FITZ!

aha, Fitz! Nec! Jane!

that was supposed to be NED, of course.

fitz! and ned

angie - it looks like ned if you squint, the ‘c’ and the ‘!’ make a ‘d’

I don’t remember who it was who pointed out that Joe is all gentility when debating Republicans, but goes for the throat against Democrats. It bears repeating, though.

“You can view photos, videos and get all the latest news!”

Now why would anyone in their right mind want to do that?

get all the latest lies is more like it.

twolf1– you’re a very kind and fast fdl’er!

How often do politicians admit they are wrong as opposed to the number that dance and spin and try to make a lie into a truth or at least an excuse

Lamont oughtta thank Joe for the great bumpersticker idea….and then start making them himself hehe.

No More Joe!

is “Ned” short for a longer name like Nedrick or sumtin’ ?

I’m trying to figure out CT campaign law, with regard to Joe having Dems collect signatures for a different party.

When I was a registered Republican, I wasn’t allowed to collect signatures for Democrat Ned Lamont (I’ve since rectified that youthful indescetion), so why should registered Democrats be allowed to collect signatures for the “Connecticut For Lieberman” party?

If Joe was running as an Independent, I can understand. But by starting a third party and campaigning within that party, doesn’t that mean you have to follow the rules related to political parties? Or do the rules ONLY apply to the Democratic and Republican parties?

What ad is Camp Lieb “parodying”?

By the way, what do people think is going to be the big hit in the last week? An attempt to hit Ned as being ___? They’ve been running so much crap that it’s hard to think of what else they’d come up with, but I’m sure there’s something in the bag, and I don’t want us to get caught blindsided. I mean, will it be something about Lamont’s company? A race or labor thing? Maybe they’ll do a morph of Lamont and Osama. Hey, it’d be a “parody” at least, right? (Sorry, don’t mean to give any ideas…)

*ilson46201 - lol, I was actually wondering the same thing the other day.

angie - i’m blushing

Warble Collins on the floor on cspan2 lauding Lieberman and Coleman.

HoJo up now– it’s a warble fest.

http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=350
Ughh Dodd pimping for Joe on Face the Nation.

CTBob at 11-

That is an odd one, if he has a party, do you have to be registered with that party to get him on the ballot? I know there’s a challenge from the Greens on the clean money law and the threshold for access… though maybe federal laws apply across the board for this race?

I also think it’d be rad to run someone else on the “CT for Lieberman” party line… out of the frying pan, into a brand new primary :)

Here’s the bit that really gets me:

The ad parodies one of Ned’s attack ads.

“Parodies?” Which Ned ad is it, and how is this one a parody? The recent Lamont ad, now that’s a parody of an attack ad. It makes fun of the idea of attack ads, and calls for something different. Lieberman’s ad, even without considering the false bumper sticker, doesn’t make fun of anything, it just attacks.

As best I can tell, Lieberman and people who speak for him are just congenitally unable to admit what they’re actually doing, which is responding to an attack with a counterattack. If it was a parody it would be funny. This is awfully reminiscent of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh ducking responsibility for something reprehensible by saying “I was joking!”

Even though no one’s laughing.

he looks pretty good despite Maura’s drubbing of him and his poorly attended pub slither yesterday.

No more lies, joe.

you can run, but you cannot hide.

Lies for Lieberman.

Yellow Dog Democrats are furious at Lieberman for starting up a 3rd Party just to run against them. A whole lot of “Lil Ole Democrat Ladies” who would normally support Holy Joe are aghast. Anybody around Democratic politics knows that the real partisan workhorses are those “lil ole Democrat ladies” … dont piss ‘em off !

“at this point — Hoy Joe is rollilng”
Rhetorical question. Can Ned get an attorney to file against Joe for continuing to publish false information? Filing such a suit gives the TM the traction they need to print the story. It also gives Ned the “pulpit.” HoJo is not coming off this meme. He will drive it down Ned’s throat unless Ned counter punches so hard that HoJo has to stop.

Joe has given Ned a golden opportunity to paint HoJo with Rove and to enunciate Plamegate and the “swifting of Joe and Valerie Wilson.”

If Ned doesn’t “counter-punch,” he’s telegraphing that he’s not “tough enough” to be their Senator.

This is also a perfect opporunity to bring in HoJo’s dissembling of that electricity thing that scarecrow brought to our attention.

Matt at 16: I think you’re on to something. I can’t imagine state law would allow Lieberman to singlehandedly pick his party’s nominee. I mean, if all it takes is signatures, we could do that, right?

I think the bumper sticker is hilarious. I don’t get what Lieberman is hoping to accomplish with it, though, because when I first saw it, I thought “I want one!”—I definitely did not think “Oh, Lamont just hates Joe”…or whatever the Lieberman campaign was trying to spin. But I’ve only lived in CT for four years, so maybe there’s some subtlety there that’s eluding me–the same subtlety that was probably behind the “Bear” commercial that I didn’t get, either.

Hoy Joe is rollilng around in Lee Atwater sewer politics

Excellent choice of words!

Angie, truly swoonworthy.
. . . Collins & I will soon reintroduce legislation to encompass all our buddies.
disaster caused by uncoordinated responses between cronies.

*ilson,

It might be Nedster

New to FDL. Love it. Great coverage of NoMoJO. He definately has to go and WELL I think he might!
Keep up the great blogging work.

Welcome, Jan!

…and for the record, it’s Edward “Ned” Lamont (I think!)

“I’m Joe Lieberman and I approve this message.”

I hope a whole lot of people keep asking Honest Joe why he defends and supports lying to Connecticut voters.

(Seriously, what’s the point of the requirement for candidates to say that if they’re not held accountable?)

Joenertia now on http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs.....;Code=CS2, blathering to an empty Senate to get air time on something or other.

I hate his faux stentorian tone, lecturing us all as he does.

CT Bob - according the CT election law that was posted here a while back, you can’t run as an independent in Connecticut. You have to have a party name, and it can’t be “Independent” or incorporate the name of another party. I suspect the rules relating to who can collect signatures are related to that. I’d guess that for organized parties that have a nominating process and membership (for which there’s probably a required minimum size), the rules prevent the other party from hijacking the nominating process.

For independent, unorganized parties, you can’t compete for the nomination, because only the candidate who filed can solicit signatures under that party name. So interference isn’t an issue, and the restrictions on signature-gatherers aren’t necessary.

(It wouldn’t be too hard to look it up and find out for sure, since the election law is all online — if I wasn’t at work now, I’d do it.)

Prof (29) He’s talking about rebuilding FEMA with his best buddy Collins. I find it a little scary.

I may have missed this - I’m sure I did…
If RGJoe forms his own party, how can he be eligible to win a primary of a party of which he is no longer a member? Does being on the ballot on x date as a Dem entitle him? Once he forms his own party, isn’t he obligated to abdicate his membership as a Dem? Is there a state law that says he can be a member of more than one party?

You know, what’s interesting is that up until now, Lieberman’s been pretty good about wrapping that huge ego in a fairly unprepossessing wrapper, but lately, it’s been leaking out in the form of some very visibly angry moments (and it smells really, really bad). Stormed off after his presser - when you would think he would want to milk the media for all it was worth. Stormed off after the debate, leaving his media guy all alone to deal with, um, one or two reporters. Got a little testy at the Irish pub yesterday - he may think his face was noncommittal, but he was angry - like “who the hell let this bitch in here?” angry.

Lieberman’s getting apoplectic – Ned’s smiling.

Lieberman’s getting caught in one lie after the other - Ned’s smiling and just running a clean, honest campaign.

Lieberman’s losing the endorsements of his fellow Democrats in the worst kind of way (”uhh, Joe, I missed the train - sorry buddy!”) while picking up the unsolicited endorsements of the radical right-wing - Ned’s smiling, and picking up the support of some really good people.

Lieberman’s making people think “No More Joe” - Ned’s smiling and showing Lieberman what “parody” really means.

Lieberman’s got “loser” written all over him (and if you can’t read it, you can sure smell it) - Ned’s smiling and looking like a winner!

GO NED!

fwiw Joe has given Ned a golden opportunity to paint HoJo with Rove and to enunciate Plamegate and the “swifting of Joe and Valerie Wilson.”
That’s just one of about 100 examples of “swifting” as you are well aware, my suggestion was just to paint HoJo with Rove and “compassionate conservatism” in a way that works in CT.

Good afternoon everyone.)

Mary frequently refers to Mora. Who or what is mora por favor?

I read most of todays thread work and saw no news on the appontment of William Haynes, any news?

Can’t wait to see the hearings on c-span this evening. Thanks for all of the comments so far.

It would be funny if Ned announced that if he fails to win the primary, he will run as a Green or, better yet, on the “Connecticut for Lamont” ticket.

Matt at 16, I like that idea - and newtonusr at 32, very good questions.

Welcome Jan!

Mora here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_J._Mora

Caution: Mankini alert!

‘‘Parody?…Parody, you say?…Coming for you, Joe?’

Thanks Angie, Alberto! another one

Leibermans Party:

Hedge Party hehe

Since the July 4 weekend there has been a marked shift in Lieberman strategy. It feels very Rovian, and very deja-vu-all-over again. I suspect that we will find out after the November election that an operative from the Rove school of BS took over the campaign.

Eureka Springs,
“Guantanamo: Stunning Bush reversal”
The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions….
Alberto Mora, the former Navy judge-advocate general who was a leader of the charge against the administration’s Guantanamo policies, told the Financial Times today, that the move was a “marvellous development”…..

John Casper at 20: I disagree; this is an attack on Lamont’s campaigning style, not an attack on his views. Lamont has already responded to that with his anti-attack-ads parody.

Ned should be concentrating most of his effort on making a contrast with Lieberman and showcasing his different views, not just focusing on Joe’s positions or ads.

Also, remember that attack ads depress turnout; you just hope they depress your opponent’s more than yours. This is why, in general, the guy who’s behind does attack ads, and the guy who’s ahead puts out press releases about why they’re false, but doesn’t do ads in response or initiate them. (See how Joe’s telegraphing weakness?) I also think this is another serious mistake by the Lieberman camp, or a sign that they’ve given up on the primary — they need turnout to win, but they’re running ads that depress turnout, not encourage it.

Can anyone tell me the difference between a “Hot day in August” and a cold day in November on voting patterns in CT?

Mora, like Murtha, was honored with the 2006 JFK Profile in Courage award.

Does anyone else wonder about how much the consultant was paid by Joenertia who came up with the “No More Joe” slogan?

After bashing Joe for making up the fake bumper sticker (as we did and should have done), might the bumper sticker now stick?

I wonder what other bright ideas that consultant might have to help Joe. “Joe Has Let Down Connecticut”? “Joe Is the Real Issue”? “Vote Against Joe”?

I don’t know whether that consultant can ever top “No More Joe,” though. That’s a classic. I like the sound of it.

Naral Pro-Choice America just endorsed Lieberman. Boo!!!

I have seen a homemade bumpersticker or two with something like: Anyone but Joe. I think Lieberman’s creatures are trying to characterize Ned’s supporters, not Ned per say.

Where is the updated polling?

I can’t believe there hasnt been a poll since the debate.

Weird!

He’s not actually forming a party; you have to have a party name in CT if you get on the ballot through petitions. However, I suspect that requirement may be designed to produce the bad effects the Lieberman camp is seeing now — if you’re just a guy who collects signatures for an independent run, you look fine, if you do it because you’re a sore loser in the primary, you look like a jerk who’s trying to be a member of two parties.

And on the Ned side, could we not have some more appropriate bumper stickers, like:

“No more Alitos”

“Joe Gave Us A Right-Wing Court”

“Support Joe and Rape-Taxis”

“No more debates (signed, “Joe”)

Prof at 47 - I suspect Lieberman really thought people would be scandalized by the No More Joe slogan. His narcissism leads him to believe that he is beloved.

“I Don’t Approve Joe’s Message”

OT -
I got a similar e-contact from Rep Pryce today — except I moved from her district 5 years ago. Re-registered, sent angry e-mails/letters to my Pug reps from this addy; really no clue why I got this at all, let alone now. Curious (I did know her and her local manager better than the average constituent, tho)

It says if I reply to the survey, I’ll be on her e-distribution list. I’ve never subscribed to one just to scout the opposition, but I’m contemplating that on this one. Suggestions?

I just finished watching a video in which Bush completely fell apart in the face of a serious question by a CNN reporter (Crooks and Liars). Then I come over here and read this.

It strikes me that we are witnessing a very public meltdown of some very fragile and brittle egos here. The context is the same. Such “cheerful and all around nice guys” just loose it the minute someone/anyone holds them them accountable for statements and actions — in a public setting. Ask for “real answers” and they just. Can’t. Cope. They resort to insane streams of concienceness that come out sounding completely assinine so they try to cover their tracks with bully boy tactics and when that fails to intimidate, they pout.

Then I go and watch John Dean being interviewed by Olberman — and its like finally,a “real adult.” Who can actually string not only a comprehensible sentance together but can actually construct a completely logical paragraph.

I submit that both Bush and Lieberman are in the process of a very public Katherine Harris kind of pyschological break down. I am serious — if people keep the heat on (by which I mean real facts) they will make less and less sense.

Its actually really embarressing — kind of like hearing your neighbors have one of those “open window” nasty knock down drag out fights.

A little bird tells me that talking to a NARAL supporter may be like talking to a brick wall. Does anybody have any insights as to *what* is going on? Lieberman is very shaky in the Pro-choice dept.

Sam says

July 11th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Naral Pro-Choice America just endorsed Lieberman. Boo!!!

Why?!?! I just don’t get them. They keep making this bad decision. No accountability w/ these people. I guess they need him more than vice-versa.

While I’m on this topic, I got caught up with the weekend threads, including Mary’s.

Can someone (Mary) confirm the pro-choice polling numbers? It said unmarried women 55% pro/married 51%. I’d love a link to that, I didnt see one.

Prof @ 1:07 pm (#47) - Was he paid as much as the consultant who came up with the idea of recycling the bears ad? I don’t know what that bumper sticker ad was, whether it was an attack or just a parody of what Joe’s folks want people to think the Lamont campaign is about, which is in itself a parody (or, perhaps, a farce), but it’s working as badly as the bears ad.

IOW, if those consultants are being paid at all, it’s too much.

Leslie at 53

Yeah, I agree. My post was snark.

CNN debunking chimpy’s rose colored glasses economy speech

Cujo359 at 59

IOW, if those consultants are being paid at all, it’s too much.

No, no. It’s not enough. Pay them more. Encourage them.

Organic George - primary voting, even in a primary that attracts lots of attention, is much lower turnout than a general election. Lieberman knows that, and will use it to dishonestly justify his indie run.

I’d encourage the Lamont campaign to have a press release prepared with turnout figures for past statewide primaries (Senate, Governor, etc.) After the Webb-Miller primary here in VA, some wingnuts tried to crow that the Democrats weren’t interested in the race because of the usual low turnout, and someone quickly posted that turnout in recent Republican primaries was no better, which seemed to shut up most of them.

ESAr and John Casper (and anyone else interested) — I’ve been having some connection problems, so this got posted deep in EPU-dom on the last thread:

The Haynes hearings are directly connected to the Hamdan hearings and to the DoD memo just released this morning. Haynes signed off on coercive interrogation techniques at the DoD. Don’t be too quick to buy the MSM spin about the new memo being a change of policy, and don’t assume that anything is solved — as the DOJ witness said, it’s all in the interpretation of Common Article 3. For an excellent analysis of all this, see Marty Lederman (formerly of OLC):
http://balkin.blogspot.com/200.....de-by.html

ridiculous analogy on cnn, comparing a budget deficit to a home mortgage.

How about comparing it to taking on credit debt because you need champagne and are broke.

Nedford
Neddington
Nedingsley
Nedd
Neddles
KenNEDdy

Redshift says
July 11th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Thanks for a really terrific response, as per usual.

If your comment is 100% accurate, HoJo’s self-destructing and Ned will win the primary. The problem of course is according the the polls HoJo is still ahead.

My sense is, that HoJo is trying to “target” certain constiuencies. What works with one demographic doesn’t necessarily work with another. This is extremely expensive, but money isn’t HoJo’s problem. Rove has always done massive amounts of negative ads and “swifting.” He just always finds someone else, TM, or direct mail to do it. He doesn’t want his candidate down in the mud. If Ned cannot find someone to fire back at HoJo imo that’s a problem with whatever voters Rove has targeted for HoJo with these attacks.

I put scarecrow’s electricity “find” in a different bucket from negative advertising. Those are facts the people of CT need to hear about. The key is translating something that complicated into soundbytes that are understandable to the TM and the voters.

With that said, your comment brought a wealth of experience and detail that I don’t have. I am all about winning. If Ned “keeping” a stiff upper wins, I am all for it. IMHO the “winning” strategy is probalby a “blend.” I agree Ned has to stay positive and on message, but when he or a surrogate criticizes HoJo, it has to be tight, economical, hit hard, and above all accurately.

I am not “on the ground” in CT and that’s where these decisions need to be made.

Prof at 60 - yeah, I knew that. But Lieberman and his campaign probably wouldn’t, which was my point.

Can anyone tell me the difference between a “Hot day in August” and a cold day …

…in hell?

I’m not sure if this Boston Globe/AP article has been posted but I first saw this Capitol News headline, “Sen. Lieberman Criticized Over Role of Religion in Policymaking”, when I went to C-Span for the Hamdan hearings this morning. I just went back to find and read it. It covers some of the other issues that concern Ned, besides the occupation of Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/loc.....itiatives/

Lieberman, Lamont differ on faith-based initiatives
By Susan Haigh, AP Political Writer  |  July 10, 2006

“Lamont, who is challenging Lieberman in an Aug. 8 Democratic primary, has received a lot of attention for criticizing the three-term senator’s support of the war in Iraq. But he has also denounced Lieberman’s stance on certain issues associated with social conservatives, including his support of a bill that gave a federal court jurisdiction to consider replacing a feeding tube used to sustain Terri Schiavo, the 39-year-old Florida woman who had been in a vegetative state”

{snip}

“Lamont said he is concerned about what he calls “too much acquiescence to a federal government intruding in our lives.” And he said Lieberman has supported such initiatives”

{snip}

” Lamont said. “For me, I’d stand up and say I think we need a bright and shining line there separating church and state. I think that’s been one of the hallmarks of our country for 200 years.”

{snip}

“Lieberman has also supported the concept of private school vouchers for poor students, with certain conditions. Lamont, whose children received some private schooling, said he disagrees with the concept, claiming it robs resources from the public schools.”

{snip}

I just bought some more Connecticut-related web-addresses. This asymmetrical cyberspace political warfare is fun …

when the forwarding “takes” in an hour or so, I’ll share my trophies … tres amusant !

Urban - I can dig up the cite. All my info was from the 80 page study that is a pdf on the link from Katymine that I give at the top. They had cites for their info intext, and I think those stats came from there. GIve me a bit and I’ll get it for you.

Bill Press on CNN– threat to veto stem cell legislation is “dumb as hell.” This is about saving lives, and he is siding with Jerry Falwell, not Nancy Reagan.

I’m with Bill.

From MyLeftNutmeg:

Key Lieberman Backer Gave $15 G To RNC
by: BranfordBoy
Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 16:08:10 PM EDT
Cleveland A. Christophe, one of the 25 founders of the new right wing party, Connecticut For Lieberman, is pretty broadminded in his political contributions.
In addtion to Dem candidates, he’s given to Chris Shays, Rick Lazio (of NY), William Weld’s Senatorial campaign and a whopping $15,000 to the Republican National Committee.

Any firepups have news of my Senator Boxer’s promised arrival in CT to campaign for Joe No Momentum? Dare I hope she took a cue from her Senate collegue - you know ole bright toothed plagarist what’s his name - and/or on a happier note - our State’s stellar Democratic Congresswoman Maxine arrival to stomp for Ted Lamont?

John Casper @ 43 - Oh my, this is wonderful news although difficult to believe. My idyllic mind hopes for accountability of the Add Yoo’s and lackeys.

Thanks for the (link) fantastic news.

How about this for a bumpersticker

“Lieberman Lies”

‘Joe is constitutionally incapable of admitting he was wrong’

another victim of the optimistic rug?

I’ve got an idea: now that we know Lieberman’s campaign created the “No More Joe” bumper sticker, why don’t we all call up his campaign office and try to order some of them?

I’d say that’s only fair - where else can you get one of them?

Joe 2006: (860)244-2006.

RT - Great idea!

Sam says:
July 11th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Naral Pro-Choice America just endorsed Lieberman. Boo!!!
———————————————————-
Yawn. NARAL has been irrelevant for a while now. Certainly since Alito. When they call, just tell them, “NOPE–Not One Penny Ever.” Write a check to Planned Parenthood instead.

angie @ 1:33 pm (#73) - Me too. There’s a ready supply of stem cells available from sources that even most wingnuts approve of heartily - the fertility clinics. There’s no need to have abortions to support having a continued fresh supply.

Stay the course! Stick with Joe!

We should stick to a failed policy because any alternative will have unknown and, therefore, scary results.

Eureka - the ulitmate info IMO on Mora is from this Mayer article in the New Yorker (she did the recent Addington piece as well).

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/.....227fa_fact

Mora fought over and over on abusive tactics and he was tipped to the situation by some pretty admirable Naval investigation guys. He left DOD recently, but the end of the article wraps up why I put him in a whole different category from almost everyone else who touched this mess:

. . . Mora attended a meeting in Rumsfeld’s private conference room at the Pentagon, called by Gordon England, the Deputy Defense Secretary, to discuss a proposed new directive defining the military’s detention policy. The civilian Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy were present, along with the highest-ranking officers of each service, and some half-dozen military lawyers. Matthew Waxman, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, had proposed making it official Pentagon policy to treat detainees in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against human dignity. Going around the huge wooden conference table, where the officials sat in double rows, England asked for a consensus on whether the Pentagon should support Waxman’s proposal.

This standard had been in effect for fifty years, and all members of the U.S. armed services were trained to follow it. One by one, the military officers argued for returning the U.S. to what they called the high ground. But two people opposed it. One was Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defense for intelligence; the other was Haynes. They argued that the articulated standard would limit America’s “flexibility.” It also might expose Administration officials to charges of war crimes: if Common Article Three became the standard for treatment, then it might become a crime to violate it. Their opposition was enough to scuttle the proposal.

In exasperation, according to another participant, Mora said that whether the Pentagon enshrined it as official policy or not, the Geneva conventions were already written into both U.S. and international law. Any grave breach of them, at home or abroad, was classified as a war crime. To emphasize his position, he took out a copy of the text of U.S. Code 18.2441, the War Crimes Act, which forbids the violation of Common Article Three, and read from it. The point, Mora told me, was that “it’s a statute. It exists - we’re not free to disregard it. We’re bound by it. It’s been adopted by the Congress. And we’re not the only interpreters of it. Other nations could have U.S. officials arrested.”

Not long afterward, Waxman was summoned to a meeting at the White House with David Addington. Waxman declined to comment on the exchange, but, according to the Times, Addington berated him for arguing that the Geneva conventions should set the standard for detainee treatment. The U.S. needed maximum flexibility, Addington said. Since then, efforts to clarify U.S. detention policy have languished. In December, Waxman left the Pentagon for the State Department.(emphasis added)

BTW Olsen is quoted in one of the newsmags post Hamdan as saying, something like, OH MY, now that Hamdan is out, it makes it scarey for US folk who may have committed war crimes to travel.

These idiots have recklessly endangered so much for so little. I EPU’d a response to BarbB re: the Lederman article she linked. He includes a fax from ex-DOJ Comey, Philbin, Thompson & Goldsmith— all praising Haynes as if he hadn’t set up DOD for a horrorshow. Respect for lhp notwithstanding, I think they are all unconscionable, immoral, valueless shills.

Back to Mayer’s article

Mora recently started a new job, as the general counsel for Wal-Mart’s international operations. A few days after his going-away party, he reflected on his tenure at the Pentagon. He felt that he had witnessed both a moral and a legal tragedy.

In Mora’s view, the Administration’s legal response to September 11th was flawed from the start, triggering a series of subsequent errors that were all but impossible to correct. “The determination that Geneva didn’t apply was a legal and policy mistake,” he told me. “But very few lawyers could argue to the contrary once the decision had been made.”

Mora went on, “It seemed odd to me that the actors weren’t more troubled by what they were doing>” Many Administration lawyers, he said, appeared to be unaware of history. “I wondered if they were even familiar with the Nuremberg trials-or with the laws of war, or with the Geneva conventions. . .
“These were enormously hardworking, patriotic individuals,” he said. “When you put together the pieces, it’s all so sad. To preserve flexibility, they were-willing to throw away our values.” (emphasis added)

And isn’t that, after all, what you want as a Circuit Court judge? Someone who throws every American and Constitutional value out the window, even over the objection of the whole of the assmebled military, in the name of benefitting Presidential expediency and cover up?

Of course, Mora’s own story reveals that is isn’t that the lawyers couldn’t argue to the contrary - it is that they wouldn’t. The fact that Comey, Philbin et al still choose to flock to someone who couldn’t stand up for what was right – even when the whole of the legal support structure in the military was begging him to, reveals as much about their own character as about Haynes. It sure helps you sleep at night thinking what you did wasn’t so bad after all when you can convince people that someone worse than you is such a great guy he should be put on the 4th Circuit.

Mary — My connection problems prevented me from seeing your response on the last thread. (Comcast promises it’s fixed now; we’ll see.) For those who missed it, Mary pointed out that current and recently departed top DOJ officials are still justifying their previous errors. It’s ironic that it’s the military lawyers standing firm for human rights. (A rough paraphrase, for which I trust she’ll forgive me.) Mary is, as usual, absolutely right.

I would love to be able to find - I’ve looked but no time to do it extensively - a breakdown of the voting patterns of the CT independents. Based on the breakdown of the vote in the 2000 election, it isn’t Republican voters that will matter to Lieberman, it’s the independents. If Lamont can start siphoning them off to his side, he stands a much better chance of victory in the general election.

thanks, cujo359 @ 82– this issue justs makes my blood boil. so many could benefit…

it also breaks my heart.

John Casper — thanks for the compliment, but don’t assume I know too much more than you do. *g* I’m going on what I’ve read and seen, but there may be other ideas on negative ads.

You may be right that Joe’s aiming at certain demographics, and if so, I hope Ned’s campaign has people smart enough to figure out what they are (’cause I sure don’t know.) But it’s also possible, considering how some of the Lieberman campaign’s moves have backfired on them, that they’re just in a big-name senator yes-man bubble, and are doing really stupid things because they’ve insulated themselves from the voters. But it certainly wouldn’t be good strategy to assume that. Only time will tell.

Didn’t have time to read all the comments, but clearly Lieberman is becoming more like the Republicans he so wants to be associated with.

BarbB - you may want to rethink that “right” cuz I may have gone further than you really want to be associated with. But I’m comfy there, even all by myself. ;-)

Urban:

Here’s the info. katymine gave me a site - Women’s Voices. Women Vote. http://www.wvwv.org/

That site has a pdf http://www.wvwv.org/docs/wvwv0.....search.pdf of a study called, “The State of Unmarried American - A Demographic, Lifestyle and Attudinal Overview of America’s Emerging Majority” Feb. 2006.

The abortion stats are from p. 35 of the pdf and they cite a Democracy Corps/CAF/WVWV Post Election Survey November 2004

Hope that helps.

How does this sound for an ad….

Question:”What do all these people have in common?” Then show photos of Rush,Sean, and Ann. (and any other rightwinger who loves Joe)
Answer:They support Joe Lieberman.

Is that the kind of Democrat we need in Connecticut?

Urban 65 - exactly. They are not using that debt to create value of any kind - just give money to cronies.

you are never alone here, Mary. you get it right an awful lot. ;)

angie - just not HUGE RIGHT like Imman. ;)

I need to get me one of them yellow ties.

Question.

How does one mention here on FDL something that one fears the opposition will use in a negative campaign without telegraphing the information to them?

This would be about someone who’s planning to come in and campaign for him, not about Ned.

my newly-bought domains are properly forwarding!

http://www.CT4Lamont.com
http://www.CTFORLamont.com
http://www.ConnecticutForLamont.com

not that Ned would ever form his own Party to go up against the CT Democrats ! (unlike certain whiny incumbents we could mention!)

91 Nate Clarke says:

July 11th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

How does this sound for an ad….

Question:”What do all these people have in common?” Then show photos of Rush,Sean, and Ann. (and any other rightwinger who loves Joe)
Answer:They support Joe Lieberman.

Is that the kind of Democrat we need in Connecticut?

wow, that would REALLY smart

I LOVE that add for a number of reasons

it would be the earmark everyone would point to as the turning point from corporate pundits to the progressive movement for the people

this is SUPPPOSED to be a government for the people and by people

not for corporations and run by ccrorations

MAN I hope lamone uses that add

Rovesputin pulls the strings and Republican (aka Connecticut for Lieberman) talking points come spewing out of PuppetJoe’s mouth.

I’ve given money to the Lamont campaign. But Jane? Your rhetoric is getting ridiculous. The fake “No More Joe” bumper sticker was a stupid ad, and it’s inexplicable why they made it up, but it’s hardly Lee Atwater sewer politics. Let’s face it; I gave money to Lamont because I want “No More Joe”. It’s entirely legitimate to want to get his ugly mug off of Fox News.

Let’s save terms like “sewer politics” for the real thing, like jamming the phones in New Hampshire, or push polls spreading the idea that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child, or that John Kerry didn’t deserve his medals. You know, the real thing? Overreacting to small stuff just makes us look wimpy, like we’re all a-flutter because of these lame attempts at attacks.

Calling Joe’s incompetent campaign “sewer politics” gives it more credit than it deserves. Just laugh at it. Lee Atwater’s attacks were effective. This stuff isn’t.

I hope this hasn’t been posted 1000 times already —

Lieberman pollster donates max to Lamont. ?

from rawstory.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2....._0711.html

BarbaraB @ 1:18 Even in my excitement I thought I smelled a rat. Devil in sorted details indeed. The Balkin link (sigh) confirms the odor. I guess we will have to wait and see where this is heading, aside from new legislation, the tortured can wait.

and your little dog - email it direct to Christy or Jane.

NSA will forward to Lieberman via Rush, but at least you’ll feel like you made an effort.

Re: Nate Clarke/me to me, rightwinger albatross (tie ‘em round his neck, figuratively) ad:

If Ned needs to go negative, this would be great. I don’t think it’s appropriate at this point. I’d say hold that thought for the general election, although you’d have to change the last line…

Here’s a bumper sticker:
http://www.wolfblog.net/images/RGJoe.jpg

Anne — Joe has gone out of his way to make this “all about the war,” and I would be very surprised if independent voters in CT are pro-war. He may be making the common “centrist” mistake of believing that independents have views halfway between liberals and conservatives, even as the Right has moved the conservative end steadily further to the extreme.

Now, he may draw from independents because of greater name recognition and confusion about who is the Democrat, but I’d be very surprised if CT indies are natural Lieberman supporters on the issues.

97grandmatoo says

July 11th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Rovesputin pulls the strings and Republican (aka Connecticut for Lieberman) talking points come spewing out of PuppetJoe’s mouth.

my favorite did whenever I get the chance to denocunce these puppets

yet corporate media are puppeteers, they make believe this story is some kind of issue and people repeat the obsurd claim like marionettes, their wooden jaws going up and down in unison as if on the same string…they even use the same words when they repeat the rediculous claim

how embarrassing

Robert Reich just blew away all the glitter from the economic news on Hardballs.

He gave such a good plan for a way out of this mess that the rethugligoon had to agree with him.

ROTFL!

Mary at 84.

Right on.

I am particularly interested in U.S. Code 18.2441, the War Crimes Act, which forbids the violation of Common Article Three.

Would you be willing to develop a post on that?

Maybe a brief for when Fitzgerald is confirmed at Attonrey General?

tweester just asked the club for growth guy why w starts talkin’ texan and droppin’ his “g’s” when he talks about the economy.

cfg guy Toomey says: because he spends a lot of time in texas?

again, ROTFL!

Lieberman will go down in flames if he loses the primary.
In 1980, generally respected and liked Senator Jacob Javits lost the republican primary to Al D’Amato in something of an upset. Javits ran in the general as an independant and was roadkill, finishing a distant third.
Once Holy Joe loses that primary, he’s damaged goods, and everyone will distance themselves from him.

Geeno

And they all know that about the primary so if you think “NoMoJoe” is the bottom just wait a second…

housekeeping…

Hey, *ilson, where do you recommend buying website names?

And GrandmaJ if you’re here, a while back you posted a comment about the path one is on…could you repost? Or somebody clue me in on how to backtrack and find it?

And HopeSpringsATurtle…are you checkin’ in with us? We’re keeping you and your doc-husband in our caring thoughts.