Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Open Forum

Rasmussen polls are finally public. Gubernatorial, U.S. Senate (general) and U.S. Senate (primary).

Interesting show today on WTIC, looks like.

And now Nancy Johnson is questioning Schlesinger's candidacy. Still waiting for the latest round of revelations.

What else is happening?

86 comments:

BRubenstein said...

These polls accurately reflect the Q Poll and other evidence( reg of voters have indicated higher then usual u to d's and AB's.)...JDS is well ahead of DM and Lamont is building even a greater lead against Joementum...

Genghis Conn said...

It's hard to call the gubernatorial race, because of the number of voters who haven't made up their minds (50%).

disgruntled_republican said...

GC-

Where do you see that 50% number?

Genghis Conn said...

In the latest Q-Poll:

17. (If candidate choice given 16) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?

Made up 48%
Might change 51 %

For Lamont/Lieberman, the numbers are:

Made up 79%
Might change 19%

disgruntled_republican said...

Oh...I thought you were talking about Rassmussen...my bad!

Genghis Conn said...

Nowhere near CT, but this is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

BRubenstein said...

There is nothing new that GC is presenting..in my past experience with statewide efforts the 50% is about what is to be expected by this time of year. The 50% will change alittle and some will flock to the winner of the 8/8 primary....then after labor day folks will gauge both candidates and it will all start to sort out then...

Genghis Conn said...

That's D likely voters, though.

bluecoat said...

Some stuff from USAToday about the congressional race and Iraq in this one is the reminder the Rep walter Jones(R-NC) who once worked to ban french fries from the Capitol cafeteria in lieu of freedom fries now wants a troop pullout from Iraq.

turfgrrl said...

Of course is the liberal left actually showed up to vote these polls might mean something. But just as Kerry and Dean learned the day after, there is nothing more deflating than finding out what people say they are going to do and what people actual do can be two different things.

Lamont has been unable to raise money. That is far more telling about his support than a likely voter poll. Sure, the constant drum beat of anti-war, anti-Lieberman noise was bound to take its toll on poll perception. But the constant Lieberman watching has also obscured the fact that Lamont is nothing more than an cardboard candidate, unable to formulate an opinion on the crisis in Lebanon. In fact, when asked about it, Lamont just talks about Iraq. There is nothing on Lamont's web site to indicate he even knows where Lebanon is. In fact his web site is devoted to covering Joe Lieberman.

Candidates with real interests in public policy should be able to converse and discuss current events. Lamont has yet to do that.

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl...you are hilarious..i laughed for 10 minutes..as if you have any experience to properly interpret polls..

Lamont has raised alot of money from thousands of people in small denominations...unlike your candidate who is a whore for the very wealthy and the corporations and has just raked in the dough.

Its clear to me that Joementum is the candidate that doesnt know where Lebanon is ..call the town chair of Lebanon..they have never seen Joe there in many many years..

bluecoat said...

Didn't Kerry take CT and aren't we talking about CT voters here?

turfgrrl said...

brusbenstein-- $1.1 million of Lamont money is Lamont money. Keep laughing. I notice you have nothing to say about the fact that Lamont can't stray off his handlers spoon fed talking points. Tsk, tsk, surely you must think that there's more to Lamont than just him being a Greenwich dimwit. Are you imagining now what a policy discussion might be like between your idol Destefano? I am and the word farce comes to mind.

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat -- Same polling outfits.

bluecoat said...

I found
href="http://nedlamont.com/issues/627/situation-in-the-middle-east">this on Lebanon in the Middle East at Ned's website but nothing on Lebanon, CT.
I couldn't find anything about Lebanon on Joe's - about any issue - maybe he expects us to go to his official senate site. There is also a Lebanon in Pennsylvania where you can get Lebanaon Bologna - it's good stuff.

The True Gentleman said...

I can't wait to read union leaders John DeStefano and Rosa DeLauro's imminent press release concerning Quinnipiac University's decision to abolish its faculty union. (The article is posted HERE).

disgruntled_republican said...

turfgrrl -

I have disagree with you to an extent. When you read my comments keep in mind I am not voting for Lamont or Lieberman...and if stays the same as now will actually be writing in a name...The polling numbers are an acurate guage of how things will turn-out...close. I imagine that if it was your candidate in the lead, you would like the numbers and not question them. Furthermore, Bruce is right on with his assertaion that Lamont has more individual donors and that meaning more than the big business money Joe has. It shows the support he has within the community.

I also think that these folks are more likely to come out to vote vs. Joe's supporters...people fighting for a cause usually are. Bruce's research about absentee ballots and U to D is also correct (yes, I realize you didn;t question it) as I have checked myself...its actually pretty amazing. Not really sure who it is for though, Joe has always been strong in absentee ballots.

I am not going to get into the issues the 2 of them have because I don;t agree with either of them on most topics but just wanted to dispute what you say about the polling info.

The True Gentleman said...

"There is also a Lebanon in Pennsylvania where you can get Lebanaon Bologna - it's good stuff." Good call, Bluecoat.

bluecoat said...

Rutro, bad link up there here's another try for Lamont on Labanon and the Middle East situation in general

Anonymous said...

Brucey- who the heck are you to question whether or how someone interprets a poll? I'm relatively sure that most people who post on here have had somethign to do with campaigns, past or present. Past, long past, in your case. Turrfy makes a decent point, and since it flies in the face of your stance, you fall back on the old lawyers trick of, 'When all else fails, attack the witness's credibility.' I'm fairly certain that there are many people who read and/or post on this blog who are far more qualified than you to interpret polls, give advice, or take candidates to task, yet none of them seek to underscore their political blandishments as you do with nearly each passing day. No one thinks less or more of your from your past exploits--and your shouldn't think less or more of anyone else.

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat -- Read it, it's about Iraq. It's not failed Bush policies in Iraq that have lead Israel to to unilaterally attack civilians and tragically children. Regurgitating talking points and simply relabeling them is the kind of high school term paper stunt, not a candidate for Senate.

turfgrrl said...

disgruntled_republican-- Lamonts individual donors, come form out fo state, 70% according to the Advocate. Yep, that's some groundswell of Lamont support. SO let's see he throws $1.1 million of his own money in his campaign, and still, still 70% of his money come from out fo state? Or is that 70% of what left, after his money gets taken out. Either way, it says a small minority supports Lamont enough to give him money.

I actually don't know what is going to happen on August 8th, but I think apathy trumps anger. Surely we all remember the 2004 presidential election, where anger about Bush and the Iraq war were supposed to drive people to the polls? Well, it turned out that the anger evaporated then, so what's to say that it won't this time around?

IvyElitist said...

So Chris Murphy and others are upset that Ned might spoil things for them? Too bad Chris, you will be left out because of your support for Joe. I thought you were with us but you were on stage supporting Joe W. Liberman.

disgruntled_republican said...

Turfgrrl-

Go count the nunmber of donors. You can kick and scream at me all you want, I am just saying I disagree.

Beyond that, Lamont's campaign has been 100 times more impressive then Joe's...plain and simple. By the way, Do think Joe put any of his own money into any of his campaigns? It's the first thing they teach you in any "campaign college"...invest in yourself before you ask others to.

As for 2004...totally different cicumstance first of all...this is US Senate not the Presidency. Next, a HUGE part of W's win was an amaving GOTV strategy by Karl Rove. Normally I would agree with you on the apathy but in this instance I think you are wrong and for that Joe just may pay the price. We'll see.

janes1978 said...

Chris, I gotta tell you I agree with Ivy-one thing to support Joe on his website, another to show your support on stage for him. Where Chris do you stand on the war? Are you for or against?

TrueBlueCT said...

the blind leading the blind, or in this case, the blind following the blind?

How can a front page poster be so completely out of touch? Yesterday a local TV station reported there were 140 U to D's in Vernon CT.

Hmmm, let's think for a moment. Are these voters, --who don't ordinarily want to be affiliated with a political party,-- signing up as Democrats in order to vote for middle-of-the-road Joe? ('cause Lamont is too Republican plus he has left-wing whacko support!)

Or are the U to D's people disgusted with this war, and career politicians like Lieberman?

The writing is on the proverbial wall. Read it and weep.

GMR said...

Surely we all remember the 2004 presidential election, where anger about Bush and the Iraq war were supposed to drive people to the polls? Well, it turned out that the anger evaporated then, so what's to say that it won't this time around?

There were some differences between 2004 nationally and 2006 today.

First, Iraq was but one of many issues. You may say that's the same today, but in reality, there's little difference in Lamont's and Lieberman's stances otherwise. Yes, Lieberman voted to end the filibuster, but this may have part of a calculated strategy so that the nuclear option wouldn't be invoked.

Second, Kerry really had no coherent policy on Iraq. Lamont doesn't need to spell this out as much: he's not running for President, but for one of 100 Senate slots.

Third, Iraq is passionately disliked by the core Democrat base. There may be many Republicans and Independents who don't like it, but it's not the most important issue. I bet if you did an exit poll of Lamont voters, the Iraq war would be #1 on their list of issues.

carlosj1985 said...

Chris, I'd send this to your blog but you won't answer - why would you thumb your nose at Lamont and the Nedheads when you know he will be the Dem candidate? How will you explain to voters that you were for Joe and against the war and then for Ned on August 10th?

turfgrrl said...

disgruntled_republican -- No, I don't think Lieberman put his own money into the campaign, why should he, he's an incumbent with pretty good fund raising capabilities. But, seeing where the donations come from is important in that it's another datapoint. SInce CT hasn't had a primary of Senate candidates in awhile, and not to mention the August date, there's only so many ways you can interpret polls. I'm not trying to argue with you over interpretations, just wanted to defend my position on why I think the polls can be misleading.

I'll agree on Rove's amazing GOTV strategy though. But then any time you can manipulate people with terror alerts running up to an election, you can motivate fear. But he didn't originate that idea now, did he. :)

TrueBlueCT said...

And oh yeah, I forgot. A direct quote from NBC's Gloria Berger whom I met at a block party in New Haven.

She said, "I'm having a difficult time with this piece. I can't find any Lieberman supporters. Do you know if anyone here is a Lieberman person?"

I responded, "outside of the usual cronies, and of course the occasional Republican, ummm, no I don't. Good luck with your story!"

MikeCT said...

Nancy Johnson not only called for Schlesinger to drop out. She nearly endorsed Joe Lieberman, calling him "good for Connecticut."

The Journal Inquirer has a report on the Rasmussen poll and some notes on methodological differences.

"There's no doubt that Senator Lieberman's support is declining and Mr. Lamont's support is growing," Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, said Monday, adding that strong antiwar sentiment, particularly within the Democratic Party, continues to hurt Lieberman.

chevygirl1492 said...

I can hear the giant sucking sound coming out of Murphy's campaign.

CC said...

IvyElitist:

First of all, I give you kudos for the name.

As far as your comment about Murphy, how can you blame the guy? If not for Lamont sucking up the media attention, Dem challengers like Murphy would instead be getting the puff pieces that would help them out. Challengers like Murphy have a real shot -- unlike Lamont in the general election -- at winning and you can't blame them for seeing this as a missed opportunity.

amazins860 said...

Anyone see the new Johnson ad about Murphy raising taxes 27 times? 3 billion dollars is a lot to raise taxes.

disgruntled_republican said...

Turfgrrl -

You said, "SInce CT hasn't had a primary of Senate candidates in awhile, and not to mention the August date, there's only so many ways you can interpret polls."

Fair enough...you should have said that in your post originally.

Still disagree on the scare tactics but we aren't gonna get anywhere with that...:-P

CC said...

amazins860: Where can we see the ad?

TrueBlueCT said...

Let's see, a relative unknown is riding an anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, anti-incumbent message to unbelievable heights, -- yet some of you think Murphy would rather be hanging out with Lieberman?

Dream on.

And none of you anonymous Republicans are going to drive a wedge between Lamont people and our Congressional challengers. Sorry, I adore Murphy, Farrell and Courtney, even while I am sometimes critical of them. After August 8th all will be forgotten as we join forces on the way to a Democratic sweep!

Anonymous said...

Turff -

How can you criticize the 70% of Lamont donations from out of state while not mentioning the 82% of Lieberman donations that come from out of state? Also, notice the number of donors - over 15K for Lamont.

While you can (mis)interpret the polls all you want, talking about the donor numbers in this way is completely disingenuous.

disgruntled_republican said...

Hey TrueBlueCt-

Been a while since I had something for ya...you said,

"Sorry, I adore Murphy, Farrell and Courtney, even while I am sometimes critical of them. After August 8th all will be forgotten as we join forces on the way to a Democratic sweep!"

Well, quite simply, to use your own words..."Dream On"!

Micah Heftman said...

Hey guys.

Just wanted to share the campaign's newest commercial with the community.

It can be viewed over on YouTube -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQE41Y8LPUI

This is the second of many ads that the campaign is going to be rolling out over the next 2 weeks in the run-up to August 8th.

Hope you enjoy it!

turfgrrl said...

Anonymous 2:45--Because the 82% figure was for May & June only for Lieberman and the 70% figure was not. You can't compare to different time periods. It's not a criticism, btw, its a fact.

TrueBlueCT said...

Disgruntled--

If you can't see that 2006 is shaping up to be one heckuva "throw the bums out" year, I don't know what to tell ya.

Do some Googling about the Congressional landscape. Plenty of traditionally safe Republican House seats are suddenly in play. I'm suggesting this could well be our 1994.

Anecdotally, my very Republican father has apologized to me for having voted for George Bush, and he even went on to say he'd be voting for the Democrat in the congressional race! (swing seat in North Carolina.)

What it all means is that it's time for a change. The GOP has screwed up the country pretty badly, and it's obviously time to say good-bye to the Neo-Cons, Tom Delay, and the politics of division.

turfgrrl said...

disgruntled_republican-- heh. :)

The True Gentleman said...

Nice ad, Micah. It's refreshing to watch political ads not attacking anyone.

Anonymous said...

truebluect said: "And none of you anonymous Republicans are going to drive a wedge between Lamont people and our Congressional challengers."

You have no clue! Lamont supporters are Ds, and Rs don't win races by getting D votes. Rs like Johnson, Shays and Simmons win with a combination of R & U votes. The Us that will be voting for Lieberman on the 4th line will have no problem moving up to vote for those Rs, whereas traditionally they may have stayed on the straight D line this year. The sheer hypocracy of people like Murphy and Farrell (good for Courtney not to show up for Lieberman) first they support Joe, then they don't, will come back to haunt them in the general election. The U voters in CT is a lot smarter than those D challengers give them credit for!

Anonymous said...

Turff:

Right you are. So, including the most recent filings, Joe is down to only 79.6% of contribs from out-of state. http://opensecrets.org/politicians/geog.asp?CID=N00000616&cycle=2006

That is still significantly more than Ned.

Also, note that only 1 of the top 5 and 4 of the top 10 zip codes are in CT.

BRubenstein said...

Disgruntled..i am glad you checked the u to d's and the AB's in at least one town..thats how "pro's" get a fix on the field ops of campaigns before voting day, as you know...

I agree that Rove is a genius...but Atwater his mentor was even better..

The unusually heavier u to d's and AB's mean that they are " Lamont induced" ..i checked with one of Joe's inner circle..he isnt even doing either program ...but is collecting signatures for what surely is his november swan song.

The True Gentleman said...

Oh, it is all clear to me now, TrueBlueCT. I am going to head right over to Town Hall and change my party affiliation.

BRubenstein said...

Dear Anon 1:57

I know who you are...

You are too scared to post under your name anymore?

Your posts under Anon will be discounted by everyone and you have no experience either.

CC said...

Disgruntled: Tom Delay is already gone!

disgruntled_republican said...

TrueBlueCT-

You don't seem to take into account the trends of Connecticut voters. They tend to vote pretty independently as can be seen by 3 Republican Congressmen and a Republican Governor.

amazins860 said...

CC,the ad was all over the place last night.

Jawelcome said...

I'm happy to report that the Ned Lamont Meet & Greet across town at Vasi's restaurant was a huge success--definitely much bigger than we planned for. Those of us involved in inviting people to the event were hoping for 50 people or so, especially with the competition from the former president being in town. By the end of the night, approximately 125 people stopped by to meet Ned. It amazes me how fast his campaign has grown and how much support Ned now has from regular voters. Even on a night when President Clinton was in town, 125 people jammed into a restaurant to meet Ned Lamont. Even in Waterbury, where there has been a lot of support for Lieberman in the past. That explains a lot more to me about the strength of Ned Lamont's support in Waterbury and the rest of the 5th Congressional district-- a lot more than any poll can show. Lieberman's strength lies in the cities. Hearing about the event in Waterbury should be worrisome for Lieberman's campaign. People may say that 125 is nothing compared to the 1600 or so that showed up to see Clinton/Lieberman, but as I think has been mentioned earlier in this blog, (1) most people went to see President Clinton and not Joe Lieberman, and (2) 125 people showing up to meet Ned Lamont in Waterbury at a restaurant on any other day is front page news in the Waterbury Republican-American.

bluecoat said...

Turffgrrl, as I said I couldn't find anything about Lebanon on Liebrman's campaign web and I just checked his official Senate web and found nothing there either. You said there was nothing on Lamont's website to indicate he knows where it(Lebanon) is, but I found something and I did read it and linked it too; below is just part of what it says on Lebanon, evn if it is a term paper, your original assertion was not true:All Americans want the kidnapped soldiers to be returned and this cycle of violence to end, based on the principles of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004, which calls for Hezbollah militias to be disbanded and disarmed, with the government of Lebanon taking full control of all of its territory. It is not for the United States to dictate to Israel how it defends itself. Nor is it my place to make tactical recommendations to the president. But I do have some strategic suggestions about what our country should do moving forward.

After the fighting stops, the President needs to reengage in this part of the world and work on a peace settlement and a response to the humanitarian concerns in Gaza and elsewhere. We should not seek to impose a resolution on Israel. But peace between Israel and its neighbors must be a priority.

Without negotiating with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, President Bush and the Secretary of State ought to be working on a peace settlement with Israel, the Palestinians and others who might help. The outlines of a peace agreement are there; both sides agree: land for recognition, peace and security.

Other Presidents have made progress in this difficult region. There’s no reason why this President should not reverse course and become engaged for peace,

BRubenstein said...

Our 3 democratic congessional candidates dug themselves a ditch by proclaiming that they are anti war yet cling to Joementum at every opportunity....Its rather obvious that the greatest harm to the 3 of them will come to them when Joe occupies the independant line in November...If any of them loses they should place the blame exactly where it belongs..right on Liberman for being the sleazy,self-serving person that he is.Someone with party loyalty and integrity would have agreed to follow the votes on 8/8 and be guided by them.

Genghis Conn said...

Good, positive ad, Micah. I like it.

mikey51485 said...

I saw the new Johnson ad last night during Seinfeld. YIKES!!! This looks like trouble for Murphy, I wonder if he will respond?

bluecoat said...

BR: it is my understanding that Dodd is one of farrell's key mentors; there will be plenty of blame to go around and, for Farrell, the biggest blame belongs on her shoulders for openly demonstrating her lack of priniples just to get elected.

The True Gentleman said...

So now it will be Senator Lieberman's fault if the three Dem-challengers are defeated in November? That makes sense because it's simply not possible that a majority of the voters actually prefer the incumbents to the challengers. These blame-everything on Lieberman arguments are really getting lame.

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat..Dodd hasnt agreed to support the winner of the August 8th primary....yet he is running for President....this all will come back to bite him on the ass also.When he calls me looking for money and support i will tell him i cant support someone who isnt loyal to the Democratic Party..and to go see former Senator Lieberman for money and support.

BRubenstein said...

TTG....Notwithstanding that one candidate is seemingly better than another, you know as well as i do that there will be a drift of democratic support away from the congressional candidates by Joementum doing this...

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat -- You are demonstrating an appalling lack of reading comprehension, but no matter. Lamont served of recycled Iraq comments. Do you think he can ever venture of talking points to form a real opinion?

bluecoat said...

turffgrrl: I rarely came away from listening to one of Bill Clinton's spins with the impression that he wanted me to comprehend either.

Anonymous said...

Brucie, why on earth would Dodd call you? You haven't given to him since 1992.

Anonymous said...

turfgrrl,

I searched a few relevant websites for the keyword "lebanon" and the results were revealing. (One thing they revealed is that you obviously did not bother searching the Lamont website before posting the comment "There is nothing on Lamont's web site to indicate he even knows where Lebanon is.")

At lieberman.senate.gov = Produces a link to the State Department travel warning for Americans travelling to Lebanon. (Hint. Don't go there.) The next most recent document is a May 2005 press release about terrorist groups involved in distribution of counterfeit goods.

At joe2006.com = No hits.

At nedlamont.com = The detailed page on the Lebanon crisis that an earlier poster linked to.

So far it appears that of the two candidates, Ned Lamont is the only one that has anything to say about Lebanon.

turfgrrl said...

brubenstein--Still pimping that tent big enough for one? I suppose you'd prefer that all three Democratic Congressional candidates lose? Let's see, how this squares, the Bush administration has run amok in spending, creates the largest expansion of government in years and has mangled enough foreign policy to make James Buchanon look like a great president. So you think now is the time to run a litmus test on Democratic candidates? Riiight, well now that we know you support inept governance, your tithe to Lamont makes sense.

Anonymous said...

The decision has been made by Rell and others to make believe they want AS out...weaken him..but let him stay in..knowing he will lose...and hoping Lamont wins..so Jodie or a designee can take him on and out in 2112.

bluecoat said...

Here's some stuff on Lebanon Bologna that is most germaine to the thread for all to comprehend fromSeltzers, a manufacturer, and Wikipedia

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl....seems to me that YOU are afraid to put YOUR money where your mouth is...

I offer you the same wager opportunity that ive offered Chris Mc in the past....

Show me how strongly you believe in Joementum and DM...

Have the guts and courage of YOUR convictions for once instead of offering us blarney.


Lets put up $500 per race..I will take Lamont and JDS to win and YOu can bet on your candidates...OK? or are you gonna slink and crawl away like Chris Mc did?

The True Gentleman said...

Anon 4:05, what exactly is it that Ned Lamont has said/written about Lebanon that a junior high school student couldn't have said/written?

There has been instability in the Middle East longer than the Iraq War has been going on, so I'm missing the point here. If a candidate wants to appeal to the masses, he/she should really try (just once) to actually put forth a position that is accompanied by a plan, not just some "your policy is bad" rhetoric.

bluecoat said...

TG: the point was that turffgrrl said what she said about Lamont's webpage and it wasn't true; the right, wrong or depth of his policy is not in play here, or at least it wasn't at the outset with her comment.

TrueBlueCT said...

GENGHIS--

Please help! I thought the move to comment moderation was so people wouldn't being taking pot-shots at each other.

This invective against Bruce is just plain lousy.

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, I just put it into play. Whether or not turfgrrl's comment was accurate or not I don't care, I was writing in response to Anon 4:05's comment that "So far it appears that of the two candidates, Ned Lamont is the only one that has anything to say about Lebanon." My point was (and still is), that Ned Lamont didn't say/write anything about Lebanon - he might have typed the letters that spell out the country's name, but he didn't say/write anything that remotely resembles a plan or policy.

bluecoat said...

turrfgrrl: there's a discussion over at
href="http://kevinsullivan.blogspot.com/2006/07/drunk-and-back-on-road.html">L.G. Kevin Sullvan's blog
that gets in to the need for doing something about CT's IT problems; how about joining in and help to striaghten things out?

turfgrrl said...

brubenstein --Maybe you should seek out Schlesinger, he seems to be more the gambling type. But I'm surprised that you would publicly flaunt your wagering in a blog, isn't your incumbent team busy trying to clamp down on internet gambling? Or does this mean you'll support Farrell, Murphy and Courtney if they support internet gambling?

Anonymous said...

Ummm...TrueBlue...if you would actually read the thread, you'd see that it's Bruce who is spewing invective...no one else.

(Unless you didn't understand what the word 'invective' means--in which case, I'm sorry)

bluecoat said...

TG, turffgrrls spin notwithstanding, you mean like:Rice Seeks 'Urgent and Enduring' Peace because Israel Hits Hezbollah Stronghold in Beirut now that Jul 25, 4:39 PM EDTBush: New Plan Better for Baghdad Security as Jul 25, 3:14 PM EDT Heat Wave Death Toll Rises or can we just talk about Lebanon Bologna?

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl...see..you dont have any courage of whatever convictions you might have....how can anyone treat you or what you say seriously when you run away like Chris Mc..

The True Gentleman said...

Bluecoat, while a conversation about lebanon bologna is definitely a more safe topic, I prefer details. If Anon 4:05 is entitled to question turfgrrl's comment, his/her comment is also open for dissection - which I did.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone here actually DO WORK FOR A LIVING?

Sakes alive... Our State's inability to attract new employment may in fact be linked to the incredible waste of brain power you all partake in daily during work hours...

And I suspect your exercise habits aren't much better...

Put down the damn mouse and go for a walk.

xoxo,
Mom

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat-- Rice is a joke of a Secretary of State to begin with. There is no foreign policy coming out of this Bush administration, it might interrupt Rove's midterm election strategy.

anon 4:05 said...

TG,

You are correct, Lamont has not proposed a detailed plan for resolving the crisis in Lebanon. I didn't intend to imply otherwise. (And re-reading my original post, I should not have used the word "detailed.")

The purpose of my post was to point out the inaccuracy of turfgrrl's original post.

I do think it's odd that Senator Lieberman's campaign apparently has nothing to say about Lebanon. One guess at a reason might be that he recognizes the dilema posed by the fact that the Iraqi government our troops are defending shares political and religious ideology with Hezbollah.

The True Gentleman said...

Thanks for the clarification, Anon 4:05.

Anonymous said...

Bruce, get over yourself. Some people are forced to post anonymously since they CURRENTLY hold "Senior Operative" status in campaigns. They aren't cowards because they call you out without giving their names - they have people paying them for their political ideas and can't risk losing those jobs or their reputations to bicker on-line with a has-been. If you were so great at what you do, or rather, did, you would be working right now. There are hundreds of campaigns going on in the state, yet you put forth your political platitudes here...for free. So contact the FBI or whomever because someone is ripping you without giving their name. You might think to recover some of your own flagging respect by not posting under your own name every thought that pops into your head.

Elmo P. Doodle said...

Anonymous said...

Bruce, get over yourself. Some people are forced to post anonymously since they CURRENTLY hold "Senior Operative" status in campaigns.


It does show no creativity on their part however

Chris MC said...

Brucie boy -
run away like Chris Mc..
You should have figured out three years ago that I don't run away.

Really now, "oh yeah? ya wanna bet?! no? chicken?!". It's pathetic.

So, as you constantly demonstrate to me that you're no challenge, for the most part I just ignore you.

You should stop flattering yourself and trying so hard to impress the people who don't actually know you yet - you're certain to disappoint in the end.