Saturday, September 09, 2006

Memo to NYT: Why didn't you read the WHOLE e-mail?

Earlier today, a commenter linked to a supposed Lamont flip-flop reported in the NY Times. The gist was that Ned supported Joe's Mr. Moral Arbiter role when Joe spoke out on the Senate floor about Clinton's sexual behavior, and now Ned isn't supportive of Joe's position any longer.

Well, boys and girls, here is the entire e-mail message and keep reading because this gets even more outrageous:[emphasis mine]
"I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant because I thought it might make matters worse; I was reluctant because no one expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or how Gingrich lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton's misbehavior." I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end.
Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the though that Clinton testifying about oral sex before a grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every mediun avavilable.
This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.
You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand u p and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, alot more than any of us care to know and should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe should be censured for lying --and let's move on.
It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.


Ned Lamont
Greenwich Connecticut

cc Sen. Dodd, Rep. Shays
OK, so that's bad enough that the newspaper got it so fuzzy. But, there's this little thing called Joe's privacy policy that applies to correspondence from a constituent.

Sending Me E-Mail Or Personal Casework Information
My personal Web site is not set up to collect any personal information about you when you visit the site unless you choose to provide that information. My Web site has an online form that you can use to send me an electronic mail message expressing your views or concerns. To send me an e-mail, the online form asks you for your name, address, and e-mail address. I use this information, if you choose to provide it, to contact you about your issues of interest and/or to provide any casework assistance I can regarding problems you may be experiencing in dealing with a government agency. This information will be available to members of my staff so they can help me in responding to your message or request.

If you are requesting help with a casework matter, it also may be necessary for my office to share the information you provide with the government agency from which you are requesting assistance, in order to respond to your request. My office will not share any personal information communicated through my Web site with any outside organization or individual, except in the following situations: (1) when needed to perform constituent casework at your request; (2) in the course of an authorized law enforcement investigation or emergency posing an imminent risk to public safety; or (3) if you choose to participate in my interactive online E-Government comment page, and authorize me to publish your comment, your name, and the organization you represent.
So, what about the Connecticut residents that have written to Senator Lieberman, sharing highly personal information in inquiries about Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Benefits and Social Security that now have to worry about their e-mails being faxed from Joe's Senate office to a reporter who asks for it?

Or, does Joe use his Senate staff to violate his own privacy policy only when it serves a political purpose in his sorry campaign to hang on to a seat for which the Democrat voters of Connecticut rejected him?

H/T and must reads:
My Left Nutmeg


ctblogger said...

If that "commenter" goes by the name truth squad, he's been spamming various pro-Lamont blogs with the same garbage.

I'm very close to banning him.

Anonymous said...

banning truth squad would be great he should be treated like a virus!

Donnarie said...

Bob, you think the NYT "asked" for that email? Oh, bunk. This whole thing smells. The NYT went into that dinner with Lamont knowing about the email, and they tried to set a trap. That's why, by their own admission, they kept asking Lamont about it, to the point where Ned ended the dinner early.

It's also why, despite the fact that what Lamont said at the dinner and what Lamont said in that email are not that far off from each other, they totally misprepresented the email in classic "gotcha!" fashion.

I just don't understand why they posted the actual email. Does the New York Times really think that their readers have no reading comprehension skills? Though I didn't see today's print NYT--was the email reproduced there in full? Or did readers of the physical paper only get Jennifer Medina's homespun version of what it said?

I can tell you this. My subscription to the weekend NYT got cancelled today. And I told 'em why.

Anonymous said...

I see Joe4Joe blog no longer has comments and scrubbed all comments to date. Hope you cached 'em all, Bob. The commenters debunked every post within 10 minutes. I wonder if the MSM was getting too much anti-Lieberman material handed to them on a platter from the comments.

Anonymous said...

they deleted past and future comments, but still have this under "policy":

We welcome the free flow of opinion and debate on this blog and we do not intend to censor or moderate the discussion. But we reserve the right to remove comments or posts that include obscene material.

the ineptitude never ends.

Brian said...

I swear to god the next time the Lieberman crew tries to intentionally misrepresent or distort a clearly well-written statement Ned has made, somebody should just punch the Liebermanlied campaign in the mouth.

Let's just outsmart Joe and outduel the self serving politician who knows there is not much left in the Liebermanlied campaign. They can't even lie about Ned without messing it up royally. It's pathetic that I turn on the news and the Lieberman goons turned distorting a Lamont email into a worthy news story. When is the next debate so Lamont can bitchsmack the lies out of Joe and have Ned tell the people of Ct. he will do a better job in the Senate.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure you've already seen this, but it ain't just the NYT. Drudge has a link to a WTNH post that reads like they just read through the Joe4Joe (love that) press release and inserted a few "Sherry said"s. I was gonna address a correction, but since I'm not in CT, I thought it would be more effective from actual Nutmeggers.

Eric said...

Today's AP piece (h/t Greg Sargent)by Stephanie Reitz is even worse than Jennifer Medina's NYT piece...


Anonymous said...

if lamont didnt like what he saw on tv, he couldve changed the channel.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
if lamont didnt like what he saw on tv, he couldve changed the channel.

Some of us, Anonymous, consider what our Government does--including Senators speaking on the chamber floor and into the Congressional Record-- to be a bit more than just a TeeVee Show, but thanks for giving us this insight into the level of thought and sophistication Lieberman supporters bring to their political views. I hope you'll be too busy voting for Tucker on Dancing With the Stars to vote in the real elections this November. I think that's more your level, don't you?

Gort said...

I'm a new reader and just want to say thanks for all the info those of us out of state don't get. Just an instinct but it hard to see Lieby winning this.

Anonymous said...

you seem pretty vicious blueman. that anon never said he was a lieberman supporter and who the hell is tucker? people actually watch dancing with stars?

Kirby said...

Welcome, Gort! That's what we're here for -- to do our best to get out information in whole so that people can make up their own minds rather than listening to media or campaign spin.

By the way, this is Kirby here -- don't blame Bob! He's taken a well-deserved weekend off.

Anonymous said...

You guys can spin this all you want. The fact is Ned Lamont is hypocrite. Pure and VERY simple.

CT Bob said...

What does Ned's company URL have to do with him supposedly being a hypocrite?

Unless making your own way in the world and creating actual jobs is being a hypocrite, then I guess you'll never be able to accuse Joe Lieberman of being a hypocrite.

That was snark...get it?

Anonymous said...

I do get it. So does the CWA who has been unsuccessful in their attempts to organize Lamont Digital. As a modern progressive hero of American politics, I would expect Ned to welcome union representation at his company. Wouldn't you?

You needn't point out your "snark." Your point wasn't that sophisticated.