Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Not so Swift

Republicans and Republican-linked groups continue to express support for Sen. Joe Lieberman's independent bid, including a group that brings back memories of 2004:
Connecticut's U.S. Senate race continued Monday along its unpredictable way: The White House declined to endorse the nominee of state Republicans - and a new "Vets for Freedom" group with ties to the GOP advertised its backing of incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is waging an independent campaign for re-election after losing last week's Democratic primary.

The group's full-page ad Monday in The Courant created an immediate stir: Former Democratic State Chairman George Jepsen, a top adviser to Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont, said the ad showed that "national Republicans, in their effort to help Joe Lieberman, clearly have a well-laid-out strategy to attack Ned Lamont."
...
[George] Jepsen, a senior Lamont campaign adviser, said he saw a similarity between the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans effort and Monday's ad by the Vets for Freedom.

"So, the swift-boating begins," he said. (Lender)

The Lieberman campaign, of course, said that they had nothing to do with the ad, and the veterans' group claims that they are the ones being smeared--by a paranoid Lamont campaign.

So. This ad really isn't "swift-boating," which seems to mean character assassination on a grand and audacious scale, but parallels between the 2006 Senate campaign and the 2004 presidential campaign do exist. In fact, they've existed for a while. A lot of the same themes keep bubbling to the surface, and many of the charges hurled and positions taken are like those of Bush and Kerry. Lieberman has attacked Lamont for flip-flopping on Iraq, and not having a clear position, while portraying himself as resolute and tough on terror. The fact that Lieberman's attacks have lately been supported by a Republican echo chamber makes the parallels that much stronger. Lamont, on the other hand, has done all he can to tie Lieberman to the Administration and its failures in Iraq.

To put it another way, Ned Lamont has to a degree been running against George Bush. Joe Lieberman is currently running as George Bush.

It isn't hard, then, to see why Lamont supporters would be a little jumpy about GOP-linked veterans' groups taking out full-page ads. Who knows where it could go next?

Source
Lender, Jon. "`Vets For Freedom' Creates Stir." Hartford Courant 15 August, 2006.

37 comments:

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

How shocking!

Republicans are out to hurt that nice Mr. Lamont?

Simply awful.




Yawn.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lamont, who has never worn the uniform or never been to Iraq has loudly claimed to speak for the troops and the veterans. Now he complains people don;t agree with him?

I suggest there is now a new political species, the chickendove, who make loud noises about topics they know nothing about and then squawk loudly when people with a real interest in a topic dare to challenge their opinions

Let's face it, the biggest battle either Jepson or Lamont ever fought was deciding which Ivy League school to attend. Or maybe which Greenwich country club to play golf at.

Anonymous said...

I am not a Lamont supporter...I actually don't support Joe either, I think this whole thing, while good for government and politics in general, is going to get worse before it gets better. However, just because Jepsen, or Lamont for that matter, is supporting something they believe in, its difficult for me to understand how you can make sweeping generalizations about either of their lives and/or any decisions they've had to make.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Jepsen was Majority Leader in the State Senate, he codified the Roe v Wade decision for women's rights and he passed a permanent ban on assault weapons...That's what I found with a 30 second search. Something tells me a more in-depth search would uncover more...Oh, and another thing I found, Jepsen doesn't golf. Quit pretending you know people, when half of you don't know shi*.

Anonymous said...

You mean there are Greenwich WASPs with Harvard degrees who don't golf?


I suspect there are a lot more golfers than veterans among this clique. Maybe they should stick to discussing tax advantaged hedge funds

Gary Holder-Winfield said...

Joe wouldn't know much about serving either with two deferments under his belt. And, stopping by to see the troops doesn't equal being able to speak for them.

Anonymous said...

Why the envy Anon? What does a degree or neighborhood have to do with an opinion? Maybe you should stick to your opinion about their opinions, and leave the personal judgements for another place.

Anonymous said...

If an elected official isn't a doctor, teacher, officer, firefighter, mother or the like...How do they speak for them? Just because an elected official wasn't/isn't in the military doesn't mean they can't speak on their behalf - the definition of "representative democracy".

Gary Holder-Winfield said...

My point was not that he cannot speak for them just that the prior point didn't make sense precisely because of the point made by Anon 9:19

Anonymous said...

Here is my favorite line from the article: "Jepsen said veterans of Iraq and other wars agree with Lamont that Bush's war has 'destabilized the Middle East, empowered Muslim extremists and fostered terrorism.'"

Oh, I get it. When you can find a couple of veterans to agree with you, that means that they ALL must agree with you.

Another case of Democrat doublespeak.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 9:55 hit the nail on the head. Kerry did the same thing. A lot of good it did him, eh?

Anonymous said...

The Dems have made the chickenwawk attack constantly against noveteran Republicans. Now when real vets side against them a bunch of prepsters maligns them, in spite of their "absolute moral authority"

Does Harvard give out degrees in hypocrisy?

Anonymous said...

Then how is it possible for any elected official talk about any profession/group that he/she isn't a part of? Should any non-doctors be allowed on public health committees? What about non-law-enforcers or firefighters? Should they be on public safety committees? Or non-union workers allowed on labor committees? The point of a representitive democracy is precisely that - it is reprsentitive, not exactly, but a representation of a district, county, state, etc.

That doesn't mean Jepsen can speak for all military personnel...

Anonymous said...

SO let me get this straight...MoveOn.org's ads are okay but a group of veteran's are controversial? And you all thought there was a bias in the media. How dare you!!!

GMR said...

Jepsen, a senior Lamont campaign adviser, said he saw a similarity between the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans effort and Monday's ad by the Vets for Freedom.


Does he object to the fact that a group of veterans favors the war? I don't think this group is going to talk about Ned's service in the military. What else is similar to the Swift Boat veterans?

Anonymous said...

I think the term "chickenhawk" isn't really understood here. It's not applied to non-vet Republicans ... it's applied to gung-ho supporters of military action who have never served themselves.

As a counterpoint a "chickendove" would be someone who is a gung-ho supporter of peace but has never worked to bring about peace.

Anonymous said...

First of all, this should have been completely expected and for any Democrat feign shock makes them sound like Jodi Rell when something goes wrong in her administration.

Secondly, anyone with half a brain would be silly to call this group a group of veterans just because of the name. It may be that a bona fide veteran of Iraq is the head fo the group, but it is simply another attack PAC hiding under a 527 cloak. Don't get me wrong - Dems do it as well - it's just that the Republicans are much better at it. The fact of this any any other 527 is that there could be this one vet funded by 2 or 3 individuals who each write a $1m check. I would do the same thing if I could - im a father, if I had a few uber-rich friends, I could have them each write a large check and - bam - Dads for Iraq Truth is born.

It's politics. Sure, it's dirty politics, but this is America and simply stated - it works. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

God I wish I was a player!

Anonymous said...

Anon. 10:21 said that a "chickenhawk" is "applied to gung-ho supporters of military action who have never served themselves."

That would make Hillary Clinton, who supported the war in Iraq a chickenhawk then, right?

GMR said...

Journal Inquirer article on Lieberman's communication director attacking Lamont for being in the Sharpton/Kos wing of the Democratic party.

GMR said...

It may be that a bona fide veteran of Iraq is the head fo the group, but it is simply another attack PAC hiding under a 527 cloak. Don't get me wrong - Dems do it as well - it's just that the Republicans are much better at it.

Well, according to the Washington Post, " In the first election in recent memory in which Democrats raised nearly as much as Republicans, the 527s flooded the 2003-04 election cycle with $424.8 million. The money favored pro-Democratic groups, which outspent their pro-Republican adversaries 2 to 1, or by $110 million."

Republicans may be "much better" at 527s, but it's not because they're spending more. It's because they have a message that resonates with voters more. And that's what drives the liberals nuts.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 10:26: That would make Hillary Clinton, who supported the war in Iraq a chickenhawk then, right?

If she is an enthusiastic supporter of war then yes. Just voting in favor of military action wouldn't get you there.

Anonymous said...

OK Anon. 10:35, so I think I get it now.

If you vote for war and support the war, but you are not enthusiastic about it, (maybe later you come up with some lame excuse that you really didn't vote for war) then you are OK.

Right!

I was wondering how the left was going to explain their support for Hillary in '08.

bluecoat said...

Kerry didn't take the country but he did take CT. And Zinni et. al. have spoken out about the failures of the mission in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lamont would have some credibility if:

1. He had been part of a pro-war or anti-war group prior to his annoucement

2. He had been active in a veteran's group or a 9/11 charity

3. He had some level of expertise on the topic.

As BC points out, some critics of Bush policy have such credentials

Mr. Lamont doesn't. He became antiwar out of opportunism, not conviction.

Lamont has no business criticising those who favor the policy who have the credentials to speak credibly about foreing policy.

They were wearing flak jackets while he was wearing tuxedos

BRubenstein said...

Anon 10:43..most of the left will not be supporting hillary clinton for president..especially if she continues her rightward drift..look for the progressive wing to be supporting other candidates...

BRubenstein said...

Anon 10:43..most of the left will not be supporting hillary clinton for president..especially if she continues her rightward drift..look for the progressive wing to be supporting other candidates...

Anonymous said...

Lamont has no business criticising those who favor the policy who have the credentials to speak credibly about foreing policy.

They were wearing flak jackets while he was wearing tuxedos


See:

Lieberman, Joseph
Cheney, Dick
Bush, George W


Actually, to my knowlegde, Ned Lamont didn't weasle his way out of a draft.

Anonymous said...

Bush was a fighter pilot in the TANG. Of course that's what got Dan Rather into trouble, trying to prove there was something wrong with that.

When Neddie proves he's flown anything more lethal than a LearJet, get back to me

Anonymous said...

Mr Silver Spoon probably hasnt ridden a horse let alone a military jet He probably bought his way out of military service.

bluecoat said...

Lamont is probably just young enough to have been draft eligible. And in the United States our military is under civilian command by design. Rgeardless of what I think of lamont's naivete he has every right to seek the office he seeks. The decision belongs to the free people of CT who have reached voting age.

bluecoat said...

I meant to say he was proably just young enough NOT to be draft eligible.

Anonymous said...

This is a crazy debate we are having here.

Are people making an argument that since I did not serve in the military, that my views on the Iraq war are not valid? That I shouldnt' have any say on our foreign policy? That I, as a taxpaying, law-abiding American have no right to object to the fact that I was lied to by my President?

My God this blog sounds like so much inside-the-beltway splooge today.

Serving in the military is not a qualification for representing the majority of Americans as the majority of Americans HAVE NOT served in the military.

I support our troops alright - like my brother-in-law and my sister who is left at home losing her hair worrying about him. They've been married 3 years now and he has been in Afghanistan or Iraq for all but 5 of those months thus far. I support my cousin who joined the Guard and who is now preparing to go back to Iraq for a second time. I support my extended family who are doctors stationed in Germany and who are treating such horrific casualties that they have nightmares.

Anonymous said...

and what similar circumstances did Mr. Lamont have during the first five years of the war on terror.

zip. zilch. nada.

And HE"S the one complaining about the veteran's

GMR said...

Ned Lamont was born 1/3/54, so he turned 18 on 1/3/72.

The last lottery for the draft was on February 3, 1972, but that was for people born in 1953, not 1954.

I was still in diapers back then, so I don't know exactly when the draft ended. It looks like the draft ended in 1973, and that 19 year olds were first drafted. My guess is that Ned Lamont would not have ever been subject to the draft.

bluecoat said...

The draft ended in the spring of 1973 when they draftting anybody on the eligibility list whose # was 70 or less but I can't remeber what month.. Once the lottery started, there was a change in student deferrments and a few other things but chances are Lamont was never in play unlike Howard Dean who got out because he had a bad back - so bad that he spent the winter skiing in the Rockies right after he got his 4F.

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat...and Bush and Cheney were in what branch of the service?

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Look, the chickenhawk stuff is B.S. FDR never really wore the uniform, (he was a WWI Navy undersecretary) but he beat the drum for war, and rightfully so. Lincoln never wore the uniform either. (Except for 10 minutes during the Indian Wars.) LBJ's WWII experience didn't exactly sharpen his judgment on Vietnam.

So what?

Judge Ned and Joe on their policy positions / record and let the chips fall.

Ned's positions are fair game, and 527 campaigns are part of this unfortunate thing we have in this country called free speech. My goodness, moveon.org and George Soros certainly wouldn't want you to take their voices out of the game.

bluecoat said...

Geez BR: you'd think I was an apologist for Bush and his boss, Dick Cheney, every day of the week and I know you know the answer, you SDSer you.<:-)))