Lieberman's double-talking Dan

I can't tell if Lieberman mouthpiece Dan Gerstein is trying to be ironic, or if he really doesn't know how much he's lying here.

This is from a post by Dan Gerstein made earlier today on the Joe2006 website:

State of the Blog, Part 2

We wanted to alert our readers that as of this morning we are removing the comment feature from our blog.

The reason behind this decision will be obvious to any one who has spent time reading the barrage of ugly, insulting and hateful comments that some Lamont supporters have been posting by the hundreds.

CORRECTION: You don't know they are Lamont supporters, do you Dan?

You don't have to be a Lamont supporter to hate Joe Lieberman's stupid and destructive politics.

We knew we were taking a risk by not moderating or censoring the comments section. But it was our hope to provide an open, engaging forum, even if it meant tolerating a fair amount of criticism from our opponents.

When we saw the disturbing direction most of the Lamont supporters were heading after the first two days, we posted an appeal for them to tone it down -- to show some respect for the fact that we were allowing them to make their voice heard on our site, to stop with the personal attacks on Senator Lieberman and our staff, and to stop posting under our staff member's names.

AGAIN, do you realize that hating Joe's wasteful policies doesn't a Lamont supporter make? When are you going to get that through your head, Dan?

Then again...all your constant harping on that lie makes me wonder if perhaps some, if not most, of those comments weren't posted by Lieberman operatives in order to allow you to play the "hate card"? Your refusal to use the most basic requirement to register to comment on your blog eliminates any pesky "net tracks" that may embarrass the people commenting.

Karl Rove has contacted Joe's people. That's a fact. I guess it's possible he faxed you guys a few pages out of his vile playbook.

[...]

As a result, we felt we had no choice but to end this experiment and remove what had become nothing more than a destructive distraction.

We in no way blame the Lamont campaign itself for this turn of events. The Lamont campaign blog did discourage its supporters from posting insulting or hateful comments when our blog went live. And just last night we received a thoughtful email from Lamont’s Internet communications director, Tim Tagaris, condemning the personal attacks littering our comments section and expressing his disappointment at the behavior of some of the people doing the posting. reiterating that the Lamont campaign had nothing to do with the offensive and personal comments. [Note: We misunderstood Tim's email and we apologize for this misunderstanding.]

That is much appreciated, and we certainly take Tim at his word.

Fine. I'm sure Tim accepts your apology. Or, maybe he doesn't, if he reads the following:

Speaking of taking people at their words, here is a representative sampling (UPDATE 2:12 PM: Added disclaimer to pdf) of the offensive comments that were posted this week. We will leave it to our readers to judge for themselves what they say about Lamont's supporters and the Lamont campaign itself.

Are you JOKING? Just two paragraphs above, you said, "We in no way blame the Lamont campaign itself for this turn of events."

And THEN you follow that with: "We will leave it to our readers to judge for themselves what they say about Lamont's supporters and the Lamont campaign itself."

So Dan, which is it? Are you saying the Lamont campaign is responsible for this, or not?

Because, to me, it sounds like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

...and we're not going to let you get away with that.

UPDATE: Holy shit! Dan's "Greatest Hits from Joe's Blog" .pdf file may be the most insightful glimpse into the mind of Gerstein that has ever been posted anywhere!

This is a virtual gold mine of funny (and sometimes scatological) anti-Joe posts; a few pro-Joe comments labeled "naughty"; and several pages of explicit services performed by...er, "companionship consultants", some might consider them, that are informative and completely apropos of nothing.

While Dan tries to make a point with this 15-page .pdf file, after a couple of pages it just gets funny...and then funnier!

Dan, while I mourn the loss of the blog's comments (and I correctly predicted their demise as taking between 5 and 6 days; I only wish I'd started a betting pool!), your preservation of the best of the Joe's blog comments is admirable.

I thank you, Dan...and posterity thanks you.

Connecticut Bob at the movies

Tonight, I'd like to review a short film, which debuted over at Joe2006.com, called "Peek-A-Boo Ned".

This direct-to-video effort by fledgling filmmaker JoeLieberman2006 has true star power, spotlighting future senator Ned Lamont's photogenic public appearances.

But the movie falls flat soon after it starts, due to poor pacing, extended periods of a blank screen, and the lack of a coherent narrative. Other factors conspire to keep this creation from attaining anything higher than sub-standard mediocrity.


The film was released sans any screenwriting credits, which is understandable. No self-respecting writer would want his name associated with this lackluster effort.

The cinematography is, in a word, deplorable. With so many gifted documentary camera operators out there, it's nearly inconceivable that the person holding this camera was actually TRYING to film the subject of the movie. There wasn't a single frame that conveyed any attempt to perhaps MOVE to get a better angle. Certainly, there have been similar films by other, much more gifted filmmakers, who have made a more honest effort to deliver the goods.

This brings into question the validity of the entire film's premise.

However, the film does have some redeeming characteristics. The star of the movie, Democratic Nominee for Senate Ned Lamont, is charismatic and compelling (whenever the cinematographer decided to perform his job properly); and the expertly designed campaign signs, which were prominently displayed, showed the word "Democrat" in proud, bold letters.

Even these helpful details aren't enough to justify this waste of viewing time. If you've already watched the movie, this reviewer would like to send his condolences.

Take a look at a similar film, made by the gifted and tenacious Spazeboy. In this much more lyrical effort, Spazeboy is continually thwarted from taping outgoing senator Joe Lieberman by recently fired Lieberman Communications Director (so much for Joe's loyalty to his troops) Marion Steinfels.

Enjoy!

Campaign Web Sites 101

This illustration is prominently positioned on Joe Lieberman's campaign home page. I ask you -- is this respectful political discourse? Is this reaching across the aisle? Is this rising above nasty partisan attacks? That's your call. Look again at that page -- is there anything there that invites you to vote for Lieberman? I can't find it. It looks like someone who feels he shouldn't have to explain himself to voters.
This is the prominent illustration on the Lamont campaign home page. This is followed by an explanation of Lamont's candidacy. Do the candidates disagree? You bet. But does the Lamont official Web site make plays on the Senator's name? If so, I can't find it.

Let's take a look at the official campaign blogs -- I'm not talking about comments, that are out of control of the campaigns -- but what is posted by staffers. I cannot find a post on the Lamont Blog that does not refer to one of the opponents in the race as "Senator Lieberman." On the other hand, here are some snippets from the offical posts at the Lieberman offical blog. First is from their "our first post"

Beyond being a central source of useful information and commentary from our campaign, we hope this will become a gathering place for lively and thoughtful conversation for our supporters – and even our opponents.

>Negative Ned is at it again...According to the Hotline, the Nedster told his latest whopper...maybe the Nedster can find another excuse for his hypocrisy...Lets see how the Lamonsters find a way to spin that into a negative.... We are lucky the Lamonsters are such tolerant people. ...it’s exactly the same excuse the Nedster used

I guess "useful information and commentary" is in the eye of the beholder.

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.

Sincerely,

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:
Spazeboy
LamontBlog
My Left Nutmeg
ConnecticutBLOG

Golly, Gee -- No Link Between Saddam & al-Qa'ida!

The Senate Intelligence Committee released a report today on Iraq and intelligence leading up to the war. Some brief quotes...

Postwar findings indicate that Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al-Qa'ida in particular. (p.105)

Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. (p.105)

Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000. The Central Intelligence Agency's January 2003 assessment said the al-Libi claim was credible, but included the statement that al-Libi was not in a position to know whether the training had taken place. Postwar findings do not support the assessment that his reporting was credible. (p. 106)

Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike. (p.110)

Conclusion 8: No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom. (p.111)

Quite a start, eh? For the moment, we need to thank Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel for voting with the Ds to make this report as strong as it is.

"Big Time" Cheney will be on MTP for the whole hour on Sunday. This should be something to watch. Will Timmeh nail him or not? On NBC Nightly this evening, they showed the clip of Big Time assuring America that Saddam was intimately involved in 9/11. The clip is racked and ready to go on Sunday. We'll see....

THIS is why it's all about electing true Democrats this year. The only way this administration will be held accountable for misleading this nation into war is to elect:
Ned Lamont
Chris Murphy
Diane Farrell
Joe Courtney
And, of course, re-elect Rosa DeLauro and John Larson.

Score 1 for Scholastic! WTNH, Are You Listening?

This afternoon, Scholastic announced that they are pulling the original "guide" to the ABC GOP-U-Drama (thanks, KO) The Path to 9-11 that was not at all objective or accurately reflecting the FACTS of the 9/11 Commission Report. The company was evidently, overwhelmed by the calls and e-mails generated by bloggers like us.

But, we need to keep smacking ABC/Disney upside the head. Here is a list of ABC affiliates nationally. If it says O&O next to the station name, that means the station is owned by ABC, and can't decide not to air the program. All others are fair game -- they can pull the 9/11 crock-u-drama if they want, just like stations pre-empt for local events and sporting broadcasts all the time.

Here's the WTNH contact info:
Click here to go to the online comments page
Jon Hitchcock
President and General Manager, WTNH-TV & WCTX
Carl Miller
Station Manager/General Sales Manager WCTX
Kirk Varner
Vice President/News WTNH/WCTX

WTNH / WCTX
8 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510

WTNH Main Number: (203) 784.8888
WTNH Main FAX: (203) 789.2010
Newsroom FAX: (203) 787.9698

While I think Geoff Fox and Dr. Mel are the most accurate weather people in the market, if WTNH doesn't step up on this one, I'll be watching elsewhere --- I never liked Desperate Housewives, anyway.

Susan Bysiewicz demonstrates new Voting Machines

This morning at the Bridgeport City Hall Annex, Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz introduced the new optical voting machine that Connecticut will be using.

The Secretary discussed the machines with voting officials from neighboring towns. A complete list of the towns where the demonstrations are scheduled is available HERE.

This video clip is a short demonstration of the machine:



I like the system because it has a very simple paper trail. Tampering will be almost impossible, and if there is a large descrepancy all you need to do is count the paper ballots. It seems fairly hack-proof compared to the Diebold machines (Diebold ATM-style machines; see UPDATE at bottom).

The machines will be implemented in 20 municipalites for the November election, and the remaining towns and cities will be up and running by late SprinG (happy, Eric?) 2007 most likely, and definitely by the following Novemeber. The 20 towns have not be released yet.

A handicapped-accessable phone voting system will be implemented in all 169 towns in Connecticut by November. That means vision-impaired or otherwise handicapped individuals can vote using a touch-tone voice menu, which then automatically generates a fax version of the ballot with the candidates that the persone selected.

This is what the paper ballot looks like. The process goes like this:

Each voter is given a paper ballot. They take it to a "privacy booth" to vote for their candidates. Then they take it over to the voting machine and insert it in any direction. The machine reads the ballot, tabulates the vote, and then drops the ballot into a lock box. The ballots provide a foolproof paper trail in the event a recount is needed.

If there is an "over-vote" on the ballot (more than one person selected for a position) or no votes at all (and only ONE vote is needed anywhere on the ballot; you don't HAVE to vote for every office), the machine spits the ballot back out. A volunteer will assist you in correcting your mistake by issueing you a new ballot.

If the voter desires absolute privacy, a privacy envelope is provided, which slips over the ballot like a sleeve, and you can insert it into the voting machine so the ballot isn't exposed at all once you leave the privacy booth.

We appreciate Secretary Bysiewicz's assistance in helping people understand this new technology.

UPDATE: I found more information about the tabulating machine. It is a Diebold manufactured machine, which normally would set off alarm bells in a blue state like Connecticut. But again, the thing I like is that there IS a voter-verified paper trail (the ballot that the voter had personally filled out and placed in the tabulator) as opposed to those ATM-style fully electronic voting machines.

Here's an overview of the optical voting machine.

Here's a more detailed pdf file.

And finally, a commenter remarked on how much the new voting machine looks like a paper shredder.

Well, I hacked into the secret master computer server at Diebold, where they keep all their proprietary technical infomation, and found this inside-the-box image of the new voting machine:



(note: image may actually be something other than a Diebold machine. please don't sue me.)

Message of hope

Lamont supporter David Stevenson lends a positive message to the Labor Day parade.

Maura Keaney (Joe Lieberman's favorite Irish-American) waits for the parade to begin.

Gerstein discusses Lieberman wife beating on blog

BREAKING NEWS!

On the Joe2006 blog tonight, millionaire-lawyer non-combatant successful-draft-deferrer Joe Lieberman's campaign director, Dan Gerstein, brought up the topic of wife beating in relation to his discussion of the Senator's possible campaign contributions.

While addressing the questionable validity of a story about GOP fundraising efforts for Lieberman that was posted by their OWN CAMPAIGN STAFF on their OWN BLOG, Gerstein asked if it was possible to prove the Senator doesn't beat his wife.

After several messages questioning Gerstein about the wife-beating topic, the Lieberman spokesman said "Joe Lieberman does not beat his wife."

Keeping in mind the "sunrise-sunset flap" of last week, where Dan Gerstein immediately denied the stock video used in a campaign ad was a sunrise, rather than the sunset it was later confirmed to be, in the interest of safety we may want to have the authorities investigate the Senator's alleged penchant for spousal abuse.

The pertinent comments from the exchange are quoted here:

Let me get this straight. You are asking us to disprove an anonymous, single-sourced story from a magazine of questionable credibility that not one respectable news outlet has even come close to picking up on? What's next, you want us to provide evidence that Joe Lieberman doesn't beat his wife?

Seriously, folks, I am more than happy to answer legitimate questions raised on the blog, and I apologize for not doing more of it yet (been a little busy doing a few other things), but can we please have a little perspective? Thanks.
Dan Gerstein | 09.06.06 - 8:23 pm | #

Joe Lieberman beats his wife?
Mike | 09.06.06 - 8:28 pm | #

Why does Joe beat his wife? Is it because she's a pharmaceutical lobbyist?
BluetooththeGreat | 09.06.06 - 8:31 pm | #

I don't know, blue... I just heard about it from Dan Gerstein himself.
Mike | 09.06.06 - 8:33 pm | #

Now, we have someone who, posting as Dan Gerstein, hopefully it is and not a namestealer, wants to tell us that it is the equivalent of "when did you quit beating your wife"?

If this is as untrue, or "conspiracy theory" as you want us to believe, why even address it at all?

Either it is true, or it is not. To address it in this manner only serves to fuel the fire that Lieberman's campaign is actually hiding a significant amount of support (maybe not financial) from the RNC.
David (Austin Tx) | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 8:39 pm | #

What's next, you want us to provide evidence that Joe Lieberman doesn't beat his wife?

Actually, that would be great.
NTodd, Blogsatz Eliterach | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 8:40 pm | #

Are you really suggesting that if Joe took money from Republicans then he also beats his wife? Because you know it's possible that he took money from Republicans and does not beat his wife. I don't know why this Dan Gerstein is making baseless accusations like that against Joe. Doesn't Joe have enough to worry about in this campaign (his voting record, his flip-flopping, his self-righteous personality) without jerks like Dan Gerstein making false accusations?
winklife | 09.06.06 - 8:48 pm | #

First, Joe Lieberman does NOT beat his wife. Second, I will personally look into whether or not Joe's campaign has taken a significant amount of money from registered Republicans. I don't think so. But I can make sure. How's that for transparency?
Dan Gerstein | 09.06.06 - 8:55 pm | #

First, Joe Lieberman does NOT beat his wife.

I demand proof.
NTodd, Blogsatz Eliterach | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 8:56 pm | #

Joe did not beat his wife to the lobbyist trough. My understanding is that she worked for a PR firm that represented clients with pending legislation before Congress well before Joe is being forcably retired from the Senate so that he can pursue his next career as a defense lobbyist.
JoeBlow | 09.06.06 - 9:00 pm | #

And when did Joe stop beating his wife, anyway?
NTodd, Blogsatz Eliterach | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 9:01 pm | #

As I've said, we will look into whether or not serious Republican contributions have been made to Joe's campaign. I don't think so. It may take a few days (I'm very busy), but we will post our findings on the blog. I promise.
Dan Gerstein | 09.06.06 - 9:10 pm | #

Dan, did you really claim the story to be false despite not knowing for sure whether or not there is any truth to the claim?

wow, DANGERstein strikes again...
steve | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 9:15 pm | #

As I've said, we will look into whether or not serious Republican contributions have been made to Joe's campaign. I don't think so. It may take a few days (I'm very busy), but we will post our findings on the blog. I promise.

We all wait with bated breath.

I also want to know if Joe has accepted any contributions from kitten-eating cyborgs.
NTodd, Blogsatz Eliterach | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 9:16 pm | #

That was not funny. You can disagree with Joe on issues, but it is ludicrous (and imature) to continue in this vein. To keep this up, is to stoop to the level of ridiculousness to which Dan himself has sunk.

Dan brought it up. I was merely picking up the ball and running with it. And I never, ever claimed to be mature. I'm actually here because I heard there would be better snacks than over at Eschaton. I was misinformed.

And for the record, I don't beat my wife (well, she's now my ex, but we're still friends and my claim stands!).
NTodd, Blogsatz Eliterach | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 9:20 pm | #

They Will Stop at Nothing

I am sick to my stomach about this one. Just when you thought the minions of this administration couldn't rewrite more history, they take on 9-11. In case you haven't heard, ABC is showing a 2-part special on 9-11 on Sunday and Monday night. Originally pitched as a documentary culled from the 9-11 report, it is now "docudrama" being shown without commercial interruption (as in, too hot for a sponsor to go near).

The problem is the blame is all on the Clinton administration, and Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, and Madeline Albright, who are all depicted in the, um, show -- say that scenes depicted never happened, and 9-11 co-chair Tom Kean said that composite characters had to be created to cover all the info in the short time.

Since it seems that not all members of the press can get a review copy, Editor and Publisher does a nice summary here We have not heard from co-chair Lee Hamilton about this whitewash, but Richard BenVeniste is due on Olbermann any minute. Transcript will appear here and you can always check for video at Crooks & Liars ThinkProgress has more

Even worse, Scholastic is distributing curriculum guides with right-wing talking points, and copies of this show will also be distributed, so this false version may very well become a staple to teach kids about 9-11. Curiously, tonight, you can't get to that through the regular link to the Scholastic Web site, or find it when searching the site. Could it be that they have changed their minds? Let's hope so. Here's an analysis of those tools

I am out of my mind with anger. For the REAL story of 9-11, watch the original CBS documentary made by the French photojournalists who just happened to be working with the first FDNY unit to respond that horrible day. Sunday night at 8 Eastern