Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Post Debate Thoughts

There were crowds of people outside the Garde mostly supporting world peace and anti-war issues. The only surprise was that PETA was not somehow protesting along with the rest of them. No Larouche supporters were visible prior to the debate.

The debate itself was more of the same show that we’ve seen previously except that Schlesinger avoided his more “colorful” commentary and Lamont recycled his primary campaign slipping back and forth between the promise to stand up to the Bush administration and that Lieberman was in the senate too long, repeating the 18 years and we still don’t have universal healthcare. The only interesting aspect of that was when one of the questioners asked Lamont about Dodd’s 25 years in the Senate. Lamont couldn’t finesse his way out of that question, because his whole campaign would fall apart. How can he be against everything that Joe Lieberman is for, if Joe Lieberman is for everything that Chris Dodd is for, not to mention, as Schlesinger gleefully points out, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy as well.

The Lamont campaign has always had an uneasy relationship dancing with the liberals who propelled him to great heights during the summer, and making the leap into the mainstream democratic party. Every criticism other than Lieberman’s early support for the war represents the same set of issues that every other democrat has struggled with following the 1994 republican majority in congress. Attacking Lieberman for failing to deliver universal healthcare either shows a lack of understanding on Lamont’s part about the role of the Senate, or foreshadows his next run against the next established Democrat whose office he aspires to.

Ned Lamont stood on a stage and proclaimed that he was the candidate to stand against the Bush administration. But his false bravado was apparent when hecklers began their idiotic protest against Lieberman. Lamont spoke once, barely heard above the noise and sat down. It was Schlesinger who leaped into action and demanded that they be stopped, reminding people to respect the office and the candidates.

Lamont supporters were quick to disassociate the campaign from the supporters, but questions remain about which campaign provided the tickets to the hecklers to gain admittance. With the circus usually accompanying the Lamont campaign it was not a leap to conclude that they deserved the blame.

Post debate, Lieberman spoke to reporters about how he would have preferred more debate about the issues, and less repetition of talking points. While he said he was against much of Schelsinger’s proposals re: health care and social security he appreciated the opportunity to talk about and debate them.

And that is perhap’s Connecticut’s greatest loss post debate. The issues that will have more impact on our daily lives were swept aside . The republican majority does believe in health savings accounts over providing basic health care to all citizens. The republican majority does believe that privatizing social security is the only way to deal with the projected aging baby boomers. The republican majority believes that illegal immigration is the greatest threat to homeland security. These are the issues that should have been debated in more depth. Instead we are left to react to empty theatrics.

39 comments:

Jim said...

"Lieberman’s early support for the war "

Good lord. What a comically dishonest statement. Absolutely shameless.

disgruntled_republican said...

You obviously have no concept of what Republicans actually want.

Jim said...

"Attacking Lieberman for failing to deliver universal healthcare either shows a lack of understanding on Lamont’s part about the role of the Senate"

Legislators don't propose legislation? I don't think Lamont is the one who doesn't understand the role of the Senate.

Isn't the whole point of the Great and Glorious Lieberman is that his Noble Bipartisanship and Heroic Moderation allows him to reach across the aisle and "get things done".
Aside from a single speech about one president's sex-life and lending his name and Beltway reputation to a 'compromise' that guarantees that the Senate will abdicate its Constitutionally mandated duty to advise and consent on Supreme Court nominations--thus ensuring that another president can fatally weaken what is supposed to be a co-equal and independent branch of the federal government--aside from those two heroic acheivements, I can't think of one thing Joe Lieberman has "gotten done" after eighteen years in the Senate.
I've asked you to explain this to me before, to tell me exactly what Lieberman has done to earn the un-challenged re-election to the Senate that he (and you, Turgrrl) seems to think is his divine right. You've never answered. I wonder why.

brickbat said...

turfgrrl would have us believe that the war in Iraq is just one issue among many.

Well, maybe. But it's the one that's cost 2700 American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and $200 billion.

It's the one that's ruined America's standing abroad and spread our troops so thin that we can't credibly react to North Korea or Iran.

Or Darfur.

It's the one that the National Intelligence Estimates say has caused an increase in the number of anti-American terrorists.

It's not the only thing Joe Lieberman's done wrong in the Senate. But if it were, it would be enough.

ATalbot said...

Turfgrrl this is your most intellectually dishonest post yet. You know full well that those individuals did not support Lamont. Larouchites will oppose any candidate backed by a major party. I got into a big shouting match with one afterwards about that very subject. They DID NOT SUPPORT LAMONT.

Second, there were several other outlets other than campaigns through which tickets could be obtained. From The Day offices for example.

Please, lets not be intentionally dishonest.

Bobby McGee said...

I'm confused. Doesn't Universal Healthcare fall squarely within the role of the Senate?

Brickbat- $200 billion is a low estimate. It's probably closer to $800 billion. Also, there have been hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq. To make the Iraq war seem like one of many is oversimplifying the situation so much. It's been a huge disaster, and it's worth voting him out of office for, even if he hadn't voted for torture, spent most of the last 6 years out of state running for higher office, or spent the remaining time railing against music, video games or whatever else is the censorship flavor of the day.

cgg said...

Actually it's a pretty big leap to blame Lamont supporters. Tickets to the debate were not especially difficult to obtain. There were available from any of the campaigns, as well as The Day. Security was poor, which is why it took so long to remove those jerks from the theater.

Lamont supporters had abosolutely nothing to do with the stunts pulled.

Anonymous said...

Joe Lieberman was THE DRIVING FORCE in killing the Clinton healthcare proposals in Clintons first term and his reasoning was simple. MONEY!! Money in the form of contributions from the insurance industry.

I hope the account Lynn Fusco promised you is a big one Turrfy.Your soul shouldn't be sold for cheap.

Anonymous said...

well Joe does represent CT--and guess what is in CT??? Health insurance companies!!! So Joe represented health insurance companies, the 1000's of employees of the health insurance companies, and the citizens of CT.

Way to go Joe!!!!

ctblogger said...

There's trufgrrl again lying her head off again and smearing Lamont.

CGG and countless other people clearly stated that the hecklers were Larouchites and probably the same wackos who were at the Dem State convention earlier this year. Also, on the VIDEOTAPE you can see Lamont coming off his chair first asking the hecklers to be quiet. Also the second time the hecklers did their thing, you can see that all the candidates were annoyed.

ATalbot is also correct in stating that there were several different ways one could obtain a ticket so your suggestion that the hecklers were Lamont supporters is just stupid unless you can back your claim.

I'm STILL waiting on that full disclosure

In full disclosure:

Aren't you a die-hard Republican? If so, why did you sign up as a poster in the first place since GC was looking for a moderate (after doing some research, it goes without saying that you are anything but a moderate).

What is your role in local government in Nowalk? If you have a role (which you do), why didn't you alert the readers of this site about your status whenever you criticized the Norwalk Democrats in your previous posts.

Are you friends with Mayor Moccia? If so, again, why didn't alert the readers of your role (i.e. re-election campaign) when you criticize Democrats?

What is your relationship with Lynn Fusco (she's on Lieberman's campaign team)? Why haven't you alert the readers of your role with Fusco?

For the sake of this site, I really hope your given the pink slip after election day as you symbolize all that is wrong with dishonest political operatives who pose as bloggers.

This is far from over.

Anonymous said...

I think a pool is in order for this site.

How many days after the election will it be beforre Genghis asks Turfgrrl to give up her front page status and kindly go away?

Shadow said...

Turfgrrl - The debate itself dealt with those issues quite well. The only way the theatrics of the Larouche hecklers will overshadow that fact is if people (such as yourself) continue to focus on the hecklers the most in your post-debate coverage. Why not cover the night by talking more about the issues, which comprised 58 minutes of the 60 minute debate?

Anonymous said...

Hey Anon 3:40

Go check how many of those jobs left CT. since 1993.

Joe Lieberman protected the large Insurance industries profits and the CEOs huge paychecks while they shipped jobs out of CT. by the thousands.

Way to go for who?

MikeCT said...

turf,

You have become a transparently dishonest shill and an embarrassment to this blog. You owe an apology to the Lamont campaign, which was responsible for throwing the hecklers out.

Anonymous said...

So nationalizing health insurance would have saved those jobs??? Not likely.

Ask the employees of Anthem, Aetna, Metlife if national healthcare would help them.

Hartford ain't called the Insurance City for nothing.

Anonymous said...

Turff--Good post. Ignore the wackos, you are right on target.

Ned Lamont and his acolytes are one step away from Larouche.

Anonymous said...

Great post Turfgrrl. I was listening to a Lamont radio spot this morning and thinking that everything said in the ad (other than Iraq) could be used in an ad against Chris Dodd.

Lamont attacks Lieberman for CT only getting back $0.66 on the dollar, for decreasing federal aid for transportation, etc.

Ned likes to run Joe's old ad against him; I can't wait for someone to run Ned's ads against Dodd.

But Turfgrrl, you need to explain this to me: how can your Democratic candidate for Congress attack the incumbent Republican on these same issues and, yet, say that Dodd and Lieberman are doing a great job. Ooops sorry. She said Lieberman was doing a great job prior to August 8, then changed her mind!

Anonymous said...

I have a serious question for the Lamont supporters and would appreciate an honest answer:

Ned Lamont has campaigned that if Joe Lieberman won't stand up to George Bush, then he will. Fair enough. But just 2 weeks ago, Ned stood next to Harry Parker as Mr. Parker lied about Joe Lieberman's record and distributed that lie on paper that was paid for by Lamont's own campaign. Here is the question: if Ned Lamont can't even stand up to Harry Parker, how can we expect him to stand up to the President of the United States?

turfgrrl said...

There's a Farside cartoon where in one panel Ginger is told why she's a bad dog captioned "what you say". The second panel is captioned, "what dogs hear", and the the words are blah, blah, Ginger, blah, blah blah. Posting about Lamont is much like experiencing the cartoon in real life, substituting Lamont supporters for dogs. Yeah, I realize that some of them will now say I call all Lamont supporters dogs. siiiggghhhh.

Anonymous said...

Republican Senators John Warner, Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar have no idea what your disgruntled_republican blogger contributor wants but they do know what's best for our military men and women as well as our national security. That's why kid Bush is starting to listen to them instead of the neo-cons that Joe hangs out with. Bush ain't saying "stay the course" no more.

Anonymous said...

Wow.. Universal Healthcare...Full government control over your health, and loss of thousands of jobs. What do you think will happen to all the people who work for medical insurance companies? They will all lose their jobs. Nice way to grow an economy Ned, eliminate one whole sector that employs hundreds of thousands of people. Average everyday Americans now out of work. What's next expand Welfare to take them all in? How does that help the family that Mom was making $35k/yr now is on welfare for $12k/yr. Hey Canada has Universal Healthcare, 18 months average to get bypass surgery. Some people die while waiting to get the surgery. Canada actually passed a law that makes it a crime to go to another country to receive medical care, even if you are paying for it yourself.

Wake up and see that Universal Healthcare is not the option we should have, let's attack the source, high premiums and medical costs. Also let's not forget the Democrats fillibustered the bill that would have allowed small businesses to pool together to get the discounts that big companies get. That would have meant more affordable premiums for working people. So who is looking out for us, well there are a few, but Lamont is not. Mr Millionaire can afford to get the best care, I cannot if he gets his way.

Anonymous said...

there is something wrong with your Negative Camapign piece that evolved into a talk about the slime politics in Waterbury so maybe I'll just post this here since there was a reference to PETA.

Charles Stango prosecuted the Lewis the Cat case in Bridgeport. I just wanted to check that out before laughing at Brass Boy's defense of the guy because he was valdectorian in high school. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar in so I guess he was a an even more really moral guy too. Clinton even carried a Bible to Church from the Whitehouse.

Brass Boy knows how to defend the indefensible. What a joke!

Jim said...

Yeah, I realize that some of them will now say I call all Lamont supporters dogs. siiiggghhhh.

borrowed wit...how...oh, never mind.


Ginger, I mean, Turfgrrl, just tell me what part about my question regarding Lieberman's lack of accomlishments in eighteen years in the Senate you didn't understand, and I'll try to reword it.

Struck me as pretty straightforward.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 4:26, he did stand up to Parker, issuing an immediate statement that the problem claim was not known nor endorsed by the campaign. something about that you don't understand?

Anonymous said...

Universal Healthcare is not full governement control over your health anymore than Medicare and medicaid are. What bullshit from the anti-lamonts.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I realize that some of them will now say I call all Lamont supporters dogs Ha, funny one turfy. I don't agree with many of your conclusions, but these clueless calls for your head are pathetic. You are never dull.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 5:43-- Medicare have to approve your procedures, otherwise they don't cover it. That's why the AARP offers gap insurance, to make up the difference. Try again.

Jim said...

but these clueless calls for your head are pathetic. You are never dull.

I don't want her head. Hell, she doesn't even use it, what would I want with it?

I just want her to answer a simple, direct question that she's been dodging for two months.

You are never dull.

Really? Wow. What do you do for a living, watch hot tar cool for Hartford Public Works Dept?

Anonymous said...

That's when I pressed the LaRouche literature on Lamont and his campaign manager. "Hey, look, LaRouche, Lamont," I said, smiling, pointing at the propaganda and the coincidental prefixes. "A little compromise and you guys could create some momentum."
# posted by Sue123 at 9:48 AM

Anonymous said...

Turfgirl-

I understand that the growing chorus of complaints against you fall on deaf ears.

That you can't hear other people is the meat of my complaint. Have you any moral compass? Where have you ethics gone?

Anonymous said...

Would Lamont run against Chris Dodd. That would be very interesting.

To the point .....Barack Obabma maybe stumping for Ned Lamont next week. His staffers are clearly saying it's on the table. Mention the slush fund if you want to call his office.

(202) 224-2854

turfgrrl said...

jim said I've asked you to explain this to me before, to tell me exactly what Lieberman has done to earn the un-challenged re-election to the Senate that he (and you, Turgrrl) seems to think is his divine right. You've never answered. I wonder why.

Is there a question here, or are you trying to shoehorn your prejudices into an excuse to jump on your soapbox? I think the later.

Anonymous said...

deaf ears, hell - evidently she won't even allow my strong criticism to be posted, it never showed up.

Anonymous said...

The question from jim is obvious, you twit. If you are going to post a fantasy description like this, you should be ready to defend your many and obvious detachments from reality.

Jim said...

I've asked you to explain this to me before, to tell me exactly what Lieberman has done to earn the un-challenged re-election to the Senate that he (and you, Turgrrl) seems to think is his divine right. You've never answered. I wonder why.

Is there a question here, or are you trying to shoehorn your prejudices into an excuse to jump on your soapbox? I think the later.

um....seems like a pretty simple question to me:
Without mentioning Ned Lamont, tell me why you support Joe Lieberman. Name one thing he has accomplished in the Senate. Fascinating how you just refuse to answer.

Again, tell me what you don't get. Besides how the Senate works. We can get to that later.

Anonymous said...

trying again; will you allow it this time???

OMG...this 'report' is a hideous mischaracterization of the debate I attended. As far as the Dodd question - he answered he is running against Lieberman [hint: that means he is NOT running against Dodd]. You clearly either have not bothered to view Lamont's issues page, or you are an outright fabricator.

Re: the "1994 republican majority in congress" - are you aware there are TWO branches of congress? One is the Senate, which happens to pertain to this debate, and which was under Dem control through the end of 1995 [since 1987] and again from June 2001 to the end of 2002. Further, just because you may be 'struggling with issues' does not mean you abandon attempts to pass this type of legislation. Not to mention, a certain Senator Lieberman voted AGAINST the Clinton universal-health-care plan in 1994, quite clearly weighing in against a concept which he now claims to have supported [hmm, sounds familiar]. You seem to need a civics lesson, turftwit.

"False bravado"? Shut up, dipstick. His convictions are true; how the hell you tie those convictions to the heckling defies logic; looks like you need some logic training as well.

No, "questions" do not "remain" - if you paid any attention to the debate announcement, tix were available at the New-London and Norwich offices of the day and at the New London public library. I never noticed any indication you had to be associated with a campaign to acquire a ticket.

This drivel you posted on here bears no semblance to reality. If you have any guts you will remove it ASAP.

Disgusted at the imbecilic turftwit.

turfgrrl said...

For those that might be interested in Joe Lieberman's views on health care. You can review them here.

To anonymous 6:47-- You need both houses to pass a bill. And then the president must sign it to become law. (source: Schoolhouse Rock)

Jim said...

turfgrrl said...
"To anonymous 6:47-- You need both houses to pass a bill. And then the president must sign it to become law. (source: Schoolhouse Rock)"


as has already been noted, you're hardly in a position to condescend to anyone on the workings of the federal government.

Still waiting for a brief--as it would have to be--statement on Joe Lieberman's actual achievements in his eighteen years in the Senate. And as a personal favor: I'd be thrilled to know what you think this means:
Is there a question here, or are you trying to shoehorn your prejudices into an excuse to jump on your soapbox? I think the later.

Gabe said...

The only interesting aspect of that was when one of the questioners asked Lamont about Dodd’s 25 years in the Senate. Lamont couldn’t finesse his way out of that question, because his whole campaign would fall apart.

Did Dodd stand on a stage 18 years ago and tell Lowell Wiecker that he was part of the problem after 18 years? And then promise to only serve for three terms?

Or was that Lieberman?