Lieberman Attacks Lamont Again

I saw Lieberman’s new ad today, and wasn’t surprised to discover that it was left off his website–so I uploaded it to YouTube. It’s a copycat negative ad. The picture of the candidate, flipping back and forth is so June 19–the day CTBob produced this independent advertisement.

Now compare that to Joe’s latest ad:

Similar, no?

Let’s debunk the Lieberman ad, down in the extended text.

Claim #1Ned Lamont has been running negative ads for three months
Negative? These are the “Negative” ads featured in the sidebar of Lieberman’s attack ad:

  • Underdog (Features a dog barking at a Joe Lieberman sign)
  • Look Who’s Talking (Joe Lieberman’s own words–staunchly supporting George W. Bush–are depicted coming out of Bush’s mouth)
  • Signs of Change (Ned Lamont points out that Joe Lieberman is the only New England Senator to vote for the Bush/Cheney energy bill)
  • Ned Lamont Has A Messy Desk (Ned Lamont asks, “Aren’t you sick of political attack ads that insult your intelligence?” and then asks Senator Lieberman to support the winner of the Democratic primary)

Ned Lamont’s ads are firmly planted in rich factual soil. It just so happens that the facts are not on Senator Lieberman’s side. I’m reminded of that Harry Truman quote that everybody throws around: “I don’t give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it’s Hell.”

Here are some of Lieberman’s negative ads, more properly characterized as attack ads. The facts are either thoroughly distorted or curiously absent.

Lieberman has been running attack ads since May–that’s three months.

Claim #2Ned Lamont is not a true Democrat because he agreed with Republicans 80% of the time
This is probably Joe Lieberman’s favorite line of attack, and it’s a clever distortion of the facts. Senator Lieberman, with all his experience in politics, has earned an honorary Ph.D in the Art of Bullshit. I’m going to let Mark Pazniokas, via BranfordBoy, debunk this one (emphasis mine):

In a post-debate roundup article in the Courant, Mark Pazniokas does some honest to God reporting and talks to some Greenwich Republicans (and millionaires, one can only assume) to defuse one of Joe Lieberman’s prime slurs against Lamont.

But Greenwich Republicans do not consider Lamont to be one of their own.

Lamont was never known for intense partisanship in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a selectman and then as a finance board member, the Republicans say, where votes were on strictly local issues, rather than hot-button topics such as Iraq, abortion or the death penalty.

“Most of the stuff we dealt with was the mundane stuff – parking signs, roads,” said Republican John B. Margenot, who served as first selectman when Lamont was on the board. “There were no Democratic principles involved or Republican principles. I think it’s kind of spurious that Lieberman raises the issue. It’s a non-issue.

When asked if he viewed Lamont as a Republican, Margenot replied, “No, I wouldn’t think that at all. He was more like a liberal Democrat.
[…]
“It’s about running the town of Greenwich,” Romeo said Friday. “Greenwich is in its own world down here in the way we run things. It has nothing to do with politics, really.”

Republican Chris Antonik, a former elected member of the town’s representative town meeting and a current member of the Republican town committee, said, “Ned was a Democrat. I never even recall him acting like a Republican. He’s not a Republican.

Claim #3Ned Lamont won’t release his tax returns
On July 9, 2006 the Stamford Advocate reported otherwise (emphasis mine):

Lamont decided to release his tax information so the candidates could focus on the issues, she said.

“We want to be able to talk about the issues. We don’t want this to become the issue,” Dupont-Diehl said. “We want to talk about getting our soldiers back from Iraq and universal health care.”

Lamont’s campaign is questioning Lieberman’s tactics, noting the senator’s own words in his 2000 book “In Praise of Public Life.”

“There is nothing wrong with going after your opponent’s voting record or any other evidence of negligence in his public life, but digging into his bank account, his phone records, his sexual life, and literally his garbage when these things have nothing to do with the performance of his public duties — past, present, or future — is wrong.

Claim #4Ned Lamont voted to cut health care
Senator Lieberman has made this claim before, and the Lamont campaign has already debunked it:

[From another of Lieberman’s attack ads] “He actually tried to make town employees pay more for their healthcare.”

What Lieberman didn’t tell you:

The resolution applied to a small portion of town employees in upper management. It said that management should be required to accept any increase in out-of-pocket expenses that are agreed to at the bargaining table with the town’s unionized employees. The 11-0 vote shows that this was not a controversial issue at all.

What was Senator Lieberman doing in 1994? That was the year that he helped to kill national health care reform, which would have provided much needed relief to Connecticut’s municipalities, employers, and working families.

8 Responses to “Lieberman Attacks Lamont Again”


  1. Maura

    Great work, “Spaze”! 🙂 You earn the title of “Amazing Spazeboy” yet again.

  2. Connecticut Bob

    Great job! Very well thought-out and presented. I just linked it on CTBob with a photo of “Lieberman: Our Failure In The Senate”.

  3. Jon Kantrowitz

    Great work!

  4. KCinDC

    Actually it reminds me a lot more of the flip-flop windsurfing ad the Bush campaign used against Kerry. It uses the word “flip-flop” and shows the images flipping, which CTBob’s ad didn’t do.

    Once again, Lieberman is copying Bush.

  5. Matt Browner-Hamlin

    Fantastic post Spazeboy. The biggest problems with Lieberman’s negative ads isn’t that they’re negative, but pure fabrications of a narrative that has no bearing on the facts of the race. You’re allowed to be critical of your opponent, but making stuff up just pisses people off.

    I’m not sure how lying, insinuations of wrongdoing and Rovian smears fit into Joe’s hard-fought image of being an individual of unquestionable morals.

    Also, “Our fighter in the Senate” – is that the best they can do? One is forced to wonder, who is Joe fighting for? If Lieberman (Lieberman – CT) is any indication of his priorities, it’s clear that he’s just fight for himself.

  6. ITM

    Jeeze almost 3+ months into this campaign and joe is still using the tired old “Ned is a Republican” crap?

    Come on Joe, not even the republicans are buing that one anymore….

  7. Emboldened » Blog Archive » “Politics is a contact sport”

    […] I’m not sure that Lieberman has been subjected to any criticisms that extend beyond fair questions that his record in the Senate and as a partisan beg. Lieberman knows what dirty campaigns look like – his running mate in the 2000 election, Al Gore, was subjected to brutal distortions of his record and his statements by Bush and the Rove smear machine. Lieberman clearly learned lessons in that race and is now replicating the tactics that undercut the Gore/Lieberman campaign against Ned Lamont. Though insinuations and falsifications have become common in Lieberman’s attack ads, nowhere was his adoption of Rovian negative campaigning more evident than in the debate. […]

  8. Bring it On! » Blog Archive » “Politics is a contact sport”

    […] I’m not sure that Lieberman has been subjected to any criticisms that extend beyond fair questions that his record in the Senate and as a partisan beg. Lieberman knows what dirty campaigns look like – his running mate in the 2000 election, Al Gore, was subjected to brutal distortions of his record and his statements by Bush and the Rove smear machine. Lieberman clearly learned lessons in that race and is now replicating the tactics that undercut the Gore/Lieberman campaign against Ned Lamont. Though insinuations and falsifications have become common in Lieberman’s attack ads, nowhere was his adoption of Rovian negative campaigning more evident than in the debate. […]