Looks like Conn is getting a new senator

robdastud

robdastud

Junior Member
and its not a republican... its a lefty lefter leftist!!

in a three way match up lamont and lieberman get 40% of the vote... a tie

Support for Senator Joe Lieberman (D) is plummeting in Connecticut.

Just last month he mustered a fifteen-point lead over Ned Lamont in a projected three-way general election contest (with Lamont as the Democrat and Lieberman as an Independent). Now, Lieberman’s lead has disappeared. In this month’s three-way match-up, Lamont and Lieberman each get 40% of the vote. The Republican, Alan Schlesinger, attracts just 13%.


however lamont has taken the lead for the primary by 10pts

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows Ned Lamont (D) beating Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in the Democratic primary, 51% to 41%.

Here's the stunning finding: In the general election, Lieberman and Lamont are tied with 40% with Alan Schlesinger (R) trailing behind with 13%.


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/07/22/in_connecticut_poll_shows_lamont_ahead_by_10.html



GO LAMONT!!!
 
Good to see someone being held accountable for their delusional and continuing unmitigated support of a failed war.

Lord knows, nobody in the GOP want to hold Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush, or Cheney accountable.
 
do i know connecticut or do i know connecticut?? i called this from the beginning... also LIEberman was one who was for intervention w/ shivo... just like bush!!
 
Cypress said:
Good to see someone being held accountable for their delusional and continuing unmitigated support of a failed war.

Lord knows, nobody in the GOP want to hold Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush, or Cheney accountable.
Click to expand...

Don't even get me started.
 
even if lieberman loses just the primary i will be happy... you can't continue to ignore pleas from your constituants and expect to win handily.

i remember during the debate Lieberman said he could do more for us than Lamont could b/c he is experienced...

then it really hurt when Lamont pointed out that Conn ranks 49/50 in what we get back with regard to what we pay in federal taxes


that musta stung a bit.
 
Blue states get screwed in federal funds. We have to support welfare queens like toby.
 
How has the war failed? All we hear about are the (lordy lordy) 2500 US dead...what about the enemy? How many deaths for them?

For comparison---

Iraq (2500)
WW2 (almost 400,000)
Vietnam (55,000)
Civil War (about 1.2 million)
 
robdastud said:
1 is too many...
Click to expand...
Agreed, so long as there's no clearly defined, militarily achievable goal. Which is what Weed has managed to mislead us into in Iraq.

We're flailing around because a bunch of immature lunkheads just can't wrap their puny minds around the fact that there is no way to effectively confront popular movements embracing terrorism with purely military force. It simply doesn't work, but they seem unable to grasp the concept. That's almost certainly due to the fact they insist on trying to think with their glands instead of their brains. This is less than optimal, rather like trying to eat through one's nose.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Agreed, so long as there's no clearly defined, militarily achievable goal. Which is what Weed has managed to mislead us into in Iraq.

We're flailing around because a bunch of immature lunkheads just can't wrap their puny minds around the fact that there is no way to effectively confront popular movements embracing terrorism with purely military force. It simply doesn't work, but they seem unable to grasp the concept. That's almost certainly due to the fact they insist on trying to think with their glands instead of their brains. This is less than optimal, rather like trying to eat through one's nose.
Click to expand...

It is the failure we constantly see when the troops are used for police action. We keep repeating this mistake...

The troops showed their awesome capability by overtaking Iraq in three weeks... That is what they are designed for, not being the interim government and police force.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Agreed, so long as there's no clearly defined, militarily achievable goal. Which is what Weed has managed to mislead us into in Iraq.

We're flailing around because a bunch of immature lunkheads just can't wrap their puny minds around the fact that there is no way to effectively confront popular movements embracing terrorism with purely military force. It simply doesn't work, but they seem unable to grasp the concept. That's almost certainly due to the fact they insist on trying to think with their glands instead of their brains. This is less than optimal, rather like trying to eat through one's nose.
Click to expand...


***sigh****

John Kerry was right....again.

This "war" on terror, will be won through intelligence, law enforcement, covert ops, and aggresive diplomacy. Not through military adventures.
 
Cypress said:
***sigh****

John Kerry was right....again.

This "war" on terror, will be won through intelligence, law enforcement, covert ops, and aggresive diplomacy. Not through military adventures.
Click to expand...


Here that Dixie!?
 
Damocles said:
It is the failure we constantly see when the troops are used for police action. We keep repeating this mistake...

The troops showed their awesome capability by overtaking Iraq in three weeks... That is what they are designed for, not being the interim government and police force.
Click to expand...
Which is why I believe that this whole "War on Terror" was an inappropriate metaphor from the outset. It leads people to think of fighting terrorism in terms of taking and holding territory and killing the enemy until they capitualte. That doesn't work here, since "terrorism" doesn't hold any territory and has no leadership that can surrender. Kill lots of terrorists and, unless you're very lucky, you'll just recruit more terrorists. Uproot terrorists in one region and they'll just relocate somewhere else . . . after recruiting heavily among the civilian population you've just decimated in uprooting them.

You can't fight ideas with guns and bombs. It's a misuse of our military to even try.
 
robdastud said:
even if lieberman loses just the primary i will be happy... you can't continue to ignore pleas from your constituants and expect to win handily.

i remember during the debate Lieberman said he could do more for us than Lamont could b/c he is experienced...

then it really hurt when Lamont pointed out that Conn ranks 49/50 in what we get back with regard to what we pay in federal taxes


that musta stung a bit.
Click to expand...

Well, it's simple math, really.

Ever person gets equal representation in the house, and some people get more representation in the senate (they're more special). Every person gets a fair amount of pork from the house, and every state gets an equal amount of pork from the senate. So if you live in a large state you're basically flying money over to Alaska.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top