Obviously I haven't seen the debate yet but as far as I'm concerned, Ned Lamont won. Unfortunately our system is so money-driven that only a millionaire can run but I will always be thankful that somebody stood up to Joe and actually beat him in the primary. I had hoped that would wake Joe up and make him realize that he's supposed to represent us and not just do whatever works for him at any given moment. I will always blame him for cheerleading for an unjust, unwise and unwarranted war when he should've been listening to what the educated citizenry of his state were thinking. Those of us who can read and take the time to learn were well aware of the warnings of the first President Bush who accurately predicted the quagmire that we find ourselves in today. Lieberman and all the incumbents who blindly supported Bush bear the blame for this disaster. There is no more important issue. Joe makes the Senate seem like a complicated job that nobody else but he can figure out. He was a freshman senator once and we all survived. In fact, he did better when he was first in. Back then he understood that he worked for us and was supposed to listen to us. But now he's been there too long and is too influenced and beholden to those who pay for all his TV ads. The longer they're there, the more they do for themselves and the farther they get from the folks back home. Vote all the incumbents out or at least study their records. Don't just vote for the familiar names. You'll doom us to more of the same.

I Hope the questions have somthing to do with what they plan on doing and not questions that open a door for a kindegarden fight or making fun of each other to make themselfs look better,it only makes them look pathetic and desperate.If Joe dosn`t throw a knockout punch tonight and come up with a plan for the future,and not what He has done,My concience has to go with Ned Lamont and figurtivly speaking,I will hold a hot poker to Ned and all His Promises,I can`t hold on to sentimental reasons when it intails everybody.Ned is not going to get away with lies,He wants to ride that Horse I am going to hop on the back and ride it to the end and any bull that wants to stand in my way I am taking it by the horns.Same goes for Joe if He would only come up with somthing new.Schlehinger seems to have an attiude to walk over everyones Heads on His way to wherever He`s going.Like the no-where -man in the song the Beatles sing,The Bush family song!I just hope the three of them if they really care about Connecticut leave their masks at home and may Gods best Candidate that God has been working on win,It`s God`s will no matter what I would like anyway,Glory to God in the Highest,then candidates,thensugarfree candy!We can come out of Iraq but we have to clean up the mess that we left by mistake thinking they had weapons of mass destruction,all they had was mass 3 times a day.We need to focus on North Korea.Im not British all for nothing .Sombody has to speak out without fear of excercising the only free thing in this nation(FREEDOM OF SPEECH).Don`t tell anyone this see-krit,People in communist countrys speak when they want!~Peace Glenna~

Mark,
Well, I didn’t see it yet, but I want to comment before, to see how my opinion changes.

Right now, I would vote for Ned Lamont. I think that we are in need of a change. Although, Joe may have done good things throughout the years, He has served enough. I think that Ned can help Connecticut with
what we need.
I do not think that Schlesinger has enough experience to be the senator for ct.

I agree with Ned that we should pull out troops out of Iraq. I see no need for us to be there. He also had good stances on the issues. Let’s see how my view changes after the debate. I will also report on this on my news show, and on my news site. You can also see it Mondays at 8pm on channel 27, I will report on this issue for next week.

Marcus Harun
www.marcusharun.com

Lamont is just one more rich guy who wants to be in charge. I don't think he has our best interest in mind. He's spent so much money trying to bad mouth Lieberman that he hasn't even come up with any plans for the change he says we need. Joe's got my vote. Alan isn't too experienced but I like him better than Lamont as well... Lamont is digusting...

The voters lost this debate. The poor structure, poor questions and poor answers left the voters out in the cold.

The entourage that Lamont brought to sabotage the Senator's responses tonight was despicable. Once again, it reiterates the type of person that Lamont is and the type of administration that they will bring. My vote is and still stands for Senator Lieberman

Lamont won the debate. He really want's the job. He wants to work for the people of Connecticut. At the end of the day, a vote for Joe is a vote for this collasol failure in Iraq. I'm with Ned.

No clear winner but Sen. Lieberman simply never answers the question. The question you asked about whether the candidates commercials and mailings were true certainly did not apply only to Ned Lamont's commercials and mailings. Certainly you expected Sen. Lieberman to defend his own. I always think its disrespectful when someone evades a question like that; its like he thinks the viewers are really, really dumb.

Hey Evi, Lieberman spent more money than Lamont. Do you find Lieberman disgusting?

Carolina, how do you know Ned brought those hecklers? Were you one of them? It's more plausible that Joe brought them himself to garner sympathy; we're talking about a "Democrat" who took calls from Karl Rove after he lost the primary, after all.

I think Ned won this debate, because his ideas came across as a far more plausible response to the conditions that we live in today. We need to exit Iraq, not babble about our personal recipe for 'success' in a climate appearing increasingly more catastrophic. We need a senator who doesn't make a record up every six years, touting marquee bills with little substance while eroding our rights and protection by law behind his back. Joe Lieberman has lost touch with more than his constituents, he's lost contact with reaelity altogether. And outbursts like that in the audience are unacceptable. Booing after a question is one thing, but boisterous interruption is anorther.

I think Ned won this debate, because his ideas came across as a far more plausible response to the conditions that we live in today. We need to exit Iraq, not babble about our personal recipe for 'success' in a climate appearing increasingly more catastrophic. We need a senator who doesn't make a record up every six years, touting marquee bills with little substance while eroding our rights and protection by law behind his back. Joe Lieberman has lost touch with more than his constituents, he's lost contact with reality altogether. And outbursts like that in the audience are unacceptable. Booing after a question is one thing, but boisterous interruption is another.

Lamont is not the smoothest candidate, but he speaks from his heart. The only passion Lieberman seems to have is a passion to stay in the Senate. Schlessinger adds to the debate, but I disagree with his policies -- but he would be a good stand up comic, if that's who we were electing. The war is the defining issue of our time. Joe's on the wrong side of history on this one. And if we send him back to the Senate, we will be too.

Lamont's closing statement was very powerful. Everyone knows we're not on the right track - Ned made it clear that he's the one who's willing to stand up and change it.

for humour and spontaneity it goes to Allen, for excuses it goes to Joe, for truth it goes to Ned

It is clear who won the debate: Ned Lamont. He's willing to invest millions of dollars of his own money because he cares about the issues enough to challenge the status quo. I agree with most of what he said. Lieberman did not seem sincere; he's the typical politician. Alan did a great job and seems sincere.

erik--check your facts. Lamont spent more out of pocket $$ for this campaign than either of the other two. And I agree with Carolina--that group of hecklers Lamont brought showed his lack of respect for all the members of the debate. No class.

Andra,

The funny thing was that after Lmaont gave his answer Mark Davis asked Lamont to answer the question to which Lamont did. But after Liebermen gave his answer Mark Davis didn't force Lieberman to back up his ads. Mark Davis, who runs this blog, has to answer why?

Lamont won the debate because you could see that he cares about change for CT and the US. Alan cares about moving the country further to the right of GWB. Lieberman cares about Lieberman getting re-elected.



[Note: Mark Davis does not 'run' this blog. For the most part I do, with the usual advice/guidance of management -- Jeff Bailey, Webguy]

I think there is no question that Ned lamont won the debate! Schlessinger's attempt at humor has now worn thin. Joe looked like a washed out old man , desperately using the only thing he has going for him - i.e. to try and paint Lamont as lying about him, when there is not ONE SINGLE thing Ned has on his site or mailers that is not true! Joe lied about 8-9 times that I heard, i.e. about never wanting to Stay the Course, about SS, about Health Insurance (remember when he voted against Clinton's health proposal?).

Schlessinger distorted on HSA's, i.e. Medicare is not eligible for HSA, and they are strictly for the rich. They will Dis-incent the poor from using the cash that is meant to be used to the Deductible, for health care. His Strictly Republican ideas are the ones we are now trying to get rid of nationally ! GREED! Voting and thinking with one's wallet, not for help and consideration of those less fortunate.
The only one who had any credibility was Ned Lamont. Stop this Illegal invasion, use the $250 million dollars each day for Real Security of this country, education, health care, children, the poor, the elderly, etc.

Ned won hands down. He was passionate, articulate and gave concise, smart answers. Joe was despicable calling Ned a liar with no proof whatsoever. For all the dirty tricks and "petty cash" that Joe pulls (think web site crashing and blaming it on Lamont (not proofed), his goons attacking Lamont in the diner, and spending $400,000 with no accountabiity), he has a lot of nerve. And Ned's right, he's only using Joe's own words - "I won't serve more than 3 terms" - against him.

It is my opinion that Democrat Ned Lamont won tonights debate. While Sen. Lieberman has learned to be a fantastic speaker and spins convincing tales, the fact is he has nothing to say to the arguments laid down by either of his opponents, he can only accuse them. I think Mr. Lamont finally regained the aggressiveness he had shown throughout the Democratic primary, and his passion for the issues far outstripped the Senator's stale repitition of his "bi-partisan" credentials. Republic candidate Alan Schlesinger performed admirably, and his solutions are something that need to be heard, but in the contest for sounding like the next Senator to the U.S. Senate from Connecticut, Mr. Lamont wins for his positive focus, good ideas, courage, and professionalism.

Alan won the debate, although I agree with Ned's ideas. I'm worried that the public will assume that the heckling was somehow an official ploy by the Lamont campaign. Regardless of how everything else went, that heckler is going to be the story of the debate and it could sink all of the progress that Alan and Ned made. It is really hard to hear Lieberman defend civil rights when he voted FOR Bush's detainee bill. I mean, that is so disingenuous.

Ned Lamont won this debate without a doubt. He showed the voters of Connecticut why change is necessary under the failed Joe for Joe policy and how he would effectively bring civility back to the Bush rubber stamping congress. (As a side note how Joe will do anything to get some crumbs back from Bush.)


Joe Lieberman talks how he wants to solve problems, but he is the primary problem for this state.
Ned Lamont has solutions about eduction, medicare, and foreign policy. I recommend that anybody who is interested to learn about these ideas go to his website nedlamont.com.

Finally, Joe Lieberman showed why he doesn't desserve my vote because he talks out both sides of his mouth and will say/do anything to be elected. I don't condone the behavior of the rowdy audience, but they showed the frustrations that many Connecticutians have with Joe Lieberman. Time for change. Vote for Ned Lamont.

We stand behind Senator Lieberman 100% of the way. The savages that were queued by Lamont to interrupt the Senator has proven once again that the people of CT ought NOT to elect Ned Lamont. Ned, you brought your clowns, but this may very well backfire on you. We have seem your true colors Ned. You have become the joke that is known as Howard Dean. Senator Lieberman has won the debate. He is a man of principle, with a vision and he will stand firm on the issues that are important to the state of CT.

Evi, check your facts. Lamont has spent 13 million. Joe has spent over 15 million. Those ars the facts. Joe's money has come from Republicans to which he will owe favors. You think he's wrong on the war and SS. Lieberman back in the Senate is about to be wrong on lot more of the issues then just that once he has to pay back his Republican/Karl Rove donor base.

Ned Lamont was the clear winner. Tonight we were able to see Ned's campaign of ideas take down Joe's campaign of lobbyist money. Joe Lieberman no longer represents Connecticut. He represents special interests and corporations who steal from our pocketbooks everyday.

Ned Lamont has no lobbyist money in his campaign--he only has ideas, ideas to help Connecticut. Ned will be the next senator.

Go Ned Lamont! We need to take care of things here at home---education, environment, social security, health care etc.

That "entourage" that disrupted the debate is NOT, repeat NOT part of Ned Lamont's campaign. They don't know yet who they were, but they suspect the singer was a Lieberman plant to garner sympathy -- Lieberman's campaign has done that before. It could also have been someone from the two other parties not allowed to participate in this debate. Whatever you think of Ned Lamont, it's just not his style.

That said, it's clear that Ned Lamont won this debate. Schlesinger was lively, but mostly goofy. Lieberman came off as way too arrogant.

I wasn't crazy about the questions, or even the tone Mark Davis took while asking his questions -- instead of "What is your plan for improving education" or something of substance, he asks "What percentage of these ads are true." What a lame question. Not even a quote from an ad -- just a general, stupid question. What a waste of time. And Davis sounded hostile -- what happened to impartial journalism? Or did he think he was writing an OpEd piece with his questions? I expected much more from him. Maybe it's time for him to find a different beat if he's getting so jaded over covering politics.

I hope there really are more debates. Last I read, all the candidates want more of them except for Lieberman. You'd think if Joe is so proud of his record, he want more of a chance to go on TV to talk about it.

I thought Ned won the debate, especially when he stood up to Joe and told him that his (Ned's) ads were basically using Joe's own words against him.

HOWEVER, I don't know who was involved in that BS chanting singing whatever crap, but it will probably get painted as Ned supporters, thus making Ned look bad. Whether they were truely Ned supporters, or just anti- Joe, or dare I say, "plants" from Joe, it doesn't matter... it was a totally uncalled for, rude, and did nothing for the debate.

I also thought, Schleshinger's call for more debates was right on... and I was happy to see Ned applaud the idea. Joe looked a little bit unconfortable about it though

Go Ned Lamont! We need to take care of things here at home---education, environment, social security, health care etc.

Evi, the hecklers were Larouche supporters. Ned's people were trying to help eject them from the hall. Joe is the one who owes Ned an apology for trying to smear him again, like he tried with his egregious lies about his pathetic underpowered website being "hacked," and for which Joe also has yet to apologise. And oh, by the way, Ned won, hands down, no contest. Statesmanlike and knowledgable, unlike vacillating, prevaricating Joe.

Ned is a liar. Joe would not privatize social security. Remember the "lockbox." Joe said before that that he wouldn't didn't support privatization. And he will continue to prevent privatization as a Senator.

Ned Lamont won the debate when he finally stood up to Lieberman, who called him a liar. Its the first time I've seen Lamont passionate, which is something he needed. Also, Lamont's answer about Iraq and national security was right on the money.

Alan Schlessinger was a strong second. He has ideas and facts and articulates them very well.

Lieberman just kept patting himself on the back talking about all the wonderful things he did. If he was so wonderful, why are we in the mess we're in?

Do you really think that a Lieberman supporter would have tried to get Lieberman to lose his train of thought while giving his closing statement? I don't think so.

Apparently the singers were paid Lieberman supporters from Pennsylvania wearing Lamont badges. They were confronted by genuine Lamont people after the show and refused to identify themselves but photographs from previous Lieberman events proved they were his people.

Erik, you are truly off by a few million.....but it doesn't matter. There are a good number of people in CT who will not take a chance on an inexperience....Joe will win. Just wait and see

As I have been reading these comments on the blog. I can say most of us agree that Ned Lamont won this debate hands down. He may not be the best debater we have ever seen, but anybody who speaks from his/her heart will always get my uttermost respect.

I coudlnt' believe how disguting Joe Lieberman's comments were throughout the entre debate. People want to complain about a couple of people in the audience. How about a lying two faced senator who turns the first question into his opening statment. He is a desperate politican who will at all means break all rules for his own personal gain. Joe wants energy independence,but votes for the Bush energy bill. People wake up because Senator Lieberman is only for himself. If Lieberman wins I can tell you he has lost atleast 70% of his democratic base. The netroots and grassroots stood up for change at the primary and we will again.

I think Lamont won for being the most even tempered and well thought out. Lieberman's continued flip flopping on his record, (particularly staying the course/changing course and social security privatization) is annoying at best and patronizing at worst. I used to think he had integrity, but I think that ball has been passed to Lamont.

Does anybody know if the singers in the audience were from the Liebrgoons campagin?

Evi, You argue like a child. Those are the numbers. Has Joe spent more than Ned on the campaign? Has Joe accepted money from the Karl Rove Republican donor checkbook? You can't come flinging crap on the wall to see what sticks and then just stick your fingers in your ears when the facts prove you wrong.

Joe Supporter: Ned is a liar. Joe would not privatize social security.

NOT TRUE. Joe was the first to call for private social security accounts in 1996, and he was open to Bush's plan until his Party and the public made it clear that that brilliant idea was DOA.
private social security = oxymoron

According to the latest FEC filings, to date, Sen. Lieberman has spent $11,581,325.80. Mr. Lamont has spent $8,648,410.23. Details for Sen. Lieberman can be found at http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00235515 Details for Mr. Lamont can be found at http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00420117

Ned won without a doubt. Lieberman is a slick liar, more interesting himself and obtaining money than the issues that affect us. Time to go Joe.

I agree that Ned Lamont won this debate hands down, he really showed that the people in CT are what matters most to him. GO NED GO!!

I did not see Lieberman offer anything new, but that does not surprise me.

I do think that Schlesinger added something to the debate but not enough to sway me from voting for Ned Lamont.

Go Ned Lamont!!


Jean

Thank you FEC wonk I was citing overall money rasied.

Ned Lamont won, hands down.

Mark Davis, it is your responsiblity to report the truth and the truth is that the singer was a wacky Lyndon Larouche supporter. Do not allow your bias for Lieberman(at least that's what yopu showed during the debate) allow the media to report this any other way.

It is clear that Senator Lieberman is a self-righteous, indignant, career politician who is willing to say and do anything to keep "his" seat in Washington. It's time for Joe to go. I can't believe the people of this state actually believe Joe's bullsh--. Stop taking the rhetoric for face value and THINK! Your country needs you. Ned won the debate. I don't agree with the heckling of Senator Lieberman, but ... well ... he sort of deserved it.

Ned won hands down. Lieberman is only good at one thing LYING! Lieberman is a big bully who deserves to punched in the face. I couldn't stand watching him stare into the camera and looking like the cocky man he is right now.

Joe's about face on the war is transparent pandering.

Joe has stated his support for private accounts.

Joe inserted mandatory employer participation that killed the mid 90's universal health care plan.

Joe was for school vouchers (except during his run for prez)

Joe says whatever he has to in order to keep his cushy job.

Had Enough? Vote for a guy who cares and has enough money to not need to listen to special interests.

Vote Ned!

Erik, again, re check the numbers. I assure you I am no child and I have the facts... You just can't stand that Joe will be re-elected. All anyone will remember from this debate were the rude hecklers and it looks totally like they were from Lamont's camp.....

Ned Lamont won this debate. Joe's brazen charge of "liar" was projection at its worst.

Did ANYONE understand Joe's staying-not staying the course answer with regard to Iraq?

Ned won this debate hands down, in my opinion. And the hecklers, it is rumored, are LaRouche supporters, though what they are doing in CT is more than I can guess. I do know that Ned Lamont would not do something like this, while I think Joe Lieberman is perfectly capable of setting it up. He's taking funds from Sembler and advice from Karl Rove.

OFF THE LAMONT BLOG

UPDATE: Evidently after the debate Lieberman walked up to Ned and said “You goddamn sonovabitch,” and something to the effect of “how dare you run those direct mail pieces accusing me of voting for the energy bill in 2005 because of campaign contributions from the oil companies.” Joe’s losing it.

Schlesinger is a good debater and a decent man, I just don't agree with him. Joe seems like a professional victim, and his support for the Iraq War remains. Lamont has the position I support on Iraq, and that is the most important issue of our time.

By the way, the disruptors were Lyndon Larouche nuts, for those who are familiar with them, and it was Lamont staff who led the struggle to eject them.

Joe lied about the "hackers" too.

His credibility should be nil by now.

www.vetojoe.com

Ned clearly won this round. He was strong on balance of powers, Iraq, social security. Ned spoke with more heart than in the earlier debates and he really sounded passionate in his defense of his right and obligation to be critical of Lieberman on his 18 year record.

Facts for you Evi,

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/imaging_info.shtml
According to the latest FEC filings, to date, Sen. Lieberman has spent $11,581,325.80. Mr. Lamont has spent $8,648,410.23. Details for Sen. Lieberman can be found at http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00235515 Details for Mr. Lamont can be found at http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00420117

Joe has spent more than Ned. Period. I used to think facts were like kryptonite to republicans but they are also like kryptonite to Joe Lieberman supporters.

I understand Mr. Lieberman attacked Ned Lamont after the debate calling him a "Son of a B..."

From what I saw of the debate, Ned Lamont won and Lieberman looked desperate.

I give the debate to Ned. Finally, the 3-ring circus allowed Ned to look like just what we need in these serious times: we need serious people who can be deliberative. Alan was too much this time out; he tried to be too cute by half, and got dead stuck on his “immigration” nonanswer. Joe was waaaayyyyy too much of more of the same; thus, me in the viewing audience is very clear that whiner NEVER EQUALS winner … Joe put himself way too close to GWB, and even the other George (S.) had to reprimand and stifle his endless whiny self. Statesman? NOT EVEN BY A MILE! He showed himself to be highly “experienced” in all the worst his person and persona had to offer. I'm an independent, and I say: GO NED! Way to take it to Joe at the PERFECT moment for the PERFECT REASON and with PERFECT POLITICAL PITCH.

The people who disrupted the debate were LaRouch supporters. Very petty of Senator Lieberman to jump to the conclusion they had anything to do with Mr. Lamont. I think Mr. Lamont won this debate. He has won me over tonight.

LIEberman called Mr Lamont a sonofab--ch after the debate. LIEberman is pathetic and a loser.
I hope the press got this comment from LIEberman on tape, so it can be played over and over, so the great people of Connecticut see what
LIEberman is really about! LIEberman lost today even his buddy Karl Rove can't help him now.

Lamont was the overall winner, but I thought Schlesinger did very well, especially on his approach to more debates. I will be very much shocked if Lieberman agrees to more debates as Lamont and Schlesinger are gaining at his expense.

I think Lieberman made a major mistake in calling Lamont a liar without being able to immediately bring up one example, whereas Lamont responded that all he was doing was playing back what Lieberman had said.

Also, the discussion about Lieberman's editorial of last year and how everything was hunky-dory until the Golden Mosque was bombed just was not credible and the audience knew it.

Overall, I think that Lamont strengthened his position amongst Democrats and Independents while Schlesinger strengthened his amongst Republicans, resulting in a net loss for Lieberman.

When will Joe Lieberman apologize for implying that the heckler's were affiliated with Ned.

Just another baseless allegation, just like the many others we've seen (remember they blamed Lamont's campaign for their own website incompetence)

Did the subject of Lieberman's funny money from the petty cash box come up? Joe's got some 'splaining to do. Lady Liberty doesn't hold that lamp up so that cynical desperados can run around buying votes under cover of the night.

Ned Lamont just walked off with the Senate seat hands down tonight. He won my vote. He spoke from the heart, and addressed issues that actually matter to most Americans. I am convinced that Ned will serve me and my family well.

It's sad that those LaRouche people chose to act the way they did. To me, the interruption did nothing to my perception of any candidate.

I hope that the media plays a responsible role for once and points out that Lieberman's assertion during the debate that those hecklers were Lamont supporters was WRONG as they were IN FACT LaRouche people.

Schlesinger did a fine job of standing in front of Joe, I noticed.

Ned Lamont laid it on the line tonight. To continue sending Lieberman to the US Senate means that the state of Connecticut supports torture and the suspension of habeus corpus. It means supporting Geogre W. Bush's dangerous, costly Iraq policy. It means we'll be paying back all those right-wing Republican donors who funded Joe's campaign. Or, we can give the nation a clear message that the people of Connecticut support change. Ned Lamont will be that agent of change. For the sake of my children and all the children of this state, please vote for change this November. We desperately need new leaders in Washington.

Voters deserve an answer to Lieberman's Petty Cash Problem. How can you pay "volunteers" so much in the final days of the primary without expecting to influence the vote.

This is a democracy. I want - no, I demand - an honest vote.

After Joe crashing down his website 2 days prior to the election, and then immediately blaming Lamont for it, I have absolutely NO DOUBT that this is another one of his campaign tricks! The man has no shame!

Joe's supporters show how truly naive, gullible, and easily swayed the American voter can be! Instead of researching the facts, they just take Joe's word for them.

YES , Joe flip-flopped on SS ! check it out. So what is Ned is rich, at least he does not owe his Votes now to Special Interests like Joe does! Joe supported Stay the Course, until he saw that Americans and CT voters did not want it! And how come Joe never answered what percentage of his ads were lies? Instead, just turned it around on Ned and attacked him! What a sorry, sorry excuse for a man!

Ned won! He's working his heart out for the benefit of the people of Ct. He might not be totally at ease in a debate, but he speaks the truth.
What a hypocrite Joe is to call Ned a liar - Joe's the one who made up the 'facts' that he misrepresents as a quote from the NY Times in his ad. I'd like to see Lamont sue Joe for that and for the false HACK claim!
I'd also like to find out who those hecklers really were. I can vouch that Ned DOES NOT condone such behavior. He always asks his supporters to not take the bait from Joe's paid thugs. If you doubt this - read the GQ article. Joe has people who deliberately disrupt Ned's events and provoke Ned supporters. When asked if he approves of this, his answer is "It's all part of politics."
If you read the article or meet Ned (Joe won't meet you unless you're a good photo), you'll find that Ned's the gent, even in the face of rudeness, and Joe's the bully.
Joe is full of Rovian tactics. I hope the people of CT recognize what a marvel we have in Ned. We shouldn't let this intelligent, honest man slip away from being our Senator.

Ned won this round. I wanted the petty cash slush fund addressed. I was very dissapointed with the questions.


Especially the one about gays in the millitary. What are we in the 90's or somthing. How are we still asking about that in DEBATES in 2006! Goodness!

Ned clearly won the debate; Joe seems to be all over the map on Iraq, now that the war is going to pieces. Schlinger is entertaining, and he articulated Republican viewpoints well, but...they're Republican viewpoints.

the disruptions were dispicable and no candidate, of any party, should be subjected to that. Not Joe, not Ned, not Alan. I'm glad the Lamont people threw those nuts out, but the moderator should have stopped this until the disrupters were expelled, then allowed the candidates to continue with their full times.

Joe called Ned a g*ddamned s*n*fabit*h after the debate. Real leadership qualities there. We desperately need a new direction. This Senate seat has become all about Joe and not the people of Connecticut. That needs to change.

Ned clearly won this debate.

There will be video posted of these LaRouche lunkheads that were singing to disrupt Ned and Lieberman, at

http ctbob dot blogspot dot com

Ned has too much class to spring this on the debate, but Lieberman's slush fund petty cash box is deep, when he releases the ledger will the LaRouchies be on it?

I have to give this one to Ned. Between the lying, spinning and whining Joe and the other guy he was the breath of fresh air. 100% Lamont.

I see all the Lamont nazi's are out in full force tonight.Ned clearly lost the debate, and Lieberman clearly won it. Ned is a loser, and anyone who votes for him, is also a loser.

It definitely appeared that the first questions that were directed specifically to Ned Lamont were definitely done by a person who is partisan to the Lieberman campaign. For someone to bring props and then throw them in disgust when he asks the question shows a total lack of respect for the candidate. I have received and read what he was questioning and I have look up to see if anything was not true. The internet is wonderful for finding things out. One can go back into a politician’s history to see if what is being said about the person is true or not. Everything that I have read on the material I have been able to verify by more than one source. There is no distortion of Lieberman's record in this material. The facts are the facts. The senator doth protest too much. His record is what it is.


I wondered why did this pro-Lieberman panelist did not ask the senator if he was sticking 100% behind this statement made on December 2005 by the senator.

“We are there not just to defeat the terrorists – not even mostly to defeat the terrorists – we are there to provide the security for a self-government by the Iraqis where the creation of a modern, open, thriving state in this historic center of the Arab and Islamic worlds."


First he says we are there to defeat the terrorists. Then he says that we are there “not even mostly to defeat the terrorists”. How many voters in Connecticut think as the senator states that we went to war in Iraq not even mostly to defeat the terrorists.

Shame on this panelist who turned his questions into anti-Lamont statements with his sophomoric antics. Shame on him for not asking the senator if he stands behind his statement about why were are in Iraq - to keep Iraq secure and not to fight the terrorists.

The person who was singing or chanting was out of line. No one, not even Lieberman, deserves that kind of disrect. But with that said, panelists who are asking questions in a political debate should not show their partisanship either. This too is disrepectful to the democratic process.

Mr. Lamont has convinced me he should receive my vote. Mr. Lieberman has not reversed position on Iraq War, even when the government says the war is failing, and worsening. Also, Lamont is a honest and hard working man.

Ned won the debate! Joe looked like the last 18 years has worn him out. Alan looked like he was at a comedy club on open mic night. Ned was smooth and clear.

Wow. I can't imagine how anyone could vote for such a whiny old codger as Lieberman. He is emblematic of what is wrong with politics today. At least Alan and Ned were honest--and Alan was a hoot. I guess it is much easier when you have nothing to lose.

Returning that big baby Joe Lieberman to the Senate would be a black eye for CT.

I thought Lamont kind of came across as a wimp, and Schlesinger came across as not very serious, so I think Lieberman won by default.

Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

Ned won. He's got the issues. Lieberman is a loser on Iraq, a loser on the environment, a loser because he supports the Bush administration and its failed policies. He's ingratiated himself to power and sold out any semblance of principle so he needs to pay the price.

Tammy Sun just said she will not release their "petty cash" disbursement list. LIEberman is a crook . The FEC will be looking into this nonsense. No one believes LIEberman anymore. I wonder if his website will go down again so he can LIE and blame it on others.

As someone who has several friends in Iraq, I'm insulted that Joe continues to say that no one wants the troops out of Iraq more than he does. Why does the media keep letting him get away with that?!?? Also, Lieberman's arrogance and feeling self-entitlement was particularly obvious tonight.
Ned Lamont is the only candidate in my 20 short years that I'm honored to say I support. He showed once again that he would make a superb senator that is interested in his constituents, not special interests.

Hey, where'd Evi go? Her dogma about Joemomentum was more fun than the debate.

To those who think Joe Lieberman was not for privatization of social security that Bush recommended, here are the words of former Senator Dan Coats (R) who served with Lieberman on the Armed Services Committee:on August 7, 2000.

“First of all, Joe Lieberman's a terrific fellow, and I'm a good friend. It's hard to say anything negative about him, but I do think it raises the question about Al Gore, why he chose Joe Lieberman, because their positions on some of the key issues in this campaign, Social Security reform, education, national defense -- Joe Lieberman's much closer to George Bush than he is to Al Gore and how he's going to finesse that or answer that I'm not exactly sure.”


“Well, as I said, on the fundamental issues of this campaign, Social Security, the privatization aspect of it, to allow individuals to set up private savings accounts, that is a position that Joe Lieberman and Governor Bush have taken.”

Ned won this debate hands down. Joe came across as a whiner as usual and Schlesinger seemed more of a comic then anything else. Joe calls Ned a liar in one sentance and then says Ned is negative. I have never seen anyone more negative then Joe Lieberman.

Iv`e got plenty to say on this,Remember the Women in Iraq and the Children.We need to do them right or the suicide bombers will carry on,think about if the tables were turned,Iraq did not bomb the Towers the men were Saudi Arabian Vinell Corp trained them and they turned on us,1975 check it out,it wasn`t the Vinell corp. falt they thought they were helping..While we are in Iraq ,Iran is the neighbor making bombs thinking there was no holocaust duh!My Dad was in a concentration camp.We can`t get out until the Women and children are free and able to defend themselfs.Unless You have been following for years it`s hard to see the big picture.As for now Ned has proved to be too Imatute for the job in my opinion but would be a good cage rattler,Al plays off Ned picking on Joe,Joes Body Language,and facts flying from His Heart can tell He the man for the Job.I have drawn back my bow with the hot poker and have let it go through Joe Liebermans Heart thats where my vote goes final.Ned stay with politics,when you stop shaking,unless you have a drinking problem,after you stop shaking,you will see that all your efforts have awakened the populie to issues,without competition(baby games)that are important,I must say you have spent alot of peoples money that you layed off to give your opinion that is scarry.What would you do with ours!Al You make me think you don`t like Black folk with those comments about Reverand Sharptan.and Jessey Jackson,I do belive You mentioned Jesseys name and Reverand Sharptans like they were second class citizens.And would You like it If a Genuine Native American said they didn`t like your government and would like to boot You.My Dad was an illeagal Alien(lord)from the Highlands of Scotland,My mother a Princess from the Indian tribe in Kent Connecticut.You would never know I was an Indian if I didn`t tell You,The Indians look at me funny,and the whites look at me funny when I tell them i am Indian,the blak folk don`t ask don`t tell,just roll their eyes. ,and the strait folk look at me funny and the Homosexuals look at me funny.I feel like the Freakin Humanzie they found years ago the way everybody watches every move I make,Hanging on every word I say,to make shoping lists.Exploited,You name it,all because I am an unmarried woman my Mother was a Rosi the rivoter,and my Dad a Bowsain(foreman of the crew).Then the town decided to charge me 600.00 a day in fines .Just because they could actually making up laws as they went along. Because someone put them in power,and Iam in a wheel chair,and it was my brother stuff,but because they can kick you when your down attach the house"we have to get Indian money somehow we have the power to play games,at the tune of 600.00 a day for 1 unregestered car,1 unregistered camper,a tag sale,a few bags of garbage that we haden`t taken to the dump.150.00 each .Thats a little steep.They told me get a lawyer.I called the Police to have Him have His head examined,they did nothig.I was right the whole time.Now He is getting help for collecting things for no reason.When I call my relatives in Great Britian they can`t belive,How their brother,cousin,uncle came over here a lord married a beautiful hard working Princess,and the vultures are eating up their babies,for greed.So Al,Ned back off,because when your in my face,the whole world is breathing on the back of your neck.I am whiter thanyou tho Al,brown hair green eyes.Go figure.Thats my feelings,God knows What we need.~Peace Glenna~
~Peace Glenna~

Was Hadassah at the debate? Maybe she was at her office calling for more money for Joe from her bosses.

Ned Lamont won by a landslide. He came off as a gentleman and senatorial. Schlesinger tries hard, but Bush and Rove have given the word that LIEberman is their man. It's been published! Mr. Lieberman continues to lie and another writer mentioned the petty cash fund! That should put a nail in JOe's coffin. He has broken the law...see the Lamontblog...it is all there. About as bad as blaming Lamont for hacking his website...he still doesn't have a working one. I hope they all go forward with additional debates and the more they do, Joe's fame fades fast.

Lastly, the singer hecklers were all Larouche followers and they were in the lobby of the hall and outside when the people came out...Let's see how fast Loser Joe apologizes..I won't hold my breath!!

Greta video ;
www.liebermeforme.com

Lieberman's act of constantly lecturing everyone about civility and then acting like a petulant child is getting very, very old.
If he did in fact call Lamont a SOB then it is the duty of the newspeople to report that -- it flies int he face of his call for civility.

There is some audio of LIEberman calling Lamont a SOB. it will be up soon.

Now, which of these men would stop and help you if you needed help? Ned definitely, Alan probably but not if he was in a big hurry, Joe definitely not. Unimaginable.

I think Joe Lieberman lies very well. Is that the question? No, than I'll go with Ned Lamont.

Joe won. And he deserves to win the race. No more millionaires trying to buy races by spreading lies.

I think you've got to give it to Ned Lamont. Not only did he get the most aggresive (hostile?) questions (Thanks a million Mark Davis. What was THAT about?), but he handled himself graciously, with dignity and without resort to lying. He looked like a statesman flanked by two politicians. I look forward to the next debate!

By the way, why didn't anybody ask Joe Lieberman to cite ONE example of the so-called lies and "negative campaigning" he keeps whining about. It seemed an obvious follow-up to his constant refrain.

Andre: Joe won. And he deserves to win the race. No more millionaires trying to buy races by spreading lies.

So I guess you think Kennedy shouldn't have been president, after all he was a millionaire. The only reason Lamont's money has become an issue in this race is because Lieberman has focused on it. It's silly. Joe's not exactly poor you know.

Simple observations from an unaffiliated voter...
1. With the debate in New London, why wasn't eminent domain the last question of the debate?
2. Ned came accross as passionate, but a tad bit angry at the panel. I would perfer if you would talk to the crowd and the camera instead of the panel. The war is THE major issue...If Ned can provide a solution, he win the election hands down. But he does not provide a solution.
3. Joe looked goofy...when other speakers were talking he was pruning himself and weaving as though he was listening to a song that no one else could hear. Joe's answers looked tired and worn out.
4. Alan came accross as a stand-up comedian, but also had some new ideas that may also be possible solutions. His defeatist attitude killed him from the opening round. Not to mention his stance on immigration...that issue doesn't play well in Connecticut. Alan has a political future...just not as Connecticut Senator.
5. This was a debate??? How pathetic! To me, there were no winners and all of Connecticut ends up the loser in the end. The choice is simple: Joe we know (good or bad) provides the safe vote. Ned provides the anti-war but nothing else plan. Alan provides the protest to the other two candidates vote. I went into the Garde not knowing who I will vote for and left feeling even worse. Yes...I'll pull the lever, but in the end I feel all of us end up being pulled even more.

Ned Lamount gives me the creeps. His ads are annoying and he spent WAY to much $$ on them. Think of how much good he could have done with those millions. He should be ashamed. Joe L. needs to retire, he looks desperate to hold on to his day job.
I love Alan S. He is a breath of fresh air. It is a sin that he is not out ther for CT to get to know him. If I had a million $s, I give it to him for his campaingn.
I'm voting for for Alan because he is the only one that makes sense.

I did not see the whole debate, only the last 2 questions. I did see the part where Liberman was heckled during his closing statement.

In light of the small fragment that I saw, I thought the Republican candidate looked good, Lieberman looked bad (he lost his composure completely during the heckling), and Lamont looked somewhat tentative. As an ardent Lamont supporter, I felt he was a bit tentative - as if he knew this was his last chance to deliver the knockout punch and he was just unable to land that. Perhaps I am completely wrong - Lamont did that in the early part of the debate.

I tried to watch but either the tv or cable screwed up. Anyone else have trouble with Comcast this evening?

I'll read transcripts and try to keep an open mind though it would take a miracle for me to decide to vote for Mr. Lieberman again. He lost my vote when he blindly continued to support the war after it became clear there were no WMDs.

It was downhill from there and I can't remember a time I've agreed with him since he became a Bush man. (btw, thanks but no thanks for Alito, Mr. Lieberman.)

And the fact that Rove has been stumping for him (giving numerous speeches about how the Dems turned their back on the man) has only served to convince me Joe doesn't represent me.

Colette - You go girl - A true Republican - It is about time someone sticks up for Alan. He has a message that the party leaders do not want heard. The debates have given him the forum to do so. There should be more.

wow! thanks to all who have restored my faith in the electoral process. now if only those new-fangled voting machines will truly show the will of the people this time. I still can't understand why all those people stood in those long lines in Ohio in 2004 to vote W back in. I sure hope that doesn't happen here. I sure hope we find out all Joe's secrets BEFORE the election and not after like Johnny Rowland. I think it's pathetic that those running the debate could not prevent the hecklers so we wouldn't have the distraction of whether they were Lieberman's, Lamont's or LaRouche's people. It's simple - if you're happy with the current regime, stay with Joe. If not, vote for Ned. He still cares what we think and doesn't need the bribes, er, lobbyist contributions. Maybe somebody will finally start cleaning up the mess down there in DC. Otherwise, we'll all be "Stuck with Joe".

Lamont took it easily. Lieberman looks like a guy who has to smile in public while knowing his internal polling has him in a death spiral.

This election is simple.

You have one vote - You can Choose "Stay the Course and have thousands more killed" or "Use The Money Being Spent on the War to fix this counry".

You cannot do both....

Hey, thanks PutangJill for the liebermeforme.com - it really sheds light on LIEberman. (I thought I was the only one who knew that little trick to spelling his name right. I never misspell it now.)

Are people in connecticut really that stupid to bye joe's BS. Bipartisinship doesn't mean you agree with both Bush and Cheney as lieberman thinks it does. I guess we'll see if people in CT have the same values as those in alabama. a vote for Joe is a vote for the Iraq war. A vote for ned is a vote to get out of iraq.. it's that simple

I agree with Dave - "The voters lost this debate. The poor structure, poor questions and poor answers left the voters out in the cold." It was like watching one long political ad. I agree with one thing Schlesinger said, the amount of money spent on political campaigns is "disgusting!" If they put half their time and money spent during their campaigns to be re-elected into the work that they were hired to do in the first place, we wouldn't be in such a mess.

Mark Davis, a true professional can cover being partisan with a little bit of finess. Your question about campaign advertising(waving Lamont direct mail adds) was truly amatuer. Your obvious bias did you, and your ally Joe Lieberman a dis-service.

That's a bold faced lie.

seriously, vote all the incumbents out. they've had their chance and are just taking the bribes and voting as they've been paid to do. it's time for a BIG change! the GOP declares war and then it's a spending free-for-all, not just Halliburton, these geniuses run the country just like they ran their companies. outsource the work, run up big debts, try to run the war on the cheap, don't send in enough troops, don't give them enough armor, use the poor guard folks to beef up the numbers because nobody's foolish enough to enlist any more. how dumb are we? we were after bin laden in Afghanistan and suddenly W sees his chance to outdo daddy and get Saddam and we follow him? his father warned what would happen in his reasons for not going into Baghdad. he was extremely accurate. we were warned and went in anyway. because W wanted to and not enough of our "representatives" thought about it and voted to stop him. our "reps" were too busy raising funds and planning for their next election. the system is broken and we have to fix it. TAKE OUT THE INCUMBENTS! IT'S NOW OR NEVER!

Lamont won BIG. Lieberman is in favor of staying the course, where 100 Iraqi civilians are being murdered every day and where we are coming up on 3,000 American soldiers dying for...what? Weapons of mass destruction? Regime change that was a long time ago? Elections also a long time ago? What the bloody hell are we still there for? I'm with Murtha, the soldiers have fulfilled their responsibility, bring them home and let the Iraqis try to salvage what's left of their country after we wrecked it.

I think Alan has some great ideas!

"after we wrecked it"? Just remember 'we' & 'wrecked' both start with "W".

I believe that this debate was one of the greatest in the state's history. I do believe though that what Joe said was basically in the loops for weeks. It was about time that time for Joe to defend himself. Ned displays false ads all the time and is spending his own money on this campaign. Let me ask you everybody this, What will Ned do after Bush is out of office in 2008, I don't believe that Ned has the logic or the capacity to do whats right in Washington. People say that this is a one topic election and I said its truely not. People should focus on the truth, who has made this state for what it is for 18 years Joe Liebermen, who has worked hard on every other policy, Joe Liebermen. The true job of a politican is not to bash one another but to work for the people who vote them in and Joe I believe he can do just that and serve the people of Connecticut with the dignity and honor that a politican should. People please remember that on November 7th, Vote for a man who you believe that will be the best for this state not because hes a bush basher or anything. Lamont has no true experience in politics and he shouldn't be there. He says hes democratic but somehow hes a businessman, he has republican views on economy. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN VOTE FOR EXPERIENCE AND DIGNITY JOE Liebermen

I was referring to the person who said that the heckler was a lieberman supporter.

Ned Lamont definitely won. Joe Lieberman came off as angry and rude. Schlesinger looked like a flaky and shady attorney or used car salesman. Ned not only looked better than the others, but was the only sane person on that stage. Joe also fibbed when he said that he didn't want to "stay the course" in Iraq. "Bottom line, I think Bush has it right." These are Lieberman's own words on Iraq and we all know how many times Bush has uttered "stay the course." Also, Joe once said "Donald Rumsfeld's removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq." Now that Joe is calling for Rumsfeld to step down, does it also mean that Joe is helping the terrorists? The guy is either lying or he's losing his marbles.

I believe that this debate was one of the greatest in the state's history. I do believe though that what Joe said was basically in the loops for weeks. It was about time that for Joe to defend himself. Ned displays false ads all the time and is spending his own money on this campaign. Let me ask you everybody this, What will Ned do after Bush is out of office in 2008, I don't believe that Ned has the logic or the capacity to do whats right in Washington. People say that this is a one topic election and I said its truely not. People should focus on the truth, who has made this state for what it is for 18 years Joe Liebermen, who has worked hard on every other policy, Joe Liebermen. The true job of a politican is not to bash one another but to work for the people who vote them in and Joe I believe he can do just that and serve the people of Connecticut with the dignity and honor that a politican should. People please remember that on November 7th, Vote for a man who you believe that will be the best for this state not because hes a bush basher or anything. Lamont has no true experience in politics and he shouldn't be there. He says hes democratic but somehow hes a businessman, he has republican views on economy. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN VOTE FOR EXPERIENCE AND DIGNITY JOE Liebermen

Joe has NOT represented CT. Nor has rell. these people run on who they are in personality. Where is the substance. Joe voted for NCLB which is has directly increased our tax dollars. Might I add he even admitted to not reading the bill. Joe also is willing to sacrifice our civil liberties for security. that is what facsists do. It is scary to think we have a president dusting off Adam's alien sedition act and a congress that won't confront him. Joe is running for his political career so he can be Secretary of Defense, VP, or even ambassador. Too bad becase Schlesinger verse Lamont would have re-invigerated CT's idealogy and given us some good exchange of ideas. Now we have a Democrat showing his lack of loyalty to the party he once was the VP canidate.

The winner was clearly Ned Lamont, who was civil, when Lieberman attacked him....

Alan was good too, though.

And btw, Mark, your questions were clearly slanted for Lieberman.

Guess we know who you support.

What has Joe done for Connecticut, Tim Wilkens?

Connecticut ranks 49th out of 50 with regards to the dollars they get back from Washington versus the dollars they send there. Iraq is a complete disaster, and there has been no accountability or oversight from Congress. Joe has been with the Republicans on this, and he needs to go.

And to top all this Joepocrisy off, he is the one running the dishonest, negative campaign.

Alan Schlesinger seemed to be the most truthful and believable. He certainly has nothing to lose saying what he thinks is correct. He has won my vote after these debates.

I was undecided until tonite. I thought Joes experiance would help us in Conn. but after hearing that he called Mr. Lamont a very dirty name, I am voting for Ned Lamont. He did better then Joe at the debate too and had more ideas. We need a new man in charge in Conn. and Ned Lamont is the man.

Comment from: Tim Wilkins [Visitor]

Learn how to spell your hero's name right if you're going to vote for him.

Ass****. It's Lieberman. What a dips**t.



[Language edited by Webguy]

Clearly, Ned took this debate. he was passionate, articulate, he sounded like a leader.

Initially I was going to hold my nose and vote for Lieberman, but after seeing Alan Schlesinger, I have to confess that I've switched my vote.

Go Alan!

To clarify: It was Lamont folks who escorted the hecklers out of the building.

And it was Lieberman who went on to call Lamont a sonovabitch after the debate.

Nuff said.

Tim -- We all know that campaigns cost money to run. Think about it now -- which would you rather have in the Senate: a man who felt strongly enough that a change was needed that he would spend his own money, or one who sucks up to the special interests for donations? Do you think big oil and big pharma and the electric companies give big bucks to Joe because they think he's a swell guy? C'mon. They're making an investment in their future. GO NED!!

I gotta agree with bo at 23:31, mark, way to show your preference when you smarmily juggled the lamont postcards- i'm not in ct but i can only imagine how much dreck lieberman is stuffing in people's mailslots nowadays, all with the stench of rove money.

NED won this debate. He was a gentleman when RGJoe called him a liar, and he cleared up any confusion about his ad's "misrepresenting" Joe's record by saying that his ads only use Joe's words and video of Joe.

RGJoe's close was terrible, and blaming NED supporters for the LaRouche disruptors, when the NED supporters were getting them outta the hall, was less than classy.

Alan will bring the true GOP voters home to his line on the ballot. They have a real candidate now, and Alan showed them the way home tonight.

It's time to go, Joe.

Lamont took this one. Although I disagree 99.9% with Schlesinger, he tends to be a breath of fresh air.

Joe has ridden his pity pot too long. Everyone was sick of it by the end of the first debate. I feel like sending his campaign some cheese to go with his whine.

Bravo to Ned for standing up when Joe called him a liar. Joe name-calls and whines, but he can't point to ONE untrue thing Lamont has said.

The laRouche supporters were probably paid out of Joe's petty cash. I hear Joe won't provide a list of where the money went. I guess they didn't take the names of the voters they bought.

Time to go, Joe.

Mark Davis was a disgrace. Those running debates have an obligation to maintain non-partisanship. No one should let Davis anywhere near a debate again.

Short form:

1. Schlesinger was a standup comedian for most of the debate. May actually have serious things to say, but it's hard to tell so far.

2. Lieberman living in the past, way too much self-justification. "Re-elect me because you owe me." Didn't have any answer at all for breaking his promise not to serve more than three terms.

3. Lamont a bit rough here and there, not smooth or practiced in some of his responses. Vast improvement over the campaign. Ideas good, a little too much talking point repetition.

4. Lamont came across as more senatorial; Lieberman came across as a has-been just trying to limp over the finish line so he can replace Rumsfeld as SecDef and Jodi Rell can appoint Schlesinger as Senator.

Alan Schlesinger won that debate. He was funny, intelligent and had some actual plans on what to do. Ned Lament had his parade(his money talking) and all his left wing fringe groups there. Right in with his people was a group that wants all US aide to Isreal cut and had signs that said end the occupation of the US Congress by Isreal. There was the group wearing pink and calling for the troops to be out now. What can you expect from a man who hangs around Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Ned Lament is the Neville Chamberlain of our time. If he wins it will truly be a sad day for Connecticut and the nation.

I dont know what you guys are thinking. Schlessinger won by far.
Lamont looked scared, his hands were shaking. Joe had his head down like he was already beaten. Except for the border thing Schlessinger answered well and came across the best. I wasnt voting for him before the debate, still not sure.

Lieberman's performances are absolutely humilating evidence that Connecticut voters have been represented by a venal and self-absorbed man.

When all of the country has started to realize that Iraq is unwinnable and that something else must be tried, Joe suggests escalation of the existing course. When he speaks of what's wrong with Washington, he fails to accept accountability. In pregnant silence, he tells us his ads are lies.

And when he speaks of doing his best for Connecticut, it is as if a village idiot could not go to Washington and get a $.66 return on every tax dollar paid.

Joe is correct when he says there's too much partisan bickering. Republicans should realize that voting for Lieberman to spite Democrats is a self-flagellating exercise. They should better exercise their vote as a matter of conscience instead of retribution.

This is an occasion in which voting for the gambler is less risky than voting for the carpetbagger.

Why vote for Joe?
If you're a Republican, the answer's a no-brainer.

But if you're a Connecticut Democrat who currently intends to vote for Joe, please consider the consequences of doing so.

A vote for Lieberman is a vote to place the party's agenda into the hands of a potential blackmailer.

Under the BEST case scenario the Democrats will gain majority control of the Senate with 51 vs 49 seats.

That 51st seat will be held by Lamont or Lieberman.

If Lieberman is the victor we can forget about:

Health care reform.
Checking the expansion of excutive power.
Blocking the confirmation of right wing judges.
Changing course in our foreign policy.
Conducting meaningful oversight hearings.

Every action or legislation contemplated by the party will be held hostage to the personal ideology of Joe Lieberman. Why? Because if Joe don't like it, he simply walks across the aisle. Bye bye committee chairs. Bye bye majority control. Bye bye progressive legislation. Joe doesn't even have to articulate the threat. The Democratic party will KNOW what's at stake, and they won't risk a return to minority status. This is why the Republican party is so supportive of Lieberman.

Recent polling shows that 35% of the Democrats in Connecticut currently intend to vote for Lieberman. Undoubtedly these voters think the election is about one Democrat versus another. In reality, it's about a Democrat versus an Opportunist. Ask yourself, do you want to give Joe the opportunity to ensure that nothing changes for the next two years?

The senate race in Connecticut is the single most important contest on November 7. Please vote responsibly.

Ned Lament and his entire campaign showed how little they think of our political system and how little respect they have for the voters by the two out bursts by his supporters at teh debate. Guess free speech is only if Lament is talking. Another politicain had his supporters shout down the opposition, its was a few years back, you may have heard of him, his name was Adolph. His supporters outside the Garde were scary. They reminded me of the Islamic mobs you see on tv. This is not the man I want in the US Senate. He is dangerous.

Hey Mark, here's a story for you - reportedly, Joe Lieberman cursed out Ned Lamont on stage at the end of the debate, saying "You goddamned son of a bitch, how dare you accuse me of voting for the Energy Bill because I got a contribution."

Try teasing out the audio from Lieberman's mic and see what you find!

The people who spoke outloud where Lyndon Larouche supporters. They had nothing to do with Ned Lamont. I'm glad they yelled at Joe Lieberman because he is a selfish/money grubbing politician.

I just finished watching the debate on C-Span.

Ned Lamont was the clear winner of this debate.

Ned Lamont answered the questions clearly, honestly, and with intelligence.

I'm also very glad Ned Lamont strongly defended the truthfulness of his ads that use Mr. Lieberman's own words to expose Mr. Lieberman's wavering and changing positions on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, on Social Security, and on other important issues. I'm tired of Mr. Bush's and Mr. Lieberman's distortions, my "bi-partisan" opinion.

It seems to me that Ned Lamont will bring reality and real checks and balances back into our democracy. He'll be a great Senator.

I think this page is being spammed by Lieberman staffers determined to continue to spread the lie that it was Lamont supporters who disrupted the debate. Clearly and obviously they were not. But it's hammered on in almost every pro-Lieberman comment on this blog entry. This would not be the case with spontaneous comments from debate viewers, this is obviously a talking point. But it's a lie.

I do not trust Joe Lieberman not to caucus with the Republicans should he win.

I watched and was still undecided; Schelisinger appeared the most polished, Lieberman the most programmed and Lamont while rough, the most real of the three.

I am generally sick of politics as usual, and as an Independent, I'm seriously leaning towards Lamont: his message was the most heartfelt, and he seems much more honest than the other two.

I like Ned's anti-war stance, but it's more than that - I strongly dislike Lieberman for piling on with Frist in the Schiavo case. That was a gross invasion of the family's privacy, and Lieberman's support of the religious fundamentalist's attempt to hijack our personal freedoms was very disturbing. It was un-American, and that more than anything shocked me.

Mark Davis, your question about what percentage of Lamont's campaign mailers are true was answered. And you hounded Lamont as if you didn't believe it.

Please remember that only ad with actual slander in it, is Lieberman's 'layoff/salary' TV ad. You yourself reported on the exchange about that ad after the Stamford primary. You did not raise any questions about the accuracy of that ad. In fact, that ad does not contain any facts from the article it cites.

Please do your best to even this up by looking into that TV ad and the NYT article cited.

The Day has already reported that the hecklers were Lyndon LaRouche nutbars.

Oh, I hear that Joe Lieberman's campaign has a serious issue with petty cash expenditures, I heard it was some $400,000 spent in the last two weeks, without proper documentation; sounds like a violation of campaign rules. But that's not a big surprise from professional politician.

I was surprised when this was not brought up in the debate or follow up.

Unquestionably, Ned was the winner. Why doesn't anyone bring up the fact that Lieberman is also a millionaire, only he didn't earn it! And Mark, your questions to Ned were hostile. And what's with your winking and nodding to Lieberman? Your bias is so obvious!

Liberman lost by miles. He's "lost" touch with us in the trenches. (if, in fact, he was ever there)

I think Al Schlesinger has been very impressive in his knowledge of the facts and in the way he conveys them to people. Al has my vote on Nov 7.

Evi and Erik:

Regarding campaign spending: a Hartford Courant article on Oct 14 put Lamont spending at $10 million and Lieberman at $14.8 million (you can find the article by searching "Lamont Lieberman Campaign Spending" and following the link to the Courant.

In this debate, Erik wins by a wide margin.

Ned Lamont was the only candidate of the three running who actually recognized the names of some of the CT warriors who had fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. That says it all !!
I am a disabled Vietnam Veteran and if this citizentry wants to send our good men and women into a debacle like Iraq they should get off their lazy asses and vote for change.
Hoa Binh

LIEBERMAN REPORT SHOWS UNPRECEDENTED $387,000 SLUSH FUND: Lieberman’s most recent FEC report shows $387,561 spent on “petty cash” – unaccounted for cash that was not itemized at all. To understand what an abuse this is, consider that FEC rules dictate that all expenditures over $100 must be itemized.

LIEBERMAN SLUSH FUND COMPRISED ONE OUT OF EVERY 12 DOLLARS SPENT: Lieberman’s massive slush fund comprised almost 8 percent of all of his expenditures in the reporting period. That’s almost one out of every $12 that Lieberman is effectively hiding.

LIEBERMAN FUNNELED OUT $32,000 A DAY IN UNACCOUNTED CASH: Lieberman’s campaign disbursed $387,000 in unmarked “petty cash” in just 12 days. That’s $32,000 every single day, with no accounting at all for how it was spent.

Again, my vote is for Ned Lamont now. When some say he has no experience, I find it important to say that his name - Ned Lamont - is now known internationally, in politics, as the man who defeated Mr. Lieberman/Bush already! (Democrat election!). This is not empty promise of change, it is proven change. I will join the majority and support Mr. Ned Lamont. MORE change, GOOD change, and man who is generous of heart to do this.

Ned won hands down. I have to confess, however, that nothing Joe said could have changed that in my book. He's said so much already that one debate couldn't give him enough time to counteract it, even if he wanted to -- which he clearly doesn't.

Lamont wins hands down. He seems like a refreshingly honest, plainspoken man of ideas. Plus, he started his own successful business and continues to run it. He may not have the polish of a career politician, but he's got that Jimmy Stewart "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" charm and a very sound mind to back it up. Schlesinger would be my second choice, he's funny and smart, but too conservative for me. Lieberman really really needs to quit whining and go back to bed.

More important than words are actions. The evidence of poor leadership in Washington is everywhere. Lieberman is a poor leader. He may hear our concerns but he ignores them when he votes with Bush. His errors, like Bush's, involve the most important decisions a leader can make, a decision for WAR. The cost to us cannot be ignored and the ramifications, huge for years to come, all bad.
While you listen to the lies and excuses, remember Lieberman has American and Iraqi blood on his hands, our children's blood. So much for his morals, values, protecting our children. He wants war when we do not. Plain and simple. He does not agree and will not vote to end the war, plain and simple. Lieberman seems not to care that War is the basis for Bush's abuse of power in many other areas of government.
Tonight his hecklers were young men, young men who do not want to die in a war brought for no good reason. They are rightly angry at Lieberman, it is their age group, young men, who are most affected by war, who risk a draft with these warmongers like Lieberman, in office. Who knows where they will want to invade next. Will your children be drafted for this madness? Will mine?
Iraq is simply too big of a problem to be ignored and Liberman's past actions, not his empty words, our guide. We know that Bush is not getting out of Iraq. He told the nation it would be up to the next President to clean up the mess. We know Lieberman supports Bush and the Iraq War. We know that Lieberman is not getting out of Iraq and that he does not challange Bush or Cheney.
The money the Iraq war consumes, the lives it chews up, the damage it does to our reputation and our values make Iraq the single biggest problem facing the United States Voters today. Voters do not agree with the war and it is up to them to stop it. I will do my part, will you? Lieberman must be stopped for Peace.
This election is not about experience, its about bad decisions. Lieberman should be ashamed of his votes for war, torture, spying and his lack of oversight over rampant corruption, incompetence and lies of the Republicans in control of government. Just two weeks ago, Lieberman gave Bush, a president who tortures, wars, detains, spys, for no reason, hides prisoners all over the world, denies all rights, spys on its own citizens, gives huge contracts to its friends, protects lobbyists for oil and big business, even more power. Lieberman stands with Bush and war. No other issue is more important than life and death, war and peace.
This November we voters have a great power and a great responsibility to stop the Iraq War with our votes. We can tell the world with our votes that America will not operate like this in the future. We can stop Lieberman, despite his incumbent lobbyist machine. Voters all over our country are ready to fire their incumbents to end the Iraq War. I urge Connecticut voters to join the rest of Americans who will tell their failed leaders like Lieberman that the time has come for them to pay for their mistakes. November 7 can't come soon enough for our children over there who are dying every day, for the Iraqis who now have a war torn country thanks to Bush, Lieberman. I will not have American and Iraqi blood on my hands. I will vote to save our children and our military from further harm. I will vote for Ned Lamont for peace.

I was unsure before the debate...now after watching I am going to vote for Ned Lamont.

Schlesinger easily won this one. He has what it takes to become our next senator. He wants a workable plan for Iraq, and wants to give illegal immigrants the boot. WAY TO GO AL!!!

Ned Lamont won hands down. As usual, he answered all of the questions and did so without grandstanding. Joe, upon the first question, proceeded to give an opening speech, which the candidates had agreed would not be done. He had to be prodded by the audience to finally answer the question posed.

Joe had no problem calling Ned a liar with regard to his commercials, which only point out Lieberman's record and very own words, yet no mention was made of the many ads that Joe has produced that have been proven to be outright lies. The difference between the two candidates is that Ned had the decorum not to sink to Joe's level.

I am very disappointed, as usual, with Mark Davis' handling of the situation. It has appeared since the beginning that Mr. Davis has a strong bias in favor of Joe Lieberman. Many of his questions to Joe are soft and tailored to his positions, while in sharp contrast to the questions given to Ned, which appear to be attempts to show Ned in a negative light.

With regard to the hecklers, I was there at the debate and watched the whole incident unfold just a few rows to my left. These hecklers, as Channel 8 has already noted, had nothing to do with any of the three candidates, rather they are from a PAC for Lyndon LaRouche, Jr. This group has been doing this for many years during numerous campaigns.

So, I would suggest to those of you who are so eager to point fingers, Mr. Lieberman included, that not everything is as it seems. In fact, it was a Lamont staffer who assisted in the removal of these individuals, as the security at the debate hall was not up to the task. At this point I believe Mr. Lieberman will do whatever it takes to keep his seat in the U.S. Senate.

As Mr. Schlesinger has stated, “Don’t listen to Joe’s rhetoric, look at his voting record”.

I'm not sure who won, but Lieberman was the clear loser. Lieberman looked tired, defensive, whiney, and devoid of ideas. Lieberman's last-second adoption of Lamont's Iraq position hasn't helped him either.

I think the ultimate irony in this campaign is Lieberman's "lightbulb" ads. Leave it to Lieberman to use a horribly inefficient incandescent lightbulb in his centerpiece ads, and then accuse his opponent of not having any new ideas. Lieberman is rotten and hypocritical to the core. Sadly, Lamont is right - we need new leadership in Washington.

Lamont's getting my vote - he's sealed the deal.

I think Lamont was the only stable minded person on the stage. The other two reminded me of the joker and the penguin on batman. Really. You had the Republican cracking jokes as if he was in a bar with a bunch of his drunken buddies and you had the liberal flopping around and squawking like someone took his air conditioning away. If I were living there, I wouldn’t have a hard time picking the only one who acted like a Human and that was that guy named Ned Lamont.

Response to comment from: Carolina C. [Visitor]:

The entourage that Lamont brought to sabotage the Senator's responses tonight was despicable. Once again, it reiterates the type of person that Lamont is and the type of administration that they will bring. My vote is and still stands for Senator Lieberman
10/23/06 @ 21:00

I have only one question for you Caroline C.: How do you know that Lamont had anything to do with those hecklers? It's my understanding that it's Lamont's people who finally ushered them out of the hall. I guess you must think Lamont orchestrated that because the good Senator said so. (It's disgusting how gullible some of you can be.)

P.S. Lamont won through the sheer integrity of his behavior and his answers.

STICK WITH JOE = STUCK WITH BUSH

This is what you need to keep in mind on November 7th. Yes, Virginia, it's time for a change in our senate representation.

Hey Caroline
The f'n entourage was Larouche supporters. If anyone, they're paid by Lieberman.

Stop with the nonsense, you paid RNC shill

Schlesinger was amusing at times, but Lamont clearly won the debate.

And Mark Davis' demeanor when he questioned Lamont was unprofessional -- and clearly at odds with the demeanor of the other two questioners.

A fairly juvenile effort from Mr Davis in my opinion.

Come on people--the choice is clear. If your a conservative republican you really must vote for Alan Schlesinger. Me, I'm going with the underdog--Ned Lamont is the man. Have you seen what Lieberman said back in 88'. Now he is whinning about the same things he was defending then. What a disingenious flip flopper. Go Ned!

Mr. Davis, you and your poster waving stunt lost the debate.

Objectivity. Look it up. You seem to have missed that part of your journalism classes.

Unfortunately Lamont is a single issue candidate with no other measurable qualities. A man who does not stand to quiet the crowd that was in his favor lacks the character needed to be a voice of reason in a time of unrest. Unfortunately we live in a country where blind fury overtakes common sense reasoning. It goes to prove a person is smart people are stupid.

Lamont won the debate hands down. He speaks from his heart and with real conviction. Ned's campaign is a great example of the return of real democracy, people powered, not corperate powered politics.
Lieberman is a smug, arrogant sort of gasbag who's on the wrong side of crucial issues too much of time.

Ned won, hands down. The attempt by Joe to blame Lamont for the hecklers (LaRouche supporters) without any evidence was reprehensible. Does Lieberman have no shame?

Lamont won. Of course he was a little nervous -- he's new! But that's what we need in Washington -- new blood!

Seriously, does anybody think Lieberman's 18 years in politics makes him better for CT? He's beholden to big money, big business, all his lobbyist buddies, and most of all, Joe's Boyfriend-in-Chief, George W. Bush.

Lieberman is raising all kinds of Republican money from Republican donors with the help of Republican operatives. He's not a Democrat. After living in DC for 18 years, he's barely a Connecticutian!

Lieberman is playing both sides against each other for his own benefit. Lieberman represents politics as usual -- and can we afford any more of that?

Lamont won, hands down.

Only those who didn't see the debate literally or figuratively (blinded by bias) could think that Lamont won. Schlessinger won this debate as he had the best answers and demonstrated the best leadership.

the shame is, that even though ned lamont truly deserves to unseat this republican lap dog.... there is no amount of money or shady vote pulling that will stop the republicans for letting whomever they want win

I feel that Ned Lamont absolutely won this debate. Joe Lieberman clearly still is dodging questions, as shown with his response to the question about his TV ads. I also agree with Ned Lamont's stance on the war in Iraq, which has shown to be a very important issue with voters. I feel that Joe Lieberman only cares about his own campaign, if he really cared about the Democratic party, and Connecticut, he would have stepped back when Lamont won to support him, instead of continuing to run his own campaign on the Independent ticket, which was a great disappointment to me.

Lamont won, hands down. Joe just kept repeating his same old whiney arguments and dead-beat standbys, interspursed with the usual accusations of calling Ned a liar.

This debate proved that Joe is a one-trick pony.

Mark

I would just like to say thank you to the heckler in the crowd last night. He helped me make a tough decision. When Lamont sat there and did nothing while this was going on, and seemed to be gloating. That made my decision easy. It is Joe all the way. He says somehting. And it was proven right there. Ned says NOTHING about anything. OH YAH! He says what is wrong, but nothing of how he will fix it.

But he does say I will bring the troops home right away. We have troops that are VOLUNTEERING 3 and 4 times to go back cause they see how important this is. Wouldn't you help your neighbor who wants to be FREE and live in freedom. Our troops do just that. God bless them for their sacrifice. They will make the difference. Not the politician.

When we have another 9/11, the same people finding fault now, will be the ones that will say "Why didn't we do anything". And it will happen again. By backing out it just shows we are weak. And makes the terrorists fight harder. Sure is happening now. Isn't it?

I think we need another debate. I would like a debate with questions that expand beyond the Iraq War. We need to hear more from the Candidates on the war on middle class, on illegal immigration(how to stop it, cutting out social programs for them(medicare/medicaid, free schooling/college, make them pay real taxes like car and payroll, that legal Americans pay, laws to prosecute businesses and landlords that help harbor them, etc), on how they plan to bring more business to Connecticut, a better transit system, controlling urban sprawl these are issues Connecticut needs to hear about from the Candidates. So how about it Channel Eight? Bring on a real debate, one that allows people to know how their candidates believe. Oh...if they start to ramble on about nothing cut them off!

Does it matter who won the debate? With 2/3rds of the Connecticut GOP voting for Joe, that makes it nearly impossible for Ned to win. And most Republicans don't care who's talking sense. They are stuck in a rut of ideology that has proven deadly, costly and completely immoral.

Ned won the debate. But Connecticut will go with one of the lamest Senators I've seen in my 53 years because its war profiteer economy depends on sucking on the military udder, and Joe will always be dependably pro-war.

To:Martin Schmidt

Good observation of Ned Lamont, it is my opinion as well that he was responsible for the heckling... Is he the kind of person we want in Washington?
Yeh right, they will eat him up alive; Mr. big shot business man...

Whether anyone realizes it or not, we are seeing it first hand, Ned Lamont is a spoon fed spoiled brat with serious behavioral issues. The old saying is "You see what you get" and take that to the bank.

And what the hell was the purpose of George Stephanopoulos. He did nothing as a moderator... What a waste he was serving in that capacity!!

You SUCK George...

Joe L. is the man for the job..
You won't lose by voting for Joe.. especially this time around!!

Lamont won by being himself not a slick politician. Just a thought. If the polls are right and Lieberman wins, we in CT won't see Joe again unless he's here at a fundraiser or photo op. CT is way too small for Joe's enormous ego.

It seems to me that Lieberman is a jerk.

All I get in the mail are postcards LARGE ONES, that say the FIREFIGHTERS OF AMERICA ARE BEHIND JOE

and there's these firefighters pictured from somewhere BUT THEY ARE NOT FROM CT!!!!!!!!!!!

So, just who does Joe represent??????

Someone said troops are dying to get back to Iraq, yeah right???

WHAT ABOUT BIN LADEN???????????

IRAQ WAS A DISTRACTION

A PERSONAL VENDETTA BY THE PRESIDENT THAT TOOK US AWAY FROM OUR MISSION OF GETTING THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11, IT IS AN ILLEGAL WAR

AND WE OWN IT CUZ EVERY INCUMBANT JERK LIKE JOE VOTED TO INVADE WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED THE BOY FUHRER THEN

NOW WE ARE TRILLIONS IN THE HOLE

NO ONE, ESPECIALLY IRAN AND N KOREA FEARS US

BECAUSE WE SUFFER BAD MANAGEMENT AND BAD LEADERSHIP

IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE

ALL INCUMBANTS MUST GO

AND IF WE DO NOT GET SOCIAL SECURITY SECURED, OUR BORDERS SECURED, OUR TROOPS HOME AND BACK ON THE HUNT FOR BINLADEN,PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS CONTROLLED, AND OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES WE

MUST VOTE THOSE INCUMBANTS OUT AS WELL

WAKE THE FRIG UP AMERICA

I found the questions a little biased. They played into Lieberman's field. Instead of talking about "negative" ads, why not ask Lieberman to explain his record on social security, the Bush/Cheney energy bill etc. *without* blinking.
Ned won hands down. He was the only candidate that had a sane answer about Iran. Apparently Lieberman and Schlesinger think its o.k. to do an "Iraq" on a country that has made pacts with China and Russia. That is not only scary but crazy of Lieberman and proves that he's truly bought the neocon line.
Schlesinger is a good performer but in terms of substance, he really lost our multi-background audience when he started all but saying that "Mexicans" were a threat to our national security.
Ned won. Hands down.

Wow, look at all of the GOP er I mean JOE operatives responding on this board.
Panic in the JOE camp has set in!

I think Lamont won the debate. I cant believe people can't see whata phoney Joe Leiberman is. He is Isreal's senator and thats al he cares about..The Isrealis don't need our protection as they do quite well defending themselves. In fact I think there wold be less tension if we left them alone. Go home Joe..your a republican blowhard!!!

All I can say is Joe is lucky its only a Ned Lamont who challenged him. A real, qualified candidate would have sent Joe packing. I cannot vote for Ned. He represents everything wrong with the political system today. He is a guy with little to no experience in politics, but able to pump $10 million of his own money into a campaign. He is practically a victim here, as all the broad-based out-of-state political action organization swoop in to prop him up and carry him along as "their" guy to stand up to Bush policies. I don't mind the stance, but I resent the outside influence and the emptiness of the candidate, himself.

On the other hand, I can respect Joe's "rational democrat" perspective. The right answer to Iraq is somewhere between immediated withdrawl and stay the course. Joe's true position is in this middle ground, no matter what Ned's strategists tell him to say.

Ned Lamont is an embarrassment. Equally embarrassing are all the people who follow him and are instructed to be loud, obnixious cheerleaders. Its 100% style over substance. Except not very much style!

All I can say is Joe is lucky its only a Ned Lamont who challenged him. A real, qualified candidate would have sent Joe packing. I cannot vote for Ned. He represents everything wrong with the political system today. He is a guy with little to no experience in politics, but able to pump $10 million of his own money into a campaign. He is practically a victim here, as all the broad-based out-of-state political action organization swoop in to prop him up and carry him along as "their" guy to stand up to Bush policies. I don't mind the stance, but I resent the outside influence and the emptiness of the candidate, himself.

On the other hand, I can respect Joe's "rational democrat" perspective. The right answer to Iraq is somewhere between immediated withdrawl and stay the course. Joe's true position is in this middle ground, no matter what Ned's strategists tell him to say.

Ned Lamont is an embarrassment. Equally embarrassing are all the people who follow him and are instructed to be loud, obnixious cheerleaders. Its 100% style over substance. Except not very good style!

Ned Lamont won. That was obvious.

But I have a bone to pick with Mark Davis and Channel 8. Why is Mark Davis ASKING whether the polticial ads of each candidate are true? He's a NEWS REPORTER. He should do the research and REPORT THE FACTS!

A candidate can claim just about anything, but it's Davis's job to help voters learn the truth.

If newspapers and TV stations took the time to fact-check the claims in campaign ads, reported the lies, and expressed outrage at any false claims, there would be less of them.

So, Mark Davis, you tell us. What's true? What isn't?

Ned Lamont won. That was obvious.

But I have a bone to pick with Mark Davis and Channel 8. Why is Mark Davis ASKING whether the polticial ads of each candidate are true? He's a NEWS REPORTER. He should do the research and REPORT THE FACTS!

A candidate can claim just about anything, but it's Davis's job to help voters learn the truth.

If newspapers and TV stations took the time to fact-check the claims in campaign ads, reported the lies, and expressed outrage at any false claims, there would be less of them.

So, Mark Davis, you tell us. What's true? What isn't?

From the bits and pieces and sound bites i've heard and seen, I would say Schlessenger did the best. Lamont and Lieberman have been wasting everyone's time assuring you the other is the worst choice for the job. Schlessenger seems to be ignoring the children's playground fight beside him and offering decisive stances, valid points, and even solutions! I wish I knew more about him sooner, as a registered democrat I'm embarassed by the two democratic candidates currently leading this race.

I'm a liberal Democrat, but I think Schlesinger won. I disagreed with many of his positions, especially regarding immigration, but he has some solid ideas regarding the health care crisis and some sobering thoughts on Social Security. He also struck me as the best informed and intellectually adept of the candidates. He also impressed me with his shouting down of the hecklers. He has won my admiration.

That said, I'll be voting for Lamont. I just feel that George W. Bush is such a bad President that we need both houses of Congress to put checks on his recklessness. So, I'm voting for the party and not the man.

Still, I think the National Republican Committee has done a good man a serious disservice.

Robin Hood-

I agree with you!

Who does Joe represent, himself of course.

Joe had 18 years to prove to the people of CT that we matter, the world matters, the troops matter hell anything other than himself matters...but when the day ends all that matters to Joe, is Joe.

I can assure you being a family member of a Marine, that no way in hell do people want to rush back to Iraq to fight a war that was based on nothing but bs and lies.

As you nicely put it Robin Hood, the Iraq war was nothing but a distraction from the real issues.. Bin Laden and his terrorist friends.

It is time for change, it's time for Joe to go!!!

I might be a Republican, but as I have said so often on other posts, my vote is going to Ned Lamont.

REPUBLICANS FOR CHANGE!!!!!

I believe that Lamont stood his ground, hammered Lieberman on his "lies" accusation and made his points well for the Democratic voters. Lieberman continues to show us how little he has in terms of real Democratic values, and how he will twist his viewpoint to fit the agenda at hand. For instance, his ever-changing rhetoric on the war in Iraq - NOW he says he was always against the war. Same with Social Security. Same with the energy bill. He has backed the big issues with the Republican party, but worked it so he could say he either voted against them or spoke out against them. It always slight of hand with Joe and working both sides - generally falling on the right's agenda with his favor and calling it "bipartisanship".

What I'd like to know is this: if Joe has great disdain for his fellow Dems criticizing the war and Republican motives, then why does he not also criticize the President and his followers for openly calling Dems "defeatocrats" "cut and runners" and "terrorist sympathizers"?

A final note - while I feel Lamont scored highest in sheer information and getting to the heart of the issues, Al was great as a Republican candidate with a heart and soul. If I were a Republcan, I'd vote for that guy over Joe and not because of the Democrat control issue. I liked the guy and what he had to say, and I think it is a damnable shame that the GOP cut the guy off so that they could back Joe. They literally threw him under the bus, but what a great come-from-behind story Al is. He puts Lieberman to shame, I'm afraid.

Mark, thanks for allowing people to respond to the debate.
Ok, who do I think won? Ned Lamont did. He gave 'straight from the hip' answers to the questions. He was absolutely on target with all the problems that Connecticut and the rest of the country faces. It's about time we have a candidate that appears not to be afraid of the 'bulls in government.' By that I mean there are too many politicians whose coffers are being filled by lobbyists. As an enterpreneur I know how hard it is to get health insurance. Ned touched on that very well. We need a senator that is not afraid to tell it like it is. I believe Ned in his answers. His body language also speaks for itself.
Ned won this debate not only hands down, but feet up too.

I don't know if my URL could be used here. If it can it is:
www.shaklee.net/newengland

Thanks again and have a great day

I think that something that should also be addressed about Sen. Lieberman is the lack of his office to take care of or even try to help his constituents that he now wants to vote for him. I think it is shameful for his office not to do the job and yet expect that we will vote for him. He really has lost touch with his constituency, and is only concerned with keeping his cozy job.

A note to those who claim the disrupters in the studio were Lamont followers:
It's been reported that they were from a Lyndon LaRouch group and Lamont's staff were the guys who finally got them thrown out.

Anyone here think Lieberman's camp will thank Lamont's staff for helping out on that one? I'm figuring it will come around the same time as the apology for accusing Lamont's staff for clogging Lieberman's internet site during the Primaries. (Turns out Lieberman got a cheap site and it couldn't handle the traffic, but far be it Lieberman should issue an apology to Lamont for the slur).

I agree that Lieberman's office has been very poor in returning calls and answering questions. I've called twice with no response from his office. I don't think I can vote for someone who doesn't return calls.

Kimberly I highly doubt that Lieberman's camp or Lieberman himself would thank Lamont's staff for the help with the hecklers.

That would take effort on Joe's part, something he does not seem to give much of unless it involves his own gain.

Personally I think Joe needs to apologize for his little vulgar outburst to Ned, of course he won't because Joe feels he is above everyone else.

I can not wait for it all to be over. We should send Joe back to Washington. Lamont would of been adired more if he had given his money to do some good, as Bill Gates did. Lamont does not know how to tell the truth. Send LAMONT home to send more jobs out of the country. If he cared for us, he would of KEPT JOBS IN CONNECTICUT..... He figures his money can buy the election.
Aside from this election, I think those running hit us to soon and to long before an election. Save money and give to those who need it and only run ads for two weeks prior. Most people have made up their minds long before, and if not, do so in the last couple of weeks, so why waste so much money and HOUND us so violently. I find it offensive. It truly is a "turn off".

Why the the Joementum shills knowingly lying about the Larushie hecklers being Lamont supporters?

And why are the only people posting for Lieberman paid staff from out of state?

One wonders if the Lieberman campaign invited the Larouchies there to heckle Joe. As Joe only gets press when he is whining about the other guy...be it Gore supporting Dean...or Lamont telling the truth about Joe

Wow! All these responses. I wish I had time to read them all.

I don't know who won this time. Lamont did better than he did in any of the other debates.

Schlesinger did very well, as he did in the other debates. Alan is the one telling the truth, that's for sure. I'm a liberal, so I don't agree with many of his solutions, but I appreciate his directness, his honesty about the issues and exactly where he stands.

I do wonder how much of that honesty is him, and how much of it is just that he's so behind in the polls he can say what he wants. I have to wonder, had he not been ignored by his own party, if he would have said yes to gays serving openly in the military? Or been so critical of the Bush administration in general? Schlesinger was dishonest about one thing. In talking about what a strange race it is, he said he was ignored by the press. Sorry, Alan, but you know that you were in truth ignored by your own party. In my opinion, the GOP made a mistake. If they had put money and the GOP machine behind him, he would be getting the conservative voters, and between Lamont and Lieberman dividing the liberal and moderate votes, He could have won with a plurality rather than a majority of the vote. Think Bill Clinton, 1992, when independent Ross Perot took more votes away from those who would normally have voted for H.W. Bush.

But in the end, I think the GOP goofed. They thought no one could unseat Joe. But then Lamont won the primary, and it changed the whole dynamic. Suddenly, Lieberman wasn't an automatic shoe-in. They couldn't now support Schlesinger without looking like manipulative hypocrites, but Lieberman in their eyes is certainly the lesser of the two liberal evils. So everyone in the GOP party machine has openly "stayed out" of the race (just look at the non-answer about this race that Jodi Rell gave in the debate.) Meanwhile, Karl Rove and his ilk are behind the scenes running Joe's campaign.

Joe was a whiner, in general. But I'm not referring to the heckling situation. (I don't know if they were campaign operatives. One can certainly speculate, but it was dispicable, and kudos to Schlesinger for stepping up and shouting them down.) No, I'm just so sick of Lieberman making himself out to being victimized by Lamont when Lamont is using Joe's own record as proof. And yet again, I'm just left asking myself... who is Joe? I guess the answer to that is it depends on the audience. He IS a liberal. Make no mistake about that. He is one of the MOST LIBERAL Senators. He's not even close to middle in terms of ideology, and voting. So I scratch my head in wonder as to why more than 2/3 of Republican voters support Lieberman.

I will vote for Lamont. But I'm not going to cry a river if Lieberman wins either. But I am really ticked off at the precedent that Lieberman is setting. If he wins, he will not go back to Washington as an Independent. It's already been worked out with the Senate leadership that he will go back as the ranking Democrat that he is. Fine. I suppose in the end that would be just fine for us, though everyone should remember that whatever "goodies" Joe brings to Connecticut are just "pork" to the other 49 states. Pork barrel politics is a huge problem, and Joe is part of that problem. But what really irks me the most about it all is that, as a registered Democrat who voted for Lamont in the primary, I feel that if Joe goes back as a ranking Democrat, my vote in the primary will have been dismissed, discarded.

I cant waitn for this campaign to be over. I am so tired of watching pathetic "Special Interest Joe" whine and snivel.

Ned is financing his own campaign so as not to take special interest money and be beholden to them. Lobbyists are pouring money into Joe's campaign because they know they can (have) buy him.

Alan is funny.

The winning line of the night was Schlessinger's, in response to Lieberman promising to leave the Senate, three terms ago, after three terms:
"Joe meant he'd serve three terms as a Democrat and then try to serve three terms as an Independent." luvit!

Kimberly:

Thanks for the info on the hecklers! Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any acknowledgement from the Lieberman camp either.

Mark Davis, why is it that we do not hear about who the hecklers are from YOU? Why are YOU asking the candidates what is true in their ads? Why aren't YOU doing some fact checking??

The media has gotten in the habit of tossing gentle softballs at the politicians, instead of the hardball questions they used to. I'm tired of it! Why are the media in general not doing stories on the stories of what the candidates say and do? It's because of that vacuum of tough journalism that most voters get their information from the stupid ads.

Jill

Excellent comments Jill, Jean, and Kimberly

The fact that this blog has over 200 posts since last night means that outsiders are suddenly posting.

Did WTNH point out to Joes camp that they should log on from REPUBLICAN HEADQUATERS around the country????????

IF YOU ARE FROM OUT OF STATE OR US PLEASE STATE WHY YOU ARE HERE

Of course some of these may be from Lamonts camp too

It just seems with JOE all support is from OUT OF STATE

Lamont won. Joe claims he has experience, but he doesn't even know that Iran is not "Arab." It's Persian.

I thoght the structure of this debate was poor. I was really turned off by the heckling from the crowd toward Lieberman. I thought the people responsible should of been walked out after the first time they started in. I thought it was very, very rude and disrespectful and was handle very poorly by the people putting on the debate. I do give a lot of credit to schlesinger for standing up for Lieberman. It showed what a classy guy he is. He put politics aside and did what was right! I found Ned Lamonts attitude towards the heckling dispicable! He just sat in his seat and looked as though he was just enjoying it. I watched all the debates and found Ned Lamont to come across as very angry and negative. I also find some of Ned Lamonts commercials to show no class and come across as very disrespectful! I will be voting for Lieberman! Lamont is arrogant and rude!!!

It was perfectly clear that Joe Lieberman came out with the tough answers. The direction of the Iraqi government will determine their fate. The cut and run strategy that the party of Howard Dean professes and Sharpton, Lamont support, will threaten our security. Irag is the magnet for the radicals lets keep our troops there to destroy them.

I am baffled at Ned Lamont's projected plan for health care. How can a first term senator bring anything to the table with the current anti-liberal sentiment running across America. Lamont does not have the political maturity it will take to make Connecticut a factor in Washington. This means jobs, jobs, jobs.

Weicker has propped Lamont up, do you realize what Weicker did when he was in government? Have you ever tried to deal with a Greenwich snob? Lamont has lost touch with the majority of projected voters per the latest polls.

It's time to put Ned to Bed, Lowell.

Renette

we need to stick together and vote all incumbants OUT

don't vote for Lamont, but for the sake of the state and country don't vote for Lieberman either

pick another candidate

we have to start sending a message people that if you do not do anything FOR THE PEOPLE YOU ARE OUT

WE HAVE LOST THIS COUNTRY TO SCUMBAG LOBBYISTS AND BIG CORPORATIONS

NAME ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY IN THE LAST 6 YEARS

AND YES LOBBYISTS ARE SCUM, THEY'D SELL YOUR MOTHER TO MAKE A BUCK

John Casper:

That's right! I shouted so loud at the TV when he said that. I can't believe that I forgot to rant about that, too.

The thing is, it does matter. The very fact that most Americans, especially our leaders, don't know the difference matters. Most people think the terms Muslim and Arab are interchangable. Most people don't know that the majority of Muslims in the world are not Arab. Most people actually think that Muslims pray to a different god called "Allah", when in fact that "Allah" is just the Arabic word for God, and that their God is the same God of Abraham as that of Judaism and Christianity.

It's bad enough that most Americans don't know these things, but when our leaders show that kind of ignorance, it makes me cringe. We can't engage with the world, or be taken seriously on the world stage, if we don't understand.

Jill

I am more worried about who will be the next Governor,thats who we always talk too anyway...It`s a heck of a gamble,at this time in history and whats going on in the world to vote Joe Liberman out of His seat,Ned Lamont can`t get our troops out.And thats what He built His campain on.And if He did then what would He do,do you think He will be at your door to see if you are o.k. no the Governor is more handy for that.Are You thinking about yourself or others,what about the children.Democrat or Republican there is corruption and thats our falt because we fall asleep at the wheel,because of fear and greed.Look deep within and REPUBLICANS DON`T STOP ABORTION they just make it more sanitary and private like it don`t exsist.Keep your pants on.My Dad told me you are a Roman Cathlic Democrat and if you like a boy take a St.Josephs asprin and hold it tightly between your knees and you wont get pregnant.It worked.Parents teach your children.Pregnant Women have the children that God choose you to be the Mother of,everybody else pace it,breed in mid Febuary if need be so you can have babys just like me Sagittauris.We are the Centurions with the Faith in the Bible.If you want change,order these people to do the things you want,they are public servants,just be careful what you ask for,to change one thing you have to change somthing else,and that could be the rug under your feet being pulled out.~Peace Glenna~

To Robin Hood;

You wrote: "Did WTNH point out to Joes camp that they should log on from REPUBLICAN HEADQUATERS around the country????????"

No. If you have actual proof and not anecdotal rumblings of such an effort happening please forward this to infomation to us. Same goes for Democrat headquarters, Green Party HQ, or any party.

To Kimberly and Jill from Fairfield; regarding who the heckler(s) is/are associated with,

Reported by the Hartford Courant:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sendebate1024.artoct24,0,3229920.story?coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking
"The man appeared to be part of a group supporting perennial presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche."

Reported by the Day of New London:
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=9df1b5f0-4ea4-42fc-a689-0be6fb129de7

"The hecklers, a pair of men from the LaRouche Youth Movement, sang a harmonized ode targeting Vice President Dick Cheney, which, according to the group's Web site, is unofficially titled 'The Fat-Ass Nazi Song.'"

Reported by the New Haven Register:
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17367912&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=332704&rfi=6

"Observers said those who kept singing several times as Lieberman tried to speak were from the Lyndon LaRouche Party. LaRouche is a perennial presidential candidate."

I think that people that are claiming to adore Joe should really reflect on exactly what his position is meant for. Yes, has to deal with national issues, but he is also resposible for making sure that his constituents are taken care of. After all we voted him in, not people in DC. I also think it is mighty interesting that any Democrat would believe that Lieberman will still vote and side with Democrats on any issue. He has sold his soul to any Republican that has donated money to his campaign. Another funny thing is that when the subject of how much contributions his campaign has gotten, he tried and people in his campaign try to slight the fact that he in fact has raised more than Lamont - who is to thank for that... Republicans from DC.

To Robin Hood;

You wrote: "Did WTNH point out to Joes camp that they should log on from REPUBLICAN HEADQUATERS around the country????????"

No. If you have actual proof and not anecdotal rumblings of such an effort happening please forward this to infomation to us. Same goes for Democrat headquarters, Green Party HQ, or any party. If people work for a campaign they should be up front about it.

To Kimberly and Jill from Fairfield; regarding who the heckler(s) is/are associated with,

Reported by the Hartford Courant:
"The man appeared to be part of a group supporting perennial presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche."

Reported by the Day of New London:
"The hecklers, a pair of men from the LaRouche Youth Movement, sang a harmonized ode targeting Vice President Dick Cheney, which, according to the group's Web site, is unofficially titled 'The Fat-Ass Nazi Song.'"

Reported by the New Haven Register:
"Observers said those who kept singing several times as Lieberman tried to speak were from the Lyndon LaRouche Party. LaRouche is a perennial presidential candidate."

Reported by WTNH:
"The hecklers did not have an affiliation with any of the candidates in the debate."

Its getting harder and harder to swallow Sen. Liebreman.

I suppose that means its getting easier and easier to like Ned Lamont.

Lamont, pure and simple, respresents my views more fully -- Joe, less and less. And Mr. Lamont does it with a style and panache that Joe *used* to have but now lacks.

Go Ned!

Mark,
The people were the losers in the debate. The questions were silly. The answers evasive.
The disgusting display put on by Mark Davis showed him to be Fox News material. I'm sure that LIEberman and Davis conspired to set up Lamont with preplanned theater.

Ned Lamont was the winner hands down. Joe has got to go! Lieberman is not interested in the people of CT or the Democratic party. If he cared he would have stepped down the moment he lost the primary, that's non partisan politics. By not stepping down Joe showed his commitment to himself and saving his job, not to the state of CT.

How DARE Lieberman Blame Lamont for the LeRouche hecklers, when Lamont supporters are the ones that escorted their asses out. Shows what a conniving LIAR he has become.

Joe calling Ned a "son of a bitch" at the end of the debate only demonstrated his close ties to the Rove/Cheney camp.

I hope the media calls out Joe for an apology. This is DISGRACEFUL for a Senator's behavior.

Steve wrote:

"Joe calling Ned a "son of a bitch" at the end of the debate only demonstrated his close ties to the Rove/Cheney camp."

Really?? When? I missed that one. Anyone else hear it?

It's really pathetic when a three-term Senator has to rely on the "they are all picking on me," sympathy vote from mindless sheep who are afraid of change and progress.
Your think Ned represents what is wrong with politics? A citizen, backed by oher citizens, trying to be heard? I guess you prefer career-politicians who have made millions while working for us and whose only passionate supprt comes from his lobbyists (who are afraid of losing their whore).

Thanks, Jeff Baily/Webguy, for the links to the stories on the hecklers.

It will be interesting to see if WTNH will report on it at noon. I'll be watching.

Jill

I tuned in to watch an intelligent debate between three candidates running for an office who's occupant can impact every citizen of this state and instead... I witnesses a rather bad three stooges impression.

Folks... there were no winners... only losers... us... Joe Public... All three candidates are full of bull.

Just saw the very brief coverage of the debate. As to the hecklers, they didn't report on who they were. They should have. Sonya Baghdady said Lieberman's challengers (plural!) came to his defense, showing the video of Schlesinger shouting at the hecklers. No mention of how Lamont's campaign workers were the ones to throw them out.

Images are stronger than words. I agree with the criticism of Lamont that he didn't step up like Schlesinger to shut down the heckling. He should have. But on the other hand, why is WTNH not telling the full story about what Lamont's team actually did??

Liberal media, my behind...

Joe won this debate as he did the last 2.
Ned has never said what his plan is to fix what he thinks is broken. He parrots that the current administration is making "Bad Decisions" but never once says what he thinks are the right ones. He has NO solutions. We would be foolish to put him in Washington without a plan and no experience? We cannot afford to educate Ned at our expense. While Ned would be learning the ropes a senior senator from another state would be working on taking our defense jobs from us. Once lost those jobs would never return.
Although I see the anti Joe posts here all saying Ned has won I know that on NOV 7th it will be the good people from the State of Connecticut who remember what a great job Senator Lieberman has done for us in our state and the country and will VOTE JOE!!!!!

Joe will win re-election.
He will be sworn in in January
Rumsfeld will resign in January
Joe will become Secy of Defense
Jodi Rell will appoint a Repub to the senate to replace Joe.

Definitely, Lamont came out best. Schlesinger is just the same old crap, trying to "tar" Lieberman as some dangerous leftie is such a joke. Lieberman should just give it up and admit that he is a stealth Republican conservative out to thwart the will of the voters.

watching the debate again it's easy to see Ned came out on top. He calls for a plan of change...no one can agree our current government is doing a good job and voting Joe back in would just mean more of the same. I'm ready to take a chance on a man that seems trustworthy, honest and for the people of CT, unlike the lying, swearing, nervous train wreck I saw of Lieberman last night.

VOTE NED LAMONT!!!!!

The War in Iraq is still the biggest issue we face. Joe vigorously supported it and cheered them on from the beginning. We had plenty of warning as to what would happen if we marched into Baghdad. The 1st Pres. Bush was right and still is. Now Bush says this: "If we leave the streets of Baghdad before the job is done, we will have to face the terrorists in our own cities," Bush declared. Fear-mongering again - if we don't leave our brave troops as bait over there, the terrorists will attack us here. Any chance the Iraqis are angry that we are occupying their country and that maybe things will calm down after we leave? Or, if you insist as the GOP candidates & Joe do, that war is good for our defense contractors here in CT, then be honest. Tell us that we're going to war because it's good for the economy. Pretty sick but it seems to be the best reason they can give. Webguy, the point was that you cited 3 papers who actually DID RESEARCH and printed their findings on the hecklers. WTNH seems to always take the easy way out and give the dolts who get their news solely from commercial TV as little information as possible. The Hartford Courant has endorsed all 5 Democrats for Congress from CT. I hope they'll stick to the main issue, Iraq, and come out for Lamont. Regardless, the people of CT should be smart enough to see who represents our views. If you're still for "stay the course" or whatever the latest catch-phrase is, vote Joe & the GOP. If you've had enough of the lies, corruption, death & destruction, vote Ned & the Democrats. The choices have never been clearer. I can't believe we're that dumb as a state to choose more of the same. Please don't say we're "stuck with Joe".

The most frightening and foreboding recent comment is all the more reason to vote for Lamont:

Comment from: Joel [Visitor]
Joe will win re-election.
He will be sworn in in January
Rumsfeld will resign in January
Joe will become Secy of Defense
Jodi Rell will appoint a Repub to the senate to replace Joe.
10/24/06 @ 13:08

Lieberman's name was brought up in the past as a possible replacement for Rumsfeld. This would be a great coup for the Republicans if the change-over in the Senate was only 1 vote.

Never forget the brilliant strategic minds behind Bush. (and this is not a compliment)

I watched with great interest last night since I felt it was my last chance to make an informed decision as to who I would cast my one precious vote. In my opinion I think Ned is a self serving spoiled little rich boy who wants to buy a new toy (A Senate Seat)...and much like spoiled little children will not have much use for his new toy once he gets it. Rich boys only do for themselves...no one else. As far as Joe goes he has had his moment and then some. He is tired and we are tired. Move on pal. Once you set your eye on the Vice Presidency the Senate was not good enough for you anymore. Let us also not forget that he refused to relinquish his Senate seat when he hit the campaign trail. I guess he figured Senate was better than nothing. Others in this blog mentioned that Alan doesn't have experience...where have you been? This man has been in politics for over 20 years. What political experience does Lamont have? Oh, thats right...NONE. At least Alan speaks directly and doesn't stoop to the level of mudslinging. I was listening and I think he has some good ideas. I will be one of the few but I will cast my vote for Alan.

I would of liked to see more questions on our issues at home. What are the candidates going to do for tax relief for the middle class? What about education? My husband is a teacher in CT in one of our technical schools. He teaches manufacturing technology. The use of CNC machines and such. Two teachers run the shop. They were told if they don't get more kids in their shop one of them would be let go. How are you suppose to sell a shop with 20 year old equipment. The teachers are told sorry no money, but up enrollment or your gone. What about more funding for our schools. I would of liked to hear what the candidates would do about the high cost of education. How about a debate with the citizens of CT asking the candidates questions that are important to them! I am tired of hearing about Iraq! Lets focus on issues at home and issues improtant to the state of CT.

I did not watch the debate , but read about it today. I just can't wait until the elections are over. I am sick of all the negative ads I've seen on TV , All that money spent could have been used on much more important issues. like fighting crime in our cities , education, etc. The main thing that disturbs more than anything is the Iraq war, when were 1st invaded 90% of all Americans were behind this war. I do agree that the War is not the right thing for our country , but to use it as a political weapon is disgusting !!!

Lieberman is headed for a breakdown. Vote Ned Lamont.

peace jeff

I was just curious if maybe at the debate "someone" mentioned this blog to the camps and that was the sudden reason for so many posts, because, let's face it, there are not usually so many, so fast, and other hot topics have been discussed here

sure made me wonder, if I seemed out of line my apologies

Got to say I sure hope people vote for anyone but an incumbant, no one has done anything about

ENERGY COSTS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

INSURANCE COMPANIES

CORRUPTION

PROPERTY TAXES

PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY

OR FINDING OUT WHO {PLURAL} IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEAVING THE HUNT FOR BIN LADEN AND INVADING UNDER FALSE INTEL, FABRICATED INTEL, THAT HAS COST US TIME MONEY, TROOPS LIVES AND HAS GIVEN BIN LADEN TIME TO REGROUP AND PLAN

INVADING IRAQ, sorry I left that out

I believe invading Afghanistan was right

too bad we didn't finish the job

now we {tax payers} have a mess in Iraq to clean up

I want the Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld fortunes used to pay us back and make restitution

for 2 reasons

1 they're guilty of leading this country into a false war

2 it will keep other scumbags from doing it again

it is time for elected officials to be responsible for their actions

As I was personally present at the debate with my 8 year old daugher - we were both shocked at the hecklers - whoever they stood for - I feel they are idiots, personally, as well as disrespectful. My man JOE was composed and able to still make his point(s). First and foremost, that we will leave Iraq when it is appropriate for the safety of all. All the selfess folks out there who would have let Hitler kill all the Jews possible can join Ned and his hecklers, even if they don't want to pony up to who they want stand for. I'm still voting for JOE - AMERICA'S SENATOR. And so aren't alot of folks not as brave as I to flaunt their support. That's why voting is a private affair.....And I hope the hecklers got locked up where they should have been in the first place. My daughter wore her "Stickin' with Joe" pin to school - and I am so proud of her to know that she listens to what matters - not to the lies that Ned Lamont wants to spew. He's living in a fairy land far, far, away...... Oh - and I will be in front of of my polling place to show folks where on the ballot to find JOE - on the bottom - but he will come out on top in his victory. And Thanks to Mark Davis for asking the ? of the evening: How accurate are Ned Lamont's ads any way? Lamont is full of himself and so is his campaign. Joe has folks supporting him ALL OVER THE COUNTRY - but Ned has to write his own check into the senate. Again I sign off as a supporter of JOE - America's Senator! God Bless.

Lamont won hands down, All I can say is, please don't compain about Iraq if you vote for Lieberman. You have a guy who is more hawkish on the war then most republicans. I hear people say, but this is only one issue. Yes it is, but it's a pretty big issue. 3,000 troops killed, 20,000 wounded, and upwards towards 100,000 Iraqis killed. And nothing is improving. Please vote Lamont.

To Robin Hood;

Perhaps because this debate was carried by C-Span there were more people watching from outside Connecticut. Your guess is as good as mine on this one.

To all who made reference to the alleged 'SOB' comment;

First, let me say that we do NOT have tape of the debate without the closing music. I listened to the end at least a dozen times and my ears didn't hear any such comment. The only word I thought I heard was 'leadership,' and that could easily be wrong.

I also talked with our director Michael on the scene, and he doesn't remember hearing any such comment. He recalls everyone being civil to each other after the broadcast.

I say its high time for a change. Joe Lieberman's behaviour throughout this campaign has been appalling. I am convinced he will do absolutely anything to stay in office. After watching last night's performance it is very clear to me that we need a fresh face representing us in Washington. We shouldn't be afraid of change. In this case its a good thing. Let's give Ned Lamont a chance!

>Comment from: Joel [Visitor]
>Joe will win re-election.
>He will be sworn in in January
>Rumsfeld will resign in January
>Joe will become Secy of Defense
>Jodi Rell will appoint a Repub to >the senate to replace Joe.

And it will be Nancy Johnson because she'll need a job...

Yes - Alan and Ned were both appauled by the disgrace of the hecklers - I was there to see unlike many of the Ned foolishers in this blog. As for those of you that think that you will be safer with anyone but Joe are also living in a fairy land. We cannot just "pull up and go". No matter what happens - I will not be a back stabber. Anyone that votes for Ned in SECT would also be able to stab their own father's in the back. If this was a two man joint - Ned vs Alan - I would vote for Alan - not a dreamist. Still and always will be - STICKIN' WITH JOE. I want my kids to be safe and sound. Liberals stink worse than a landfill. Down to all the back stabbers.

>We cannot just "pull up and go".
>No matter what happens - I will
>not be a back stabber

This entire country was stabbed in the back by Bush and Cheney. And Joe was there to help them pull out the knife.

Alright -
Johnny - I can see you right now turning on the gas chambers to all the helpless Jews in the gas chambers. You make me sick. :

>GW doesn't have thes war in OUR country

>We aren't playing games.

>My daughter's friend is in the front lines and she holds my hand like she would her MOM's because she is a Navy Chief in the Mid'East fighting for YOUR life right now. You make me sick too. STILL STICKING WITH JOE IN NL. CT
Liberals still stink.

Still STICKIN' WITH JOE IN NL,
Always and forever
ps: It's not about the war - it's about what's right. JOE is the right choice for now - I want a REALIST - not a dreamer in office.

New London Chick,

I don't care who you support, but do you really think Joe is not a liberal? He is very liberal. Almost as much as Dodd and Kennedy.

You're not the only one fooled by Joe's supposed moderate to conservative ideology. After all, 2/3 of Connecticut Republicans support Joe. Now I know that Northeast Republicans aren't ultra conservative such as in the South, but I don't believe they consider themselves liberal. Joe's got everyone snowed.

Anyway, though I support Lamont, I won't be too upset if Lieberman wins, because he is liberal and that's where I stand. I won't be happy about it, but it could be a lot worse from my liberal point of view.

Jill

Let me make two corrections to my comment above:


>GW doesn't have this war in OUR county.

>Also - my daugther's friend's MOM is in the the Mid East right now fighting for our and Iraq's future peace. In fact, when she (mom) gets home, Dad gets to go for a year. By the way - I don't hear them complaining. They are the true heroes of our country. Ever hear of the "Oath of Service"? Still Stickin' with JOE. Oh yeah - and liberals still SUCK.

Robin Hood, I didn't hear anything about this blog during the debate and I'm one of those who had never been here before. I came to the Ch 8 web site to complain about the absolutely disgusting way that Mark Davis showed his bias when he asked the question about truthfulness in the ads. That was incredible. I thought a journalist would, at least, pretend to be fair. His handling of the flyers and the way he dropped them on the table was a clear display of his disdain for Ned Lamont and his support for Joe Lieberman. If Joe thinks that it's negative politics to quote from him and to show that his votes support the failed policies of the Bush administration, then it is only because the truth hurts him. Apparently Mark Davis bought the whining, "Mommy, everyone is picking on me and telling lies about me" theme of the Lieberman campaign. That's his business. But, showing his preference is unprofessional. That's why I'm here. I saw that a few others came here to express that view also.

Hi Jill:
Well - you may think Joe is a liberal, but at least he is a moderate liberal. The fools that were outside of the Garde last nite were just out of sight - if I am wrong - they are the liberals. I truly feel that JOE is trying his hardest to help us all and I would truly be very worried (as I would have been if Kerry had won) if JOE doesn't come through. Being directly across from the subase, I don't want an anti-military man in office, nor do I want a pro-military man either. I want Joe Lieberman - a guy that knows both sides of the coin to be in there with experience and clout to keep up safe. Not a pretty boy with some fancy words and a lot of money. I'm not saying Lamont is a bad guy - just not the right guy right now. For real - if it was a 2 man deal - I'd go with Alan not Ned. At least he's not living in a dream world he created - Ned reminds me of the guy from Charlie and Chocolate Factory. Regards from NL.

Sorry--but Ned Lamont is an idiot who used the names of fallen soldiers in his commercials to further his cause--did he ask the families of those soldiers permission to do so--I think not--then to end it with how much $$$ we've lost in Iraq stated first and the soldiers 2nd (almost as an afterthought on his part)totally turned me off. I'll go with Joe or Alan LONG before I would even consider Ned.

Now don't all you joe supporters feel DUMB, those of you who jumped the gun, and immediately pointed fingers at lamont for bringing hecklers to the debate... when it came to light that the hecklers were not "brought" by anyone, but actually supported a smaller independant candidate.

Joe's loyalties are to Joe. He is not for the democratic party. He pouted and left the democratic party fast enough when he lost the primary back in August. He could not accept the fact that he lost. Do you really think that Joe is a loyal democrat looking out for YOUR interests??

I can't wait until this election is over. I'm so sick of the candidates slamming each other. How about less negativity, name calling and just stating the facts of the candidates qualifications and what they can do to help their constituents. What a terrible example these hateful adds make to children. I personally have turned off the radio and TV.

Lamont is th emost highly principled of the three and that came across loud and clear last night. He has a passion to mend America's feeble international position and restore principles of law and open debate to the country's discourse. Lieberman (a.k.a. Poorloserman) once again professed his blind loyalty to Bush by stating his expectation of success in Iraq (at least twice last night). That's a waste of lives, money, and security of our country. Schlesinger gets points for candor and levity. Too bad he's not the de facto Republican candidate.

NL Chick,

Well, I wasn't there, so I don't know who you are talking about exactly. If you are talking about the LaRouche group, the hecklers, I don't know how I would label them politically. Fringe, maybe, but not liberal. Some of his ideas are extreme left, and some seem extreme right.

And I stand by what I said the first time, and so conclude that if you truly believe that "liberals suck", then you contradict yourself by supporting Lieberman.

I'm just truly fascinated by how many people think Joe is not liberal, and even rather conservative. I guess they are judging that on the Iraq War? But then that would make Schlesinger liberal, since he's very critical of it. But we know that he is in fact conservative.

The Iraq War alone does inform as to a candidate's political ideology. It might help, but it's just one issue. (HUGE issue, but yet just one.)

Jill

Jean-

Lamont is far from an idiot he has compassion and cares about the people of CT.

I would much rather have a Senator that speaks for the people of CT, than one who whines for himself like Joe does.

REPUBLICANS FOR CHANGE!

Please do not confuse me with the Jean who bashed Ned Lamont.

I am the Lamont supporter, it's pretty sad when when others can use the very same names and not make it clear who they are.

I wonder how WTNH would like us taking their names and posting.

REPUBLICANS FOR CHANGE

I had supported Joe, until his head was in the sand when the 2,800 + state workers were laid off, 3½ years back. Yes,quite possibly, his input may have had no impact on John Rowland's venomous act, but the fact remains...he said nothing at all...no comment, no opinion, no nothing. Now,when Joe campaigns stating that he saved jobs and supports workers I could gag.
As to last nights interruptions by hecklers; Joe was like a deer in the headlights. He just froze, and looked like he was going to cry. A senate leader who does not even try to diffuse the situation? He was ineffective and needed both opponents to rescue him.
He also never answered the question regarding honest ads.
Alan has really come to the fore. He won't win but is such a breath of fresh air offering wit along with some good suggestions. I really do not support his conservative thinking, but he got the hecklers to quiet down, he offered an alternative to the constant negative bashing of both other opponents...He gets my win in the debate butNed will get my vote.

As someone who has been working for 50 years (and by the way, when I started working I had NO EXPERIENCE), I am now in a position whereby the only thing that I can still afford to do is go to work and go home. And I may never be able to retire. And it infuriates me that Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, between them, can spend in excess of 20 million dollars to act like little boys fighting in the playground.
You did this. I did not. Yes you did. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. I'M TELLING!!!!! What a couple of babies. I wouldn't vote for either of them.
As far as I'm concerned, Schlessinger is the winner. He cuts through all the crap and doesn't spend all his time and energy bad-mouthing his opponents.
And if Lieberman had not chosen to run on his own, Lamont would not even have had a campaign because all he has done is criticise Lieberman

All incumbants who support Bush's war should be voted out of office. Ned Lamont won the debate -- he showed intelligence, dignity and strength in standing up to the potty-mouthed whiner that is CT's current jr. senator.

Help save our country: vote for Ned Lamont. He might be new, but he has integrity. (I'm related to one of his employees.)

What? You mean help sink our state and country! Get your head out of the sand Debbie. I also said if it was a 2 man decision - I'd go with Alan over Ned that goes without a flinch. Last night - if I wasn't a Joe supporter - it would be Alan all out. But I still go with experience, intergrity, and further most working together no matter what party you find appealing. Plus again I am not a back stabber. I will not relent and I will not stop campaigning for JOE in my region. I have won over dozens of people and talk everyday to folks for his cause and mine and my families' cause. What exactly is everyone else doing excepting blogging? I do all I can to promote our safety and Joe's experience and his integrity. I'd like to see all the folks out there with their 2 cents to put in do a better job than Joe has done. I and most of CT will not falter - and I am still going to carry my torch for JOE. Pardon me - but doesn't Joe STILL have the lead in this race? Many folks just don't want to pony up. STICKIN' with JOE in NL.

"Stand by your man"...

I hope we're not "Stuck with Joe".

I know we're not supposed to ask the question that is nowhere in the news about Joe's wife's "employment" at Hill & Knowlton, a "PR firm" that works with many big pharmaceutical companies. Everyone who really is unbiased and wants some genuine reporting should watch Bill Moyers' "Capitol Crimes: Abramoff Inc."

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/capitol/abramoff.html

This show will make you sick to see the rampant "lobbying" (aka bribery) going on in Washington these days. Joe says he's the only one with experience "who knows how things work in Washington". There was a complicated scheme whereby Tom DeLay's wife was "hired" by a firm which was a client of Abramoff's. This provided another conduit for the dirty money to be laundered. How does this differ from the Lieberman's windfall?

Don't fret about it. Just write me off as a liberal because I know where PBS is on the TV. Get your "news" from Fox & Rush - don't concern yourself with facts.

I do agree that the campaigns are all in the gutter. The love of money is the root of all evil. The only way to clean things up is to vote all the incumbents out. Let's start with Joe.

Nobody "wins" debates. It is just what candidate said what you want to hear. They say whatever they think people want to hear. Personally, I'm sick of Ned Lamont, he reminds me of John Kerry, and we all remember what a fool he was 2 years ago. Based a campaign on the iraq war, lack of WMD's, brings no answer to the table. Kerry couldn't beat Bush, so I don't think Lamont is any different. I'm a great armchair quarterback, but Bill Parcells hasn't tapped me for the Cowboys job. Lamont's a good armchair politician, see's what's wrong but has no answers. Pull out of Iraq right now? I triple dog dare the dems to do it if they take over house and senate. Won't happen. They are just winning debates...telling people what they want to hear. If Joe goes, then Dodd better be close behind. Time for change, right?

Jill,
Do you honestly believe that it was the correct thing to do to all but abandon the war in Afghanistan, where we know Osama bin Laden is hiding (remember bin Laden? the guy who was REALLY responsible for 9/11?). Remember the original war in Afghanistan where we had a REAL coalition of over 100 countries helping us to find the people that were actually responsible for attacking our friends and relatives in New York City??

We left that war to start a war in Iraq against a person who was absolutely no threat to us (as would have been proven if we didn't have a president who is an obsessive compulsive) and had NOTHING to do with 9/11 (which we were flat out LIED TO about). And this war has cost us over 2800 brave men and women. It has cost us our respect in the eyes of the rest of the world. Its cost us almost half a trillion dollars and climbing. And your good old buddy, Joe, was and still is a major supporter of this war that is tearing this country apart and getting worse every day.

Lets get real here.... You go, girl... You go work for Joe...

Strange that these were the same republicans who were trashing "Joe" back in 2000 when he ran as Gore's vice presidential candidate. Now all of a sudden Joe is this "wonderful guy". lol.
I think joe is now merely the best "thorn" the republicans can find.

Johnny,

Don't know where you got the idea I was for the war. I've been absolutely against it since it was first being discussed in early 2002. I've never wavered that it was the wrong move. We should have never taken our attention away from Afghanistan.

I was simply making a point that a candidate's stance on the Iraq War alone is not enough to determine how liberal or conservative they are. Nothing more.

Sorry, Jill. I looked back at the blog and my post should have been intended for NL Chick. I apologize (not for the post, but for the misdirection).

I think a lot of us are acting in anger and frustration. I won't state my age, but I've been around for a long time. I've NEVER seen such incompetence in government in my life. To me, its just inexcusable that so many incumbents stood by and let this all happen, and in many cases applauded and joined in with the incompetance. And I'm sure they are genuinely nice and well intentioned people. But we just need better than that now. This government needs ACCOUNTABILITY. And it needs it NOW.

NL Chick,

you have your facts mixed up

it's ok, the bush regime has been mixing it up to confuse you

allow me to help you

2000 Bush put in office by the Supreme Court

wants a reason to invade Iraq since day 1

he is told to watch and get bin laden--he ignores

intel sends him a daily briefing "bin laden determined to attack within US borders"--he ignores

9/11 his approval rating goes from from 30 to 90 while he is drooling an a school in Florida

he wats to attack Iraq for 9/11

Powell insists that we invade Afghanistan because that is where they are, not Iraq, so we invade

soon after he leaves, job incomplete to invade Iraq under false pretences, a lie

Katrina hits, FEMA director Browns only experience as a horse judge and Bush campaign worker shows

Bush says stay the course in Iraq, all is well

I raq is fratured into different tribes and Al Qaeda is now in Iraq because we did not guard the borders after invading

no WMDs are found, it is proven that they relied on the story of 1 man that the CIA felt was a joke

Bush appoints his own guy to run the CIA

2006

we are still Iraq, Bin Laden has had time to regroup and plan another attack

Bush's 1 hope is to stay in Iraq till end of term and hand it over to someone else so he can say " everything was fine and on target when we had it"


does that clarify a few things for ya?????

Johnny,

No problem. I share the anger, the outrage. I can see why you might have jumped to a conclusion.

Anyway, I'm 41, I've been paying attention since Reagan was president, and looking back at the past 50 years of politics in general. And I'm with you 100% about the incompetence.

I hope that the issues we face will wake us up and make us demand more of our government. Because we really do get the government we deserve. Half of all people who could vote do not. We do not require more of our supposedly independent media. The mainstream media was already getting lazy, and then after 9/11, they became cowardly, unwilling to stand up and ask the hard questions. But it's not the media's fault totally, because there were signs that the administration was not being honest, and we did not require the media to dig deeper.

It's our bad.

What really baffles me is that I can't figure out what this Congress and especially this President stand for. I'm a liberal, but not so pig-headed as to not recognize that Reagan, for example, stood for something. I disagreed with the vast majority of it, but it was a set of principles I could understand and respect, if not embrace.

But what do these buffoons stand for? They claim to be the champions of moral values. Well, I don't know how moral it is to invade a country "preemptively". I don't know how moral it is to not raise the minimum wage in 10 years. I don't know how moral it is to change the very rules that define "forests" (yes, really!), consumer price increases, and even science. (_The Republican War on Science_) A must read! Written by a Republican with much Republican input!

But even just looking at the so called conservative "family values", they were happy to take the conservative Christian vote, but they privately mocked, in the actual White House, those very same people. And they never gave even more than lip service to that agenda when in truth they had an opportunity to push it through, like they never had before. Conservatives control all three branches of government. The President wouldn't have vetoed, and presumably the Supreme Court would have been unlikely to throw out carefully constructed laws to forward the conservative "moral value" issues.

As a liberal, I'm doing a happy dance that they didn't! Don't get me wrong. But in a way, I could respect them more if they did, or at least tried. I respect true conservativism, but these jokers are not real conservatives. They're selfish neocons who are only for their own business interests and global, unilateral military domination.

We need to get rid of them all!

Ned Lamont won the debate hands down. No disrespect to Mr Lieberman, but we as a country NEED to do away with career politicians - think term limits for ALL elected officials. These guys are all addicted to PAC money, this is why JL dropped from the Dems(no party loyalty - and certainly no loyalty to his constituency) and decided to run as an independent. As far as this Indy voter is concerned, JL invented a political party and should not even have been qualified to have his name on the ballot. Sorry Joe, but your career as a politician

I thought the debate was very entertaining but, when Joe wins the election all the crying and nasty ads will make room for the people who are paid to entertain us. Ned Lamont's rants are getting old, like a bad rerun of an old B movie.

Yeesh! It always amazes me that some people will even bother to take the time to post some of these replies.

I agree with Jill. As bad as they were, some previous presidents at least stood for something or made an attempt to improve our country and our world. This is without question the worst administration we have ever had to endure.

In my lifetime there were 3 elections in which I couldn't believe the people of this state or this nation would be dumb enough to make the selection that we were told that they did. Well 7 elections, 3 despicable candidates - Nixon, Rowland & W. We all know now how corrupt the first 2 were and what end they came to. I'm praying for a hat-trick.

If you can't take the time to view or read the Moyers' piece from my previous post above, then read this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/

The Moyers' program documents many of the FACTS on the Abramoff scandal. Did you know that one of Abramoff's associates was operating inside the White House? FACT - watch it before you deny it. I owe no allegiance to any candidate or party. If ANYONE is proven to be corrupt, they should be out. Before you prop up W or Joe, can you say the same?

The article above has a very good definition of terror - to cause fear. Precisely what W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Joe, Nancy, Chris Shays & Rob have been doing to our nation and our state to scare people into the voting booth.

Support our troops but don't adequately fund them, don't provide the generals with the troops they need to get the job done and make them pay their own medical bills or bill them for services when they come back home maimed for life. "No child left behind" but don't provide funding, in fact, take away funding so the state is left with your ridiculous mandates and no money or resources with which to work. And stretch our resources so thin with your unjust and unwarranted "war of choice" in Iraq that you need to pull our National Guard away from our shores so your bottom line will look better. Fudge the books just like you did when you ran a company (into the ground).

Joe, Nancy, Chris Shays & Rob Simmons have all been ardent supporters of the Iraq debacle. Up until recently they were still saying things are great and "stay the course" but now their handlers are getting the word that they should use terms like "flexible" and "adjust", at least until after the election. Say anything, just get re-elected.

A vote for any of these incumbents is a vote to continue the failed policies that have gotten us into this mess. Yes, Joe is responsible. I tried to voice my opposition and incredulity when W turned his sights to Iraq in the middle of the campaign to get bin Laden. Joe was already cheering the decision. If it's great for the economy and our defense contractors, then state that as your reason. Pretty sick but if that's why you think it was the right thing to do, say so.

President Eisenhower (now I'm dating myself) warned about the growing "military industrial complex" and that the US needed to diversify its industries or we'd be going to war to keep our economy afloat. President Bush (the 1st) explained why he didn't go into Baghdad and, in so doing, accurately described the morass we find ourselves tangled in today.

Please read, dig for the truth, and vote the incumbents out, at least those who have supported the poorly researched and badly executed war and those who have turned a blind eye to the rampant corruption all around them (maybe even taken part?).

Vote for the Democrats to represent us, as endorsed by the Hartford Courant, and remember, Joe isn't one.

Excellent points Jill and Mick

these are the reasons why no incumbant must be re-elected.

Jill, I can tell you that this admin--err regime stands for Halliburton and making more money for her and her friends

that's it

Mick, Eisenhower was right and we didn't listen

personally I want them Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney ARRESTED, THEIR ASSETS SEIZED

I also want everyone that is in office that went along with these scumbags out

America has become a feeding ground for big corporations and those in power

the average CEO in America makes 300% more that their foreign counterparts and it is not because they are so much better at what they do

it is because they have paid off our politicians WHO WORK FOR US

OR ARE SUPPOSED TO

Most of them, when asked about doing what the people want will say "WE DO NOT DO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT, WE MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR THEM"

I saw an older couple yesterday driving in their Mercedes, on top was a huge homemade sign that read:

GW BUSH AND JOE LIEBERMAN DESERVE EACHOTHER....

WE DESERVE BETTER

I hope you all will take the time to read Jill and Micks posts, so many good points and facts.

A few of the headlines from today that are more proof positive to vote all incumbants out { I really don;t care who you vote for, as long as it is not an incumbant}

From AP

Home Prices Plunge by Most in 35 Years

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Worst in a Year

Exxon Posts $10.49B Profit; Shares Up

Stocks Fall After Home Sales Report

yep, those currently in office are doing a heck of a job, a heck of a job

Home Prices Plunge by Most in 35 Years

hmmm

does that mean that we, here in CT, get to have our homes revaluated now that the value dropped????????

OUR FRIGGIN TOWNS AND CITIES WERE PRETTY QUICK ON REVALUATION WHEN THE VALUE WENT UP, WEREN'T THEY????

I say people, rise up.

There has been a great deal of critisizm towards Joe Lieberman recently because he jumped out of his party to stay in the race. For me, I am not willing to cast a vote for someone simply because he poses enough cashflow to support his own campaign. I'm not a huge fan of the support Joe has given the President recently, but I'm also not a huge fan of endorsing someone like Ned Lamont who has no experience in the Senate. My vote on November 7th will be for Lieberman based on experience and not how much money he has in his pocket. If we all voted based on financials, why isn't Bill Gates a nominee for President?

Because he doesn't want to run Craig.

Gates and his wife spend their time finding causes and needs to give their money to.

People like the Bushs and Cheneys look for ways to rip us off and spend our money.

Your logic to back is faulty but it is yours and you have the right to do so.

Lieberman has been a secret weapon of the Bush Regime for quite some time, I even wonder now about when he was running with Gore, what was he really up to??

I don't recall any repubs or even Rice getting a french kiss from GW.

The other thing that bothers me about Joe is these flyers from THE FIRE FIGHTERS OF AMERICA

who are they??, they are not from CT and it is the same ad over and over

He sat there in DC and watched as GW and Rummy were going to take revenge on this area for not backing them in 2000 and 2004 by closing the subbase and our fighter squad at Bradley.

It was only after Rell complaigned that he snubbed around and now takes credit for saving the subbase.

He is a piece of work.

I have worked at the Subbase, I know first hand that it is vital, and given the amount of training equipment they have { they train sub crews, huge simulators and stuff } it is only a complete moron that would close or move it.

Term limits, someone is about to get one, he is not alone.

Independant polls this a.m. show people across the country are sick of incumbants and the lies to get us to invade Iraq have people very irate.

One woman in Missouri said GW can send his kids to Iraq and see how it feels to lose them.

Ya know what really ticks me off about Iraq?

Bush & co lied about why we had to invade.

Now we have a huge problem.

No one accepts responsibility for our being there.

They just say that "now, we have to stay until the job is finished"

Where is Wilford Brimley when we need him?? I'd like to see him walk into to the Oval Office with GW, Cheney, Rumdum and Rice present, sit down, open his briefcase and say.................

"2 things are going to be true at the end of the day that aren't true now. One is that the U.S. Govt is going to know what the Good Christ is going on here,.... the other is I'm going to have somebodys ass in my briefcase".



yes, a scene from "Absence of Malice"

works for me

Now here's the big question to the state democrats: When Neddy Lamonts loses, and he probably will, will he be trying to unseat Dodd next? If he does, then I might actually support the puppet. And how will the state dems look after joe wins, and they have all turned their backs on him? Should be interesting after nov 7. See, we republicans have been telling you libs for years that joe was no good, but you all insisted that he was great with his flag burning legislation and affirmitive action support. He could've been gone years ago, but you didn't listen. Now you'll be stuck with him. Serves you right.

That doesn't help Mike,

it is not you repubs vs us dems, besides I'm Independant.

Can you egt in to thwe repub country club Mike?? Can you hob nob with Johnson, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Delay??

Do you really think they care about you??

Have you been suckered into thinking they are on your side becasue they claim to be "conservative" or "Religious"


IT IS WE THE PEOPLE VS. ALL OF THEM, ALL POLITICIANS

THERE IS NO REPUB OR DEM

THERE IS POLITICIANS PAID OFF BY LOBBYISTS TO DO THINGS FOR BIG CORPORATIONS

THAT IS ALL THERE IS

It doesn't matter who ya vote for, big business owns 'em both

That is why they fight a 3rd party, then they'd have to pay 3.

our only recourse is to vote out incumbants each time, replacing them with new people

if that doesn't work dear people it is then time for another REVOLUTION

unless of course you are nothing but obedient sheep, baaaaa baaaaaa

We have the right under our Constitution to take it back, our Forefathers knew this would eventually happen again, this time it is not Kings and Queens taking everything, it is CEO's who think they are gods gift to the world and so above all of us.

the following is from our Declaration of Independance:

That whenever any form of govt becomes destructive of these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVT. LAYING IT'S FOUNDATION ON SUCH PRINCIPALS AND ORGANIZING IT'S POWERS IN SUCH FORM, AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM MOST LIKELY TO EFFECT THEIR SAFETY AND HAPPINESS.


I say that time is near

The First Amendments of our New Government to our existing Constitution.

There are no parties, all politicians will stand on their own merit.

Lobbying is hereby illegal. Elected officials are to be concerned with caring for the people, not corporations, they can take care of themselves.

Any company that wishes to sell a product in the U.S.A. will have at least 40% of the manufacture and/or assembly within the boudaries of the United States. This will ensure that jobs do not leave the country and put all on equal ground in regards to competitive pricing.

Anyone from the former President GW Bush on down will have all of their assets seized. Their trial will begin within 30 days concerning the illegal war in Iraq, pilfering the taxpayers money and fabricating evidence. Aforementioned assests will be sold at auction to repay the people of the United States.

Iraq has 120 days to take over security in it's country. The United Nations will be asked to assist in the transition.

National Guardsmen and Coast Guard
personnel will return from Iraq and begin guarding the U.S. and her ports.

Regular Military personnel will return to the hunt for Bin Laden.

Wow... after watching all the debates, the person whom I am not voting for I believe won. Alan.. He had the most ideas, and was quickest on his feet... Didn't stay with the planned responses...

I honestly can not say what Lamont stood for, except for bashing Joe and using the money from the war for a bunch of programs... We all want to leave Iraq, but I think we need to do it correctly..

I wish the candidates had to answer 20 yes and no questions such as...


Are you in favor of or against abortion?

Are you in favor or against Affirmative action?

Water boarding?

Flat Tax?

ect....

Interesting Kim. 20 questions huh?

how'bout

How much money have you taken from big oil?

Rx co's?

Insurance co's?

Defense Co's?

why did you vote to invade Iraq?

why didn't you speak out against Bush giving Hallburton so many NO BID CONTRACTS??

why didn't you want to know how many people in the Bush regime have fake resumes like Michael Brown, former head of FEMA, who was a horse judge??

WHY HAVEN'T YOU STOPPED THE SUBSIDIES TO BIG OIL WHILE THEY ARE RAKING IN HUGE PROFITS????????

notice I did not mention anythig you did, because those are not important to me, those are to you

I would like to see people drop the abortion question, it's a no win

what happens is the politician will tell you whatever you want to hear and you will vote for them

they will then do nothing

if people spent as much time bitching about the things I listed above as they do about abortion we might have a better country

the thing with abortion to me is that is a very personal thing, whether you are for or against and very very emotional, not political.

if it were outlawed we'd be back to the unlicensed doctors and no good would come

the thing I think we need to do is adress why are there unwanted pregnancies, for if there were none, no abortions would happen

starting with young women and branching out from there the message must be clear to get your life in order,education, a job, a home, and then plan your pregnancy

it seems many young women, under 18, think that their life is going to change by getting pregnant, that is a falicy, it just makes it more complicated.

It starts I guess with the R word no one in America wants to hear

RESPONSIBILITY

If you get pregnant you are responsible, you & your partner

young men seem to be the worst, no responsiblity at all, they run from it

you see you can outlaw things, but you cannot stop them

but if we start teaching Responsibility for your actions and Respect for others, instead of "it ain't your fault", maybe things like abortion will stop because no one will want them, because they have become mature responsible adults.

You can't legislate that.

I really couldn't figure out what Lamont stands for - he never says what his vision is. I do know that he has mentioned creating preschool for all 3 and 4 year olds, and as a working Dad who put 2 kids through preschool, I don't feel like I ought to foot the bill for this luxury for everyone else-illegal aliens will send their kids to the Lamont preschools on the backs of taxpayers like me. Great idea Ned! (Even DeStefano likes this idea, but I digress.) If this is Lamont's lone idea, our taxes would go through roof 20%+ if it ever passed. Schlesinger made the most sense, but Joe has the most experience so I'm going Joe. I was disappointed Lamont didn't hush his rude vocal supporters.It showed no leadership, no decency. Saying he started his company from scratch is also deceptive & insulting coming from a silver spoon Greenwich boy. I just don't think a rich guy buying an election resonates with the common middle class CT Yankee. Hope I'm not wrong.Lamont wouldn't cut and run in Iraq - he can't and he knows it. I also think putting Sharpton and Jesse on the podium after the primary was another lunkhead move by Lamont - where's the savvy? I'm sticking with Joe-he's learned his lesson.Greenwich really ain't much like the rest of CT, you know.

Wow, after reading all of these comments, I wish I could vote for the Visitor who calls him/her self Robin Hood!

But since I can't, I'm going to vote for best choice available, and that's Ned Lamont, because he's the only one of the three who is not an incumbent, and is not a career politician.

I happen to know Mr. Lamont and his family, and although I must agree that he was not able express his ideas very thoroughly during the debates, I know what his ideas are and what kind of person he is, and I KNOW he will make a very good senator; and he will definitely make a much better senator that any of the other candidates we have to choose from.

Let's give Ned the chance he deserves this Tuesday!

it would be better if the script of debate is shown .

HI looks very interesting! bookmarked your blog. saman from UK