Yep, there it is, Lieberman still repeating GOP talking points.

In the old days, we might have called it triangulation. The proper term - when you are doing what the, ahem, opposition is telling you to do - is emasculation.

Stay the course: Move Forward: It's time to move on: Among the vast phantasmagoria of inane political speak, these three top the list.

On the road? Nevermind that it's headed straight for the abyss - move forward, stay the course, move on.

Thanks anyway, Joe, we'll have to decline your invitation.

Lieberman's error is not in recognizing the danger to the Western ideal of liberalism that extreme Islamicists pose. It is the failure of the Bush Administration to mount a meaningful and skillful counter to this threat. What is remarkable about the Bush Administration is how ineptly and how unwhelming their response to the threat they themselves tell us is so great.

What Lieberman, and others who demand a lockstep agreement with Bush's policy fail to recognize is the need to speak up against policies that are incompetent. The whole idea of free speech, besides the concept of individual liberty, is it is the way errors are corrected rather than compounded.

There is a real danger from within the Islamic World. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Lieberman want to make sure that they get political credit by silencing those who point out their incompetence.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I think Lieberman can do better than this. How about "they hate us because we are good." That could remind everyone that Muslims are evil (the subtext in right wing talking points).

"They hate us for our freedoms" = "they hate us because we're Americans"

And if this is true, then what of the freedom to dissent? Or is the freedom to dissent unamerican? Lieberman really confuses me. I think he really did lose part of his ability to think rationally on 9/11 with, apparently, a good number of the American public, and the governing and media elite.

As for "Infectious Authoritarianism," that is redundant.

We are already there...

The NYT printed an editorial by John Yoo saying the POTUS has the right to "ignore unconstitutional laws".  Unconstitutional by whose determination?  Unconstitutional by the POTUS' definition and not the courts.  Which usurps the authority of Congress and the Judiciary.  It would put the POTUS above the law and therefore not accountable anymore rendering the seperate but equal branches of government moot.  If one follows Yoo's logic it means Bush can ignore the law saying presidents are limited to 2 terms and run again in '08 or just call off the elections because it is imperative to stay the course in our war against Islamofacism and have us lead by El Presidente for as long as he  and people like Joe Lieberman see fit.

Ignore unconstitutional laws?  WTF??

That's funny, the principal of the school calls him a teacher:

The facts surrounding the issue are clear. During the 2004-05 school year, Lamont served as a volunteer teacher at Harding. He helped a certified teacher lead two classes on how to start a business and brought in outside experts to bolster the course.

Hector Sanchez, Harding's principal, said Lamont helped teach once a week, on Mondays, for two periods, which amounts to 1.5 hours for the day. The effort lasted the school year, Sanchez said.

In 2005-06, Lamont volunteered to help teach a similar class at Bassick High School.

You sound as silly as the Lieberman campaign on this one... 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Only time I heard him interviewed he called himself a "substitute teacher." Volunteer, of course. He had a full-time -- overtime -- business. Never heard anything about him trying to pass himself off as a trained, fulltime teacher. Are we talking about the same person?

Subs have to be certified too, so in that case he was again lying.

You get an "F", for Flim Flam.

Check out the highlighted text.

But if Neddie and Lil Liz are so sure about themselves, then why go to all the trouble to change "teacher" to "volunteer" on the website?

Did Ned LEARN something about misrepresentation of credentials in the past few days?

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_4334984
===============
Lieberman camp says Lamont not really a teacher
BILL CUMMINGS

On the campaign stump, Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont often tells audiences that he teaches at Harding High School in Bridgeport.

On his Web page, Lamont states, "I teach in a 50-year-old inner-city public school," referring to Harding.

In a July Connecticut Post article, Lamont said, "I'm a guy that started a business from scratch. I've been involved in education and technology. I teach at Harding."

And in advertisements running on radio and television, Lamont extols his time at Harding. Students who appear in the ads call him their "teacher," and urge him to run for the Senate.

Rival Senate candidate Joe Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat who is running as an independent after losing a primary battle to Lamont, is taking issue with Lamont's portrayal of himself as an inner-city schoolteacher, saying he's "misleading" the public.

The Lieberman campaign points out that Lamont is a multimillionaire from Greenwich who volunteered to help with a business class at Harding High School.

"The reality is Ned Lamont has trouble with the truth," said Dan Gerstein, Lieberman's communications director.

"Ned Lamont has loudly and widely trumpeted his credentials as an educator and in doing so has unequivocally given people the impression that he is currently a teacher in the Bridgeport public schools. Since Mr. Lamont is touting this credential, there are legitimate questions," Gerstein said.

"He has distorted Lieberman's record and he has a habit of mischaracterizing his own positions on Iraq. If he is not teaching, why does he continue to mislead the voters about his role in the Bridgeport public schools?" Gerstein said.

The Lamont camp said Lieberman's complaints are nonsense.

"By any measure you apply, Ned was a teacher to those kids," said Liz Dupont-Diehl, a spokeswoman for the Lamont campaign.

"This is a sad attempt by Senator Lieberman to divert attention from his failure to represent the people of Connecticut and hold the Bush administration responsible for a badly managed war," Dupont-Diehl said.

The facts surrounding the issue are clear. During the 2004-05 school year, Lamont served as a volunteer teacher at Harding. He helped a certified teacher lead two classes on how to start a business and brought in outside experts to bolster the course.

Hector Sanchez, Harding's principal, said Lamont helped teach once a week, on Mondays, for two periods, which amounts to 1.5 hours for the day. The effort lasted the school year, Sanchez said.

In 2005-06, Lamont volunteered to help teach a similar class at Bassick High School. Lamont's campaign staff said he has done some teaching this year, but admitted that effort has been occasional.

So does that give Lamont a right to portray himself as a teacher?

"That's stretching it," said Sanchez, who said he admires Lamont's commitment to his school.

"He's not a certified teacher. It was as a volunteer. He arrived once a week for two periods every Monday. He partnered with the certified teacher. I can vouch for him coming here," Sanchez said.

Sanchez said that not many people volunteer as much time at Harding as Lamont has.

"I have people who come in," he said. "But to do it for the whole school year, I don't have anyone that gives that type of commitment."

The teaching effort began after Lamont served as a "principal for a day," he said. Lamont asked what else he could do to help, Sanchez said, and the volunteer assignment grew from there.

Dupont-Diehl said Lamont uses the term "teacher" in a conversational way, not a technical one.

"His is using 'teach' in a common-sense version. He has never claimed to be a certified teacher. But he has been endorsed by Connecticut's two teacher unions," she said.

"There has never been any inconsistency in how he describes it. He is a teacher. He stands up in front of a class. It's too bad Lieberman does not have similar volunteer activities. I think that's significant," Dupont-Diehl said.

Gerstein said Lamont should explain his activities more accurately, and contends that many across the state have been led to believe that he's an inner-city teacher.

"He says he was a teacher. But there are reasonable questions and voters have the right to know the answers," Gerstein said.

Gerstein said Lamont often changes his position on issues. "We count eight different positions on the critical questions of how to end the war."

Dupont-Diehl challenged the Lieberman camp to prove those alleged position changes. "Lieberman considers it a negative attack when we talk about his performance as a senator," she said. Bill Cummings, who covers regional issues, can be reached at 330-6230.
=====================

Want to volunteer a guess as to why they changed the website?

The whole thing is silly.

Everyone who knows anything about Lamont knows he is a multi-millionaire cable company guy from Greenwich. That in fact was the core of Lieberman's original attack on the guy, Joe presenting himself as Mr. Everyman vs Mr. Rich Guy, at all points it was clear this teaching was a parttime volunteer gig.

And you do not have to be certified to be a teacher. You have to be certified to be employed as a teacher in a public school. There is a difference.

Frankly some people are straining at gnats here. It was admirable for Lamont to volunteer in the first place, using a cheery picking dispute over the proper terminology to label him a serial liar is a ridiculous smear. Lieberman has adopted the GOP fake Talking Point tactic. It may fool some of the people some of the time, it is not likely to fool many people here.

The most important thing to remember about Joe Lieberman:

the first three letters of his last name are L-I-E.

That says it all about the "man."

Anecdotal, but Yoo was recently on CSPAN in the morning, and I recall many, if not all, the conservative callers on the Republican line thought he was way out of line. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

There was a time when Joe Lieberman was generally thought of as a good fella. My first doubts about him came when a friend reported to me a conversation he'd had with Hadassah Lieberman at a (2000) campaign event, standing in the back of the room while Lieberman spoke. The conversation with Joe's wife left him with the impression that she was startled by changes in Joe's speeches and behaviors and attitudes. Just as with friends who used to hang out with Dick Cheney socially who have later said the man has changed beyond all recognition (see Snowcroft's remarks, and Tom Oliphant's), so perhaps Lieberman-the-nice-guy has been drinking the same poison.

The tenaciousness and wrong-headedness of Seed Freak are very reminiscent of the kind of support Cheney and Bush have attracted. Certainly what Seed Freak has told us about Lieberman has not made Joe Lieberman more attractive to me. What I'm picking up on is pettiness and grasping power for the sake of power -- certainly not a healthy campaign nor supporters who are firm believers in democratic process.

You may be onto something. I had been thinking that anyone who could be making this sort of an issue out of something that basically reflects well on Lamont must be a Republican troll. I am not yet convinced I am wrong. Even though you make some sense it is just so hard for me to imagine the unremarkable insipid joe Lieberman attracting the type of support that Cheney and Bush attract other than from far-right wingers.