home

A Vote For Lieberman Is a Vote For Bush's Iraq Debacle And Stay The Course

A good ad from Lamont

< Fighting Fires With Prison Inmates | Safavian Sentenced to 18 Months >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's about time. (none / 0) (#1)
    by fafnir on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    From my perch in Virginia, all I hear about is the comparison between Nixon and Joe. WTF? Most people today know little or nothing about Nixon's presidency, and now is not the time for a history lesson.

    Lamont needs to amp-up and make it unequivocally clear to voters what is at stake in November.

    For instance, repeating early, often and simply that "Elections are about consequences. If you vote for Joe, you support Bush's continued war on the middle-class and his stay-the-course occupation of Iraq. Choose wisely. Someone's life or dreams depends upon it, and it may be yours or someone you love. Vote for change. Vote for Ned Lamont."

    Bottom line: On Nov 7th voters must believe they have the power to change the course of the nation by stopping the enablers of failed conservative governance.

    Lamont's Ad Campaign (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bill on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 02:39:36 PM EST
    The Wes Clark ad is pretty good, but i'm more interested in the new "Card Game" ad that Lamont is running that touches on Iraq, but aims squarely at Lieberman's waffling back in 2005 about the President's Social Security privatization campaign.  This ad has a zing that reminds me of the "Where's the Beef" moment back in 1984, when an ad had become bigger than the politician mentioning it.

    It's taken Lamont a long time to start getting out ads that really hit home, but it looks like his campaign has finally found some cylinders that are firing.

    vote (none / 0) (#3)
    by diogenes on Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 07:49:13 PM EST
    And a vote for Lamont is a vote for him to do exactly what in Iraq?

    I'm thinking that (none / 0) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    Lamont should start holding people responsible for their decisions and exposing their lies.

    Wouldn't that be a good place to start?

    Parent

    Stay The Course? (none / 0) (#4)
    by john horse on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 06:52:57 AM EST
    Must take issue with your claim that a vote for Lieberman is a vote for Bush's "stay the course."  Despite all evidence to the contrary, neither Bush or Lieberman ever said that.  Their policy in Iraq has always been stay OFF course.

    A Vote for Lamont is... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Bill on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    It seems to me that the problem Lamont has had is that he's let Lieberman define the race as a vote for Lamont being only about the war, when the reason Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary is that Democrats felt Leiberman had sold out the party to the President on a variety of issues.  

    Lieberman has walked to the GOP side on Iraq, Civil Liberties, Presidential Power, and waffled on Social Security, while making a major point of sympathizing with 'moral values' definitions of the religious Right (as in the Schiavo case).

    Now, by hitting hard on issues like Social Security and Lieberman's general passivity in the face of the Bush agenda, Lamont is beginning to define himself in opposition to his opponent across the gamut.

    The question is whether he's waited too long to effectively take Lieberman on in general, instead of only shoring himself up after his primary victory.