Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont, who recently denounced Sen. Joe Lieberman for his public scolding of President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, lauded the senator at the time for his eloquence and moral authority.
It's just funny how the Left changes their mind and position to whatever fits the plan in the quest for power. I am not saying people can't change their minds, but I have not heard Lamont admit that he has had a change of heart or opinion.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
While critical today, Lamont lauded Lieberman's rebuke of Clinton in e-mail in 1998
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Misleading to say the least. If you read Lamont's letter, the substance and tone of the letter IS NOT what you are being led to believe.
Read it here.
Maybe you should actually read the source material.
Red Ned praised Lieberman for doing what he is criticizing him for today.
Spin that.
Jason, you're spinning. The Times was stupid enough to include a copy of Lamont's full letter so you could read the context. Lamont is clearly asking Lieberman to stop the impeachment bullshit.
In addition, how does a member of Lieberman's campaign staff get ahold of a constituent email from eight years ago? Why would a Times reporter repeatedly press Lamont on the Lewinsky matter so much that Lamont cuts short the interview? Sounds like a set-up to me--even moreso knowing that the Times lied about the content of Lamont's letter.
You guys don't get it.
Lamont criticized Lieberman for supporting censure of Clinton, and in the letter *Jim* supplied, Lamont advocates the very thing.
Is there no limit to socialist doublethink?
Of course not. Comrade Lamont supports The Party, so all his sins are forgiven.
Where has Lamont criticized Lieberman for supporting censure of Clinton?
Lamont's letter didn't specifically ADVOCATE censure. He suggested that perhaps censure was a way for closure so that Congress and the nation could MOVE ON.
For everyone's edification, the full text of Lamont's email:
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 nobody expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or 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. . . .
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 thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the 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 medium available.
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 up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, a lot 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 he 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.
I believe my one-sentence summary was accurate: Lamont didn't care for the way Lieberman did his thing, and blamed Lieberman for making it worse. He then asked Lieberman to use his influence to stop the impeachment bullshit. It takes some serious spin--or perhaps serious crack smoking--to read it any other way.
lieberman is going to win
Jim--
NYT: Lamont Criticizes Lieberman’s 1998 Rebuke of Clinton Over Affair
You just quoted Lamont as writing
"We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe be censured for lying-- and let's move on."
How can you doublethink like this? I'm amazed, frankly.
Lieberman voted against impeachment, and voted not guilty on obstruction of justice charges, so his position was exactly the same as Comrade Lamont's-- that Lamont even suggested censure as a remedy to the situation.
But logic means nothing to the left these days -- if you're an empty suit that professes to hate all things Bush, that's enough.
There IS a difference between suggesting censure as a remedy and ADVOCATING it as a punishment. Or is that too fine a point for you?
Lieberman DID NOT vote against impeachment. Get your facts straight. :-)
We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe he should be censured for lying--and let's move on.
There's something that none of you have thought of here. Sounds to me that the "maybe he should be censured for lying" was just a wisecrack, a smart-ass remark, kind of like "do what you will, but do it, and get it over with".
It also says maybe. He didn't suggest anything.
God you guys are the worst at arguing right down to the word. You have to analyze what isn't even "there" to analyze.
Which says to me that you have nothing better to do.
Post a Comment