Lieberman loves our involvement in Iraq. We're 'fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here' and so on.
Meanwhile, back in a little place I like to call reality, there are reports like this:
There were only four booths and six stools in the whole place, and they were basically all occupied. When Ned went in, all of the supporters ripped off their civilian clothes& and revealed their Lieberman T-Shirts.
A large man, around 50 years old or so, then started screaming at Ned, "Are you an Al Sharpton Democrat, or a Bill Clinton Democrat?" Ned was trying to answer, and the gentleman kept yelling. The Lamont press secretary tried to intervene, and meanwhile, the people behind the counter who owned the restaurant were horrified and embarrassed. Then Ned Lamont went up to the few people in regular clothes and introduced himself, even as the Lieberman supporters kept screaming. He also tried to introduce himself to the Lieberman staffers, but to no avail. The screaming continued, and it was so abrasive that he left, and the whole crowd followed him outside.
These kids poured out, and a half a dozen reporters were mostly outside. The large man kept yelling, and was joined by one particularly obnoxious Lieberman supporter who started yelling about national security and how Lamont would endanger the country. The messaging seemed rehearsed. The Lieberman supporters started getting aggressive, pushing some of the Lamont staffers. When confronted, the Lieberman staffers said that they are just doing what the bloggers did.
In the whole affair, one photographer caught an elbow and got a bloody nose. It seems that the Lieberman campaign is explicitly setting up their supporters at Lamont events in tense and aggressive situations, all in the presence of reporters. When asked, the Lieberman campaign is expressing outrage at the unsavory and unruly behavior of the Lamont supporters.
Emphasis mine.
There are two main distinctions between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists. One, terrorists fight mainly in populated areas, often urban. Second, terrorists don't wear andistinctct uniforms so people know they're prepped for battle.
Well, Lieberman may not be a huge fan of Islamic terrorists - but he certainly loves terrorism of a different kind. Lieberman's campaign is all about terrorism; he terrorizes Ned Lamont and his supporters on a daily basis.
Collecting $60 bucks a day, Lieberman supporters are trained to show up at campaign stops dressed to fit in. Then, when opportunity strikes, thpoliticianan terrorism begins. Out comes the weapons and Lieberlackies start heckling and disrupting campaign event after campaign event.
If Lieberman wants to know why he lost Tuesday night, it won't be because of the war in Iraq or Samuel Alito cloture votes. It won't even be because Ned Lamont is such a great campaigner. Lieberman is going to lose because of the way he's behaved not only throughout this campaign, but over the last 6 years (and probably longer). He's ruthless, ambitious and hasn't shown much care for his constituents in Connecticut - instead focusing on running for the White House.
Luckily, for the people of Connecticut, democracy still reigns supreme and political terrorism won't be enough to destroy the Connecticut Primary.
(Note to readers: I'll be around to field questions/comments, plus this diary is cross-posted at ProgNow).
Update: Look, I completely changed the title. Fine, you all didn't get it and apparently sarcasm just doesn't fly. However, that doesn't change the fact that Joe Lieberman has been one of the strongest supporters of Bush on the "War on Terrorism," yet has displayed some very hypocritical tactics. Sue me for making a little comparison, but it's perfectly valid and there are nicer ways of saying "Rye, you're wrong" than calling me insane, etc. Sorry I actually took the time to care, should someone pin me to the cross now or do I get my last rights?