Another attempt to court Latino voters by DeStefano and Malloy. Lots of sniping.
Golf!
A fundraiser for Ned Lamont... in Massachusetts? Hey, we don't have fundraisers for Deval Patrick in West Hartford, now, do we? ...Do we?
DeStefano is poised to announce a universal health care scheme for Connecticut today. I'll let you know as soon as I get more information.
What else is happening today?
10 comments:
That link doesn't go anywhere...
At this point, both candidates have a substantial amount of out-of-state financial support: Lieberman from business, pharmaceutical and other interests and Lamont from liberal donors and groups nationwide.
But isn't Lieberman's out-of-state fundraising one of the reasons why you say he's out of touch? I think Lamont is frankly asking to be held to a higher standard, here.
Not that it's a problem... it was just odd. I always find it strange when our candidates look for support and money amongst people who will not be voting for them.
GC-
Please, point me to one single quote where a pro-Lamont blogger or commenter criticized Lieberman for raising money out-of-state.
If you can find even one, I'm sure you'll find one or more replies right after it saying that's not a valid criticism of Lieberman. Much of Lamont's ActBlue support comes from out-of-state, after all.
If you can't find one, retract your statement that "Lamont is frankly asking to be held to a higher standard" if you want to maintain any shred of credibility.
DR-
TrueBlueCT is merely pointing out a double standard. And he says pretty clearly that his primary issue with Lieberman is not that the money comes from out-of-state, but that it's corporate money. That has nothing to do with geography.
All of this is much ado about nothing. Candidates raise money from out-of-state all the time.
My only issue is that in saying "Lamont is frankly asking to be held to a higher standard," Genghis attributed certain criticisms of Lieberman not just to Lamont supporters, but to the Lamont campaign. That's just a flat-out misrepresentation which should be corrected.
If you say he's owned by corporate interests and not beholden to the people of his state, then that's basically calling him out of touch.
And if Lieberman's beholden to corporate interests, who is Ned Lamont beholden to? You? Me? Or some Californian?
I know I'm inviting your wrath, here (again), but that seems like a legitimate question.
I liked Lowell Weicker's old campaign slogan: "Nobody's Man But Yours."
Thirdparty,
Split hairs all you like.
GC-
Financially, Ned Lamont is beholden mainly to the thousands of rank-and-file Democrats across the state and country who have given an average of less than $50 per person.
I'll take that base of grassroots support over the megamillions and private jet flights coming from corrupt energy companies and Washington lobbyists that are supporting Lieberman.
But continue to refuse to back up your assertions with evidence if you like.
I think Lamont is frankly asking to be held to a higher standard, here.
I think your way off base here GC and thirdparty pointed this out clearly.
And for disgruntled republican saying that Lamont's out-of=state fundraising is giving Lieberman fuel to throw on the fire is laughable when you look at Lieberman's numerous out-of-state fundraisers.
There's a huge difference getting help from grassroots organizations versus getting hooked up by huge corporations, conservative lobbyists and thinktanks. In any case, the criticism is who donatiing to Joe, not if he's receiving the money from out-of-state. I've been to numerous Lamont events and I've never heard him, his campaign, or pro-Lamont bloggers make a deal out of Joe raising cash out of state, they make a big deal out of the people who are donating to Joe.
I must say I'm somewhat dissapointed to see a double standard here.
"DeStefano is poised to announce a universal health care scheme for Connecticut today. I'll let you know as soon as I get more information."
The operative word here is Scheme. Becuases that exactly what Universal healthcare would be. A scheme designed to take tax dollars and choice out of the hands of nearly 90 percent of the population whom have adequate coverage and use it to fix a problem that affects 10-12 percent of the public.
Want to see how well Universal healthcare works, dont look at Europe or Canada, look at the plan in place in Tennessee....its a colossal failure......
Molotov,
How does my statement that throwing out sufficient healthcare for 90 percent of the population to fix the 10-12 percent that is broken make me "un Christian"? For that matter how do you even know I am a Christian? perhaps I am Jewish?
In any event. i agree we need t help those who have no coverage, but we dont scrap what works for the overwhelming majority. We find a solution targeted specifically and seperately for those uninsured. That can be done, by allowing those folks to gain access to and purchase coverage at rates that those of us who have corporate paid plans have. Thast th ekey everyone needs to pay....it cant be another entitlement. The majority of taxpayers cant afford that.
turfgrrl,
You say the medicaid part D prescription plan was reckless. Was it reckless for those folks ( a few whom I know) who know are able to purchase prescriptions drugs whereas they could not before? Is it perfect...no, is it a very good start, yes. Stop dreaming about Universal givernment funded healthcare, it aint happening, nor shoudl you want it to. As for it being a payoff toe the big bad Pharmaceutical companies. You lefties need a new line of attack.....big business is evil, thast the same old line you continue to use. Its business that creates jobs, its business that funds every major research project in this country today. Is bug business perfect, hell no. But there is no greater example of corruption than government. If you absolve your democratic leaders you choose to ignore both history and reality. You hero is Bill Clinton, one of the most unethical characters in american history. A liar to the core along with his wife. Wake up....
Post a Comment