Allen And The “Macaca” Incident (Video)

Greg Tinti | Tuesday, August 15, 2006

For someone that is typically derided as, er, not that worldly, Sen. George Allen is sure being given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his knowledge of really obscure ethnic slurs. At a recent campaign event, Allen referred to a Webb campaign operative named S.R. Sidarth that was sent to videotape the event as “Macaca or whatever his name is.” Macaca, according to The Washington Post, “is…considered a racial slur against African immigrants” in some “European cultures” according to “several Web sites that track ethnic slurs.”

In other words, it is a slur but we had to be told it is slur by the people that track all the slurs from around the world.

And apparently I’m in trouble too because the other day I ordered a Whopper at BK and “whopper” is an ethnic slur (according to the list of ethnic slurs) in Denmark for “a female American tourist” that’s “usually overweight.”

Get my drift?

Here’s video of Allen’s remarks so you can judge for yourself. But it seems to me that Allen called Sidarth “Macaca” because he had no idea what his real name was.

I’d also add that it doesn’t make much sense that Allen knowingly dropped an ethnic slur against the person videotaping him for his opponent.

In addition, Atrios is also making a big stink about Allen’s remark to Sidarth of “welcome to America and the real world of Virginia” and implying that Allen doesn’t see Sidarth as an American because he has dark skin. But again, if you watch the clip carefully, prior to making the “America” remark, Allen says that his opponent is “living inside the beltway” and thus seems to be implying by the “America” remark that the real America is found outside the beltway–coincidentally, exactly where Allen’s event happens to be convening. It’s not exactly an uncommon reference from politicians, after all.

UPDATE (James Joyner): Little in this incident makes sense to me.

Allen’s explanation is hard to swallow:

“Asked what macaca means, Allen said: “I don’t know what it means.” He said the word sounds similar to “mohawk,” a term that his campaign staff had nicknamed Sidarth because of his haircut. Sidarth said his hairstyle is a mullet — tight on top, long in the back.”

So, Allen didn’t know the name and decided to make one up on the spot that reminded him–but presumably nobody in the audience–of “mohawk”? That’s just absurd. Especially since, Jane Hamsher (who knows something about racial slander) points out, Sidarth’s haircut doesn’t at all resemble a mohawk. [UPDATE 8/16: Actually, that appears to be a dated photo. Chad Dotson has a photo of Sidarth wearing . . . a mohawk. More here.]

Then again, the Post’s reporting here leaves much to be desired.

At a campaign rally in southwest Virginia on Friday, Allen repeatedly called a volunteer for Democrat James Webb “macaca.” During the speech in Breaks, near the Kentucky border, Allen began by saying that he was “going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas” and then pointed at S.R. Sidarth in the crowd. “This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent. He’s following us around everywhere. And it’s just great,” Allen said

Now, isn’t it interesting that WaPo doesn’t capitalize “Macaca”? After all, Allen’s clearly using it as a name, not a descriptor. If Allen had said “Mohawk” rather than “Macaca,” it’d still be capitalized in that context. Putting it in lower case, though, makes it seem more as if it was being used as a slur.

Ditto the headline: “Allen Quip Provokes Outrage, Apology - Name Insults Webb Volunteer.” It’s not the “quip” that’s supposedly insulting but rather the name.

This, too, is rather silly:

“I think he was doing it because he could, and I was the only person of color there, and it was useful for him in inciting his audience,” said Sidarth, who videotaped the event for the Webb campaign. “I was annoyed he would use my race in a political context.”

So, let’s assume Allen routinely refers to black people as “macaca.” How many people in Breaks, Virginia (”near the Kentucky border,” the Post helpfully notes) would get that reference?

And this is downright comical:

Steve Mukherjee, a spokesman for the Washington chapter of the Association of Indians in America, said Allen’s comments were “hurtful,” and he chided the senator for not being more sensitive. “The world is so volatile and so delicate,” Mukherjee said. “You have to be careful what you say and how you say it. The U.S. is no longer black and white.”

Asked what macaca means, Mukherjee said: “What it means, I don’t know. But it’s going to cause him some grief.”

So, a non-black from India is “hurt” by a racial slur for blacks common in “some European cultures” even though he doesn’t know what it means? Then again, Sidarth isn’t black, either.

Meanwhile, in the blogosphere, Jeffrey Feldman does some research and finds that if you type the search ["nigger" + "macaca"] into Google, it will return results with a racist context. Imagine that!

The politics of grievance never fail to astound.

UPDATE (James Joyner): Several commenters and a Democrat friend via email suggest that, given Allen’s heritage, he almost certainly knew what “macaca” meant. I would agree.

Greg is right when he says that it “doesn’t make much sense that Allen knowingly dropped an ethnic slur against the person videotaping him for his opponent.” The only thing that makes any sense to me is that this was much in the same vein as Dick Armey’s infamous “Barney fag” moment a few years ago, with his subconscious brain overriding his control in a free-flowing moment.

UPDATE (James Joyner): WaPo has a companion editorial piece entitled, “George Allen’s America - Whom it includes, and whom it doesn’t.” The money graph:

The idea that holding up minorities to public scorn in front of an all-white crowd will elicit chortles and guffaws? (It did.) The idea that a candidate for public office can say “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia!” to an American of Indian descent and really mean nothing offensive by it? (So insisted Mr. Allen’s aides.) Or perhaps the idea that bullying your opponents and calling them strange names — Mr. Allen twice referred to Mr. Sidarth as “Macaca” — is within the bounds of decency on the campaign trail?

This is outrageous posturing from a news outlet that is supposed to be providing objective coverage of the campaign. It is plainly absurd to suggest that Allen’s bantering with Sidarth was pandering to bigots in the crowd. He was teasing a cameraman from the opposition campaign there to spy on him. Further, Greg is right that the “real world of Virginia” is a Red State/Blue State - outside the Beltway/inside the Beltway reference, not a racial one. And, again, even if Allen new what “Macaca” meant (probable) and intentionally used it as a slur (highly unlikely), it’s virtually inconceivable his audience did.

Tags | Campaign 2006, Greg Tinti, Race and Politics Blogs, BlogSpot, COIN, EU, George Allen, Google, India, Joe Lieberman, NATO, Video, YouTube

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

FOX News’ Steve Centanni And Cameraman Kidnapped In Gaza

Greg Tinti | Monday, August 14, 2006

FOX News’ Steve Centanni

Via Breitbart/AP:

Palestinian gunmen ambushed a car carrying a Fox News crew in Gaza City on Monday and kidnapped two of the journalists inside, according to witnesses and Fox. “We can confirm that two of our people were taken against their will in Gaza,” Fox News said in a statement.

A Fox employee in Gaza, who declined to give his name because he was not authorized to release information about the incident, said the two kidnapped people were reporter Steve Centanni, a U.S. citizen, and a cameraman from New Zealand.

The men, along with a bodyguard, were parked near the headquarters of the Palestinian security services when two trucks filled with gunmen pulled up and boxed them in, according to the employee. The gunmen took the two out of their sports utility vehicle, which was marked “TV,” and drove away, he said.

Major militant groups in Gaza denied having any connection to the abduction, and there was no immediate word of any demands made.

Security officials put police across Gaza on alert to find the gunmen and free the journalists, said Interior Ministry spokesman Khaled Abu Hilal.

“This is not acceptable at all,” he said.

Several foreigners have been kidnapped in Gaza in recent months with their abductors demanding jobs from the Palestinian Authority or the release of people being held in Palestinian jails. All those kidnapped have been released within hours without harm.

One can only hope that Centanni and his cameraman are as lucky as all the others that have been kidnapped. In the meantime, keep them in your prayers.

UPDATE: Mary Katharine Ham, guest-blogging for Michelle Malkin, has lots on the situation here including the cameraman’s name: Olaf Wiig.

Meanwhile, the DUers have a thread up. Here’s a filthy taste:

The full thread is here if you feel like being disgusted further.

Tags | Greg Tinti FOX News, Michelle Malkin, police, Steve Centanni, TV

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

“Hey hey, ho ho, we support the PLO!” (Video, Photos)

Greg Tinti | Monday, August 14, 2006

This weekend’s “anti-war” protest in DC is the subject of today’s must-see Vent. Also, check out the exclusive videos from Bryan Preston and Age of Hooper, too.

UPDATE (James Joyner): Reader Matthew Dailey snapped several photos of the event. It appears that the usual suspects showed up:

On both sides

Tags | Greg Tinti Blogs, BlogSpot, DC, Israel, photos, Video, videos

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Kennedy Takes On Cheney’s Remarks On Lamont Win

Greg Tinti | Monday, August 14, 2006

In today’s Hartford Courant, Sen. Ted Kennedy authored an op-ed responding to comments made by Vice President Dick Cheney about Ned Lamont’s victory in last week’s Democratic primary in Connecticut. Here’s the bulk of what Kennedy had to say:

The comments he made on the result of the Connecticut Democratic primary - that it might encourage “the al-Qaida types” who want to “break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task” - are an attack not just on Democrats, but on democracy itself.

What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people - not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times.

Cheney’s comments about the election were ugly and frightening. They show once again that he and his party will stop at nothing to wrap Republicans in the flag and to insinuate that anyone who votes against them is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. It’s obvious that this administration lacks basic respect for our fundamental freedoms

Additionally, here’s what Cheney actually said in its full context:

And as I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it’s a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.

The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.

And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that’s becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won’t — we can’t be.

Now, I know that I’m about to take a position that most readers of OTB probably won’t agree with, but if one actually reads Cheney’s comments, they’re just a tad more complex than Kennedy’s op-ed insinuates. Cheney was not saying that Lamont is on al Qaeda’s side or that he is al Qaeda’s candidate–as some MSM coverage portrayed–but rather arguing that Lamont’s desire to pull troops out of Iraq by a certain date is exactly what the terrorists want. And I don’t see how anyone could argue to the contrary; that is, that the terrorists in Iraq wouldn’t be happy if Lamont got his way. American troops out of Iraq is their stated goal, after all.

Rather than supplying any arguments as to why Cheney’s statement is dead wrong, however, Kennedy instead partakes in the same type of hyperbole that he is supposedly trying to condemn by saying that his comments were “ugly and frightening,” an “attack” on democracy, and that they somehow represents a lack of “respect for our fundamental freedoms.” On all three counts, Kennedy seems to be reaching.

Suffice it to say, portraying criticism as some Orwellian plot to subvert democracy has certainly become the new pink. And frankly, coming from Kennedy, it’s a bit rich considering what he did to Robert Bork. But I digress. Kennedy’s talking points are lovely and surely fill the hearts of his followers with fire. But they don’t in any way begin to present a coherent argument that explains why pulling out of Iraq by a certain date–the end of year as desired by Lamont–is a reasonable and responsible policy for the United States. In fact, no Democrat to my knowledge has made such an argument.

So here’s my challenge. Spare me the sermon on the decline of political discourse and let’s hear the argument that Kennedy didn’t/couldn’t make. Why is pulling out of Iraq the right thing do now–or, as Lamont would like, by the end of the year? How will this move help make Iraq safer, the Middle East safer, and the United States safer? How will it lead to more stability in the region? How will it help the fight against jihadism? And how will it not serve to embolden our enemies that have already concluded from events past that the United States doesn’t have the stamina to endure a tough battle?

Tags | Greg Tinti al Qaeda, Blogs, Democrats, G13, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, Republicans, Ted Kennedy, Vice President

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Johnson vs. Huffington On Lieberman, Reutersgate (Video)

Greg Tinti | Sunday, August 13, 2006

Well, that title is slightly misleading. While there was certainly disagreement on the Lieberman issue, Arianna gave Charles mad props for breaking Reutersgate and even argued that it might be the tip of the fauxtographic iceberg, so to speak.

By the way, as you watch the clip, see if you catch Arianna’s pseudo-Freudian slip.

Tags | Greg Tinti EU, Video, videos

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Defeating The Threat Of “Homegrown” Terrorism

Greg Tinti | Sunday, August 13, 2006

Today’s Sunday Times of London editorializes on the enemy within:

The great challenge for Britain is how to stop this and minimise the future risks. Nobody should underestimate the scale of the problem or the time needed. We already have a generation of disaffected Muslims who see any excuse, whether it is war in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon, as a reason for killing their fellow citizens. The government has commissioned studies on combatting the problem, so far with little tangible impact. Tony Blair has been wooing Muslim leaders, too often the radicals rather than the moderates, although this policy seems to lie in shreds as they moan about wars in the Middle East inflaming Islamic youth. They are perfectly entitled to be angry about these conflicts, but that anger should be expressed through the democratic processes of demonstrations and elections.

That is not to say that the government is not right to try to win over Muslim opinion. If terror is to be defeated, you have first to drain the swamp. Muslims have to be persuaded that we are on the same side, that there is no witch-hunt against Islam and that the wars involving British troops are about stopping Islamists and the corruption of their religion. This means Muslims being alert to extremists in their ranks and being prepared to identify them to the police. It means Muslims becoming intolerant of radical mullahs and hounding them out of their mosques. Equally the authorities have a responsibility to crack down on extremists in universities and in prisons, to close internet sites and bookshops that spread hatred and violence, and to take all reasonable measures to protect their citizens.

At times this may seem unjust. Muslims who visit Pakistan will have to be more closely scrutinised and it may seem that they are being systematically targeted. But Muslims will have to understand that it is their co-religionists who are bent on bombing trains and planes and that requires extraordinary measures. A mature Muslim response will be to co-operate and help to eradicate extremists in their midst. It requires the vast majority of Muslims to believe that their future is tied to Britain, a country in which their religion can be respected and freely practised. If the radicals succeed, it will foster only hatred and intolerance.

This low-level war is going to take a huge effort of will and courage. It is going to mean applying what may seem illiberal measures in order to save lives. In return, the state must exercise massive restraint and not abuse that responsibility. But the real key is for Muslims to realise that their future lies here and to embrace British values and reject violent Islamist theology. The country may indeed be in its greatest danger since the second world war, as John Reid, the home secretary, said last week. But as Britain prevailed then, so it will again.

It’s definitely worth taking the time to read the full editorial. This is as clear and concise a piece as any that I have read on the threat of jihadism that is emerging from within Western nations. And the candor with which this editorial describes what is necessary to succeed is a refreshing departure from the equivocal MSM here in America.

Tags | Greg Tinti Afghanistan, BRAC, corruption, Iraq, Pakistan, police

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

The Big A Is In The House

Greg Tinti | Friday, August 11, 2006

Allah Pundit has a crazy-good round-up on the busted terror plot from today’s British papers. An absolute must read.

Plus: Patterico has uncovered the “real” reason for the Code Red Alert. Cue the X-Files music before following the link.

Tags | Greg Tinti Music

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Giuliani On Busted Terror Plot (Video)

Greg Tinti | Friday, August 11, 2006

Rudy Giuliani was on H&C tonight to weigh in on the news of today’s foiled terror plot and the war on terrorism in general. And one thing is for sure, unlike lots of politicians, Giuliani isn’t running away from President Bush or the war in Iraq; he calls the President’s decision to go on the offensive after 9/11 “brilliant” and unequivocally argues that engaging the enemy abroad is what has kept us safe and that’s why winning in Iraq is so important.

And I have to say, I was a little bit shocked. This is first time in recent memory that I have seen anyone–especially someone with presidential ambitions–so forcefully defend President Bush and the war in Iraq. Kudos, Rudy.

Money quote:

You can not negotiate with [terrorists]. These are not people…they have demonstrated to us that they despise us, they hate us, and they want to kill us. They want to kill us because we’re a modern society. They want to kill us because we give women rights. They want to kill us because we have freedom of religion. They want to kill us because we have elected officials. They want to kill us because we’re moderate. And we can’t give that up. What are we going to negotiate away? The rights of women? Are we going to negotiate…set up an Islamic state to make them happy?

By the way, stay until the end of clip where you’ll hear Giuliani discuss the Lieberman race and drop one of the best lines on it that I have heard yet: “On this particular issue, he believes we have to be on the offense against terrorism. And I don’t know why his political party won’t allow him the kind of flexibility to have the view point.”

UPDATE (James Joyner): Kevin Drum argues that,

Democrats have to make it absolutely clear, every single time somebody spouts this rubbish, that supporting the Iraq war doesn’t mean you’re “on offense against terrorism.” Nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism.

While Kevin and I disagree on the role of the Iraq War in the fight against the jihadists, I agree that one can oppose the war and still want to mount a robust offensive against the jihadists. Giuliani’s zinger is a good talking point and no worse than the Democratic line that opposition to abortion means you don’t care about women’s rights or that opposition to quotas makes you a racist. But it doesn’t drive the debate in a useful direction.

As to the particulars of the Connecticut primary contest, though, he may well right. Despite a large number of posts on the netroots insurgency and the national implications of a Lieberman loss, I haven’t followed the issues side of the race very closely. I haven’t taken Lamont seriously because he has always struck me as an empty suit recruited as a one-issue stalking horse.

Looking at the Issues page of Lamont’s campaign site hasn’t much allayed that suspicion. What does he say about the fight against terrorism? Not a blessed thing. How about his cornerstone issue, the war in Iraq?

That the war in Iraq has diverted far too many of our dollars, and too much of our attention, from our needs back home. The crisis in health care, lack of progress towards energy independence, and struggling public schools are examples of how our government is not leading, but allowing lobbyists and special interests to write the rules.

Now, these are perfectly honorable views. But notice that he doesn’t say “The war in Iraq has diverted far too many of our dollars, and too much of our attention from our fight against the jihadist terrorists who threaten our security” or “The war in Iraq has created a breeding ground for terrorists, turned potentially friendly Muslims against us, and diminished our crucial soft power in the world community.” Those are the arguments that Democrats who are serious about fighting terrorists–guys like Kevin Drum or Joe Biden, say–are making. Instead, he’s spouting George McGovern’s campaign literature. (I kid; McGovern was much more serious about the fight against Communism.)

To be fair, the site has a separate War in Iraq page. But even there, the only mention of terrorism is a silly talking point left over from the Kerry campaign: “Today, America is no safer, Israel is no safer, Iran is more dangerous, Osama bin Laden is still at large, and our brave troops are stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war.” Now, all of those things are either true or debatable. But, other than the nonsensical implication that we would have captured bin Laden if only we hadn’t gone to Iraq, where’s the discussion about jihadists?

UPDATE: I have to disagree with Kevin and James here for a moment. First, to Kevin’s points. He writes that “supporting the Iraq war doesn’t mean you’re ‘on offense against terrorism.’” Well, to some of us it does. And perhaps that’s why this debate has become utterly redundant. Regardless of how one feels about the way we got into Iraq and the threat it posed pre-invasion, it is the central front in the war on terrorism now. To abdandon Iraq is to surrender the most critical front in the war on terrorism and possibly allow the country to become a haven for the ideology we are trying to defeat. These are arguments that you either believe or you don’t. Which brings me to Kevin’s second point in which he writes that, “nor does opposing the war also mean you oppose fighting jihadism.” This is generically true, however, opposing the war does mean you oppose fighting jihadism in Iraq. Like I said, there is plently of validity in arguments that Iraq shouldn’t have ever happened. But aren’t these arguments better suited for history books rather than the basis for future policy decisions?

In regard to Giuliani’s comment about what happened to Lieberman, James writes that his “zinger is a good talking point and no worse than the Democratic line that opposition to abortion means you don’t care about women’s rights or that opposition to quotas makes you a racist. But it doesn’t drive the debate in a useful direction.” Respectfully, I disagree with that completely. In the context of the discussion, Giuliani was specifically referring to Lieberman’s position on the war in Iraq. How is anything Giuliani said a mischaracterization of what happened to Lieberman? Did his party allow him the flexibility to hold his view on Iraq or not? In terms of the whether this remark pushes the debate in a useful direction, it certainly helps to draw a distinct line in the sand that seperates where the Democratic party and where the Republican party stand on the war in Iraq. And I think most liberals agree with Giuliani’s thesis that Lamont’s victory represents a clear signal to the rest of the Democrats that the base wants out of Iraq immediately and aren’t willing to tolerate politicians that don’t accept this. Isn’t that what Kos has been saying publicly about the “people powered movement” since Lamont won?

Tags | Greg Tinti, Terrorism Abortion, Communism, Democrats, George McGovern, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Kevin Drum, Ned Lamont, Oil, Osama bin Laden, Rudy Giuliani, Video, videos

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Lieberman And Today’s Foiled Terrorist Attacks

Greg Tinti | Thursday, August 10, 2006

Interesting how The New York Times decided to frame Lieberman’s comments today as him “seizing” on today’s news to “attack” Ned Lamont:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman seized on the terror arrests in Britain today to attack his Democratic rival, Ned Lamont, saying that Mr. Lamont’s goals for ending the war in Iraq would constitute a “victory” for extremists, including those accused of plotting to blow up airliners traveling between Britain and the United States.

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

How outrageous! Lieberman actually had the cojones to talk about his opponent’s position vis-a-vis the war on terrorism in light of today’s foiled terrorist attack.

Well, I never.

For what it’s worth, here’s how Mr. Lamont responded:

In a telephone interview from his vacation home in Maine, Mr. Lamont said he was disappointed with the personal tone Mr. Lieberman’s remarks, and questioned the connection between the Iraq war and the new terrorist plot. He also continued his strategy of trying to link Mr. Lieberman’s views with those of the Bush administration, whose approach the senator has tended to support in the fight against terrorism.

“Wow,” Mr. Lamont said, after asking a reporter to read Mr. Lieberman’s remark about him. “That comment sounds an awful lot like Vice President Cheney’s comment on Wednesday. Both of them believe our invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11. That’s a false premise.”

[...]

Mr. Lamont hesitated when he was asked if Mr. Lieberman’s criticisms were beyond the bounds of acceptable political combat.

“To try to score political points on every international issues…” Mr. Lamont said, before pausing and stopping himself. Then he added, “Why do I have to say anything?”

Something tells me that Lamont’s strategy of simply comparing Lieberman to Bush and/or Cheney is going to start to wear a little thin as this race moves forward. But then again, it did win him a primary.

Surprisingly, unlike the NYT, the AP decided to focus on the substance of Lieberman’s comments leading with his comparison of terrorists to Nazis and the need for unity to overcome this new threat:

“We are at war with a brutal enemy,” said Lieberman during a campaign stop Thursday at a Waterbury pizza joint. “How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other when these terrorists certainly don’t distinguish based on party affiliation? They want to kill any and all of us.”

[...]

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous that the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Lieberman said.

“I want to make sure that I satisfy my responsibilities and use my seniority in the Senate to make the future of the families of Connecticut safer than it would otherwise be. I don’t think that Ned Lamont gets that and that’s a serious difference between us.”

As I’m sure you can imagine, this whole thing has the the lefties incensed. The Left Coaster says it a “smear” and wonders how long until “Ned Lamont equals Osama” ads start to run. My Left Nutmeg calls Lieberman a “primitive tribal shaman” that engages in “tribal-style magical thinking” (No, I’m not making that up). And there’s a DU thread too, if you dare.

Meanwhile, Dan Reihl has the requisite snark: “Looks like you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, after all. The Senator just can’t seem to grasp that terrorist is simply another name for an oppressed religious minority. And the Nazi cracks are supposed to be reserved for Bush. You’d think the primary would have at least taught him THAT!”

Tags | Greg Tinti Democrats, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, NATO, Ned Lamont, New York Times, Oil, Republicans, Vice President

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack