Monday, March 13, 2006

Ned Lamont to Announce Today

Ned Lamont is set to announce his candidacy for the U.S. Senate today at the Old State House in Hartford. Anti-Lieberman Democrats are ecstatic: this is the moment they've been waiting for, when a viable Democratic candidate steps into the ring against the man they feel has betrayed them and their party time and again.

Now it gets interesting. The Democratic Convention is scheduled for Saturday, May 20th. That's 68 days away--68 days in which Lamont must draw as many delegates to his side as possible, and in which Joe Lieberman must do all he can to make sure that Lamont comes in under 15%.

To get the 250 or so delegates he'll need to force an August primary, Lamont will have to convince town committees that he's credible and viable. To do that, he'll need media coverage and exposure. Today's article in the Hartford Courant, in which Lamont charms a group of surly Democrats to his side, is a good start:

Ned Lamont stood awkwardly in Dos Amigos, a Mexican restaurant on the commercial strip along Route 202, looking for even one friend during the dinner hour.

The progressive group that had invited Lamont to come to the Northwest Hills and talk about his opposition to the war and his challenge of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman couldn't be found. The eatery had no private room for them, anyway.

His would-be audience was unimpressed. Lamont got hard looks from one of the first to arrive: John L. Miller, 75, who made the winding, 30-minute drive from Cornwall with Paul H. Baren, 81, and Stephen H. Senzer, 76, to see if he is worth their time.

"We're not about to throw in with someone that has no chance," said Miller, who intensely dislikes Lieberman. "I was hoping to be more impressed with the planning."

Lamont implored them to stay.

And an hour later, after a free-wheeling discussion that quickly moved beyond the war in Iraq to the Patriot Act, universal health care, the environment and the economy, Lamont would have some recruits for a campaign that officially opens today. (Pazniokas)

If Lamont wants to make the argument that Lieberman is somehow out of touch with Connecticut Democrats, this article is a great start. Here we see Ned Lamont sitting down to talk with regular folks at a crummy Mexican restaurant in Torrington, and winning them over after speaking with them for over an hour.

Lieberman, by contrast, only appears in the article by proxy:

"We're going to run a campaign. We're going to have him here and be doing this the old-fashioned way: He's going to be asking people for their vote," said Sean Smith, recently hired to run the Lieberman campaign. "He ran for vice president. He ran for president. He hasn't really had a dialogue with Connecticut voters about Connecticut issues in a while. He is looking forward to it." (Pazniokas)

The stark contrast drawn between Regular Guy Ned and Senator Lieberman, who "hasn't really had a dialogue with Connecticut voters about Connecticut issues in a while," is powerful stuff. More articles like this, and the Lamont campaign will save a bundle on PR.

Then there's this from the Norwich Bulletin's Ray Hackett, which Connecticut Democrats will love even more:

I talked with Lieberman this week about the challenge, and asked him if he felt disappointed some Democrats would like to see him defeated and whether he would run as an independent if he were to lose the primary. Here's what he said:

"It's part of the process. You have to earn election; it's not something that's guaranteed, and I look forward to discussing my record with voters.

"Any disappointment would be in the kind of campaign that is run. I intend on winning the primary, but I'm not going to exclude any other possibility. I want to be on the November ballot, and I intend to be Democratic candidate on the ballot. I'm proud to be a Democrat and I have my own vision of what that means." (Hackett)

So the news today is framing this race in a way that Ned Lamont and his supporters would approve of: Ned's a regular guy who listens to folks in Mexican restaurants, while Joe Lieberman seems disconnected and willing to drop the Democratic Party itself to stay in office.

Lamont couldn't ask for a better start to his campaign.


Hackett, Ray. "Column: Busy Warner has growing buzz for '08 nomination." Norwich Bulletin 12 March, 2006.

Pazniokas, Mark. "Lamont Campaign Builds Step By Step." Hartford Courant 13 March, 2006.


A response to the Lamont announcementin press release form from the Lieberman campaign:

"Attacking Senator Lieberman's character and integrity was a predictable but dishonorable way to begin this campaign. Mr. Lamont is clearly going to run a very negative and angry campaign where the truth doesn't get in the way." Sean Smith, campaign manager.

Joe Lieberman - A Career of Progressive Ideas

For almost 18 years, Joe Lieberman has been a leader in the United States Senate on issues that matter to Connecticut Democrats -protecting environment, achieving energy independence, protecting women's privacy, attaining health care for all, helping to create jobs and representing the needs and values of working men and women, ensuring our national security improving education and securing civil rights for all Americans regardless of race, color, gender, sexual orientation or place of origin.

The press release then goes on to detail the Senator's accomplishments.


Press Release: "Lieberman Campaign Responds to Lamont Announcement." Friends of Joe Lieberman. 13 March, 2006.


Don Pesci said...

Ned certainly is not an irregular guy. But a regular guy who lives in Greenwich and is a multimillionaire? Don’t think so. Weicker enjoyed similar circumstances and regularly butchered the language, the way he thought a regular guy might do. But no one ever accused him of being a regular guy. If it’s any consolation to the Lamontites, Lieberman is not a regular guy either; very few congresspersons are.

Anonymous said...

is it me or does he kinda look like the cat and the hat?

Anonymous said...

Cat in the Hat vs Senator Palpatine, democratic version of the WWF.

Proud Moderate Dem said...

Genghis, Lamont as a regular guy???? how many regular guys do you know that are millionaires??

Genghis Conn said...

An excellent point, Don and PMD. Neither Lamont nor Lieberman are regular guys. One is a longtime U.S. Senator, the other owns his own cable company.

But the Courant article portrays Lamont as the sort of guy you can talk to, while Lieberman is portrayed as so disconnected that he can only speak through someone else.

That's what's important, here. Candidates and campaigns are all about the struggle between truth, perspective and illusion.

Stinko said...

The Courant did some puff pieces like this on the GOP's Orchulli in 04...lotta good it did him.

ctblogger said...

Yeah, a millionare who donates his time teaching at an inner-city school.

The Republicans and Lieberman defenders will do anyhting to discredit Lamont. PMD has been attacking Lamont ever since Ned hinted that he was running against Lieberman.

GC, I was at the Lamont event in Torrington with the Courtant reporter and I have to say (and I'm sure he would agree) that it was one of the most surreal moments of this campaign. It's really too bad that more people didn't see Lamont work that crowd.

I videotaped the entire thing and I'll let the video speak for itself. Lamont clearly changed the views of most, if not all, of the people who were in the place (many of whom had no idea who Ned Lamont was or what office he was running for). Included in that group is one person who REALLY objected to Lamont's running against Lieberman and make her expressions known to Lamont.

I'll post the video and my comments on the Torrington meeting later today. Again, the video speaks for itself.

stinko said...

Don't forget the Courant did a couple of puff pieces like this for the GOP's last million-dollar man, Orchulli, and a fat lotta good it did him.

They have an interest in making this seem more of a race than it is...closer races sell more papers.

stinko said...

sorry about the dual posts....the comments page crapped out on me mid-post.

Anonymous said...

Show me the money, Ned. I'm on the local board of finance. The kick-the-dog budgets in Washington are killing our property taxpayers. Lieberman's big problem is he's forgotten the voters and taxpayers who voted him into office and who've been left out of the federal funding equation by the Bush Administation (start with Medicare and go from there). And the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars from the domestic side of the federal budget by this disastrously managed war that Lieberman has supported uncritically. But Lamont is miles from having a grip on any of this, e.g., bring NG and Reserve units home first? They're entirely integrated into the military force in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them want to be there, doing their jobs. We don't need Cindy Sheehan for a senator. We need Senator Pothole. Tom Lewis, Colebrook.

MightyMouse1 said...

If a politician has a 'campaign event' and no one comes, is there a sound? Or is the sound housewives sipping on tequila drinks?

Proud Moderate Dem said...

ctblogger, please use facts when commenting on things i have said. i have never attacked mr lamont, and in fact said that i like him, he is a nice guy, but i think his policy answers have lacked substance. in this case, i simply took issue with him being called a 'regualr guy' when in fact he is a millionaire whose parents were millionaires (as opposed to lieberman who was not born into money). not attacks ctblogger, just an open discussion of cirmcumstances.

Quinn said...

I agree with MightyMouse, I thought the editorial from the Courant had a very pessimistic take on the Lamont candidacy. Lamont didn't talk to regular Torrington folk - he talked to the few party insiders, all of a narrow demographic, who bothered to show up. And they weren't terribly impressed. In fact, I felt the editorial was almost unfair to Lamont - certainly not the boost you make it out to be.

Furthermore, Joe Lieberman regularly meets with regular folk with his Diner Stops (including Twin Colony Diner in Torrington) - a strategy I thought was well known and lauded around here.

ctblogger said...


Point well taken. My bad. I really you have a chance to meet Lamont at some time in the future and address you concerns to him personally.

Unlike Lieberman, you will have a chance to talk to him one to one (which is one of the qualities a like in a candidate like Lamont).

turfgrrl said...

The difference between grassroots and netroots is exemplified in this article. If you can't get people to show up to hear you speak then you won't be able to get people to sow up to vote for you.

Anonymous said...

Lets talk about what really matters...which candidate is Roy supporting?

pole smoker said...

Well, Roy, since you cannot let a day go by without bringing yourself up, I'd advise you to answer carefully. Because the candidate you 'support' (read: bleed dry financially) is historically destined to lose.

Don Pesci said...

All of this has a déjà vu tone to it. Let’s see … Greenwich, maverick, millionaire … Tom D’Amore. D’Amore, now a paid consultant in the Lamont stables, was Greenwich millionaire Lowell Weicker’s major domo. In fact, at one point Weicker appointed him chairman of the Republican Party, after which all the party’s funds started to disappear. Nice that D'Amore found a new political sugar daddy in Lamont. In the Courant piece written about the meeting between the two, D’Amore is likened by new Courant political writer Paul Bass to Captain Louis Renault, one of the heroes of Casablanca. I kid you not.

Anonymous said...

Hey pole smoker, welcome to the blog -- you must be the first blogger on here to name yourself accurately.

old-timer said...

I guess the question becomes whether Lamont has time to put together enough of these small meetings to assemble a real coalition that can win the election for him. 250 delegates (or whatever it is) is a lot. The towns he was working at the Torrington meeting were small towns and probably only have one or two delegates each. He is going to have to tap into the bigger towns and cities to get what he needs.

Perhaps the DeStefano and Malloy people will be inclined to broker some deals with him at the convention, but if they do, they can be assured that Lieberman won't do anything for them in the fall, when the richest candidate traditionally ponies up for a "coordinated campaign" that helps everyone else across the finish line.

I just don't see 250 delegates signing on for this one. Take a look at what happened at previous conventions -- whenever one candidate seems off to a strong lead, the challenger's supporters drop like flies. It's going to be nearly impossible for Lamont to fight that phenomenon.

Franks said...

Déjà vu, Joe Lieberman began his political life opposing a war, running against a pro-war incumbant and saw no concern in challenging another democrat then or in announcing his intention to seek the democratic nomination for state attorney general against an incumbant democrat. He wins an ellection to the U.S Senate, with the campaign help of republicans.

He's now challenged by an anti-war democrat, in a democratic contest, who have reached out to republicans.

Anonymous said...

Joe has no scheduled appearances in CT this week. Yet I have a pair of questions I want to ask him. sigh.

And Quinn, you wrote:
"Furthermore, Joe Lieberman regularly meets with regular folk with his Diner Stops (including Twin Colony Diner in Torrington) - a strategy I thought was well known and lauded around here."

Well, you've got to be kidding me. When was the last time Joe held a public forum? (and I don't mean the SE CT Chamber of Commerce breakfast!).

Anonymous said...

Any chance you can help find a list of Joe's public appearances?

His campaign site doesn't list any.

TrueBlueCT said...

Lieberman's campaign manager, Sean Smith, is a perfect fit. Just like Joe, he is smugly duplicitous, and praying fervantly that we aren't paying attention.

I was at Lamont's announcement today, and Ned did not attack Lieberman's character, nor integrity. Instead, he just implied what we all know-- Lieberman is a lousy Democrat.

You see, Sean Smith can publish crap like this:
"Supports universal health care
. -When he ran for president, Lieberman proposed a plan that would have provided affordable coverage to the 45.8 million people who currently lack health insurance including every one of the 8.5 million children in the country who are uninsured."

But unlucky for Sean, we know this to be the truth:
"Health care: Opposed the Clinton universal health care plan in favor of a more limited plan proposed by insurance companies, which are major financial supporters of his campaigns
. Sought bipartisan agreement on rival plans to increase rights for consumers in HMOs and other health plans".

Facts and integrity, Mr. Smith! Why don't you start with your own!

MikeCT said...

Here's the prepared text of Lamont's announcement, the AP article, and reportedly Politics TV will be posting video of the announcement.

Anonymous said...

Is Sean Smith from Connecticut?

TrueBlueCT said...


Thanks for the links!

Were you there today? Sorry if I missed you.

Fun to note is that Sean Smith sent a lackey to take photos not of Lamont, but of the Democrats in the crowd. One might presume this was done so that the Lieberman insiders can apply pressure to those who stepped out of line, in favor of debate and a Democratic primary.

From the AP article:
"Lamont's communications director, Liz Dupont-Diehl, disputed (Sean Smith's) characterization of the announcement.

"I don't even think he was at the same event we were at," Dupont-Diehl said. "Ned's event was full of very constructive ideas and real plans. This is the kind of thing that Karl Rove would say."

Touche! We all know that Lieberman is preparing to get down and dirty against Lamont, all in accordance with his hypocritical style.

Anonymous said...

this is as much fun for a Republican to watch as a redneck hater seeing a huge wreck at Daytona

Anonymous said...

Folks, Neddie is dreaming. He is not going to defeat Lieberman. Say what you will but Joe is liked by Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike becuase he has been around, he has worked for people, he is a decent hadr working guy. Ned lamont can dream all he wants, he will be sitting athome instead of in the Semnate this tiem next year....

Anonymous said...

Some reaction to the announcement and pro-choice progressive Joe says rape victims can go to hell.

Anonymous said...

Whoa -- is Lamont really claiming that Lieberman supports rapists??? Is that blog official?

Not a good start for what is supposed to be a "different kind of campaign."

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

anon (11:12)
As it clearly says, "This website is unaffiliated with and unfunded by any campaign." But Joe is joining the religious right in revictimizing rape victims, even as he tries to flash his "progressive" credentials.

tparty said...

Anon. at 11:12:

LamontBlog is unofficial. The site is not affiliated with or funded by the campaign or, for that matter, any organization.

Joe Lieberman's statement claiming Connecticut women do not have the right to emergency contraceptives at hospitals because "it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital." struck me as unfathomably hurtful and callous for a man who claims to defend women's rights.

It is for that reason that I chose to use the same headline as Firedoglake on that post. said...

Third Party-

This state has one of the highest concentrations of catholics of any in the country. I think most of us don't follow the Church line on the Choice issue, but that still doesn't mean it has to be crammed down anyone's throats. The problem is if you feel like a reasonable compromise would be to provide transportation to nearby hospitals rather than asking a church hospital to provide a treatment (that most already do)...then you are pro-rapist. Nice to see the the Lamont blog is raising the level of debate beyond fearmongering...oh wait.

I hope its true that the Lamont campaign isn't sponsoring that trash (and if they are, nice job staying on message on a big campaign day!)

tparty said...

I changed the title of the post because it was distracting from the serious issue at hand. Which is:

If you are raped in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman believes a hospital should be allowed to deny you emergency contraception.

If that's the position Joe wants to defend, then NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and all pro-choice CT Democrats shouldn't be defending him.

TrueBlueCT said...

you tell him ThirdParty!

Notice how the Lieberman guys keep trying to distract everyone from the real issues that have Democrats up in arms against Lieberman?

It is a revolting campaign tactic, but then again, what should one expect from good ol' Revoltin' Joe...

MightyMouse1 said...

what is the next step, should Catholic Hospitals be compelled to perform abortions? Should Catholic schools be compelled to hand out condoms?

Franks said...

The Courant noted,

"Ironically, the current proposal to require hospitals to administer contraception was triggered by a change in church policies instituted in January by Hartford Archbishop Henry Mansell and Bishop William Lori of the Bridgeport Diocese. Catholic hospitals could provide emergency contraception if a woman was not pregnant, but Lori and Mansel opted for a more restrictive policy that prohibits dispensing contraception unless tests showed a rape victim is not ovulating."

Prior to the change, did they provide emergency contraception?

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that previously it was a choice of hospital administrators and most did. I also heard that some hospitals were still providing it in emergency situations where it was not medically feasable to get the victim to a hospital that provided plan b.

Franks said...

It would seem that Papillo's comments about his office's experience, with a three month old policy, have little merit.

turfgrrl said...

This is an easy one. I'm against the government telling a hospital it can't perform angioplasty procedures, and so I am against the government telling a hospital what drugs it needs to provide. link to Hartford Advocate article. Now it would be interesting to see if Lieberman holds the same position regarding government intervention/regulation in both cases. Plan B should be over the counter anyways. Blame the wingnut who shot down the ok in the FDA for this problem.

bluecoat said...

turffgrrl, our government should definitley get out of the business of telling a hospital what services it can offer to the public for profit - or non-profit as they call it. However, our government should be setting regulatory standards for those hospitals to perform to if they chose to perform them. If a hospital is going to offer itself up as an emergency services place where rape victims can go after being raped, don't you think the emergency service provider ought to be required to meet some standards based on science and the latest technology? It's hard for me to imagine a rape victim is going to want to go shopping immediately after being violated and victimized.

Franks said...


Comparing a surgical procedure/care vs dispensing prescriptions seems a stretch. While the FDA played politics, I'm not sure Hospitals should tell doctors to impose unnecessary tests to write or fill a prescription or refuse services to patients.

Papillo's support, as a state official, further crossed that line that should seperate the state from doctor-patient relations.

turfgrrl said...


To the extent that regulations should enforce standards and safety, yes. But to dictate what medical practice should include, no. I picked the angioplasty comparison purposefully since it covers the "solution" in each direction.

If you have a heart attack, and are taken to a Hospital that determines that you need and angioplasty, and that hospital is not licensed to perform one, off you go in the ambulance to the one that does. If you are raped, and are taken to a hospital that does not offer Plan B, then off you go to one that does.

I would argue that a heart attack victim does not have an opportunity to shop around to begin with. In any case the nature of emergency services is not one that should be subjected to the whims of one's insurance plan either (often it is).

If these were public hospitals that would be one thing. But its my understanding that they are private for profit institutions and therefore a choice is being made to seek emergency care from them, and like any other procedure that they may not provide, alternatives are available.


Doctors can only prescribe/treat patients to the ability of the hospital that employs them. That is why people are referred sometimes to other facilities for routine things. While administering a drug seems a bit of stretch, I'll posit that it is the FDA that made the availability so difficult in the first place. And that, btw, also applies to birth control pills.

pole smoker said...

Hey Roy....keep defending yourself....every moment you spend on me is $20 dollars outof your client's pockets.

bluecoat said...

Turfgrrl, I agree with your regulatory philosophy - or you agree with me - but the RC hospitals are not-for-profit, accept state funding and even give docs who perform abortions in other facilities privileges at their hospitals. And the science of Plan B is that if you want it to work - and avoid an abortion - you do not have a whole lot of time to take the double dose of the pill. When you get in an ambulance you rarely have a choice of what hospital to go to as that decision is made for you by others. The FDA made the pill tough to get - right or wrong - by requiring a doc to prescribe it within certain guidelines. The emergency room in the RC hospitals must then post a sign that says our philosophy and not the latest in science and technology is dispensed here.

And Franks, this doctor -patient relationship is a bunch of crap. It's not guaranteed like a lawyer client relationship and the AMA keeps touting it because the docs don't want anybody looking over their shoulder. That's why they spend a fortune in Hartford every year maintaining a cloud over what their profession does.

turfgrrl said...


We'll leave it at I agree with you on regulatory philosophy ... :) And I agree with your point about the efficacy of using Plan B within that 72 hour window. But I remain unconvinced that any drug or procedure should merit special status requiring a legislative regulation within a religious organization. I think that Catholic church has been on the wrong side of many social issues, but I think it more of a dangerous precedent to have government intercede on an article of dogma. Kind of a slippery slope path to me at least.

Franks said...


What I meant by the doctor - patient relationship, refers to the medical services/advice offered.

The RC Hospitals, insurance companies or the state should not determine what services are medically necessary, that decision should be left to the patient.

bluecoat said...

Franks, I disagree. The government needs to set medical standards the same way it sets highway safety standards or standards for the manufacture of drugs. Too many doctors act like a bunch of cowboys these days to meet their marketing model - and hide behind the doctor-patient relationship to do it. The respectable (and not all are) HMO's tried to set standards based on evidence based medicine and the surgeons, among others, fought them because it cut in to their profits not because it harmed anybody's quality of life. In our system now the only way you find out what the 'standard of care' is to get hurt and then listen to experts argue it out in depositions and a court room. If we are truly going to get consumer based health care then the government needs to set standards based on science and regulate the docotors.

Just look at something as simple as giving an individual aspirin therapy after a myocardial infarction - it should be standard but it is not - and the problems go from there. Or look at the prevalence of a particular surgery in one area of the state compared to another - it varies based on who is doing the work.

bluecoat said...

And yes, at the end of the day the decision belongs to the consumer but the insurance company and the government does have some say based on scientific and business whether we like the way that sounds or not.

turfgrrl said...


You raise an interesting point about medical safety standards. I'm not so sure I want a government entity regulating those standards for a few reasons. I look at the FDA and see how it has become politicized and bought by pharmaceutical. I'd be more inclined to peer review and best practice standards though. Maybe even with government participation.

I think it differs from highway safety, to cite your example, simply because medical treatments often start out as guesswork and the efficacy of a treatment turns on the variable of the individual treated.

bluecoat said...

the FDA has become a disaster, I agree but medicine is a lot more than guesswork in the 21st century as some would like you to beleive, there are best practices but they too vary from place to place because of politics even if it is only in the medical arena. I'm talking about performanec standards and not a government erector set prescriprion for practicing medicine. The use of IT in medicine is in the dark ages but I'll end this rant here.

Franks said...


The State does set medical standards when it licenses doctors, hospitals and the like and it regulates them through peer review in the licensing boards.

My sense about what medical treatments are rendered is another decision, a catholic may choose not to take Plan B to follow church policy, but the RC Bishop should not set policy for a public facility. If the Bishop can make the medical case for withholding Plan B, they have every right to convince the oversight boards.

bluecoat said...

the state sets standards for licensing but it does not set performance standards for healthcare providers. as a corollary, the state license architects but it also has a building code that architects must follow and comply with. Medical peer review except in a few hospitals in CT is a joke, rarely at the forefront, and nothing is done about office practices unless there is a complaint and most times the state stands by the doctor because the review boards are sanctioned, and run, by the medical societies..i.e. they are not independent. On the topic of how poor the quality of healthcre in this country is for everybody is this front page piece fron today'sNew Haven Register referring to an article in the journal of the american medical association

bluecoat said...

Whoops, the NHR article refers to the March 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine and not JAMA. My mistake but no consumer was hurt - just the consumer of information maybe but that's why we have retractions.

bluecoat said...

and Ralph Nader can be a pain in the butt but he has brought about a little transparency to the fallacy of the efficacy and independance of state medical licensing boards as you can see here at this link

Franks said...


The NEJM findings were interesting, but comparing our medical care against other countries would have been a better measure.

I would add this to your point concerning healthcare providers, state law mandates individual providers provide an appeal for denials, but it doesn't require published decision records. This leaves differing standards amoung providers on medical care for similar conditions.

How the boards preform it seems are political questions, appointing lackluster people and you get C results.

Anonymous said...

There are other comparisons, which show our infant mortality rate, for example, is poor compared to other G8 countiries. But the simple fact is our system is not up to the snuff that it can be, which makes the NEJM article along with hundreds of others showing that quality is not as perceived or as touted by the AMA. It would be like letting a helicopter out of Sikorskys that did not meet the company's own standards for performance. And what to do about it? For one, Congress could listen to its very own oNational Academies instead of listening to the AMA and AHA, which have their own business marketing model agenda.

We're like a couple of geeks here compared to the inside politics stuff.

bluecoat said...

And while I am geeking, let me add that if the nation could fix the quality problem, costs would go way way down all around, which is something HSA's can only nibble at otherwise. The HMO's tried to only include docs that they knew had high quality but that got overruled by the lobbyists at AMA and locally.

mymble05 said...

As a fellow progressive you might want to check out the Working Families Party of New York's Fair Share for Health Care campaign. Sign the petition here.

bluecoat said...

you misunderstand where my post is headed, I beleive that the cost of health services should be paid for by the consumer just as the consumer pays for the telephone, garbage removal and food that he/she uses with appropriate regulatory bodies by the govt.. The Working Families party is a front for the labor unions that don't like personal responsibilty but prefer class warfare as they are waging at Sikorsky these days..

And 'progressive' is a nasty label just like consrvative and liberal is.