« WI-03: GOPer Recycles Robinson's "Sex" And "Masturbation" Ad | Home | PA-07: Clinton Stumps For Sestak, Blasts National GOP »
CT-SEN: Lieberman And His Adviser Contradicting Each Other Over Hastert?
Yesterday, Joe Lieberman campaign manager Sherry Brown said this about Lieberman's reaction to Dem calls for the resignation of Speaker Dennis Hastert over Foleygate:
Brown said that when Lieberman spoke to reporters Wednesday, he "never suggested" that calling for Hastert's resignation was too partisan. She said he "simply urged both sides not to turn this awful incident into a partisan food-fight."
But here's what Lieberman said on Wednesday:
"The Foley case bothers people," he added. "If anyone thinks they can make this into another partisan flap, it's not. It's very real and human. The House Republican leaders and, frankly, the Democratic leadership, should not make it partisan."
So, yes, Lieberman did fault the Dem leadership for being too partisan.
Advertisement
and as far as I can tell Bush never SAID that al Qaeda and Saddam were linked, or that he REALLY knew that there were WMD's in Iraq, or that Lieberman ever SAID it was unpatriotic to ask questions about the war in Iraq, or ...
October 6, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've never always never called for the resignation of the prime minister of Oceania.
October 6, 2006 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is only marginally related... but if Joe wins, then switches to the Republicans (as I think he will, considering that all his supporters are Republicans) to turn the Senate back over, does Connecticut have a recall provision? And is anyone getting ready to start the recall movement?
October 6, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where do you believe you detect a contradiction?
Leiberman describes calls for Hastert's resignation as premature, pending investigation.
He separately cautions both leaderships to avoid partisan excess.
I do not happen to share either view. It's fair to call for Hastert's resignation on grounds of institutional negligence -- not by prejudging the evidentiary case as to who knew what when. And both sides will pile into the partisan food fight, for reasons both principled and unprincipled.
But Lieberman's apparent views as expressed by these statements are not in contradiction in any way ... are they?
Can you clarify your interpretation?
October 6, 2006 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Lieberman will be caucusing with Democrats after he wins in November. There is no chance whatsoever of him defecting to the GOP no matter how much Nutroots Ned and his stormtroopers want to lie about it.
Poor Ned. Lying and smearing his opponent worked in the primary; too bad it looks like it isn't working in the general election.
October 6, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's not an answer, it's an evasion.
October 6, 2006 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name one lie.
Calling people who work for Lamont stormtroopers is a vicious and totally undeserved smear.
Joe may caucus with the Dems if he wins, but just as in the past (Bankruptcy Bill, cloture on Alito, everything to do with Iraq), when the chips are down, he's just not someone the Dems can trust.
October 6, 2006 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see the contradiction either.
October 6, 2006 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink