Monday, October 16, 2006

The Alan Schlesinger Show

Alan Schlesinger won the debate. He came out swinging. He forced both Lieberman and Lamont to waste valuable time on the defensive. He had fun. More important, he was fun to watch.

Lieberman and Lamont both gave a respectable, if uninspired showing. Lamont did his best to tie Lieberman to the Bush administration; while Lieberman made a point of including the phrase "bi-partisan politics" into nearly every answer he gave. Ned didn't make any waves, but in the future I'd like to see a more assertive stance from him. Lieberman seemed to focused on the past, not someone looking towards the future.

It was Alan Schlesinger's Day.

When the debate was over I attended Schlesinger's press availability. He took the time to answer some questions from traditional media as well as bloggers.

I asked Schlesinger what he wanted people who had just seen him for the first time to know about him and his campaign.

All I can say is listen closely in these debates, watch who's telling you the truth, watch who's trying to sidestep questions, watch who's trying to be the politician, and who's just trying to give you a straight answer. That's what I want people to look at.

Schlesinger believes that because of his performance in the debate the media will now pay attention to his candidacy.

I believe now, if the press gives me a change, if they'll listen to my message, if they'll let Republicans know, that they can have a choice. They don't have to vote for a liberal Democrat. I believe I will win this election.

Ned Lamont probably didn't win any votes today, but he certainly didn't lose any. Joe Lieberman can't say the same. If Alan Schlesinger's poll numbers go up, they're coming right out of Joe Lieberman's pocket.


Anonymous said...

I don't know, CGG.....

I want Alan to do well -- am watching the debate now...

He is coming across as a horse's ass... Not to say that he doesn't have some good, valid points, but there is no gravitas -- he comes across as a goofball and not senate material.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many kleenex Jodi had to hand to Joe while she explained that she Really Really thought Alan would roll over.LOL

Poor Joe was rejected by the Dems in a primary and today he had to face a real Republican.

Kiss that Senate seat goodbye Joe.Either of the other men on stage would be an improvement over you.

Genghis Conn said...

I just watched some of the rerun of this debate. Schlesinger was... well, weirdly, he was kind of refreshing. I think he may have just bought himself ten points, unless Republicans are still sufficiently swayed by the fear of Lamont to vote for Lieberman.

palo alto east said...

I whole-heartedy agree with your assessment. Alan really surprised me, Ned held his ground fairly well and Joe didn't do much for the senoir statesman image. If the numbers between Joe and Ned are still at 8-10%, the next round of polls should reflect a much closer span. I think Joe is sounding close to desperate and that may be his death knell.

MikeCT said...

Here are links to videos of debates that occurred or aired this week — the Senate debate; a Murphy Johnson debate that I haven't seen in news accounts or anywhere else; a Courtney-Simmons debate; and interviews with Courtney, Murphy, and Simmons.

Blue Turned Red said...

Any Republican who votes for Schlesinger is wasting their vote, and I think they would be intelligent enough to know that. A vote for Schlesinger is essentially a vote for Lamont. Everyone learned a lesson in 2000 when Nader proved to be the spoiler. All those left wingers have themselves to thank for 8 years of George Bush - the man they despise. No one is talking about the 15% of the Republican vote Lamont has been getting in most of the polls. Will these Republicans (who may be anti-Lieberman) now get back in the Republican fold at the expense of Lamont? What about the unafilliated voters who weren't swayed by Lamont's lackluster performance today? Only time will tell. The Lamonsters shouldn't get too excited yet.

MikeCT said...

Colin McEnroe had an interview with Schlesinger (mp3) after the debate.

Anonymous said...

It is so transparent that Ned Lamont supporters are crawling out on the the Internet pumping up Alan Schlesinger. We are really supposed to believe that he won the debate? Blue turned Red is right, Nader supporters are desperate for a Nader effect on this race.

cgg said...

I'm a liberal who wanted to see Ned win. He didn't. I wish it was Ned that knocked it out of the park today, but it wasn't.

Two more debates to go, and I'm hopeful.

Anonymous said...

It's so transparent to watch the members of Lieberman campaign try to make him a Demopublican.

Rumor has it Joe will announce Tomorrow his conversion to a Jew for Jesus because "Religion is to partisan". Lieberman spokesman Dangerstein announced the change will give Lieberman 2 more points in the Q poll." Joe really wanted to speak to "ALL THE PEOPLE OF CONNECTICUT".

A (real) Republican Voter said...

I would've posted this in the post above, if GC could properly post a Comment link (slight dig, but why not, eh GC?).....but can we please stop being coy?

Maybe it's just me, but I give everyone on this blog a little more credit than they woudl ask for publicly. You don't have to be Karl Rove to know that every good word that is passed on about Alan Schlesinger following this debate, and all that follow, is FREAKIN' GREAT FOR NED LAMONT!

As a Republican, I spent the debate at the toilet for two reasons: one, because I found myself cheering Alan Schlesinger and his self-righteous ranting; and then hurling at the thought that everything that he said was helping Ned Lamont become a Senator. Did you all see that exchange where Ned actually encouraged Alan to keep up his questions and thanked him for being in the race????!! I wanted to kill myself ( I should've ).

Apparently Alan has tried to cut a few deals with Lieberman's camp to no avail---I guarantee you that he's now moved on to cutting deals with Ned's camp. Alan Schlesinger is a 100% opportunist. Mix with that his counsel from #1 opportunist "counsultant" (read: recipe for disaster) Dick Foley, and Schlesinger is doing everything to use this race to improve his station in life. He makes me, Republicans in general, and voters across Connecticut sick.

I'm wasn't going to vote on Nov. 7th, because I couldn't bring myself to vote for Joe Lieberman, but after today's debate, thanks to Alan Schlesinger and his blantant desire to parlay his 3% in the polls to some sort of monetary and political advantage for himself (which in itself is an oxymoron) was absolutely vomitous.

Alan, if you don't get a job in Washington after this, do me a favor and move out of state.

Anonymous said...

Go Lamont. He did what he had to do by setting himself up for the next two debates. Joe you are one sorry politician.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Democrat who has voted for a lot of losing causes over the years, (Mondale, Dukakis, Bill Curry, etc.)

But then again, I believe in my Party and our shared principles.

This "wasted vote" argument is bunk. Has the Republican Party sunk so low that more than two-thirds of its members are going to resort to voting for Democrats?

I can't imagine that this will be the case, but if it is, it's just proof of sheer banruptcy.

The only reason Schlesinger has been polling so low is b/c of a neglectful media. Heck, if Rell had gotten behind Alan, we might be in a three way tie right now.

Shadow said...

> A (Real) Republican Voter: Did you all see that exchange where Ned actually
> encouraged Alan to keep up his questions and thanked him for being in
> the race????!! I wanted to kill myself ( I should've ).

Well, that's your call, personally I think you're being a little cynical about Lamont's comment; cynicism is generally aporpos for politics, but every once in a while, it makes you miss something good on the rare occassion when it happens. All politics aside, Lamont was right, and the kind words he said about Schlesinger looked very genuine to me; do you really think that Lamont is secretly against the idea of independent candidacies and said otherwise because Schlesinger ciphens votes from Lieberman? Please...

It is a matter of universal agreement that every shred of evidence about Lamont (whether you like him or hate him) suggests that he honestly does believe in more independent democracy, open debate, and grassroots candidacy - and yes, on the other hand, he also understands that Schlesinger will help him win. These two, however, are not mutually exclusive points as you are treating them; nonetheless, they are a fortunate coinciding of goals for Lamont, and I can see how such a convenient alignment would upset a fervent anti-Lamont voter.

But to the majority of the audience who unlike us don't read political blogs everyday, Lamont's comments there came off classy, honest, and statesman-like, because the mutual respect between him and Schlesinger in that moment was real, and came across on camera. Keep in mind, CT voters have had to use the jaws of life to get themselves ANY alternative to self-perceived lifetime appointee Joe Lieberman; by all rights, NEITHER Schlesinger or Lamont should have been able to make it in as a candidate, and they really do share that independence and anti-establishment streak.

So despite the fact that Schlesinger votes in the end hurt Lieberman, Lamont's comments to the Republican candidate are not automatically negated by that, and I am proof; as a voter who does not agree with Schlesinger on many of the issues, I still really admire and value the independence of his candidacy. SERIOUSLY. It just makes for better democracy, and you have to admit, it also made for a hell of an entertaining debate.

Anonymous said...

CGG - Can you please explain why you believe that any votes AS picks up will come straight from JL? I know that you are a NL supporter, and your post reflects that fact (just like Turfgrrl's posts reflect her bias for JL), so why should anyone believe you?

I was at the debate and I do not think that AS won on substance. Do you?

More importantly, look at the crosstabs of the most recent polls and you will find that your candidate NL is getting a larger than expected support from Republicans. Based on my experience and talking to people around the state, I do not see NL maintaining that much support from Republicans. I think that there is more evidence to suggest that the Rs who are now saying that they will support NL are more likely to not vote for him. At the same time, I think that JL support among Rs will remain strong.

Bottom line is this: AS does not get more than 10%. If he is at 4% now, that is an increase of 6% (obviously). I think that 6% will come from NL as much as it will from JL.

I will examine crosstabs with anyone here to justify my argument. It would have been nice to see you offer some evidence to support your assumption rather than just repeat the party line.

Anonymous said...

Shadow said: "I still really admire and value the independence of [Schlesinger's] candidacy."

Remember, Shadow, that Schlesinger's "independent candidacy" was not calculated. He made himself a man without a country by his lackluster gambling record and legal issues. At every turn he tries to make himself look more "establishmenty" by constantly referencing his tenure in state and local office.

In reality, his candidacy has become independent in spite of his best efforts.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 9:50 said: "This "wasted vote" argument is bunk."

Were you born yesterday?

Do you remember the 2000 Presidential election and the Nader campaign?

Fact: Democrats and/or voters who would have preferred Gore over Bush but chose to vote for Nader cost Gore the Presidency.

Care to reconsider your comments now?

Reality: if the Alan Gold can't win, and a voter prefers Lieberman over Lamont, then that voter should vote for Lieberman, otherwise a vote for Alan Gold is a vote for Lamont.

Get it?

Shadow said...

> Anonymous: Remember, Shadow, that Schlesinger's "independent candidacy" was not
> reality, his candidacy has become independent in spite of his best efforts.

True, but how often do you hear a Republican candidate speak up that honestly against it's own Washington leadership, and the scam of federal accounting? That was unique and impressive, and almost gives one hope for the national Republican party, which has become in recent years a useless monster that offers nothing useful in policy.

They are no longer the party of fiscal responsibilty, with the worst record of fiscal irresponsiblity in world history (going from unparalled surpluses to almost 10 trillion dollars debt in six years); they are no longer the party of family values, with indictment after investigation after prison sentence, and Foleygate killing them on the gay issue with social conservatives and on the protecting children issue with all women voters; they are no longer the party of small government and personal freedom, being consistently at the cutting edge of the debate to increase goverment size and power while inhibiting individual liberty; they are no longer the party of defense and national security, having turned their whole security focus into a constant campaign strategy to sound tough on defense, while completely ignorant to the fact that their terrorist creating policies have exceeded Bin Laden's wildest dreams.

What reason does ANY sane person have to vote for a Republican in a national election? None.

At least Schlesinger is trying to change that, and that itself is showing independence and leadership in his party, despite the fact that all your personal observation about the man and his motives are correct.

Anonymous said...

Schlesinger is giving the preformance of his political life, should'nt be discounted and will get my vote.

Lieberman's loss would fracture the democratic party here for some time and would open an opportunity to take the seat in 2012. Do we really need another 30 year Senator?

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:32 - LMAO.

Another nice try by the Lamont camp!