Lieberman: MY BOXOR WUZ TEH ROXORD!!!!111!!!1!1!!

evanft

evanft

CAGiversary!
Feedback
68 (100%)
OMG WTF HAX!!!

HARTFORD, Conn. - Democratic Sen.

Joe Lieberman, who was locked in a battle with an anti-war challenger in the nation's most closely watched primary race Tuesday, accused his opponent's supporters of hacking his campaign Web site and e-mail system.

Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith said the campaign has contacted the Connecticut attorney general's office and asked for a criminal investigation by state and federal authorities.

Campaigning Tuesday in New Haven, Lieberman said he has no proof that Ned Lamont's supporters are responsible, but is asking state party chairman to intervene.

"I'm concerned that our Web site is knocked out on the day of the primary, you'd assume it wasn't any casual observer," Lieberman said.

Lamont, campaigning early Tuesday afternoon in Bridgeport, said he knew nothing about the accusations. "It's just another scurrilous charge," he said.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office declined immediate comment. Calls placed to the
FBI and the chief state's attorney's office seeking comment were not immediately returned.

Smith said the site began having problems Monday night and crashed for good at 7 a.m.

"Voters cannot go to our Web site. They cannot access information," Smith said. "It is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise voters."
Click to expand...

Of course, his hosting site going down wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Two posts down it's clear that Lieberman's website isn't suffering from a Denial of Service attack.

But now I have the definitive answer as to why Lieberman's site went down.

They are paying $15/month for hosting at a place called MyHostCamp, with a bandwidth limit of 10GB. MyHostCamp is currently down, along with all their clients.

Here's the deal -- you get what you pay for. My hosting bill is now over $7K per month. A smaller site doesn't need that much bandwidth, but if you're paying $15 because your $12 million campaign is too freakin' cheap to pay for quality hosting, then don't go blaming your opponent when your shitty service goes out.

For their part, the Lamont campaign has offered its technical expertise to get Lieberman's site back up (which could be done in an hour by a competent sysadmin), and has added a link to the googlecached version of Lieberman's site at the top of their blog.

One side is acting mature, the other is running around making baseless accusations.
Click to expand...
 
Don't go there Spaz. Pretty tasteless to even imply that.

Just saw Lieberman's "concession" speech. Evidently, unphased by the fact that he was an incumbent senator voted out of the election as a direct consequence of his perpetual mistaking of kowtowing to extreme right-wing ideologues as "bipartisanship," he'll continue to sail that ship into November, when he could damn well cause the left in CT to split. If he did so (more or less the same thing happened in France 4-6 years ago, when the left was so fractioned that the third vote-getting candidate for Prime Minister (I think that was the post) was a very distant-third National Front (white supremacist org.) member named Jean-Marie Le Pen), he could damn well cause the Republican candidate to win the election. ESPECIALLY if the votes in November for the left mimic those of tonight; contrary to what George Bush said, Ned Lamont's 52% to 48% victory does NOT constitute a mandate, at least one sufficient to keep the newest Democrat best friend of Sean Hannity (he can keep close quarters with "Dixiecrat" Zell Miller) from running as an Independent in November.

CT is fucked. Thanks for using the very reason you aren't running with a (D) next to your name to be the very reason you should keep running. fuckface.

I'll ask it now, since it's such an obvious question - why aren't Republicans lauding Lieberman? They weren't up until today, and they probably won't between now and November. The man is handing you a NET SEAT GAIN (and goddammit it'll be the only one you'll gain this November) this fall, when you run the very-real risk of losing control of both houses of Congress. Make him a medal, or suck his balls, or something. This guy ought to be a hero to you, seeing as how he will be certified persona non grata to the Dems this fall.

(Pardon the run-ons)
 
[quote name='botticus']It should be noted that Lieberman has officially lost the Dem primary in Connecticut.

Beaten above. :whistle2:([/QUOTE]

I find it downright HIGH-larious that the New York Times, bastion and bastard chairman of liberal media elites, uses the phrase "narrow" victory to describe the CT primary in the byline of their front page; YET, the percentage difference is marginally (tenths of a percent) LARGER than that which gave George W. Bush a fucking "mandate" in 2004.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll ask it now, since it's such an obvious question - why aren't Republicans lauding Lieberman? They weren't up until today, and they probably won't between now and November.[/QUOTE]

Have you not been paying attention? The right has been a Lieberman supporter for a LONG time now. Hannity pretty much offered to go out and campaign on Lieberman's behalf. Here is a YouTube video of a LARGE number of conservative commentators who have been supporting Lieberman through this campaign. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter - all of them are in there pretty much campaigning on Lieberman's behalf.
 
Aw don't you guys love politics? They absolutely drag him through the mud with Gore in '00 and now he's their best friend.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Aw don't you guys love politics? They absolutely drag him through the mud with Gore in '00 and now he's their best friend.[/QUOTE]

Y'know that phrase (one that has little to no truth in it) that everyone has a book within them? I've been meddling with the idea about writing a book about how the modern political culture (both inside Washington and "outside the beltway" in televised political discourse) can be viewed in frames of professional wrestling more than reasoned debate and dialogue. What you just said certainly speaks to that - it's one of those "HEY! Those guys were just feuding with each other at WrestleMania a few months back! Why are they a tag team all of a sudden!?!?!" moments.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Y'know that phrase (one that has little to no truth in it) that everyone has a book within them? I've been meddling with the idea about writing a book about how the modern political culture (both inside Washington and "outside the beltway" in televised political discourse) can be viewed in frames of professional wrestling more than reasoned debate and dialogue. What you just said certainly speaks to that - it's one of those "HEY! Those guys were just feuding with each other at WrestleMania a few months back! Why are they a tag team all of a sudden!?!?!" moments.[/QUOTE]

That's actually not too bad an idea. I'd argue that wrestling is more realistic than politics though...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Y'know that phrase (one that has little to no truth in it) that everyone has a book within them? I've been meddling with the idea about writing a book about how the modern political culture (both inside Washington and "outside the beltway" in televised political discourse) can be viewed in frames of professional wrestling more than reasoned debate and dialogue. What you just said certainly speaks to that - it's one of those "HEY! Those guys were just feuding with each other at WrestleMania a few months back! Why are they a tag team all of a sudden!?!?!" moments.[/QUOTE]

if you haven't watched this before

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0173920/maindetails

check it out

Kaufman used that dynamic like a master
 
I say good riddance--the guy had no business calling himself a democrat with his moral grandstanding and disdain for disagreeing with the current republican administration at any meaningful level. I'm no liberal, but damn if I hate people who won't call a spade a spade. The fact that this guy was a misinformed anti-video game industry advocate was just the gooey icing on a turd cake.

Could Senator Clinton be next?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You sure haven't been following that election at all, have you? I recommend you start by googling the name Jeanine Pirro.

Here: the work's done for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanine_Pirro[/QUOTE]

Pirro has nothing to do with his reference to HC making a lot of the same mistakes Lieberman made

she is hated from all sides for several reasons, but YES, her unwaivering support of the Iraq War will cost her votes - just like it cost Lieberman

and Hillary won't run as an independent if she misses the nom
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']her unwaivering support of the Iraq War[/QUOTE]

:shock:

What Hillary Clinton are you citing? There is no Hillary Clinton that proffers unwavering support of the Iraq War.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:shock:

What Hillary Clinton are you citing? There is no Hillary Clinton that proffers unwavering support of the Iraq War.[/QUOTE]

way to dodge the original point. ;)

looks like you just walked into a sliding glass door though... lol.

"Lieberman's support of the war was toxic for him. But he is not alone in his party in supporting the war: Two Democrats expected to be leading contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination hold similar positions: Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York senator, and Mark Warner, the former governor of Virginia."

She has not only made numerous statements saying that she does not regret her vote to go to war in Iraq and that she supports Bush as Commander In Chief regarding that issue - she's also been booed out of several events by Democratic audiences for that stance

Not exactly a secret and certainly not worthy of the :shock: face

not by a long shot

wake up and smell the dissent
 
What, pray tell, is your original point, then?

Hillary is more contextual - I know she doesn't regret her original vote to authorize the war in Iraq, so tell me something I don't already know. I also happen to know that she's more like John Kerry - they claim that they made the "right" vote based on the info they were given at the time, and neither of them want to bring the troops home immediately if given the chance. But it is completely erroneous to call them supporters of Bush's war in Iraq. Neither or them have expressed any semblance of confidence or support in the job Bush has done - Clinton has repeatedly called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfled.

So, don't mistake not regretting their original vote in 2002 (3?) for being supporters of the war 3 years later. Lieberman is in a league of his own in that regard. Their attitude toward their war authorization vote is no secret; you're right about that. Neither are the dissenting opinions and statements they've offered, in spades, since then, claiming to have been misled into making the wrong vote.
 
the original point is the original point made.. genius.

scroll up...

good lord

she will see the same kind of erosion in her appeal/votes that Lieberman saw b/c of her UNWAIVERING support of the Iraq War

should I send you a telegram?

and I wasn't the one who came in here lecturing to others in a huffy tone, telling them they must not be following the campaign very closely.

aaron_ruell7.jpg


lol

Dems hate Hillary as much as Repubs do, maybe more.. and a lot of that has to do with EXACTLY why Lieberman lost

_________________________________________________________

From the Boston Herald:


MANCHESTER, N.H. - Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it.

[…]

“I was amazed,” says Bennett. “I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn’t know it would be as strong as this. It’s stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her.”

Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. He’s been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors.

He has so far recruited 410 likely voters in the 2008 Democratic primary, and sat down with them privately in small groups to find out what they really think about the candidates and the issues.

His conclusion? “Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.”


______________________________________________________________________________

Dick Morris, America's most prominent campaign strategist, tells NewsMax that the biggest victim of Joe Lieberman's stunning loss in Connecticut's Democratic primary is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"The big loser last night was Hillary Clinton," Morris said. "She has to go through the Democratic [presidential] primaries to win and it is an increasingly hostile place for someone who voted for the war and has not recanted."

_______________________________________________________________________________
 
Dick Morris? NewsMax? I'm not buying any of that as a reliable source.

Moreover, the other article you cited is edited down to be meaningless. Link to the whole article, please.

Now, as far as an erosion of political support, well, you need a challenger for that to be the case. NY's primary isn't until September (I think). If you'd care to point out a single Democrat challenging Clinton for her candidacy this year (one that has polled higher than 1% anyway), then I might give you some credence. As it stands, nobody's stepped up to Clinton, and you haven't done anything to show me how her popular support amongst Democrats in New York state has waned.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You sure haven't been following that election at all, have you? I recommend you start by googling the name Jeanine Pirro.

Here: the work's done for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanine_Pirro[/quote]

Not sure what context you are taking my quote from, but I appreciate you taking that time to try correct me on whatever it is you're assuming I'm misinformed about. I assume you thought I was making reference to the election details, but I wasn't comparing Clinton's election bid w/Leiberman's. Just saying we have enough politicians trying to make issues out of non-issues, and if they end up getting ousted, then it's one less thing spinning the government's wheels.

I'm just tired of politicians taking up causes against video games and the video game industry when they could be directing that effort towards more substantial issues, that is all.
 
I still hold Lieberman will win in November. If he can keep a good chunk of the Democratic vote, surely he will get a lot of Republican crossovers. Didn't they do a poll a while ago that showed him over 50% running as an independent against Lamont?

Found it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/03/AR2006070300873.html

Lieberman (I) 56 percent
Lamont (D) 18 percent
Schlesinger (R) 8 percent

Of course, I'm sure this will change somewhat with the primary results, so who knows.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I still hold Lieberman will win in November. If he can keep a good chunk of the Democratic vote, surely he will get a lot of Republican crossovers. Didn't they do a poll a while ago that showed him over 50% running as an independent against Lamont?

Found it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/03/AR2006070300873.html

Lieberman (I) 56 percent
Lamont (D) 18 percent
Schlesinger (R) 8 percent

Of course, I'm sure this will change somewhat with the primary results, so who knows.[/QUOTE]

If Joe can be pegged as a sore loser, he's done for (ironically enough, the left-leaning blogosphere has reappropriated the "Sore Loserman" emblem for the current campaign :lol:). That's a big if, and while I'm reluctant to discredit polling from early June, a significant amount has changed in CT, attitudinally, since then (given a Lamont victory). One thing's for certain after looking at that poll: I was dead wrong about the Republican candidate having a chance due to left-wing fractioning. Evidently, CT is liberal enough that there could be 50-50 parity between Lamont and Lieberman in November - and the poor (R) candidate wouldn't acheive jack squat with
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If Joe can be pegged as a sore loser, he's done for (ironically enough, the left-leaning blogosphere has reappropriated the "Sore Loserman" emblem for the current campaign :lol:). That's a big if, and while I'm reluctant to discredit polling from early June, a significant amount has changed in CT, attitudinally, since then (given a Lamont victory). One thing's for certain after looking at that poll: I was dead wrong about the Republican candidate having a chance due to left-wing fractioning. Evidently, CT is liberal enough that there could be 50-50 parity between Lamont and Lieberman in November - and the poor (R) candidate wouldn't acheive jack squat with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top