Thursday, September 07, 2006

Lamont Campaign Lambastes CT Vets

Oh sure, Lamonties never ever say dumb things, yet today's Hartford Courant reveals the latest salvo that team Lamont has proclaimed.
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.


Anonymous said...

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!

bluecoat said...

The article also has this quote: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." but since turffgrrl is schilling for Lieberman there is no balance in the core post - just FoxNews tactics from the Lieberman campaign.

Anonymous said...

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.

bluecoat said...

inGOP strategists back Lieberman vets ad by
Mary E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor September 07, 2006
it sstarts with:Veterans supporting Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate took issue Wednesday with a veterans group with ties to top Republican leaders that started running television ads this week backing his opponent, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman

bluecoat said...

GOP strategists back Lieberman vets ad by
Mary E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor September 07, 2006
starts with:Veterans supporting Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate took issue Wednesday with a veterans group with ties to top Republican leaders that started running television ads this week backing his opponent, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.

bluecoat said...

I don't like lamont but I do like balance and fairness in reporting such as in:Lamont-backing vets blast ads for Lieberman
By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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

bluecoat said...

12:11; the answers to your questions are in the articles - i suggest you read them to get your answers.

truthteller06 said...

I think that it is more "Rovian" for the Lamont campaign to be attacking a group that is simply airing a pro-Lieberman ad, as "swift-boating." It is absolutely absurd to compare this ad, with the swift boat attacks on John Kerry. This ad is not negative at all, but Tom Swan and Ned just love to be on the attack. Why don't they start talking about the issues more, instead of trying to add more negativity to this campaign.

Grumpy said...

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.

Grumpy said...

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.

bluecoat said...

turffgrrl is a bonafide neocon poster at CLP there anon 1:00; get over it.

Anonymous said...

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]
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 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 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 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 ]

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat -- of all the things I get accused of, being the bonafide neocon poster at CLP is the one that I will treasure most.

Just to echo the usual Lamont disconnect: Ann Lamont funding George W. Bush cousin is a-okay. National Veterans Group funding Lieberman ad is not okay.

dumbruss said...

Why does Turrrrrrrrgrl have front page prvilieges?

Every one of her posts is intelletually dishonest drivel. Just because she's contrarian doesn't mean she should be given a platform from which to speak. The standard here should be higher then an Ann Coulter wannabe.

ctblogger said...

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.


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.

Anonymous said...

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 said...

anonymous 6:20 -- So you're saying that advertising rises to the level of Watergate? Funny that. Why stop there, in the time honored tradition invoke Godwin's law and we can close out the usual whining about how its so unfair that 1 out of 10 posts here on CLP actually aren't about how wonderful Ned Lamont is.

Anonymous said...


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.


turfgrrl said...

JohnieB -- evidence of what? That some 527 created an ad that supported a candidate? Happens all the time. I have no problems when groups like airs ads supporting their candidates, so why would I care now? And actually is was Businessweek who stated that Ann Lamont's firm, funded most of Bush's company. Typically financial publications tend to get those details right, but go ahead pursue some nefarious connection to the White House or something.

Billy said...

Typical Lunatic left.. attacking the poster rather than what she says. No wonder you guys cant win national elections anymore.

justavoter said...

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.