Sorry to be off track and focus in on something that is so personal to me, but I thought this is important in the larger political sense in what it says about Sen. Lieberman's campaign, the tactics they seem totally at ease using and ultimately the simple question: Who is Joe Lieberman? Some of you may remember that Joe
Lieberman's top aide Dan Gerstein recently spread a disgusting lie about me. He claimed that back in 2003, I supposedly
"sought" a job with Sen. Lieberman. His implication was that I am a hypocrite for my support of Ned Lamont because just a few years ago, I supposedly solicited Lieberman for a job.
I responded that Gerstein's entire story was an utter, complete and total fabrication. I also noted that in fact, Lieberman's people had specifically asked me to come in and meet with them to discuss politics in general, and, as I would learn at the meeting, to ask me whether I would be interested in working for them. Soon after, I let Gerstein and the Lieberman staff know I was not interested. Put another way, they claimed I asked for a job, when in fact they asked me to consider working for them, and I rejected them.
Up until now, you could choose to believe either side's story - but now I've gone back and found the email transcript that proves Gerstein knowingly, deliberately lied and that exactly what I recounted was true. Here is the unedited email transcript - read it from the bottom up in chronological order. As reference, Clarine Nardi Riddle is Lieberman's chief of staff, and Casey Aden-Wansbury is his press aide.
From: David Sirota [mailto:davidsirota@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 5:01 PM
To: Aden-Wansbury, Casey (Lieberman)
Cc: leslie_phillips@govt-aff.senate.gov
Subject: Re: Meeting with Lieberman press staff
Casey/Leslie:
Just wanted to let you both know that after thinking everything through over the Passover break, I've decided that I can't take the position (if it was offered). Sorry to end things before they begin - but as I told Dan, I really appreciate the potential interest.
If there's anything I can ever do to provide assistance to your operation, please let me know.
D
>From: "Aden-Wansbury, Casey (Lieberman)"
><casey_aden -Wansbury@Lieberman.senate.gov>
>To: <davidsirota @hotmail.com>
>CC: "Leslie Phillips (E-mail)" <leslie_phillips @govt-aff.senate.gov>
>Subject: Meeting with Lieberman press staff
>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:57:57 -0400
>
>
>Hi David. Now that Leslie is back from vacation and I'm back from
>traveling with the Senator we want to set up a time to meet you, per Clarine's email.
>How would this Friday at 11am work for you?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Riddle, Clarine Nardi (Lieberman)
>Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 6:00 PM
>To: 'David Sirota'; Gerstein, Dan (Lieberman)
>Cc: Leslie Phillips (E-mail); Aden-Wansbury, Casey (Lieberman)
>Subject: RE: writing samples
>
>
>David---I would like you to meet with Leslie Phillips and Casey
>Aden-Wansbury of our office. Casey will be the Press Secretary when
>Adam leaves and Leslie is the Press Secretary for the Minority staff on
>Government Affairs. They will be calling you separately to meet with you.
>Whenever you do meet with them, also stop by and meet with me again.
>Thanks
Now here's the deal folks - you can blame me, perhaps, for being too polite when I told them no, I'm not interested in working for them. You can blame me for even talking to them when they asked to meet me (though, I stand by my willingness to talk to anyone in politics in the hope that they want to talk to me because they are interested in being a progressive). And fine - I will plead guilty to being too nice and polite. But the bottom line from these emails is clear: they asked me to continue engaging with them in discussions about a job they were interested in me taking in their office, and I said no - and as the email noted, I had previously told Gerstein the same exact thing.
Thus, we now know Dan Gerstein is a fabricator - a guy who is totally comfortable with knowing the truth, ignoring it, and spreading vicious lies about people. He's not a distorter, he's not a spinner, he's not a misleader - by the dictionary's definition, he is a liar. And in fact, if I remember my Law in Journalism classes right, what he's done here is not only lie - but he's libeled me, in that he not only got the facts wrong, but knew he was getting the facts wrong, and decided to go ahead and slander me anyway (I believe the legal term for this in libel law is "negligence" and more importantly "malice"). I don't care if you are on my team and are a Democrat or on the other team - such behavior in pursuit of slandering people is totally unacceptable. And perhaps even beyond unacceptable, it's just plain dumb-as-a-rock stupid. I mean, really - how intellectually challenged do you have to be to be a political operative that makes up lies which can be 100 percent documented as lies? I think we've found the answer to this rhetorical question - it's called Dan Gerstein.
There is a question here in the bigger political sense - one that goes way beyond just me. Why does Joe Lieberman, a man of supposed "principle" who is supposedly pursuing a "new politics of unity and purpose" allow someone with such disdain for the truth like Gerstein to publicly represent him? In other words, here's the question: Who is Joe Lieberman?
(DISCLOSURE: I have long been a volunteer supporter of Ned Lamont's candidacy and written extensively about the race. As of Labor Day, I am officially working with the Lamont for Senate campaign on research. The writing on this blog is my own, and not the official work I do for the Lamont campaign. The original Gerstein slander and subsequent debate over it occurred well before I went to work for Lamont.)