Friday, September 08, 2006

Comment Trouble

No one has been able to post comments for an annoyingly long time. This has something to do with Blogger, but I don't know what. It has happened in the past, and has been fixed by someone who isn't me.

At this point, I'm trying different things. I'll post again when comments are back up.

Update: Comments working again!

16 comments:

Genghis Conn said...

Testing... comments seem to be working again. Maybe?

Chris MC said...

Well, this is a change. I hit the post a comment link, and it launched a separate window!

Am I the only one for whom this is a new experience (on blogger & CTLP)?

Perhaps this is what they were up to that caused the inability to post comments. But, why not do it at four in the morning?

Anyway...

Genghis Conn said...

This was always an option. In this case, it's how I convinced the site to let us comment again.

Now that it's here, I kinda like it.

cgg said...

It's like Haloscan.

Tim White said...

The Waterbury Rep-Am (by Gennady Sheyner) has
this online article today on our brave, new universe of blogging.

When I got called by the reporter last night, he was quite aware of CLP.

GC... you've made a big impact. As a voter, thanks.

As for the comments sections, as of 7am Sat morning, my blog still accepts comments the same way that CLP did yesterday.

truthteller06 said...

A POTENTIALLY DEVASTATING BREAKING STORY!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/nyregion/09LAMONT.html?_r=1&oref=login

Lieberman Points Out a Turnabout by Lamont
NEW HAVEN, Sept. 8 — Ned Lamont, who this week chastised Senator Joseph I. Lieberman for his public rebuke of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, wrote to Mr. Lieberman at the time praising the eloquence of his speech on the Senate floor.

“I supported your statement because Clinton’s behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end,” Mr. Lamont, then a cable television executive, wrote in an e-mail message to the senator’s Washington office on Sept. 16, 1998, two weeks after Mr. Lieberman’s speech.

THIS IS INCREDIBLE!!

How could Lamont forget that he wrote to Lieberman about this?! Did he think this wouldn't come out? This is a HUGE rookie mistake, and a potentially devestating one for his campaign.

This is a clear indicator that Lamont is nothing more than a say-anything to get elected candidate, even if it is CLEARLY not what he believes.

I hope some of you more liberal folks can actually take a step back and see this for what it is, and not try to spin it off as no big deal. HE LIED and should be held accountable.

And, just as a reminder, NED LAMONT is the person who brought up the Lewinsky Scandal in this race, NOT Joe Lieberman.

bluecoat said...

Lieberman denies White House funding
By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer
09/09/2006

Anonymous said...

Yes Tim I read the same article. I then checked out the info, and it was true, Zoni has a decent blog, but only has three contributors, but the info was current and issue based and informative. I think this is the future of bloggers. Caliguiri's web page is woefully outdated and offers nothing.

bluecoat said...

Caliguiri's comments about CT's past performance with regard to job creation seems to quote JDS rather than Team Rell on his webpage

Anonymous said...

Truthteller -

The actual letter is available online, and, in its entirety, I think it paints quite a different picture than what Lieberman was trying to say. It's not wuite clear why Medina wrote such a slanted article, she is usually rather fair to both sides.

Letter can be read here: javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/09/nyregion/09lamontweb1.ready.html', '720_890', 'width=720,height=890,location=no,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')

justinh said...

Hey truthteller06,

Check out the whole story, which shows in black-and-white how the Times totally took Lamont's comments out of context. Chump.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/9/14229/50615

justinh said...

Hey truthteller06,

Check out the whole story, which shows in black-and-white how the NYT article took Lamont's comments out of context. Chump.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/9/14229/50615

Truth Squad said...

LIEBERMAN CAMPAIGN CALLS OUT LAMONT HYPOCRISY
ON LIEBERMAN’S 1998 IMPEACHMENT SPEECH

HARTFORD – Lieberman for Senate Campaign Manager Sherry Brown issued the following statement today regarding Ned Lamont’s contradictory statements about Senator Joe Lieberman’s floor speech in 1998 on the impeachment proceedings against former President Bill Clinton:

“With each passing day, it becomes increasingly clear that Ned Lamont’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. He has run such a negative campaign up until this point that he had to reach back eight years to find something new to attack Joe Lieberman about — and in this case he was so desperate to lash out that he didn’t seem to care that he was completely contradicting himself.

“As the New York Times reported on Friday (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/nyregion/08conn.html?pagewanted=print), Ned Lamont directly attacked Senator Joe Lieberman for publicly voicing the views of many Democrats about President Clinton’s conduct in the Monica Lewinsky matter.

And as the Times reported today (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/nyregion/09LAMONT.html), these comments were completely at odds with the statement of support that Ned Lamont emailed to Senator Lieberman two weeks after Lieberman’s floor speech, in which Lamont said `Clinton’s behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and say as much.’

“Sadly, this is just the latest example of Ned Lamont’s hypocrisy. Earlier this week, he apparently became the first candidate in American history to take three different stands in a one-issue campaign.

“Speaking before reporters in Washington on Wednesday, Lamont rejected his own endorsement of a hard deadline for total withdrawal 10 months now, and instead endorsed a soft 18-month timetable in consultation with American military leaders. Then the very next day, in an email to supporters, Lamont’s campaign manager went back to calling for an ‘immediate withdrawal.’

“That just goes to show the clear choice that voters have in November. Do they want a leader who will stand by his principles and fight for what he believes is right for his constituents and his country? Or do they want someone who will say or do anything to get elected to the U.S. Senate?”

Below, please find a fact sheet about Joe Lieberman’s record on the impeachment proceedings against former President Clinton:
Joe Lieberman Stood by Bill Clinton
Joe Lieberman voted against impeaching President Clinton, and many prominent Democrats credit his statements with helping to save the Clinton Presidency.

Joe Lieberman Voted Against Impeaching President Clinton. Joe Lieberman voted “no” on both articles of impeachment brought against President Clinton. [Vote #17, 2/12/1999, Count 1, Failed 45-55, JL: N, Vote #18, Count 2, 50-50, 2/12/99; JL: N]


Lieberman Voted Against Calling Witnesses to Testify against Clinton. Joe Lieberman voted against Republican efforts to call Monica Lewinsky as a witness to testify against Bill Clinton. [Vote #10, Failed 30-70, 2/4/99, JL: N]

Lieberman Called Republican Efforts to Impeach the President “Unwise”. Lieberman called the Republican drive to impeach the President a unwise diversion that would limit the President’s ability to do his job. [Lieberman floor statement, 9/3/98]

Lieberman’s speech on Clinton is praised for helping his presidency:

Dodd said Lieberman “provided a great, great service.” “There was some grumbling around Washington that Lieberman had gone too far; Democratic consultant Victor Kamber, for instance, called the speech "grandstanding." The prevailing view, though, was offered by Dodd, who said the senator "provided a great, great service.’… By calling for official action against Clinton, but not immediately, Dodd said, Lieberman had allowed other Democrats to safely express anger while holding off any organized action against him.” (Hartford Courant, 9/5/1998, emphasis added)
Clinton Counsel Lanny Davis said “a lot of people around the Clinton White House thought – that Joe Lieberman saved Bill Clinton’s presidency.” “Lieberman enabled Democrats "to do a kind of pivot, to condemn Clinton's conduct without calling for his removal," Davis said. "I think now -- and a lot of people around the Clinton WhiteHouse thought -- that Joe Lieberman saved Bill Clinton's presidency by giving that speech . . . But Joe could have been destroyed. Clinton was beloved . . . But that's Joe. He went his own way. You go back to his start, and it was the same Joe, from the time he left Stamford." (Washington Post, 9/29/03)
President Clinton agreed with Lieberman. “Clinton told reporters in Ireland that, "Basically, I agree with what he [Lieberman] said. I've already said that I made a bad mistake, it was indefensible and I'm sorry about it." (Hartford Courant, 9/5/1998, emphasis added)

Lieberman was one of twenty-eight Democrats cosponsors the Feinstein censure resolution. Other sponsors included: Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Patty Murray and Carl Levin. (SR 44, 1999)

Anonymous said...

"truth"teller -

And, just as a reminder, NED LAMONT is the person who brought up the Lewinsky Scandal in this race, NOT Joe Lieberman.

Not unless NED LAMONT works for THE NEW YORK TIMES...

Seems they brought it up and then Joe's staff released an email they just happened to have waiting...

Asshattery of the highest order. And what's with the ALL CAPS?

Anonymous said...

And, take a look a the ENTIRE text of the letter, rather than just the NYT-hacked version...

How odd, the actuale letter doesn't seem to support the story at all.

But luckily for CT, and for America, the Clenis is back!

Anonymous said...

A recent letter from the Schlesinger campaign:

Here at the Alan Schlesinger campaign we would like to take the time to ask you to read the following article written in support of our Republican nominee for the US Senate. We appreciate the encouraging words and believe you would benefit from them as well.

In case of questions or concerns please call - (203)922-9900.

Alan Schlesinger's Day of Reckoning
With each passing day, Alan Schlesinger's quest for redemption does grow stronger. They can't go any lower and with any hope this will provide a lesson to many Connecticut Republicans in the fundamental laws of the political jungle.

Churchill once said, "an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last." Sadly many Republicans have adopted that tact with regard to Alan and Joe Lieberman, the man many will vote for to stop Ned Lamont from entering the world's premier debating society.

It isn't enough for some of these Vichy Republicans to vote for Lieberm an, a man who voted against Clarence Thomas after telling the man to his face he was with him, a man who voted against Judge Alito, who has fought tax cuts and been a reliable stooge of the labor unions and environmentalists that want us all to ride bicycles and reprocess our facial hair into sweaters.

No, that is not enough for these disciples of Marshal Petain, many of whom have done little in recent years to elect Republicans or offer them faint praise. Many of these are the type of Republicans who bitch about a $20 raffle ticket or the color of lawn signs, but when it comes to a national race, they are now instant experts worthy of appearances on Tim Russert or Chris Matthews. The sad truth is they have broken the 11th Commandment like the vile denizens of Babylon.

These Republicans have made it their business to humilia te a l oyal party man who actually wants to run for U.S. Senate, who traveled the lonesome road collecting delegates, who received a unanimous vote of the state convention and then pledged to put up $500 large of his own swag to match any contribution that met that limit.

Over the last month, town committees in Thomaston and Killingworth have rescinded their endorsements of Schlesinger, while in Wethersfield this past week, a tie vote spared him another arrow of betrayal. There are other rumblings, requiring Alan to run around to secure support that should be automatic if not motivated to play in a rare three-way battle that where no outcome is certain.

Someone has yet to tell Shy how a weak Alan Schlesinger is good for the Republican cause. It is easy to see how it is good for the Democratic cause. It should not be the job of Republicans to nominate or support Democrats who lose primaries, not matter what the impact on the Republic. If the people of this state truly believe Ned Lamont is their man, then we deserve him.

Maybe finally, that will wake the Republicans into being a party of ideals, of principles, of action, rather than appeasers or me-too Democrats who want all the goodies of incumbency but not the responsibilities of leadership.

If the Election were held today, Alan would probably receive around 22 percent of the vote by virtue of voter behavior, loyalty and closeness to Gov. Rell. 37 percent can win this election. Unaffilliated voters who are often fickle and do not make up their minds until the last 10 days of the campaign, hold the key. If Alan were permitted to be a candidate without having to watch his back for 16 hours a day, is it a stretch to see him convincing enough unaffilliated voters, Republicans and a few stray Democrats that he is a moderate, conservative and more than capable of being an effective U.S. Senator?

Let us put it another way. A can didate is introduced to you as a former legislator, a former Mayor, a lawyer without a blemish or complaint lodge against him, a gradate of the Wharton School and someone who wants to cut taxes and dust Iran if they get out of line. Is that someone that 37 percent of the people might take a marker on?

And Alan Schlesinger is not without honor. Two stories reflect that. In 1990, Alan was one of a half dozen Republicans seeking to replace John Rowland in Congress, who was running for Governor for the first time. The nominating convention came down to a murderous affair in Oxford. With the air conditioning failing at the Colonial Inn, ballot after ballot slowly whittled the competition down to Schlesinger, Steve Watson and Gary A. Franks.

Schl esinge r made a fateful error, releasing delegates he thought would knock out Franks and leave him alone with Watson, an aggressive but unproven foe. Instead, the delegates moved to Franks and Schlesinger was sunk. In his hands hung the nomination and he gave it to Franks, who went on to become the first African American Republican Congressman in 50 years.

Schlesinger could have primaried, but he didn't. The same was true a few years later when he sought the 5th Congressional nomination against Mark Nielsen, a state senator from Danbury. Alan lost, had enough to legitimately primary Nielsen, but took another one for the team.

Yes, Alan has his shortcomings. We all do. All candidates do. Joe Lieberman is duplcitous. Ned Lamont is a cipher and channel for some of the worst liberal elements in this state and country. But anyone who has seen Alan campaign can see he does have it. Let's let him have it or the c rocodi les will be eating well on November 8th.