Lieberman/Lamont

“MarkO
Member # Posted: 9 Aug 2006 13:24 Hiker
Quote

Ha ha, the prick lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut for his support of Dumbya's War!!

Its the war, stupid!!

Down in flames!!!

Flame on!!


VioLiN
Member # Posted: 9 Aug 2006 14:29 Hiker
Quote

Was this before or after he went down?




Anonymous
# Posted: 9 Aug 2006 14:55
Quote

Kind of a bad day here in Michigan. I live in a VERY Republican Congressional district. We were able to elect a moderate the last time by raiding the Republican Primary. Joe Schwarz won with 28% of the vote in a field with 4 crazy conservatives.

But last night he lost to an archfiend, anti-everything conservative, 54 to 46.

So, Congress gets that much more conservative.

Are we in any danger of electing a Republican in Connecticut?


Reformed Lurker
# Posted: 9 Aug 2006 14:55
Quote

BTW, this is Reformed Lurker.


MarkO
Member # Posted: 9 Aug 2006 15:35 Hiker
Quote

Another mad dog conservative?


Troll
# Posted: 10 Aug 2006 13:52
Quote

I don't think bush would kiss him after the fact. I believe In one poll Lieberwienee won in a 3-way


Troll
# Posted: 10 Aug 2006 13:52
Quote

I don't think bush would kiss him after the fact. I believe In one poll Lieberwienee won in a 3-way


Troll
# Posted: 10 Aug 2006 13:53
Quote

oh good. can someone tell me why I am "troll" and not bearmagnet? have I been hacked? LOL!


bearmagnet
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 13:54 Hiker
Quote

i got to sign in each time?


StoveStomper
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 14:08 Hiker
Quote

Thank you Dems!
You've proven there is no room for moderates in the Dem Party.
The Repubs are jumping with joy over this.

Going to be really funny when ol' Soreloserman wins in Nov. as an Ind.


VioLiN
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 15:45 Hiker
Quote

Yeah, yeah, yeah� everything is great news to Republicans these days.

Get a clue.


Three incumbents lost their party�s nomination for three very different reasons.

What is the common denominator here?

All three are incumbents (duh!).


Polls have been reflecting strong disatisfaction with Congress for the past year.

Three incumbents tossed out on a day with very few primaries.

That can�t be good news for the party in power.


StoveStomper
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 15:54 Hiker
Quote

I repeat:
Going to be really funny when ol' Soreloserman wins in Nov. as an Ind.


We'll see in Nov. will we not?


StoveStomper
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 16:01 Hiker
Quote

Does not anyone else see the irony? The Liberals are celebrating the fact that they just threw a Jew and a Black woman (McKinney) out of their Democratic party.


MarkO
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 16:36 Hiker
Quote

Leiberman is no moderate!!

Its the war, stupid!!

It has nothing to do with Joe being jewish, numbnutz!


MarkO
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 16:37 Hiker
Quote

Being a blood-thirsty war-monger is an extreme position.

Anti-war is pro-peace, and therefore not extreme but anti-extreme.


StoveStomper
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 16:38 Hiker
Quote

Whatever, genius.
We'll see in Nov.


bearmagnet
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 17:08 Hiker
Quote

moderate = democratic republican in SS's world. :p

BTW - a moderate republican was kicked to the curb in Michigan by a conservative republican, ss. No room for pro choice in the "moderate" world of the GOP


MarkO
Member # Posted: 11 Aug 2006 08:46 Hiker
Quote

Will Gemmie ban my ass if I call somebody an #&%!$??


*********************************************

Reposted from Gem's Board
Just to good a subject to let die.”

“http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

Connecticut Senate: Two Days After Primary, Lieberman Ahead by 5

Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%
August 12, 2006

Senator Joseph Lieberman Senator Joe Lieberman�s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in Tuesday�s primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs).

A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.

Republican Alan Schlesinger earns just 6% of the vote, down from 13% a month ago.

57% of the state's voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.

Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.

Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.

Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.

For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.

Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.


*********************************************


Backs up everything I said.






MarkO
Member # Posted: 11 Aug 2006 08:46 Hiker
Quote

Will Gemmie ban my ass if I call somebody an #&%!$??

LOL, I guess it takes one to know one.
[VBG]”

“You know your party is screwed when anyone right of Ted Kennedy is unacceptable.

Out of touch and out of their minds.”

“I've always liked Joe, a true moderate wit his head on straight. In fact if he was at the top of the ticket instead of Gore I would probably have voted for him.

But once again, to bring up my favorite subject of old, why is it one has call someone vile names just becaise they disagree with them politically and/or philosophically?

That activity speaks very porrly for you as a human being, forget whether you're a Repub, Dem or Independent, you should be able to carry on a conversation like a mature adult. I thought we taught elementary school age kids that name-caling wasn't nice?”

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American voters are as ready to dump incumbent lawmakers as they were just before they handed control of Congress to Republicans in 1994, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Monday.

Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, stand to lose the most in the November elections because of strong anti-incumbent sentiment and they trail Democrats in support among registered voters, the poll showed.

Fifty-three percent of those surveyed called themselves "anti-incumbent" -- nearly the same as the 54 percent who identified themselves as such in the summer of 1994 when Congress was still under the Democrats' control.

While the percentage of anti-incumbent Republicans was lower in the poll than the percentage of anti-incumbent Democrats in 1994 (33 percent versus 46 percent), the share of anti-incumbent independents rose to 61 percent from 57 percent in 1994.

The telephone poll, which has a 3 percentage point margin of error, was taken between August 3 and August 6 among 1,002 adults.

Among registered voters, 52 percent said they would support the Democrat in their congressional district if the election were held today. Only 39 percent said they would vote for the Republican, the poll showed.

Republicans are being hurt by Americans' anti-war sentiment, the poll showed. Thirty-eight percent of those polled said they would be more likely to oppose a candidate who supports President George W. Bush's Iraq policy, compared with only 23 percent who would back such a candidate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060808/pl_nm/poll_dc;_ylt=AvoKAo7vmd9Z_RPuCVm939is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-”

“I don't think that the "pull the troops out" people are thinking very long term about this.

First of all, it is obvious that the current administration and party is bereft of any ideas.

They are bankrupt and should be thrown out.

But the peace people are short sighted. There is no way to pull those troops out quickly or easily.

So, either they will accept the massive death and upheaval that a quick pullout will cause - morally bankrupt/strategically disastrous.

Or, they are currently using the war issue to gain support and once they are in, the timeline will begin to expand as political reality sets in.

Not that I see that as a bad thing. The most important thing is to break the current political logjam. And if there was an anti-war candidate in a position to win, I would vote for that candidate.

But the United States is too big and has too many interests abroad to simply pull out of the world. We HAVE to be involved.

And I don't see the American people settling for weak leadership long term.

Bush should be slammed for fighting this war on the cheap.

He should be slammed for letting our military wear down without proper equipment maintenance.

Bush should be slammed for ignoring any number of political possibilities that could or could have lessened the cost of this to America.

Bush should be slammed for using American power inefficiently and letting the terrorists run free.

BTW, John McCain is complicit in all of this. He had the power to stop it all and didn't. Many Americans will die as a result.”

“Moderates are beginning to feel uncomfortable, and even unwelcome, in the Democratic Party.
Not all are fools.”

“�Moderates are beginning to feel uncomfortable, and even unwelcome, in the Democratic Party.
Not all are fools.�

One can say the same thing about the Republican Party.

Moderates in both party's are being ignored because of the rabid rhetoric from the extremists.
last edited: 8/13/06 8:55:12 PM”

“The KOSkids and DUmmies are turning on Hillary now.
This should be fun to watch.
I wish them good hunting.”

“�Moderates are beginning to feel uncomfortable, and even unwelcome, in the Democratic Party.
Not all are fools.�
StoveStomper

True Dat, but so are "moderates" from the other side of the aisle feeling uncomfortable and/or unwelcome in their party. I switched & became an independent due primarily to what I percieve to be undue influence from the "radical" elements of the Republican Party. It also got to the point where I felt uncomfortable constantly trying to explain that just because I belonged to that party that I wasn't a whacko radical.

Moderation can be a good thing, seems like both parties are forgetting that & self-destructing :(”

“Right there with you Wanderer. My working class conservative lifestyle and beliefs haven't changed much. Unfortunately, I no longer feel comfortable with any party. I just love it when borrow and spend Republicans comment on tax and spend Democrats. We get to pay either way.”

“RL you are right about fighting the war wrong. There is way too much of the feel good weenie stuff in government today.

I really wonder if this generation could get the guts to have performed the massive round the clock missions of WWII?

There is no difference between the Republicrats and the DemoSocialists. The Repubs (mostly the blue bloods) want to keep the power so they can protect their private lives. The Socios never had it so they feel justified in forcing the government to steal it from the people who have made it.”

“

”

“There was a handful of people who could have stopped this - mostly moderate Republicans.

Here's the scenario: Colin Powell resigns as Secretary of State in protest of the Bush policy. Senators McCain and Hagel jump ship and vote against authorizing war power. They bring the gang of 14 with them.

Boom! No war.

I think that Hagel is now a guilt-riddled blithering idiot and McCain is too self-interested and power-hungry to do the right thing if it costs him his shot at the presidency.

And I feel no sympathy for Joe Lieberman. He got too close to the kryptonite.”

“Oh, and he'll smear Lamont in the general.”

“

”

“Rl..if we had not responded to the worst attack in American history..there is a good chance the Major Cities in the US would have suffered more attacks...wait...NY, Chicago, Boston, Washington, LA, SF...well I guess the LittleSheetheads might have had an idea (LOL) it would have cut the welfare rolls more than any government program.”

“Kerry tried this same tired bullshlt when he ran. "I was for the $86 billion before I was against the $86 billion...". Only from a party of absolutely no ideas could they be dumb enough to fall back for the same old dumbshlt tactics..."Well, we got nothin' new. How about we just stick with going for going against whatever Bush is for?".”

“XL!

No one argues against the war in Afghanistan. The French, the Canadians... Everyone is there and dying.

But the Iraqi Civil War is a disaster and it could have been stopped by moderate Republicans.

BTW, they are probably in the most moral corrupt spot. The Bush people are true believers. They really thought that they were doing something good.

The Dems had and have no power. As much as they hated the policy, there was nothing they could do about it.

But I believe the Hagel and McCain and Powell and the rest DID have real problems with the beginnings of the Iraqi Civil War. And they went along with it anyway.”

“http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4111782.html

Aug. 11, 2006, 7:57PM

It's a left turn back to the wilderness for Democrats


By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER


With the defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut, anti-war forces are poised for a takeover of the Democratic Party. Tuesday's exhilarating victory, and the elan and electoral legitimacy gained, may carry the newly energized Democratic left to considerable success in November.

But for the Democratic Party it will be an expensive and short-lived indulgence. The Iraq War will end, as will the Bush presidency. But the larger conflict that defines our times � war on Islamic radicalism, more politely known as the war on terror � will continue.

And the reflexive anti-war sentiments underlying Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut will prove disastrous for the Democrats in the long run � the long run beginning as early as November '08.

Consider an analogy that the anti-war types hold dear: Iraq as Vietnam. I reject the premise, but let's assume it for the purpose of following the political consequences of anti-war movements.

The anti-Vietnam War movement had its political successes. They were, as in Connecticut last Tuesday, mostly internecine. One Democratic presidency was destroyed (Lyndon Johnson), as was the presidential candidacy of his would-be successor, Hubert Humphrey.

Like Iraq, Vietnam was but one theater in a larger global struggle � that struggle against the Soviet Union and its communist clients around the world � and by the early 1970s, the newly reshaped McGovernite party had to face the larger post-Vietnam challenges of the Cold War. The result? Political disaster.

The anti-Vietnam sentiment left a residual pacifism, an aversion to intervention and an instinct for accommodation that proved very costly to the Democrats for years to come. The most notorious example was the liberal flight to the "nuclear freeze" � the most mindless strategic idea of our lifetime � in opposition to Ronald Reagan facing down the Soviet deployment of missiles in Eastern Europe.

Apart from the Carter success of 1976 � an idiosyncratic post-Watergate accident � the "blame America first" Democrats were not even competitive on foreign policy for the rest of the Cold War. It was not until the very disappearance of the Soviet Union that the American citizenry would once again trust a Democrat with the White House.

It took the Democrats years to dig themselves out of that hole, helped largely by such pro-defense, pro-Gulf War senators as Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. It is all now being undone by Iraq. The party's latent anti-war fervor has resurfaced with a vengeance � in Connecticut, quite literally so.

In the short run, as in the Vietnam days, there will be "success": a purging of hawkish Democrats like Joe Lieberman. There might even be larger victories. Enough Ned Lamonts might be elected in enough states to give one or both houses to the Democrats. But even that short-term gain is uncertain. Lamont might not even win his own state. He narrowly beat Lieberman in a voter universe confined to Democrats. In November, independents and Republicans will join the selection process.

But even assuming some short-term victories, where will the Democrats be when the war is over and Bush is gone?

Lamont said in his victory speech that the time had come to "fix George Bush's failed foreign policy." Yet, as Martin Peretz pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, on Iran, the looming long-term Islamist threat, Lamont's views are risible. Lamont's alternative to the Bush Iran policy is to "bring in allies" and "use carrots as well as sticks."

Where has this man been? Negotiators with Iran have had carrots coming out of their ears in three years of fruitless negotiations. Allies? We let the British, French and Germans negotiate with Iran for those three years, only to have Iran brazenly begin accelerated uranium enrichment that continues to this day.

Lamont seems to think that we should just sit down with the Iranians and show them why going nuclear is not a good idea. This recalls Sen. William Borah's immortal reaction in September 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II: "Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

This naivete in the service of endless accommodationism recalls also the flaccid foreign policy of the post-Vietnam Democratic left. It lost the day � it lost the country � to Ronald Reagan and a muscular foreign policy that in the end won the Cold War.

Vietnam cost the Democrats 40 years in the foreign policy wilderness. Anti-Iraq sentiment gave the anti-war Democrats a good night on Tuesday, and may yet give them a good year or two. But beyond that, it will be desolation.

Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C.”

“It is hilarious but we are winning the war everywhere but in the American Media. I hope at the end when the war is won, we can have some serious consideration of a backlash against the big media.

LOL see advertising on CBS/CNN/NBC/ABC/PBS/MSNBC going for $1.00 for a 30 second slot.

Just heard the 42nd occupant, a President with Conviction, warning about politicizing the British Bombing incident...>LOL>>>he knows as long as we keep looking we will see how his action and lack there of led to the deaths of 3000 citizens.
last edited: 8/15/06 12:43:05 PM”

“I agree with a lot that Krauthammer has to say.

And I think that we really need some time to squeeze the juice out of the Republicans.

Although I think that the reelection of Bush has been an absolute disaster, I think that a Kerry presidency, and the resulting Democrat-take-the-fall-while-Republican-Congress-blocks-everything momentum of that scenario might have been more disastrous.

I always look back to the beginnings of the conservative revolution and how it really started with the defeat of Goldwater. But that election allowed the Republicans to fight out their core ideas.

I think that the best scenario this fall is Democrats achieving near-parity in both the House and Senate WITHOUT taking control.

That way the Democrats can mostly block everything that comes along, but allow Iraq to run its course under Republican leadership - where it should run its course.

And I think that the Lamont/Lieberman battle was beautiful. It was a time in which American voters and a political party actually discussed the Iraq War - something that never really happened.

I think that two more years of this would not be a bad thing. And two more years to prove the bankruptcy of Republicanism would not be a bad thing either. It would be like giving Election 2008 Viagra.”

“I hate it when you dudes pick Joe liebertariman.”

“http://www.slate.com/id/2147877/

Nice little bit of History for you clueless libbies by a libbie with a clue.”

“

Good judgment is an essential part of good governance

BY NED LAMONT

In the past week, my victory in the Connecticut Senate primary has been labeled everything from the death knell of the Democratic Party to the signal of our party's rebirth. Beneath all of this punditry is a question that I want to face directly: how the experience I will bring to the U.S. Senate will help Connecticut and the Democratic Party during this time of testing for our country.

I ran at a time when people said "you can't beat a three-term incumbent," because I believed that President Bush, enabled by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, had weakened our country at home and abroad. We're weaker economically, because we're more dependent on foreign energy and foreign capital. Our national security has also been weakened, because we stopped fighting a real war on terror when we made the costly and counterproductive decision to go to war in Iraq.

My confidence that Connecticut was ready for a real debate and a real choice this year was founded not only on current events but also past experience. It was my career in business that shaped my outlook, and helped prepare me to run the race I did.

In 1984, with a loan from People's Bank, I started Campus TeleVideo from scratch. Our offer was unique: Rather than provide a one-size-fits-all menu of channels, we let the customers design their cable system based on the character of the community being served.

From the moment I filled out that loan application, I've been in every part of the business--pulling cable, hiring workers, picking a good health-care plan, closing deals, listening to customers and fixing problems. It's been profitable, and it's been instructive, a quintessentially American experience. Here, entrepreneurs have the freedom to be successful in ways the rest of the world admires.

These defining lessons of my business experience are central in my campaign: identifying the challenges that face our state and offering real solutions. Something clearly worked, because the voters decided to do what our Founding Fathers envisioned; they put their trust not in a career politician but in a concerned citizen and experienced businessman who promises to rock the boat down in Washington.

Here are the four lessons of my business life that I talked about every day on the campaign trail, and that have resonated with Connecticut Democrats:

� First, entrepreneurs are frugal beasts, because the bottom line means everything. In Connecticut, voters are convinced that Washington has utterly lost touch with fiscal reality. We talked about irresponsible budget policies that have driven the annual federal deficit above $300 billion and the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Meanwhile, the government is spending $250 million a day on an unprovoked war in Iraq while starving needed social investment at home. I am a fiscal conservative and our people want their government to be sparing and sensible with their tax dollars.

� Second, entrepreneurs invest in human resources. Our business strives to pay good wages and provide good health benefits so that we can attract employees that give us an edge in a competitive marketplace. Well-trained and well-cared-for people are essential for every business these days, particularly in a global economy. It's getting harder and harder for American businesses to compete on price, but we innovate and change better than any economy on the planet. The quality of our work force is one of America's competitive advantages--if our education system fails our children and our employers, we'll lose the future.

That's why I talked about my work as a volunteer teacher in the Bridgeport public schools, which can't afford to be open later than 2:30 p.m., schools that send children home to an empty house. That's why my campaign offered a strong alternative to standardized tests and No Child Left Behind. That's why I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy.

� Third, in a market-driven economy, entrepreneurs can never lose touch with what customers, suppliers and workers are saying. A great strength of our campaign is that we embraced the grassroots and netroots, suburbs and inner cities, and used the most advanced technology to empower our door-knockers and activists. We listened hard and respectfully to what voters told us, and gave them the confidence to trust someone new.

� Finally, entrepreneurs are pragmatic. Unlike some politicians, we don't draw a false strength from closed minds, and we don't step on the accelerator when the car is headed off the cliff.

By every available metric, the "stay the course" strategy in Iraq is not a winning strategy. Changing course is neither extreme nor weak; it is essential for our national security.

We start with the strongest, best-trained military in the world, and we'll keep it that way. But here's how we'll get stronger by changing course. We must work closely with our allies and treat the rest of the world with respect. We must implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and put in place real protections for ports, airports, nuclear facilities and public transit.

Good judgment is an essential part of good governance. But we're bogged down in Iraq, and hamstrung in the war against terror, by leaders who lacked judgment, historical perspective, openness to other cultures and plain old common sense. We offer something different.

But in the final analysis, the results of this election say less about me, and more about the people of Connecticut. They turned out in record numbers; they spoke every day with a simple eloquence and urgency about the country we love. They oppose the war and the fiscal nightmare crafted by President Bush and his allies. But their vote, finally, was one based on pragmatism and reality, on optimism and hope. And it is to these ideals and values that we plan to address my campaign in the months until November.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008801
last edited: 8/16/06 1:14:59 PM”

“I knew violin would love this guy.

I got a big kick out of Lamont dissing Wal-Mart at a campaign stop, preaching to the faithfull.
A few days latter, it was found that he owns lots of Wal-Mart stock and makes lots of money of it.

Hypocrite.”

“So you moving to Connecticut so you can vote for your hero, SS? With your passion, you should probably be working on his campaign.”

“Nope, I win no matter who wins in Conn. ;-)

When you moving, violin?
last edited: 8/16/06 2:11:34 PM”

“You would think that this would open an opportunity for the Republicans.

But all of the polls I see show that the Republican is so weak that he doesn't matter.

So, a Democrat will be elected either way.

So, I basically don't give a rat's ass about this race.

And I don't think that anyone should give money to either candidate. Spend it on a competitive race.”

“Bush won't endorse the 'Republican'. If Joe isn't careful, Bush will endorse him and torpedo the campaign.”

“It does show how one diminsional the liberals are. Joe goes against Bush on 90% of everything but the one thing he believes in is the war on terror and he is branded a rebulican. What a bunch of losers.”

“lieberman is just like all the other republicans who think terrorists want to kill us

Silly boy ya' self-destroyer. paranoia, they destroy ya'

Self-destroyer, wreck your health
destroy friends, destroy yourself
the time device of, self-destruction
lies, confusion, start eruption

(yea, it goes like this, here it goes) paranoia, they destroy ya

~ Kinks”

“Kerry backing anti-war candidates

By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry is revving up his online political machine to raise campaign cash for Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont...........

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060816/ap_on_el_se/kerry_lamont

###########################################

LMAO, the kiss of death!”

“"Joe goes against Bush on 90% of everything but the one thing he believes in is the war on terror..."

Everyone believes in the war on terror. Joe's problem is that he is a hawk on the Iraqi Civil War and he has been too willing to roll over let Bush pet him.

Do the Republicans have any ideas other than bombings?”

“http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/03/politics/p093303D96.DTL

Lamont Writes $500,000 Check for His Run
- By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, October 3, 2006


(10-03) 09:33 PDT Hartford, Conn. (AP) --


Democrat Ned Lamont, seeking to erase Sen. Joe Lieberman's double-digit lead, is turning to his campaign's biggest financial backer for another infusion of cash: himself.


The multimillionaire businessman, who trailed by 10 percentage points in a recent poll, wrote a $500,000 check to his campaign this week, an aide said Tuesday. Just last week, Lamont had tapped his personal wealth for $750,000 to help fund the race. He has spent $6,751,500 of his own money to unseat the 18-year incumbent.


The Lamont camp said it needs the money to blunt Lieberman's aggressive television ad campaign; both sides are spending heavily on commercials. Lieberman has run ads recently suggesting that political newcomer Lamont lacks the experience to be an effective senator.


"Ned is not going to let Senator Lieberman's negative allegations go unanswered," said Lamont spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl. "We've said all along we're not going to take this lying down."


The Lieberman campaign scoffed at Lamont's move to bolster his campaign.


"We fully expect Ned Lamont to keep drawing on millions of his own money to continue funding his negative campaign," said Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun.


Lieberman defied Democratic leaders by launching an independent bid after he lost the Aug. 8 primary to Lamont. The three-term incumbent, who was his party's vice presidential nominee in 2000, has built a national fundraising base. Some prominent Republicans are helping him raise money.


Lamont aides argue that he is using personal funds to finance his campaign because Lieberman is taking money from special interest groups and political action committees. Lamont has called for public financing of campaigns and lobbying reform.


Lamont spent about $4 million of his own money to win the primary. He has written $2.75 million in personal checks to his campaign since then.

###########################################


I can't think of many things more humorous than redistributing $6.7 million dollars of a liberals wealth.”

“LOL...dump the money and run...or something like that.”

“what, its true. the war is stupid.

why is this surprising, stovestomper?

thanks for letting everyone know that the war is stupid.”

“Its a campaign, stupid.........

People spend money, they harangue, piss, moan, shout, throw things, shake, rattle and roll.

No surprises here.

And the war is stupid.”

“I can't think of many things more humorous than redistributing $6.7 million dollars of a liberals wealth.

sounds like you have a lot of really boring friends. :D
last edited: 10/03/06 1:43:30 PM”

“The multimillionaire businessman....


..and here I thought the Dem's grassroots were poor and ignorant.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
[VBG]”

“StoveStomper
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 14:08 Hiker
Quote

Thank you Dems!
You've proven there is no room for moderates in the Dem Party.
The Repubs are jumping with joy over this.

Going to be really funny when ol' Soreloserman wins in Nov. as an Ind.
--------------------------------------------

VioLiN
Member # Posted: 10 Aug 2006 15:45 Hiker
Quote

Yeah, yeah, yeah? everything is great news to Republicans these days.

Get a clue. ....
-------------------------------------------

MarkO
Member # Posted: 9 Aug 2006 13:24 Hiker
Quote

Ha ha, the prick lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut for his support of Dumbya's War!!

Its the war, stupid!!

Down in flames!!!

Flame on!!
-------------------------------------------




Oct 20, 8:23 AM EDT

Poll: Lieberman's Lead Growing in Conn.

HAMDEN, Conn. (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman has built a 17-point lead over Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, according to the first Quinnipiac University poll since the two faced off in a debate this week.

Lieberman, running as an independent after losing the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Lamont, leads the Greenwich businessman 52 percent to 35 percent among Connecticut likely voters in the poll released Friday. Republican Alan Schlesinger trailed with 6 percent, and 7 percent were undecided.

A similar poll released on September 28 showed Lieberman with a 10-point lead.

The debate between Lieberman and Lamont on Monday was their first since the August primary. Among those in the poll who watched the debate or read or heard about it, only 3 percent said it changed their minds.

"Ned Lamont needed to score a knockout in the debates to catch Sen. Joseph Lieberman, but he apparently didn't lay a glove on him," poll director Douglas Schwartz said.

The poll suggested that Lieberman's support among Republicans and independent voters was substantial.

Lieberman leads Lamont 70 percent to 9 percent among likely Republican voters, with 18 percent for Schlesinger, and 58-36 among likely independent voters. Likely Democratic voters back Lamont, 55 percent to 36 percent.

The poll of 881 likely Connecticut voters, conducted from Oct. 17-19, has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONNECTICUT_SENATE?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-10-20-08-23-38

############################################

It must really suck to constantly be shown to be a fool about everything.
[VBG]
last edited: 10/20/06 8:59:46 AM”

“This can't be, the media and the Defeatocrats tell us otherwise...quick Get Winston Smith..he can change it.”

“I think this will be the most interesting race of the year. If Lieberman wins it should be a clear message to the liberal left that if they can’t even get a far left guy elected in Connecticut then their ideas are way out of touch with Americans as a whole. My guess is they’ll stay stuck on stupid and go even deeper and try and get Barbara Boxer to run for president or something stupid like that.”

“Nigal, Nigal, Nigal....

It's not really nice to talk about poor MarkO and violin that way. ;-)”

“So did you move Connecticut yet so you can vote for your beloved?”

““So did you move Connecticut yet so you can vote for your beloved?”

Try complete sentences V. Funny how Lieberman was part of your dream team back 2000 and now he's a pariah.

Talk about stuck on stupid.”

“Nigal I think maybe there is something ELSE about "LIEBERMAN" that may throw off some on the threads, not saying anything or inferring ANYthing...

LOL...his name is probably not all that preferred in the Northern BUND meetings. (LOL)”