Joe Goes Negative

Going negative early (0.00 / 0)

Joe learned a lesson from one of his early losses. You can't wait to go negative. You have to respond fast and hard. I guess it's just another case where he takes after the Republicans.

---

by: OrangeTownBlueDem @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 05:03:37 AM CDT

How pathetic. (0.00 / 0)

Joe's harping about stuff Ned did THIRTEEN YEARS AGO in a town that is something like 99% Republican.

Plus we know how bogus those 'he/she voted to cut ...' or 'voted to increase...' claims are.  For all we know those cuts could have been attached to a vote that would have inreased funds to something far more vital than a $28,000 cut in the Dept of Social Services in Greenwich or HEAVEN FORBID $14,000 from a museum.  $14,000 is pocket change for people down there.  They can make that up with one small donation from someone.

I bet if we go through Joe's record we'll find far more egregious offenses which happened far more resently than THIRTEEN YEARS AGO.  Heck all we need to do is go back thirteen weeks.

And that phony 'letter'?  Well I already commented here.

Like I said before, what a fucking hack.

---

by: DisNoir36 @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 05:24:44 AM CDT

well (0.00 / 0)

Since Lamont hasn't been in public life *since* then, what else is there to go on?

It's a good mailer.  Take your opponent's purported biggest strength (he's the "real Democrat") and undercut it directly rather than agree with the framing.  Worked against Kerry, for sure.

---

by: Adam B @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 14:18:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It would work better (0.00 / 0)

if Joe wasn't guilty of the same garbage he's accusing Ned of.  And to to p it off he's not only guilty of the same crap but has done it more recently and done it in far more serious situations. 

If any Democrat seriously believes that Joe is more progressive than anyone other than George Bush, then that Democrat should move to Texas or do all of the rest of us a favor and not vote.  Hopefully they'll move...and take Joe with them.

---

by: DisNoir36 @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 17:09:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well (0.00 / 0)

George Bush's lack of a military record didn't hurt his efforts to attack Kerry's military record.  The whole point is to make this argument a wash, that both candidates have, at times, worked with Republicans -- and force Lamont to use another attack instead.

---

by: Adam B @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 18:08:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If Joe is using Rovian tactics (0.00 / 0)

then maybe he should join his fat ass on the other side of the aisle.  Make it official once and for all.  It's shameless and pathetic, and to be frank, I don't know how many Democrats fall for that shit.  By and large active participants in the Democrat party who will actually vote in a Dem primary are a bit more knowledgeable and sophicticated than the target of Rovian tactics usually are.  Not many Dems fell for the bullshit attacks on Kerry (it was the people in the middle who were still undecided in August of 04, only 3 months before the elections) and not many will fall for the same kind of bullshit attacks on Lamont.

---

by: DisNoir36 @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:08:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pathetic attempt by a desperate man (0.00 / 0)

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:14:11 AM CDT

LMAO (4.00 / 1)

Well, I guess we can finally consign all that "man of integrity" nonsense to the dustbin of history.

---

by: BranfordBoy @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 07:24:42 AM CDT

Joe Sanctimonious - the politics of fear (0.00 / 0)

Rediculous illogical OpEd in the Courant today “Lieberman Deserves Boot – But He Shouldn’t Get It”.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-chait0511.artmay11,0,4800465.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

Perhaps the craziest argument (lots to choose from) is that we should fear a defeated Joe more that having him in the Senate “If you think Lieberman is sanctimonious now, wait until you see him in defeat".

Joe is not a pretty picture now, with this latest postcard as an example. Perhaps worse in retirement or as a lobbiest...Trust me, We can take it!!!

Obviously the author is pro war, yet somehow trys to say he disagrees with Joe on foreign policy. 

The whole thing seems designed to hook the illogical.  Just like the Ierardi letter.

because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:07:28 AM CDT

OMG!!!!! (4.00 / 1)

Ned Lamont voted to cut the budget of a Greenwich museum by $14,000!

That is *SOOOOO* much worse than supporting a war and being George Bush's number one Democratic promoter of a war that is based on lies and resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis!

Why should I care about treating rape victims with decency and dignity?  Why should I care about massive tax giveaways to oil companies?  Why should I care about turning over the Supreme Court to anti-choice extremists!?! 

Lamont dared to support local budget cuts in a tight fiscal year - what a betrayal not only to the Democratic party but to the American public as a whole!

---

by: Maura @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:45:55 AM CDT

Diedra Ierardi (0.00 / 0)

If I'm not mistaken, Diedra was, at least briefly, a campaign advisor for Sen. Jonathan Harris.  I seem to recall hearing that they had a falling out not too long before he was elected.  Don't know a lot more about her.

---

by: nilocjin @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:46:19 AM CDT

Joe applies a double-standard (4.00 / 5)

When Joe talks about negative ads run against him in his Senate campaign against Lowell Weicker, he portrays these kind of attacks as unfair:

At that point, Weicker stopped ignoring me. He hit back with a barrage of attack commercials, portraying me the same way Larry DeNardis had back in 1980 - as a big-taxing big spender. One of those ads was technically accurate but didn't mention that the tax votes cited were cast seventeen years earlier, in 1971.
[Excerpted from In Praise of Public Life, available in dustbins everywhere]

The implication here is clear: old votes shouldn't be relevant to the current candidate.

So it's unfair when your opponent pulls votes from your old record, but not when you do it to him, Joe?

---

by: OrangeTownBlueDem @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 10:41:19 AM CDT

great catch! (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: thirdparty @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 12:47:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This will help (4.00 / 1)

We thought Ned would be attacked as too liberal - instead he is being attacked as too conservative! This will help!

Ned's biggest problem is name recognition. This will help!

Let's hope Lieberman puts out more pro-Ned literature!

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 12:05:27 PM CDT

Quick question (0.00 / 0)

What's with the claim that Lamont hired a former chair of the Republican party as a top advisor for this race?  Who does this refer to?  Are we talking RNC chair?  Greenwich RTC chair?  Something in between?  What's the backstory?

---

by: Maura @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 16:12:27 PM CDT

Must be this (0.00 / 0)

I googled the Paul Bass/Courant piece and found this little fragment:

Longtime Weicker hand Thomas D'Amore has indeed signed on as a consultant to Ned Lamont's Democratic primary campaign against U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.

That must be who they're talking about.  Name doesn't mean anything to me, but if he's a Weicker guy, that means that he's one of those Republicans who bolted with Weicker because the Republicants got too right-wing for them, way back in the 80s.

---

by: D for Demsbetta @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 21:51:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More on D'Amore from MyDD & '83 (0.00 / 0)

Read this.

Some good news from the Constitution State. First off, Tom D'Amore appears to be on board with Ned Lamont. There was a big discussion after Lamont met with D'Amore and Lamont remarked, "I don't know if I'm feisty enough for this guy." According to the Courant, Lamont is feisty enough:

Thomas D'Amore Jr., a former Republican who managed Lowell P. Weicker Jr.'s successful third-party campaign for governor, stood in the back.
He will act as an adviser to Lamont, who also has consulted with Weicker, the man Lieberman unseated in 1988.

If he comes recommended by the guys at MyDD and Weicker, he's my kind of Republican.  Excuse me – former Republican.

Oh - and here's the scoop on the party chairman bit:

THE REGION; G.O.P. Chief Quits In Connecticut
SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 25, 1983

Ralph E. Capecelatro, Connecticut's Republican state chairman the last three years, announced today that he would resign effective Feb. 22.

The resignation appeared to open the way for Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr. to install Thomas D'Amore, who ran Mr. Weicker's reelection campaign last fall, as the new party chairman. Mr. Capecelatro said he would support the selection of Mr. D'Amore, who runs a real-estate and insurance business in New Hartford.

Mr. Capecelatro said the party chairman should make a commitment to serve through the 1986 gubernatorial election. He said he was not prepared to make that commitment.

The Republican State Central Committee will elect the new chairman, and it was not clear whether other factions of the party would challenge Mr. D'Amore.

Yeah, 1983.  He was state party chairman on account of being a Weicker loyalist back in 19-fricking-83.  Bottom line?  Ned's picking up the Republicans who have run away from their party because of its extreme right-wing tack.  So why is Joe Lieberman running toward these same extremists?

---

by: D for Demsbetta @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 22:05:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great question n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Maura @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:28:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Makes sense (0.00 / 0)

My parents are both very loyal Democrats, but they liked Lowell Weicker a lot.  When Weicker endorsed Howard Dean for President in 2003, it was the first time my elderly dad really took a look at Dean -- Weicker's support made him take Dean seriously. 

If D'Amore is Weicker's kind of former Republican (feisty, socially progressive, fiscally responsible) I'll take him over Lieberman any day!

---

by: Maura @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:31:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

These claims look extremely bogus (0.00 / 0)

First of all, the BET claim is completely off.  By town charter, there are 6 Dems and 6 Reeps on that board, and that's how it shows up on the ballot.  If Lamont ran with only 5 Republicans, that means they were short one.

I can only assume the rest of the claims are similarly bogus.

I wasn't in Greenwich in '93, so I don't know what was going on back then.  Apparently there was some very serious budget-cutting.  Which would make Lamont – a fiscal conservative.  Ya know what, that's even better.

And when it says that Ned agreed with Republicans 80% of the time, so what?  These are Greenwich Republicans we're talking about, not Judge Roy Moore. They're pro-life, pro-gay rights, you name it.  The major difference I have with them is that they think only working people should pay taxes, while the rich (i.e. them) get off scot-free.  OK, that and the war and torture and whole neoconservative horrorshow, but the Republican Party hadn't turned into the Reactionary Reign of Terror back in 1989 (they only had a few sideshows going).

And if anyone thinks Greenwich is hurting for Libraries, Museums and Social Services, you got to be kidding.  Better yet, come on down and I'll show you the Bruce Museum (renovated since 1993) and the Greenwich Library – one of the best in the nation, big cities included, and it tripled in size in the 90s.

---

by: D for Demsbetta @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 21:34:28 PM CDT

green which? (0.00 / 0)

He's talking about the parts of the city that were near Bonjornos (yeah, I know that's near southfield village in Stamford, but that's close enough to the line to confuse Lieberman - and I couldn't remember the stuff on main street by the bowling ally... Damn I'm getting old and slowly losing what's left of my mind... I used to play at that bowling alley all the time and I can't for the life of me remember the name... and yes I know Bonjournos is gone now, just like Caldors and all my other landmarks. If it weren't for the Greek resturant on Bedford Street and One Landmark Square I wouldn't know where the Stamford library was... oh you mean the building next to the Starbucks?)


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 @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 04:10:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Soon you'll have a new landmark (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately, you'll soon be able to find the Ferguson Library because it will be a couple blocks away from the new TRUMP TOWER in Stamford.  It's disgusting.  It'll be taller than Landmark Tower, another $MillionPlus luxury condo highrise, something like the fourth tallest building in CT.  Disgusting.

And now they're proposing a huge new massive Home Depot right on the Rt. 1 border between Stamford/Greenwich, where a new Super Stop & Shop will compete with the huge (and awesome) new Grade A.  Poor Bonjornos seems like a quaint 7-11 compared to those (but at least Grade A is still sort of locally owned). 

The Home Depot, though, will effectively kill all the Mom & Pop hardware stores that are left in Stamford.  I hope we can find some people to join together and vigorously oppose it.

---

by: Maura @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:36:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

count your blessings (0.00 / 0)

at least it's not walmart.

walmart == bad
costco == good.

walmart does everything it can to screw the workforces and the community, costco is union and has decent benefits and a fixed markup (which might explain thier employee retention rates verses walmarts high turnover rates). They also don't lowball the manufacturers forcing them to go overseas to get the lowest labor costs to compete (which walmart does - see how they killed vlasic pickles).

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 @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:03:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]