The (temporary) home of practical progressives

Friday, September 08, 2006

Proof Found: Lieberman Campaign Lied about David Sirota

David Sirota found the emails that prove beyond a ghost of a shadow of a doubt that the Lieberman campaign simply and deliberately lied about Sirota asking them for a job. Game, set, match.

This is not a misunderstanding; these are not good people. I will not support them, and neither should you.

24 Comments:

Blogger Gary Sartori said...

Me taking the word of David Sirota, an avoded Lieberman hater, is the same as you taking the word of George Bush.

I'll go with Dan Gerstein. Sirota is nothing more than a far left wing nutjob!!!

10:01 AM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

I don't agree with Gary, but I will say that hardly constitutes "indisputable proof." I'm guessing there were emails sent before that which Sirota has purposefully excluded from his disclosure. Even above and beyond that, I have a tough time believing that if he had real emails, it really would have taken him 2 months to find them.

David Sirota's word means about the same to me as that of most actual politicians - zero.

6:05 PM

 
Blogger cfaller96 said...

I'm starting to really hate defending Sirota, but...

Why should we believe anything that comes out of the Lieberman campaign? Cacambo, c'mon. Those guys are so full of s--t they can't be honest about a sunset.

Having said that, I couldn't care less whether David Sirota wanted a job with Lieberman or not...

9:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to say, the one thing I find so dumb about the netroots, is their ability to take issues that voters don't care about, and continually bring them up like some inside joke, (like haha, we got you, we know you were/were not offered a job). No voter in the Nutmeg State cares if Sirota was offered a job. And guess what, the voters are the ones who decide on November 7th whether to fire or rehire Joe.

We as bloggers get so caught up about so many little things, and ignore the big picture. What gets candidates elected is talking about the issues the voters want to hear, not what we as bloggers feel smart by saying. "Inside baseball" does not matter on election day.

10:01 PM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

Those guys are so full of s--t they can't be honest about a sunset.

Which makes them different from other political campaigns...how? I think everyone took that commercial way too seriously. It was meant to be a satire of both political commercials and new age meditation commercials. They went online and found a photo in the public domain that looked like it could have pulled out of a new age meditation commercial. I frankly don't care if it's a sunrise or a sunset, and I'm honestly amazed by the people that do care. Dan Gerstein was stupid to make it a thing. Because it really, really doesn't matter. No one's vote is going to change based on whether it's a sunrise or a sunset.

Having said that, I couldn't care less whether David Sirota wanted a job with Lieberman or not...

There I agree with you. I never have given one rat's patootie whether or not Sirota sought or was offered a job. No one cares except Sirota, Gerstein, and a few other bored bloggers.

Actually, I think everyone in the Democratic party would do well to care a little less about this race as a whole. I still don't understand why everyone isn't focusing all their money and their fire on Santorum, Talent, Allen, and the other real, registered GOPers who are working to ensure that the GOP keeps their Senate majority.

I genuinely believe that if Democrats just stepped back from this race and let Lamont and Lieberman finish their little war without fueling the fire, everyone would be better off.

10:09 PM

 
Blogger cfaller96 said...

cacambo said:
Dan Gerstein was stupid to make it a thing. Because it really, really doesn't matter. No one's vote is going to change based on whether it's a sunrise or a sunset.

Which begs the question- why be dishonest about it in the first place? See, this is what I don't understand- how can you trust someone who's not even willing to tell the truth about an insignificant aspect of a political ad.

BTW, I wasn't planning on giving any money to Dem candidates this year. After Ned Lamont reinvigorated my interest in the party, I then proceeded to donate to Francine Busby, Marcy Winograd, Bob Johnson, Jim Webb, and Claire McCaskill. Tell me again how my support and focus on defeating Joe Lieberman is hurting the party?

3:34 PM

 
Blogger Gary Sartori said...

cfaller96. If you want to waste your money on Neddy, go right ahead. I just gave 50 bucks to Lieberman, and I consider that money well spent.

7:35 PM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

Because you're an exception, not the rule. Most people who have contributed to Lamont were already active in progressive politics - think about the front pages of the major blogs. Consequently, most of the money that has gone to Lamont could have gone to candidates running against real, registered, would-vote-for-McConnell -as-majority-leader Republicans.

And if you doubt that at all - look at the ActBlue netroots page. Lamont has received more contributions than either Jim Webb or Jon Tester; Bob Casey and Harold Ford aren't even listed. And any progressive who thinks that taking down Joe Lieberman should be a higher priority than taking down George Allen, Conrad Burns, and Rick Santorum has really, REALLY screwy priorities.

8:41 PM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

Let me add another closely related point. I agree that it's a very good thing Lieberman is being challenged. Even if he survives it, it will have taught him that he can't take his constituents for granted again. And that's always a good lesson for a politician to learn.

But now that Lamont has the momentum and clearly has the money to self-fund the rest of the race, the best thing that progressives can do FROM HERE ON OUT is to give their money to other candidates without the ability to self-fund. Harold Ford, Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Bob Casey, Amy Klobuchar, and Kweisi Mfume need our money more than Ned Lamont does.

8:45 PM

 
Blogger cfaller96 said...

I really doubt that I'm the exception WRT campaign donations, but since I don't have any evidence I'll let it go. Although I understand what you're saying about Santorum, Burns, et all being more important to eject than Joe Lieberman, I think you're missing a much larger point- the Iraq War.

As far as the Iraq War is concerned, which I (and a majority of Americans) believe is the most important and overarching issue facing us today, I see absolutely no difference between Joe Lieberman and George Allen, Conrad Burns, or Rick Santorum. They all want to "stay the course," and attack anyone who says otherwise.

Look, you can't reasonably discuss politics and politicians today without discussing the Iraq War. A $1 trillion occupation based on a false premise is not just a "single issue"- it touches everything. A majority of Americans believe the Iraq War was a mistake and we need a timetable to leave, but among Democrats, that majority is far, far larger.

By asking that vast majority of fellow Democrats to ignore Joe Lieberman and focus on those other Senators, however, you're essentially asking Democrats to ignore their own personal, moral beliefs about the war just because a pro-war Senator has (or had) a 'D' next to his name.

That's a little insulting- I doubt you meant to be that way, but there it is. My party does not come before my country, and my beliefs are based on what I think is good for the country. I can't in good conscience support (or condone) Joe Lieberman while simultaneously calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. You are asking us to abandon our moral principles on this war, just because Joe is a "Democrat." Speaking for myself, I won't do it.

(Besides, you forgot my question, which was my original point: how can you trust someone who's not even willing to tell the truth about an insignificant aspect of a political ad?)

2:55 PM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

First, I don't trust anything a campaign tells me. I trust accredited media outlets, and then usually only if I also see it in the National Journal (which has a really stringent review process). Every campaign there is spins off enough bull and fluff to start a cotton candy parlor. The quote you're referring to seemed pretty innocuous to me - Gerstein probably had no clue where the picture had come from, and decided to spin it as a sunrise, which is a pretty natural thing to say when you think about it.

Anyway, I don't think anyone really cares about the fact that Dan Gerstein called it a sunset. It's pretty innocuous as fibs go, and is nothing compared to the BS put out by most campaigns on a daily basis. That's why I don't trust anyone's campaign statements - period.

I never said Iraq was not a major issue, or that it didn't affect other issues. Come to think of it, I don't think I ever called it a "single issue," certainly not recently.

But replacing Lieberman with Lamont will not end the Iraq War. The Levin amendment failed by 20 votes, so there will still be 50 votes to continue the war even if Dems take control AND Lieberman loses. Lieberman's ouster won't even speed up the withdrawal process, since freshman Senators have almost no voice in the Senate.

What WILL make a difference is giving the Dems back control of the Senate. Once that happens, the Democratic leadership will have the ability to take action on a huge range of issues - and even will be able to pressure the Bush administration to begin drawing down in Iraq.

But that can only happen if the Dems retake the Senate. Replacing Lieberman with Lamont will make zero difference on Iraq, even though it would be a huge victory in a symbolic sense. But symbolism doesn't get the troops home.

The dark truth is that we're in Iraq until at least 2009, assuming a Democrat or moderate GOPer becomes president then. I don't think we SHOULD be, but that's just political reality. There's a reason discretion is the better part of valor. Let's fight the battles we can win.

7:47 PM

 
Blogger cfaller96 said...

cacambo said:
Replacing Lieberman with Lamont will not end the Iraq War. The Levin amendment failed by 20 votes, so there will still be 50 votes to continue the war even if Dems take control AND Lieberman loses.

Yes, and skyscrapers aren't finished after the first floor is built either. But we don't avoid building the first floor, now do we? Nothing worth achieving is ever easy, and it is rarely quick. We get out of the Iraq War one Senator at a time, just like we build a skyscraper one floor at a time.

If you're not willing to do the necessary (and slow) work to get rid of pro-war Senators one at a time, then I question how badly you want to get out of Iraq. Senator Lieberman is arguably the most vulnerable pro-war Senator up for reelection this fall. We start with him.

cacambo said:
But [withdrawal from Iraq] can only happen if the Dems retake the Senate.

Yeah, that's a nice sentiment, and I'd like to believe it, but I don't (and neither do you). With Democratic leaders like Clinton and Biden waffling or still wanting to stay the course, and with the safe assumption that a reelected Joe Lieberman will not change his Iraq stance one bit, I have very little faith in the Party. Getting out of Iraq has to transcend party loyalty.

I believe ejecting Joe Lieberman will have a cascade effect on other Senators, because they all value their jobs. Just look at how quickly Hillary modified her position after Lieberman's primary loss. Do you honestly think she would have shifted if Lieberman had won? C'mon, the "symbolism" has already started to work, and after only a primary victory!

Voters send a signal with the (second) defeat of Lieberman. Granted, a signal is not the most effective way to change a politician's behavior- voting him/her out is. But I have great difficulty believing that ousting an 18 year incumbent Senator because of his pro-war stance will have "zero effect" on other Senators. I believe they will take notice, and adjust accordingly. I think that's where you and I disagree.

7:39 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, and skyscrapers aren't finished after the first floor is built either. But we don't avoid building the first floor, now do we? Nothing worth achieving is ever easy, and it is rarely quick. We get out of the Iraq War one Senator at a time, just like we build a skyscraper one floor at a time.

You don't build skyscrapers one floor at a time. Could you try an analogy that's less laughable.

8:00 AM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

I don't know whether you were trying to set up a straw man or just didn't understand me, but your interpolation/paraphrasing of my quote in your reply was way off:

You 'quoted' me as saying:
"But [withdrawal from Iraq] can only happen if the Dems retake the Senate."

What I actually said was:
"Once that happens, the Democratic leadership will have the ability to take action on a huge range of issues - and even will be able to pressure the Bush administration to begin drawing down in Iraq.

But that can only happen if the Dems retake the Senate."


I never said withdrawal will only happen if the Democrats retake control of the Senate. I was saying that the only way Democrats can take action on a whole range of progressive, including putting pressure on Bush to draw down the troops in Iraq.

The GOP leadership in the Senate (Frist, McConnell, Santorum, Stevens) is firmly pro-war. The Dem's Senate leadership (Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Byrd) is entirely comprised of people who are either anti-war or who are harshly critical of Bush policy. Unless the Dems are the majority party, there will not be any need for Bush to listen to Senate leaders who don't agree with him already.

I don't think that we will withdraw from Iraq even if Dems DO retake the Senate, and I said exactly that in my last comment. Intentionally or not, what you said was a pretty bad misquote of me.

And yeah, the skyscraper analogy is pretty bad, though your point is clear from it. Not that I think it's a good point. The only way we'll actually get troops out of Iraq is to get a Dem or moderate GOPer in the White House, which seems almost certain to happen after 2008.

By the time your skyscraper is built, we'll be out of Iraq anyway because the decision about when the troops stay and go is ultimately not the Senate's call. Unless there was a 2/3 majority needed for a veto override, the Senate can't get the troops out. That's why taking down Lieberman won't make a dime's worth of difference on Iraq.

My point was more that they will be able to take action on OTHER issues on which, despite your statements to the contrary, the Dems can take action (granted, at the cost of greatly increasing the national debt). I'd rather see some progress on environmental policy, education policy, and health care than no progress on anything.

2:20 PM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

By the way, your inclusion of Biden with Hillary was pretty far from reality. First, Biden proposed a major amendment to the original Iraq War resolution which would have required Bush to come back to Congress again before sending off troops. Trent Lott scuttled it by refusing to recognize Biden on the Senate floor because he knew it would have the votes to pass.

Second, Biden is the only person from either party who has had the guts to point out that there can never be a successful American-style democracy in Iraq, and that the only way to achieve peace and stability is to break Iraq into 3 autonomous regions. Biden has ALWAYS been a really harsh critic of the way Bush has handled Iraq, and has been one of the few people in either party to propose workable solutions. Yes, he voted for the war, but he has since said that he would not vote for the war again - and admitting it when you make a mistake is something few politicians have the character to do.

He is neither a waffler nor a "stay the course" person on this issue. Now the bankruptcy bill is another matter...

2:20 PM

 
Blogger cfaller96 said...

Ok, I didn't understand what you were saying there- I thought you were contradicting yourself, and trying to pull one over on me. Sorry.

To be clear, I would love a Dem controlled Senate just as much as the next guy. Where we disagree, however, is what impact opposing Joe Lieberman has on that. I believe supporting Lamont won't negatively impact Dems' national efforts, and perhaps (at least in my case) can have a positive impact. Unfortunately, I have no evidence to support my claim. Maybe it's because I'm lazy. But I digress.

My inclusion of Biden was reflective of his opinion that we should send in more troops to stabilize Iraq, but I see what you are saying. My larger point is that the Dems won't be that committed to withdrawal from Iraq unless and until voters start telling them to be committed to withdrawal from Iraq.

You're wrong to say the Iraq War isn't the Senate's (or the House's) call. Despite what President Bush and John Yoo say, Congress has a very big role in warmaking.

The Iraq occupation requires money- lots of it. That money requires regular authorization from Congress. I'm just spitballing here, but a phased withdrawal of funding according to a timetable would in effect force a phased withdrawal of troops according to that same timetable. That would take some big brass ones on the Dems' part, but as I said before, nothing worth achieving is ever easy, and Dems are only going to resort to something like this if they're scared s--tless that they'll be kicked out in their next election.

It's not 1972, and demanding that all of our politicians commit to getting out of Iraq won't be a political liability. Not in Connecticut, and not anywhere else in the nation.

(and at the risk of making myself look foolish, I believe skyscrapers ARE built one floor at a time, going up from the ground. Such as this one. Or this one. After foundations are poured, the framing is put up and walls are filled in for the floor BEFORE they go to the next floor up. Sometimes lower floor offices are opened while the skyscraper is still being finished.)

3:13 PM

 
Anonymous Red State Donkey said...

I started looking though my e-mail today, and I found this in the spam folder. Missed it last week:

From: "David Sirota"
davidsirota @hotmail.com
To: donkeydigestdotcom@gmail.com
Subject: My desire to see the Democratic party fail
Date: Thurs, 7 Sept 2006 12:32:16 -0400

Hi, DonkeyDigest. Your recent posts about me have been largely accurate. My purpose is to burn the Democratic party to the ground and rebuild it in the image the anti-war movement of the 60s had for it. It really is the best way. I just need to get the evil DLC out of the way!

10:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that for real? The DLC is evil and he is stating he wants to BURN the democratic party to the ground?

What is he? A demofascist or demolitionist?

LOLROF!

4:13 PM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

I think that Red State Donkey was making the right-on satirical point that anyone can type up the contents of an email and post them.

To prove this point, here's an email I found yesterday that was sent to me by Bill Gates:

From: "Bill Gates"
thebigcheese@microsoft.com
To: pracprog@gmail.com
Subject: Leaving you all my money
Date: Tues, 5 Sept 2006 03:26:43 -0400

Hi Cacambo,

This is just to let you know that I've decided to retire, move to a desert island, and leave all my money to you, effective October 1, 2006. I hope you enjoy the jet packs and teleportation devices I just bought for Melinda and myself - we won't be needing them where we're going!

Best,
Bill



See - I have indisputable proof that Bill Gates is going to leave me all his money! I'm sure this is binding in court. After all, I posted it on the internet.

6:10 PM

 
Anonymous Cheese Food said...

Except your faked email doesn't have an IP, and a forward of red state donkey's email would, if it were indeed real.

So, we'd need to see a forward or take RSD for being a fake.

6:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are trying to become a good lawyer?

6:37 PM

 
Blogger Gary Sartori said...

Mr. David Sirota, 1644 Laimbrain Lane, Washington DC

Dear David; Now that Sundog has found "overwhelming" proof that Lieberman lied about you, I suppose now you are going to really trash Lieberman?? Your rapiar like wit is out there for everyone to see. I just can't wait to see your next coulmn. I await it with baited breath. By the way, you're still a liar.

9:57 AM

 
Blogger cacambo said...

Good point, cheese food. Sirota neglected to include IP addresses or any other authenticity measures as well.

Which brings me to my last word on this...the only ones who really care about this are Gerstein and Sirota. Who cares who asked who for a job? Believe me, Sirota is an easy enough target besides this.

10:38 AM

 
Blogger cfaller96 said...

Here's a nice little summary of the effect the Netroots are having on the Democratic Party.

Tell me again how opposing Joe Lieberman (which the Netroots overwhelmingly does) hurts the Democratic Party?

5:31 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home