Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Liebergoons and Whack Jobs

So what happened in Newtown? Was it this?
The ugliest moment came when during this same press conference one of the Liebergoons attacked a man holding a Lamont sign while the same man was holding an infant child probably no older than six months. The Liebergoons ripped up part of the Lamont sign.

Or was it this?
Dan Barrett, of Hamden, insisted on holding up a Lamont sign amid the remaining covey of Lieberman supporters. Patti Loughman, of Newtown, sitting nearby, thought that was ill-mannered and told Barrett so, repeatedly. The two exchanged words, then Barrett told Loughman to "Shut up."

At that point, Loughman's husband, Pat, reached in to grab Barrett's sign and there was a flurry of shoving and grabbing. Because Barrett was carrying his child as well as a Lamont sign, his wife, Lauren, cried out to protect the baby and was in tears afterward. The scuffle broke up when Newtown police intervened. "This is what happens to Lamont signs when you're around Lieberman people," said Barrett, holding his badly-torn cardboard rectangle."What's he doing carrying a baby in a place like that anyway?" Patti Loughman said. "That's what I told him. What a whack job.”(Miller)

Depending on who you are and who you support, this was either a vicious attack on a baby-carrying Lamont supporter by a Lieberman “goon”, or a Lamont supporter behaving like an inconsiderate, irrational, obnoxious "whack job". There’s almost certainly truth in both versions. It looks like a Lamont supporter did something annoying, and a Lieberman supporter overreacted. That happens a lot--so much so that opinion leaders on the Lamont side are actually encouraging people not to be jerks on the Lieberman blog, for fear of bad press.

The absolute hatred and bile these two sides and their supporters feel for one another can’t be understated. It seems stronger on the Lamont side, because it’s mixed up with the general rage against the Bush Administration, the war and the lousy direction of the country, but that doesn’t mean that the frustrated annoyance and anger Lieberman supporters feel is any less real. Worse, the two sides don't seem to understand one another at all. Remember Bush and Kerry supporters? This is worse. It's so much more personal.

Which is how we get to events like Newtown, the fight at the diner in Meriden and others. This will probably happen again and again before the election. But once November is over and done, what then?


Miller, Robert. "Politics on parade." Danbury News-Times 5 September, 2006.

Davefromqueens. My Day At Today's Parade With Joe Lieberman in Newtown. Daily Kos Diary - 4 September, 2006. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/4/141222/4074.


Anonymous said...

Genghis - I posted on the parade last night (Anon. 11:13) and I don't want to repeat what I said. I think this is an excellent point that you are making about politics in our country.

I do have one fault with your posts on this issue, however. You siad this: "Depending on who you are and who you support, this was either a vicious attack on a baby-carrying Lamont supporter by a Lieberman “goon”, or a Lamont supporter behaving like an inconsiderate, irrational, obnoxious "whack job". There’s almost certainly truth in both versions."

But look at your 2 sources: one is a biased anti-Lieberman poster (a guy who follows Lieberman around in a Bush mask), and the other is a newspaper reporter (an unbiased professional).

How can you give as much credibility and equal weight to a partisan over a professional reporter for the News Times?

I think that the sources of these two "versions" is extremely relevant, and it is an important ommission on your part, with all due respect.

Genghis Conn said...

It is, but the part of the newspaper account I'm interested in is the quote, which in and of itself is not objective. Loughman obviously saw Barrett as an obnoxious nut--and that's the huge gap in opinion I'm talking about.

Anon. 11:25 said...

Fair point. I appreciate the response.

Anonymous said...

In an unrelated issue, I have heard from a few different people that President Bush is coming in for Rob Simmons tomorrow. I think this is the worst strategy decision he could make, if it is true. Has anyone heard anything about this, or if it is even true?

Anonymous said...

Who is it that comprises Neddy's campaign again?

Oh right! It's the same people who have their hands on every protest, every bullhorn, every anti-anything event that occurs in Connecticut.

I guarantee that this guy was chosen to instigate BECAUSE he had his baby with him. I didn't see any of the other Lamont-Youth or CCAG types in the middle of it.

baghdadjoe said...

Attacking a baby-toting Lamont supporter is par for the course for the Lieberman people. Nothing is sacred for them - anything goes

If you have doubts, you should ask the Lieberman baby-attacker why they did it. They'll tell you it's because that person holding that Lamont sign was anti-Semitic.

AnonAndOnAndOn said...

FYI: FORMER President Bush (41) is coming in tomorrow.

GMR said...

President Bush will campaign for Simmons on Wednesday.

However, it's former President Bush, not the current President Bush.

Chris MC said...

Yesterday afternoon I took an opportunity to speak with an astute, in-the-loop, successful Republican politician who enjoys his colleagues and constituents respect on both sides of the aisle.

His take: Rob's cooked, and Nancy probably will be. More sanguine about Chris Shays.

But the reports that all three could go down are clearly not hyperbole.

ctblogger said...

Whoa, you're using the News-Times as a source of info? DANGER! DANGER!

I've confirmed what happened and both sides were VERY stupid. The Lamont guy for putting his kid in that position and the Lieberman supporter who attempted to rip the Lamont sign out of the guy's hand WHILE he held a child.

BTW: The "incident" that happened in Meriden was not with Lieberman supporters BUT with people who worked with the campaign and included a well-known lobbyist who has a history of aggressive behavior. It was a well-corrdinated attack on Ned personally and I encourage everyone to go and read the local paper's account of the incident (in which people were hurt) as it a million times more serious than the minor two second scuffle between two passionate people.

Also, Lieberman people have a long history of attacking Lamont supporters and making a scene at Lamont events (i.e. Greenwich before the primary) while I haven't seen any incidents where a Lamont supporter grabbed a Lieberman sign out of a Lieberman supporter's hands. Also, I and numerous others have tales of being treated very rudely by Lieberman's people and I have plenty of video to back up such claims.

In closing, the whole thing was a waste of time talking about that in retrospect, I even regret doing an update on it. Unlike the mainstream media that likes to blow up things out of whack, I'd like to keep focus on the real issue(s).


Chris MC said...

It was the latter, as reported in the News-Times, and confirmed by regular CTLP posters and anonymous non-combatants in a previous thread.

The real wack job is "bigdavefromqueens", who is helping nobody but Lieberman.

Anonymous said...

You have the wrong Bush...its 41 not 43.

Bill Lee - Enfield said...

Anon 12:37 - I don't have all the details handy, but the event you're referring to for Rep. Simmons tomorrow features a keynote by George H.W. Bush (41). It is a breakfast function in Westbrook.

Derby Conservative said...

Chris MC said at 1:49:
“…an astute, in-the-loop, successful Republican politician…His take: Rob's cooked, and Nancy probably will be.”

Chris, who is this mystery Republican? From the sounds of it, his name may be Lowell Weiker.

bluecoat said...

Weiker's a Republican now???

cgg said...

I think way to much attention is focused on the actions of a few. It makes for good a good narrative but beyond that it's just a few overzealous supporters on both sides.

Charles Gaba said...

From what I've read here (both in the main post as well as the comments), it does indeed sound like the Lamont supporter was a bit unwise to hold a Lamont sign while surrounded by Lieberman people.

HOWEVER, that utterly PALES in comparison to the Lieberman supporter RIPPING UP the Lamont sign, and even worse, getting into a scuffle with a guy carrying a baby, fer chrissakes.

As the father of a 6-month old myself, YOU DON'T F*CKING DO THAT, PERIOD.

I don't care if the Lamont supporters' sign claimed that Lieberman had sex with goats, YOU DON'T ATTACK SOMEONE HOLDING AN INFANT.

What the hell is wrong with people?

And no, I'm not being sarcastic when I describe the Lamont guy as being "a bit unwise"--that's a fair description. He shouldn't have had any reason to expect anything other than some dirty looks and a nasty comment or two.

Anonymous said...

ctblogger - who was the well-known lobbyist of whom you speak? Due tell.

Valley Guy said...

Bear in mind that I back Schlesinger (2% baby!).

Gaba, your characterization of the Lamont guy with the child as "a bit unwise" is in no way fair. As the father of 5 month old twins and someone who has been involved in political campaigns for over 15 years, I realize that people tend to be zealous in their political beliefs and candidates. He should have known better than to wade into a group of Lieberman supporters with a Lamont sign while holding his child. It's not just lunacy, it should be construed as risk of injury to a minor. He should definitely have expected the worst.

Let me put it to you this way: would you take you 6 month old into the same situation? I rest my case.

bluecoat said...

I think CMC was talking to the same guy that told him Malloy would blow away JDS in the rpimary.

ctblogger said...

Anon 3:37.

His name is Richard Goodstein and you can read all about him here. You can read about what he and the Lieberman staff did to Lamont in Meriden here
and you can check out the archives of Lamontblog, CTBob, and MLN during that time period for more detailed info. You can also check the local paper in Meriden for a reporter's account of the incident (if I'm correct, the reporter was also interview on Colin McEnroe's show soon after the incident happened).

Again, in the end, it's too bad that this stupid incident is even being talked about as the horrible well-coordinated incident in Meriden was much worse yet went under-reported by many in the media.

TrueBlueCT said...

Genghis, shame on you for hyping what was really a non-event. This race isn't about some whack job, or some Lieberman loyalist suggesting I'm on the side of the terrorists.

As someone who has been to more Lieberman and Lamont events than anyone posting here, let me emphasize that on the whole, things on the street have been surprisingly civil and polite between the two camps.

That's right. Civil and polite.

Sure, there have been some exceptions. When Lieberman is out in public, people frequently voice their objections to the Iraq occupation. And yes, the Lieberman camp purposely disrupted two Lamont events in the week before the primary. (the Meriden diner, and the Weicker rally in Greenwich.)

But that type of the thing is the exception. I mean CTKeith and I dogged Lieberman pretty fiercely. But Ken Dagliere and I were very friendly, and Sean Smith, (now a New Haven resident), would always stop to pet my dog.

The picture people should takeaway from yesterday is the one of CTKeith and Joe Lieberman shaking hands. (yep, a very polite exchange.)

This race is just politics. Some of us are exceedingly unhappy with the Bush/Lieberman war, and the GOP's piss-poor domestic agenda. Others think things are going just fine. Democracy will decide in Novemeber.

The rest is nonsense. Why highlight it?

Anonymous said...

The inside news is many Dem State Senators are refusing to allow Lamont or DeStefano to list them as an endosement.So much for that "team" stuff.

Anonymous said...

True Blue CT... Although you and I dont agree on much 95% of the time I agree with you and your statement in your 520 PM Post.

Maybe we all need to step back and take a breath or something.

I know Im not the biggest CT Keith Fan But if he indeed did shake Senator Lieberman that shows class
I am sure I run into Ned Somewhere and I will do the same.

This is why i dont post my name and wish to remain anonymous among other reasons

Anonymous said...

Well, I agree Lamont people should not be harassing Lieberman or his supporters; we've seen plenty of that from the Lieberman hired folks. [Lest you question my claim, I was at Ted's and witnessed everything.] FWIW, the admonishment against acting like a jerk is not "for fear of bad press", it is just good manners!

You also might try to check your text - as of NOW, there still is NO Lieberman blog [clear you meant 'Lamont blog'].

hartford_for_lamont said...

look people, the legal bottom line here is this: the lieberman supporter who ripped up the lamont sign committed a criminal act of assault, while the lamont supporter did not.

it is not a question of the lamont supporter being "wise" or "unwise"; the lamont supporter had a right to display his lamont sign anywhere he wanted, lieberman supporters be damned.

you see mixed candidate signs in political crowds all the time; there were no designated "lieberman sign zones" or "lamont sign zones" in Newtown that day -

if the lamont supporter with the baby had pressed charges, the charges would have stuck.

the lieberman supporter could and should have been arrested, period.

Anonymous said...

well, there's the Lamont agenda

Repeal the Patriot Act, disband the NSA.

Lock up people who rip campaign signs.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

hartford_for_lamont said...
if the lamont supporter with the baby had pressed charges

Sounds to me more like the fellow with the child should have been arrested for child endangerment.

Intentionally placing a child in the situation in the 1st place doesn't seem like the work of a rocket scientist to me.

If we have it your way; people would rob banks with a baby in their arms and if the police tried to stop them the police would be arrested.

Using a child in such a fashion is akin to Hama's child suicide bombers; and from a Lamontista isn't all that surprising to me.
A zealot is a zealot is a zealot.

dumbruss said...

Are you people insane? The fault always always always lies with the person who is violent. The father has every right to be wherever he wants and not be assaulted. There should be ZERO risk of being assaulted. Unbeliveable.