ned Lamont’s negativity, lack of new ideas, and increasingly desperate attacks on Joe’s record of results:

(Click this for Joe's ad)
------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/10/2006 at 1:33 PM

Joe on North Korea

2006-10-10T10:10:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 10, 2006)

Here is Joe's statement on North Korea based off some comments he made to reporters yesterday...

We have known for some time that the North Koreans have had enough nuclear fuel to build as many as 10 or 11 nuclear weapons of the size that we used on Hiroshima. Now that they have used some of that fuel to test a nuclear device, it tells us again that we live in a dangerous world; that we have got to work with our allies and we’ve got to work with each other, and not simply use serious foreign policy challenges as just another excuse for partisan politics.

Most important of all, the UN Security Council and the nations in the region with whom we’ve been working, the Chinese in particular, have leverage with the North Koreans. We have to stick with them as we try to get Kim Jong-Il and the North Koreans to do away with this capacity that they have now shown that they have. I think we’re stronger when we are working with the other nations in the region, not just alone, but if the nations in that region and we think that the United States can accomplish something by sitting down with Kim Jong-il in bilateral talks, I also believe that since we are strong, we don’t lose anything -- and we certainly don’t lose any strength we have -- by sitting down with the North Koreans and trying to negotiate the end of their nuclear program.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/10/2006 at 8:56 AM

Protecting kids from online threats

2006-10-09T17:05:00.000-04:00

(posted October 9, 2006)

Saying that the Foley scandal in Washington underscored the growing threats to children online, Joe outlined a broad new Internet safety agenda today to help parents keep their kids safe from sexual predators and other harmful influences.

P1020137.JPG

In a speech today at the WDRC Listener Lunch hosted by Brad Davis in East Windsor, Joe denounced Foley’s use of email and instant messaging to prey on teenage Congressional pages as reprehensible, saying it was one of every 21st Century parent’s worst nightmares:

This is a real and dangerous threat, as parents here in Connecticut well know. You’ve probably seen the headlines. . . the 27-year-old man in Chaplin who was arrested for an alleged sexual assault committed against a 13-year-old girl from Hebron, whom he had met on the web site called MySpace. . . . and the arrest of two men who used MySpace to lure and assault two girls from Fairfield County, just 11- and 14-years-old.

Those two examples, along with the Foley case, represent just the tip of an iceberg of indecent activity spurred on by the Internet. One study reporter that about one out of every six children online receive a sexual solicitation. That is a frightening statistic – and an even more frightening reality for today’s parents.

Joe also said that if there were ever a time to put people ahead of politics and focus on finding solutions, this was it:

Sadly, my opponent in the Senate campaign, Ned Lamont, could not resist the urge to politicize this awful incident. He spent much of last week twisting my statements and launching more false political attacks against me. And as usual, he offered no constructive ideas to address the larger problem here of keeping kids safe online.

After highlighting his long record of fighting to help parents raise their children with good values and protect them from harmful media influences, Joe noted that the Internet presented a whole new set of challenges and a whole new focus on keeping kids safe online.

Let’s face it: technology is changing more rapidly than our ability to protect our kids. I believe the time has come to fight back. Not to stop the march of progress – but to help parents keep pace.

With this in mind, Joe outlined several ideas aimed at stopping Internt predators and empowering parents to control the media their children consume:P1020135.JPG

Demand More Corporate Responsibility from Media Companies. Big media companies should do more to help parents protect their children online and limit their exposure to sexual predators and inappropriate content. In particular, these companies should fund a national campaign to educate parents about the online risks faced by children and how they can best protect their families.

Demand More Parental Responsibility. Saying parents have to be the last line of defense, Lieberman called on parents to be more vigiliant in monitoring their children’s online activities. It’s no longer enough to keep the computer in family room when most parents have no idea what chat acronyms mean. Parents need to tell their kids not to share personal information and to tell them when they receive online sexual solicitation.

Pass the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act. Joe Lieberman is a cosponsor of the bipartisan Internet Safety and Child Protection Act, which will help complement industry initiatives by:

* Requiring adult websites to conduct online ID checks using age-verification software.
* Tax online pornography to fund an Internet Safety and Child Protection Trust Fund.
* Establish Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces in each state.
* Funding research into new filtering technologies.
* And supporting education programs on child Internet safety.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/9/2006 at 4:44 PM

Setting the Record Straight on Social Security

2006-10-09T13:53:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 9, 2006 - Click here to see images)

Joe was at the Ashlar Village Senior Community this morning and spoke to a packed room. Mary Fritz, the Deputy Speaker of the State House, and the100_0452.JPG newest member of the growing group, “Dems for Joe,” joined him. Joe touched on several issues, including Ned Lamont’s eight different positions on Iraq, the need to improve the healthcare system in our country, and the need to end the partisan gridlock in Washington.

One of the questions asked was on Joe’s plans to protect Social Security. Earlier this week, some of the residents received a mailer from Ned Lamont that twisted Joe's views on Social Security.

Joe wasted no time in setting the record straight:

I am just going to say flat out that I am not for privatization of social security and social security is probably the best program the federal government ever created.

Now on privatization, I’ll tell you that in the 90’s some people came to me and talked to me about privatization. Now this was an interesting idea, but the more I looked at it, the worse it looked. Ultimately you have to take more than a trillion dollars out of the social security trust fund to finance these privatized accounts. And what would be the effect of that? You make social security short on money years sooner.

So I looked at it and decided in the late 90’s it was a bad idea and I have a very consistent record of opposing President Bush every time he had tried to bring it up since then.

100_0450.JPGJoe was met with wild applause and was swamped with supporters.

One lady came up to him and said she is a life long Democrat, and she is sticking with him because she just doesn’t trust Lamont. Right after that another man came up to him and said he was a life long Republican and he also didn't trust Lamont.

Joe is getting such strong bipartisan support in this election, and it seems this election has brought Connecticut voters together on one more issue: people just don’t trust Ned Lamont.

To see more pictures from this morning click here.

Week in review in photos

2006-10-09T13:50:00.000-04:00

(posted on October 9, 2006 - click this link if you want to see the actual blog entry with the photos; I'm way too busy to save and post each additional photo. If anyone knows how to copy and paste an entire blog page with images intact, email me at futuredv at yahoo dot com)

Joe was on the road this week taking his message of putting people ahead of politics to the voters of Connecticut. Here are a couple pictures from Joe’s travels this week:

P1020103.JPG
Joe visited a fire station in Milford. He later joined the fire fighters on the fire truck after they offered him a ride to the local day care center.

P1020089.JPG
"There's no business like shoe business," said the owner of this local shoe store that Joe visited in Milford.

P1020084.JPG
Joe greeted customers at a local bank in Milford and spoke with supporters .

P1000245.JPG
Pro-Joe UConn students came out to the Lamont rally with Wes Clark to make sure Negative Ned's latest, lamest attacks did not go unchallenged this week.

100_0431.JPG
Joe visited the Town House Diner in Hamden as part of his Doors and Diners tour and spoke with supporters about issues.

P1020046.JPG
Joe went Door-to-Door on Brentmoor Street in East Hartford where he recieved overwhelming support from residents.

P1020028
Joe helped Bantam Fuels announce a new attempt to offer cleaner, more environmentally friendly heating fuel to its customers.

P1010988.JPG
Speaking at Fercondini Properties, Joe highlighted the growing stresses on Connecticut’s middle class families. In his speech he proposed expanding home ownership for the middle class and a small business health insurance reform plan.

P1010960.JPG
Joe and former New York City Mayor Ed Koch greeted rush-hour commuters returning to Connecticut at Grand Central Station this week. Koch joined the growing list of Democrats for Joe.

100_0397.JPG
Joe and Democratic congressional candidate Diane Farrell exchanged a hug and a kiss at Shelton Day.

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/8/2006 at 6:12 PM

30 Days Out: State of the Race

2006-10-09T12:11:00.000-04:00

(posted October 9, 2006)

So with 30 days left until Election Day, we thought it was an appropriate time to take stock of where the Lamont-Lieberman race stands.

The barometer most outside observers are relying on are the public polls. The recent Quinnipiac poll, the most credible survey in the state, put Lieberman up 10 points at 49-39 on September 28th. That was almost unchanged from the first Q poll six weeks before.

Other polls, though, have fluctuated wildly. To us, that shows the volatility of this electorate and the limits of using these surveys to make conclusive judgments about the state of the race. We fully expect those polls to move again in the final weeks and for the horse race number to tighten.

At this point, then, we believe it is much more instructive to look at what the various campaigns have been saying and doing over the last several days. What you will find are two dramatically different campaigns moving in two dramatically different directions.

Last week, our campaign continued to highlight Joe Lieberman's record of experience and results for Connecticut; rolled out a series of progressive, practical plans to help ease the middle class squeeze on Connecticut families and renew the American dream; and compared Lieberman's positive agenda with Lamonts campaign of no ideas, no experience, and no ability to get things done the state.

Joe started the week by telling the people of Connecticut about his recent success in passing legislation to speed the cleanup of Long Island Sound.

Then he outlined a series of forward-looking plans to:

* reduce the barriers to homeownership
* lower the cost of health care for small businesses and their employees
* promote cheaper renewable fuels
* reduce our reliance on foreign oil
* make college more affordable and more accessible

Thats five specific ideas to solve problems people care about from Joe Lieberman in one week.

By contrast, the Lamont campaign did not put out one specific policy idea last week new or otherwise.

That should come as no surprise, though. Go to the Lamont campaign website, and you’ll find that since the end of the primary two months ago, the Lamont campaign has released just two policy proposals.

One, his education plan, mostly recycles proposals Joe Lieberman has already introduced in the Senate, and does not appear to include any original ideas.

The other, contained in Lamonts big national security speech, mostly regurgitates planks of the Senate Democrats security agenda. That is, when it was not attacking Joe Lieberman, to which the bulk of his policy speech was dedicated. Either way, no new ideas.

See for yourself on Lamont's official blog, their self-proclaimed window into the campaign. As of this morning, there were about 275 posts since August 8th, and there were actually more entries praising a hatchet job article GQ ran on the primary (6) and personally attacking our staff (4) than there were about specific policy ideas (3).

Its little wonder, then, that the Quinnipiac poll found that Connecticut voters overwhelmingly believe that Lamont is running a negative campaign (62-25). Or that Lamont does not have the right experience to be a U.S. Senator (47-38).

This point was driven home in todays frontpage article in The Hartford Courant under the headline, Lamont Still the Novice.

The piece opens by recounting Neds visit to Watertown High School, where he was pressed by a student to explain how he would change the culture in Washington.

[Lamont] talked about shunning special interests, helping folks who need health care and being an agent for change. None of it was enough for one teenage boy.

"You're here. You're talking," the boy said. "I still don't know what you are going to do."

So how has the Lamont campaign moved to address those negative perceptions and serious vulnerabilities? By doing everything in their power to reinforce them.

Indeed, here is a summary what the Lamont campaign did and said last week:

* Repeatedly made up things to attack Joe Lieberman for on the Foley scandal
* Aired a bizarre new ad accusing Joe Lieberman of scaring voters, which has the states political establishment scratching their heads (and covering their ears)
* Brought in Ted Kennedy to falsely attack Joe Lieberman on Iraq
* Brought in Wes Clark to falsely attack Joe Lieberman on Iraq
* Surrounded himself with a small group of veterans to attack Joe Lieberman on Iraq

In fairness to the Lamont campaign, they do have one positive ad up on the air now. It features Ned making a bunch of vague statements about education to a group of cute children. The closest he comes to an actual idea in there is preschool for every child (something Al Gore and Joe Lieberman proposed in 2000 and which Lieberman has advocated since).

But perhaps the most telling indicator of the Lamont campaigns troubles is the tone of their statements. So far their solution to their dropping poll numbers has been to make even more shrill, desperate, and dishonest attacks on Joe Lieberman.

The best example of that -- the ridiculous, reality-challenged statements Lamont and his campaign made this week about the Foley scandal.

To show just how ridiculous these attacks were, here is a quick accounting of what Lieberman actually said, and what the Lamont campaign pretended he said.

Right after the news broke, Joe Lieberman put out a statement last Sunday condemning Foleys reprehensible behavior, calling for an immediate independent investigation into the House Republican leadership, and declaring that anyone who was found to have ignored or covered up Foleys predatory behavior should be held fully accountable.

Through the course of the week, Lieberman criticized the House Republicans for trying to deflect blame by dredging up past Democratic scandals and for being overly-partisan in responding to the initial concerns about Foleys contacts with pages. He also urged both parties not to exploit this awful incident for partisan political gain.

And he point blank said on several occasions that if the investigation found that Speaker Hastert or any other House leader knew about Foleys predatory behavior and did nothing to stop it, then they should resign -- most recently on Fox 61s Behind the Headlines show that aired today.

Which is to say he took pretty much the same stance as most other leading Democrats in Congress, including House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

So in the face of all those public comments, the Lamont campaign tried over and over again this week to attack Joe Lieberman for supposedly defending Speaker Hastert and supposedly criticizing Democrats who called for Hasterts resignation.

[We should note that the Lamont campaign didnt bother to say anything about this national disgrace until three days after Lieberman issued his first statement and until they could use it to attack Joe Lieberman.]

Lamont made their accusations despite the fact that Joe Lieberman did not once criticize any Democrat by name or even by implication. Not even in the one slim quote that the Lamont campaign repeatedly tried to twist to support their manufactured attack.

The Foley case bothers people, he added. If anyone thinks they can make this into another partisan flap, its not. Its very real and human. The House Republican leaders and, frankly, the Democratic leadership, should not make it partisan.

Only the Lamont campaign could turn that statement into something negative.

Judging from this particular attack and other over-the-top distortions and falsehoods that we are seeing from the Lamont campaign these days, they are taking their say anything strategy to a whole other level.

The garden-variety distortions that they got away with in the primary are not working with the general electorate. So out of desperation they are now ramping up to sheer fabrications, in hopes no one will call them on it, and that one of their ugly hail mary passes will bring our numbers down a little.

If it is not already apparent, in time people will see Lamont is running one of the most systematically dishonest campaigns by a prominent candidate in recent American history.

For now, though, one thing is clear their approach is failing to sway the voters they need to win. Even the Lamont campaigns biggest boosters the liberal bloggers are acknowledging that.

In fact, over the last several days, we have noticed that the blog comments in Connecticut and on the big national sites have turned increasingly sour and pessimistic, with many of them openly challenging and criticizing Lamonts post-primary strategy.

Some supporters decry the lack of positive messages and new ideas. Others say the attacks are not vicious enough. One common thread, though, is that the Lamont campaign has made a serious mistake by essentially re-running the primary over the last two months -- and that they will likely fall further behind if they dont change course.

You can find a sampling of these blog comments here [PDF]. Taken together, they suggest Neds people-powered campaign may be petering out.

This helps explain why Ned has been forced to dump another $2.75 million of his own money into the campaign over the last several weeks, on top of the $4 million he put into the campaign during the primary almost all of which is being used to pay for negative attack ads.

[Our campaign, in contrast, has accumulated more than 23,000 small donors in this campaign, and since the primary, has received more than $110,000 in mostly small unsolicited checks from around the country.]

The fact is, while Ned may like to pitch himself as a successful businessman, the broad middle of voters outside his anti-war base clearly are not buying what hes selling. And like a lot Neds friends on the blogs, we have trouble believing that his increasingly shrill and disingenuous attacks will change that fact.

All of which raises the obvious question: how does Ned win?

------
Posted by: Eric Blankenbaker on 10/8/2006 at 4:42 PM

Why this blog was created

2006-10-09T11:55:00.000-04:00

My name is Bob Adams, and I have a progressive blog called "Connecticut Bob".

We're about a month away from the election, and I've read dozens of complaints from interested voters who are being denied the opportunity to comment upon the articles posted in the Joe2006.com blog "Blog of Joe".

This is AFTER the Lieberman campaign promised to allow comments, with the exception of those containing obscene words. In other words, they said they'd moderate their comments section but only delete obscene posts.

What actually happened was that Joe2006 did have a fair share of naughty words posted there (and you can still see examples that the Lieberman campaign claims was posted on it's blog located here) and the blogmaster refused to moderate the comments. So they took the comments section down.

The REAL reason they removed the comments is too many people were disagreeing with Joe's political actions and partisan philosophy, and Lieberman's people didn't like that. So rather than address these people's concerns, they did what the Republicans have been doing for years: shut down the right to free speech and pretend everything is hunky dory.

So here's your chance to comment upon Joe's daily blog entries. Be aware that we WILL moderate these comments, but only for rude behaviour, racist or threatening comments.

This is a FREE SPEECH ZONE, not a SPEECH-FREE zone.

Welcome to Joe's 2006 Blog!

2006-10-09T10:39:00.000-04:00

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.

“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."

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.

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