Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar
Geronimo

Geronimo

By Robert M. Utley
$30.00

more items

 
Report

Ned Lamont: The Truthdig Interview

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 25, 2006
Ned Lamont
From nedlamont.com

By Blair Golson

During a speech at a Connecticut state fundraising dinner last month, Sen.  Joseph Lieberman had to shh the crowd three times—not because they were cheering him, but because they were ignoring him in favor of their own conversations.

According to the New York Times:

The inattentiveness—as well as the scattered boos amid the supportive calls of “Joe” that welcomed Mr. Lieberman to the podium—convinced some that the three-term senator, criticized for months because of his continued support for the war in Iraq, may be vulnerable in the primary challenge he faces.

That primary challenge comes in the unlikely form of Ned Lamont, a 52-year-old cable television entrepreneur from Greenwich, Conn., who has never held more than local office and who stepped forward only when no other Democrat in the state appeared poised to do so.

“All the political leaders in the state told him, according to Lamont, “‘Ned, if you feel so strongly about it, you do it.’”;

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Although Lamont is not waging a one-issue campaign, even he acknowledges that he probably would not be running were it not to offer Connecticut voters an up-or-down referendum on the Iraq war. Lamont favors pulling U.S. troops off the front-lines of the Iraqi battlefields immediately, whereas Lieberman is perhaps President Bush’s most reliable war apologist in the Democratic Party.

As a result, Lamont’s bid to unseat Lieberman in the August Democratic primary has become perhaps the most-watched senate race in the nation. If a political neophyte with scant name recognition and little party backing can use his opposition to the war to wrest power away from a three-term senator who began the race with a 55-point lead in the polls, the upset will embolden every antiwar challenger who is eyeing a seat in the 2006 mid-term elections, or even the White House in 2008.

Despite his anti-establishment pretensions, Lamont was the fifth (yep, fifth) generation of Lamont men to attend the elite Phillips Exeter Academy and then Harvard. He went on to graduate from Yales School of Management, and soon after founded Lamont Digital, which builds cable television systems for universities and gated communities across the country.

Before throwing his hat into the ring last March, however, the only elective office he ever held was as a selectman for the town of Greenwich in the 1980s, and later on a town finance board. He ran unsuccessfully for state Senate in 1990. Lamont said the desire to spend time with his wife (an investment banker) and children kept him from seeking higher office.

Starting in 1992, he began working for and holding fundraisers on behalf of a succession of presidential candidates—first Clinton in 1992, then Bill Bradley in 2000, and John Kerry during the last cycle. Post-2004 disillusionment with the lack of fresh ideas in the Democratic Party led him to seek out a more intimate form of public serviceteaching high school courses on entrepreneurship in the low-income city of Bridgeport—in addition to getting involved with policy debates at the Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank in Washington.

Though observers of Connecticut politics are still calling Lamonts candidacy a long-shot, Lieberman is taking the challenge seriously—hiring top-gun media consultant Carter Eskew to shake up his campaign; spending money on TV spots for the first time in a decade; and saying publicly that he would consider running as an independent if he lost the Democratic primary.

Indeed, in the progressive blogosphere, disgust with Lieberman for his perceived role as a lapdog for the Bush administration is rife, whereas Lamont is often portrayed as the best thing to hit the Democratic Party since Barack Obama (who is supporting Lieberman, incidentally). In addition to Lamonts opposition to the war, his support of progressive bread-and-butter issues like gay marriage rights, universal healthcare, a progressive tax code and energy independence have quickly endeared him to many of the kinds of so-called netroots organizers who helped propel Howard Deanג‘s 2004 presidential bid. According to his latest fundraising filing, Lamont has collected $341,111 from 4,337 donors, more than 90% giving through the Internet. He added $371,500 of his own money to that kitty. Of course, Lieberman has almost $5 million in his campaign account.

Lamont has until May to gather 15,000 petition signatures or 15% of the states voting delegates to qualify as a candidate. The formal primary will be held in August.

Truthdig managing editor Blair Golson caught up with Lamont in Los Angeles at the Brentwood home of legendary television producer Norman Lear, where Lear and Internet icon Arianna Huffington were hosting a party to celebrate the book “Crashing the Gate by Markos Moulitsas ZҔniga of DailyKos.com and Jerome Armstrong of MyDD.com. When Lamont was introduced as Liebermans challenger, more than one person in the room shouted obscenities at the mention of the senatorڒ‘s name.

Lamont later called Truthdig to talk about his insurgent campaign; about what would have kept him out of the race; and how the law of supply and demand has informed his stance on Americas war on drugs.




Blair Golson: How do you reconcile your relative lack of political experience with your ambition to be a U.S. senator?

Ned Lamont: The Senate should not be a sinecure for career politicians. Somebody who started up a business from scratch and someone who knows how hard it is to be a small businessman in this country, who works with employees over a period of years and knows the trials and tribulations of families, and how healthcare and pensions weigh on them—those are important experiences that are underrepresented in Congress. We have plenty of former attorneys general.

The excitement around your candidacy has been fueled in large part by bloggers, much the same way as was Howard Dean’s presidential run. How has that dynamic affected your efforts?

Im very appreciative of the blogs. IҒ‘m coming at this race as a bit of an outsider, with not high name recognition, and who cares passionately about the issues, but when I talk to the mainstream media, its all about process and money and delegates. It was the blogs who said, “Hey, there are compelling issues out there, and lets see how Lamont stands.Ғ” Whatever the blogs reputation, they opened the door to more serious discourse than the mainstream media did.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By J Young, September 10, 2006 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Correction in my last post.  We haven’t spent over a trillion dollars in Iraq.  Its over 300 billion.  Congressional budget office predicts that if we stay in Iraq until 2009, it will be over a half trillion.

Report this

By J Young, September 10, 2006 at 7:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rachel, sorry that you’re bored, hon, but this post is more relevant now than it originally was in April.  And it will be at least until November.

Although Ned Lamont has been categorized as an anti-war candidate, what he really is is an anti-Iraq war candidate.

There is more than enough evidence from former members of the administration (Richard Clark, Paul O’Neill, etc.) that plans to invade Iraq were being made LONG before 9/11 ever happened.  What they simply tried to do is make a connection, false that it was, between Saddam/Iraq and Bin Laden/9/11.  This was officially refuted by Senate Intelligence sub-committee last week (duh…) and even by dubya himself.  Only dubya wants to blame “bad intelligence”.

The most likely reason that dubya had a bug up his butt about Iraq was the supposed Saddam plot to assasinate George HW Bush.  Dubya took this personal.  Not that he shouldn’t have, but lets be honest about our real reason for the involvement in Iraq.

Problem is…  he dragged the entire country into this personal war.  He sent our dedicated, hard working troops into this mess when we needed them (and still do) to find and remove bin Laden.  He spent over a trillion dollars of our hard earned money on this debacle.  (well, ok, we didn’t have the trillion dollars, so our kids and grandkids will be paying for this for the rest of their lives.)  In the mean time, huge companies are getting tax breaks.

And all the while, the republican (including Lieberman) Senate and House sat there and shook their heads up and down every time dubya asked for something.  When dubya and his cronies did something illegal, they simply asked congress to make it legal for them.  The heads went up and down.

If you like the way things are, vote for Lieberman or your favorite republican in your state or district. If not, look for the alternatives.  There are no guarantees that things are going to get better with a democratic house and senate, but I can guarantee you that things will only get worse if republicans stay in power.

Its got to stop.

Report this

By rachelle, September 8, 2006 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

One thing about Truthdig, it tends to keep the same posts waaayyy too long. How long must I read this blog by Ned Lamont?

Thanks Ned, but really.

Report this

By Guitarsandmore, September 5, 2006 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would love to hear Democrats argue that we will not reinstate the draft.

“We lost money on the last few jobs but that’s OK we’ll make up for it in volume.”  It was a funny joke we used to tell each other at my last job.

But it’s not funny when you are talking about a war and asking more and more young Americans to give up their lives because the first three years of this war haven’t gone so well.  We’ll just escalate the violence and the number of soldiers in the fighting. No. And not just no but hell, no.  That was what happened in Vietnam.  Did everyone forget?

“You’re just throwing good money after bad”. I used to tell this to my customers who I could see we’re making bad investments and needed to change direction.

We need to change direction in Iraq and get out.  Bush needs to sit down with the president of Iran and talk.  He is too busy listening to Hizbolah and basing his decisions on Hizbolah without even sitting down with the president of Iran (who is asking for a meeting by the way) once. Bush is a horrible politician and the whole world is mad at us.

Let us not try to make up for our losses with more volume and let us not continue to throw good money after bad. When a sinking ship is pulling you down you have to know when to cut it loose and get the hell out.  Those who can’t say that might as well go line up with the Republicans.  I have no use for them. And while we are cutting the sinking ship loose we need to cut George Bush loose as soon as we can.

Impeach the president

Report this

By maryam fritsch, September 4, 2006 at 11:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I haven’t had the time to check out the running arguments at this website but just got a sample today.  It appears that too many writers don’t have the courage of their conviction enough to write their names.  Cowards!  I’m already on the ADL lists so I can be brave, beaten and unbowed and withstand their arrows of outrageous fortune.  But seriously, I find very little on prime time shows of enough interest that I’m willing to look at $BigBucks$ Lieberman and Johnson.  Thank God for LaMont and his largesse and great REAL AMERICAN SPIRIT. Besides his ancestry his attraction politically is that he isn’t beholden to AIPAC and others whose agendas back preemptive war and fear propaganda.  These same people wish to make the USA into a grand playground for the rich with the rest of us relegated to low-paying service jobs at the luxury hotels, restaurants, Disneyland-and-world, and casinos.  Either that or employment in the factories which produce armaments or extremely hazardous military duty in fighting their preemptive wars throughout the world.  The poor are the first to fall and the middle class who cannot get a decent education is not far behind while the rich are getting richer and richer and richer and richer !!!
You may argue that Lamont is rich but he speaks truth to power and so far he’s not one of the Washington lackeys of the ilk of L & J.  Whether he too is willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or not is strictly up to him and GOD.  But you can be sure the corrupted power in Washington will do their most evil to get rid of him one way or another. An encouraging word:  I live in a town where 95% of the voters decided to challenge power in a recent referendum vote and WON.  It can be done!

Report this

By Shag, September 3, 2006 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I certainly don’t mean to knock him. I knew he reminded me of someone, Warren Jeff, the polygamist.

Report this

By Hondo, August 31, 2006 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So what you are saying is that all of the leadership from the GOP on getting Civil Rights legislation passed, despite intense opposition from southern Democrats, doesn’t matter because of some spooky concept called “political inertia?” What kind of liberal B.S. is that? Advance forward in your history book. Today, black ownership of business and homes is at an all time high, the number of blacks on welfare is at an all time low, and there are more blacks serving in important positions in our federal government than at any time in American history. Why? GOP control of both houses of Congress since 1995 and GOP control of the White House since 2001.
By the way, all this liberal anti-Semitism fits right in with comments by Rev. Jesse and other prominent libs. Way to toe the party line, Der Fuhrer!

Report this

By OntoHondoAndHisMerryBandOfAipacHacks, August 29, 2006 at 10:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To elucidate further —

I said: “The changeover BEGAN in the 1960s. It didn’t happen overnight. It wasn’t really clearly underway until the 1968 Nixon campaign.”

Some events in that changeover:

* 1964: Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

* 1964: Because of this, arch-racist Southern Democrat Strom Thurmond changes his party affiliation to GOP;

* Also in 1964, Barry Goldwater, a staunch opponent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is the Republican candidate for President. Goldwater does not prevail (possibly because Southern racists are often anti-Jewish as well? — just guessing…), but this casts the mold for future GOP campaigns.

* 1968: the Nixon campaign, in its famous “Southern strategy”, enlists aid of Strom Thurmand in going directly after anti-civil-rights Southern white voters, under the guise of “states rights”, drawing enough Southern whites away from the Democratic party to win the election — jumpstarting the development of the new Republican South that we have today.

The GOP simply calculated that it would attract more voters than it would alienate if it made itself more welcoming to white racists.

And that’s what they’ve done now with respect to Jewish chauvinists like you.

You’re a key component of the so-called “South Park Conservatives”: nasty, brutish, arrogant, casually sadistic bullies: just the sort of utterly debased people who belong in the party of Might Makes Right.

Report this

By RevoltedByIsrael, August 29, 2006 at 9:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By the way, Hondo, I don’t hold that “anybody who supports Israel’s right to self defense is a hateful, murderous creep or a right-wing, pro-Israel fanatic”.

Israel’s grotesque orgy of spiteful destruction and murder in Lebanon was not “self defense,” you NaZionist Not-See hack.

Report this

By StillTiredOfObtuseIsraelHeads, August 29, 2006 at 7:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #20223 by Hondo:

You still don’t get it. The changeover BEGAN in the 1960s. It didn’t happen overnight. It wasn’t really clearly underway until the 1968 Nixon campaign.

There is tremendous inertia in these political demographic shifts. Historically, Southern whites were hostile to the Republican party because indeed it was the party of Lincoln. But by the end of the 1960s, the direction was clear: white southerners were going Republican,especially in national races, and blacks were moving to the Democratic column.

But of course you know this. You are a typical Israel-for-brains political hack, whose chief strength is fanatical persistence. You “win” arguments simply by wearing the other person down with your stubbornness and total inability to feel ashamed of yourself. To hell with you.

Report this

By Hondo, August 27, 2006 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To TiredOfNeoConsArguingInBadFaith—- I don’t know who your high school social studies teachers were, but they clearly didn’t teach you doodley-squat about U.S. History. The simple, undeniable fact is that during the 1960’s there was no better friend of the Civil Rights movement than the Republican Party. Go to the link http://www.martingop.org/civilrights.htm for an outstanding account of GOP assistance to the civil rights movement.
As for your point at the end of your screed, which is that anybody who supports Israel’s right to self defense is a “hateful, murderous creep” or a “right-wing, pro-Israel fanatic”—-I believe that the mindless bigotry in that statement stands on its own and serves to prove everything I have written about the modern liberal.

Report this

By Jaded Prole, August 26, 2006 at 4:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton is cut from the same mold as Joe Leiberman and there too exists a progressive alternative. We need to rally in support of Jonathan Tasini in his attempt to unseat her. This would also build the progressive momentum needed to move the Dems in a principled progressive direction.

Report this

By Robert M. Castle, August 23, 2006 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If it is good for Lieberman …

Lieberman is a good example of an American Jew who places the teachings of the neoconservative persuasion next to those of the Old Testament and who devoutly subscribes to the premises that if it is not good for Israel, it is not good for the United States; if it is good for Israel, it is good for the United States; if it is good for the United States and not good for Israel, call in AIPAC. One can honestly state that AIPAC controls the legislative branch of our government and the neocons the executive branch when it comes to matters affecting Israel.

Lieberman is one reason why an increasing number of gentiles are being labeled anti-Semitic for no reason other than that they oppose neoconservatism and those that support it.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld brought many of their neocon buddies into our government where men like Bolton, Wolfowitz, Perle and others acting like a fifth column systematically rewrote the Bill of Rights and Constitution and unilaterally declared that Bush is not bound by the rule of law.

Lieberman has sacrificed his electorate and the country to which he swore allegiance to the brutality and savagery of the neocons and their draconian policies.  His run for the Senate as an independent while holding himself out to be an “independent Democrat” running as the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party has been endorsed by William Kristol, the son of Irving Kristol who is known as the Godfather of neoconservatism. It is reported that Kristol made a $500 cash contribution to Lieberman’s campaign.

Lieberman has by word and deed shown how little he cares for our old-time American democracy. He belongs in Bush’s camp. He is a neoconservative-Republican. (If he had been elected vice presidengt, the Whiehouse would be in Israel.)

Report this

By TiredOfNeoconsArguingInBadFaith, August 23, 2006 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HONDO says: “In the 60’s it was the Southern Democratic caucus which filibustered civil rights legislation and it was the GOP that defeated that filibuster. “

That was simply the last gasp of the OLD order, as you know damn well.

The night the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, with DEMOCRATIC President Johnson’s signature and support, he said to Bill Moyers, “I think we’ve just delivered the South to the Republican Party for the rest of my life, and yours.”

By “the south” he meant the white south, and this was indeed what happened. The Democratic party went on to champion the Voting Rights Act and other pioneering civil rights legislation, against increasingly racist Republican opposition.

There most certainly was a massive shift of Southern white voters to the Republican party, a shift whose beginnings date from that time —as well as a massive shift of the black vote to the Democratic column. What the hell do you think caused it?

With every one of these historic shifts, the Republicans become more truly and purely what they are: the natural political home of bigots and bullies.

In our own time, GOP strategists like Rove have taken a fresh look at the political landscape and asked themselves: “Now, let’s see: what chunk of the Democratic party rightfully belongs in our camp?...

“Why, of COURSE! The right-wing pro-Israel fanatics! Those hateful, murderous creeps would surely feel more at home in the party of ‘Might Makes Right!’ and ‘I’ve Got Mine, So Screw You’! ”

Report this

By Hondo, August 23, 2006 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To FedUpWithZionistCrap—No, my statement is not complete crap. Let’s look at the facts.
Fact #1—Hezbollah has said publically that they will not rest until Israel is completely destroyed and all Jews are dead or converted to Islam.
Fact #2—Hezbollah launched missles at Israel.
Fact #3—When Israel began to vigorously defend herself, the nations of Islam, and the U.N., and the mainstream media, and the international liberal community, and the Democrat Party all took the side of Hezbollah. The standard response among all of those like-minded groups was that Israel had no right to defend herself, Jews were responsible for the conflict, and the murderous thugs of Hezbollah were in fact “freedom fighters.”
In summary, one group of terrorists promised a second Holocaust and liberals all lined up on the side of the terrorists. Seems pretty clear to me. Democrats want a second Holocaust.

Report this

By FedUpWithZionistCrap, August 23, 2006 at 9:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Why in the world would any American Jew ever vote Democrat, when today’s Democrat Party so clearly favors a second Holocaust?”

Oh please.

That’s complete crap and you know it.

Report this

By Hondo, August 22, 2006 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To HorrifiedOnLooker—You need to check your history before you start talking about it repeating itself. In the 60’s it was the Southern Democrat caucus which filibustered civil rights legislation and it was the GOP that defeated that filibuster. Here in the 21st Century it is the Democrat Party that says that Israel has no right to defend herself against murderous terrorist attacks. Good grief! Why in the world would any American Jew ever vote Democrat, when today’s Democrat Party so clearly favors a second Holocaust?

Report this

By HorrifiedOnlooker, August 22, 2006 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

History is repeating itself, with a twist.

In the 1960s, the Democratic Party lost part of its base, namely white Southern voters, as Republicans aggressively set out to attract white bigots opposed to black civil rights.

Now the Democratic Party is losing part of its traditional Jewish constituency as the Republicans aggressively set out to attract racist Zionist Jewish voters who are essentially American Likudniks.

The Republican Party is always a cobbled-together coalition of the corrupt and the nasty.

The GOP can only enlarge itself occasionally by peeling away some part of the Democratic base — by appealing to the worst in people.

Report this

By J Young, August 19, 2006 at 9:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Actually, there is nothing incompatible with social responsibility and fiscal responsibility.  Unfortunately, that message got lost in Howard Dean’s I had a scream speech a couple of years ago.

Hondo, we’re not enemies, bud.  We just see things differently.  The problem with anger and cynicism is that it even turns off the people that agree with you (I found that out the hard way).

Lets just hope that all the screwups that happened in the past 6 years can start getting fixed.

Take care,
jy

Report this

By Hondo, August 17, 2006 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For those of you who pay such close attention to the polls, have you seen the latest from the great state of Connecticut? Lieberman has a double-digit lead over Lamont! Now, admittedly, I don’t put a lot of stock in most polls because they are so easily manipulated. But it was interesting to hear Lamont, after the poll results were announced, start talking about tax credits for businesses. That sound you hear would be the “winds of politics” blowing Lamont a little bit to the right! Hilarious!

Report this

By J Young, August 17, 2006 at 10:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You’re not quoting facts, Hondo.  You’re quoting polls (accurately or inaccurately).  Don’t confuse the two.

You have a lovely day too. (And I do genuinely mean that.)

Report this

By CanSomebodyPleaseStopAIPAC, August 15, 2006 at 8:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #18450 by Hondo:

Your delusions are as unshakable as they are contemptible. History is about to crush you. You will probably never know what hit you. But that’s OK — as long as you’re gone.

Report this

By Hondo, August 15, 2006 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To J Young—It sounds to me like you are saying that I can quote all of the facts I want, it won’t change your distorted liberal worldview. Very intelligent! Best wishes to you and yours in the future.

To the others who dispute the facts I have presented—You are distorting the facts in an attempt to justify your bogus view of reality. Let’s take a look at the facts, shall we?
Comment #18092 states that a majority of Americans (60%) believes that Bush lied AND that it was wrong to invade Iraq. A poll run by the NY Times and CBS News (how’s that for fair and balanced?) is cited, and it says that 52% of Americans think Bush lied. Then you admit that Bush’s approval rating was 53% at that same time. Question—-Does it make sense that 53% of Americans approved of the job Bush was doing when, at the same time, 52% (not 60%, by the way) thought that he was a liar? Answer—-No, it doesn’t make sense. Obviously, the NY Times/CBS News poll was bogus (big surprise there!).
Then you go on to cite many other polls which show, among other things, that Americans don’t like the way the war is being fought, Americans believe that we still are at risk for terrorist attacks, and that Americans are evenly split on whether or not taking action against Iraq was the right thing to do. This is a very different thing than your original premise, which is that a significant majority believe that Bush lied, and a significant majority think that the war was wrong from the beginning. I will continue to rely on the only “polls” that have any significance, and that is the ballot box. In 2004, the Democrats hammered Bush on all of the points that you are making today, and yet 63 million Americans voted for 4 more years. Congressional Democrats, earlier this year, were asked to vote yes or no on immediate surrender. With one eye focused firmly on the ballot box, most Democrats voted to continue the fight. That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Believe it!

Report this

By NeoconsAreEVIL, August 15, 2006 at 4:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The Republicans have no lunatic fringe because they are all lunatics. ...  Good grief, wake up and smell the depleted uranium shells.”

Guitarsandmore’s got it right.

Report this

By Guitarsandmore, August 14, 2006 at 10:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Republicans have no lunatic fringe because they are all lunatics.  Ann Coulter is their cheerleader- er-uh- no that’s Bush, the one who kisses Democrats and holds hands with Arabs while walking through the garden together.

The foiled plot from last week is proof positive that the war on terror will be won by good police work and good detective work and not by full scale invasions of countries.

That was the philosophy of Hitler; “you are either with me or against me.”  “ to question the Nazi party is to be unpatriotic”.  “We are going to invade every country in Europe because they might be a threat to National security.”  That was Hitler speak and now it is Bush / Cheney speak.  Good grief, wake up and smell the depleted uranium shells.

Report this

By RepulsedByIsraelsBrazenMurderOfLebanon, August 14, 2006 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

OK, Hondo, now for the coup de grace.

Concerning the matter of Bush’s deception:

In “a New York Times/CBS News Poll taken just a few days after his “Plan for Victory’’ speech in Annapolis…More than half of those polled—52 percent—said the Bush administration deliberately deceived the public when it made its case for war with Iraq; 44 percent said it did not [link below].

And THAT was when Bush still had a job approval rating of 53%!!!

Public opinion on Bush and his war has soured considerably since then, quite obviously.

SO LET’S REVIEW:

47% say we were wrong to go into Iraq in the first place, 52% or more of the country says we were lied into the war, 59% say the war is not worth fighting, and 63% say the Iraq war doesn’t make us safer from terrorism.

The ONLY question left is the somewhat intangible matter of “anger”. But as I said before: given how horrible war is, how can one be mildly, unangrily against an ongoing war that one believes (1) was a bad idea in the first place, (2) was sold to the public with lies, (3) isn’t worth fighting, and (4) doesn’t make us safer?

Only a sociopath could believe these things about the Iraq war and not be angry about it.

So these angry people cannot be a “fringe” of just one party. We are certainly a sizable chunk of the whole damn country!

So why do you call us a “fringe”? Because you’re a LIAR.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/notebook/

Report this

By HadItToHereWithNeoConGame, August 14, 2006 at 4:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By the way, Hondo—

In that latest Newsweek poll, they didn’t ask “All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?”

The most recent poll asking THAT question is the latest ABC poll, taken just before the Newsweek poll.

The result?

“Worth fighting”: 39%;

“NOT worth fighting”: 59%

So, you see, we have polls that ask in three different ways whether the Iraq war was wrong in some fundamental sense:

Wrong to go in in the first place: 47%; Not making us safer: 63%; Not worth fighting: 59%

And this is ALL Americans, not just Democrats. Yet you calim that anger about the war is just a “lunatic fringe” of one party.

There’s a word for someone like you who makes such claims. The word is LIAR.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Report this

By HadItWithIsrael, August 13, 2006 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo writes the following, which I take up with tongs, holding my nose:

“That 60% figure you cited is a bald-faced lie…”

I said “around 60%,” which may be pushing it just a little, but not much. Your “lunatic fringe of the Democratic party” is the bald-faced lie.

Let’s look at the exact numbers, with URL’s, shall we? (I notice you didn’t cite any sources or URLs - small wonder, Chosen One.)

I said around 60% consider the Iraq war wrong and that the Bush administration lied us into it. That’s two items. I don’t want to make this too long, so for now I’ll just destroy you on the first item:

(1) “The Iraq war was wrong.”

There are various ways to measure this. The Iraq war was supposed to make us secure, so if people say it doesn’t, that would be a measure of its wrongness, in their opinion.

The very latest Iraq poll at pollingreport.com is from Newsweek.

Newsweek asks: “In general, do you think the Iraq war has made Americans safer from terrorism, or not?” Answer: 63% NO, 32% yes.

OK, so how about asking:“From what you know now, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or not?”

Answer: 49% yes, 47% no (up from 46% yes, 49% in the poll reading just before)

So, the proportion of the TOTAL population who consider the Iraq war wrong, in one essential sense or another, is between 47% and 63%.

And that’s not Democrats - that’s the WHOLE country.

We can assume the numbers are much more anti-war for Democrats. Now it also seems logical that, given that war is such a horrible thing, a high proportion who are against it are likely to be ANGRILY against it. After all, how can you be MILDLY against a huge exercise in killing and destruction that you say is wrong and hasn’t served its supposed purpose — unless you’re a sociopath?

That is in no way a “fringe,” much less a “fringe” of one party, you shameless liar and traitor.

This is already too long and it’s late, so I’ll tackle the question of deliberate deception — just sit tight, Israel-For-Brains….

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Report this

By J Young, August 13, 2006 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo, It sounds like you’re just pissed off because the neo-con lunatic fringe on the right is finally going to lose power.  You can quote all the numbers that you want, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are dissatisfied with the administration, they are dissatisfied with the war, they are dissatisfied with gas prices and the economy, they are dissatisfied with the fact that the US is losing their influence in the world, and they are tired of the direction this country is going in.

And most of all, they are tired of right wing extremists acting as faux patriots telling them that exercising their good old American right to free speech is anti-patriotic.

Americans aren’t as dumb as you and your Rovian cohorts think.

Report this

By Hondo, August 13, 2006 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To OntoTheNeoconConGame—-That 60% figure you cited is a bald-faced lie, and proof positive that you and all of your comrades in the lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party are complete strangers to reality. What the polls show is that 60% of Americans are dissatisfied with the progress of the war, which is a very different thing from the lie you told (shame on you for lying; didn’t your parents teach you any better?). Some of that 60% believes that Bush lied us into war, and that the war was a mistake from the beginning, and that we should cut and run immediately, but only about 2 in 5 of that 60%. That leaves a significant majority of that 60%, plus the 40% of Americans who favor “full speed ahead”, who at least partially support the President. How do we know this is true? Because when the House took a vote on whether or not to cut and run, over 85% of the Congressmen voted against surrender. That tells anyone with even half a brain that the Congressmen knew what a vote for cut and run would mean at the ballot box in November. If you want to disagree with any of my opinions, go right ahead, but don’t tell lies to try to make your point.

Report this

By OntoTheNeoconConGame, August 13, 2006 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Hondo” says: “Certainly I underestimated the fury of the lunatic fringe of the Democrat party. “

“Lunatic fringe”? Bullshit! About 60% of ALL Americans believe the US invasion of Iraq was wrong and that the Bush administration “deliberately deceived” us into it.

How the hell can you call this the “lunatic fringe” of Democrats? Listen close, Mr. Israel-For-Brains: it’s not a “fringe — it’s the MAJORITY OF ALL AMERICANS.

If you and Joe Loserman don’t like, you can go tell it in Tel Aviv.

Report this

By toppers, August 13, 2006 at 5:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My vote for Lamont on Tuesday was a vote against Lieberman. Lamont’s an unknown quantity, but Lieberman’s had more than enough time to show us what he’s about. Sticking w. the W. & the Iraq war. He hasn’t done anything positive for CT in a very long time.

It all started when Lieberman didn’t give up his seat while running for natl. office…that was enough to sway this CT citizen. Also such a sore loser on election night, still blaming his opponent, ready to split the votes going Independent. This guy can’t give up his seat after 18 years!  Am glad to hear anyone Dem or Republican bring up Healthcare. Lamont may be unproven but so far, he has my agreement on the major issues & will get my vote.

Report this

By J Young, August 11, 2006 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In Joe Lieberman’s newest ad here in Connecticut(since he lost the primary), he states that he is tired of the same old politics in Washington.  He’s been part of the same old politics in Washington for the past 18 years!  What is he thinking???

Oh yeah, he also says that he wants to end the war.

I guess that’s his newest campaign strategy.  Lie.  Even though I disagreed with him in the past, I used to at least respect him.  I can’t even do that now.  Its sad.

Report this

By Robert G Johnson, August 11, 2006 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bob Gardner thinks the registered Republican voters were dumb.  The prize goes to Ned’s daughter who was turned away because she wasn’t a registered democrat.  110 radio CBS.

Report this

By Hondo, August 11, 2006 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, I was certainly wrong. I thought that the good folks of Connecticut would vote for Lieberman. How wrong was I? Certainly I underestimated the fury of the lunatic fringe of the Democrat party. By the way, Ed Koch and Dick Morris both wrote very interesting columns analyzing the Lamont/Lieberman outcome. Those columns can be found at http://www.newsmax.com and I also have them posted on my blog.
As wrong as I was in my prediction, I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I didn’t base that prediction on my own insanity. Judging from the other posts on this site, many of you don’t have that same satisfaction. Some of you actually think that the foiled terror scheme was a fake story designed to make Lamont look bad? Others think that Lieberman is part of some vast right wing conspiracy? Good grief! Insanity is alive and well on the left wing blogosphere!

Report this

By H Patterson, August 11, 2006 at 11:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So now we see another GOP move - split the vote with two fairly popular candidates, then sneak a Republican in to snatch the seat.  This in fact happened in Arizona during a governor election (sometime during the late 1980’s}, and this resulted in the election of a Republican car dealer from the Phoenix area.  Meecham was the winner but was later recalled because of some improprieties during his first year.  Now this tells me that Lieberman was maybe closer to the GOP then we would suspect.

Report this

By Bob Gardner, August 11, 2006 at 9:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ned won in Weston, CT, where I live and where, for the first time, I worked at the poll all day checking in voters for the Democratic primary. Don’t want to say anything to offend anyone, but we had to turn away dozens of registered voters. The problem: they came to vote for Joe. But couldn’t because they were registered Republicans. “You mean we can’t vote for Joe?” Sooooo dumb.

Report this

By Guitarsandmore, August 10, 2006 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anti War candidate wins – Weapons factories declare RED ALERT !

Lamont wins over Lieberman and the next day: RED ALERT !!!

The timing of these events is very interesting.

The police have been investigating a terrorist plot for many months and then just happen

to decide the day after the ANTI WAR candidate wins to announce:  RED ALERT!.

Shouldn’t it read more like:

“Profits for Haliburton are threatened: RED ALERT ! “

“Profits for Big Oil are threatened:  RED ALERT!”

“Profits for weapons factories are threatened: RED ALERT!”

Report this

By Robin Coppelman, August 8, 2006 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And myself also,eh Dad,but only ,like you strive for,before you,and as well my other sibs.Wow,what kind of a man utters that?

Report this

By Meme, August 8, 2006 at 9:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh, lord, I wish I lived in Connecticut right now—just for today, just for a chance to vote for Lamont. Imagine: a Democrat with a spine—possibly an endangered species.

Report this

By Hondo, August 8, 2006 at 8:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I will repeat the prediction that I have made elsewhere on this blog. Lieberman will defeat Lamont in today’s primary. I just don’t believe that the good people of Conn. will throw a man of such great integrity as Joe Lieberman out of office. Remember, you heard it here first.

Report this

By Joe Bangler, August 6, 2006 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Senator Lamont is definately going to represent CT first and the USA not the state of Israel first and the other way round. We need this change to show these people that we mean buisness come November and 2008. No more sorry losers Lieberman can easily get a job from AIPAC or just become a Senator in the Israel Knesset. We can’t have a Senator like that in Ct or the US period!!!!!!! Joe you got to go we need Ned now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By John, August 6, 2006 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think there is another factor, in addition to Iraq, that has dragged Lieberman down, and that is his long standing dogged promotion of Israel’s agenda in the Middle East. Many people have come to a sense that Lieberman’s mighty support of Bush’s war in Iraq has more to do with the agenda of Israel than to the vital interests of the United States. He has come to be seen as a mouth-piece for Israel, no matter the consequences to America - and that is plain un-American!

Report this

By Ozone, August 6, 2006 at 5:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey Folks,
Remember that kiss proffered on Joe Blow-hard by Smirky McFlightsuit (Death Merchant) hisself?
Boy do I wish somebody would run a 15-second ad with that as it’s ONLY image and a voice-over something to the effect of: “The pResident just loves Joe… why do you suppose that is?  Think about it; then cast your vote for Ned Lamont…”
That would just be KILLER!  Talk about your proverbial “kiss of death” (in more ways than one… or two… or three).

Report this

By J Young, August 2, 2006 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The way I look at it is it is pretty simple.  If you think the country is headed in the right direction and things are going well, then vote for the status quo, i.e. Lieberman.  If, on the other hand, you think the country is in a heap of trouble and needs a lot of fixin’ (as I do), then it makes more sense to vote for change.  And that’s what Ned Lamont represents.  Progressive change.

Report this

By Kimberly, August 2, 2006 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Lieberman’s seniority in the senate is a plus for the Democratice party? Hah! Good one.

Pray tell, when has he used that heft he packs for the greater good of this country? With Alito? The bankruptcy bill? The energy bill?

If Lieberman votes 90% with the Democrats, you can bet that 10% he hasn’t is what’s at the crux of this race. He has not represented our best interests in matters that could truly benefit by his seniority. Not once.

I’m voting for Lamont, rather than the devil I do know.

Report this

By Richard, July 25, 2006 at 10:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I predict a loss for the Dems in the mid term elections and 2008. Dems are incapable to taking control of House and Senate. They are a bunch of losers. Time to vote all the old bastards out. They have no issues, or leaders even the one man I respected Clinton came out supporting JL for his support of Bush and the war.  One of the main reasons DEms lost the 2000 election was the VP’s Jewish background. That was Gore’s mistake. As a Dem I want all the old boys with their tired old ideas out of our government. Both the Clintons and other Dems support of Israels hegemony is reason enough to start a progressive, liberal wing of the party.

Report this

By artichoke, July 25, 2006 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m certainly a fan of government by amateurs.  It should be a calling, preferably for a few years after one has matured in life, and after service in government one returns to “real life”.  It should not be a profession.

What benefit do we get from professionals?  Did they read the Patriot Act before approving it?

Report this

By C. Daitz, July 25, 2006 at 9:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is astounding to see the abuse a moderate Democrat like Joe gets from those in the supposedly more open-minded Democratic Party.

    Lamont deinitely seems to care solely about the one issue he can do the least about in any capacity: Iraq. If he has a solution, I’d be happy to hear it, but I predict he’ll vote for the special procurements along with all the other Senators. I also see another bait & switch Weicker in him, and definitely not worth the prospect of losing all the Seniority Joe has garnered and used for our benefit.

Guess i am not a fan of government by amateurs

Report this

By artichoke, July 22, 2006 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In this election I might have to register and vote for Lamont.  It’s an act of desperation.  We’ve got to stop the murderous foreign policy of Bush; pray that we can.

I would prefer not to vote for someone who was born to the class of the super-rich, with a guarantee of lifetime wealth.  (Good point about this, Roger G. Johnson.)  Regardless of a candidate’s views on issues, I just would prefer someone to whom more of life’s challenges are real, not theoretical; someone who has had to face fear and necessity.  Maybe this is just my pride, not wanting to let someone wealthy get further ahead of me; I don’t know.

I haven’t voted in 20 years.  I have abstained because I did not want to endorse our political system.  This is the system that allowed W to rise to prominence and steal two elections to take over the Presidency.  My sincere response to the usual choice we get between Tweedledum and Tweedledee was to abstain and not to add to the total votes cast.

But now all that matters is to settle things down before nukes start flying.  Lamont promises to vote to extract us from Iraq.  I think that on other questions of foreign policy, he’ll be a pacifist whereas Lieberman wants to go shed blood.  Lamont might make some good votes, whereas I know that Lieberman would vote to turn more people and countries into hamburger.  So I’m a single-issue voter: to hell with every other consideration, just try to get off the path to Armageddon.

Report this

By John Bahlinger, July 21, 2006 at 7:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have never been a big fan of Joe Bush, I mean Lieberman, and in the beginning of this race with Ned Lamont I knew very little about Ned and really just had the opinion of anybody but Joe.  Now that I have learned about Ned and what he stands for, I am convinced that he is the change we need in this Senate seat.  Joe Lieberman is completely out of touch with what’s going on in Connecticut and in the world.  Hopefully Ned will have a solid win in the primary and that it will carry over in to the election in November.
If Lieberman is re-elected it will just show that the majority of Americans have no idea of what’s really happening and things are just going to get worse. (How much worse can it get?)
Go Ned

Report this

By Mark, July 18, 2006 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Each of the fifty states has two Senators in our Congress. Only Israel, the unofficial fifty-first state, has nearly a hundred - of which Joe Lieberman is the most fanatical. Getting rid of him will be a good start, but only a start.

Report this

By zenseeker, July 15, 2006 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Go Ned!  Have you guys seen the flash game Slap the Truth out of Joe Lieberman at http://zenwire.com/flashmedia-slaplieberman.php.
If you can score above 200, maybe you will see the truth, if you can get over 400, you are godly!

Report this

By JIm Schroeder Jr, July 14, 2006 at 2:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You have a chance to get rid of JL, who has become a Bush lap dog.  I always supported JL, but somewhere he lost his way like many of the career politicians.

Report this

By Robert G Johnson, July 13, 2006 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My wife and I are in our mid 60’s. We recently registered as Democrats for the first time. Our reason was to vote against JL and for Ned.  However somewhere between the registrars office and the ballot box we spotted a real phony.

Who is Ned Lamont? 

His company has lost two-thirds of their employes since 2001, his wealth is between 90 and 300 million inherited not earned and he is backed by Lowell Weicker.  Remember him.

Joe you have our votes.

Glad we registered.

Report this

By WARped, July 12, 2006 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You go Ned.  As for Joe- saying you have a more important loyalty than the democratic party - where is that loyalty? Israel??Isn’t that why you support Bushes foolish Iraq undertaking?-because Sharon told you to.  Get out of the Senate and move to Israel.  You won’t be missed here. And Ned if you win, help remove AIPAC’s influence on senators and representatives, and vote to end all foreign aid to Israel.  They are not our friend. Read the news today? Enough said.

Report this

By Danny Amass, July 12, 2006 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I find it rather irritating that those who support JL always say how principled he is blah blah blah.  It seems obvious to me that JL has lost the one principle every mother teaches their child on the rules of the play-ground. Learn to be a good loser!!! Maybe JL needs a refresher course on principles!!!!

Report this

By nancy rader, July 12, 2006 at 6:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

On 9/18/89, Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney ordeered his military commanders to develop new plans for a drug war.
On 9/18/89, Joe Lieberman wrote in the LA Times, that Executive Order 12333, a 1975 regulation forbidding US officials from ordering assassinations, was a serious hindrance.

Source: James Gibson, “Warrior Dreams: Paramilitary Culture in Post-Vietnam America”, 1994

Report this

By Richard McEvitt, July 11, 2006 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Joe Lieberman is one of the very few Democrats that is intelligent, honest, principled and mostly correct on a wide range of issues.  If more Democrats has as much integrity and thoughtful insight, perhaps Democrats (particularly Northeast Democrats) would not be so reviled.

Report this

By Tom, July 11, 2006 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Joe Lieberman is a traditional liberal Democrat but just because he has traveled to Iraq a couple of times and dared to write the truth of what he has seen instead of the defeatist propaganda that is expected from him by the leftists who have taken over the Democratic Party he is being ostracized and hung out to dry. How sad that the party of diversity has come to this. And just for the record I am a Republican who wou;d never dream of voting for Joe Lieverman. Regardless of his position on the war he’s still a liberal.

Report this

By DeanOR, July 11, 2006 at 2:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I believe that the constitutional qualifications to be a US Senator are that the person be at least 30 years old, should have been a US citizen for at least 9 years, and should be a resident of the State he or she represents. Clearly the intention of the Founders was that an ordinary citizen could run for this office, and Senator is not a lifetime position.
Lieberman does not seem to get this. He has become arrogant and an anti-democratic (small d and large D) Bush supporter who thinks dissent in “wartime” is unacceptable and that we should shut up and support the president. Lieberman, you do not own that office in the Senate - We the People do.

Report this

By J Young, July 8, 2006 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Joe Lieberman served Connecticut very well on many issues (not all) for many years.  Unfortunately, he took a wrong turn over an extremely important issue and doesn’t want to face the consequences of that decision.  Even more unfortunate is that he feels that he should be immune, without any accountability, for his positions.  Its as if he thinks he’s been knighted, not elected.  What this has unveiled is a somewhat ugly side to Joe Lieberman that comes as a surprise to many Connecticut democrats (and others) who have been Joe supporters in the past.  Even if you are not enthused by Ned Lamont (which many are), you have to be very disappointed with the way Joe Lieberman is handling the pressure.

Don’t count Joe out yet, though.  He’s got a big machine behind him.  Ned Lamont supporters need to get every vote they possibly can to the polls on primary day.  We have a most important message to send to the rest of the country.  We can reverse the madness.

Report this

By Andrew Pass, July 7, 2006 at 5:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Interestingly I contacted both the Lieberman and Lamont campaigns and identified myself as a blogger, in hopes of asking a few questions.  My phone call was returned by the Lamont campaign immediately and a few questions were answered.  The Lieberman campaign promised they’d get back to me and two days later they still have not done so.  In Web 2.0 you simply don’t have two days. 

Check out my website for a take on Lamont:
http://www.pass-ed.com/2006/07/senator-jospeh-liebermans-rival-ned.html

Andrew Pass
http://www.Pass-Ed.com/blogger.html

Report this

By Paul J. Ianni, July 3, 2006 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am so impressed.

Finally a man who seems to have the same values as I do on so many issues.

Straightforward, unconventional style with a lot of calones’.

Let me know how I can get involved to help the man and his ideas to move forward.

Paul J. Ianni
East Hartford, Connecticut

Report this

By Gracie, June 13, 2006 at 11:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What exactly IS Ned Lamont’s position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? What is his feeling about Olmert’s “Convergence Plan” and the Israeli leaderships convenient disinterest in bilateral talks with the PA?
Has Lamont ever been to the Middle East? Has he traveled overseas at all? Does he speak or have an understanding of a second language? If Lamont is successful and elected, are we going to find ourselves with another all American policy wonk?

Report this

By maryam fritsch, June 7, 2006 at 9:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

what’s with the url??? a message is a message only if it goes thru.  anyway, i agree with the person who asks Ned NOT to sell out.  that’s what JIL has done….how do you think he got the 5 mil in his account?  anyway, as to the question of where JIL will go if defeated..we all know he always keeps his options open like when he wanted to be veep more than he wanted to represent CT and since he has never really represented CT we all know that campaign was his usual ploy for more power.  now it’s quite possible that Rumsfeld’s hot seat is being kept warm for JIL ( those weren’t just rumors)  Folks can you imagine where we would all be if JIL was running all the preemptive wars???  either way, whether JIL is still the junior senator from CT OR directing the zionist wars in the world, get ready to do obiesence to Tel Aviv soon to be Jerusalem if JIL has his way. 

What do female voters think of a candidate who upon arising each morning thanks g-d that he was not born a woman?????

Here’s an old nursery rhyme parody:  Jack and JIL went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.  Jack fell down and broke his crown but JIL picked it up and became KING OF THE WORLD.  The Titanic ship of the State of the USA is sinking after suffering huge damage from a collision course with JIL’s navy. JIL hs been at the helm of His Majesty’s barge to oblivion.  Do we have enough lifeboats???

Ned Lamont is metaphorically throwing us all a life preserver.  Please Don’t miss it!!!

Regards,

Maryam

Report this

By Big Phil, June 5, 2006 at 3:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Is Lieberberg an Israeli?

Zionists go home. You are not wanted here.

Report this

By ruben, June 3, 2006 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to Steve who was talking about conservative Democrats and how the south is being forgotten. Political parties need to have an agenda and they need to have candidates who support that agenda, otherwise what would be the diffrence between being a Democrat or a Republican. I think liberals need to have a party and it shouldn’t have to be a third party. We just need to take back the Democratic party. Have candidates who support repealing the Patriot Act, not renewing it. Alot Dems made a big deal about it and then ended voting on a “compromise” and its not just on that, that seems to be the way on alot of things. They make alot of noise and end up voting the wrong way. I’m tired of all this moderate crap. Tired of all these Dems who go on these talk shows and say “I’m not a liberal, I’m a moderate”. Bunch of wusses.
I’ve rambled so much and I haven’t said anything about Ned Lamont. I live in Florida so obviously I can’t participate in getting this guy elected but I would love to see someone replace Leiberman. Who knows maybe his Republican opponent will actually be to the left of him. I mean if you didn’t know who he was and you saw hilm speaking on tv without that letter D next to his name you’d think he was a GOPer. But yeah Ned Lamont needs to get the nomination because we need that Democratic seat in the Senate to have the majority. We have it but we need a real Dem. And we need a Democratic majority that will actually do something and investigate one of the most corrupt administrations in history. Actually, I remember in that short period that the Dems had control after Jeffords switched sides, it was JL who was chairman of the Government Affairs committee and I saw him in a press conference with then Sen. Fred Thompson saying that they weren’t gonna do any “overkill” in investigating the Bush administration. We also heard something similar recently when Nancy Pelosi said that they would not impeach GWB if the Dems had control of congress.

Report this

By hillary sharpton mccain, June 1, 2006 at 12:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Lieberman is the man. we have to cut the head off of iran.

Report this

By G. Anderson, May 31, 2006 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Senator Liberman is in point of fact senator Palpatine.

Somone not to be trusted or to be believed.

Report this

By Carolyn McLaughlin, May 27, 2006 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am VERY pleased to read about a candidate who has a chance to unseat Mr. Lieberman.
I have read a lot of material about Mr. Lamont but have yet to read his stance on abortion. Can anyone on this site answer that for me and if so, direct me to a website where he answered or discussed this issue? TIA

Report this

By patricia g. smith, May 25, 2006 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“talk show Joe”  so aptly pegged by columnist Paul Krugman, must be defeated.  do the very least, get a Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate sign for your front yard…promote name recognition before August. talk to anyone and everyone who will give you a minute..it’s so critically important to rid this state of “talk show Joe.”

Report this

By AlanSmithee, May 23, 2006 at 8:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So this Ivy League millionaire Lamont loses the rigged CT primary, throws his support behind Lieberman and all the good little pwogwessive dems file into the booth to pull the lever for Joe.  Meanwhile all that “netroots” dough goes into Lieberman’s warchest and the dem pundits are left grumble before endorsing Joe as (somehow) ‘better than a republican.’

In other words, it’s the same crap as before.  Just more of it.

Report this

By Harris Contos, May 20, 2006 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now that there seems to be a hint of courage and principle amongst the Democrats (just a hint), a “No Mo’ Joe” to contrast with the “Mo Jo,” why not press the Democrats for something more: if you want control of the Congress in ‘06 and the White House in ‘08, make repeal of the so-called “Patriot” Act, dismantling of the NSA eavesdropping, and reversal of the unjustified classification of government documents a campaign promise?  Oops, I’m sorry, that requires principle and a commitment to civil liberties, and obviously a radical stance like that, returning the government to the people, is just laughable, right?

Report this

By TJ, May 20, 2006 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Okay!! Ned’s in the primary! Send him some love at:

http://www.actblue.com/page/netrootscandidates

CT primary is August 8! He needs major, MAJOR name recognition by this day.

Report this

By Deanne Grimaldi, May 20, 2006 at 7:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Connecticut—you have the ability to create ripples that will change the face of the Senate and the Democratic Party—
kick butt!

Report this

By Steve, May 17, 2006 at 3:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since when did the party become a home for ONLY liberal progressives who think and speak in goose step? What happened to the long proud herritage of the conservative democrat. The history and contribution have been swept aside and we have been told there is no room at the Inn.
Its wrong. The entire south is being forgotten because they don’t fit the mold. THERE as democrat as anybody else. Lets acknowledge them and welcome them back home.

Report this

By Janet Sawyer, May 6, 2006 at 10:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While watching Robert Scheer & Larry Flint
on C-Span, I learned about this site and am really excited about it.
Was amazed to learn that Lieberman has an opponent and a nifty one at that.  We have to get rid of JL ... he’s a mess!  Haven’t read a word about it in the little town in SC in which I live.  Charleston is pretty close - 40 miles - and its paper hasn’t carried anything either.  But, why would it?  Southerners don’t give a hoot about what happens up north.
Anyway, I’ll be pulling for Ned and watching for the results of the primary.

Report this

By Robert M. Castle, May 1, 2006 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sometimes I think Lieberman is the senator from Israel, that he owes his seat to AIPAC and the neoconservatives. Mr. Lamont was not asked how he would counter their effort to demonize him.

Report this

By Ackroyd Drattit, May 1, 2006 at 10:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I didn’t even like Lieberman in 2000, running with Gore. Imagine his taking sides against Clinton during that comical but catastrophic impeachment year! What a jerk. Today, after his votes and bootlicking, I can’t stand him. I’m sending money to Lamont…

Report this

By june cassidy, May 1, 2006 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

the country needs lamont in the u.s. senate.  lamont brings an intelligence and experience sorely needed in the senate.  it is time for lieberman to join the private sector and learn what working people experience in their lives.  indeed, joe needs experience in the private sector.and even more so he needs intellectual honesty!  finally, an honest man such as lamont will serve the interests of the united states.  lieberman does not!

Report this

By Richard Harris, April 30, 2006 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Although I voted for Gore/Lieberman, I have been very disappointed by GOP Joe since the 2000 Supreme Court coup.  We need a real CT Democrat in the Senate.  All sane NY dems will support Ned Lamont with their contributions and by spreading the word.

No GOP Joe in 2006!

Report this

By Jeanette Harris, April 30, 2006 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hello CT—I’m a NY’er and a Democrat. Please give us a Democrat and not the lapdog. Thanks for any consideration! We all love fresh air. Your choice could help all of us!

I wish the best to Ned and trust he will be supported as needed.

Report this

By albiegf 13, April 28, 2006 at 11:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME HOPE AND GOOD LUCK NED.  You’re going to need it against the crafty senator.  He has some very big, special interests behind him and I can assure you that this will not be a cake walk for you.  I will remember you and follow this race closely.  Just don’t sell out, even if it means loosing the election.  You’ll live to fight another day.

Again, Good Luck..!

Report this

By Lieb Joeberman, April 28, 2006 at 5:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can feel the “ned"mentum!  There are plenty of crony positions open at the White House (due to indictments).  Maybe Sen. Lieberman can get one of those after his defeat in the primary

Report this

By Greg Burrows, April 27, 2006 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We need to support leaders with Honor and Integrity.  This guy sounds like he has that and understands that this is supposed to be a government BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE and that means ALL the people.

Report this

By krose, April 27, 2006 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I sincerely hope that you win this Primary!  Lieberman does not deserve the TRUST of the PEOPLE of Connecticut!

Report this

By CV, April 27, 2006 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ritchie Kunnemann on 4/26 at 3:01 pm
How can I help to get this man elected???

Buzz him up. Every time you have to mention (NoMo)Joe, mention the popular challenger that’s got him running skeerd. And, of course, be ready to send money. Until the National Party swears off the DLC and huge corporate donors, the grass roots shouldn’t give’em a dime. But certain candidates are worth supporting directly.

(Sorry about the inadvertant emoticon, I never use them)

Report this

By CV, April 27, 2006 at 10:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ned Lamont spoke in our town in SouthEastern Connecticut a couple of months ago. He touched on a range of subjects including calling off the war and then opened the floor.  He was just starting to make the rounds and didn’t have a well oiled groove that he was following. It was refreshing to hear a candidate field questions and have to pause a few seconds to think. Some things were already settled in his mind and drew immediate, clear answers: asked if he supported gay marriage he just said “I do”. And, as in this interview, he comes to that from the almost libertarian view that the state has no bidnis in yo bidnis. (I couldn’t agree more)
He was asked about the influence of money on democracy, the influence of K-Street and the constant fundraising/bribemongering. He swore off Lobbyist contributions, he’s never accepted them. He supports Public Financed Elections “at some point in the future” and was interested in Instant Runoff Voting. Yay! (he also said he didn’t think that he would run for a third term,“12 years is enough” but he’s not a proponent of Term Limits)
The CT shoreline crowd of mostly older, conservative(in the old school) burghers went away with the feeling that he was genuine, that he was thoughtful and that the decisions he made were the right ones. Green issues count here and he was generally in the right place.
Since then, he’s been speaking wherever he can gather a crowd and impressing those that show up. He doesn’t get the kind of media attention that he should, Hapless Joe is an “Old Friend” to the local papers and Tv, but once he’s on the ballot, things ought to get interesting. He’s got a groundswell of Connecticut Democrats starting behind him.
(in the interest of at least partial disclosure, I am considering working for Lamont’s election, but I’m more inclined to work for Lieberman’s defeat, along with Rob Simmons’ and I’m not sure that Ned would be well served by my association;)
Keep watching this guy, he will need help through the summer to drive W’s bitch out of the Senate and out of the Democratic Party.
Go Ned! GO!

Report this

By a rose is a rose, April 27, 2006 at 6:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

joe MUST go, period, end of sentence.

i heard mr lamont speak just prior to his actual declaration (for the senate run).

he said many of the same things he said in your interview BUT your interview captured more and current information. a very thorough interview if i do say so myself.

i will link to your post   at my (connecticut) blog:  http://nutmeggrater.blogspot.com

thanks for interviewing mr lamont!

Report this

By Simon Jester, April 27, 2006 at 6:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here’s something interesting:

According to a recent poll, President Bush’s approval rating in CT is down to 24%.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/04/25/presidents_rating_drops_to_24_percent/

That’s a good eight points below the average on his last national poll.

And as we all know, Senator Lieberman hasn’t exactly been trying to distance himself from either President Bush, or his policies in the past few years. 

What once were coattails…is now a millstone?

Report this

By Bob Renwick, April 26, 2006 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I sure am behind you 100%, Ned.  I’ve been so disappointed in Lieberman.  Your interview was terrific.  I just wished I lived in Connecticut.  The very Best of Luck to you!!

Report this

By Ritchie Kunnemann, April 26, 2006 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How can I help to get this man elected???

Report this

By Robert Coppelman, OD, April 26, 2006 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When Sen. Lieberman was running for president, I was dismayed at some of his utterances, in terms of his dragging religion into the campaign and in trashing some of his Democratic opponents, as well as his pro-war position on Iraq. It is my opinion that the Democratic party would be well-rid of him.

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook