Thursday, August 31, 2006


From the CT Post's Election Blog.

Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary to businessman Ned Lamont and is now running as an independent, sent letters to Lamont, Republican Alan Schlesinger, Green Party candidate Ralph Ferrucci and Concerned Citizens candidate Timothy Knibbs.

"Voters are eager to know what we will do to solve the problems affecting their daily lives," Lieberman wrote in his letter. He also said the candidates have an opportunity to set "a high standard for a new politics of civil engagement."

Most of the other candidates have already said they're willing to debate.

Personally I like the idea of having all of the candidates on the ballot being invited to the debate. It gives minor parties, who can't afford giant ad buys, a chance to present themselves to the voters. We've already seen Lamont and Lieberman debate face to face anyway.

I'm curious as to why Lieberman would want to debate at all. His performance in the one primary debate was less than stellar, and I won't even get into how terrible the now infamous VP debate was. Joe could potentially lose votes to both Lamont and Schlesinger.

How many debates should take place, and keeping in mind the number of candidates what format should be used?

Associated Press. "Lieberman calls on opponents to debate" Connecticut Post Election '06 Blog. 8/31/06


Anonymous said...

Also, the article points out that Joe's "challenge" to debate, comes after Lamont has already accepted debate offers!

I don't know if it will work but assume Joe's strategy is that Ned will get "lumped in" as one of the other crazy candidates and he'll stay "above the fray" as a senior statesman.

Don't know if it will work, could also just turn into Joe getting carved up from the left and right.

Having Green party could make Lamont appeal more to I's.

One thing I definately agree with you on, most of his strategic decisions have backfired so far!

FrankS said...

I don't recall Lieberman agreeing to debates with minor party candidates in his past debates, so it will be interesting to see if sponsor groups like the League of Women Voters or the The Day newspaper also change whom they invite.

Lieberman's photo opt appearances are being questioned by the regular media.

TrueBlueCT said...

Sorry, but I don't want to hear much from Ralph Ferrucci, or Tim Knibbs. All those two want is their 15 minutes of fame, and it would be bad precedent to give it to them.

Heck, I don't even think Schlesinger should be given the air time, not if he is polling at just 10% within his own party, and 4% overall. He's a joke.

So let the three clowns, Schlesinger, Ferrucci and Knibbs have their own forum. Make sure it gets televised. I might even watch, just for laughs.

But with so much at stake, shouldn't we have the real series of debates, that Connecticut deserves, without the distraction of also-rans. Save the prime time for Lamont and Lieberman only, please.

Tim White said...

Whether it hurts him or helps him, a debate is necessary. The voters deserve it.

GMR said...

Incumbents usually like to have all the small parties in the debate. It makes them look like the statesman, while the rest of the pack sort of muddles together, and has its share of nutty people.

However, while that may have worked when Lamont was an unknown, I don't think that'll work now, considering all the press that Lamont got, plus the fact that he did win the primary.

ctkeith said...

Every second Joe Liebermans Droopy face is in front of the people of CT. is a plus for Lamont.

The one fact that has held true since before Lamont entered this race is that exposure of Lieberman to the people of CT. drives his numbers down. This was true when Lieberman ran for President and it's true today.

Go look at Liebermans TV ads.Even his ad people knew to keep his mug off the tube as much as possible.

Shining Sunlight on Lieberman produces the same effect as it does on Dracula.

Lets have 3 debates a week.

TrueBlueCT said...

What's up with this blog when it takes over an hour for a comment to go up?

Can we consider going back to the way it was before Turfgrrl left?

With four front-pagers in a capacity to remove offensive comments, what's the downside by going back to live debate?

cgg said...

Trueblue Ferruci and Knibbs are on the ballot, and actually placed about Lieberman's name. They may only get fifteen minutes but since they made the effort to actually get on the ballot I say they deserve them.

TrueBlueCT said...


I disagree. They have no shot of winning, so don't let them take precious time away from the real contenders.

Give them their own hour on CT-N.

But to have a debate where 60% of the talking is done by 3 candidates with less than a collective 5% in the polls, well, it's just stupid.

Anonymous said...

Lieberman and you could put a cardboard cutout of Lamont for a debate.

Ned is a broken record He really needs to think of something new to say other than Lets Leave Iraq every two seconds.

The True Gentleman said...

I tend to agree with TrueBlueCT here. I would only invite the major party candidates plus the incumbent. I don't really care what Ferrucci and Knibbs say either. (TrueBlueCT, to continue with my trend of full disclosure for you, I want you ro know that I oppose drilling in ANWAR as well as coastal drilling and would like to see more wind energy developed).

Anonymous said...

TG - I am surprised that you have taken this position.

TBCT - I expected nothing less.

Basically, your idea of democracy is: if you can win, then I want to hear from you.

Continually squashing on the rights of third party candidates only hurts democracy. Our system works better if we the people are given more information, not less.

TG, you said: "I don't really care what Ferrucci and Knibbs say either." Does that mean they shouldn't have the same right to speak at a public debate of the issues as any other candidate. Guess what, I am voting for Jodi Rell for Governor and I could care less what DeStefano has to say. Using your logic, I don't think JDS should be invited.

And TBCT said: "They have no shot of winning, so don't let them take precious time away from the real contenders."

Well, guess what TBCT, JDS has no real shot at winning either. I don't care what you think, he is going to lose. So, according to your logic, he can't come and waste our precious time, when it could be better spent listening to other debates, say the Congressional races.

Did you ever think that 3d party candidates have less of a chance of winning because people like you do not want to invite them to debates?

One last question for you TG & TBCT: the Republican candidates for Congress in the 1st & 3d Districts stand no real chance of winning; given that fact, then you both believe that there should not be a debate, right?

TG, you need to re-think this one.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Strategically, this is what I would advise a candidate to do if he or she is ahead.

The debate's impact is diluted. The debate about the debate, if there is one, is about how the other guy wants to be less inclusive. (Debates about debates are always good for front-runners, because it again freezes the race.)

This tells you much more about Joe's internal polling than anything else.

TrueBlueCT said...

Hey, I'll listen to Ferrucci or Knibbs. But I'm a political junkie. What I'm meant to say is that the three clowns are fringe candidates, and while they should be given a legitimate forum, they ought not be part of the real debate, which will be between Lamont and Lieberman.

According to your logic, the Bush/Kerry debates should have been burdened with Ralph Nader, the Reform Party candidate; Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate; Michael Peroutka, the Constitution Party candidate; and David Cobb, the Green Party candidate. And if you were feeling really generous, you could have thrown in a dozen more.

Ideally I'm for George Bush debating Cobb, Nader, Badnarik and Peroutka. Honest I am. But when it came down to the business of electing our next President, the saner argument was for a Bush v. Kerry debate.

But disagree if you want.

Planet Patriot said...

Americans need to fear this. . .It's none other than the notorious:

JOE BUSH a.k.a. The Monstrous Morph!

Click on the link to see the evil evidence. . .

Warn Everyone!

(This message not endorsed by Joe Lieberman, George W. Bush, the Republican Party, their supporters or donors. Any similarity to persons living or dead is entirely intentional.)

Blog On

The True Gentleman said...

I'll stand by my position that I only want to hear candidates from major party's (and, if an incumbent is not actually from a major party anymore) or, if a minor party candidate is polling well, I'd add him/her as well. I understand the premise that anyone on the ballot deserves to be heard, and it is a very valid point because it adds certain challenges to the front-runners. However, I personally believe that this race is between Senator Lieberman and Mr. Lamont, with Mr. Schlesinger on the outside (the poll numbers really hurt the argument that the GOP has a major party candidate in this race). There is no disrespect intended for Mr. Ferrucci or Mr. Knibbs - I just personally believe that a three-person debate is easier to moderate (and therefore might result in better comments) than a five-person debate (where the time allocated per response would be less). If all candidates end up in the debate I'm not going to throw a hissy fit though...

Anonymous said...

i agree with trueblue at 8:48... GC... let's dump the moderation temporarily. CTLP is losing some steam because of it.

And can’t you delete comments anyway? So just delete the really obnoxious ones as they appear. I’m sure all of us will draw attention to them.

GMR said...

I'd also like to see comment moderation dropped so the discussions here can be a bit more lively...

disgruntled_republican said...

If only you guys knew how many comments that arent appropriate came in...

As for the debates...I tend to agree with not invite the "fringe" candidates but it also depends on the number of debates...for instance, if there are three I beleive they should be invited to participate in one. Other than that, the major paries and serious U's or other parties. I agree we should have a chance to hear them all but if they don;t have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, why bother? Let the folks who do have a chance battle for the undecided votes.

Billy said...

What are you libs afraid of? That the green party candidate will actually seem even MORE liberal (if its possible) than Ned Lament and your little darling might lose some of his hard core lib votes as he tries to center out his campaign? I say let them ALL debate.

The True Gentleman said...

Billy, your comment is way off because I am certainly not a liberal...

cgg said...

TG you could always convert. :)

I like multiple candidates participating in the debates because ideally I'd like to see at least three competitive political parties in the US. Currently the playing field isn't fair and an upstart party or candidate doesn't have a chance in hell most of the time. If you're on the ballot, the least we can do is to give you and those who signed for you a chance to debate.

Anonymous said...

TG... inappropriate comments... but can't you delete them even after they're posted? sorry to harp on it, but if it's possible to get rid of moderation, i think it'd be good.

justinh said...

disgruntled_republican said...

"if they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, why bother?"

Of course, part of the reason they don't have a snowball's chance is BECAUSE they aren't allowed to debate. (Along with other electoral obstacles set up by the two parties.)