Malloy Denies Going Negative with new TV Ad...

"It's a contrast piece!" (4.00 / 3)

Sure thing, Dan.  We get to contrast your intentional mistruths with the facts. Nobody was laid-off; the reductions were because LDS sold off a portion of it's business, and the employees went with it.

It was a lie four years ago when Joe Lieberman said it, and it's still a lie today, Dan.

But this is politics "Malloy-style".  What's truth got to do with it?

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 22:55:42 PM UTC

Words (0.00 / 0)

Since we're holding everyone to the facts - does the ad say someone was laid-off?

---

by: GrandOleVipers @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 23:09:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's playing into an old Lieberman storyline... (0.00 / 0)

If you want to parse that "reducing his employees" doesn't convey a message of workers getting laid-off,... well, I guess you're welcome to!

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 23:14:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But he DID reduce his employees (0.00 / 0)

Can someone please show me where this has been disproven?  All I have read is that 'laid off' was not true.

---

by: GrandOleVipers @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 23:18:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you being child-like on purpose? (4.00 / 1)

Yes, you're absolutely right.  He said "reduced". I was wrong.

Maybe he was actually implying that Lamont murdered 70% of his employees! Hey, one kind of reduction is as good as the next, you silly goose.

You know as well as I what the intent of the ad is.  

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 23:35:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the Ad Hominem (0.00 / 0)

I'm legitimately curious if he reduced his workforce or not and why? This ad has been called lies, is it a lie?

---

by: GrandOleVipers @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 00:03:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right, I apologize (3.67 / 3)

I'm not really an ad hominem kind of guy. Sorry about that.

You wanted sourcing, here's a bit from the Lamont campaign, with a verifiable link:

Claim: My opponent doesn't have that experience, in fact he reduced his employees by more than 70% while paying himself a huge salary. Don't you think CEO's behaving that way is what messed up our economy in the first place? I'm Dan Malloy and I approve this message.

Fact: The decline in Lamont Digital's work force resulted mostly from the company's decision to sell off some pieces of the company in the early 2000's. Lamont personally worked to ensure that every employee affected was taken care of.  Many employees kept their jobs, joining the new owners of the cable system they worked for, some took compensation packages, and others started their own businesses with Lamont's help. (emphasis mine)

Joe Lieberman made exactly the same false claim in 2006, and the Hartford Courant debunked his attack, saying Lieberman played "loose with the facts in a commercial attacking Lamont's business ethics."
(SOURCE: http://articles.courant.com/20...

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 00:09:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the link (0.00 / 0)

So here's what I found in there regarding LIEberman's ad:

The Lieberman campaign, meanwhile, plays loose with the facts in a commercial attacking Lamont's business ethics. The ad says Lamont laid off 68 percent of the employees at his cable-television company, Lamont Digital Systems, then paid himself a salary of $546,000.

``So, when Ned Lamont claims he knows how to run a business,'' the narrator says, ``remember how he ran his business.''

The ad cited an Aug. 3 story in The New York Times. The Times never reported that Lamont laid off so many employees, though it did report ``some layoffs'' and that Lamont downsized from 125 to 40 after selling off a subsidiary.

Lamont's campaign said Thursday that Lamont Digital's employment never exceeded 95. In April, Lamont told The Courant that his workforce dropped from approximately 100 to 35 this year.

Less than one-third lost their jobs to layoffs, and many others moved to other companies that bought the residential business, the campaign said.

In his 2005 tax returns, Lamont reported earning $546,000. But the Lieberman campaign has no way of knowing his salary -- the company is privately held -- when the company began to downsize after 2001. The Lamont campaign says his salary as the company downsized was $188,000.

``They don't want to talk about how their new ads get their facts dead wrong and slander Ned Lamont's record as a job-creating businessman in Connecticut,'' said George Jepsen, chairman of the Lamont campaign.

Lieberman's campaign stood by the ad.

``If Ned Lamont would like to publicly release his company's records, we will happily review them,'' said Tammy Sun, a Lieberman spokeswoman. ``Until they are willing to provide actual evidence to support their claim, we have no reason to believe that The New York Times is wrong.''

I am still only seeing the only thing debunked here is how Lieberman claimed that Ned laid off 68% of his work-force as opposed to the 'some layoffs' that was truthful.

The rest of the article is sound clips from the Lamont campaign - is there any other independent or official information on this?  I ask seriously (this seems like something mattw would be able to dig up).

I just see campaign statements.  Don't get me wrong, I get what Malloy is implying.  Is it warranted? I think if we have anything that is independently substantiated about Lamont's company, then we will know, right? He is running on being a businessman.  So is Tom Foley, and fortunately, we're able to see a little bit about what kind of businessman he is.

That said, Dan's jobs record is equally fair game.

---

by: GrandOleVipers @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 00:23:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shoe other foot... (4.00 / 2)

"In today's tough times we need a man who knows how to create jobs in the state. Dan Malloy lead Stamford as it shed over 13,000 jobs while cities around it were experiencing job growth. Is that the kind of job creation leadership CT needs?"

It's a fact. Was Dan responsible? Well, he takes responsibility for creating jobs, and therefore the shedding of them must be his responsibility as well.

Do we really want to see advertisements like this?

I guess Dan doesn't mind if we do because "It's a contrast piece."

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 23:35:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Destefano in a Dress" Down the Memory Hole (0.00 / 0)

What is the deal with the infamous "Destefano in a dress" ad? Nobody can find a copy?  Is it gone forever down the memory hole? Where's wikileaks when you really need it?

---

by: abg22 @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 23:32:27 PM UTC

Oh, I think it's around here somewhere... (0.00 / 0)

Just isn't the right time for it to see the light of day...yet. ;)

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 00:11:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm working on grabbing the video (0.00 / 0)

I have the real video stream but I'm having trouble converting it...paging Scarce!

---

by: ctblogger @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:03:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm? Link? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 14:05:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just saw the ad on MSNBC... (4.00 / 1)

and it made me furious!  Dan might as well hire Joe LIEberman's campaign manager if this is how he's going to conduct his campaign.

 

---

by: Harriet @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 00:18:06 AM UTC

actually (0.00 / 0)

not the campaign manager, but I believe he did hire Lieberman's consultant/pr.  

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 00:26:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you're right... (0.00 / 0)

Is Dan that desperate that he would stoop this low?

Granted, I am a Lamont supporter, but I always said that I would support whoever wins the primary.  Not any more!

---

by: Harriet @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 00:43:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whoa (0.00 / 0)

I remember when you and Dan were undecided after that Glassman appearance. That's a big change!

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 02:43:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not so much undecided anymore! (4.00 / 1)

Hi Matt, both Dan and I are upset with Malloy's lies.  His desparate attempt to win at any cost will cost him our support for sure.

---

by: Harriet @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 13:49:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With his lying... (0.00 / 0)

and smug hypocrisy, Malloy seems to be morphing into Lieberman before our eyes.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:28:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am disappointed (4.00 / 1)

 It is sad  too see such savaging within the final days.Usually the savaging leaves both too bloodied  too win against the Republican.I hope it isnt the case here,but time will tell.

---

by: BruceRubenstein2 @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 15:15:49 PM UTC

Well, (4.00 / 1)

at least the Republicans are savaging each other right now, too. That Fedele ad about Foley and Bibb is a gift to the eventual Democratic candidate.

---

by: da0802 @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 15:58:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the ad (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 16:36:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

damn (0.00 / 0)

can we just re-run that in three months?

Better yet -- for three months?

---

by: leaveonlyfootprints @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 17:29:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lamont's issues with layoffs. (0.00 / 0)

Here is the breakdown that seems to be accurate concerning Lamont's issues with layoffs.

Since 2002, Lamont's business employees dropped by 57%.
Of those former employees, who are no longer working with Lamont,
Only about 33% were laid off.
The other 67% found work somewhere else "voluntarily".

The above is extrapolated information from an October 2006 Huffington post article written by a volunteer supporter of Ned Lamont's candidacy who became a paid Lamont for Senate campaign research staffer.  He quoted his Sources as:

Hartford Courant, 10/13/06; Lamont Digital Systems salary records; New York Times, 8/3/06; LDS employment records.

---

by: KeepLeft @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 20:19:27 PM UTC

It Doesn't Matter (0.00 / 0)

 WHatever dirt is flung  from the 2 candidates staff,it doesnt matter..both are very moderate candidates at best.

---

by: BruceRubenstein2 @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 15:46:07 PM UTC