alternative blogger view of Lamont win:

[CTLawGuy]

http://diaryofamisunderstoodgenius.blogspot.com/

The smear campaign worked
The lefty bloggers couldn't beat Joe by running a nice clean campaign, so Lieberman was defeated last night by a series of vicious, smear-like tactics that would have made the Republican party very happy. First, Jane Hamsher gets a picture of Lieberman in blackface, then the bloggers lie about his record, and his perceived closeness to George Bush, which couldn't be farther from the truth. You see, that's the MO of the kook left. They can't win by talking about the issues, so in an attempt to put the fear of Lieberman into the eyes of some of the gutless liberals around here, this is what they resorted too, and unfortunately, it worked.

Now, Lieberman has decided that the only way to get his job back, is to run as an independent. I applaud this decision simply because this is now a war between the failed ideology of the far left, and that of the more moderate center. If we listen to the ugly , smear infested left, and defeat Lieberman a second time in November, then it will send a horrible message to our friends, and enemies overseas, that the US left is in bed with the terrorists around the world.

I will do everything in my power to see that never happens. The bloggers, who smeared Lieberman in the first place, will now go all out to smear the man some more. To them, they have nothing to lose. This is now a war, and this time, Lieberman will win.
------------------------------------------------------

At least in this post he didn't call Lamont "Nazi Ned."

Apparently Lieberman is crucial to keeping the US safe from terrorists.

[Redstone]

1. Wotta asshole. The title "misunderstood genius" tells you that

all by itself.

That boy got a real inflated opinion of himself, yes?

Redstone

[AX10]

2. Lieberman has smeared both Lamont and those who...

oppose the war in Iraq. Who the HELL is this POS?

[CTLawGuy]

3. he was actually a former "friend" of DU

until he got kinda loud.

[jonnyblitz]

5. ooh I know who you are talking about.!

The guy from Windsor Locks. I can't remember his screenname.

[CTLawGuy]

7. don't know if I'm allowed to post it

but let's just say he thought Bush was "killer"

[jonnyblitz]

9. yup. him.

Thanks for the link! it's amusing to read.

[Redstone]

10. Maybe not post it, but you could PM it. And I'd appreciate it if

you would. Just curious.

Redstone

[Redstone]

8. A Connecticutian spouting such bullshit? Ah well, I suppose we can

have really stupid people even here.

Redstone

[Redstone]

6. With friends like that, who needs enemas? (Not a typo.)

Redstone

[3dman]

4. Speaking Truth To Power?

:sarcasm:

[Redstone]

11. Hey, welcome to DU.

Redstone

[3dman]

14. Thanks!

:toast:

[dolstein]

12. This guy makes a lot of sense

The fact is that the Lamont campaign and his overeager supporters on the internet grossly distorted and -- to be perfectly frank -- outright lied about Lieberman's record. They weren't consent to simply make the case that while Lieberman's a good progressive on most issues of importance to Democrats, his position on the war and his willingness to forge bi-partisan coaltiions made him unfit to represent the Democratic Party in this increasingly partisan age. That would have been a legitimate, but one suspects ultimately losing argument. So Lamont and his supporters took the low road, and ran a months long swift boat campaign against Lieberman.

[CTLawGuy]

13. what did they lie about

this should be good.

[dolstein]

17. Lieberman and his record

According to Lamont, Lieberman and Bush are ideological soulmates -- so indistinguishable that one morphs into the other. This ignores the fact that Lieberman has opposed virtually the entire Bush domestic agenda (hell, Teddy Kennedy, who has backed Bush on education and immigration, has probably been more supported of Bush's domestic program than Lieberman), and has been critical of many aspects of Bush's foreign policy. And let's not forget that Lieberman ran on national ticket against Bush in 2000 and ran for the Democratic nomination so he could oppose Bush in 2004.

[CTLawGuy]

18. response

The idea that Bush and Lieberman are soulmates is an opinion. Thus, it can't be a "lie."

You have posted no factual assertion that could be claimed to be a lie.

[dolstein]

19. That's kind of like saying

that someone who, in 1964, said that George Wallace is a strong supporter of civil rights was merely expressing an opinion and therefore could not be lying.

Nice try, but you are full of crap.

[CTLawGuy]

20. it's still an opinion

it could just be completely unfounded. If you said "George Wallace voted for the Civil Rights Act" that's a factual assertion which would be a lie.

In grade school we learned the difference between fact and opinion.

Facts can be absolutely proven or disproven, opinions cannot.

"Joe Lieberman is an ideological soulmate of the president" = opinion. It can't be 100% proven or disproven.

"Joe Lieberman voted for 90% of the bills this year which the president supported" = factual assertion. One could look up the results of the session and determine whether that is indisputably true or false.


Now that you understand the difference, you understand why the statements are not lies from the Lamont campaign.

Hopefully you are a real Democrat and you support the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate.

[notadmblnd]

15. Joe, stop being a bad sport

quit your whining, tuck your tail between your legs and go home and take a nap. You'll feel better after you've had some sleep.

[sallyseven]

16. He is not serious is he??? What a fool.