Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Posted on 10/24/2006 4:18:50 AM PDT by CT-Freeper
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman accused rival Democrat Ned Lamont of lying about him in a lively and sometimes raucous debate Monday night.
The front-runners tussled over the accuracy of Lamont's campaign advertising in a debate televised statewide from the Garde Art Center in New London.
It all started when Lamont said his campaign's television ads and direct mailings are 100 percent true when he responded to a panelist's question.
"I am proud of the ads we are running, and I am happy to have anybody take a look at them," he said.
Lieberman has seen Lamont's ads and he is not happy about them.
"Ned, I honestly can't believe your answer to that question. Your answer that your ads are 100 percent true is 100 percent untrue," Lieberman said. "I mean, if I were still attorney general of Connecticut, I would have sued you for unfair trade practices, deceiving the consumer."
He said he expects Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger to go after him.
"I have a record of 18 years. There is plenty we can debate, but you constantly distort and just frankly tell lies no matter how many times I am with you and I say that is not the truth," Lieberman said to Lamont.
Hecklers broke into song and interrupted Lieberman. It would happen again when he gave his closing statement.
Lamont didn't let Lieberman's accusation go unanswered.
"Look, Senator Lieberman just called me a liar and he made a lot of outrageous accusations. Senator, everything we are talking about is your record, and you can't run from your record," Lamont said. "You were not an observer over the last 18 years. You were there, and you were part of what was going on."
Lamont defended one TV ad that features footage from Lieberman in 1988 pledging to limit himself to three Senate terms. The senator is now seeking his fourth term.
"Senator, it is not negative. We are just using your video, your words, looking in the camera saying what you were going to do. I think it gets to integrity. I think it gets to the issues that people care about -- what type of senator we have got, what type of a senator we need."
Schlesinger made light of the testy exchange between the front-runners.
"The senator just meant that he wanted three terms as a Democrat and three terms as an independent," he said.
Lieberman is running independently as a petition candidate because he lost the Democratic nomination to Lamont in an August primary.
Lamont, Lieberman and Schlesinger covered mostly old ground in the last scheduled debate between them -- Iraq and the war on terror, health care, immigration. The trio said little Monday night on those issues that hadn't been said in the first two debates last week.
But the candidates were asked for the first time to comment on the question of gays serving in the military. All three said there should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Each entered the last scheduled debate with an agenda.
The largely overlooked Schlesinger was seeking attention and credibility. He had the least to lose and the most to gain of any candidate.
Lamont was looking to shift momentum in the race and broaden his appeal. He lost ground in a new independent poll last week and needed a good performance Monday night.
The only time he's come out ahead of Lieberman was when he won the Democratic primary in August.
For his part, Lieberman was trying to remain on top and stay on message. His job was to shore up his Democratic base and reach out to Republicans and Independents.
In a new Quinnipiac University poll last week, 70 percent of likely Republican voters and 58 percent of likely independent voters favored Lieberman. He got 36 percent of likely Democratic voters.
The campaign has turned increasingly feisty and testy in the last month. Lieberman and Lamont are more contentious and strident. Schlesinger is trying mightily to assert himself and insert himself in the race.
The debate Monday night likely set the tone for the last two weeks of the Senate campaign.
Kinda OT, but F&F just showed segments of Joe and Lament, and Katherine & nelson. Both segments were about what they would do about Iraq. Of course, dims would be French-like, and turn everything over to the terrorists.
No big surprise there, really.
At least here in CT, I have a choice between two supporters of the War on Terror in Lieberman and Schlesinger.
I'm not sure of the size of each of these groups. Does this mean that Lieberman will get most of his votes from Republicans?
If so, do you think it might influence his pseudo-affiliation? In a tight Senate vote, Lieberman may become a very powerful Senator, with his vote "up for sale". Hopefully he'll find his morals again and reject the party that rejected him.
He has said, however, countless times, that he'll caucus with the Dems if elected.
You have to ask, just how mentally disturbed one has to be to be a LaRouche supporter?
It's a requirement, of course!
From those estimates, I calculate Lieberman gets 30% of his votes from republicans, 30% of his votes from democrats and almost 40% of his votes from unaffiliated voters.
I'm not too sure what Schelsinger is laughing about; he's one of the biggest joke candidates for a major political party in American history.
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
ping
"Of course, dims would be French-like, and turn everything over to the terrorists."
Really.
The French have turned everything over to the terrorists?
Is that soo?
Actually, the world's premier anti-Islamist intelligence clearinghouse is run out of Paris by the French government, and French security forces are among the few in the world who will take "taskers" from allies, such as the Americans, and execute them if the mission is anti-terrorist. The CIA is not up to French standards in the anti-terrorist mission, and can't take allied taskers, even against common enemies. The French are more uniformly solid on terrorists than the Americans are.
Looking at some of the other blogs and bulletin boards that I tend to frequent, like this one, it seems that the hecklers that interrupted the debate were not Lamont supporters, but Lyndon LaRouche supporters...question is, though, who hired them to attend??Lyndon did, using whatever credit card fraud sources his organization could get their hands on. ;') It's part of his skinhead/neonazi/proIslamofascism milieu.
Lamont defended one TV ad that features footage from Lieberman in 1988 pledging to limit himself to three Senate terms. The senator is now seeking his fourth term... Schlesinger made light of the testy exchange between the front-runners. "The senator just meant that he wanted three terms as a Democrat and three terms as an independent," he said.Not bad, but of course, he still doesn't have a chance at the moment. My guess is, the scandal surrounding him won't get much traction and won't stick, now or in the future; Schlesinger will be around after his 2006 defeat, and while not a spoiler for Lieberman, he'll do better than most think. :')
That's a nice blog, good perspective:
Character
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
http://connecticutlocalpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/10/character.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.