NED!

What does Joe say about the Vice President and his ties to Halliburton….

EPU’d, more on-topic here:

Just got this email from the Lamont campaign:

From the day we started this campaign, I vowed Senator Lieberman’s mountains of Washington interest money would not shout down the voices demanding change at home and in Iraq. And while his campaign has raised millions from those who profit from war, high gas prices and expensive prescription drugs, over 15,000 individuals have contributed to our effort, the vast majority in small dollar donations. With less than three weeks to go, I am going to make a pledge: From here on out, I promise to match, dollar for dollar, every contribution made online to our campaign through the primary. You’ve put this campaign on your back from day one, help carry us over the finish line today….

time to dig a little deeper….

is joe angling for more than a kiss?

Lieberman is in the last throes of his “public service”, digging in his heels and hanging on with every last claw. It’s not YOUR senate seat; it belongs to the people of Connecticut, fool.

OT – of fer gawd’s sakes! Chambliss is on the MSNBC saying that all the civilian deaths in Iraq speaks to all the progress we are making there….

I can’t take it much longer!

Ya know . . . . .

I just plain don’t like that guy.

cripey, i want to move to CT just to oust this horrible dweeb-enabler-mofo!

keep the pressure on, jane and christy and crew!

In the spirit of disclosure, how does the voting public feel about where Joe’s wife gets her money? Isn’t she a lobbyist for drug companies? Haven’t they benefitted enormously from Joe’s support? Does anyone see a conflict?

The fact that Josh Marshall gets caught up in this bullshit about Lamont is just beyond my ability to understand.

I think Josh is getting caught up the need to seem “reasonable” by trashing people on both sides of the aisle, even to the point of going along with flakey, GOP-manufactured ethics “issues” like this one.

Josh is beginning to get a little too cocktail-circuity for my taste.

Jane, maybe you meant “hunky-dory”? “Hinky” is copspeak for “suspicious.”

Lieberman is desperate, so transparently desperate. The voters of CT are going to see this for what it is, the last gasps of a dying politician…

wxyz at 10 — I think Josh comes at this from a journalist’s reporting perspective, and he’s great at it. But that isn’t a partisan perspective which, in this race in particular, is the sentiment that is driving a lot of the Lieberman opposition. So there is bound to be some friction in that intersection, ya know? But there is also a lot of value in understanding the persepctives of both sides on this — you have to really know where the other side is coming from in order to counter them and defeat them. That has a lot of usefulness, I think.

What votes did he cast that could have been effected by his private holdings? Did some pot hole in Greenwitch get filled that otherwise wouldn’t?

That and the “capitalist” statement would make an excellent rebuttal ad.

i think this is a bit more than a distraction. just a few days ago this very site offered a post on the war profiteers called haliburton. i dont live in connecticut and i loath lieberman. FDL is the reason i made my first contribution to a candidate in another state. the issue is not whether or not Lamont is a capitalist – the fact is that by investing in halliburton Lamont too is profiting from the war. i must say that my heart dropped upon learning this. i understand the nature of smear and diversion but i think Mr. Lamont should pay close attention to this news – it reads lousey to us working stiffs who dont even make $50,000 a year.

Sonoma Rus just summed up my feelings precisely.

Update of a story I mentioned in a prior thread this morning: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0719.html

ACLU suggests US may be spying on three other financial services
07/19/2006 @ 10:42 am
Filed by RAW STORY

The New York-based American Civil Liberties Union has fired another salvo in its ongoing battle with the Bush Administration over domestic surveillance, all but accusing the Administration of spying on three additional financial service systems.

According to a release, “ACLU research indicates” that the three named systems are “likely targets.” The group said Wednesday they had filed new requests under the Freedom of Information Act to ascertain whether the systems were being surveilled.

The three systems are:

Bolero: The Bill of Lading Electronic Registry Organization is an electronic exchange of trade for documents such as bills of lading (descriptions of shipped goods that control ownership of property when it is in transit). Owned in part by SWIFT, Bolero counts many of the world’s largest corporations as customers.

CHIPS: The Clearing House Interbank Payment System, another financial transfer service, is privately owned by the New York Clearing House Association. It primarily handles international funds transfers denominated in U.S. dollars for banks and their large customer transactions. Customers include most of the major U.S. banks.

Fedwire: A wire transfer service run by the Federal Reserve, Fedwire allows U.S. banks to transfer funds to other participants on behalf of each other and their customers.

“The American public has a right to know just how many spying programs this administration has created without Congressional authorization or judicial oversight,” said Barry Steinhardt, Director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project, in a release. “We hope these official requests will help answer that question – and if illegal spying is taking place we will demand an end to it.”

“The Bush administration may think it can unilaterally redraw the boundaries of Americans’ privacy, but fortunately there are laws that are meant to help Americans find out what their government is doing behind closed doors,” Steinhardt added.

(snip)

WHy is this tax return issue getting any traction at all? It makes no sense. It’ snot a controversy. No one I have spoken w/ in CT seems to care. My guess is that “friendly” media ask these softball questions to continue to try and make this an issue.

As Jane note’s above, Joe’s refusal to release a list of donors and clients is a lot more relevent.

I’m thinking outloud here, but I’d love to stir the pot re: Joe’s refusal to release that important info.

Anyone have any ideas? Do we know any watchdog groups that might be already involved in this? (The whole lobbyist spouse connection – tracking conflicts of interest etc.)

Seriously. If anyone has any direction to point me in, I’ll run w/ it for a bit.

My response to a concern troll over at MyDD on the stock issue was this.

Bottom line, I’m more concerned about Haddassah’s lobbying clients than I am about any stock to be found in Ned and Annie Lamont’s portfolio.

Lieberman tries this shit, send it right back to him.

Do we know that Lamont directly invested in Haliburton or are these stocks part of a larger package his money manager is working with…. Not that it matters, just curious.

Distracting? Nay Jane. YOU are distracting (distractingly lovely) while Joe is just…a flaming moron.

I’m not rich by any means so I don’t have $50,000 invested in anything (other than that and more invested, so to speak, in my house) but I do have a small amount in a Mutual Fund and an IRA. In both cases, I have only a very loose inkling of what my money has been invested in. I toss a little money at my “money managers” (the brokerage) and they put the money into shares of the mutual fund.

I have no direct control over what company’s stocks are included in that mutual fund…I trust those who make a living doing nothing but looking at financial shit so as to pick companies to invest client money in. If I had $50,000 invested in the mutual fund or the IRA then one could “accuse” me of directly and consciously supporting Shell Oil if that is one of the components (one of a hundred or so other companies) of the fund?

I think it would be bad form, though in no way illegal, for Lamont to specifically and consciously invest in Halliburton, or having done so and then seeing the way they behave, continuing to keep that money invested in them, that is not what he did. Hell, most people tend to pass on those sorts of dealings to “money managers” or brokers. They exist for a reason. If you are invested all over evolution you could well spend ALL your otherwise useful time just pouring over boring crap like financial statements 24/7.

What I want to see is Lieberman’s donor list. THAT is what inquiring minds want to see.

Christy,

Hmmm… I totally agree it is useful to get the other side’s perspective on this.

I just wish that Josh, as an investigative journalist/editorialist, could identify GOP-generated bullshit stories when he sees them and focus his attention elsewhere.

If you click through to the article that he notes on his main page (which isn’t written by him) you will see that it is the classic “process” type journalism that I think we all at FDL are totally fed up with.

It is all about how Ned’s ownership of Halliburton stock will “play” in the media and whether it will develop into a “big story”. It even went on to speculate about how this may make Ned look like a rich guy who doesn’t even pay attention to $50,000 dollar investments.

Who cares! This isn’t investigative journalism!

For this sort of “process” reporting, I can turn on Chris Matthews and George Stephanopolis.

I would prefer that Josh and his team stick to the more significan issues. And if they were going to discuss Lamont’s ownership of Halliburton, it shouldn’t have been so focused on “process”, which is lazy, lazy journalism.

OT– Snowjob just said that “this is not even a war”– there are “hostilities” between Lebanon and Israel.

tell that to the dead.

orwellian.

GO NED!

hehehehehe Just go read Jesus General…

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com…..9164999824

You’ll thank me later.

I hope Lamont has or will divest any/all Halliburton stock, no matter the $$$ cost. He needs to come out of this smelling like a rose.

If Lamont were smart he would have unloaded this stock, or acted like me… I knew the stock would go up but morally would not buy it.

That being set Joeloser is a fatcat hypocritter – but what else is to be expected from a classic Republican attack campaign like Joeloser is running. Rule 1: Project your weakness onto your opponent on day zero.

Christy – LOL chez le General!

Pardon if this is German (previous posted) but did anyone catch Tucker Carlson yesterday “interviewing” the Israeli general counsel?

The GC said: “We are doing the Lebanese a favor” by bombing the snot out of them becuase they are attacking Hezbullah?

Tucker couldn’t agree more but was worried about the damage to the “infrastructure.”

What about the dead and wounded Lebanese Tucker?

Angie 23 -

Don’t forget that he mentioned yesterday that “killing” fertilized ova is “murder.”
_

Ned, is the real deal. A brilliant, educated self-made man who want to do real good and give back.

If a large group of Democrats would vote against Ned because he’s made himself a fortune…

… than I really am a man without a party.

Jenny ftb at 19, Ned has said that he was unaware of the investment; it was made by his money manager, just as you said.

Jane,
I am confused about the assertion that Leiberman is refusing to release the names of his campaign contributors.

My understanding of federal campaign finance rules (and I have just been asked to chair a subcommittee on election law at the oldest Bar Association in the country, so I think I have a passing familiarity–or else should decline the invitation) is that every contribution over $200 must be accompanied by a form with the name of the contributor AND the name of the contributor’s employer must be itemized and reported to the FEC.

Any contribution over $50 must have the donor information records in file as well. Are you sayinf he refused to release the $50-$199 donor records? Because as I understand it, the $200 donors should all be on the FEC data base.

Thanks Leslie, it makes sense.

Jesus General rides again! That was priceless.

Joe Schmoe is getting whinier by the moment. God, I’d give anything to be in CT right now. Just think of all the trouble we could stir up. Go Jane, go!

Yeah, BobbyG and I think he just said that the diplomatic process with Syria “stinks” historically, although I could be having auditory hallucinations after his first gargantuan fallacy.

From the Stamford Advocate –

NORWALK — The Norwalk Democratic Town Committee has passed a resolution denouncing U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s intention to run under a new independent party if he loses next month’s Democratic primary to Ned Lamont.

It seems this kind of thing should be going on all over the state.

If Lamont scrambles to divest he’s playing on their field. I guess he doesn’t have a choice but the whole thing stinks.

LH_ – I think it’s a TIMING issue. The data lags the primary. Ned got out in front of it, Joe refuses to do so.

I could be mistaken though.

LindaR, Yessssssss! Great news.

A modest suggestion — if you’re frustrated with Josh, perhaps you should be telling him? And why? And keep it civil and productive–I’ve read good comments here, but is this the right/only place for them? And yes, I do agree there should be more speaking out for J-Lie’s donor list…and the public record on the client list of Hadassah/her employer.

Sometimes the small stones need some polishing…. we’re stronger in the blogosphere when we work for the common good.

OT, Mark Morford has a good column today at SFGate, “Bush Gropes, Planet Cringes”. It slashes Bush into itty bitty little pieces.

http://tinyurl.com/pmtpw

Poor Haddassah. Imagine what Joe must smell like these days — flop-sweat/coffee-breath/collar-starch. Ye gods.

Jenny, I think most people understand that it’s most likely an inadvertent investment. Most people don’t manage their own money and would understand this oversight, especially if it’s part of a fund. But to continue to hold it would bother me. Ned should get with Gore’s new fund!

Monster Moustache just announcing this is not the time to call for a ceasefire. These bloodthirty creeps are getting major rocks off here.

Prairie Sunshine -

What makes you think I haven’t emailed Josh directly about this?

Also, it seems to me that my criticism of Josh is exactly the sort of thing that should be going on here.

A critical part of what we are trying to do is understand and perhaps shape the media/blogosphere narrative that is being shaped about this race.

If we leave this out, we are limiting our understanding of how politics work and undermining our ability to create progressive political change.

The civilian deaths represent “progress” if your role model is Jim Jones.

THis is a column of mine that ran at the top of the page in yesterday’s Meriden Record Journal (CT)
There’s no link to it on the Record Journal site so I’m pasting it here.
Enjoy. Hope it raises Holy Joe’s blood pressure

King Joe Lieberman Has Lost His Crown
by Alan Bisbort

At the end of every concert performed by the King of Rock ‘n’ Roll, the announcer used to intone, “Elvis has left the building.” This was a warning that the concert was over and a plea not to trash the place demanding an encore. It was also a reminder of who exactly was the “King” and who were his lowly “subjects.”
That musical ritual has, in the past six months, been transferred to Connecticut politics. Now the announcer intones, “Joe Lieberman has left the party,” even as a few wishful stragglers still hold out tepid hope for an encore. The rest of us Democrats left halfway through “King” Joe’s set, having heard all these songs before, sung better and with more conviction at his earlier concerts. We’ve moved on to the concert venue down the street, where Ned Lamont is playing some catchy new tunes about ending this tragic war in Iraq, about ending the cronyism in Washington D.C., about taking meaningful steps toward energy independence, fixing public transportation and protecting women’s rights. And the more we hear, the more we like.
Finally, it has dawned on us: King Joe Lieberman ain’t nothin’ but a hound dog, crying all the time. He’s “all shook up” because Ned Lamont is stepping all over his blue suede shoes.
All joking aside, this Aug. 8 primary for the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate is one of the most important the state party has ever faced. Our nation stands at a dangerous crossroads, led by a president who governs like a King. However, King George does not have the Midas touch; his is more like, as the Hollies once sang, “King Midas in reverse.” Everything he touches gets destroyed, from Iraq to Social Security to the aftermath of Katrina. We are no safer, maybe even less so, than we were before 9/11. King George cares more about enriching his Saudi royalty friends than he does about helping out the 90% of us Americans out here—Democrat, Republican, Green, independent, libertarian—who are really struggling right now.
You, rightfully, ask what does Joe Lieberman have to do with this? Just this: when he kisses the architect of this failed administration, he is enabling this failure to continue. When he warns Democrats, “It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril,” he is impugning our patriotism. (You calling me a traitor, Joe? Care to step outside and say that to my face?). When he refers to members of his party who support Ned Lamont as “jihadists” and “hot heads,” he is begging for a cold shower from the voters.
Joe Lieberman has sent our sons and daughters to fight and die in a war that was started under false pretenses—and the flames of which he helped to fan—and he does not have enough character and humility to admit he made a mistake. I, however, am not so inclined. I made a mistake voting for Lieberman in the past. I will not make that mistake again. I believe more than half of the state’s registered Democrats feel the same way—and the number is rising as people get to know Ned Lamont. Indeed, according to recent Quinnipiac polls, Lieberman is more popular among Republicans than Democrats. Adding insult to injuries he’s already inflicted, Joe plans to run for his Senate seat, if he loses the primary, as an independent. What does this say to those of us who will go to the polls on Aug. 8, to vote for, and elect, Ned Lamont as our candidate? It’s telling us that Joe has no respect for us and probably never had.
Why is this race so important? It’s the first chance Americans have had since 2004 to slow down the runaway train of the Bush administration. Let’s make history by electing Ned Lamont on Aug. 8. Let’s start the ball rolling away from the Bush machine and toward a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic White House in 2008.
Joe Lieberman has left the Democratic Party. It’s time the party left him.

Alan Bisbort is a former member of the Cheshire Environment Commission.

Jenny ftB – thanks for the Morford tip; I’ll check it out. When he’s “on” he can be rude-punditesque

meta 43 -

Yes, that’s really the only way. I just hope he divests in a way that doesn’t look like he’s scrambling because he got “caught”, if you know what I mean… Arrrgh!

punaise -

Morford has his moments, doesn’t he. When he’s good he’s very, very good! :)

Meanwhile, you’ll be proud and happy to know,

House Takes Up ‘Pledge’ Protection

I kid you not.

Lotus, I’m screaming! Bwaaahahaaaaaa. Ouchie!

And obviously Lieberman knows what a money manager is and how the investment process works. What a creep.

wxyz — you’re right. When you didn’t mention that you’d contacted Josh, I assumed you hadn’t. Part of what I appreciate about FDL is when people do share the comments that they’ve made to bloggers or Congresspeople or whatever as part of the context of their comments here.

Maybe I’m overzealous in looking for demonstrations that we’re putting our words into action. Not gonna pull back on that.

It would have been nice if Lamont had divested himself form Halliburton, but there are two things to consider:
Given the size of Lamont’s personal fortune and of Halliburton’s capitalization, does anybody really think this investment made that much of a difference to either? This is rather like when some Naderites tried to make Gore out a hypocrite because his mother owned stock in Occidental Petroleum, while the rightwing media tried to make him out as stupid for being 100% invested in municipal bonds during the stock boom (bubble), the exact same investment policy they used to argue that Greenspan was a living saint (but I digress).
Two: as far as putting his convictions where his mouth is, the man has spent the last (how many?) years teaching kids the government–through underfunded public schools–has effectively abandonned, does anybody outside the Lieberman campaign really want to argue about his commitment and his ethics?

The Encyclopedia Britannica says the people of Canaan (Palestine) were “fainthearted in the face of the Israelite tribes…” The conquest of Canaan by Joshua and the Israelites was “swift and decisive.” Homes were razed, people were displaced and human life was extinguished. Sound familiar?

Urban Pirate

Federal candidates are required to file their reports with the FEC on Jan 31, April 15, July 15, and October 15. In addition pre-election reports are due 12 days before a primary and a general and a specail election.
Contributions over $1,000 recieved between 20 days and 48 hours before an election (any kind of election) must be reported w/i 48 hours on a specail form.

Any camapign expected to have aggregate expenditures or contributions over $50,000 in a calandar year are required to file the reports electronically so the info will be available to the public right away.

Somebody is trying to feed false info. I think they are trying to sabotage our credibilty.

Jane, talk to an election lawyer and double check your specifics before you go out on a limb here. If leiberman didn’t file on the 15th, that is huge news. But I think someone is maybe trying to sucker you.

Joe must be desperate/

lotus 42 – LOL! “flop sweat/coffee-breath/collar- starch” ya do have a way with words.

OT – Tony Snow just told this morning’s press gaggle that he can’t talk about some things until his security clearance is official…adding it should be within a month or so or maybe some weeks….sorry its all lotus’ fault for giving me uncontrollable laughing fits. ;^D

Cheney: “I can tell you, Joe, THE GOVERNMENT had absolutely nothing to do with IT.”

I guess THAT got fixed.

Back to the original Lamont/Halliburton problem. Lamont can solve with one press relaese that says

“If elected I will place my investments in a blind trust”

issue over

Jenny, right – Lieberman is really grasping at straws right now. You hear this desperation in his voice and see that look on his face. It says it all. When it comes to money, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Ned should stick to the issues and focus on what the people of CT want solved.

Prairie Sunshine,

I certainly agree that we all need to do MUCH more than express our thoughts on FDL – we need to also take what we learn and the ideas we develop and find ways to make a difference. I couldn’t agree more about that.

Which is why I was in CT last week doing door knocking for Lamont and while I will try to get back and do the same next week. I encourage everyone on FDL to do whatever they can to help as well.

I’m glad y’all enjoyed that, but I can’t really take the credit. It was originally my bro’s speculation re Ashcroft. And I bet I misspelled “Hadassah” to boot.

As the primary approaches and Lieberman increasingly feels the heat, I would expect more negative attacks. I think “Distracting” is a good way to describe this. Don’t look at the record or nonrecord of a 3 term Senator. Don’t look at the beam in Lieberman’s eye. Look at the mote in Lamont’s.

If Lieberman throws mud and loses, he will end his political career a discredited figure. Even if he wins, he will be damaged goods. His record despite his best efforts to hide it has been exposed. His national aspirations are over. His image as a statesman held mostly by himself is laughably punctured. His hypocrisy in sermonizing to Clinton and fawning before Bush will be remembered as will his contempt for his party and his constituents. Joe has other loyalties, you see, and they are to himself and his career.

Loyus,

It was funny, but darlin’ I’m trying to eat lunch here

Ooo, scoozy, lhp!

Lamont should just say — I did not know which stock I owned, but since you have unearthed this fact, I will immediately sell it and give the money to a fund that helps disabled soldiers in this misbegotten war in Iraq that you so fervently support.

But Joe how are you going to disavow all the votes you took that gave Bush the power he needs to use Halliburton as a money tree for his friends. You want to speak out on that? Joe? Where are you Joe? thought you were here …

All I can say, is that it’s Liarman’s *positions* that make me want to see his campaign’s lists of donors, Haddassah’s clients, etc. And follow the money trail. And for me, just watching the above clip where Lieberman is dangerously and disingenously laying all the blame on Iran (what next Syria?) for Israel and Lebanon’s problems makes my blood boil. That and the pharmaceutical legislation, etc.
Lamont is clean as far as I am concerned. He doesn’t take money from lobbyists. And what money he does have from whatever stocks doesn’t change his opinion on the suckiness of the war. That’s a big difference between him and Liarman.

GrandmaJ –

That is our answer.

Someone who has connections should forward GrandmaJ’s post to Lamont’s campaign team, pronto.

Just now listening to the clip posted above. JoMo is really reading from the PNAC/Weekly Standard script: The terrorist government in Iran/this is part of the larger war on radical Islam, etc…

How did anybody with that voice ever make it modern politics. He makes Hillary Clinton sound like Kathleen Turner.

Good response Jane. I caught that blurb at Josh’s site last night and had to throw it in the comments knowing it wouldn’t get by you for a second.

I don’t fault Josh or the folks at the muckraker for covering it. If it’s muck, they are going to cover it and this was certainly muck. True, it’s a rather silly and petty point, but it’s still something his team will cover in election politics.

Consider this is the only counter attack that Joe has thrown that actually has a basis in truth, it says a lot more about how pathetic Joe’s campaign looks right now. I mean, if this is the worst they can do then all I can say is HA!

Gotta love an incumbent splattering like a fly on a windshield. Just wipe it up and move on.

Froomkin on fire!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00504.html

mui

you shoul be able to see leiberman’s list of contributors on the FEC website or try http://WWW.MOTHERJONES.COM

I haven’t checked. If he has NOT filed with the FEC and has not gotten a temporary extension, THAT IS HUGE NEWS and I would love to know about it.

i’m with grandmaj – a good, simple solution that could assuage those queasy with the words “lamont”, “haliburton” and “investment.”

Man, Lieberman just played those reporters like a Strativarius.
“He also owns stock in several large oil companies, so that’s for the people to judge…”

Apparently none of those reporters know that Hadassah works for Big Pharma, or at least none of them are interested. Lieberman was a smooth little slimeball in that script.

wxyz — #61

props to you!

OMFG Christy! That was absolutely beautiful!

Jim, I agree with your points. I’m just saying that a simple phone call from Lamont to his MM would end any further discussion of a minor issue that Joe is trying to turn into a big deal. Punto. Just drop the shit and move on. Why let it get in the way of anything else? And my point is that he should divest not because Joe found out or that it’s a horrible political blunder, but because it’s wrong.

Friends of Lieberman April quarterly up at:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00235515

July quarterly not there (yet).

GrandmaJ #66

Pricesless!

Just as an aside:
WHere is HoJo’s ‘outrage’ after hearing Gonzo admit the Prez blocked the OPR probe into NSA domestic spying? THAT is at the very least unethical. Decry me a river…
—–
(more aside)
Eureka!
‘Crashing the Gate’ (via local library)
Thanks to all librarians.

ooops, GrandmaJ #66

Priceless!!!!!!

meta @66: I was speaking more in rhetorical frustration to the MSM than to anyone here, I guess.
I was just thinking of emailing joe2006.com and asking how much Hadassah has collected in her most recent stint as a lobbyist. Would that be counterproductive with my out of state status?

65
GrandmaJ says

July 19th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Lamont should just say — I did not know which stock I owned, but since you have unearthed this fact, I will immediately sell it and give the money to a fund that helps disabled soldiers in this misbegotten war in Iraq that you so fervently support.

Gosh, I really seem to be the contrarian here today, but I must respectfully disagree with Grandma J.

It’s not fair to the next candidate, who may not be able to afford to donate the procedes of an investment.

It createes a new weapon that a candidate can use to discourage their opponent from continuing in a race saying ” you invested in X stock, I thin that’s terrible, you shoud sell X stock and give the money to charity”

Well what if that candidae is not filthy rich? what if X stock represents his kid’s college fund? that candidate will drop out.

You cannot make the ability to donate you way out of trouble any kind of criterai for a candidate, or only the rich will be able to run.

It’s a really steep, slick, slippery slope

Go to opensecrets.org – they have all kinds of info on who is giving and how much.

Amen sista GrandmaJ!! Give Ned a call!

Re Josh and TPM: There is an ongoing tension between those who see themselves primarily as progressives and those who may be progressive but identify more with an established party, like the Democrats. You see much the same dynamic with Kos or when Peter Daou goes to work for Hillary. It may be irritating but it is hardly surprising.

I find this whole flap a bit odd. Assume you, as a money manager, figure out that a rich, corrupt crony has become the most powerful VP in history, and has continued close ties with his former employer–a gigantic government contractor. That would tend to suggest that the gov’t contractor’s about to make a whole lot more money and if you’re right, your clients benefit. Turns out his money manager was right. Good for him. What effect does this practically have on governance–of either the country or the corporation? Zero.

On the other hand, suppose your wife works for big Pharma in government relations and you, as a sitting senator, are constantly pounded with requests for that industry. Which presents the tougher ethical problem?

Did we used to have an ActBlue button for Lamont? It doesn’t load on my page. If this was discussed and/or waiting for Jane to return in triumph, please excuse the question.

looseheadprop –

I have to disagree – Lamont is wealthy enough to divest, so he should. Grandma J came up with a perfect way to do so.

I’m not sure why you are worried about precedent.

“Precedent” or “slippery slope” arguments are usually used, in my experience, when no good arguments exist.

My idea of a perfect Lamont response just wrote itself. It reminds me a bit of the gradeschool playground where someone calls you a name and the best defense is ‘If I am …., what are you?

It must be turned around quickly with the outrage pointed right back at the initial slimeball thrower. Can’t ignore it. Can’t be defensive. Throw the goll darn slimeball back even harder. [wanted so much to swear but don’t want to clog any toobz]

OT–Troops on the ground on both sides now acc to cnn– so much for the border/blue line. Is it a war now, Snowjob or just a little border skirmish?

I’m with Jim,

The thing Joe is not forced to report, and which probably will not show up in his tax returns (unless Hadassah’s lobbying is done as a sole proprietor and I doubt they are that unsophisticated) are the indenties od Hadassah’s lobbying clients, the fees paid AND THE TIMING OF THE FEES RELATIVE TO CRITCAL VOTES.

Linky for donating to Lamont campaign.

Looseheadprop – the weapon you described already exists anyway. Lieberman is attacking Lamont for owning stock of Halliburton. He would attack whether or not Lamont could afford to divest. Lamont can afford to divest, so he should. Future campaigners who are trapped in a similar situation should do what is best in that particular situation. What Lamont does here has zero bearing on such future campaigners. No slippery slope exists. I call bullshit.

I was searching for a link to info about Cheney’s $20 million dollar “unsigning” bonus (read: investment) from Halliburton at the same time he cut retirees’ health benefits. I came across this link to a Capitol Gang transcript talking about Joe Lieberman. Kind of interesting.

Re Josh Marshall: I’ve read that he has lots of friends on Lieberman’s staff, and that’s why he’s hestitant to call Lieberman out. He also counts among his friends Marshall Whittman and Mickey Kaus. Yeah, that Mickey Kaus.
I like Marshall, he’s done some good work on Social Security and he gets great posters at TPMCafe, but he himself is a member of the Beltway Establishment’s Junior League, I think.

LHD – Actually I agree with you too. The divestment part could be dropped if a candidate cannot realistically do that.

but the part where the candidate must throw the slimeball back — hard — I do believe must stand. A slightly different approach for each candidate. Ned can divest, others may not be able to, but acknowledge and return serve.

Happy talk:

In Beirut, Embassy Tells Stranded Americans: Evacuation Is a Mouse-Click Away

Tony Snow says ‘no war’ in Lebanon… Developing…

and not:

ACLU suggests US may be spying on three other financial services

PS: If anybody couldn’t make it all the way through that video clip, the Big Pharma Lobbyist’s husband tried to use a private citizen’s proportionately insignificant investment in Halliburton to connect Ned Lamont to the REPUBLICANS’ lobbying/bribe scandal. The man really has no conscience.

Jim at 95,

Thank you. That is extremely edifying and helps to explain Josh’s “agnoticism” on Lamont/Lieberman.

I find it rather grotesque (to use Condi’s term of choice) that he is so influence by his buddies regarding a candidate who helped give Bush aid and comfort in his effort to destroy social security, one of Josh’s most significant causes.

On Lieberman, at least, Josh has thrown his lot in with the cocktail circuit crowd. Grotesque.

This campaign must be a real eye-opener for Lamont – being targeted so viciously by the sleaze machine. Even seasoned politicians like Gore and Kerry must’ve been stunned by the tactics: Swiftboat, Al Gore invented the internet!, blah blah blah. Who woulda thunk AWOL would get away with painting Kerry as a coward or Max Cleland morphing into, what was it, Osama Bin Laden? Who woulda thunk it?

They sink to new lows everyday. It’s hard to fathom the depths of their depravity, especially since these races are on a national level where all eyes are on them. These ain’t no local sheriff races. Crazy.

WXYZ

that ’s what they said when the, then, unprecedented demand was made of Geraldine Ferrara that she release her personal and her husband’s business tax returns when she ran for VP

At the time there was a lot of press and she protested that it would create a precedent that would be used in future to invade the privacy of candidates and discourage otherwise exellent candidates from even considering a run.

NOOO, the reply came, this is a specail thing, and the slippery slope arguement is made when yo uhave something to hide.

Turned out, Gerry was right, wasn’t she. BTW, young campaign volunteer that I was, I bent her ear for a full 1/2 hour urging her not to give in and do it (with her husband stnading there saying ” listen, even the kid understnads it”)–but the so called cmapign professionals had there way.

now it is virtually SOP to release a candidates tax returns

OT –

Another feather in Bush’s Middle East hat:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00823.html

I wonder what kind of ramifications this will have since Turkey is now in the EU.

OT– whoo-boy a big bang from Froomkin:

>>>>>>>>>

Here for instance, is Bush in March 2005: “And any who doubt the appeal of freedom in the Middle East can look to Lebanon, where the Lebanese people are demanding a free and independent nation. In the words of one Lebanese observer, ‘Democracy is knocking at the door of this country and, if it’s successful in Lebanon, it is going to ring the doors of every Arab regime.’…

“Today I have a message for the people of Lebanon: All the world is witnessing your great movement of conscience. Lebanon’s future belongs in your hands, and by your courage, Lebanon’s future will be in your hands. The American people are on your side. Millions across the earth are on your side. The momentum of freedom is on your side, and freedom will prevail in Lebanon.”

And that was before the elections!

>>>>>>
things that make you go hmmmmm.

Alan Bisbort 46 – great LTE!

Looseheadprop – do you have a problem with creating a “precedent” where extremely wealthy candidates are encouraged to divest their investments in companies that have interests opposed to the values expressed in their campaign?

Because I don’t.

Even a less wealthy candidate can divest and put the money elsewhere. Lamont is rich enough to give it to Iraq war veterans, so he should, that is a good idea.

If you think that poor candidates will one day be forced to divest their holdings in a particular company, and be forced to GIVE IT AWAY, then I think you are wrong in your prediction. And if you believe that we are moving toward a situation where candidates are simply forced to divest companies that represent opposing values, allowing them to keep the money or invest it elsewhere – I say fine, what is the problem here?

but the part where the candidate must throw the slimeball back — hard — I do believe must stand

In that Grandma J, you and I are in perfect agreement.

I still think the easiest, fastest and most effective way to stop this crap is the offer to create a blind trust. Cost’s him almost nothing, actually is related to not having him have a conflict of interest based on his investments and is fair and can be done by future candidates w/o harm to their own financial life.

Simple, fast, clean easy–and the best part, it only happens if he wins because otherwise it is not relevant

Zergle,

Turkey is not a member of the EU. It is only at the very beginning of the entrance process and it may be ten or twenty years before it is allowed in, if then given European xenophobia.

Looseheadprop at 106.

I disagree – the easiest and most symbolically powerful way to proceed is to divest the money from Halliburton and give it to the veterans.

It is really the only way to go that looks right and makes sense to the public.

Truly an elegant solution, GrandmaJ. Kudos again.

However Lamont divests (and I’m sure he will) I pray he does it from a position of strength and not from a defensive posture. I’m sure his campaign is working on the right approach as we speak.

Joe-nertia: Making the world safe for offense contractors and publicly-traded dope-peddlers.

Well done, Alan Bisbort!

Lamont can fix the investment that he did not know about and do something positive with it.

Joe Lieberman can never take back his support for this misbegotten war.

Yes, that works.

You know, the republicans get away with simply saying, “No, I’m not telling you.”. Once in a while I wish we could. SIGH.

Okay, so if Ned starts dancing to Lieberman’s tune, Lieberman will start picking through Ned’s finances to the point where Lamont will be tap-dancing, and that’s not something we want to have happen.

Ned needs to not take one move toward the defensive, because once that starts, it won’t stop. Instead, Ned needs to hammer Joe hard about Joe’s investments during his tenure as a US Senator, and the sources of his income during that period. Ned can get the FEC info, and start asking questions about the corporate donations – and I think if he would, Joe would shut up pretty fast. Joe has a voting record. People can – and will – draw their own conclusions about Joe’s contributors and his voting record, and it won’t matter if the conclusions are wrong or out of context. Hell, that’s the very thing Joe is trying to do to Ned by raising the Halliburton stock issue, so if Joe wants the people to judge, Ned might as well give them some Joe-formation to nosh on, too.

Any talk about blind trusts needs to be done in such a way that the ugly spectre of Bill Frist does not enter the conversation.

Anne is right. It also makes sense for Lamont to ignore Lieberman’s ridiculous attack and keep on the offensive – absolutely hammering on Lieberman’s record.

lhp puppy update?

for Ned it would be a no-no to kow-tow to Ho-Jo

Hugh @ 108 – Thanks. I was hesitant to make that statement, and now I know why. The sad thing is that even with that slip I think I’m more qualified on ME affairs than our Prez.

Mmmmm….cranberry sauce.

Ned Lamont should absolutely continue to make an issue of Lieberman’s campaign donors. There is a fundamental difference between earning money on investments and receiving donations for political campaigns. In Lamont’s case, the companies in which he owns stock are not paying him dividends in the hope of influencing his votes in the U.S. Senate; they are paying him the same dividends they pay any other investor. It’s called capitalism. In Lieberman’s case, on the other hand, corporations and other powerful interests may be giving him contributions in the hope of influencing his votes. This is true of Lamont’s contributors, too; that is why both candidates should disclose their donors and let the people judge what kind of influence donors may be buying. Comparing dividends paid to investors by publicly owned companies to campaign contributions is like comparing apples and rutabagas.

Anne is right. But I think Ned will divest and I don’t know how he’ll manage to look strong after he capitulates. I don’t see any upside to it, but I hope I’m wrong.

No capitulation to Lieberman’s manipulations. If he wants to talk finances, hit back, hard.

He’s talking about Ned’s money because he’s got nothing else to talk about. Point that out. He’s got zero accomplishments in line with CT values, and he’s asking for the chance to do more of the same.

How’s that working for you, CT?

And if he does it again, Haddassah’s clients.

And Haddassah’s clients again.

Then, some more on Haddassah’s clients.

Who does Joe represent? The people of CT or Haddassah’s clients.

My $.02

Maont should follow ALL of the suggestions

1) Divest and donate – I believe it’s not worth fighting the fight

2) Remind voters that all investments are put in blind trust if he wins.

3) Point out that, unlike Joe, his wife will never take a lobbyist job with conflicts of interest.

Wxyz

I have no problem with divestiture. He can put the money elsewhere.

it is the idea that if your oppenent criticizes your investment, the immediate knee jerk reaction is to give it away.

i think Ned id telling the truth about the money manager and Ned Probabaly din’t even realize he had the Halliburton. Now that he knows, it would be entirely appropriate for him to divest because he is opposed to the war and war profiteering.

It’s the idea that donation of the proceedes will somehow expunge the conflict of interest.

I am a member of a government board of ethic. we do conflict of interest determinations. That is not how the history or body of law in this area works. We often have people who have engaged in a conflict when they get caught offering to donate or do some such other thing that they think will expunge the conflict.

No, when you discover tha conflict you
a) takes steps to remove the conflict (in this case divest)

and b) takes steps to avoid conflict in future (such as the blind trust idea)

you can never buy you way out of a conflict, it would take too long to do the disertation and I have to get back to work (I finished my lunch) but trying to pay to expunge a conflict actually makes things worse under most government ethics codes.

if he did not intentionally do anything wrong, all he has to do is correct the problem now that he is ware of it and takes steps to prevent other similar problems in future.

I don’t want to see a new form of political balckmail created

wxyz – that is why the statement I imagined worked. It is because it states he did not know (IF, AND ONLY IF that is true) of owning Halliburton stock, then proposes a solution that is beneficial to others, and points to Lieberman about his own problems. All in as few words as possible.

I accept LHD’s position that even ‘divesting’ is giving way, kinda, to their slime and a blind trust would be another way to go. But in Ned’s particular case where ‘big money’ accusation has already been thrown at him, the divestment works better IMO.

But I trust that adman from Minnesota, where I live, to come up with something.

Ned, fight back with a smile on your face, and some humor in your voice at poor Joe’s weak words.

lhp (124 and earlier), I think you’ve got it spot-on. Now, how’s Baby Mittens?

GrandmaJ 124 -

Humor could do it. If he does address the issue it absolutely has to be in a smart and funny manner and make Joe look ridiculous. It’s a bit of a tall order but that’s a brilliant solution.

HAve you guys watched this scummy Campaign manager, Sean Smith?

Again the operative concept here is that Lamont holding some Halliburton stock is a distraction. It is meant to get Lamont and us talking about it rather than Lieberman’s own lamentable record. There are few, OK no, large corporations that do not have dubious dealings. Joe has signaled after Halliburton there are oil stocks he could bring up and after that pretty much any other company Lamont holds stock in. It’s a distraction. The only way it becomes an issue is if Lamont held a large portion of his investments in Halliburton and while $50,000 is a lot to most of us it probably isn’t to Lamont who is as we all know and have known for a long time a millionaire.

Our time might better be spent asking why Lieberman voted for all that money for Iraq knowing it was going to line Halliburton’s coffers or what precisely he has done to lower gas prices. In this context, I think Lieberman’s wife’s lobbying for Big Pharma is a legitimate issue.

As I read on another site – if HoJo thinks it’s wrong for Lamont to own Halliburton, as a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, shouldn’t he have asked for an investigation of Halliburton’s Iraq contracts?

HoJo can’t have it both ways!

I would not make a good politican — LHD and others are making me change my mind about the statement. Maybe he should acknowledge the accusation and sling financial mud back. I would not want Ned to backtrack or appear to kowtow to Lieberman’s accusations.

Oh, blasted, now I really don’t know. I am out of the consulting business. :)

Betcha brother Hillsman’s cooking a hilarious ad on this as we speak type.

Perfect match for scummy Joe.

The more I think about it, we shouldnt even waste 2 seconds talking/thinking about this.

As JAne says – Distractions.

Talk about the issues Joe – you fucking pussy.

Talk about the issues Sean – you fucking scum.

Sorry – had to vent.

GrandmaJ -

Oh, blasted, now I really don’t know.

That’s what’s so great about these conversations! I love it.

I’d hire GrandmaJ over Bob Shrum any time.

Lamont for owning $50,000 worth of stock in — Halliburton.

This is supporting the war.

Ned should just go forward without mention of what he’s doing with his MM. If directly asked, he can be truthful, but I totally agree he should not give this story legs.

If I ever need an advocate, I want lhp! Or Mary! Or imm!

Hugh,

I agree 100%. The Halliburton thing, we all know, is nothing but a Lieberman distraction and is optically problematic.

We can take a lesson from Bush on this one. He never addresses criticism in the political realm. He just keeps hammering away at his opponent’s weakness. It it almost ridiculous how well this strategy has worked for him politically.

Given that this is a non-issue of no real importance whatsoever, which has been trumped up by Lieberman and Josh Marshall, I think the best response by Lamont may be to keep hammering at Lieberman.

That being said, didn’t Kerry get hurt by not taking on the Swiftboaters?

I am clearly not a political strategist.

looseheadprop, I see at the FEC site Lieberman has raised $5,906,206 for 2005-2006 as of 04/30/2006.
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure
But, I have also heard that Lieberman has raked in much much more. Nothing adds up for me there.
I am also trying to look for some reference to ChoicePoint in that db, that Matt Stoller pointed out in a recent post.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/7/14/18553/4350
Its kind of unwieldy.

E

puppy update. I think I was right about momma’s behavior being related to sepration anxiety. NYExH let her stay upstirs in his office all day and, according to him, all was sweetenst and light (I was at the office past 9 and eveyone was in bed when I got home) this AM, I had to get up at 5 for a Federal bar Council meeting in the City and went to check and the puppy was curled up asleep on a fleece on the floor next to his NYExH bed. NYExH was in bed, Momma dog sitting on his chest guaring him. She would growl at all other dogs if they tried to enter the room.

Yup, she has her daddy back and that’s all she cares about. All I care about is that the puppy remain fed and unmolested for a few more weeks.

Though less than a week old and she doesn’t have her eyes open yet, baby mittens is already trying to walk like a real dog and had learned to smile and seems to want to play. She will bat at your finger with her paws if you put it close to her nose.

Lots and lots of personality.

the tough part was calling my daughter, who is visiting my sister for a week, and telling her Brigit was gone–though I certainly did not tell her how it happened.

I think the crisis is over though. Thanks for asking

Alan @46- Great Letter.

I love the new posters coming in to stir the beehive too – Soaponarope etc. – go fuck yourselves.

It’s not an issue unless WE make it one.

Joe/Sean embody all the scum I hate about this “game”.

Ned’s high road / nice-guy approach is laudable and seems like a successful strategy so far….but it sure would be nice to see him to tear into a pinata filled with HoJo’s “bon bons”.

My only concern about Lamont’s investments is that he doesn’t have a substantial portion of his wealth tied up in something that can be directly affected by the U.S. government. In other words, is much of his wealth tied up in Halliburton, say, like our Vice President’s is? That’s the thing that matters. That he has 100 shares of Walmart really doesn’t bother me very much. If he has 100,000, that starts to sound like real money to a guy like Lamont.

In short, just make sure his livelihood isn’t dependent on what he can do in the Senate. That’s what’s likely to affect his behavior.

Right Fools,

After googling Lieberman and Halliburton, I found that he has spoken out on the no bids contracts awarded to Halliburton and some of its other excesses. The point is he never did much more than talk and kept voting the money for it anyway.

Punaise – I would make a terrible consultant. Not even my grown kids consult me. I am waaaay too empathetic.

JennyOTB – yes it is what makes this place so great – throwing ideas around, testing their premise, gets everyone clearer, or in my case LESS clearer, on the way to proceed.

If the Lamont stock wasn’t made public, how did Joe know about the Halliburton/mutual fund?

Spy friends?

The NSA told him, ccmask.

Well, that’s a relief, lhp. What a shame that “Daddy” had to learn this lesson at Bridget’s (and your own and your daughter’s) cost, though. We’re all looking forward to pix of BabyM someday soon.

cc- because he has access to the Senate ethics filings. Probably an unethical thing.

Given that this is a non-issue of no real importance whatsoever, which has been trumped up by Lieberman and Josh Marshall, I think the best response by Lamont may be to keep hammering at Lieberman.

That being said, didn’t Kerry get hurt by not taking on the Swiftboaters?

WXYZ

On THIS we agree perfectly.

i also really like Jenny FTB’s idea about hitting back with humor. Maybe it is cause I’m Irsh, but in acient Ireland the thing all men, especailly kings, were supposed to fear most was unpleasent attetnion from SATIRISTS.

So who has a nice withering comeback that Ned can use on ole’ Holy Joe?

Actually smackdowns are Jane’s (and what I love best about her) specailty, maybe she got one up her sleeve?

The question inevitably arises: if Ned claims he didn’t know about the investment, how is it that Joe knew?

And the next question is: how does Ned extricate himself from the corner Joe is happily pinning him into?

Seems to me it has to be fast, clean and in a way that takes the focus off Ned and puts it right back on Lieberman.

Maybe something like: “I’d like to thank Joe and his staff for their thorough examination of my investments, which revealed that I own $$ worth of Halliburton stock. While my investment manager is divesting my account of the Halliburton stock, which I would, in fact, prefer not to own regardless of how well it has performed, I want to assure Joe that my staff has been busily engaged in examining the FEC reports on campaign contributions, and I wondered if he was aware of the following: (and then proceed to name some of the contributors). While I, as a private citizen, was engaged in that great American thing called capitalism, Joe was a member of the US Senate, voting on issues and taking positions in areas where his contributors have quite a vested interest. While my purchase of stock paid me dividends, what did Joe’s contributors’ donations pay them? Maybe the people should judge.”

lhp -

Thanks, but I was tagging onto grandmaJ’s suggestion. You can pretty much do alchemy with humor.

btw, I’ve been following your puppy saga, hanging onto every word. Haven’t said anything yet because I’m the new kid. But I’m so glad the situation is getting better. I was very sad to hear about the puppy!

wxyz,

I agree about Kerry. How different things might have been if he had come out early and very publicly and said, these are baldfaced lies and those spreading them are despicable cowards. Period.

I think Lamont should do something similar: This is bunk. Now let’s start talking about Lieberman’s disastrous support of the war and his wife’s lobbying for Big Drug companies raising the prices of medications to the good people of Connecticut.

Cujo (et al.), I’m willing to bet that the Lamonts’ money manager has them so well-diversified in not only various stocks but various investments of multiple kinds that no one discrete investment in their whole portfolio amounts to a “material” concern for anyone. That’s another way “the rich are different from you and me.”

mui
you are a braver soul than me. I really suck at navigating the FEC website. Tried to do some oppo research there once and ran screaming away from the computer.

You have may respect for your bravery.

‘Show me yours, I won’t show you mine‘…Here’s hoping that strategy unravels before the Friday news dump window.

Here’s a hypothetical middle way: Divesting the Halliburton stock can and will be spun as ‘weakness’, ‘flip-flopping’, etc., post-act regardless of the true optics involved, unless the stock was culled from the portfolio and placed into a trust for disabled vets/armor supply for active-duty squaddies who can’t afford the tab, or some other worthy cause.

‘Use the beast’s lucre against itself’

Mui
You are a brave soul. I have run screaming from th computer after trying to navigate the FEC website.

I salute you for your bravery.

Anne,
If I ever run for anything again, will you be my spokesperson? I love that approach. Simple sincere, straightfoward, and apunch like an anvil to the gut.

Hugh 146, good point. Lieberman’s fine shell game.
But besides the war, folks in CT are very very angry about healthcare, gas prices and the high cost of prescription drugs. The last one particuarly in my view is a kicker, cause Lieberman has a not so lovely record of voting to increase profit margins for BigPharma, even for those who receive fed funding. If $$ and legislative record could be paired together & publicized far & wide, goodbye Joe-Joe! *That* in my opinion, & health care and the war would be the kicker.

Anne DOES have that gift, doesn’t she, lhp? We think you’ve missed your calling, Miss Anne.

mui

I double posted to you (I thought my first one got lsot when my internet connection was severred for a few minutes)

Shows you what a seive my memeory is, I couldn’t even duplicate it a couple minutes later

Just saw looseheadprop @ 10:46 am and that is the ticket. Definitely want lhp on our side!

BTW

Thank you all for all the kinds words and sympathy over the puppy saga.

It really did help more than you know. Thanks for letting me vent

If I were Ned, I would be tempted to ask, “Which is worse owning Halliburton or, as a major shareholder of Halliburton, designing a war to benefit Halliburton?”

FDL Anne for President!

If I were Ned, I’d let Hillsman handle this in a kick-ass ad.

Disgusting, worthless waste of life yourself W!

He vetos the stem cell legislation surrounded by children.

My heart is broken.

meta,
you’re makin’ me blush.

Right fool

That would be a nice closing line to Anne’s lovely speech.

Guys, I think we have the makings of a solution here?

Can we persuade *ilson to purchase http://www.draftanne.com?

Darkblack at 158 – aboslutely agree, if I am following your post correctly (and I do get lost on a regular basis) that the only way to make divestiture not a concession but an aggressive counterpoint is to make a point of using Halliburton money to help those whom Halliburton (and Joe by his votes) has hurt.

The divestiture could only work if done agressively accompanied by attacks back at Lieberman. By itself, divesting the stock and hoping the issue goes away will not work. That is so very true.

But, then again, I could be on the wrong horse going the wrong direction. Familiar territory for me but I always return to the directions and find my way back.

Political Campaigns are like Rugby scrums in a minefield — Ned screwed up, by not doing oppo research on himself and divesting this stock before he announced his candidacy.

That said, the best strategy now would be to divest, and donate the proceeds to disabled Iraqi veterans and food banks in Connecticut — AND, go on the offensive about Holy Joe’s selling out the American People to lobbyist Hadassah’s big pharma clients.

lhp – tell you what – I’ll be your spokesperson if you’ll be my lawyer!

lotus – thanks for the compliment!

(Now, I’m blushing…)

ANgie at 168

He used kids as props when he did the Veto?

sickening

looseheadprop (162). No problem. I sometimes hit that button too hard when the connection’s slow.

I agree that Hadassah’s lobbyist connections should be an issue, but would it be a mistake for Ned to MAKE it an issue? Would it create the possibility of a “Mrs. Alito’s tears” moment, with Ned seen as a bully? How could that be avoided?

BRIDGEPORT — U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman believes the U.S. will withdraw a “solid” contingent of its military forces in Iraq by the end of the year because of gains made by the Iraqi armed forces.
“There really has been progress made by the Iraqi military,” Lieberman said Tuesday during a meeting with the Connecticut Post’s editorial board. “Two-thirds of it could stand on its own or lead the fight with our logistical support.”

The three-term U.S. senator said he believes a complete withdrawal is possible by late 2007 or early 2008.

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_4068760

Now, I ask, what would make Joe so confident that Busco is going to pull troops right before the elections (as we’ve long surmised)?

Setting aside for a moment how disgusting it is that the gOP is playing politics with our troops, does this prove Joe’s getting KKKarl’s emails?

Have we got some heavy-duty talent around here, er whut, y’all?!

ck

“rugby scrum in a minefeild”? What a mental image I have now.

You are so right about the mistake of not doing his own oppo research on himself. it’s a newbie’s mistake

New thread for everyone’s amusement (or digust, depending on your mood today…)

GrandmaJ @ 171:

Exactly…High visibility, cut the legs right out from under Lieberman’s faux outrage talking point, and highlight a select issue that gets spiked by the media far too often.

In the words of Cactus Jack…”Bang Bang!”

;>)

Jenny – now that’s just silly (but thanks for the compliment!)

yes, lhp. I cannot believe how much this hurts!

He just doesn’t care. He’ll fly home for Terry Schiavo to keep her alive in a vegetative state, but would do NOTHING to help her.

Fundi fervor with their precious little props.

lotus @ 11:06 am (#155) – Actually, it’s becoming the way (upper?) middle class Americans handle their money, too. Most mutual funds tend to do this. Unless you want to get rich or live off of your savings, there’s every reason to have diverse holdings. That way you don’t lose everything if one part of the economy goes south.

As someone observed earlier, looked at simply from a profit and loss perspective, Halliburton would have been a great investment five years ago. I suspect quite a few money managers took some of that action.

lhp –

I’ve used the minefield metaphor for a long time — the rugby scrum was for you.

The minefield part is real — you have to know where they are, avoid them, lure your opponents into them, and generally try not to get blown up.

neuro,

you have a point (Brings to mind Ed Muskie too)

The thing is (and it would take a very very good PI to find this out) if you could show a correlation between lobbying payment to Hadassah and the tming of critaicl votes by Joe–of course I have no idea or even suspiciaon that there even is such a correlation,

but if the facts were to show that Joe was being influenced by payments to hs wife, I don’t think any amount of tears would matter.

The trick is, you gotta have the proof if you want to go that seriously negative.

Yes, Cujo, my own newish MM once suggested HAL to me “… unless you’d have political objections to that.”

“I would.”

“Well, screw you then [smiling].”

She didn’t last long with me.

lotus – that’s what you get for hiring a MSMM :~)

lhp 186 -

this is 2006 – “Proof? We don’t need no stinking proof!”

All we need are some flip-flops and bandaids and a few people willing to lie.

neurophius @ 176:

‘Would it create the possibility of a “Mrs. Alito’s tears” moment, with Ned seen as a bully? How could that be avoided?’

Hadassah Lieberman would have to be complicit enough in that strategy to allow her Hill & Knowlton health and pharmaceuticals practice full scrutiny contrasted side-by-side with her husband’s voting record.

The risk outweighs the benefits, if the Lamont campaign is ruthless enough.

Oh, and a complicit media.

I love pirates!!

new thread — afternoon delights

I don’t understand the tip-toeing around about his wife.

“Your wife is a LOBBYIST. That’s unethical.”

Hit em where he thinks he’s strong, the ethical candidate thing. Like criticizing Clinton makes him pure or something.

neurophius (176). You have a point. Haddassah has this girlish gentile appearance and of course, Joe will stress that her parents were holocaust survivors. But I feel a little bitter, having stood in the line at the pharmacy time and time again watching people who look like they are in bad health, heavily shell out money for prescriptions, like $13 a pill. It seems a running bad joke. The pharmacist will ask, any questions? Customer answers, yes, only if I can afford it. How that pair sleeps at night is beyond me.

looseheadprop,

You may need proof in science and law but in politics, not so much. There it is a question of understanding the reason for an attack and responding to it based not the fact (Lamont owning stock) but the underlying issue (Lieberman’s bad record).

As for Hadassah BigPharma, there probably is a conflict of interest there but just as important from an ethical and political view there is the appearance of one. It is not for Lamont to present the case for or against. Much like the Halliburton stock thing, Lamont has only to raise the issue and leave it to Lieberman to make his case why this isn’t an unethical conflict of interest.

Anne@153
You and others raise a good point regarding how Joe knew about the Halliburton stock. It’ been a long time since I invested in mutual funds, but I do know that many tax accountants will gratuitously submit a list of investments on a tax return, sometimes specifically identifying the investment income with the investment that is otherwise lumped together on the tax return. If that was the case, anyone with a little ingenuity and time on their hands could find the prospectus for the mutual fund (they’re all filed with the SEC) and identify the stocks that are held by the fund. The problem is that Halliburton is just one stock of many in the mutual fund portfolio, and this is where I’m still a little confused by the $50,000 figure. If Ned has $50,000 invested in a particular mutual fund, then it’s unlikely that more than a small percentage of that amount is invested in Halliburton. No savvy mutual fund manager is going to risk having more than, say, 5% tops in any one particular stock. It’s just too risky for the entire portfolio. There are some high risk funds, but its’ unlikely Halliburton would be included in those types of portfolios. So instead of having $50,000 in Halliburton stock, Ned may have no more than $2500 actually invested in Halliburton. The remainder of the $50,000 would be invested in a wide range of stocks. Furthermore, Ned can’t get out of Halliburton without getting out of his entire position in that particular mutual fund, and there are probably many other good stocks in the fund that are not at all controversial. On the other hand, if the proportion of the investment in Halliburton really does represent $50,000, then, using our 5% example again, Ned has $1,000,000 invested in one mutual fund that contains Halliburton stock as part of its portfolio (more than $1 million if the Halliburton percentage is less than 5%). So for Ned to get out of the Halliburton stock, he’ll have to get out of his entire position in the mutual fund. It’s a very devious move by Lieberman’s camp.

It’s not unethical to be a lobbyist, it’s just that it is a position that is easily abused – as we’ve seen in recent years. The lawyers are just happy that their position near the bottom of the “Who do you trust” list has been taken by the lobbyists.

I see nothing wrong with Joe being asked to reconcile his wife’s lobbying work with his position in the Senate, especially in light of Joe’s belief that “the people” are the best judge of things like this.

On the other hand, now would be a good time to sell that Halliburton stock so he can match his campaing contributors one for one.

Hugh (196). You can’t raise an issue just “once” and leave it for Lieberman to defend. Lieberman is like Houdini when it comes to wiggling out of compromising stuff and he’ll do it so fast and deft noone in the public will take note of the controversy because he’ll be taking a huge swipe at Ned in the meantime. Lieberman is a professional political boxer. Hojo needs to be steadily pounded with compromising information so he can’t do his usual ducks and feints. Like with the war issue.

I can’t fault Ned for having stock in Haliburton. For a number of years I worked for a company that did it’s auditing work. Haliburton paid it’s fees, and that money got tossed into the pool of money that paid my salary and benefits. Once I found out that Haliburton was a client, I used that as the reason to focus my life in a different direction.

When you look at the way Joe whored his influence to get campaign donations, it takes on a whole different character. Ned’s investment was private, Joe’s tricks involved public trust.

Joe is such a slimeball. What ever happened to Mr. Personality, Stamford High School class of 1960?

Lamont should say, “when I’m elected to the US Senate I will place all my investments into a blind trust. Until then, what stocks I own represent no conflict of interest.”

Just an aside in regards the whole mutual fund thing, money managers don’t put client assets into mutual funds, as a rule. There are fees involved in paying the managers of a fund to do what the client is paying his manager to do. Kind of like subcontracting the job, where both firms take a cut. Neds manager is surely buying individual stocks and bonds and may be involved in other financial plays.

I think it would be great to make HoJo explain why Lamont owning Halliburton stock is a problem.

He’ll only dig his own grave.

Niiice, Right Fools. I’d like that too.

jeffreyw@203-
Normally, a money manager would do as you’re suggesting and invest in individual stocks. But, as an investor, you might want to participate in a particular field, such as technology stocks, without carving out particular stocks. In that case, a no-load technology mutual fund might be just the right vehicle. The other issue is whether or not Ned’s money manager has full discretionary authority over investments. If he/she does have full discretion, Ned would probably just be looking at the bottom line of the total portfolio and how much money the portfolio made rather than at the individual investments that created the return. In no way would he have participated in the decision making regarding the individual stocks. Just a thought.

It seems to me that among the very first and most prudent items to take care of by anyone who’s considering running for an important political office (especially a high profile race at the national level), is to thoroughly review their financial investments, and get things in order.

I don’t know all the facts but I would guess this would be an individual stock, not a mutual fund. If it is a mutual fund, and the office seekler doesn’t know what stocks are included, he or she better find out for god’s sake! Otherwise you’re potentially handing your opponent a big, fat club to hit you with. And when you’re opponent is getting desperate and appears eager to drags things down to the mud, like Joementum, it’s a doubly unfortunate mistake.

Is this 20/20 hindsight? Sure. But it’s also quite obvious, and Ned has no one but himself to blame here.

Grayslady-

It’s a little silly to argue here in the midst of EPUtopia (yes I invented that term!) About what you or I would consider proper strategy for investing for ourselves, let alone for Ned. I just wanted to be sure that those who were weaving threads of apology into a screen for our fave candidate used quality yarns so that it would not quickly unravel. The issue, as you mention, is the extent of direction given to the manager. If the argument is “Haliburton was just a small part of a mutual fund so Ned can’t be accused of war profiteering” and someone shows that the investment was not a mutual fund, then that argument fails. None of us know the details, let’s let those who do know fashion the response.

It may only be a distraction to us–in electoral politics perception is the only reality.

Release the damn returns Ned and make this a non-issue!