Newt Gingrich: Insurgency in Connecticut!

Originally posted by Nygdan
The other question is, what if the republicans win CT? I think that the senate primaries in CT are open only to the party represented. Independents are the largest voting block. Its possible that people who register as democrats in CT tend to represent people further to the left that most 'democrats', with the average democrat registering as Independent.

If thats true, and considering that lierbman has won a bunch of elections in CT, its possible that the state, in the general election, isn't interseted in an anti-war senator. They might split between lieberman and schlesinger, but its also possible that they will stick to choosing between the two parties, and elect Schlesinger into office.

That might signal to the DNC that it needs to quash anti-war democrats across the country.

Nygdan Republicans will not win CT. CT is to heavily Democratic. Since the Democratic party is nothing but a bunch of libs the only possible way for Republicans to win CT is for a Liberal Republican to run. But that would be a win for the Dems anyway in much the same way as Spector is a win for Dems in PA.


Kiddo

The conventional wisdom was not that Lieberman would win. Everybody who pays attention knew Lamont was going to win the primary. So, given that astute revelation, the following question begs to be asked. Exactly what time today were you born?

Originally posted by War_Monger
You might also want to take a look at what is going on here in my home state of Pennsylvania concerning Senator Santorum and Mr. Casey. There is now a Green Party candidate going on the ballot and the PA libs are worried because that will spilt the Democrat vote...Not to mention that Santorum is gaining steam. The Dem party in PA wants to kick the Green Party Candidate off the ballot beacause they know their goose is cooked despite the fact that Green guy has thousands more signatures than needed to get on that ballot. It just goes to show that the Dems are desparate and will go to whatever unfair and illegal measures needed to win.

As for me loosing interest, never! I wouldn't give you pleasure. I'm here to be a very painful thorne in backs of people like you. You can rest assurred that I will target your posts and challenge you whenever possible.

Well, since you'll be here when Santorum gets the boot, I will absolutely throw it in your face that I called it right here and right now.

Yawn. I look forward to it. And by the way, you're gonna havta try a lot harder to be a thorn in anyone's side around here. Cheers.

SORE LOSERMAN needs to do us all a favor and just step out of the closet, and go Republican, already. The GOP candidate is a total loser. The GOP gets wet thinking about Loserman's unwavering support for war and madness. Its a win/win. But then again, that would make LOSERMAN a flip-flopper, woudn't it?

GOP for LOSERMAN!

Originally posted by stanstheman

Originally posted by Nygdan
The other question is, what if the republicans win CT? I think that the senate primaries in CT are open only to the party represented. Independents are the largest voting block. Its possible that people who register as democrats in CT tend to represent people further to the left that most 'democrats', with the average democrat registering as Independent.

If thats true, and considering that lierbman has won a bunch of elections in CT, its possible that the state, in the general election, isn't interseted in an anti-war senator. They might split between lieberman and schlesinger, but its also possible that they will stick to choosing between the two parties, and elect Schlesinger into office.

That might signal to the DNC that it needs to quash anti-war democrats across the country.

I'm a Connecticut Republican. I am voting for Joe Lieberman. He's done well for our state. Ned Lamont is a long shot, and frankly a "one issue" candidate. Joe Lieberman has been painted as a prowar Democrat but everytime a vote comes up in the senate to stop the war, it get's voted down. It takes more than one prowar Dem to do that!

Lieberman voted with the Dems 90% of the time yet he is painted as a "poodle" to the Bush administration. The Dems have been hijacked by militant, radical left wingers who wouldn't know a moderate if they fell over one.

Once the entire state votes, Lieberman will be Senator again.

Stanstheman you are right! I'm glad to see another intelligent person kicking up the dust here. Lieberman, while too liberal on many issues for my taste, is still a good man and has done alot of good for his state. He also lacks the hate mongering bigoted racist personality so commom on the left...and their supporters like kiddo.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by stanstheman


Lieberman voted with the Dems 90% of the time yet he is painted as a "poodle" to the Bush administration.

If you're a Republican, why would you even consider voting for Loserman? Afterall, you quote the statistic that he has voted with LIBERALS (cringe) 90 percent of the time... What the hell kind of Republican are you?

I'm not afraid to vote for who I think will do the best job for Connecticut. I consider myself to be a moderate, that's what kind of Republican I am, I also voted for Rosa DeLauro. I don't assume all Republicans have my best interest at heart and I don't assume all Democrats want to see my interests crushed. My opinions don't always follow the party line, but my basic personal value system is more Republican than Democrat, that's why I'm a Republican.

Futhermore, I've said this before on this site. We are voting for politicians here, usually career politicians, how good could it get? The best man/woman for the job doesn't get the job because they don't run for the job.

Originally posted by War_Monger


Lieberman also lacks the hate mongering bigoted racist personality so commom on the left...and their supporters like kiddo.

First of all, I'd love to know how old you are?

Second of all, moderators are you paying attention? I would like proof definitive on how I am a "hate mongering bigoted racist." Quotes would be nice. But then again, you're just slandering me. I have come to expect that from today's Republicans. If you can't produce a worhty argument soon, you owe me a retraction of that ludacrist statement.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by War_Monger
You might also want to take a look at what is going on here in my home state of Pennsylvania concerning Senator Santorum and Mr. Casey. There is now a Green Party candidate going on the ballot and the PA libs are worried because that will spilt the Democrat vote...Not to mention that Santorum is gaining steam. The Dem party in PA wants to kick the Green Party Candidate off the ballot beacause they know their goose is cooked despite the fact that Green guy has thousands more signatures than needed to get on that ballot. It just goes to show that the Dems are desparate and will go to whatever unfair and illegal measures needed to win.

As for me loosing interest, never! I wouldn't give you pleasure. I'm here to be a very painful thorne in backs of people like you. You can rest assurred that I will target your posts and challenge you whenever possible.

Well, since you'll be here when Santorum gets the boot, I will absolutely throw it in your face that I called it right here and right now.

Yawn. I look forward to it. And by the way, you're gonna havta try a lot harder to be a thorn in anyone's side around here. Cheers.

You can expect likewise kiddo. Remember, I live here. I know an awful lot of people all over the state both personaly and net friends. Casey is still carrying alot of baggage from his old man who screwed the state to hell and left us deep in debt with high unemplyment. Very very few people that I talked to plan to vote for Casey. The people will remember that Santorum is an asset to our state...despite bigoted left wing view.

Lets all get back on topic alright?

Originally posted by War_Monger
The people will remember that Santorum is an asset to our state...despite bigoted left wing view.

Santorum is going down. Hate to break it to you.

Still waiting on some concrete proof to support that slanderous statement above... bigoted.. you got anything to back that up with?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by War_Monger


Lieberman also lacks the hate mongering bigoted racist personality so commom on the left...and their supporters like kiddo.

First of all, I'd love to know how old you are?

Second of all, moderators are you paying attention? I would like proof definitive on how I am a "hate mongering bigoted racist." Quotes would be nice. But then again, you're just slandering me. I have come to expect that from today's Republicans. If you can't produce a worhty argument soon, you owe me a retraction of that ludacrist statement.

ECK,
I love a little political chat but you're going a little Michael Moore on us. I get it, you don't like Lieberman, okay, enough already but name calling (Loserman) just takes away from the validity (I'm throwin' you a bone here) of your arguement. So stop it and get back to this interesting topic. Kay?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
HEY! Now I sound like Sharpton.

The first step is admitting you have a problem (j/k)

The difference is stark. You, unlike Gingrich, put quotes around the word insurgents, b/c on some level, you knew what that form of language connotated.

In text I agree, but if I am not mistaken you said the Gingrich made his statement on FNC, which is not a print medium. I would not have said quote, unquote insurgents. I would have said insurgents. I wrote the quotes because they were convenient and provided a speedly disclaimer if I should be accused of melodrama. Frankly I saw the word in a positive light when I chose it however, with something of a noble freedom-fighter connotation if anything.

You're being very dramatic now.

I am known for as much, sometimes at the expense of my manners I am afraid. I do however believe that the level of personal distaste for individuals and arbitrarily drawn "factions" is an important part of the two prepackaged ideologies which media "thought-brokers" offer for their consumers to choose between.

Reality-TV style feuds have found their way into major news outlets and seem to have proliferated into the general public to a very high degree. When I begin to get that vibe I am lead to wonder to what degree the analysis I'm hearing has been individually formed from independent analysis and to what degree it's the so-called "grass roots" party line that the media machines have sewn into said grass roots.
I am as succeptible as anyone else of course- when I point my finger at someone I've still got four of my digits directed back at myself whether or not I like to admit it, and as I continue to press this point it's only fair that I mention that. I was a post slower than I ought to have been in acknowledging that it is good to see the voters choose to make an example out of a high-profile incumbent on either side; that does in fact keep the system honest.
What I have to continue to wonder as I've said before though is if the character of the hype around this event might suggest that this was not entirely grass roots, but was planted in the grass roots by the media and other powers that be. As I know all too well as a former Bush supporter, only time will tell you who's man a candidate really is, and you won't always like the answer because the answer isn't always "the people's man, of course".

PS, giddy is a cool word in moderation. For a culture that obsesses with gender roles sometimes it is equivalent to swearing; the fact that you'd dare say it adds emphasis. I still prefer some of the better established profanities, but giddy is still respectable.

I prefer elections not to be stolen, so that actual representative Democracy can flourish. Since the silent coup of 2000, the will of the people has been silenced and far too many people around the world have been made to suffer and die b/c of it. Its unacceptable.

I too distrust our system. I do not claim to know how 2000 really was voted, but I can agree on the general principle that democracy must be protected from any corruption or even appearance thereof.

I am quite interested that while I hear so much along those lines, I hear precious little about any movement to correct the problem. Perhaps it is out there and I just haven't seen it, so I'll ask: where is the Democratic plan for protecting our ballots? Who sponsored the bill and who killed it? Where is Ned Lamont's plan for the same? Hey, if somebody can show it to me and I find it believable, I just may scrape under my couch and see if I can't finance a couple of postage stamps for his campaign (fairly generous given my current situation).

Originally posted by War_Monger: God Bless America, Israel, and the United Kingdom

Shades of "Head of State", wouldn't you agree? God Bless America and noplace else? Who am I to begrudge God's blessing on an Iraqi peasant? It's dang near the only thing they can hope to attain at the moment so I say wish lots of it on them.


Nygdan raises an interesting point and I'm sad to say I really am not familiar enough with the lives of people 3,000 miles away to be sure if it's very likely. My gut feeling however would be that the deck is stacked against Lieberman. It's a midterm; the people who show up will tend to be more interested in politics and have greater partisan inclination. I think this means two things:
#1 The people who voted for Lieberman in the primary may be more likely to stick to the party, meaning Lieberman has to reach the independents, and the warchest with which he has to accomplish that isn't what he'd like it to be.
#2 The indies may not show up in quite the numbers Lieberman needs them to.

Meanwhile, short of the GOP pulling out and throwing their support behind Lieberman in an Arnoldesque "I'm sorry, I can do better" campaign aimed at convincing voters that he's the key to getting moderate Republicans to stand up to the whip and get us out of Iraq, the average Republican on the street who isn't following politics too closely may be smelling blood in the water thanks to a spoiler candidate (which I don't find plausible) and therefore Lieberman may be hard pressed to get anything out of the liberal republicans there.

As long as Lamont keeps his feet on the ground and out of his mouth and walks around looking like a winner, he'll win. Lieberman, god bless him, always looks like he just found a fly in his soup; he doesn't come across as a winner at a glance. The less he looks like a winner, the fewer people will want to stand by him. There is a slight justification to this as well. Putting Lamont in with 65 or 70% of the vote on his first term would look REALLY REALLY good. It would give them some real whipping power to get things done. Even if the people of CT aren't quite that overwhelmingly anti-war, that's not the only issue. Putting the more liberal man in by an overwhelming margin is just as much of a warning on other issues where the moderates might break ranks, mounting a fillibuster (if they don't gain the majority) for instance.

Originally posted by stanstheman
calling (Loserman) just takes away from the validity (I'm throwin' you a bone here) of your arguement. So stop it and get back to this interesting topic. Kay?

The Democrat voters of Connecticut - which are, afterall, the people who make up the party he supposedly represents - elected someone else to represent them in the Senate. LOSERMAN has totally earned his name, by being a really sore loser and possible spoiler for the party he claims to want to represent.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by War_Monger


Lieberman also lacks the hate mongering bigoted racist personality so commom on the left...and their supporters like kiddo.

First of all, I'd love to know how old you are?

Second of all, moderators are you paying attention? I would like proof definitive on how I am a "hate mongering bigoted racist." Quotes would be nice. But then again, you're just slandering me. I have come to expect that from today's Republicans. If you can't produce a worhty argument soon, you owe me a retraction of that ludacrist statement.

Virtually everything you've said that I've read in this forum over the past several days is hate mongering. Just a few posts ago you called Zell Miller a racist fool.
Ohh, don't forget calling neocons stupid. I could go on but thats a futile effort because you are what you are. The reason you cannot see it is because your hate and intolerance have you so blinded that can't see beyond the end of your own nose. And by the way, while it really is none of you bussiness, I am 31.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by EastCoastKid




Lieberman may be hard pressed to get anything out of the liberal republicans there.



As a CT resident who has been witness to one too many Ned Lamont political ads (God, make him stop!), I can pretty much assure you that as long as it doesn't look like the senate will lose the Republican majority, the people will re-elect Joe Lieberman. He's done well for CT and he just saved our Navy Base, and frankly with Dodd on board, one kook is enough!

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by stanstheman
calling (Loserman) just takes away from the validity (I'm throwin' you a bone here) of your arguement. So stop it and get back to this interesting topic. Kay?

possible spoiler for the party he claims to want to represent.

I can live with that!

Originally posted by War_Monger


Virtually everything you've said that I've read in this forum over the past several days is hate mongering. Just a few posts ago you called Zell Miller a racist fool.
Ohh, don't forget calling neocons stupid. I could go on but thats a futile effort because you are what you are. The reason you cannot see it is because your hate and intolerance have you so blinded that can't see beyond the end of your own nose. And by the way, while it really is none of you bussiness, I am 31.

You prove nothing. Back it up with quotes, then we'll talk.

Btw, KIDDO, I'm 37.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
HEY! Now I sound like Sharpton.

The first step is admitting you have a problem (j/k)

The difference is stark. You, unlike Gingrich, put quotes around the word insurgents, b/c on some level, you knew what that form of language connotated.

I prefer elections not to be stolen, so that actual representative Democracy can flourish. Since the silent coup of 2000, the will of the people has been silenced and far too many people around the world have been made to suffer and die b/c of it. Its unacceptable.

I too distrust our system. I do not claim to know how 2000 really was voted, but I can agree on the general principle that democracy must be protected from any corruption or even appearance thereof.

I am quite interested that while I hear so much along those lines, I hear precious little about any movement to correct the problem. Perhaps it is out there and I just haven't seen it, so I'll ask: where is the Democratic plan for protecting our ballots? Who sponsored the bill and who killed it? Where is Ned Lamont's plan for the same? Hey, if somebody can show it to me and I find it believable, I just may scrape under my couch and see if I can't finance a couple of postage stamps for his campaign (fairly generous given my current situation).

Originally posted by War_Monger: God Bless America, Israel, and the United Kingdom

Shades of "Head of State", wouldn't you agree? God Bless America and noplace else? Who am I to begrudge God's blessing on an Iraqi peasant? It's dang near the only thing they can hope to attain at the moment so I say wish lots of it on them.

Vagabond

As citizens of our nation, we should always be suspicious of government lest they abuse us.

I too believe that God should bless all the nations of the world. I was not trying to begrudge the Lords blessing upon anyone. Therefore, I will capitulate to your above statement.



God Bless the nations of the world

Originally posted by War_Monger

Originally posted by Nygdan
The other question is, what if the republicans win CT? I think that the senate primaries in CT are open only to the party represented. Independents are the largest voting block. Its possible that people who register as democrats in CT tend to represent people further to the left that most 'democrats', with the average democrat registering as Independent.

If thats true, and considering that lierbman has won a bunch of elections in CT, its possible that the state, in the general election, isn't interseted in an anti-war senator. They might split between lieberman and schlesinger, but its also possible that they will stick to choosing between the two parties, and elect Schlesinger into office.

That might signal to the DNC that it needs to quash anti-war democrats across the country.

Nygdan Republicans will not win CT. CT is to heavily Democratic. Since the Democratic party is nothing but a bunch of libs the only possible way for Republicans to win CT is for a Liberal Republican to run. But that would be a win for the Dems anyway in much the same way as Spector is a win for Dems in PA.


We have a Republican Governor who is well liked, her opponent John DeStefano while the well known mayor of New Haven, is not as likable and just (in the last 4 years) caused hundreds of city workers to lose their jobs-they will not forget. Futhermore, if you have ever been to New Haven, it is a pit, no one wants CT to look like New Haven. I screwed up the quoting but you get my gist.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by War_Monger


Virtually everything you've said that I've read in this forum over the past several days is hate mongering. Just a few posts ago you called Zell Miller a racist fool.
Ohh, don't forget calling neocons stupid. I could go on but thats a futile effort because you are what you are. The reason you cannot see it is because your hate and intolerance have you so blinded that can't see beyond the end of your own nose. And by the way, while it really is none of you bussiness, I am 31.

You prove nothing. Back it up with quotes, then we'll talk.

Btw, KIDDO, I'm 37.

Well, if I have to list quotes to what you already know you've said I only have one thing to say to you. How is the weather up your a/s/s?

ECK & War Monger,
Shall I get a ruler so you can measure your privates? This thread is no longer fun. I'm 44, listen to mother, you're both grounded, until you come up with some snappy reparte'. Now I have to find another thread.