Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Saturday, October 07, 2006


GOP Sinking on Lieberman Talking Points

Bush is at 33% in a new Newsweek poll. And aside from the Foley/Hastert mess, it's the Lieberman talking points on on the war that are bringing them down:

Sen. Lieberman is completely out to lunch on the major issues that are driving this election nationwide. Period.

He's part of the problem.
You're one hundred percent correct. Which raises the question: what the hell is going on in the minds of the people of Connecticut?

Lieberman spends his time advocating the political positions of the right wing authoritarian fringe of the Republican Party. He's running for office in a center/left State. Yet, he seems to be ahead in the polls. In webspeak, WTF?
I don't get it in Connecticut. I thought Bush was more unpopular in Connecticutthan the country as a whole. 33% nationally, and No Show Joe is still leading a real Democrat in the race. I understand Joe is getting the majority of Repug support, but he deserves little Democratic Support.

New ads showing King George and No Show Joe's delusional observations with the perceptions of the public. Show Joe on the wrong side of public expectations.

Is this the out of touch pol you want rtepresenting you? And bring up that Joe has not made a commitment to definately remain a Democrat. This is so important to show the Dem voters that Joe is out of touch and will not promise to be a Democrat and not change parties. I feel that this point has to be continuously called out to Democrats, and I have not seen it in any commercials.
Lieberman is on Fox 61's Beyond the Headlines on Sunday. Video is on the site now. The usual nonsense. Lamont will be on the show on Oct 29.
Here's how it is Barkley. Joe is getting a lot of Republican support and a fair amount of independent support because he is viewed as an adult in a race against to teenagers. Bush isnt running. Schlesinger is a jerk and Lamont doesnt have a clue. Because all he has to say is that he isnt Joe and he doesnt like Bush. Easy see??
Which raises the question: what the hell is going on in the minds of the people of Connecticut?

Particularly Republicans. Shouldn't Republicans admire someone who has made a tone of money in private enterprise and created jobs? Shouldn't they be attracted to someone who talks about fiscal discipline, who is wary of a messianic, crusading foreign policy, who is concerned about privacy issues?

Or are Republicans not motivated by ideas, just by a resentment of people they cannot stand?
There are Republicans who voted for Rowland three times and voted for Bush twice and say they are appalled at what they got.

And if you ask them if they'd vote the same way now, they can't answer.

They will tell you who they would vote against however.

It's all blame and victim voting, and the big excuse. Appeal to their victimhood and give them someone to blame and you've got their vote. They excuse it by saying the choice wasn't any better. Some of your current Republican Party supporters are a lot like the guy who goes to AA meetings who says he doesn't have a drinking problem.
I voted for Rowland three times and I AM appalled by what I got. I voted for Bush twice and I am very happy. He, by and large, has done what he said he would do. He even attempted things I thought impossible (more civil tone in washington--remember Teddy at the signing of the nclb back in 2000), but he tried and failed misserably, because it takes 2 to make nice. We voted for a guy whom we expected would be a caretaker like clinton, but after 9/11 everything changed and thankfully so did he. He attacked those responsible, and those with the means and desire to support others. Has he been perfect, no. But in any election you look at the choices and make a decision. Not voting isnt an option--unless (in my opinion)you dont want the right to complain. In 2000 the choice was simple, a guy that represented a lot of my personal views vs. 4 more years of the same corruption, bullying, and lying. Yes the economy had done well the previous 8 yrs., but almost in spite of the admin. In 2004 another easy choice because this time the democrat candidate was either without principles, or had principles more in keeping with the north eastern liberal elites.

In this election the choice aint so easy. There is a republican, but he has so much goo on himself that he cannot be taken seriously. The democrat is either totally without ideas or priciples (because I really havent seen any especially here) or he is who he panders to the north eastern liberal elites (and that aint acceptable). Or theres the former senator, who isnt perfect, but agrees with most republicans on the most important issue of our generation. Isnt an overtly political figure (in other words he's not a Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or charlie rangle), but a serious figure who has not only a reputation, but a record of being thoughtful on issues not checking polls on how he is suppose to vote.

In the end the decision is rather easy
Post a Comment

<< Home