OK, so I don't think Ned Lamont answered one question straight up. He seemed to not want to answer anything.
And the question about one mistake, the bloggers all jumped all over Jodi Rell for saying she couldn't think of one, I am willing to bet A LOT of money that Lamont won't get the same scrutiny.
AND, it was SOOO easy. He could have just said not standing up right away with the Hank Parker comments. Really amateur, I hope the blogosphere would take a step back for a second and be HONEST.
What a great debate, my favorite so far. If only all politics could be like this, our whole country would be better off. Both Mr. Lamont and Mr. Schlesinger deserve great credit for bringing the issues of CT to the forefront in this debate.
Lamont did exceptionally well, and Schlesinger is so right and innovative on the issues 70% of the time, I can see why he's swaying a lot of Republicans; during that 70%, he really makes me want to vote for him. I think on the other 30% where he's dead wrong, Lamont took him on regarding about 2/3 of it; the other 1/3 he let go, as to not take the focus too far off Lieberman. An understandable tactical choice, but intellectually I would have really liked to hear Lamont take on Schlesinger regarding those few issues he let go without an additional rebuttal (such as the nuts and bolts of how we push new energy methods).
Lamont won the debate overall, though, as he had better answers on Iran, changing fuel standards, immigration, Darfur, and a host of other issues. On many other vital issues, both men were dead right and in agreement, and on a couple issues Schlesinger stole the show with his answers.
I am more confident than ever in my vote for Ned Lamont, and I realize now that were he not in the race, how easy it would be for me to vote Schlesinger over Lieberman.
Anything but Joe - how about six more years of real ideas like tonight?
I'm voting for Schlesinger. At least Schlesinger has some integrity. I like Ned, but I think Alan is the best candidate after tonight's debate.
Joe simply does not care about his constituents, Connecticut, or the rule of law, or our national security. Having Joe in government just doesn't make any sense at all. He's the ultimate "fox in the henhouse".
Ah, imagine a world without Joe Lieberman. Can we?
Certainly this was the best debate ever, without a certain candidate whining, complaining, talking too long, and doing everything possible to avoid the real issues.
Unbelievably, Joe missed this debate for a cocktail party at Mayor Mike's restaurant in Hartford. (Where, according to Joe's own website, he could talk with "REAL VOTERS" about "REAL ISSUES"...)
Reading some of these comments especially Anon 10:21, Bush is Hitler. I am no fan of Bush but equating him to Hitler is not even close, and just shows how vile you are. Ever wonder why politics turn the average voter off? This is why. Bush did not mass murder over 1 million people. Comparing Bush to Hitler means you know nothing about world history. Maybe instead of attacking everyone for their views and equating them to dispicable mass murderers, maybe we should just all try to be civil and disagree. I think calling Lieberman LIE BERMAN is the same thing. I am no fan of Joe's or Ned. Ned and a democrat congress will just be mired in investigation after investigation trying to impeach Bush because of the war.
Have any of you been over to Iraq? Anyone speak to anyone over there? I have, and I hear the good things that are happening as well as the bad. We are in Iraq, we will be there for another 5-7 years. Troop levels will decline over time, just as in any other war. Regardless if you agree or disagree with the war it is reality. The troops over there as a whole support their mission, what they worry about is that we will cut and run just like Mogadishu. That will just enable Al Qaida to recruit even more Jihadists and step up their attacks on our soil. Getting out of Iraq is capitulating to the enemy. What happened to the American resolve that used to be when I was young. With the way some of you are so upset with this war, would you have supported WWII? We went after Germany, yet Germany did not attack Pearl Harbor, Japan did. Most of our focus was on Europe and some of it on the East. We didn't focus on the East until Germany surrendered. And what happened after Germany & Japan surrendered? There were still attacks and fighting in the streets 5 years afterward, by loyalists to Hitler/Japan. But I am sure many of you would not have fought that war, and instead would have wanted to say ok, you killed our people, blew up paradise, but it's ok America is wrong. Was Roosevelt wrong to go to war? I think not.
Freeing 25 million people from tyrants is not a bad thing, I hear from friends what good we are doing over there. I hear from people in my town who have family there, and guess what? A lot of Iraqis want us to go but not until they are safe. No one wants another country's military in their homeland, but that is reality right now. Maybe as many of you get older you will realize that when there are people who will hold others down, kill for their own pleasure these are not people you can reason with. Should we invade every country and throw out every dictator, no we should not, but we should always support our countrymen and be civil even when we disgree.
11 comments:
Twenty minutes of commercials then the debate?
Hmm, without Sen. Lieberman around, people really can have an intelligent discussion about the issues.
OK, so I don't think Ned Lamont answered one question straight up. He seemed to not want to answer anything.
And the question about one mistake, the bloggers all jumped all over Jodi Rell for saying she couldn't think of one, I am willing to bet A LOT of money that Lamont won't get the same scrutiny.
AND, it was SOOO easy. He could have just said not standing up right away with the Hank Parker comments. Really amateur, I hope the blogosphere would take a step back for a second and be HONEST.
What a great debate, my favorite so far. If only all politics could be like this, our whole country would be better off. Both Mr. Lamont and Mr. Schlesinger deserve great credit for bringing the issues of CT to the forefront in this debate.
Lamont did exceptionally well, and Schlesinger is so right and innovative on the issues 70% of the time, I can see why he's swaying a lot of Republicans; during that 70%, he really makes me want to vote for him. I think on the other 30% where he's dead wrong, Lamont took him on regarding about 2/3 of it; the other 1/3 he let go, as to not take the focus too far off Lieberman. An understandable tactical choice, but intellectually I would have really liked to hear Lamont take on Schlesinger regarding those few issues he let go without an additional rebuttal (such as the nuts and bolts of how we push new energy methods).
Lamont won the debate overall, though, as he had better answers on Iran, changing fuel standards, immigration, Darfur, and a host of other issues. On many other vital issues, both men were dead right and in agreement, and on a couple issues Schlesinger stole the show with his answers.
I am more confident than ever in my vote for Ned Lamont, and I realize now that were he not in the race, how easy it would be for me to vote Schlesinger over Lieberman.
Anything but Joe - how about six more years of real ideas like tonight?
As one of the 1000's who didn't see...thanks for the highlights.
Joe bad, Ned good, Alan (like a Greek God) brilliant. But anyone who wants to stop the BUSHITLER JOE
WAR must vote for Ned.
Thanks again for the uncanny political insight.
I'm voting for Schlesinger. At least Schlesinger has some integrity. I like Ned, but I think Alan is the best candidate after tonight's debate.
Joe simply does not care about his constituents, Connecticut, or the rule of law, or our national security. Having Joe in government just doesn't make any sense at all. He's the ultimate "fox in the henhouse".
Evidently the NY Times of all people are going to have a huge story tommrrow punching huge holes in the "Bush Lied" mantra of Lamont et al
Ah, imagine a world without Joe Lieberman. Can we?
Certainly this was the best debate ever, without a certain candidate whining, complaining, talking too long, and doing everything possible to avoid the real issues.
Unbelievably, Joe missed this debate for a cocktail party at Mayor Mike's restaurant in Hartford. (Where, according to Joe's own website, he could talk with "REAL VOTERS" about "REAL ISSUES"...)
How's that for democracy!
It was a refreshing debate without name dropping Lieberman. BTW, have you seen the Paul Newman ad for Lamont? What a coup! Be still, my heart.
after watching the debate it was great not having Joe there to spoil a great Senate debate on the merrit of the issues.
Alan I like and he has some good ideas aswell if I were a Republican he would get my vote.
Ned held is own and seemed more relaxed and knows the issues that are affecting us.
We might need to wait 2 years befor Bushes term is up but I don't have to wait to kick Lieberman out for good .
Ned you have my vote on Novemeber 7th and this was the best debate of the 4 .
Maybe it was because Lieberman did not join in this one as he did the others.
Both Alan and Ned did an excellent job of talking about the issues that affect us.
Reading some of these comments especially Anon 10:21, Bush is Hitler. I am no fan of Bush but equating him to Hitler is not even close, and just shows how vile you are. Ever wonder why politics turn the average voter off? This is why. Bush did not mass murder over 1 million people. Comparing Bush to Hitler means you know nothing about world history. Maybe instead of attacking everyone for their views and equating them to dispicable mass murderers, maybe we should just all try to be civil and disagree. I think calling Lieberman LIE BERMAN is the same thing. I am no fan of Joe's or Ned. Ned and a democrat congress will just be mired in investigation after investigation trying to impeach Bush because of the war.
Have any of you been over to Iraq? Anyone speak to anyone over there? I have, and I hear the good things that are happening as well as the bad. We are in Iraq, we will be there for another 5-7 years. Troop levels will decline over time, just as in any other war. Regardless if you agree or disagree with the war it is reality. The troops over there as a whole support their mission, what they worry about is that we will cut and run just like Mogadishu. That will just enable Al Qaida to recruit even more Jihadists and step up their attacks on our soil. Getting out of Iraq is capitulating to the enemy. What happened to the American resolve that used to be when I was young. With the way some of you are so upset with this war, would you have supported WWII? We went after Germany, yet Germany did not attack Pearl Harbor, Japan did. Most of our focus was on Europe and some of it on the East. We didn't focus on the East until Germany surrendered. And what happened after Germany & Japan surrendered? There were still attacks and fighting in the streets 5 years afterward, by loyalists to Hitler/Japan. But I am sure many of you would not have fought that war, and instead would have wanted to say ok, you killed our people, blew up paradise, but it's ok America is wrong. Was Roosevelt wrong to go to war? I think not.
Freeing 25 million people from tyrants is not a bad thing, I hear from friends what good we are doing over there. I hear from people in my town who have family there, and guess what? A lot of Iraqis want us to go but not until they are safe. No one wants another country's military in their homeland, but that is reality right now. Maybe as many of you get older you will realize that when there are people who will hold others down, kill for their own pleasure these are not people you can reason with.
Should we invade every country and throw out every dictator, no we should not, but we should always support our countrymen and be civil even when we disgree.
Post a Comment