Lamont's General Election Stategy......

[louis c]

Lanie Davis just told us how hard Lieberman intends to hit in the General. Lamont better be ready to hit back and hard.

Break Lieberman's base.

1. Dubai Port deal. Lieberman keeps saying that he's "strong on security". If that's so, why did he support the Dubai Port Deal that no one in politics supported? There's a lot of quotes on this. This issue broke Bush's Base and will crack Lieberman's, also.

link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/22/112507.shtml

2. His union base. Lieberman not only supported NAFTA, but the WTO and CAFTA. These were anti-labor votes. Don't lose sight of the bankruptcy reform act that has put working families at risk if they find themselves with large medical bills or long term lay-offs. Although Joe voted against that bill in the final count, he weaseled his support by voting against cloture. Speak to specific issues to dilute Lieberman's claims of an 85% pro-labor record. Always link his support to Bush and/or Cheney.

3. Gas Prices, Lieberman's support of the Cheney energy bill that gave wind-fall profits to big oil at the expense of the American consumer. Fuel prices have sky-rocketed under Bush and Lieberman is complicit.

4. The Iraq War that Lieberman has supported and link the phrase "stay the course" to him and Bush. Speak to the poor and middle class that are making the vast majority of the sacrifices in Iraq. The War was misguided and poorly planned. Link Lieberman, not only to his "pro-war" stance, but his support for the Rumsfeld strategy to fight it. Talk about the cost, $250 million a day. That money could be used to provide security at home, help fund a health care program, and improve education.


I hope a Lamont operative is reading this.

[MercutioATC]

1. I only disagree with #1

Yes, it's a political winner, but only because a lot of people are ignorant. Hell, China administers most of our West Coast ports and nobody complains about that...

The ports deal is a political fabrication. I'd much rather see a Dem come out and say that (and be honest) than gain political points from a bogus issue.

[mhatrw]

3. Nothing is bogus about not outsourcing our security to a state

owned corporation of one of three nations that recognized the Taliban.

[MercutioATC]

5. But we're NOT outsourcing security...just port administration.

We outsource port administration on the west coast to one of the four remaining Communist countries on the planet without any problems.

This really is a non-issue and I hope that, in the future, we're honest enough to admit that.

[mhatrw]

8. So port administration has nothing to do with port security?

Sorry, but I don't buy that. And I don't want China doing it, either.

[MercutioATC]

10. Actually, very little.

We're still providing our own port security in the form of agencies such as the Coast Guard and Customs. Port Administration is just that...the administration of the workings of the port. Port Security is completely separate...and it's handled by us, not whomever gains the port administration contract.

[mhatrw]

14. So they could never sneak anything by our "security"?

Right?

[MercutioATC]

21. Yes, they could...even if WE were administering the ports.

That's the entire point. Our security is only as good as it is, but that has nothing to do with who's shuffling papers around (administering the port).

[neoblues]

24. But our own security agencies provide Top Secret

information to those who administer the the port. Information which, it is claimed would be rife at their home offices back home. Offices which would be much more easily infiltrated by individuals with ties to such groups as we would definitely not want having access to such information. That, and apparently, our "security" agencies rely upon those managing the ports to perform a considerable amount of the mundane, day to day security work. Anyway, that was the gist of one argument I read. Somehow, it made alot more sense when I read it than the very, very (I admit) detail poor way in which I'm regurgitating it here, all these months later (having made no further efforts to think about the issue).

[H2O Man]

15. You are correct.

People who believe this are not "ignorant." They know the exact same facts as everyone else involved in the discussion. They have different opinions of what constitutes security than George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Joe Lieberman.

[louis c]

4. That's number one because it is a political winner

Two hijackers were UAE citizens. And being a citizen there is not easy, they go back generations. Half the money to fund 9/11 came from Dubai banks. Bush simplified this war on terror and linked Iraq to it with that inane "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." He lumped all Arabs and Muslims together to convince his simple-minded followers. Lieberman went along. Now, the Ports deal confuses their simple-minded supporters "Does not compute" flash on the BUSBOTS. Why should we bail them out with nuance? F*ck them. Hoist them on their own petard. You can't beat Rove by acting like Gandhi. Politics ain't bean-bag, and Lamont better be ready.

[MercutioATC]

6. It's a winner, but it's still dishonest.

Call me an idealist...I'd like to see us win honestly.

[mhatrw]

9. I would honestly like to see Americans administering American ports.

[MercutioATC]

13. Find an American company that will submit a competitive bid.

They'd win.

American companies would administer American ports if they wanted to.

[mhatrw]

18. There are plenty of companies that would do the job if it was broken up.

Why does it have to be a single megalith doing it?

[MercutioATC]

22. I wasn't aware of that. Do you have some evidence of this?

I'm honestly interested.

[TomClash]

7. Good point

The Dubai Ports deal controversy was bullshit - China virtually runs Long Beach, the largest port in the country.

[mhatrw]

11. And that makes everything OK?

That's like saying Diebold is no big deal because ES&S sucks too.

[MercutioATC]

16. Find me a problem with China's running of Long Beach...

...or any of the west coast ports.

[TomClash]

28. Ok, Dubai Ports

is largely run by Americans and Brits. Dubai is virtually an American protectorate. COSCO and its subsidiaries are not run by Americans or Brits - yet it runs Long Beach.

As Steven Flynn said at the time, the problem is how domestic port security is administered, not which far flung parent nominally oversees running the port.

The Dubai Ports deal was about 2,591 on the list of "port security problems."

[sendero]

25. You have GOT to get over being such a purist..

... the Democratic party does not have time to change the country, we need to WIN SOME ELECTIONS.

Americans are against the ports deal. It doesn't matter whether that is a well-reasoned position or not, there is nothing anyone short of Rupert Murdoch can do about it.

Sometimes you have to campaign in the world as it is, not as it should be :)

[MercutioATC]

26. I can't seem to help it...

sorry...

;)

[Hubert Flottz]

2. On# 1and # 2. add Fast Track, which Joe was all for.

On # 4. add Joe never served, but is all for sending your kids to the elective war.

[never_get_over_it]

12. Lamont's number 1 issue as of last night is

Holy Joe LIEberman DOES NOT RESPECT CT VOTERS

Seriously that Lieberman would do this is such an outrage

[MercutioATC]

17. ...and THAT should be his #1 "Joe-killer".

[mhatrw]

20. Lieberman is a loser and a weiner.

[elehhhhna]

27. Calling CT voters "insurgents"?!! He's delusional. Saying his

"records been distorted"? I'll say. He's distorted his own dammned record for 6 solid YEARS.

[H2O Man]

19. Very important ideas!

E-mail this thread to his campaign. One thing that I was very impressed with was that the Lamont campaign people responded to everything that I sent them. That is one reason they won, and they know it.

[zonkers]

23. If Lieberman was a mensch, he would get behind Lamont. It's sad.

[louis c]

29. Bush will support Lieberman