Lamont responds to Cheney.

[madfloridian]

Lamont rips Cheney for remark

"Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont responded yesterday to Dick Cheney's suggestion that his primary upset heartened terrorists, saying the vice president was mixing up the war on terror with the invasion of Iraq.

"I just think that this Bush administration confuses a comprehensive attack on the terrorists with the invasion of Iraq," Lamont said in a telephone interview yesterday. "I think the invasion of Iraq was a terrible distraction.

Lamont, 52, said the invasion diverted attention and resources from the hunt for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, port security and other critical areas of national security.

"It hasn't made us safer," Lamont said. "I'm happy to have that debate."

[Eurobabe]

1. Crashcart needs to get back on his ventilator and shut his pie hole

He is such an evil prick.

[liberalnurse]

2. Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ned has Spoken! Take that Mr. Cheney!:kick: :popcorn:

[marylanddem]

3. It is so gratifying to have someone with backbone answering

back to defend himself - but where the hell are the Democrats who should also be rushing to Lamont's defense and kicking Cheney's ass? Do they have a clue? Do Hillary, Dodd and Schumer regret pimping for Lieberman in the days before the Lamont victory? Yeah, I know they're all allegedly on the Lamont bandwagon now. But how about expressing some regrets for their misplaced loyalties - and being repaid by Lieberman's "fuck you" to the Democratic party???

[Larkspur]

9. Harry Reid gives Lieberman Hell...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/08/12/romney_kerry_spar_over_fight_on_terror/

In the last 2 paragrphs in the article...

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who backed Lamont after he won the Democratic primary on Tuesday, also rejected Lieberman's remarks.

"Connecticut voters certainly aren't supporting terrorists," Reid said. "Joe has to play on the field of Connecticut; this is Connecticut politics. The people of this country and the people of Connecticut want a change in direction."

[Cha]

34. Hey, Larkspur, that's really

good to know, thank you!

[Zhade]

62. BTW, I never said congrats...

...for beating b*s* and Dolstein's favorite "Democrat"!

JOE LOST - and you helped make it happen! :yourock:

[Larkspur]

70. Thanks.

I wasn't sure that Ned could pull it off when he first started because he jumped into this race late, but Tom Swan is a great campaign manager and Ned Lamont was humble enough to follow Swan's advice.

It's a great day in CT. Now we're gearing up to Kick Lieber-bush's butte a second time.

[Cha]

32. Not only "backbone" but the

intelligence to go with it. I was waiting for a reply from Ned and here it is!

THanks, mad!

[Qutzupalotl]

43. Hillary dismissed Cheney pretty well.

Saying, "I don't take anything he says seriously anymore." Going on to call him counterproductive.

There was a thread on it a few days ago. I was pleasantly surprised to hear her say that.

[KoKo]

4. CNN actually reported his statement late yesterday. I almost fell over!

The only reason they reported it, though was because of all the Fuss over poor Lieberman losing. If any other Dem said it...they wouldn't have bothered to report it.

Good on Ned!

[timontheleft]

5. Good for Lamont

Darth Cheney . . . how are we any safer with him as VP?

:dem:

[Totally Committed]

6. WTG, Ned!

Thanks for posting this!

TC

[tanyev]

7. Bam!

I so hope he wins the election. We need a voice like that in the Senate.

[tandot]

8. this is the point that should be hammered in over and over again

whenever a Democrat is on TV:

"...Bush administration confuses a comprehensive attack on the terrorists with the invasion of Iraq..."

Iraq had NADA, ZERO, NOTHING, ZILCH to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda. Iraq had NO WMDs and was NOT a threat to us!

[CoffeeCat]

27. I totally agree...and what you said...

...is the most critical talking point of the decade.

I am biting my nails--hoping that the Dems will make that statement a priority.

This nation needs to understand clearly that Iraq has nothing to do with the
war on terror. We need to hammer that home like there's no tomorrow.

The neocons have tried so hard to interlock Iraq and the war on terror. It's the
biggest lie and it cannot stand.

I hope our politicians will do their part in communicating this very important
point---that Iraq had/has nothing to do with the war on terror.

Once that point has fully sunk into America, it will be like a domino effect.

We can't have change in this country until the people fully understand the
extent that they've been bamboozled. Understanding that Iraq is unrelated
to the war on terror--is the critical first step in pulling down BushCo's
house of cards.

Major kudos to Ned Lamont for saying the truth.

[Amonester]

60. It had nothing to do with fighting a minority (before it began) who...

wanted to use violence to 'get back at us' or to 'impose their ideology on us' (whatever), but IMHO (and I'm not the only one), it certainly does now (since March/03) as it has increased the numbers of that violent minority tenfold, not reduced them, making it now more than ever an urgent priority to 'change the course' for an intelligent, carefully thought and applied policy.

To stupidly 'stay the course' in order for Rove&Co to gain their power-grabbing elections is a bloody path to disaster, as doing so increases terrorism instead of reducing it.

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Yes.

Tragically: It has now (since 03/03). That's why it has to stop and real protective measures must be implemented (and that doesn't rule out thoughtful special-ops on the individuals who still want to use violence to 'get back at us' or to 'impose their ideology on us' (whatever)).

[YankeyMCC]

10. Nice how he opens right up with

"I just think that this Bush administration confuses a comprehensive attack on the terrorists with the invasion of Iraq,"

Nice job Senator Lamont :)

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Good response by Lamont

It is http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Jack%20Rabbit/61">exactly what he needed to do

I see this is from a Connecticut daily.

However, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Is CNN picking up Lamont's reply? Or are they creating the illusion that Cheney's ridiculous and vicious charges are unchallenged and perhaps unchallengable?

ON EDIT

I see from Koko's post above that the answer is, happily, yes, CNN is picking this up.

[midnight]

12. Thank You Mr. Lamont.

Short and to the point.

[tbyg52]

13. You tell 'em, Ned! n/t

[MrCoffee]

14. How is THIS defending himself?

I'm serious with this question. This doesn't read like any kind of an aggressive counter-punch to DickHead's outrageous slander (which is RAPIDLY being disseminated by the Noize Machine). What this does read like is "I'm the anti-war candidate who doesn't know anything about politicking."

I couldn't be happier that Ned beat JoeBoy. I mean it. But I can't watch ANOTHER quality populist Dem candidate take these ridiculous slanderous EVIL attacks by the Nazis (i mean repukes, my freudian slip is showing) without calling them out for it. They are going to keep beating Middle America over the head with this mantra (Dems=AQ) until November 2006, and it will work. The Dems MUST go on the offensive against this bullshit.


STOP ROLLING OVER AND HOPING THAT THE REPUKES BEHAVE!!!! They are uncivilized fucks who are willing to do anything to win! The quicker we accept that fact, the better off we'll be.

[madfloridian]

16. Oh, my goodness.

I don't even know what to say to that.

[Bucky]

17. Sadly agreeing. Lamont needs to refine his message.

The point he almost sold isn't that we're not hurting the cause of national security, but that the Bush adminstration is endagering national security and has spent the last three years playing into the hands of the terrorists.

[MrCoffee]

18. IMHO...What Lamont SHOULD Have Said

"Ask Mr. Cheney how one state primary has more effect on the morale of AQ than his administration's abysmal record in the War On Terror does. This administration has utterly failed our country, not my winning the nomination to run for office."

Edited for grammar...my 3rd grade teacher would be so proud of me.

[madfloridian]

20. Where are the Democrats? Why aren't they responding?

Oh, they are, they just don't say it exactly right with their mouth held just right and their toes crossed.

:banghead:

I swear to God some people here are so obvious.

[MrCoffee]

23. Sorry, I'm confused...

I'm not faulting Lamont for responding (that was not the intent of my original post). I'm just lamenting the perceived (by me, anyway) timidity of Dems to aggressively attack these utterly evil, completely political, and shameless assaults by repukes. This is how they operate. We all know this. But we get all hysterical about it, and call them every name in the book for it, BUT WE LET IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE! I can't for the life of me recall seeing a Dem candidate for anything stand up to one of these attacks and call it what it is...which is horseshit scare tactics.

[madfloridian]

24. They are saying that, you just are not hearing it.

You are not listening to what they are saying apparently.

[MrCoffee]

26. Give me one link and I'll take it all back.

One link to an elected Dem (or candidate) aggressively refuting a henious, evil claim like DickHead's. I'd absolutely love to see it. I'm not being sarcastic, I just can't even think of a single time when it happened.

[madfloridian]

28. Here is one.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/11/231439/670

There is so much more. I think these posts that insist that we prove what you should already know is just ridiculous. I am not going to do your research for you.

Here are some tips to find stuff...

Type in a Democrat's name, then add other terms, like cheney, terror, airport security...there are so many.

Am I being sarcastic? A little, because it is so easy.

Why just yesterday in San Fran Howard Dean announced that Bush and Cheney are trying to scare us again. He made a huge deal of it.

So do your search and get back to me. It is pretty obvious here who pays attention to what Democrats say and who doesn't have a clue.

[MrCoffee]

29. Thank you.

For calling me clueless. Thank you for being smug and condescending, all at once. May I wipe your ass for you now, sir?

[madfloridian]

31. Now that was not very nice at all.

I gave you a link, and told you the terms to use to search.

DU has all the good things Dean, Edwards, Kerry, and Clark have said about all kinds of subjects like that. They have been speaking out all over the place.

People have a responsibility to look up stuff before they criticize. I am sorry, but that's how I feel..

Sorry to see you talking like that.

[madfloridian]

45. And btw, that is not a sir....I am a she.

Just to let you know. Before you offer to wipe someone's ass you might want to think about that and how insulting it sounds.

:think:

[digno dave]

64. Lamont needs to harden up

Lamont needs to hammer hard at the terrorist and show the voters in connecticut AND THE NATION that he has a pair as big as anybody around. I'm sorry, but him saying things like "america has created too many enemies abroad" won't cut it. You don't get elected telling voters that no one likes their country.

[LincolnMcGrath]

66. Two anti-Lamont posts in a few minutes?

:shrug:

[otohara]

15. I Like This Fellow "Lamont"

bravo!!!!:toast:

[bobbolink]

19. He could add the info about the B&C trying to cut funds for terrorism!

Since the misadministration tried to cut funds that go for fighting the "liquid bombs", seems like that would be good to get out to the public.

Edited to add link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1895230

How 'bout a commercial about it???

Surely all those Dems now backing Lamont would like to see that on TV.

:evilgrin:

[gulliver]

21. Correct if wussy. Reminds me of Dukakis frankly.

Ned, how about "Cheney is a pathetic, washed up laughingstock. He should retire and spend his declining years hunting. Maybe after getting firearm safety lessons."

Then go into Bush's Folly...

[madfloridian]

25. Now that is silly. It was an intelligent comment, and it was powerful.

I love seeing comments like this get ripped here at DU now...nothing is ever enough.

[Cha]

36. I'm glad Lamont is handling this

instead of you.

[madfloridian]

37. Amen.

:hi:

[Cha]

39. Aaa~Amen~

Aaaa~Amen~

:hi:

[gulliver]

49. I would be worse. Lamont needed to be better.

I'm not running for Senate and I'm not the new number one lightning rod for the pro-war idiots.

The snarl-faced piece of dog shit Cheney publicly (!!!) stated that Lamont's victory heartens terrorists. Lamont replayed his stump speech against the war and asserted Bush's failure for the ninety-ninth time. Cheney's is a personal insult and a direct challenge not only to Lamont but to all Dems. Lamont's answer is (supposedly) "cool and intelligent." Guess which one made the mass media?

Gore got mugged. Kerry got mugged. Lamont, I am sorry to say, just got mugged. It makes no difference that you (and I) think Lamont was in the right and had a "powerful argument." Lamont brought a knife to a gunfight.

I'm sorry your opinion differs from mine. I'm willing to read your case for your opinion. Obviously I am fully aware that a lot of people are in ecstasy over Lamont's win. I was happy, but worried. Now I am more worried and less happy.

The man is a lightning rod. He took a zap from Cheney, and he came back with the rote Dem response instead of finding some way to shove it up Cheney's ass.

Dukakis loved his wife Kitty. Gore never said he invented the Internet. Kerry earned his medals. Lamont is right on the war. So what?

[madfloridian]

50. Anyone involved in change is a lightning rod.

It is not necessarily bad.

I am so sorry, but you just can't tell the VP to shove anything up his ass. It is just not done in polite company.

A lot of us are going to be lightning rods as the party change begins. There is not an easy way to take back a party or a country that has been so thoroughly hijacked.

Lamont knew what he was getting into when he made the choice to run. He is a well-spoken person, and he would never think of telling anyone much less the VP to shove anything up their ass.

What is the obsession here at DU with using the word ass so much? Someone used it to me today in a very insulting way. What's going on?

[gulliver]

52. Shove it up ...

... :-) ... kidding.

The ass stuff is a figure of speech of course.

Lamont needed to burn, stick it to, zing, and slam Cheney the way Cheney burned, stuck it to, zinged, slammed Lamont.

Lamont should have introduced the idea that everyone, even "normal" consumers is ready to suspect: that having Cheney and Bush in power plays into terrorists hands. Someone has to get that idea in play and working in people's minds. It is the truth we Dems dare not say that would counterract the lie that the GOP does dare say.

[madfloridian]

54. I know the figure of speech.

But the message is that you want them to say things that they are unable to say, and that is just not fair.

[gulliver]

55. Lamont has one disadvantage Cheney doesn't have: Lieberman

Lieberman is excrement because he enables Cheney to abuse Lamont. Suppose Lieberman had not decided to become excrement. Then Lieberman could have (and should have) defended Lamont from Cheney. Instead, Lieberman, that backstabbing piece of slime, weakens Lamont and makes him a rent in the Dem fabric.

But if Lamont had merely said (in response to Cheney's outrage) "Well at least Dick didn't shoot me. I'm sorry, but there is no way America is buying any more of Cheney. He's been wrong for America all along, starting with the day he picked himself as Vice President and right up to picking an unnecessary war and then losing it..." and insert the rest of what Lamont said after that.

[janx]

51. Lamont's response was both forceful and LOGICAL.

He knew better than to hurl insults. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the "War on Terror."

This cannot be stated too often.

[gulliver]

53. Stating it and selling it are two different things.

State it too often and you won't sell it. As Joe Dirt says, "It's not what we like. It's the consumer."

I'm not saying Lamont should hurl crude insults, but he can show that he takes Cheney's words as an insult by hitting him back with a "funny but acid" retort.

Cheney insulted Lamont and all Dems. He used fighting words. He said something that cannot go unchallenged. But the battleground is in mental layers above logic -- not more accurate or better, but more powerful, closer to the voting lever.

[many a good man]

22. Cheney shooting his huntin' buddy heartened terrorists more

Deadeye dick hasn't earned the right to lecture anybody on bird hunting or fighting terrorists.

[bleever]

30. Go straight at 'em.

Go right for the supposed strongest spot. Hit 'em hard, again and again.

[Cha]

33. Lamont couldn't have this more

correct..

"Both the (Republican National Committee), Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman seem to be reading off the same playbook right now," Lamont said. "But I don't think it's going to stick."

And that would be goebbles playbook, too!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1890578&mesg_id=1891506

[AntiFascist]

35. I wish he would have told it like it really is...

the Cheney Administration is truly the enabler of terrorism. The invasion of Iraq has done nothing more than stir up hatred toward the US, place our enemy into a position of power, and possibly start a useless and highly destructive civil war.

[madfloridian]

38. He did just fine. He did it with tact and intelligence.

and truth.

[AntiFascist]

42. tact and intelligence maybe...

the truth is Cheney is not as "confused" as he is ruthless and dishonest.

[madfloridian]

44. I am glad Lamont handled it well.

Some of us here would not be good politicians at all.

[AntiFascist]

46. I understand what you're saying...

but there is an argument to be made that when Democrats are attacked in such a blatant way that they should hit back hard and make sure their word gets out, particularly when Cheney's popularity is as low as it is, otherwise they may find it hard to win an election. If the President made that comment, then the "confusion" argument would be more understandable.

[madfloridian]

47. Understatement combined with truth works better sometimes.

.

[AntiFascist]

48. I hope so, and I really hope Lamont wins....

I just recall when Bush won reelection in 2004 and I'm sure many of us felt like yelling I TOLD YOU SO!!! all over DU.

[Clark2008]

40. But will this make it out of the local newspapers?

I mean, to the voters of Connecticut, who ultimately have the only say-so in the Lamont-Leiberman-Schlessinger race, it's GREAT that this newspaper reported on Lamont's defending himself.

However, to the greater public at large, many of whom still believe it when the "news" media tells them Democrats are soft on terror, it would be great to see Lamont's statement plastered everywhere, just as Cheney and the Republican Pips' statements were.

I guess that's too much to ask for, though, isn't it?

[madfloridian]

41. Well, surprise, surprise....

The propaganda media is not covering the candidate who beat their buddy, Joe.

What can I say.

[Donna Zen]

56. Down the memory hole

Along with the death 50 Americans in Iraq last month.

[tblue37]

57. Shorter Ned:

"Go f**k yourself, Mr. Cheney."

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

58. So simple and yet so true

Lamont turned the GOPologist argument on its ear.

For that alone, he deserves to win.

[Cha]

59. Have you seen this, mad?

I just caught it on buzzflash..

"A Boost for Lamont as Democratic Leaders Shift Support
Round 2 Opens In Bitter Contest With Lieberman

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 12, 2006; Page A02

Snips~
After a brief post-primary break, Lamont is scheduled to appear on two national talk shows Sunday and will hit the campaign trail in Connecticut on Monday morning. In the weeks to come, he is expected to be joined by numerous prominent Democrats, including 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, who is scheduled to campaign with Lamont on Thursday.

..Democratic leaders in Washington blanched at Lieberman's comments, which echoed Republican talking points. Lamont didn't directly respond to Lieberman's personal attack, releasing a statement on the alleged bomb plot that reiterated his call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. "We need to change course, and that means standing up to this administration and fighting for our security in a rational, serious way," Lamont said.



Both candidates are sprinting to raise money. Lamont spent about $4 million of his own on the primary -- more than he intended to, said his campaign manager, Tom Swan. Although the official tallies are incomplete, Lieberman was outspending Lamont through late July.:



MORE..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101528.html?nav=rss_politics

[beltanefauve]

61. I like Lamont's response

The game for years has been one where the Repubs say something or go on the offense, and then the Dems respond and go on the defense. I agree with previous posters in that the Dems haven't been hitting hard enough, but in this case, it was once again a situation where the Repub fired the first shot (no pun intended) and the Dem was expected to go on the defense. I like that Ned said, "I'm happy to have that debate." It was a classy, confident answer. We'll see if the Repubs decide they want to continue to go there, and what that will get them.

[Clarkie1]

63. Excellent response. nt

[babylonsister]

65. What a way to frame and shame Cheney! Go, Ned! nt

[Mad_Dem_X]

67. Go, Ned!!! Now, if only

the other Dems would follow suit.

[bigwillq]

68. Great response Ned!

:bounce:

[harlinchi]

69. Way to go, Mr. Lamont! n/t