#navbar-iframe{opacity:0.0;filter:alpha(Opacity=0)} #navbar-iframe:hover{opacity:1.0;filter:alpha(Opacity=100, FinishedOpacity=100)} Ed's Daily Rant: 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006

Because face it.
I'm right, and you're wrong.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

This article in today’s Courant was interesting for a few things. First, it points out the whiny, defensive attitude of the Lieberman people. But more importantly it shows there newest campaign tactic (after unveiling the “we’re not negative, but if you vote for Lamont it emboldens terrorists” meme). The article was about right wing conservative Dan Gernstein who has become “Independent Democrat” Joe Lieberman’s communications director.

This struck me:

This is a camp that mocks Joseph Lieberman's wife and kids and we make one honest mistake that we own up to and they jump all over it. I can send you documents that show how much more negative they are than us, how they continue to resort to these kinds of tactics. ... It's not even a close call."

What? Really? Lamont’s campaign is mocking his wife and kids? This is news to me. But then I read this later part and it all became clear:

Actually, it's very much a sunset, as pro-Lamont bloggers gleefully pointed out. They even tracked down the video used in the ad on the Getty Images Web page. Clip 843-2: "Wide shot sun setting over ocean/ birds walking along water's edge/ Santa Barbara."

"Wow," said Gazeena, the helpful customer rep at Getty Images. "That's too bad."

There is a 30-day return policy, she offered. But it's only good for half the purchase price, somewhere around $1,000, she said. "And if it's already been used, I'm not sure that applies."

Apparently that's not going to be an issue; Gerstein said they were going to continue to use the ad.

"Of course we will," he said. "Why in God's name wouldn't we, just because Ned Lamont's people reflectively attack us? That's just insane."

So that explains it. To the Lieberman campaign, a “pro Lamont blogger” is considered “Ned Lamonts people”. Interesting considering Joe “Independnat Democrat” Lieberman just invited right wing Republican Jack Kemp to campaign for him. Kemp then went on TV and called Lamont supporters “sad and pathetic”. Way to go Joe.

Of course I can’t wait for “Liebermans people” meaning everyone who expresses mild support for his campaign, to say something outrageous.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Joe Liebermen in Todays Courant:

My opponent Ned Lamont, represents the old politics of partisanship, polarization and negativism.

This is the same Joe Lieberman who said this:
"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

But Don't worry, Joe unlike Ned, has a clear plan for Iraq:

I believe that the best way for us to win the war in Iraq is to come together - the administration, Congress, and Republicans and Democrats - to find a solution that will allow our troops to come home with Iraq united and free, with the Middle East stable and the terrorists denied a victory.

THe best part of course is the title of Joe's op ed. It's entitled "Team Player". Before the primary when Ned was ahead in the polls, Blill Clinton, Diane Farrell, Chris Murphy and a host of other CT Dems were campaigning with him and supporting him. Now that Joe lost the primary he has abandoned the Democratic party, and now this:

Lieberman -- who after losing an Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont has launched a third-party bid to hold onto his seat in the Nov. 7 general election -- was asked whether he still endorses Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy, three Democrats looking to unseat endangered Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson.

"I'm a non-combatant," Lieberman declared. "I am not going to be involved in other campaigns. I think it's better if I just focus on my own race."

Team Player my ass. The only thing Joe cares about is Joe.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski, stung by accusations of arrogance and stubbornness, lost his bid for a second term Tuesday after polling last in a three-way GOP primary.

I wait patiently for David Brooks to pen a column about the coming “conservative inquisition” and telling us how horrible it is that the Republican party is now “purging” people for “insufficient moral purity”.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Lieberman campaign’s new tactic.

First this:

John Orman, a Fairfield University political science professor and a former Democratic candidate in the Senate race, filed complaints with the Secretary of the State's Office and the State Elections Enforcement Commission accusing Lieberman of creating "a fake political party" to resuscitate his re-election bid.
"He's doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot," Orman said.
Lieberman campaign spokesman Dan Gerstein said Lieberman has followed the law in his re-election campaign. "This is dirty politics at its worst," Gerstein said of Orman's complaint

Then this:

Critics asked a New Haven election official to remove Sen. Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party on Monday, a request which could potentially lead to a hearing in which the longtime Democrat would have to argue that he still adheres to the principles of the party.

The group, whose members described themselves as peace activists, said Lieberman cannot belong to the Democrat Party while running for office under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party banner. (AP)

“The purge campaign launched today by Ned Lamont’s supporters is dirty political tricks at its worst, ranking up there with the outrageous tactics that Katherine Harris and the Republicans used in 2000 in Florida to stop all the votes from being counted.

SO Joe Lieberman loses the democratic primary, then leaves and runs as an independent knowing that Republican support will help him win, and if anyone questions whether or not he should still be called a Democrat, it's "dirty politics at its worst". Lieberman knows that relying on Republicans to turn out to the polls to vote for him will hurt the three congressional candidates who have a shot at winning this year, but he doesn’t care. He just wants to be senator again, no matter what. Would you concider that "dirty politics"? No?

Then how about saying this:

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril,"

Or maybe something like this:
“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

A vote for Ned Lamont only makes terrorists happy. You stay classy Joe!

If a Quinnipiac poll comes out showing Lamont ahead I expect to hear Joe's campaign manager accuse the university of engaging in "dirty politics at it's worst". Or if someone serves him soggy frosted flakes he will accuse Kellogg of engaging in "dirty politics at it's worst". or if Hadassah doesn’t give him oral, she’s engaging in, well you get the idea.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Sometimes you forget how frightening it is to have a president so utterly incompetent. Then things come by and shock you out of your complacency.

First this:

The White House made a big to-do about President Bush's meeting Monday with four outside experts on Iraq. Spokesman Tony Snow held the meeting up as proof that the president is interested in -- and consistently exposed to -- different points of view, and even dissent.

But the only thing that meeting demonstrated is that true dissent is still not welcome at the White House, unless you define dissenters as anyone who doesn't agree with the president on absolutely everything.

By all independent accounts, none of the academics who were granted an audience with the president Monday criticized his fundamental approach to Iraq. At most, they suggested minor course corrections.

And none of them told him what he evidently refuses to hear: That it's not working.

I've written a fair amount about the Bush Bubble over the past nearly three years. And it seems to me that, with a tiny handful of exceptions, the bubble is still fully operational.

When it comes to Iraq in particular, Bush has no interest in engaging in genuine dialogue with people who disagree with him -- even though polls suggest those people now represent a large majority of the American public.

He has no interest in actually arguing the merits of his approach, or substantively defending against the increasingly focused critique by congressional Democrats.

Rather, he describes his approach in platitudes, and uses inflated rhetoric to mock the made-up arguments of imaginary opponents. He counts on the skillful use of imagery and human backdrops to deliver his very simple core message -- "I am protecting you" -- without actually making his case.

He hides behind the presidency.

Then this:
More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.

Our President is utterly and completely clueless. has been since day one. The only question is, how can we minimize the enormous damage he is doing for the next 2 years?

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

According to the CT Secretary of State, CT has 699,502 registered Democrats and 453,715 Republicans. But look how the New York Times spins it this morning:

In a state where Republican and independent voters make up a majority of the electorate, Mr. Lieberman is still developing a message about bipartisanship, but his aides say it will involve adopting positions from both parties and being willing to criticize Democrats as well as Republicans.

Well, yeah if you add in independants. But you do the same to Democrats it results in even bigger numbers, so that is deliberatley misleading.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Senator George Allen. Racist caught on tape. The best part is when first asked about the Senators blatant racism, his campaign manger "dismissed the issue with an expletive and insisted the senator has "nothing to apologize for," "

Then when they realized his racism was being noticed they backtracked and said, oh, when he said macaca he wasn’t using it in the way it has normally been used as a racial slur. No no, he was referring to his haircut which was a Mohawk and it just came out wrong! OF course the kid doesn’t have a Mohawk. he does however have darker skin than the good senator.

Here’s the video. Notice all the other good ole boys laughing and clapping. That'll teach that dirty macaca!

Friday, August 11, 2006

Bill Kristol cuts to the heart of the matter:

That is the meaning of Connecticut Democrats' likely repudiation of Joe Lieberman. What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

What he said.

Also, from talking with people I know, and the candidates themselves, all the major CT demcorats will support the legitimate Democratic nominee. Meaning, Not Joe Lieberman.

Finally at least one Republican who is honest. From the republican primary debate regarding who is going to lose agianst Hilary in November:

While married to another woman, Spencer fathered two children with his then-chief of staff and substantially raised her salary. He eventually divorced his first wife and married his chief of staff.

So with an opening question from debate moderator Dominic Carter about whether a candidate's personal life should be off-limits, the responses got very personal, very fast.

"That's something that, in 1998, the Republican Party impeached President Clinton for exactly the same behavior," McFarland said to gasps from the audience. "If you'd been in the military, you would have been court-martialed. If you worked in the federal government, you would have been subject to indictment."

Cheating on your wife. An impeachable offense. Why couldnt Clinton have done the right thing and instead engaged in illegal wiretapping of american citizens without a warrant, ignoring laws passed by congress, torturing prisoners, etc.. At least then he would have been safe.

I am an awesome blogger. I am from CT. Therefore I must weigh in with my opinion about Joe Lieberman. Only I’ll do it with about half of the self righteous annoying stupidity of the Lamont bloggers (Can someone tell “Kos” to just leave CT and never come back?).

I am somewhat tangentially involved in CT politics through friends and relatives in the great state of CT (The land of steady habits!). CT has the enviable position of having 3 congressional races in play in November. That’s 20% of what we need ot take over the house. CT is a big player this year.

Now, I held my nose and voted for Joe Lieberman for many reasons. He is apowerful senator with a lot of experience and has pull on powerful committees to get things done in the state of CT. Yes I disagree with him on a number of issues including the war. Yes he’s an arrogant ass who thinks he’s entitled to his seat. And worst of all, he’s a Jew and therefore personally responsible for all the wars in the world.

Also I voted for him because him running as an independent makes it a lot harder for all the other candidates (Joe Courtrey, Chris Murphy and Diane Farrell) to win in November. It has to do with how the ballots are set up, how the independent run will suck up all the oxygen, the idea of a unified fronted, etc.

That being said, Lieberman lost fair and square. Primaries mean something. He went around for years saying he would never leave the democratic party. He talked endlessly of how proud he is to be a democrat. Now when he loses, he’s switching to independent so he can use the republican vote to get back in office and then switch back to a dem once he gets there.

Fuck you Joe. You lost. You left the party. You’re dead to me. I may not be a huge Lamont fan (and seeing Al Sharpton standing behind him at the acceptance speech didn’t exactly endear me to him) but he is our candidate. He gets my vote. Joe just needs to bow out gracefully and then get a cabinet position on the Bush administration like he always wanted.

Search WWW Search edsdailyrant.blogspot.com