So if the left pushes Lieberman out...

Cosmo

zstillings wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601712.html

This is one of the things that is often brought up as proof that Bush stole the election.

...
So... it was found to be criminal and people were convicted... making it a criminal offense. Now, i'm a bit confused here... are you defending this practice?
I mean, if it was criminal in 2002, isn't it still criminal in 2006? If someone tries this in 2006... isn't it still a crime and shouldn't people call for justice?

floyd1975

Cosmo wrote:

...
So... it was found to be criminal and people were convicted... making it a criminal offense. Now, i'm a bit confused here... are you defending this practice?
I mean, if it was criminal in 2002, isn't it still criminal in 2006? If someone tries this in 2006... isn't it still a crime and shouldn't people call for justice?

I'm not saying people shouldn't. I'm just looking for consistency and the same willingness to jump to the conclusion as people have been with Bush.

Cosmo

zstillings wrote:

I'm not saying people shouldn't. I'm just looking for consistency and the same willingness to jump to the conclusion as people have been with Bush.

...
I would hope so... criminal activity is criminal activity.

Eliot Rosewater

Cosmo wrote:

...
I would hope so... criminal activity is criminal activity.

Oh Cosmo, then you'd surely support impeachment, yeah?

Cosmo

don't gimme no wrote:

Oh Cosmo, then you'd surely support impeachment, yeah?

...
If it is criminal, you bet.
But the Bush Admininstration is slimey and crafty (due to the likes of Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz and Rice). They've learned from Nixon and I'm pretty sure they are covering their bases and are not recording anything. They have been able to manipulate the law... bending it, without breaking it... regarding the wiretapping.
Do I wish them gone? You fucking bet. But, realistically, impeachment is a tough call. They are slimey... the pure definition of politicians.

Milhouse VanHouten

zstillings wrote:

He will but I think he is a lot stronger than the candidate on the right which will give him an advantage with many moderate Republicans in CT.

That's completely possible, but I think it will be very difficult for him to pull off.

kenny olav

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

So when Lieberman loses, he'll blame it on his website going down less than 24 hours before the polls opened?

yeah, seems like a pretty stupid strategy if you're going to use dirty tricks to win.

West15th

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Again, I doubt this will have anything to do with the outcome of the primary.

Its not just the website, its also the internal campaign email. It shuts down a campaign's ability to communicate with its voters on the most important day to do that.

So far, there's no evidence that it was Lamont's campaign. I doubt it was. But I have NO DOUBT that it was a lamont supporters. The bottom line is that his campaign is driven by younger, tech savvy internet people. A rogue supporter goes out and crashes Lieberman's website because they had Lieberman. Its got to be him. You really believe that Lieberman "forgot to pay his internet bills?"

Any political web hosting company that shuts down a server on election day would never get any business ever again. This is clearly a Lamont supporter and they should be prosecuted to the fullest.

Eliot Rosewater

VF_Scott wrote:

Its not just the website, its also the internal campaign email. It shuts down a campaign's ability to communicate with its voters on the most important day to do that.

So far, there's no evidence that it was Lamont's campaign. I doubt it was. But I have NO DOUBT that it was a lamont supporters. The bottom line is that his campaign is driven by younger, tech savvy internet people. A rogue supporter goes out and crashes Lieberman's website because they had Lieberman. Its got to be him. You really believe that Lieberman "forgot to pay his internet bills?"

Any political web hosting company that shuts down a server on election day would never get any business ever again. This is clearly a Lamont supporter and they should be prosecuted to the fullest.

Well if it were Lamont supporters, there's a good chance they once supported Lieberman. Maybe Joe shouldn't have been riding george's bush but instead representing his constituents more accurately and fairly...and less politically.

beachdweller

funny thing, Rove called Lieberman today to relay a message from the president.

zstillings wrote:

Are people going to blame the leftist opponent for dirty tactics?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/08/lieberman.website/index.html

Lieberman blames 'dirty politics' for Web site disruption
Lamont calls charge 'scurrilous,' denies involvement
By Robert Yoon
CNN Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Officials with U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election campaign say that "dirty politics" and "Rovian tactics" are to blame for what they call an online attack on their campaign Web site as Connecticut voters headed to the polls Tuesday.

The former Democratic vice presidential candidate is seeking his party's nomination for a fourth term to the Senate.

"Rovian" is a reference to White House aide and presidential political adviser Karl Rove, whom Democrats frequently have accused of unethical campaign tactics.

The Web site, http://www.joe2006.com, has been unavailable since Monday afternoon, and Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith suggested that the campaign of senator's primary opponent, Ned Lamont, or his supporters were responsible for the disruption.

"This type of dirty politics has been a staple of the Lamont campaign from the beginning, from the nonstop personal attacks to the intimidation tactics and offensive displays to these coordinated efforts to disable our Web site," said Smith in a statement e-mailed to reporters Monday evening.

"There is no place for these Rovian tactics in Democratic politics, and we demand that our opponent calls off his supporters and their online attack dogs."

The Lamont campaign has denied any involvement.

When asked by reporters at a campaign stop Tuesday if he or his campaign was responsible for the incident, Lamont said, "No, it's just another scurrilous charge."

Liz Dupont-Diehl, a Lamont spokeswoman, told CNN that the campaign "denounced and condemned" the action, and denied any involvement by Lamont or members of his campaign. She added that the Lamont campaign did not know who was behind the incident.

The site became unavailable at some point Monday afternoon and features the message: "This account is under construction. Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you."

Various messages have appeared since Monday night in place of the Lieberman Web site, including "There is no Web site configured at this address" and "This account has been suspended. Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible."

A CNN researcher briefly accessed the original Lieberman Web site late Monday.

Lieberman aides deny the suggestion that the Web site was taken down due to a lack of payment.

"This statement is to confirm that the suspension of displaying the Web site http://www.joe2006.com was not due to to an overdue account. Friends of Joe Lieberman is completely paid in full. The screen that showed yesterday is a default image from the server," the Lieberman campaign said Tuesday in a statement.

"In order to isolate where the denial of service attack was coming into the site, we disabled it as rapidly as possible. Once we were able to isolate all the site files for study, we were able to add an appropriate one-page maintenance message."

CNN's Jacki Schechner contributed to this report.

floyd1975

don't gimme no wrote:

Well if it were Lamont supporters, there's a good chance they once supported Lieberman. Maybe Joe shouldn't have been riding george's bush but instead representing his constituents more accurately and fairly...and less politically.

Wouldn't it really be more politically if he didn't follow through with exactly what he has always stood for? He is to the left of center on the majority of issues. There are other issues out there than the war and just because someone supports the war does not mean they are a conservative.

Eliot Rosewater

zstillings wrote:

Wouldn't it really be more politically if he didn't follow through with exactly what he has always stood for? He is to the left of center on the majority of issues. There are other issues out there than the war and just because someone supports the war does not mean they are a conservative.

I guess that's a good question. Personally, I'd want a senator that will listen to the majority. That's democracy, right? I'd take that over someone that sticks to their guns on everything. Someone like that is bound to be wrong more than someone who truly represents the people.

acroyear

Lieberman is a Jew, so that works against him. And the looney left is as anti-semitic as they come. I love how the Democrats have mistreasted poor Joe. It just shows the country how out of touch the Democratic party is.