Sunday, October 01, 2006

October

At last.

Election signs are starting to pop up around Enfield. The Republicans in town usually seem to get the jump on the Democrats, which is why I'm seeing a lot of massive "Simmons for Congress" signs on busy street corners. I've also seen a couple of "Joe" signs here and there (including an "I'm Sticking With Joe" sign posted on the interstate on-ramp--I didn't know I-91 north got political), but strangely these have all disappeared.

Also spotted in town were a couple of DeStefano/Glassman signs (and one lonely DeStefano/Slifka sign left over from the primary), some Lamont signs and a black-on-yellow Courtney sign.

No Jodi Rell signs yet.

Both major-party candidates for my state rep district, Charles Woods (R) and Karen Jarmoc (D) have been pounding the pavement, and either they or their campaign workers have left literature stuck in my door. I spoke with some nice Lamont volunteers walking my street asking people about issues yesterday.

Campaign season is finally here. This month is going to see debates, lawn signs, bumper stickers, a blizzard of commercials and news stories and more election coverage and nonsense than we can stand.

I can't wait.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

No Jodi lawn signs in Enfield???

You must be kidding...a blind man on horseback could point out all the Jodi signs.

Genghis Conn said...

Must be in a different part of town. I haven't seen any except outside GOP HQ.

Anonymous said...

71 American kids and hundreds,perhaps thousands of Iraqis had there lives snuff out for nothing in Sept in Iraq.

I remember a couple of years ago when this blog and this country cared enough to report those figures.

I hope you nutmeggers feel safer.

GMR said...

71 American kids and hundreds,perhaps thousands of Iraqis had there lives snuff out for nothing in Sept in Iraq.

Do you think if the US left Iraq, that there'd be less violence there amongst Iraqi factions?

Anonymous said...

I think there would be less violence and killing after a short uptick.

The latest poll says 61% of Iraqis think attacking American troops is justified.WE(the USA) are the common enemy.

Very soon after we leave the Sunni will find a strongman to unite around( he'll more than likely be from Takrit),throw Iran and ALL FOREIGN FIGHTERS AND JIHADISTS out of their country and get their secular government back in place.

The argument being made that "We can't leave" is total garbage.There were no Jihadists or al-quiada in Iraq before we invaded because Iraqis had no use for them.When we leave they'll again have no use for them.

Every Iraqi knows exactly who the foreign fighters are but they've decided that the jihadist are more on their side then the American occupiers.It's really that simple.

Anonymous said...

"There were no Jihadists or al-quiada in Iraq before we invaded because Iraqis had no use for them.When we leave they'll again have no use for them."

1. Richard Clarke was wrong then when he feared that Osama Bin Laden would "boogie to Baghdad"

2. Iraq seemed quiet because of a totalitarian regime. If you endorse what Saddam did to the Shiite and Kurds as proper, please do so

Anonymous said...

Like it or not the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam when compared to their lives today.

Under Saddam all power was vertical and in order to stay alive you only had to avoid the Givernment and their agents.

Today in Iraq death comes from multiple horizontal forces and noone is safe.Just being a Sunni a Shia a Kurd or any tribe member means you are being targeted for death by some force.


You can't condemn Saddam without admitting that what the USA has created in Iraq is much much worse.

The only way this ends is with the country of Iraq intact is with a new Sunni strongman.The entire neocon pipedream is over.The only question left now is how many more of our kids will be sacrificed on the neocon alter.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>You can't condemn Saddam without admitting that what the USA has created in Iraq is much much worse.


You might want to speak to afew Kurds about that; I doubt they'll agree.

Anonymous said...

ACR,

Have you forgotten it was Rumsfeld who and a different REPUBLICAN Administation that provided the precursors for the gas and doubled aid to Saddam 2 months after Saddam gassed the Kurds?

It was also Bush 1 who asked the Shia to rise up against Saddam and then allowed him to use his helicopters to slaughter 300,000 of them.

Your party should stick to what it does best,protecting child molesters like Rep.Foley and crooks like John Rowland.

Anonymous said...

I am a Democrat and i will be voting for Jodi Rell in November as well as Joe Lieberman.

Jodi Rell isnt going to lose Because she has been straight with the voters and she has worked very hard in her 2 1/2 year tenure.

John DeStefano cant be trusted He is a typical city mayor who cant keep a promise when picking a running mate for Lt Governor and his city is riddled with crime. I cant vote for someone who tells lies and has a crappy campaign spokesman like Derek Slap( he needs to be shipped off to Idaho or Montana)who is just DeStefano's lackey.

Joe Lieberman will win Because Ned Lamont hasn't been too eager to bring the whole Democratic Party together just the anti war liberal cut and run crowd. Ned's advertising is crap and the ad with the kid reading the names of dead solidiers show no class and is a slap in the face to all of the troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Connecticut Democratic Party should be ashamed to be backing you Liberals I am ashamed of all of you for your attitudes and your lack of respect for America.

In 37 days You all will be silenced by The re-elections of Jodi Rell and Joe Lieberman and I am glad Connecticut is just saying NO DEAL to Lamont and DeStefano.

Brian said...

Nobody has mentioned this, but Lamont got the majority of votes from Connecticut servicemen stationed overseas in the primary. (mostly who are in Iraq)

Hmmmmm.......gotta love those disgraceful republican made swiftboat ads Lieberman has been using for his campaign. I just puke when i see those ridiculous ads. This newest Liberman ad with the lighbulb serves no political purpose. I can't wait for the debate when Lamont exposes Lieberman for the fraud he has been over the last couple of years.

Brian said...

WAR MONGERER- JOE LIEBERMAN

The Declaration of Connecticut 's War-Monger: Joe Lieberman
BY: BRIAN SULLIVAN-CREATOR OF KNOCKING ON DOORS


According to the definition of war-monger, it's an individual who fully demonstrates a combative apprehension which persuades a nation to fight a war, as well as being used by political leaders (generally people in militaristic power), usually suggesting or implicating their own self-serving motives for encouraging war. Also, the origins of the word in its literal context refer to the seller of the war. This statement is so imperative to today's world and politics because today's politicians who are in power mostly support Bush and are exemplifying the exact definition of war-mongering literally to their own personal gain.

Initially, I thought war-mongering was an old abstract word that came out of an 8th-grade history book to describe civil war leaders that nobody remembered because us kids were too busy not paying attention in class, or a word my hippie college friends used to lecture me on world history events that they learned from their political science classes. This 2006 mid-term election is demonstrating that those politicians including Joe Lieberman who have been supporting the Iraq war from the start describe what war-mongering means literally 100%. What a messed-up world we are living in to know that people from not only my town ( Enfield , Ct), but my alma-mater (Uconn) are dying in Iraq .

A politician such as Connecticut 's own Joe Lieberman will criticize and distance himself from the Bush Administration (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) during election time when he knows he needs additional votes for re-election when he has been their number one supporter up until the mid-term elections. All I can say is that I'm outraged and, in addition, pissed off that my tax money is going to support this man's self-serving re-election causes. When intelligence reports come out this week clearly stating that the Iraq war is getting much worse and that our country is less safe, how should anybody respect the people in power in this country?

Why should anybody vote for Joe Lieberman when he came out with speech just moments after these reports were leaked stating that we should stay the course in Iraq or else our security is at the terrorists' control? Our country isn't safer...airport security is still a joke, our ports aren't any safer than they were five years ago and the homeland security program is just a cause for more pork barrel projects lobbyists thrive on

As a young adult living in this state I find it insulting and highly offensive that Joe Lieberman will publicly criticize Ned Lamont’s newly proposed plans for wanting to change discourse in Iraq . However, at the same time, its' perfectly fine for him not to publicly hold the Bush administration accountable for having more deaths in both ( Iraq + Afghanistan ) under it’s’ current time in office than were havocked from the September 11th, 2001 attacks. The only message I want to give to people of Connecticut and those (young + old) who hope our newly pathetic country can return to having some form of greatness is to vote for change. So I plead with the voters of Connecticut to vote for Ned Lamont, who is somebody who can proudly deliver that change now.

Brian said...

NED LAMONT HAS BIG IDEAS AND HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE BUSINESS WORLD WILL MAKE THE CONNECTICUT ECONOMY WORK

WHAT WE KNOW-
Over the last couple of weeks the only thing the Lieberman campaign has done is complain about the supposed negative attacks being made by the Lamont campaign. However, in reality, these aren’t negative attacks at all, but massive failures being pointed out through effectively constructed messages in form of television ads, radio spots, and speeches.

Also, everybody wants to isolate Ned as a one issue candidate who does not possess adequate experience to become a United States Senator, or is an individual who has a grasp of the issues facing Connecticut voters. These statements and beliefs attacking Ned’s ability to be an effective senator are dead wrong and misleading.

In hindsight, as we get closer to the debates and then election-day, people will finally realize that NED LAMONT is the better choice for United States senator.


WHAT WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES-
Firstly, we must ask ourselves what do we want in our senatorial candidate? To me the most important thing a state senator has to do to get my vote is visibly represent his state, produce results, and make it work! According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, 83% of those surveyed agreed upon that in deciding your vote for United States Senator; the ability of getting things done for Connecticut is very important. All in all, everybody is on the right page, but my question to the voters: are you going to vote on a misleading reputation or a senator who will produce results?

-WHAT HAS SENATOR LIEBERMAN DONE LATELY FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT OTHER THAN POINT OUT ON HIS WEBISTE THE NUMEROUS AMOUNTS OF STATE ROAD PROJECTS HE HAS HELPED GET FUNDED? ??


A.) The most important issue among voters regarding the state of Connecticut.


STATE OF THE CONNECTICUT ECONOMY-
According to the organization, “Connecticut Voices For Children”, there has been a visible increase in the amount of state residents are living in poverty from 7.5% in 2000-2001 to more than 9% in 2004-2005. (ctkidslink.org) Also, this paper uncovers in explicit detail that the overall current status of the economy for working families, lower-income persons, and children has grown worse since the quick lived economic upturn since 2003 recession. The effects of our declining economy have resulted in a decrease in median household income from “$57,853 in 2000-2001 to $56,889” in 2004-2005. (ctkidslink.org). In addition, the percentage of Connecticut residents without adequate health insurance has actually increased from “10% in 2000-2001 to 11.3% in 2004-2005. (ctkindslink.org)

CONNECTICUT ECONOMIC STANDOUT PONTS-
*Median Household Income declining
*Residents without adequate healthcare is on the rise
*Loss of over 40,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000
*Loss of over 16,000 professional-business service jobs since 2000
*Modest losses in most sectors while there has been a limited gain in others
*Modest wage increase for educated-highly skilled workers, however the increase is small in comparison when measuring it over the last 20 years. When keeping in consideration the cost of living in Ct has become expensive to extremely expensive in some parts. (usually where jobs are located)
*Wage gains of low income workers demonstrates the massive problem of Wage
Inequality among workers
*Wage inequality of black and minorities workers is significant and leads to tremendous
Amounts of poverty in lower-income or inner city communities
*Wage inequality between men and women shows significant gap….
*Wages period aren’t enough for single residents or families to maintain an economic healthy lifestyle in this state.


WHAT THIS MEANS FOR FAMLIES OF CONNECTICUT
These mostly negative economic numbers, indicators and trends show both single residents and families are not finding enough sufficient financial resources to maintain an economically healthy lifestyle in this state. While some Connecticut families are finding it very difficult to remain above the poverty threshold, an increasing amount is falling below it faster than ever before. (as well as not having adequate healthcare). In summary, many individuals and working families wages aren’t financially enough to support an adequate or fulfilling lifestyle in this state. From an economic perspective this is the most imperative socioeconomic issue facing us and is a benchmark situation for Ned Lamont to fix in the senate as the next state senator.


SENATOR LIEBERMAN HASN’T MADE THIS A PUBLIC ISSUE!!

BUT HAS TRIED TO DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINSTRATION ON THE WAR TO GAIN VOTERS IN THIS STATE.

NOW HE VOTES IN FAVOR FOR THE MOST DISGRACEFUL UNAMERICAN BILL, IN WHICH, THE PRESIDENT POLITCIZES AS A CAMPAIGN TATICT FOR REPUBLICANS.

JOE SAID HE DOESN’T LIKE POLARIZED POLITICS……..I GUESS HE LIED!!


VOTE NED LAMONT!!!!!!!!

Brian said...

I like lamont to win by 3 percent in the general election. The turnout for Lamont is going to be something that will amaze the country. Lamont is going to expose Lieberman in the debate for what a disgrace he has been for not conceding the election. It's pretty sad that Joe voted for the legalization of George Bush torture. I have never been more disgraced to be a American after this week. I know for fact the Lieberman will lose this race because Ned is going to capitalize so much on the Inner city vote.

GMR said...

there has been a visible increase in the amount of state residents are living in poverty from 7.5% in 2000-2001 to more than 9% in 2004-2005.

One thing I'd always like to know about statistics like these, is how many of these children are children of recent immigrants -- legal or illegal? Because if someone moves here from a third world country with no marketable skills (or no accreditation: many foreign degrees are useless here if the US professional association has strength) and limited or no English language proficiency. If a sizable portion of these children are children of immigrants, there's really nothing we can do. If we increase eligiblity for benefits for immigrants, we'll get more and more immigrants.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

CONNECTICUT ECONOMIC STANDOUT PONTS-
*Median Household Income declining
*Residents without adequate healthcare is on the rise
*Loss of over 40,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000
*Loss of over 16,000 professional-business service jobs since 2000
*Modest losses in most sectors while there has been a limited gain in others
*Modest wage increase for educated-highly skilled workers, however the increase is small in comparison when measuring it over the last 20 years. When keeping in consideration the cost of living in Ct has become expensive to extremely expensive in some parts. (usually where jobs are located)
*Wage gains of low income workers demonstrates the massive problem of Wage
Inequality among workers
*Wage inequality of black and minorities workers is significant and leads to tremendous
Amounts of poverty in lower-income or inner city communities
*Wage inequality between men and women shows significant gap….
*Wages period aren’t enough for single residents or families to maintain an economic healthy lifestyle in this state.


Thank you for making our case!

Both the CT Senate & House have been run into the ground by the Dems for far too long and your data bolsters that fact as well as anything I've seen.


Let's get Jodi some help so she's not the only grown-up in Hartford.

Vote Republican

Brian said...

well i hope enfield shows its balls and outs lieberman-swift boat ads of his......Lieberman's door to door thing is like a bush town hall.....its so manufactured and phony.....

Anonymous said...

Unmoderated comments here I see?

I guess we find out in a month what the story will be eh?

Oh about Iraq? If we cut and run the violence will escalate, not decrease.

Anonymous said...

Brian:

HEY, ARE YOU THE SAME BRIAN WHO RECENTLY GRADUATED FROM UCONN??????!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Anonymous said...

Brian... how do you differentiate between ballots cast by overseas servicemen and your regular run-of-the-mill absentee ballot? Are they different? If so, that's concerning. What about smaller towns that have only one democratic registered serviceman overseas? In that case, there's no secrecy in the ballot. That's very concerning. So is it true that these overseas ballots are segregated?

Brian said...

Well the secretary of the state's office can differeniate ballots from Iraq and those absentee ballots from Connecticut. The numbers were never released publicy through the media, but if somebody wanted to do a little research I'm pretty sure anybody could confirm this. I don't believe this is a concern at all. I do believe it is fascinating that more people overseas support Lamont.