Thursday, October 12, 2006

SurveyUSA: Lieberman Leads by 13%

SurveyUSA is saying that Joe Lieberman's lead in the U.S. Senate race is widening. Their poll of 572 likely voters showed Lieberman with 53%, Lamont with 40%, and Schlesinger with 4%.

Chuck Todd of the National Journal had this to say about the Lamont campaign:
But something happened in August that turned this race from being Democrat Ned Lamont's to lose: Lamont didn't go for the kill.

In the two weeks immediately following Lamont's primary victory, Lieberman was reeling. He had no party, little support, little staff and not much money. And what did Lamont do during this critical period? He took his foot off of Lieberman's throat.

There was a period when Lieberman could have been branded a sore loser. In fact, it wouldn't have been the first time Lieberman would have felt that sting. (Think back to the national landscape in 2000.)

But Lamont (and the media) gave Lieberman enough time and oxygen to become an "independent," and that seemed to marginalize Lamont's victory. Too many Connecticut Democrats view Lieberman positively right now. Lamont could have gone on the air immediately in August -- even guilted his new Democratic friends to cut TV ads for him -- and created an atmosphere that might have made Lieberman think twice about continuing his bid.

But that didn't happen. (Todd)

If that wasn't bad enough, the Lamont campaign now has to deal with a very stupid thing said by a supporter:
Hours earlier, former state Treasurer Henry E. Parker had questioned Lieberman's oft-cited civil rights history as he and other black leaders endorsed Lamont.

"I'm saying that my view is there's no evidence of what he's done. Let him prove that he's been there," Parker said at a press conference attended by Lamont.

Lamont's campaign, which immediately seemed to grasp the political misstep, disavowed Parker's claim even before Lieberman produced news clippings placing him in Mississippi. (Hamilton)

Not the best of days for the Lamont campaign. The debates are looking more and more crucial for them--in fact, they may be Lamont's last chance to get back into this race.

Sources
Hamilton, Elizabeth and Mark Pazniokas. "Lieberman Says Angrily: `It Is A Lie'." Hartford Courant 12 October, 2006.

Todd, Chuck. "Backseat Driving." National Journal (Online) 11 October, 2006.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Neddie will just write another check to enhance the growing wealth transfer from the Lamont heirs to the Hilsman heirs

GMR said...

You really got to wonder about Schlesinger. He's got 4% support, and the margin of error is 4.2% in this poll.

I just don't think he's going to get that low. I guess about 35% of the electorate is Republican. This means that, according to this poll, only about 1 out of 9 Republicans are going to vote for Schlesinger.

I always thought there were more straight ticket voters than that. Maybe some people say they support Lieberman now, but when they get in the polling booth, and have always voted Republican, they'll click the lever or whatever they have to do for Jodi Rell. Right next to her (or is underneath?) will be Schlesinger. A few rows or columns away will be Joe Lieberman, all alone.

I just wonder if there aren't more than a few Republicans out there who don't really follow things that closely, and may not realize that Schlesinger is actually the candidate. I mean, I read this blog regularly, but outside of here, I've hardly seen any mention of the guy. Maybe only 4% of the people can name Schlesinger, but how many will vote for the R no matter who it is ("Yellow Dog Republicans?"). I would imagine that for many of the way down the ticket races, people have no idea who the people are, and vote on party ID.

In Vermont, the Democrat party was terrified that a no-name Democrat would qualiy for the Senate ballot, thus siphoning votes away from Independent Bernie Sanders. The party feared that too many of its members were straight ticket voters. Now, Vermont is much more Democrat that Connecticut is Republican, but Sanders has a large lead over Tarrant.

Is Schlesinger really going to end up with less than 5%? I still think Lieberman is going to win, mind you. But if his margin in the polls is less than 10% minus Schlesinger, he needs to be nervous...

Anonymous said...

The polls are all over the place.The only obvious thing is they're all bullshit.
Schlesinnenger gets a minimum of 15% on election day and all these polls say he's in single digits.

Anonymous said...

What a joke! It was suppose to be a drive by shooting, with Parker alleging that Lieberman’s early record as an agitator for black rights was a fraud. Yes folks, the earth really is flat. Lamont was present at the press conference, blinking and smiling, and assenting to these preposterous claims by his studied silence. Then the whole thing blew up in their faces – because there was and is a record of Lieberman’s participation of these events. Well, at least they didn’t trot out Jane Hamsher’s picture of Lieberman in blackface for this one.

Anonymous said...

Survey USA has Lieberman up 58-35 in Fairfeild county yet the Stamford Advocate had it within MOE in almost the same area of Ct.

These polls are worthless.

Anonymous said...

What is with you folks?? You think Alan Gold can break 10%??? No f-ing way. This is a high profile race with Repubs chomping at the bit to put down the the highly insulting Lamont campaign. You think after a summer full of mocking attack ads that R's will vote for a no name challenger with zero chance of winning?? You think that Ned's mailers tieing Joe to CHENEY and ROVE are going to drive the R's into Alan's camp???

R's will flock to the polls to rid CT of Ned.

Anonymous said...

Yeah--useless polls which all show Joe leading. So pretend they don't exist, just like Joe wasn't in Mississippi.

Lamont is a joke.

Billy said...

HAHAHA If a poll was released tommorrow saying Ole Bug Eyes was onlu 9% behind Joe the nutters would be out in full force saying THE TIDES ARE SHIFTING BSUHMCHITLERMAN IS GOING TO LOSE HAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!

But all the polls keep showing ned trailing and trailing and trailing and trailing so now the polls are "worthless" hahaha see ya later Neddie.

justavoter said...

I think Republicans who call themselves true Republicans in our state will vote for Schlesinger.

He if your a Republican has some good Idea's Republicans should take a better look at what they have in there own Connecticut Republican Party.

If Republicans want control of the US Senate then Schlesinger is the man to vote for to try and beat Lieberman.

Schlesinger I think will get more then 4-5 percent of the vote when Republican realize that they need to stick with there party.

The Polls are worthless to many with varied numbers .

I will say it again the only poll that counts is the voting booth .

Thats when Lamont will finally win and Lieberman will lose.

The new campaign flyer from the Lamont campaign is excellent and hits home at the connections Lieberman has in Washington D.C..

The Lamont camp will now hit Lieberman with everything they have.

Lieberman does not have the grassroots support that Ned has for one thing and a People powered campaign is important .

Lieberman does not have the volunteer base now that Ned has around the state.

Lieberman is to dependent on Wshington D.C. Insiders and there money.

The new Tv ad by the Lamont Campaign brings the reason we need change in Washington D.C. directly and honestly with Joe Liebermans own words from 1988.

The few Lieberman supporters that post here Anonymously and some others can act like Liebermans going to win in November but the reality in the end will be a blow to there candiate Lieberman when he loses and concedes to Lamont .

The media has not been so kind to Lamont since he started so what else is new there .

People in Connecticut want real change that more of the same and Lieberman keeps telling us how he saved Groton Sub Base .

Connecticut a big state and not all of us live with the same issues as folks in Groton.

There are many more issues then just the Sub Base.

Healthcare,Opposition to the Bush War which Lieberman supports,Social Security,Educational issues for our kids those of us who still have kids going to school, the Environment etc.

Lieberman cannot win on one issue.

What has he done in the last 6 years but support Republican policy and miss over 400 votes in the Senate that says alot about Joe.

Anonymous said...

Why have polls...thanks surveyusa for throwing out more propaganda. Survey USA. has a long history of being criticized and touted as unprofessional.

The facts on its methodology and results....

1.)this surey uses a pre recorded voice of a anchorman, in which, anybody (child adult) can push random buttons on a touchtone phone.

Based on the 11 senatorial races Survey Usa did in 2002..last mid year elections

2.) In the 2002 mid year elections...two races finished 9 points differently than the final polling

-one race finished 12 points differently from the final polling.


Survey Usa is wrong...

JoanBasil said...

Can anyone name a candidate other than Joe Lieberman who is still using some rather brief episode of his life 43 years ago as a public service credential?

Another part of the issue that I'm learning about is that Lieberman was an intern in Washington that summer of 1963 and thats something that I'm skeptical about. He got all kinds of deferments not to have to go into the military at a time when there was a draft but someone set him up with a political plum internship that gave him connections and he's been able to use it as his "civil rights" credential for 40 years. Its so clever.

BrassBoy said...

C'mon justavoter... this rambling statement started off with a bad premise and just got worse.

Do you think that I, as a "true Republican" will vote for Schlesinger, simply because he has some good ideas and thus risk sending someone like Lamont to Washington? If Alan had a chance to upset the apple-cart then maybe I'd have a tough choice.

As liberal as Lieberman is (and he is, despite what the far-left seems to think now) he's not nearly as ultra-liberal (or is it progressive now? I get so confused lately) as Lamont (and his organization).

So given the choice between voting for Schlesinger, thus giving Lamont a better chance of a win and voting for Lieberman, I'll take Lieberman, the lesser of two evils.

It has nothing to do with being a "true Republican".

Anonymous said...

FYI.....these are important facts that people don't know or are getting mixed up!!

To let everybody know the facts about the Ct voter electorate. This is from the Ct State of Secretary site 2005 (numbers)

Republicans make up 22% of the electorate. (450,000-475,000) most likely this number remained stagnant or slightly decreased since last summer. The majority of the Republicans reside in Litchfield and Farefield Counties. This helps Ned!!

Democrats make up 33% of the electorate. This number could have shot up atleast 5% since the last numbers were tabulated last summer. The number from the primary was 730,000)

Independents make up about 45%

This number is anywhere between 950,000 and 1 million

Ct. has approximately 2.1 million voters plus newly registered voters...

BrassBoy said...

Why do Republicans living in Litchfield county and Fairfield county (and not ew Haven county, like me) help Lamont???

Anonymous said...

JoanBasil said: "Can anyone name a candidate other than Joe Lieberman who is still using some rather brief episode of his life 43 years ago as a public service credential?"

At least he has a public service record upon which he can rely. What does Lamont have? A short stint on the Greenwich Board of Selectman (and the 3d Selectman position at that!) and an even briefer stint as a volunteer at a school in Bridgeport (which I applaud by the way).

Look, I know the Lamont people are upset - after all yesterday was not a good day for the campaign - but it is a fact that Joe Lieberman chose to go to Mississippi to help blacks gain equality and demonstrate that there were white people who were on their side. Not even the worst Lieberman hater can deny that. Even you haters must applaud Lieberman for that. It is also fair to point out that while this was a decision Lieberman made, Lamont made a decision in his life to join an exclusive private country club that apparently excluded from membership people simply because of the color of their skin. His decision to leave the club for that reason was obviously a political one, not one based on principle.

Sometimes facts are tough JoanBasil!

Just for fun, it is worth pointing out that although Lamont isn't using a brief moment, as you call it, from 43 years ago, he is using money his family made more than 43 years ago. LOL

Anonymous said...

Anon. 10:25 - There is no way Alan Gold gets 15%. He may be closer to 10% than 5%, but he does not go over 10%.

Wishful thinking for Lamont voters.

This is and has been for a long time a 2 candidate race. Nothing is going to change that fact. Consequently, the choice for Republicans is between 1 of 2 candidates: Lieberman or Lamont. Once you understand that dynamic, you will understand why most Republicans are supporting Lieberman.

If the Republicans had offered a real candidate earlier (as they should have) perhaps it would be different, but it's too late for that.

Anonymous said...

That's priceless. Trying to take out Joe for marching for civil rights 40 years ago!!!

Way to go Ned--YOU are the MAN!!!

Anonymous said...

Quick aside - The personal finances of members of Congress were released. Nce to see Joe Lieberman, who's never had a job off the public teat, is a millionaire. No wonder he will do anything to keep his "job".

Anonymous said...

@brassboy

you are a republican voting for Lamont? If you are you rule...please get more repubcs to vote for Lamont, Schlesinger or not vote at all.

GMR said...

Another part of the issue that I'm learning about is that Lieberman was an intern in Washington that summer of 1963 and thats something that I'm skeptical about. He got all kinds of deferments not to have to go into the military at a time when there was a draft but someone set him up with a political plum internship that gave him connections and he's been able to use it as his "civil rights" credential for 40 years. Its so clever.

The draft wasn't a big deal yet in 1963. In Vietnam, during 1963, there were 123 soldiers killed in Vietnam, and in 1962 there were 53.

At that time, US involvement in Vietnam was mainly just advisors: it wasn't until the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1965 that the US deployed a significant number of soldiers.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that six years ago, Lieberman won 72% to 28% against Phil Giordano---before anyone knew ANYTHING about Giordano. Twenty-eight percent....two way race.

Those 28% have been kicking themselves for six years for making that vote. They won't make the same mistake with a crackpot like Schlesinger who has already admitted to being a card counter who welches on his markers and has been sued by two AC casinos.

Would Schlesinger's campaign manager please stop beating this 15% drum.

Anonymous said...

Joe lieberman you have lost all my support. Your campaign is a joke to attack Ned Lamont for having Al Shartpon advise them....

Sharpton himself has advised Lieberman a helleva alot more than he ever has Lamont in his lifetime. Shartpon even ran as Vice president with Lieberman in 2000 during the presidential primaries. Go figure that out. What a remarkable fact.

The issue with the black Connecticut democrats is clear and simple. They feel used by Lieberman and aren't going to let a power hungry man feed of of them for political gain.

Anonymous said...

WAKE UP PEOPLE..we are going to be in Iraq until 2010.

.how many more people from this state are going to die in a almost criminal way overseas.

Vote Joe Lieberman and say goodbye to anbody you know who is in the military.

BrassBoy said...

Anon12:35...

Where do you see me saying I'm voting Lamont?

Absolutely not. I have never been more disgusted than primary night when he had Jackson, Sharpton, Weicker and Waters with him. Let alone that thug of a campaign manager Swan and his ultra-liberal positions on ... well just about everything.

No, I am (ugh) voting Lieberman, despite his liberal in moderate clothing shtick, because I just can't see how sending Lamont to Washington would do any good and I'm afraid voting for Schlesinger would only increase that possiblity.

Anonymous said...

Come on people.....get real


Who cares if Lieberme marched for civil rights. So didn't alot of whole other people at that time. It is 40 years later and the black democrats haven't had any help by Lieberme since then.

...CTbob puts in proper perspective.

.
Here is the fuss by Connecticut black democrats...its socioeconomic polocy that Liberman has ignorantly destoryed.


CT BOB notes
- Lieberman called Affirmative Action "Un-American"
- Lieberman voted against bill to force full funding for CT's inner city schools
- Lieberman skipped close vote to increase funding for minority health programs
- Lieberman skipped major NAACP event during 2003 Presidential Campaign
- Lieberman SUPPORTS school vouchers, bleeding money from public schools

Anonymous said...

Come on people.....get real


Who cares if Lieberme marched for civil rights. So didn't alot of whole other people at that time. It is 40 years later and the black democrats haven't had any help by Lieberme since then.

...CTbob puts in proper perspective.

.
Here is the fuss by Connecticut black democrats...its socioeconomic polocy that Liberman has ignorantly destoryed.


CT BOB notes
- Lieberman called Affirmative Action "Un-American"
- Lieberman voted against bill to force full funding for CT's inner city schools
- Lieberman skipped close vote to increase funding for minority health programs
- Lieberman skipped major NAACP event during 2003 Presidential Campaign
- Lieberman SUPPORTS school vouchers, bleeding money from public schools

disgruntled_republican said...

Thanks ANON 129 -

You just reminded me why I am a Republican.

Anonymous said...

Joan

"He got all kinds of deferments not to have to go into the military at a time when there was a draft but someone set him up with a political plum internship that gave him connections and he's been able to use it as his "civil rights" credential for 40 years."

Dodd, thanks mainly to his father the senator, served during the Vietnam war as a Peace Corp volunteer in the Dominican Republic, and Clinton was saved from the draft at the last moment by Richard Nixon's draft lottery. He also fled to England. John Kerry served a short hitch honorably, then became a war protestor who claimed that US troops routinely committed crimes against humanity and the Geneva Accords. They were times that tried men's souls, times of sunshine patriots, abject cowardice and heroism on a grand scale. Safely outside the iron ring of history, we judge too quickly.

Anonymous said...

I sense desperation on the Lamont side. Why is Ned pushing the black base? Are Ned's numbers going soft-so he has to energize the black base? Why has Ned gone negative in mailers tieing Rove and Cheney to Joe? Shouldn't Ned have that vote allready????

The tea leaves are apparent.

Brickbat said...

I'm a solid Lamont supporter and confirmed Joe basher, but Ned has run a horrible campaign since the primary.

Yesterday's Hank Parker fiasco is icing on the cake that just confirmed to wavering voters that Ned is too negative.

I agree that Ned's last shot is the debates. He should have won this race, but his people now appear to have blown it; not ready for prime-time.

And we all suffer six more years of G.O.P. Joe as a result.

Anonymous said...

Love this from Colin's Blog:

Jodi Rell is a train wreck in this answer about the senate race, but John DeStefano is not able to capitalize fully on it, because his position makes no sense either. He was for Joe Lieberman in the primary. Now he's for Lamont because of Lamont's stance on the war? Excuse me? He found out on Aug. 9 about the war issue?

Blue Turned Red said...

You can thank Tom Swan for Lamont’s Lackluster performance. While he proved to be a champion at stirring up a left wing backlash against a centrist Democrat, Swan doesn’t have a clue when it comes to winning over mainstream voters. He must be frustrated and perplexed that normal folks aren’t buying in to his brand of CCAG rhetoric. I’m surprised no one has been mentioning this, but I’ve been saying since day one that Swan will only help to ensure a Lamont defeat in the GENERAL election and getting rid of him after the primary would have been the smart thing to do. Lamont didn’t, so now he suffers. It is one big 8 million dollar lesson he will learn the hard way.

Anonymous said...

Parker's mis-statement was damaging,but reflects Lieberman's editorial license.

I was in Washington in the summer of 1963, [so I had] the opportunity to participate in Dr. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington, which culminated at the Lincoln Memorial in his soaring “I Have a Dream” speech. For me, this was America at its best. Hundreds of thousands of us, of all religions, races, and nationalities, joined together peacefully but powerfully to petition our government to right the wrong of racial bigotry.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 34 May 2, 2000



I walked with Martin Luther King in the march on Washington for jobs and freedom.

That was my honor. That was my opportunity.

And later that fall, I went to Mississippi where we worked to register African-Americans to vote. Excerp from Lieberman's speech at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles.

Walked with or participate, envoke different levels of participation.

Shadow said...

DeStefano, like Dodd, Clinton, and most everyone else, felt the obligation to support the sitting Senator of their party in his primary, and also felt the obligation to support the winner of the primary whoever it was. Whether you agree or disagree with the reasoning, singling out DeStefano makes no sense. The only reason Rell is being singled out from other Republicans who also use the "vote-for-whoever-you-want-nudge-nudge-wink-wink" approach was her ridiculous answer in the debates; she tried to convey the high road "all three have something to offer" message, but couldn't bring her ego to say something positive about Lamont as she went down the list (essentially insulting him and listing it as an attribute), which blatantly undermined her whole argument and exposed it as a fraud to the groans of the entire audience in attendance. If you're going to say all three have something to offer, at least make sure you have one good thing to say about each one before you explain your position, or you look utterly foolish, not to mention dishonest.

On another note, I think GMR hits it on the head with his Senate election analysis regarding the Republican vote. Poll positions (no pun intended) do count, and Schlesinger will inevitably do better than he's polling, meaning anywhere from three to ten points of Lieberman's lead in the polls are illusory at this point (although I'm inclined to believe that the number is much closer to three than ten). I also think that the energy and the ground operation give Lamont will give a clear advantage on election day that will account for at least a few more points. In a worst case debate scenario where Lamont makes no headway, a victory scenario for him would rely completely on the combination of both those factors.

Anonymous said...

Poll Shows Diane Farrell (D) Leading 46-41 over Chris Shays (R) Read more:

http://www.farrellforcongress.com


More reasons why Joe Lieberman is the wrong person to vote for and why Ned Lamont is the right choice. Watch the short video:

http://lamont.3cdn.net/8e1b3f1042a97e1ebd_vxm6b6iui.mov


Nancy Johnson (R) caught in the act as she puts the needs of big drug companies over your needs. Watch the short video:

http://pol.moveon.org/donate/redhandedJM-QT.html

Anonymous said...

I few of you back a ways said this was crazy but still, Schlesinger will be in double digits. He has three debates and when he doesn't have to answer questions about gambling he sounds credible enough. Certainly more intelligent then Giordano. His stump speech is actually not bad. In the debates I suspect he'll suprise a few folks and bring some republicans home. Not a huge number but some. I'll predict he gets 12%. If i'm right it's a toss-up who wins.

Anonymous said...

Neddie will get his own pink slip soon enough


http://www.joe2006.com/blog_details.asp?id=125

justavoter said...

Blue Turned Red says it all you do not support Lamont so your comments about Swan and what Lamont should have done have no value.

Lamont will do fine and swan from your right wing perspective is why Lamont is behind in the polls.

I don't think Lamont needs advice from Right Wingers.

justavoter said...

Anonymous the Black base as you put it is endorse Lamont he did not ask for the endorsement .

So get your facts straight.

Another thing Lieberman wanted the Black Leaders to support him in the Primary he even called some of those leaders like Al Sharpton.

If Al Sharpton was supporting Lieberman you would be saying all nice things about that.

So lets be honest.

The Black American vote nationally and in Connecticut will vote Democratic and Lamont is closer to there issues then Lieberman will ever be Lieberman soldout the Democratic Party along time ago.

I hope Ned rund Lieberman into Mud
With all the Negative ads that speak the truth as possible .

People say he's to negative because he points out the lack of leadership Lieberman has given to the Democrats and the people of our state.

Lieberman has run a dirty campaign during and after the Primary.

Lamont is just stating the truth.

Thats the bottonline

justavoter said...

Lieberman is all show for the tv and newspapers and Civil Rights what a laugh.

I marched I did this etc .

I would like to see his Civil Right record for the last 30 years and more so the last 6 years.

Lieberman is like a book the cover looks great but the content is empty

Shadow said...

Correction: When explaining how Schlesinger will do a few points better than he's polling, I accidentally said "poll positions do matter", when I meant to say "BALLOT positions do matter".


> Anonymous 7:33 pm: I'll predict he gets 12%. If i'm right it's a toss-up who wins.

Actually, I would disagree with your second statement; if Schlesinger actually gets all the way up to 12%, then Lieberman can't win.

Just look at the numbers: that extra 9% Schlesinger would be adding to his current 3% number would come mostly at the expense of Lieberman, who CANNOT afford to lose it. Why? Demographics of current polls (polls no one can accuse of being hard on or unfair to Lieberman) say that he has just over 2/3 of Republicans, about 1/3 of Democrats, and less than half of Independents. Compare that to the political demographics of the state, and at best that can be construed as about 47% who would vote for Lieberman in the general. Now subtract six points (because we're subtracting 2/3 of the 9% needed to bring Schlesinger from 3% to 12%), and that leaves Lieberman with 41%; Schlesinger and Lieberman's combined total would be 53%. 100% minus 51% leaves about 49% of the vote for Lamont; that's not just a victory, it would be a comfortable eight point margin.

Lieberman needs Schlesinger's numbers to stay in single digits or Lamont has won this race.

Anonymous said...

John Kerry did two tours in Vietnam with the second tour cut short with his third Purple Heart. Leiberman got deferrments after the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident as well as before it. There is no fact check on this blog I guess because those aren't the only two that needed corrected.

Shadow said...

Sorry, that second to last sentence had a typo, I meant to say: 100% minus 53% leaves about 47% of the vote for Lamont; that's not just a victory, it would be a comfortable six point margin.

Mark from Ohio said...

Even if the Republican Schlesinger moves up, all his votes will not come from Lieberman. It never happens that way. People vote for a number of reasons, often not very inciteful ones such as simple name recognition, and clearly not just straight party voting. If Lamont is at 40% he probably can't win no matter how well the republican does. This is in effect 2 challengers against an incumbent. The challengers divide the anti-incumbent sentiment and the incumbent invariably win.

Anonymous said...

"Lieberman called Affirmative Action "Un-American"

I would agree- At one time it was a good idea to help give minorities a hand up. Now AA is used to abuse those who excel.

"Lieberman voted against bill to force full funding for CT's inner city schools"

Send me a link please.

"Lieberman skipped close vote to increase funding for minority health programs"

You are aware that he was attending a California fundraiser in regards to running for the Democratic national party Presidential nomination? Who else missed the vote eh?

"Lieberman skipped major NAACP event during 2003 Presidential Campaign"

So? So did Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. You also fail to mention that all three showed up at the national NAACP convention three days later and apologized for the scheduling conflict.

"Lieberman SUPPORTS school vouchers, bleeding money from public schools"

Good- The public schools have become a breeding ground for mediocrity.

Anonymous said...

"John Kerry did two tours in Vietnam with the second tour cut short with his third Purple Heart."

HAR-HAR-HAR!

John Kerry was on the ground in 'nam for 3 months and got out with three self inflicted wounds.

Anonymous said...

Kerry was on the ground for three months for his second tour that got cut short. SecNAV John Warner certified his Purple Hearts and expresses no regrets today. Kerry's first tour was on a ship.