Spot the Rabid Sheep
Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 08:17:20 PM PDT
After reading David Brooks' screed yesterday about the "Liberal Inquisition" we are apparently carrying out against anti-war Democrats, I couldn't help but do a double-take when someone pointed me to
two letters which appeared side-by-side in a Connecticut paper today.
Brooks claims that we're a bunch of rabid sheep, or fodder for loose cannons, or agents for his arch-nemesis, Barbra Streisand, or... I don't know, I can't keep up with all the oxymoronic descriptions of This Thing of Ours that are spewing forth from the Right Wing Hate Noise Machine.
But these two letters - I was almost tempted to black out the names of the candidates to see if you could tell. They tell the opposite story of the fable Brooks is spinning.
These two letters appeared on the Opinion page of the
Greenwich Time this morning. I think they get taken down after a day or so, so I'm just going to post them for you to read.
So Joseph Lieberman is playing two hands again. He has started collecting signatures to run as an "independent" candidate for the U.S. Senate at the same time that he is competing with Ned Lamont's formidable candidacy in a primary election for the nomination of the Democratic candidate for Senate.
This is not the first time Lieberman has played fast and loose with the electoral system. In the 2000 election, it may be remembered, he actually ran for two offices at the same time -- vice president of the United States and U.S. senator from Connecticut. His Republican opponent that year was Philip Giordano, the former mayor of Waterbury who, it may also be remembered, was sentenced the following year to 37 years in prison for sexual improprieties with two pre-teenage girls.
In this Alice-in-Wonderland situation, Connecticut voters had the unenviable choice of voting for the same man for two offices -- an obvious impossibility -- or choosing as a senator a man who later would end up in prison.
Running for two offices at the same time should have been illegal. But what made it permissible, apparently, was that Joe had been nominated as a Senate candidate prior to his nomination as Democratic candidate for vice president.
A reasonable man would have resigned as a Senate candidate and saved Connecticut voters from such a bizarre predicament. There would have been a number of worthy Democratic substitutes.
He lost the vice presidency, but was able to retain his Senate seat.
Again, he is trying to have it both ways. If he loses the primary he wants a second shot as an "independent" candidate, even though historically in a three-way election between two Democratic candidates and a Republican, the Democrats split the vote and the Republican has won.
Perhaps this time it will be different, but not as Joe thinks. Connecticut voters may be fed up not only with Joe's support of the Iraq war, but with his self-serving maneuvers. I'm betting on Ned Lamont in both elections.
Mary B. Sullivan
Riverside
Quite reasonable in tone, with history and facts on her side. Well done, Mary.
Let's look at the "pro-Lieberman" letter to compare:
I watched Ned Lamont's latest advertisement with disgust. It attempts to drag Joe Lieberman into the gutter by implicating that Joe contributed to the disaster that Hurricane Katrina wreaked on the Gulf Coast.
In reality, Lieberman was one of the first senators to step up and call the administration out, while some were sitting back and allowing the horror to fester. He also was one of the first to call for Federal Emergency Management Agency head Michael Brown's removal from his position.
And what did Ned Lamont do after Katrina hit? Did his cable company contribute anything to the displaced families or reconstruction? Did he house anyone in Greenwich or offer them a job at his company?
I'm guessing he profited off the disaster like he profited off the war in Iraq -- with his Haliburton stocks. I'm guessing he didn't give one dime and didn't lift one finger.
Joe Lieberman acted like a true Democrat after the disaster. He showed his colors and spoke up for those whose voices were drowned out in the heavy winds of political rhetoric.
I'm not surprised Ned is attempting to use the hurricane against Lieberman. His media guy Bill Hillsman will go as low as he needs to go to unseat Joe. I saw Hillsman attempt to do the same thing against Barack Obama in Illinois when he assisted Republican Jack Ryan in his smear campaign. His tactics are slimy and shameless, but so are his candidates.
Martin Nirschel
Stamford
OK. Ned profited from Hurricane Katrina, this guy asserts. He offers no proof. Ned's got Halliburton stocks! Don't know how he knows that one. Ned didn't even lift a finger to save those poor people drowning in New Orleans, or chip in one red cent!
He guesses. That's right - this chucklehead is making all these dastardly deed up and presenting them as facts. Then he even throws in Hillsman, the guy Ned
hired to do ads, and criticizes him for not being a loyal Democrat. And of course they're all "slimy and shameless" because this guy tells us so. Talk about vicious and personal. I'm sure David Brooks would be ashamed of you, Martin. You're just so nasty and vitriolic.
And yet we're the ones who are getting accused of vicious smear tactics.
Here's another take on how real people in CT are really feeling, by John Campanelli of Southington, CT:
I don't think that the values I am seeking to be reinforced in Lamont's candidacy are not radical but rather basic Democratic/democratic ones that have been lost in the fever-swamp of the D.C. Beltway as a result of this brazen administration and its party.
About six months ago, I didn't have a big problem with the idea of Lieberman continuing as my Senator. It's true that his voting record has been, for the most part, more along Democrati rather than Republican lines. But Lieberman and his supporters within the punditry have made me realize that these Beltway decision makers are so non-responsive to the people outside their circles that we need radical change to get this democracy working again.
I no longer see this as a matter of merely moving the dialogue and actions to the left. This is a matter of the people taking back their government. Not to get overly melodramatic, but I feel like a serf who feels he needs to overthrow his Lords.
Digby nailed it quite well: we in the blogosphere have no institutional power. We merely have the power of persuasion. I'm flabbagasted that the Beltway Mafia is as threatened by us as they are.
Proud resident of Southbury, CT, where we're still waiting for Lieberman to R.S.V.P.
by John Campanelli on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 11:23:01 PM EDT
That wasn't an LTE, but it should have been. I find it amazing that all this ink is spread on this race, and the RWCM still hasn't hit on the idea of talking to actual Lamont supporters in the state like John and Mary. Wouldn't that be a great human-interest angle or something?
UPDATE: While I've been writing this I just noticed that the first link to the LTE page has been updated so that Martin's letter isn't there anymore, though you can still find it at the Stamford Advocate where there is a whole slew more letter on the race.
To be fair, I did find one calling Lieberman a "weasel." But the letter writer backs it up with specific examples of Joe's "weaselness" instead of baseless speculation.
But that's nothing compared to this next one:
As a registered Republican, I am thrilled that I will have the opportunity to vote for Joe Lieberman, regardless of the outcome of the Democratic primary. Joe is a good man with common sense, a brain and experience with the real world of international affairs, and I am looking forward to voting for him as the Democratic candidate.
I was not looking forward to the possibility that, in a worst-case scenario, I might have a choice between a politically unknown and inexperienced Republican (How many out there even know who the candidate is?) and Ned Lamont, a spoiled rich guy on an ego trip whose campaign theme is to run away from fighting World War IV after the United States was attacked.
Kind of puts the kaibosh on that talk that the Republican candidate might beat Ned, doesn't it? Even the Republicans don't know the guy's name (and that's after Lieberman helpfully repeated it to the debate audience - thanks again, Joe).
But check it out: did you know that Ned was a draft-dodger? Not just for Vietnam either, he bailed on the greatest generation when we were fighting World War- uh, Four?
I suppose Lamont would have advised Lincoln to leave the South alone (think of all those Americans who would not have been killed) and advised Roosevelt before and after Pearl Harbor to retreat to fortress America. (Again, think of all those Americans who would not have been killed.)
Wow. I didn't know that Ned Lamont supported slavery and surrender to the Empire of Japan. The things you learn on the opinion pages!
Mr. Lamont should know that our enemy is smart, determined and totally unprincipled, and perfectly capable of evolving. He can spin-doctor his story any way he wants to, but it's still totally misguided.
And by the way, where does Mr. Lamont stand on genocide? It was legitimized in today's world in Rwanda, when the United Nations and President Clinton let the killing proceed. Now, genocide is legitimized in Darfur.
Yes, all of this stuff is terrible. But people like Lamont, whose mind-set is on cutting and running, would only encourage more of the same. And in the end, the United States and the world would be the losers.
Lester Freundlich
Stamford
Ned supports genocide! Ned thinks the US is a bunch of losers! Good Lord Ah-mighty, where do they
get these nutjobs from?
After that stink-bomb, I need a breath of fresh air. Maybe this next one will do it:
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman has announced that, should he lose in the Democratic primary held in August, he will run as an independent Democrat in November.
I agree with his contention that he has always voted for the good of Connecticut and his country -- until the Iraq issue surfaced.
Not only are most Connecticut voters against the Iraq war and believe it to be against the welfare of this country, as evidenced by most polls; they also believe it to be an overriding issue in the coming election, dwarfing all other issues facing the country.
A member of Congress is in the right to maintain that his vote should be based on his best judgment, even if it opposes the thinking of most of his constituents. However, it appears that Sen. Lieberman is a firm backer of the Bush policy that got us into this mess. He was for it from the start and he is unable to break from a failed policy.
He should retire.
Ed Early
Stamford
Ah, I love the sound of reasoned discourse in the morning. Thank you, Ed.
I hope this lays to rest any question of which side is involved in vitriol and intense personal nastiness.
Permalink | 12 comments