Lamont did NOT praise Lieberman's rebuke of Clinton in 1998 e-mail

[IndianaGreen]

There is a smear campaign by the Judas Joe people against Ned Lamont.

Here is the full Lamont e-mail from the NY Times. Read it and you be the judge:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/09/nyregion/09lamontweb1.ready.html

On edit:

Here is a story that is grossly misleading, one in which one small part of Lamont's e-mail is reported without context and given a spin of Rovian proportions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2820440&mesg_id=2820440

[Seabiscuit]

1. You're absolutely right. It reads as a rebuke of Lieberman's

politicizing it all.

[Canuckistanian]

2. What was Lamont's relationship to Lieberman in '98?

Was this some official capacity or was this just a constituent email?

Either way, it WAS an indictment of Lieberman's behaviour in supporting the crucifixion of Bill Clinton.

And it also points out the beginning of the "move on" sentiment, which later became famous as an organization.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Yes, I caught that "let's move on" comment by Lamont

Something that the thread on the misleading story fails to mention.

[LA lady]

4. Lamont donated to Lieberman's campaign

More than once

[IndianaGreen]

5. Lamont was a loyal Democrat, unlike Judas Joe

How far has Judas Joe fallen from Grace?

[snowbear]

6. Thanks Indiana Green!

[Canuckistanian]

7. And I'm guessing they were sizable donations

Now, normally, any politician who has been beaten (fair and square) by someone who greatly supported them in the past would bow out gracefully.

Lieberman truly is scum.

[IndianaGreen]

8. The Lieberman campaign has also sunk to a new low

by trying to spin this story into something that is the complete opposite of what it was. Looks like the Lieberman people learned a few tricks from Karl Rove!

They are also getting lots of GOP money to boot!

[MODemocrat]

9. So, I supported Joe in the Gore-Lieberman presidential race

For crying out loud, he supposedly was a Democrat; He wouldn't get my vote again, because he's a
whore-mongering fool now.:puke: :freak:

[IndianaGreen]

10. Vets' Ad For Lieberman Called `Swift-Boating'

Another example of how far the GOP is going to defend their favorite CT Senator:

Vets' Ad For Lieberman Called `Swift-Boating'

September 7, 2006
By MARK PAZNIOKAS, Courant Staff Writer

The ad seems innocuous enough: Four Connecticut veterans appear on the screen to thank Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman for his support of the war in Iraq.

But Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont's campaign Wednesday compared the new television spot to the notorious "swift boat" ads that smeared John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Lamont campaign chairman George Jepsen said the content of the ad is less noteworthy than the identity of the group behind it: Vets for Freedom, which is advised by former aides to Lieberman and President Bush.

"What this shows is the extent to which, once again, the Bush administration and the far right are backing the Lieberman candidacy," Jepsen said.

Standing with 11 Connecticut veterans, including retired National Guard Brig. Gen. James Throwe of South Windsor, Jepsen called on the Lieberman campaign to renounce Vets for Freedom and stop "the swift-boating of Ned Lamont."

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-senate0907.artsep07,0,6183580.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

[MODemocrat]

13. Joe Lieberman is a disgrace to this country

Is he forgetting how he got where he is in the first place? What had the Republicans done for him in
the past? It makes me so ashamed to think I actually voted for that traitor; except for the fact, that
I was really voting for AL GORE; Joe Blow was just forced on us.

Swiftboating is a selective process; that's how well it identifies with the REPUBLICAN PARTY.
I've been supportive of veterans all my life, make contributions, and support the DAV stores.
All three of my brothers served in a REAL war, Not a Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield-GET-RICH-OIL war.

I'd like to think that no part of my contributions and/or donations are going to any of the
SWIFTBOAT Vets. Disguising themselves as Veterans for Peace, indeed! Shame on them.

:evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :spank: :spank:

[1932]

11. as every good Dem should have when Joe was running against Republicans

as a Democrat.

[high density]

12. Wow.

Some people really need to improve their reading comprehension and thinking skills... Then again what more do we expect from such a liberal media.

[Contrary1]

14. I typed the letter in case some of you wanted a copy of it...

I look for the link to "disappear" soon.

Author: Ned Lamont
Date: 9/16/98 11:53 AM
Priority: Normal
TO: senator lieberman at Lieberman-DC
CC: "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]> at Internet,
"'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]> at Internet
Subject: Lewinski Mess

Dear Joe,

I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant because I thought it might make matters worse, I was reluctant because nobody expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or Gingrich lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton's misbehavior.

I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end.

Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

This sorry episode is am embarassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton had a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.

You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, alot more than any of us care to know and should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe should be censured for lying --and let's move on.

It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.


Sincerely,

Ned Lamont
Greenwich, Connecticut


cc Sen Dodd, Rep Shays

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...eb1.ready.html

[IndianaGreen]

15. Thank you, Contrary1

I also expect the link to disappear.

[karynnj]

16. Thanks for posting this - It is not positive at all

I hope this gets as much press as the original interpretation. This is a very good letter and actually brings up some of the points other Senators did.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Compare Lamont's e-mail to the selective excerpt the Lieberman people

are feeding the Connecticut press:

Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont, who recently denounced Sen. Joe Lieberman for his public scolding of President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, lauded the senator at the time for his eloquence and moral authority.

Lieberman's staff on Saturday called Lamont's recent criticisms hypocritical in light of a 1998 letter sent by e-mail. However, Lamont said he stands by his position that the public rebuke exacerbated the situation.

The Lieberman Senate office released copies of the letter, which Lamont sent to the senator shortly after Lieberman took to the Senate floor to chide Clinton in September 1998.

"I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," Lamont wrote.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5386910&nav=3YeX

And here is the same sentence in the proper context:

I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end.

Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

This sorry episode is am embarassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton had a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.

You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, alot more than any of us care to know and should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe should be censured for lying --and let's move on.

And here is the kind of people that are running Lieberman's campaign, as Holy Joe conveniently pleads Shabbat, he has his campaign manager do his dirty work for him. Someone ought to remind Holy Joe of the biblical injunction against making false witness. Holy Joe's "observance" of Shabbat is as phony as the "D" that used to follow his name. Here is Holy Joe's campaign manager, Sherry Brown, showing how much she has learned from Karl Rove's playbook:

Lieberman was unavailable for comment Saturday because he was observing the Jewish sabbath. His campaign manager, Sherry Brown, said in a written statement that Lamont's hypocrisy "knows no bounds."

[karynnj]

18. I guess this means he's fully a Republican

First he used the theme that Lamont would not fight the terrorist as well as he does. Then he uses smear. This is NOT who I thought Lieberman was in 2000.

As to holy Joe, my husband's biggest question about Lieberman is why no yamulke. Having grown up a Reform Jew in a progressively Orthodox neighborhood, he knew that whenever you eat or pray, an Orthodox Jew wears a yalmulke. (As you could break into prayer at any time - you wear a yamulke always.)