Posted on 10/17/2006 8:00:08 AM PDT by Graybeard58
STAMFORD -- His liberal Democratic rival and conservative Republican opponent assailed U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman from the left and the right in a debate Monday afternoon.
On the counterattack, Lieberman colored Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and long-shot Republican Alan Schlesinger as too partisan and too divisive.
"The government is broken, gridlocked by partisanship," Lieberman said. "There's too much personal hatred."
It is a basic campaign theme for Lieberman, who is running independently as a petition candidate after losing the Democratic nomination to Lamont in an August primary.
He argued that either Lamont or Schlesinger would make Congress more partisan and less productive if elected.
"It is time for us to stop the attacking and bitterness and talk about what we can do for the people of America," Lieberman said.
Lamont and Schlesinger also sounded familiar campaign themes.
Lamont continued to portray himself as the candidate for change. He again cast Lieberman as a career politician, and he emphasized his business credentials. He promised to bring a new perspective to Washington.
"This debate and this campaign is all about change. I think things are fundamentally broken in Washington, and more of the same won't fix it," he said.
Schlesinger portrayed himself as the only conservative in a race against two liberal Democrats. He said he is the only candidate willing to talk about the tough issues and offer solutions for solving them.
"If you are a moderate or conservative voter, you are probably afraid of Lamont, but, with all due respect, Joe Lieberman is not your safe harbor," he said.
Schlesinger has largely been overlooked in the Senate campaign, and the debate Monday was his big opportunity to get noticed. He tried to make the most of it.
The election is widely seen as a race between Lieberman and Lamont. Lieberman holds a single-digit lead over Lamont in recent polls, and Schlesinger is a distant third.
The campaign between Lamont and Lieberman has dominated political coverage in the state. Their closely-watched Democratic primary contest made national and international headlines, largely because it was cast as a referendum on the war on Iraq. Lamont defeated Lieberman by running on an anti-war platform.
However, both Lieberman and Lamont expressed surprise after the debate that the subject of Iraq hadn't come up more Monday.
Lamont mentioned the war in his opening comments. He repeated his called for a redeployment of U.S. troops.
The debate returned to the subject several more times, but the candidates spent far more time discussing North Korea, Social Security, immigration policy, the federal deficit and each other's campaign claims.
On North Korea, Lamont and Schlesinger said Lieberman didn't do enough in 18 years in the Senate to halt that country's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Lamont and Lieberman argued over whether Lieberman supports the privatization of Social Security.
Lieberman said he looked at privatization in the 1990s, but concluded that it was "a terrible idea."
"You are going to know right where I stand when it comes to Social Security," Lamont said. "It is something you earned. It is going to be there to keep. We are not going to let anyone take it away."
"You may not want to acknowledge it, but the people of Connecticut know where Joe Lieberman stands -- for Social Security and against privatization. That is a fact," Lieberman said.
Schlesinger accused Lieberman and Lamont of ignoring dire government forecasts concerning the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
According to government forecasts, which have been disputed by some economists, the Social Security trust fund will be empty by 2041. The Medicare hospital trust fund is projected to last until 2020.
"I can tell you where both of these gentlemen stand. They stand for Social Security and Medicare bankruptcy," Schlesinger said of Lamont and Lieberman.
He mocked Lieberman and then-Vice President Al Gore for promising to put the Social Security surplus in a "lock box" during the 2000 presidential campaign.
"You drank the Kool-Aid," he told Lieberman. "You are just as disingenuous as the rest of them. You want to put an IOU from Joe Lieberman in a lock box? I'd rather have cash. When I retire, I want a check. I don't want an IOU from Joe Lieberman, even though he is a good guy."
Schlesinger said the trust funds contain the equivalent of government IOUs because Congress uses the surplus for government spending and issues Treasury securities as collateral. Today, he said, $1.7 trillion in treasury bonds make up the trust fund.
On immigration, Lamont and Lieberman said the solution was not to arrest and deport the estimated 11 million illegal aliens in the country today. Both Democrats said they favored a path to citizenship, and permanent residency and guest worker programs.
Schlesinger said he was the only candidate who has a tough policy on immigration.
"I want to build the walls. I want to make sure there is no amnesty, no road to citizenship, no road to permanent residency," he said.
The three candidates debated for the first time Monday afternoon in Stamford.
Two more debates are scheduled for Thursday and next Monday.
> "The government is broken, gridlocked by partisanship,"
Sigh. If only that was true....
Lieberman colored Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and long-shot Republican Alan Schlesinger as too partisan and too divisive.
------
After I stop laughing....a Democrat calling someone too partisan and too divisive...pot and kettle??? Hypocrisy anyone??
If I lived in Connecticut and it were
Schlesinger vs. Lieberman, I'd vote for Schlesinger.
But in this three-way race, I'd vote for Lieberman. It's vital that Lamont be beaten.
It's tempting to say that the crazier the Democrats get, and the further out to the left, the better. Unfortunately, though, experience has proven that we need two parties to lessen corruption. It's best that one of them should not be a party of insane traitors, because no matter how crazy they get, sooner or laters the Democrats will be back in power when the voters tire of the Republicans. There are already some signs of that, regretably.
Washington complained bitterly about partisanship. Obviously, it's part of our system and will never stop...and, equally obvious, it rarely leads to true gridlock and dysfunction.
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
He was kicked out by the Democrats. He's an Independent now, which means he's no longer as "reliable" to them as he used to be. Which would be a good thing, IMO.
Alan Schlesinger won yesterday's debate hand's down, and that's all anyone is talking about today. Schlesinger demolished the two Democrats. As of yesterday, this is no longer a Lieberman - Lamont race. We have a real shot here. Remember, the Republican just needs a third of the vote to win, which is actually quite doable.
He's an Independent now, which means he's no longer as "reliable" to them as he used to be.
-----
True, in title. But he is still a liberal -- I have a hard time ever seeing him as anything but a liberal. I recall when he did his famous Houdini act after Algore asked him to be his running mate -- in less than 24 hours, he changed from being a "conservative" to being a locked-step frothing socialist to get on board the Gore platform.
I hope he does win out over the Dem candidate. They deserve it for their backstabbing mindless Marxist politics. Yes, he is just too conservative to be a good Marxist.... :-)
Lamont is A communist. Period!
Lamont is A communist. Period!
----
Without a doubt -- he comes from fine Marxist breeding stock. And that qualifies him for today's ThugoRat party.
What a load of crap, this makes Liberman look like he's up 1 pt. in the polls. In reality he's down to leads in the single digits, 8 digits in the latest poll.
This load of crap looks like it was written by a Hartford Courant staff writer.
Lets put it this way, he wouldnt be much worse than Chafee, would he? In Connecticut, at least thats something.
No thanks.
Schlesinger has been sued twice by New Jersey casinos for gambling debts and settled out of court both times.
Newly Independent candidate for re-election to his fourth term in the U.S. senate, Joe Lieberman, is well-known and generally well-liked in this liberal/Democrat state, where self-proclaimed 'independents' (closet liberal Democrats who occasionally vote for a Republican, like our current RINO governor, Jodi Rell) have higher voter registration numbers than even the Democrats. Republican voter registration is a distant third, as past election results too-often demonstrate. The 'independents' will flock to Lieberman. Al Schlesinger - practically ignored by the RNC - doesn't stand a chance. It may not be 'right', but that is the reality in Connecticut politics.
To win an election, you either have to be a Democrat or a RINO - and even they have to fight to hold office. Ask Representative Nancy Johnson, a RINO who just barely won in the past few elections and is fighting for re-election once again. Jodi Rell, the once almost-invisible Lt. Governor who 'inherited' the governors office when once-popular RINO Governor John Rowland was forced to resign after he was indicted on corruption charges, fanned big-time by the liberal Connecticut media, seems to be an exception, at least this year. Rell is practically untouchable now, in terms of 'popularity', but I doubt she'll be half as popular in four years after the leftist local media (the hard-left Hartford Courant, especially) get done tearing her down, week by week, so they can get a 'proper' liberal Democrat politico elected to the Governorship in 2010.
Other conservative Connecticut voters can do as they please, of course, but, while I generally vote a 'straight Republican ticket', I have no intention of once again voting for a no-hope Republican and by doing so, possibly help an elitist, obnoxious, anti-war, multi-millionaire commie-wannabe, Ned Lamont (backed by yet another obnoxious multi-millionaire, commie-wannabe: Lowell Weiker) to win this election. Our useless 'senior' Senator, Chris Dodd - Fidel Castros best friend in the senate - is bad enough. Lieberman is a solid lib, I know, but if the Republican candidate has no shot, Joe is the 'better' of two bad choices. I'll hold my nose and vote for him, hoping his win is decisive enough to demoralize the hard left that supports Lamont and that he actually becomes 'independent' in the senate. I doubt it - but he's better than the commie-wannabe Lamont in the sense that a week-old bagel is 'better' to eat than a month-old bagel.
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.