I voted for Schlesinger in the first, because he benefitted greatly, but isn't Lamont benefiting more from Schlesinger benifiting than Schlesinger is himself?
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.
You raise a very good point. Voters are not stupid. A lot of Republicans are going to realize that a vote for Schlesinger is basically a vote for Lamont, which means that they'll either pull the lever or bubble the oval for Lieberman instead. For Republicans, the choices are lousy.
Still, Schlesinger will get votes. He may get as much as 10-15%. If he does, Joe Lieberman is done.
I have a pretty good number of the races we're following collected--I'm just waiting for a few more to make it all worth posting. Should be something up about the money race tomorrow.
I don't know Genghis. If Republicans are going to vote according to sheer political calculation, they should let Lamont win.
I mean Ned might not turn out to be such a great Senator. As such, a Lamont victory could put this seat seriously in play for 2012. (And believe you me, the Dems would be stuck with Lamont due to Tom Swan's influence as well as Ned's ability to self-finance.)
As it stands now, Connecticut Republicans have no hope at gaining a Senate seat. So why not take a flyer and hope that Lamont would flop as a seated Senator?
Honestly, a detached analysis suggests a Lamont win gives R's a fair shot at this seat in 2012.
You'd think Jodi Rell would look to the future and realize that with another term as Governor, and continued popularity, she could potentially join Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe as a moderate New England female Republican in that most exclusive club, the United States Senate.
I mean Ned might not turn out to be such a great Senator. As such, a Lamont victory could put this seat seriously in play for 2012.
If Republicans can't beat a divided Democrat party in 2006, what makes you think they can beat a united Democrat party in 2012? Do you think Rell is that great of a candidate? The best thing Rell has going for her right now is John DeStefano.
GENGHIS what the hell are you talking about you have no idea do you? I've known Alan for years and the guy has not made an attempt to make a deal with Lieberman campaign or the lamont campaign so please spare everyone in this blog from you unsubstantiated and uneducated comments. I've been reading this blog for a long time now and i gotta tell ya no one has a clue. Please stop pretending you know about some secret deal's going on. You should be ashamed of yourself as a republican voting for a man who is conservative on one issue and liberal on all the rest for a man who is not as liberal as the media portraits him, but i guess your just one of the sheep that believes everything they read. I challenge you to vote with your heart this election, your mind has already been clearly been taken over by the drive by media!
After watching the debate for the second time lat night, I have a comment I will offer up for discussion...
Is it me, or did it appear to anyone else that although Schlesinger attacked Lieberman as a Liberal and attempted to move the Moderates and Conservatives away from him, he alternatively poiinted to Lieberman's Liberal record and also painted Lamont as a candidate floating the party line and not giving any solutions? All in all, i think Ned might have been just as damaged by Schlesinger as Lieberman was...almost to the point where Lamont lost more credibility than Joe.
Schlesinger defined himself and he defined his opponents. He did a great job letting people know who he is. Gambling is legal in the venues he chose and he broke no laws by gambling but the Republican disciples of Rowland/Rell will keep spinning that he did. It's not the Democrats for the most part that are complaining about how the guy spent his spare time in legal venues. Should we talk about Rowland's poker game in the Governor's Mansion where he was routinely passed money under the table by some who are still in the government.
brasstaxes--i noticed that too, and, in truth, i think lamont was more injured. while turfgrrl's assertion that no lamont supporters will defect is true, it is equally true that no voter who has already decided to support joe will turn. the battle is, as always, for those who have not yet made up their minds.
by trying to lump joe and ned together as liberal democrats (a natural strategy for Gold, who, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, is still trying to split the dem vote and slip in there) Alan hamstrings ned's most important claim--that he is liberal and joe is not. Furthermore, framing lamont as a party politician with no real stands of his own could potentially (i.e., if delivered by a more respected/persuasive speaker than schlesinger) be devastating to lamont. everyone knows joe, ned still has to define himself. If ned lets joe or alan define him, he's screwed.
I don't know that Schlesinger defined his opponents successfully (except among conservatives - who Alan did great with), because moderate voters don't define the term 'liberal' as just reasonable enough not to get shot as soon as you cross into Mexico.
Some folks will definitley think twice about Joe becasue he is a neo-con not a traditional conservative. And anyone following the national defense scene knows that Joe is just a Bush enabler on Iraq. Republican Senators John Warner and Chuck Hagel who unlike Joe actually wore a uniform and got shot at are the canaries in the mine among the Republicans on Iraq. Yesterday's debate didn't touch on Iraq but given the chance in the next one Alan should be able to pounce on neo-con Joe with certain credibility if he does it right.
Did you just call Joe a Neo-Con? I can admit that his stance on the war is indeed similar the the republican stance, but to label him a neo-con is a bit drastic. Voting 90% of the time with D's is far from neo-con...wouldn't you agree? Having a very similar voting record as hilary and Ted Kennedy isn't how a neo-con would vote is it? His obvious stance against privatizing SS isn't the neo-cons' position is it? I'm pretty sure Joe's stance on Immigration isn't the same as the neo-con Berlin Wall scenario is it?
Anon 1:08..you might want to review what your definition of Neo-Con is before making such baltant remarks. I believe you meant to say moderate...in which case you were only partly right, save his votes on Iraq.
Brass Taxes it is you not I that doesn't know what a neo-con is. And did anybody see the coverage in today's Journal Inquirer on the races not only for US Senate but Governor too?
Anon 3:27...Your "I know you are but what am I defense" doesn't work here. Please provide some substance for your allegations and then maybe we can have some reasonable discourse on this subject.
BrassTaxes:Your "I know you are but what am I defense" doesn't work here. Please provide some substance for your allegations and then maybe we can have some reasonable discourse on this subject.
Anon... Listen...I provided what I thought was some reasonable exapmples of why I thought Sen. Lieberman was not a Neo-Con. All I ask is that you provide something of substance to support your assertions.
If anon 4:19 is the same as anon 3:27 then here is my response to your nonsensical approach to this discussion thread...
I want you to give examples or at least a brief description of your view of Joe Lieberman as a Neo-Con. It's really not that hard of a task if you are so set in your opinions and ways. You should be able to rattle off your points with ease...
Joe's position on the war is hardly where the conservative Republicans like Warner, Hagel, Spector, Graham are in the Senate and his votes and speeches even show it but you can spin, spin, spin and spin some more. He's a neo-con on foreign policy and the neo-cons love him as I see they even plan to go so far as to swift boat Lamont for him corutesy of Rove. Wait until he has to stand up to Alan on Iraq becasue the conservatives on foreign policy here in CT won't buy Joe's double talk.
anon..please excuse the typos, i am trying to get out of the office quickly...
correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression (stemming from recent history) that the current Administration is definitively Neo-conservative and that thier obvious stance on foreign policy was not, shall we say, negotiate first and then if all else fails try a different apporach and then attack. As far as I can see it, our foreign relations have been severly damaged since the Bush Admin. took over in 2000. Now if you want to point the finger at Joe because of his voting on the Iraq war, then please be aware that many of the Senators you mentioned voted the same way in that very same vote.
Speaking of the named senators... Spector? Spector for all intents and purposes is a moderate on all accounts. He's not that loved in the republican caucus for his various stances against the Admin. and it's been publicly written so.
As for a Neo-Con approach to foreign policy...are you kidding me? Let me make this clear...i was not a big fan of this war and remain not a big fan. Pulling out at all costs at this point would be foriegn policy suicide with the rest of the world. Unfortunately we are in this present situation in Iraq, but we have to attempt to clean the mess we created. Can this be done easily?...no. Will it be done at all? I don't think so. Are we up Sh!t's Creek without a paddle? very close to it. But I don't think an immediate withdrawl (the very liberal party line) is the way to go about it.
Foriegn policy experts have been looking at this war as an anomoly...it's like nothing ever waged before. To withdraw right now and leave the country as it is would mean leaving it worse than before we attacked in the first place. there is no clear cut answer on this.
As for joe having to answer to the Conservatives in this state...I believe you r statement on this is correct. JOe isn;t nearly conservative as Lamont's campaign has said he is. Schlesinger hit on this topic hard and was right on.
I am a fiscal conservative dem...more of a moderate actually. I still remain that Lieberman branded as a neo-con (which might be a first for me to see in writing) is a bit of a stretch...Moderate democrat? yes...Conservative Dem...maybe...but once again, these titles are mearly based on the war in Iraq, and no the other 90% of his voting record to date.
I'd love to continue this, but I have to get out of here before 5:15...I look forward to reading the responses...
Why don't you do us all a favor and do some Googling? Honestly, you don't seem to have the slightest clue as to what the rest of us mean when we call Lieberman a Neo-con. (Hint: the term is almost exclusively about foreign policy.)
While you're Googling please also look up the Project for a New American Century. They are the leading Neo-con group of which Lieberman is a member. PNAC was advocating for the invasion of Iraq in the late 1990's and are chiefly responsible for the utopian mindset that got us into such a mess.
Sorry if I'm being too pedantic. But you really should bookmark Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.
and where does BrassTaxes come off suggesting that someone who rightly calls Joe a neo-con is also for abrupt withdrawl from Iraq before ensuring stability of their new democracy now that we've engaged that adventure?
And as for the listed Republican Senators voting for the use of "necessary force" just like Joe that led to UN 1441, they expected a subsequent series of events before an invasion but, BrassTaxes, you are so far off the mark I can't and won't take the time to explain those skipped steps (including preparing for the occupation) to you here. However, you may wish to ponder why Hans Blix who was allowed into Iraq subsequent to 1441 was not allowed to continue to verify there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when he was convinced that was the case despite Saddam's bad paperwork and cantankerous behvior put on to make his neighbors think he was a big guy when Saddam obviously knew the WMD's were gonzo. Remember the old conservative saying: Trust but verify.
36 comments:
GC--this link wasn't working ten minutes ago....could you please repost what I wrote on the last posting here? thanks.
I voted for Schlesinger in the first, because he benefitted greatly, but isn't Lamont benefiting more from Schlesinger benifiting than Schlesinger is himself?
What on earth did i just say?
Real Republican Voter:
Certainly.. You said:
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.
You raise a very good point. Voters are not stupid. A lot of Republicans are going to realize that a vote for Schlesinger is basically a vote for Lamont, which means that they'll either pull the lever or bubble the oval for Lieberman instead. For Republicans, the choices are lousy.
Still, Schlesinger will get votes. He may get as much as 10-15%. If he does, Joe Lieberman is done.
SOTS seems to be getting the Oct 10 campaign finance reports online.
Tim,
Is that a hint? :)
I have a pretty good number of the races we're following collected--I'm just waiting for a few more to make it all worth posting. Should be something up about the money race tomorrow.
For Republicans, the choices are lousy.
I don't know Genghis. If Republicans are going to vote according to sheer political calculation, they should let Lamont win.
I mean Ned might not turn out to be such a great Senator. As such, a Lamont victory could put this seat seriously in play for 2012. (And believe you me, the Dems would be stuck with Lamont due to Tom Swan's influence as well as Ned's ability to self-finance.)
As it stands now, Connecticut Republicans have no hope at gaining a Senate seat. So why not take a flyer and hope that Lamont would flop as a seated Senator?
Honestly, a detached analysis suggests a Lamont win gives R's a fair shot at this seat in 2012.
You'd think Jodi Rell would look to the future and realize that with another term as Governor, and continued popularity, she could potentially join Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe as a moderate New England female Republican in that most exclusive club, the United States Senate.
GC... hahaha... six months ago when I discovered your blog, I told you that I was going to win. Do you remember??
I do indeed.
I don't see your numbers up there yet. Can you give us a hint?
I'm not sure of the exact numbers (raised or on hand) I'm sure it'll be up by tomorrow though... I'm assuming that SOTS went home for the night.
GC- FYI: the election is Nov. 7th, not Nov. 8th.
I mean Ned might not turn out to be such a great Senator. As such, a Lamont victory could put this seat seriously in play for 2012.
If Republicans can't beat a divided Democrat party in 2006, what makes you think they can beat a united Democrat party in 2012? Do you think Rell is that great of a candidate? The best thing Rell has going for her right now is John DeStefano.
GC- FYI: the election is Nov. 7th, not Nov. 8th.
It is November 7th if you're a Republican and November 8th if you're a Democrat... (Hat tip: The Onion)
The election is November 7th if you support Lieberman, Schlesinger, Knibbs and Ferrucci
If you support 10 Million Dollar Lamont the election is on November 8th.
anon said: I don't know Genghis. If Republicans are going to vote according to sheer political calculation, they should let Lamont win.
Or, they could just get Lieberman to switch parties, which has pretty much happened already.
GENGHIS what the hell are you talking about you have no idea do you? I've known Alan for years and the guy has not made an attempt to make a deal with Lieberman campaign or the lamont campaign so please spare everyone in this blog from you unsubstantiated and uneducated comments. I've been reading this blog for a long time now and i gotta tell ya no one has a clue. Please stop pretending you know about some secret deal's going on. You should be ashamed of yourself as a republican voting for a man who is conservative on one issue and liberal on all the rest for a man who is not as liberal as the media portraits him, but i guess your just one of the sheep that believes everything they read. I challenge you to vote with your heart this election, your mind has already been clearly been taken over by the drive by media!
Wait, what? Secret deal? Huh?
Opps excuse me, that was Directed at "A REAL REPUBLICAN VOTER" my aplogizes Genghis. HEY YOU READ ABOVE! haha
Does anyone know if House Dems has done polling in any of CLP's "Races to Watch"?
After watching the debate for the second time lat night, I have a comment I will offer up for discussion...
Is it me, or did it appear to anyone else that although Schlesinger attacked Lieberman as a Liberal and attempted to move the Moderates and Conservatives away from him, he alternatively poiinted to Lieberman's Liberal record and also painted Lamont as a candidate floating the party line and not giving any solutions? All in all, i think Ned might have been just as damaged by Schlesinger as Lieberman was...almost to the point where Lamont lost more credibility than Joe.
Just a thought...I'll offer it up for discussion.
Ouch...Turfgirl, you sure know how it insight comments ki can;t wait to see the responses to that one...
Schlesinger defined himself and he defined his opponents. He did a great job letting people know who he is. Gambling is legal in the venues he chose and he broke no laws by gambling but the Republican disciples of Rowland/Rell will keep spinning that he did. It's not the Democrats for the most part that are complaining about how the guy spent his spare time in legal venues. Should we talk about Rowland's poker game in the Governor's Mansion where he was routinely passed money under the table by some who are still in the government.
brasstaxes--i noticed that too, and, in truth, i think lamont was more injured. while turfgrrl's assertion that no lamont supporters will defect is true, it is equally true that no voter who has already decided to support joe will turn. the battle is, as always, for those who have not yet made up their minds.
by trying to lump joe and ned together as liberal democrats (a natural strategy for Gold, who, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, is still trying to split the dem vote and slip in there) Alan hamstrings ned's most important claim--that he is liberal and joe is not. Furthermore, framing lamont as a party politician with no real stands of his own could potentially (i.e., if delivered by a more respected/persuasive speaker than schlesinger) be devastating to lamont. everyone knows joe, ned still has to define himself. If ned lets joe or alan define him, he's screwed.
I don't know that Schlesinger defined his opponents successfully (except among conservatives - who Alan did great with), because moderate voters don't define the term 'liberal' as just reasonable enough not to get shot as soon as you cross into Mexico.
Some folks will definitley think twice about Joe becasue he is a neo-con not a traditional conservative. And anyone following the national defense scene knows that Joe is just a Bush enabler on Iraq. Republican Senators John Warner and Chuck Hagel who unlike Joe actually wore a uniform and got shot at are the canaries in the mine among the Republicans on Iraq. Yesterday's debate didn't touch on Iraq but given the chance in the next one Alan should be able to pounce on neo-con Joe with certain credibility if he does it right.
anon 1:08...
Did you just call Joe a Neo-Con? I can admit that his stance on the war is indeed similar the the republican stance, but to label him a neo-con is a bit drastic. Voting 90% of the time with D's is far from neo-con...wouldn't you agree? Having a very similar voting record as hilary and Ted Kennedy isn't how a neo-con would vote is it? His obvious stance against privatizing SS isn't the neo-cons' position is it? I'm pretty sure Joe's stance on Immigration isn't the same as the neo-con Berlin Wall scenario is it?
Anon 1:08..you might want to review what your definition of Neo-Con is before making such baltant remarks. I believe you meant to say moderate...in which case you were only partly right, save his votes on Iraq.
Brass Taxes it is you not I that doesn't know what a neo-con is. And did anybody see the coverage in today's Journal Inquirer on the races not only for US Senate but Governor too?
Anon 3:27...Your "I know you are but what am I defense" doesn't work here. Please provide some substance for your allegations and then maybe we can have some reasonable discourse on this subject.
BrassTaxes:Your "I know you are but what am I defense" doesn't work here. Please provide some substance for your allegations and then maybe we can have some reasonable discourse on this subject.
Anon...
Listen...I provided what I thought was some reasonable exapmples of why I thought Sen. Lieberman was not a Neo-Con. All I ask is that you provide something of substance to support your assertions.
Like I said, you don't know what a neo-con is and you proved it with your examples.
If anon 4:19 is the same as anon 3:27 then here is my response to your nonsensical approach to this discussion thread...
I want you to give examples or at least a brief description of your view of Joe Lieberman as a Neo-Con. It's really not that hard of a task if you are so set in your opinions and ways. You should be able to rattle off your points with ease...
Joe's position on the war is hardly where the conservative Republicans like Warner, Hagel, Spector, Graham are in the Senate and his votes and speeches even show it but you can spin, spin, spin and spin some more. He's a neo-con on foreign policy and the neo-cons love him as I see they even plan to go so far as to swift boat Lamont for him corutesy of Rove. Wait until he has to stand up to Alan on Iraq becasue the conservatives on foreign policy here in CT won't buy Joe's double talk.
anon..please excuse the typos, i am trying to get out of the office quickly...
correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression (stemming from recent history) that the current Administration is definitively Neo-conservative and that thier obvious stance on foreign policy was not, shall we say, negotiate first and then if all else fails try a different apporach and then attack. As far as I can see it, our foreign relations have been severly damaged since the Bush Admin. took over in 2000. Now if you want to point the finger at Joe because of his voting on the Iraq war, then please be aware that many of the Senators you mentioned voted the same way in that very same vote.
Speaking of the named senators... Spector? Spector for all intents and purposes is a moderate on all accounts. He's not that loved in the republican caucus for his various stances against the Admin. and it's been publicly written so.
As for a Neo-Con approach to foreign policy...are you kidding me? Let me make this clear...i was not a big fan of this war and remain not a big fan. Pulling out at all costs at this point would be foriegn policy suicide with the rest of the world. Unfortunately we are in this present situation in Iraq, but we have to attempt to clean the mess we created. Can this be done easily?...no. Will it be done at all? I don't think so. Are we up Sh!t's Creek without a paddle? very close to it. But I don't think an immediate withdrawl (the very liberal party line) is the way to go about it.
Foriegn policy experts have been looking at this war as an anomoly...it's like nothing ever waged before. To withdraw right now and leave the country as it is would mean leaving it worse than before we attacked in the first place. there is no clear cut answer on this.
As for joe having to answer to the Conservatives in this state...I believe you r statement on this is correct. JOe isn;t nearly conservative as Lamont's campaign has said he is. Schlesinger hit on this topic hard and was right on.
I am a fiscal conservative dem...more of a moderate actually. I still remain that Lieberman branded as a neo-con (which might be a first for me to see in writing) is a bit of a stretch...Moderate democrat? yes...Conservative Dem...maybe...but once again, these titles are mearly based on the war in Iraq, and no the other 90% of his voting record to date.
I'd love to continue this, but I have to get out of here before 5:15...I look forward to reading the responses...
Brasstaxes--
Why don't you do us all a favor and do some Googling? Honestly, you don't seem to have the slightest clue as to what the rest of us mean when we call Lieberman a Neo-con. (Hint: the term is almost exclusively about foreign policy.)
While you're Googling please also look up the Project for a New American Century. They are the leading Neo-con group of which Lieberman is a member. PNAC was advocating for the invasion of Iraq in the late 1990's and are chiefly responsible for the utopian mindset that got us into such a mess.
Sorry if I'm being too pedantic. But you really should bookmark Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.
and where does BrassTaxes come off suggesting that someone who rightly calls Joe a neo-con is also for abrupt withdrawl from Iraq before ensuring stability of their new democracy now that we've engaged that adventure?
And as for the listed Republican Senators voting for the use of "necessary force" just like Joe that led to UN 1441, they expected a subsequent series of events before an invasion but, BrassTaxes, you are so far off the mark I can't and won't take the time to explain those skipped steps (including preparing for the occupation) to you here. However, you may wish to ponder why Hans Blix who was allowed into Iraq subsequent to 1441 was not allowed to continue to verify there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when he was convinced that was the case despite Saddam's bad paperwork and cantankerous behvior put on to make his neighbors think he was a big guy when Saddam obviously knew the WMD's were gonzo. Remember the old conservative saying: Trust but verify.
Post a Comment