Saturday, July 29, 2006
Latest on Lieberdem
I have a post up on Lieberdem that aims to puncture the myth that Joe Lieberman supported the Alito nomination to the Supreme Court. While you are there, check out the post my partner Matt Smith put up that exposes several other myths that the Lieberman-haters have been peddling.
Comments:
<< Home
Well, Mr. Gerstein, you and your friends on the Lieberman campaign aren't much better.
The so-called 'civil rights' record flyer you are publicly defending on behalf of the Lieberman campaign is absolutely reprehensible. You're implying Mr. Lamont is a racist. His extensive work with minority students contradicts this.
You said:
"This flyer simply states the facts, and in particular repeates a very questionable statement Mr. Lamont made which raises many questions he has yet to answer. If he's so concerned about discrimination, why didn't he resign from this club before he became candidate for u.s. senate? Also, what are the policies at the club and why won't he answer that question?"
Note that the July Times article Mr. Lamont was quoted in had this statement from him:
"They don't have any discriminatory policies."
Looks like he's answered the question you claim he hasn't: there's no discrimination, and certainly no discrimination he wants to be part of. You must have read his answer before, and given the racist shading of the campaign flyer, I can't imagine this is an accidental omission.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Slandering your fellow man is one of the greatest sins one can commit.
I don't deny you or your colleagues on the Lieberman campaign the right (or the necessity!) to engage in a fierce defense of Mr. Lieberman's record. Clearly, Mr. Lieberman's civil rights record is one that he should be proud of, and one that Mr. Lamont is simply unable to match.
Yet your slanderous implication that Mr. Lamont is a racist undermines his career. It turns that march with Dr. King and his work on the Freedom Vote Crusade just political chips to be cashed in. It turns a man with a career of principled stands into a man of calculation and lies.
If the 'power of persuasion' is what you sell, clearly, you'll stop at nothing to persuade. What lie will you cook up next, Mr. Gerstein?
The so-called 'civil rights' record flyer you are publicly defending on behalf of the Lieberman campaign is absolutely reprehensible. You're implying Mr. Lamont is a racist. His extensive work with minority students contradicts this.
You said:
"This flyer simply states the facts, and in particular repeates a very questionable statement Mr. Lamont made which raises many questions he has yet to answer. If he's so concerned about discrimination, why didn't he resign from this club before he became candidate for u.s. senate? Also, what are the policies at the club and why won't he answer that question?"
Note that the July Times article Mr. Lamont was quoted in had this statement from him:
"They don't have any discriminatory policies."
Looks like he's answered the question you claim he hasn't: there's no discrimination, and certainly no discrimination he wants to be part of. You must have read his answer before, and given the racist shading of the campaign flyer, I can't imagine this is an accidental omission.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Slandering your fellow man is one of the greatest sins one can commit.
I don't deny you or your colleagues on the Lieberman campaign the right (or the necessity!) to engage in a fierce defense of Mr. Lieberman's record. Clearly, Mr. Lieberman's civil rights record is one that he should be proud of, and one that Mr. Lamont is simply unable to match.
Yet your slanderous implication that Mr. Lamont is a racist undermines his career. It turns that march with Dr. King and his work on the Freedom Vote Crusade just political chips to be cashed in. It turns a man with a career of principled stands into a man of calculation and lies.
If the 'power of persuasion' is what you sell, clearly, you'll stop at nothing to persuade. What lie will you cook up next, Mr. Gerstein?
Mr. Gerstein,
How would you feel if the Lamont campaign used your criticism of Maxine Waters ("Does he share the view of Waters and Kaptur that Hezbollah should not have been condemned for their attack on Israel?") out-of-context as a way to say that Lieberman thinks African-American congresspeople are anti-semitic? Or more broadly, thinks African-Americans are anti-semitic?
I would hope they wouldn't do that: it's dishonest. Yet, it's just as bad (and as much of a perversion of the truth) as what you and your colleagues did with Mr. Lieberman's flyer.
Post a Comment
How would you feel if the Lamont campaign used your criticism of Maxine Waters ("Does he share the view of Waters and Kaptur that Hezbollah should not have been condemned for their attack on Israel?") out-of-context as a way to say that Lieberman thinks African-American congresspeople are anti-semitic? Or more broadly, thinks African-Americans are anti-semitic?
I would hope they wouldn't do that: it's dishonest. Yet, it's just as bad (and as much of a perversion of the truth) as what you and your colleagues did with Mr. Lieberman's flyer.
<< Home
