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.
Let's see, the swift boat ads were about a bunch of vets saying bad things about John Kerry.
This ad is about a bunch of CT based vets saying good things about Joe Lieberman.
The TV spot features comments by Kyle Korab of Granby, Melissa Weaver of Colchester, Josh Clark of Willimantic and Mark Halle of Rocky Hill.
Unless the Courant somehow missed the mention of bad things about Lamont, this seems to be a case of the Lamont campaign trying to continue to endless summer attack of the Lieberman campaign. So much for trying to appear more moderate.
14 comments:
If Lamont keeps this up I think that there are going to be a lot of Democrats on election day who will be able to say, "I voted for Ned Lamont before I voted against him."
Is this the best Jepsen can do?
Tom Swan must be freaking out!
Somebody should advise Mr.Lamont that attacking Veterans is not going to earn him points. With the exception of bringing Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson into his inner circle, this is the dumbest thing he has done.
Here's Lamont's very effective ad combating the Swift Boaters. More on Lieberman's Swift Boaters and their ties to Republicans (and the actual original Swift Boaters).
turfgrrl has become an utterly predictable self-parody.
Thanks for the link to the new Lamont ad anon. 1146. For a minute I thought that Lamont was running for the Seante against Lieberman & Schlesinger (& others). Now that I have seen Lamont's ad, I realize that I was wrong. Lamont is running against George Bush. For a minute there, I actually thought this race was about representing CT. Glad I got that straightened out.
bluecoat - if this is about fair and balanced (and not just political spin), then let's address turfgrrl's post.
I have not seen the ad. Are they real CT vets? Do they only praise/ thank Sen. Lieberman? Does the ad mention Lamont at all? Does it attack Lamont?
If the ad is as described by turfgrrl, then in my opinion it is not even close to the swift-boat ads. If true, then Lamont is whining.
Even if true, though, it is still only the opinion of those vets and not all vets. Lamont is free to have vets support him and take an opposite view.
Utterly disingenuous, Turfgrrl,
I confess that I find it hard to accept you really believe what you write, or perhaps you really are that naive.
As I pointed out from the podium at the capitol yesterday, our opposition is to a Rovian attack on the Democratic candidate for the U S Senate, not to veterans.
The Vets for Freedom ad is a calculated attempt by the White House to set up the false linkage "pro veteran= pro war" on Lieberman's behalf. The denial by Gerstein is a lie obvious to everybody.
John Wood
Anyone reading the stories about "Vets for Freedom" would learn that their "advisors" are very closely connected to both Senator Lieberman, the White House political operation, and include some of the same names involved in the swift boat ads. That the Vets for Freedom ad doesn't duplicate the "swift boat" ad's method of attack only shows this crowd is smart enough to know not to go that far.
It's a smart ad to put on the air but a dumb choice of behind the scenes friends for Joe.
Forgot to ask this question in my previous comment.
Turfgrrl, exactly where is the quote in which the "Lamont Campaign Lambastes CT Vets" as you headlined your posting? I can't find any evidence that the Lamont campaign has said anything even vaguely critical of veterans.
The statements reported in the Courant and elsewhere were directed at the front group "Vets for Freedom" which is being "advised" by political operatives from Lieberman's circle and from the White House political operation.
Turrfy, never let facts get in the way of your attacks:
1) This wasn't Lamont saying it, it was 13 connecticut veterans
2) Here's the connection:
The New York Times reports that the group is directed by "Taylor Goss, a former White House official; Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard; Republican strategist Dan Senor [and] Mr. Lieberman's former chief of staff, Bill Andresen."
Most of these men are corporate lobbyists and Republican Party operatives:
TAYLOR GROSS - GOP OPERATIVE WHO HELPED RIG THE FLORIDA 2000 ELECTION: According to the Center for Media and Democracy, Taylor Goss "is a former White House spokesman who coordinated Republican media coverage during the 2000 presidential election ballot recount in Florida. Goss also served as U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's media point man during Ashcroft's nomination hearings."
Put another way, Lieberman is now getting support for his Senate race from the very White House operative who helped steal the presidential election in 2000 - and thus prevented Lieberman from being elected vice president.
According to the Associated Press, Goss is spearheading the creation of Wal-Mart front groups to fight off workers who want the company to provide better wages and health care. Gross now runs his own corporate lobbying and PR shop that, according to Roll Call, represents "clients in financial services, legal reform and energy" sectors. [Source: Center for Media and Democracy; Roll Call, 10/17/05; Associated Press, 11/22/05]
DESPITE CLAIMS MADE BY THE LIEBERMAN CAMPAIGN, GOSS IS CLEARLY TIED TO THIS GROUP
Lieberman’s Campaign has now claimed that Goss is not tied to this group.
But, a story in the Buffalo News clearly states that Gross worked for this group. Not only did he try to get them press, he tried to trick reporters into letting the group write their own press for the papers, not disclosing his, or their, affiliations with a Republican front group. [Source: Buffalo News, August 20th 2006, ‘Pro-war veteran group endorses candidates,’ by Jerry Zremski.]
BILL KRISTOL – RIGHT-WING OPERATIVE WHO PUSHED PRE-WAR LIES:
Bill Kristol is the fringe-right wing Republican operative who originally pushed the Iraq War - and the lies that the Bush administration used to justify the war.
He recently echoed RNC talking points claiming that Ned Lamont's win in the Connecticut primary helps terrorists. He has also publicly blamed President Clinton for 9/11. [Sources: Fox News, 6/8/13 and 5/12/18]
DAN SENOR – BUSH SPOKESMAN FOR THE IRAQ WAR:
Dan Senor was the longtime Republican operative who the Bush administration hired as its official Iraq spokesman during the invasion and immediately afterwards. While in government, Senor took the lead in pushing the Iraq WMD lies.
Now, he is cashing in on the war as a high-paid Washington corporate lobbyist. He also continues to appear in the media as a GOP operative. Just this week, he was caught on Fox News lying about the war in Afghanistan, claiming that progressives want to withdraw troops. When pressed, he acknowledged he couldn't substantiate his claim. [Hill Newspaper, 3/29/06; O'Relly Factor, 8/30/06]
BILL ANDRESEN – BIG-TIME D.C. CORPORATE RAINMAKER:
Bill Andresen is Lieberman's former chief of ff and currently a top corporate lobbyist at the Dutko Group – one of Washington's most powerful K Street firms. [Sources: Andresen lobbying clients; Hill Newspaper, 3/8/06 ]
Lynn Fusco funding your company is okay. You claiming to be non-partiasn poster when in fact your a registered Republican who gets her talking points from Lynn is not okay.
GC,
Don't even post this message, I just wanted to get my point across that Trufgrrl is nothing more than a fraud and you would do youself a favor by getting rid of her. She's a joke.
Turfgrrl again elides the point in two ways: she asserts that Ann Lamont funds Dubya's cousin's enterprise, which sounds as if Lamont is J Bush's only or a primary backer, which is, again, disingenuous, and she claims, even more preposterously, that several Afghan/ Iraqi veterans, mostly company grade leaders in their twenties, are the end of the finance trail.
Mr. Bradley, Ms. Graham, Carl Bernstein and I have discovered the burglars were funded solely by themselves. End of story.
I don't want to push this into personalities, Turfgrrl, but is this the best you can do for your guy?
Turfgrrl,
No, I am not; only that willful refusal to dig deeper for evidence leads to a wildly distorted view, which I believe you are attempting to justify by ignoring the obvious connections to the White House and its previous campaign tactics.
I do not argue that Lamont is wonderful; it doesn't take wonderful to outpace Joe. And your allusion to Godwin's Law invokes it while casting it upon me; this is an example of what I'm complaining about. Is this an example of edifying public discourse? I think not, but I suspect you are confused about your intent or perhaps you do not intend to clarify the issues.
And, as I hope everybody figured out, it's me again: sorry to have missed the ID before I posted last time.
JohnieB
Typical Lunatic left.. attacking the poster rather than what she says. No wonder you guys cant win national elections anymore.
Turfgrrl again you show how you can't report the facts but only the fiction.
You lie lie lie and are allowed to post these lies.
Lamont and the ad just out speaks truth about Bush's war and Liebermans support of this failed policy you seem to love making up stories and not getting your facts straight.
Post a Comment