Talk Elections

You folks from Connecticut know more about him than me.  But in the various TV and radio interviews with Schlesinger during the last campaign, I was impressed.

No, I wouldn't have voted for him.  I'm a liberal.  He's a conservative.  But I thought he represented conservatism very well and gave a good accounting of himself in debates.  Did I miss something?

It's kind of a shame Republicans (including the higher-ups in the party) didn't support him.  He still wouldn't have won, but he's surely not going to win anything from here on out.

I realize Connecticut prefers moderate Republicans like Chris Shays.  But I don't think Schlesinger was a nut job like Jim DeMint or "Man on Dog".

Schlesinger was actually rather moderate; he was pro-choice and less supportive of the Iraq War than Lieberman. It's a shame that his party backstabbed him.

I had no idea he was pro-abortion rights.  Good for him.  Then he made tremendous sense for Connecticut.  And yes, he really did get shivved in the shower by his own party.

Schlesinger reminded me strongly of Chafee, Jeffords and Weicker. He would have been a much better fit for Connecticut (rightist-liberal) than Lieberman (leftist-conservative).

Kind of sad the best candidate the GOP ran for Senate this year (except Chafee) was the one who got the lowest percentage, and the only losing GOPer better than the guy he lost to.

You people are funny.

not a bad guy from what i understand.

but i happen to believe that joe lieberman is one of the finest senators in washington.  im glad to have him in the senate.

Not bad politcally for a Republican..

Pretty moderate, though to to the right of chafee, Collins, Snowe, Specter.   Would say a pro-choice version of Gordon Smith (though in the middle of Smit's two starkly different Iraq positions.

However, personally the guy has MANY MANY flaws.

Perhaps Schlesinger should have just negotiated a deal for a pullout, to save face, and to maybe get a deal to run in the future.

And when it comes to his gambling. In these days when poker is such a big draw on ESPN, it seems a bit out there to bash someone for gambling.

As long as he's not a moron about it, it's not a problem.

Schlesinger was an idiot, and I still don't know how the hell he ended up getting the nomination.  He's lost every seat that he's won.  Ran for congress 3 times, and lost the primary each time. The man wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed either. I went to a fundraiser of his early in the campaign, (I by no means paid for this either, since I was already going to support Lieberman before Lamont defeated him) and this man just wasn't that great of a speaker.  He said things like "I don't plan to run for President, or have those apsirations. I just want to be your Senator".  Seriously, WTF?! Yah, Joe ran for President, but that's because he was nearly elected Vice President! He served in the Senate for 16 years before he decided to run for President, and after his terrible showings in the primaries, I doubt he ever would again. He had his issues with the casinos, and it made him look even worse. He was also sued twice in Jersey for gambling debts. 

 Yup.. that's the kind of guy we should have supported for Senate.

And elected Ned Lamont on 35% of the vote in the process. :)

He got my vote.

He was better than the vile, murderous, bloodthirsty, warmongering piece of human trash who you actually did elect.

See, that's what I hate about liberals and conservatives. They always have to bash someone they hate, just because they aren't the same. At no point, have I ever said anything disrespectful of Senator-Elect Amy Klobuchar. Do I agree with her? No, but I keep that to myself.

 If politics were like it was supposed to be, this wouldn't be happening. Joe was elected to represent the state of Connecticut in the U.S. Senate. Not Nevada, not California, not Texas, and not Minnesota.  When you use the comments that you made above, it just makes you sound like an idiot. 
 
 That's the kind of politician that I am, and the same I'll continue to be.  You're elected to represent the people, not the party. 

Connecticut elected Joseph Lieberman, actually, not Adolf Hitler.

I was very impressed by Schlesinger in the debates too. He certainly performed the best out of the three.

There was a backlash against Lamont b/c people felt he was buying the seat with his own money.

Schlessinger was abandoned because Republicans here are so moderate that they have no party loyalty. All the Republicans (and libertarians) I know voted for Lieberman. The War was not the main issue for everyone, which helped Joe.

Yah, we don't usually have party loyalty much.  : )

  When I voted for Joe, my vote had nothing to do with the war. Like many republicans in Fairfield County, we are fiscally conservative, and socially moderate/liberal.  When I looked at all the info, I agreed more with Joe than I did Ned or Alan, and a great deal of republicans and independents felt the same way.

You put what I was thinking into a great comeback, thank you! :)

Nothing wrong with voting based on your views!

You dont have to be Hitler to be a murderous bloodthirsty warmongering piece of human trash.

And yes Liebergoon is a warmongering piece of human trash.

Because generally Lieberman is closer to the GOP than he is the the Democratic Party.  So it makes perfect sense that you (and the rest of the GOP Far right and faux-moderate alike) supported Joe Lieberman.

He has the right to vote for whoever shares his views (or is closest to his views) just as we all do.

Name one way he is what you called him, and don't name the Iraq war because disagreement does not equal treason (contrarey to what you and several of my classmates think).  BTW, I oppose the Iraq war so don't try to turn it into a debate on that issue.

 So, does it make perfect sense that I was a supporter of Chris Dodd in 2004 as well?

 I don't see why people have a problem with others voting for whoever they want. In 2006, I voted for more democrats than I did republicans.

 Heres a short list of who I voted for.

Rep. Chris Shays (R)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I)
Gov. Jodi Rell (R)
state Sen. Bob Duff (D)
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D)
and I voted all other statewide offices democrat except for Comptroller.

 It's not us who are the problem, it's the people who are so one sided, that they will always vote for their parties candidate, regardless of the candidate.

 Let me ask you this, If Joe had won the 2006 primary, who would you have voted for. Joe or Alan?

I agree! On both sides there are too many people who confuse harmless dissent with treason and simple disagreement with pure evil.  It is really sad.  If I could vote in 2006, I would've voted for all the democrats on MY ballot with one execption (a judge who though not indicted is clearly guilty of ethics violations).  My two best friends (if they could vote) would've voted stright ticket Republican because they support Republicans, so we just don't talk about politics.  That is one of the great things about America!  Where else can a liberal Jew (me) and a Conservitive Southern Baptist (one of my two best friends) have almost opposite political views on politics and still be such close friends? :)  BTW, never have I met a Southern Baptist who believed that there was anything wrong with gays, Jews, Agnostics, etc, because they believe God loves everyone (as does my friend).  Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have created a false stareotype and whenever we meet a Southern Baptist we jump on the slightest trace of that starotype. 

If not for the other party's backstabbing, there'd have been no risk in backing Schlesinger.

Whoa!  That's pretty harsh.

I disliked Lieberman, not because he voted for the war.  So did Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Hagel, Smith and a lot of Senators from both parties who have not been pleased with how it's being fought.

What I hated about Lieberman was his staunch refusal to question or criticize the commander in chief.  There is nothing more un-American.  People like Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt both advocated criticizing the sitting administration in wartime.  Lieberman was wrong, wrong, wrong to lock arms with Bush.

That said -- a war monger piece of trash?

If it weren't for his closeness to Beelzebush on the war, what differences would we have with Joe?  Would those differences be any more substantial than our differences with Byron Dorgan, Mary Landrieu or Ben Nelson?

Notice the silence by "Progress". 

Treason?  Don't get me wrong I think Lieberman doesn't have any loyalty to the US.  I think his loyalty is to Israel not the US which would explain his unwaivering loyalty to the war against Iraq as a means to destabalize the middle east and provide security to Israel.  If the Sunnis and Shia are fighting each other they cant be nuking Israel...

Anyway I'd call him a warmongering piece of trash because of Iraq but he is a horrible human being on top of that because of his advocacy of torture, and his generally lieing ways as he is probably one of the least honest politicians in Connecticut.

I said it wasn't a suprise that you voted for Lieberman (or that the far righters voted for Lieberman).

[quote[I don't see why people have a problem with others voting for whoever they want. In 2006, I voted for more democrats than I did republicans. [/quote]

I have a problem with people voting for HORRIBLE HORRIBLE human beings.


I would have voted for Alan.  He was the second best candidate on the ballot.  Hell if it was a two way race between Alan and Lieberman with Lamont a distant third I would have voted Alan.  He was much preferable to the most selfish man in politics, the neo-con's wet dream, the pro-torture, warmongering terrorist Joe Lieberman.

That is the biggest load of horse sh**t I've heard all day.

Well deserved harshness.


You know he has no problem questioning the CoC right?  I mean he made his name doing it against Clinton.  However Joe has long said that Bush is merely carrying out the Lieberman-McCain position on Iraq... It isn't that Joe voted for the war it is that he was one of the core reasons the war happened.  He didn't vote for the war to "get it over with" or because "he felt it would hurt him politically" which are both lame excuses for voting for the biggest debacle in the history of the United States.  But he wrote the bill and voted for it because he is a true believer in the policy of illegal immoral and unilateral warfare.


Yes.  I disagree with the other three but I find them to be generally honest for politicians... Lieberman is the politician's politician.  He talks out of both sides of his mouth at all times.  Almost every word that comes from his mouth is either a half truth or an outright lie.  He constantly lies to the people of Connecticut every possible chance he gets.  Further he was never the best option in Connecticut.  The Republican Senator he beat (with the help of far right extremists) was and is the man.  He was a hundred times the man that Joe Lieberman will ever be.

H...O...L...I...D...A...Y...S...

That's nice, now try to think of a serious argument.

Yeah....

Yeah, you really should!

I provided an arguement that shows that Liebergoon is a warmonger and anyone who follows him on a regular basis knows that he lies more than any other Connecticut politician I can find in either party.  So since you don't have anything actually useful to add I guess you can go back to making your unsupported comments.

What about John Rowland? Oooooohhh, cheap shot!

Rowland might be a bigger crook but I'd say he lies less than Lieberman.

No, no, the brown acid is bad.

Does Lieberman have close kin in Israel?