Lieberman Approves Gutter Politics

Lieberman approves gutter politics. (0.00 / 0)

That seems to be the "news" in this ad.

Well, good for Joe. He's comes right out and admitted that he's descended to the gutter.

(Great job, Spazeboy!)

---

by: BranfordBoy @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 14:41:06 PM UTC

Gutter Politics (0.00 / 0)

I like that better, so I'm changing the headline here.

|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|

---

by: spazeboy @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 14:44:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also worth noting (0.00 / 0)

Is that, while Joe approves this message, he is too ashamed to post it on his web site.

What a moral coward.

---

by: BranfordBoy @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 14:44:54 PM UTC

YouTube (0.00 / 0)

If you're running Windows and you've updated your flash player within the last couple of years you should have no problems. (Sufi had to do that the other night and it takes about 30 secs).

If, however, you're using an older Linux operating system you may experience problems. Update to a more recent version and install the appropriate video codecs. YouTube video's do play fairly easily on the majority of Linux machines but you might experience an audio delay of 1 second.

Google video (also flash based) is less friendly to Linux users. I don't know if it works at all.

---

by: Scarce @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 14:59:03 PM UTC

I've added the ad to Nedheads (0.00 / 0)

Screw Joe.

---

by: Scarce @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 15:03:02 PM UTC

gutted politics (0.00 / 0)

The Lieberman ads (this and othres) are just plain weak. They are old fashioned and stodgy. They prove the point about how out of touch Lieberman is.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 16:38:06 PM UTC

Odl-fashioned (0.00 / 0)

All that' missing is a red sharpee drawing horns and a tail on Lamont.

Pretty weak stuff, and no context or sourcing.

Compare that with any attack ad on Lieberan, which can gleefully include the text of an entire speech or interview without fear of losing any of its impact.

Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. - L. Cohen

---

by: inkadu @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 16:52:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Negative campaigning (0.00 / 0)

at its worst.

If Joe is so sure of himself, why doesn't he run an ad telling all the things he's done for the country and for Connecticut instead of resorting to this sort of sleaze?

---

by: connecticut yankee @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 16:53:20 PM UTC

I'm waiting for Lieberman to make an ad touting how successful the Iraq war has been (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman's idea of what is good for CT is not the same as ours.

---

by: Larkspur @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 17:38:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More evidence of Lieberman's hypocrisy (0.00 / 0)

Diving back into An Amazing Adventure (2003, Simon & Schuster), there is another tasty morsel exposing Lieberman's double standard (page 148):

I was amused remembering how Lowell Weicker had responded to my closing the lead he had on me with a few weeks left in the campaign; he attacked votes I had cast seventeen years before. It almost worked.

That's his emphasis, not mine. It's clear he believes old votes are irrelevant. But whenever the tactic works for him, suddenly it's all right. Whenever the tactic works against him, however, it's a ridiculous thing to do.

Good ol' double-standard Joe.

---

by: OrangeTownBlueDem @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 20:31:05 PM UTC

Negative attack ads can be effective (0.00 / 0)

Given the general lack of knowledge of the average voter, I think such attack ads can be very effective. I don't think we should be so dismissive of them.

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

---

by: sufi @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 21:28:16 PM UTC

a negative ad late in her campaign (0.00 / 0)

killed Diana Farrell's fight against Chris Shays. Just saw the Lieberman ad on Channel 8 - (hey, I didn't know that Lamont voted for asbestos!). But it followed Ned Lamont/Kos - there was no comparison.

---

by: Sue @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 22:29:40 PM UTC

Anybody here (0.00 / 0)

giving a house party? I'm thinking of doing one in Trumbull.

---

by: Sue @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 22:30:22 PM UTC

considerations (0.00 / 0)

I am thinking about giving one, too: have you had experience with asking people to come and do the "friends and family" thing?  I'm a little shy about that... what do they say?

Jane in Guilford

---

by: gsingjane @ Tue May 30, 2006 at 19:46:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The standard strategy (0.00 / 0)

is to invite twice as many people as you can accommodate on the theory that about half won't show up.

I've done this (altho not for Lamont). It's pretty painless and kinda fun.

---

by: BranfordBoy @ Tue May 30, 2006 at 20:03:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and this from Atrios: (0.00 / 0)

Speaking of Lieberman

Oh my:
So much to get up tonight. We’ll start with an introduction of Senator Lieberman by a veteran at the Memorial Day parade in Waterbury earlier today:

“Joseph Lieberman has served, he’s in his 18th year. And, ummm, as the expression goes, ‘maybe we’ll keep him there until he gets it right.’”

Joe walked the parade route with a Republican Congresswoman.

---

by: Sue @ Mon May 29, 2006 at 23:20:06 PM UTC

Moral Equivalence? (0.00 / 0)

Gee, voting against removing asbestos from Greenwich High, or voting for sending our troops into a years-long commitment in a war of choice. I think I'd take the asbestos.

Of course, sometimes the safest thing to do with asbestos is leave it alone in place, and disturbing it creates both a potentially greater health hazard, and a financial nightmare.

Since I graduated from Greenwich High almost 30 years ago, and don't have mesothelioma yet, I'd say the hazard there is much smaller than being deployed in Baghdad.

---

by: biggerbox @ Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:58:39 AM UTC

Hey! (0.00 / 0)

I was in the class of 73'! Bella House! And still alive and kicking!

---

by: Sue @ Tue May 30, 2006 at 10:47:02 AM UTC

I'd really like to know the details (4.00 / 1)

I understand who is voting in the primary and who is likely to be swayed by this ad.  But when I'm out here talking to people about Ned and they say, 'yeah, but that ad joe ran...." I want to be able to defend Ned with facts--not with a whine about Joe's sleazy tactics.

Can someone please fill me in?

---

by: fezzik @ Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:58:34 PM UTC

History (0.00 / 0)

I imagine Lowell Weicker has a few choice pieces of advice for Ned and Tom Swan on how to respond to an opponent who dredges up your record, knowing that taken out of the context of the times the allegations will be hard to refute. In fact, any refutation which doesn't declare them as complete lies and fabrications looks weak. Weicker didn't respond well in 1988. I'd guess he'd like nothing better than Joe to get his comeuppance in 2006.

---

by: Scarce @ Tue May 30, 2006 at 14:33:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heres the Details,Lieberman was LYING (4.00 / 2)

Lamont voted against the ENTIRE High school project because he thought 45 MILLION DOLLARS was rediculously overpriced for the project.The 2 million for Asbestos Removal was part of the larger 45 million project.

  Joe Lieberman,
  He can't sven spell his name without an LIE .

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed May 31, 2006 at 02:06:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lieberman Attack Ad (0.00 / 0)

Its really pathetic that Lieberman is appearing so hypocritical now. It just makes me hate him even more. I don't like negative campaigning, and I wish every politician would end such praticies. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem you can run a clean campaign and win, because the other guy will be dirty and end up winning for it.

Just out of curiosity, whats the truth behind what Lieberman is saying about Lamont in the ad?

---

by: apollo2011 @ Tue May 30, 2006 at 21:08:36 PM UTC

Joe the desperado (0.00 / 0)

The ad which says "now you know the real Ned Lamont" is a real hoot. Joe, you don't really want to go there, do you? The people only know you too well. (voted for cafta and nafta, bankrupticy bill, school vouchers, against Alitos filibuster, for Roberts, for Bush's energy bill - that ad is a real beaut, where you been all your life Joe)

---

by: oriole fan @ Tue May 30, 2006 at 21:28:36 PM UTC