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).

Monday, October 16, 2006


Some Initial Reaction

General emerging consensus... Ned hit Joe on the issues, Ned looked the most Senatorial of the three, Schlesinger will rise in the polls after this performance:


HARTFORD, Conn. Oct 16, 2006 (AP)— Democrat Ned Lamont criticized rival Sen. Joe Lieberman's support for the invasion of Iraq on Monday in a debate in which the incumbent also faced jabs from the long-shot Republican candidate.

"I'm running against a career politician who says, 'Stay the course,'" said Lamont, echoing the anti-war mantra that propelled him to victory in the August primary. "It's time for us now to redeploy our forces."...

"It's not negative to say we've got to change course in Iraq," Lamont said....

"You need new people in Washington, a fresh perspective," he said. "Right now, we have a situation in Washington that's out of control."

New Haven Independent:

Schlesinger's emergence would work in Lamont's favor. If he can rise to 15 percent of the vote from his current 4 percent standing in the polls, he'd probably swing the election to Lamont (pictured talking to reporters after the debate). Even if his performance Monday was a bit over the top to make him a serious contender to win the race, it still worked to Lamont's benefit in two ways.

One way: It enabled Lamont to have someone else take the harshest shots at Lieberman while allowing Lamont to look more restrained and senatorial.

Matt Stoller:

There is just no question that Alan Schlesinger won this debate, Lamont pretty much held his own, and Lieberman lost. Alan Schlesinger was funny, interesting, and passionate. He made compelling conservative arguments, and punctured the myth that Lieberman was a principled independent. Lamont held his own as a credible candidate, standing up to Joe's attacks. Lieberman was somewhat funny, but he couldn't defend his middle of the road mantra when Alan Schlesinger and Ned Lamont were pointing out that his record doesn't match his rhetoric.

According to Schlesinger during the debate, "[Ned Lamont] actually wants to give [illegal aliens] scholarships".

Is that true? If so, Lamont might want to think about that in a bit more depth. There are only a finite number of scholarships, thus every scholarship that goes to an illegal alien represents one that doesn't go to an American citizen. What would Ned Lamont say to one of those U.S. citizens - most likely a Student of Color - who has their scholarship taken away so that it can be given to an illegal alien?

And, of course, taking scholarships away reduces the worth of U.S. citizenship. And, it encourages even more illegal immigration.

Someone please tell me that this isn't Lamont's position, or that he's going to think about this in more depth.

JOE must GO!

you trust something that came out of a publican's mouth?
""According to Schlesinger during the debate, "[Ned Lamont] actually wants to give [illegal aliens] scholarships"".

Nice try Joe Boi. There is NO Candidate curently running for any office in the US Congress that is advocating that position. There is NO candidate that wants to give illegals Social Security either. That is just the bunk that the GOP pushes as well as you Liberman types.

Try doing it on the up and up Joe Boi..it wont kill you.
Lonewacko moaning about those durned Mexicans? Say it ain't so! What a sad life he must lead, blogwhoring his monomaniacal way from dawn till dusk.
I haven't been able to find a specific statement from Ned Lamont supporting the DREAM Act (a bill which would have the effects I described above), but I have been able to find him supporting McCain-Kennedy. And, Dick Durbin tried and might have succeeded at slipping the DREAM Act into the Senate immigration bill. So, one can assume a likelihood that Lamont would have supported the DREAM Act, and thus would have supported what it really does, as described above.

But, in order to find out exactly where Lamont stands on taking things away from disadvantaged U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally, I suggest that everyone tries to find opportunities to publicly ask Lamont what he would say to a U.S. citizen who lost out on a college education because Lamont wanted to give it to a foreign citizen who's here illegally instead.

BTW: in my searching around, I also found out that Lamont is supposedly an heir to the J.P. Morgan fortune. Those of you with open minds might want to take a trip to a local library in search of (now out of print) books by Ferdinand Lundberg.

The idea that the DREAM Act takes money away from native-born college students is just plain stupid. The money comes from somewhere - but why there? Why not say every expenditure trades off with vital AIDS spending in Africa, so if you want to keep Social Security you're condemning Black children to die?

Also, what's with the dehumanizing rhetoric? "Illegals"? "Illegal aliens"? These are people, not extraterrestrials, and their existence is still legal, even if they may have in the past committed the illegal act of an unauthorized border crossing.
DREAM description is bunk! I looked up this bill to see what it says: it would no longer encourage states to deny in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. Now, these kids clearly weren't born here or they would be citizens, but it is required that they grew up here, so their parents brought them in when they were little. These kids made no choices about breaking the law. Furthermore, they meet state residency requirements for in-state tuition. In addition, the law would only stop discouraging states from giving them in-state tuition - it would not encourage giving them in-state tuition. It would leave the matter to the states without the federal government pushing them one way or another anymore. Finally- in-state tuition isn't a scholarship, and giving it to one person does not take it away from someone else. More people getting it might marginally lower the benefit for all, but not take it away from anyone eligible.

Characterizing this as the federal government giving scholarships to illegals is quite dishonest. Suggesting that it is a McCain Kennedy bill, then mentioning only Dick Durbin and not co-sponsor Orrin Hatch is also dishonest.
Post a Comment

<< Home