With One Week To Go...Some optimism from folks who have a lot of specific information that we don't.
Courtesy of Jim Geraghty's "Jedi Council".
I am seeing so many different polls that are contradicting each other in so many crucial races I've stopped looking at them. I think back to 2004 and 2002. My gut says the GOP holds onto both chambers. We'll see.
Be mindful of the present, my master, because it is the measure of the future. These are dark times and turning away your force from them can cause us many unpleasant encountering with the future. Remember what master Yoda used to say: Â“Always changing the future is.Â”
Posted by: Flowers England at November 01, 2006 06:04 AM (vcUSw)
It wasnÂ’t that long ago when Ned Lamont was the most beloved figure amongst the Nutroots. But lately, the Nutroots have turned on their erstwhile hero like the pack of rabid Chihuahuas that they are. One can hardly read a left wing blog without seeing opprobrium hurled in NedrenalineÂ’s direction for the awful campaign that he has run.
In truth, Lamont was straitjacketed by his primary campaign. ItÂ’s not exactly like tacking to the sensible center was an option once he had a bunch of overly-enthused moonbats whopping it up in his living room.
But the real point of the Lamont campaign is that even in left of center Connecticut, thereÂ’s not much enthusiasm for the Democratic candidates beyond the fevered base which admittedly has enthusiasm to spare. But in America, you only get to vote once regardless of how passionate you are about a candidate or the issues. ItÂ’s that little technicality, and not any meta-campaign failures, that have doomed the Lamont campaign and suggest a bad moon rising for the left.
It doesn't matter how loud you scream, how hard you stamp your feet or how many vulgarities you post - on election day you're only one vote. Allow me to quote Willy Wonka: "Everyone gets one, and one is enough for everyone."
Â“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you donÂ’t, you get stuck in Iraq.Â”
- John F. Kerry
Wow. Just wow. It's worth recalling that Kerry at one time aspired to command these same men and women from the White House, and claims to still want to lead them. How would these people react to taking orders from a Commander-in-Chief who believes them to be uneducated, lazy losers?
We'll see if Kerry's peers in the Democratic Party support Kerry's description of our fighting men and women. If Democrats that have had John Kerry campaign on their behalf refuse to address Kerry's remarks or openly supports their characterization, it will expose the hypocrisy and the contempt that the Left has for the military. All of the talk of "supporting the troops" will be revealed as lip service.
After all, Kerry is only saying out loud what so many Democrats are thinking.
The Llamas swing back at John Effin' Kerry.
Senator John McCain - a real war hero - issues a statement calling for Kerry to apologize to the men and women serving in Iraq.
They all agree in their hearts, but will not say so publicly. Neither will they publicly rebuke Kerry, but stay silent. That's how they deal with the embarrassments in their party.
Posted by: Pam at October 31, 2006 11:00 AM (E1H09)
Hanoi JOhn won't apologize because it's all Bush's fault. BDS added to the loser image (actually loser is a fact) has put Hanoi over the edge. He is now officially insane and an embar'ass'ment to the country.
Posted by: Scrapiron at October 31, 2006 01:48 PM (YadGF)
So this is where the swift boat types hang out when they can't show their faces in public anymore... lol
The military is broken as evidenced by the fact that they have had to lower the standards of enlistment eligibility in order to barely meet recruitment quotas.
Why not do something constructive and worry about the real problem of getting rid of the people that made the disastrous decisions that have broken the military? Getting rid of the people that cheerlead in Washington (and on the net) but don't provide all of the armor the soldiers need and won't enlist themselves.
Get rid of the Neocons and the GOP that supports their incompetence. The Chickenhawks in the GOP discust me...
And you ungrateful schmucks still wonder why you keep losing.
Posted by: Gary at October 31, 2006 09:00 PM (Z0vta)
And much like bush... Bush supporters are too stupid to realize when Kerry calls bush stupid. Not the servicemen.
And mark this down there you republican fraud: I am an unaffilliated. I don't support any party so "I never lose!"
But you will on november 7th...
I am also a Veteran. I don't take kindly to cheerleaders like the chickenhawks in the GOP that feign "patriotism" by slapping a bumper sticker on their car, all the while denying the soldiers the "beans and bullets and armor and adequate manpower" they really need.
Stick a fork in yourself... You are done.
6The military is broken as evidenced by the fact that they have had to lower the standards of enlistment eligibility in order to barely meet recruitment quotas.
What do you mean by "broken"? The Dept of Defense employs 1.4 million active duty. 1.28 million Ready and Stand-by Reserves as of September 2000
Total armed forces: 2,685,713
Active Troops: 1,426,713
Total troops: 2,685,713
Army - 500,203 *I think this is from the number of soldiers who were put on active duty from the Reserves and ARNG) *
USMC - 180,000
Navy - 375, 521
Air Force - 358, 612
Coast Guard - 40,151
Army components: 494, 291 Active Duty, 342,918 in the ARNG and 204,134 in the USAR
There are more soldiers on U.S. soil than there are in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Only a small minority of Marines are actually in Iraq.
Re-enlistments have been at a record high; and since 9/11, the desertion rate has plummeted. Around .24%.
Getting rid of the people that cheerlead in Washington (and on the net) but don't provide all of the armor the soldiers needAsk himsome of the past spin and won't enlist themselves.
I just may. And why didn't you go be a human shield, as skye might say.
The Chickenhawks in the GOP discust me...
Chickendoves in the Jackass Party disgust me...
One does not need to serve on the frontlines to support the war. But let's say we're all cowards who believe in this war, but are too afraid to fight "the bad guys". So what? It's all the more reason to be supportive of our troops and appreciative to the depths of our souls, for all the sacrifices that they and their families are making on behalf of the rest of us. Whereas people like John Frakkin' Kerry look upon them with his Ivy League pomposity and contempt, as poor, uneducated victims.
There are many ways to serve your country; and many of the milblogs I've frequented who have addressed the chickenhawk argument, say just that. I believe it was CJ at One Soldier's Perspective who might have said the chickenhawk argument is a bogus argument that is only designed to shut down debate. Even within the military, not everyone can serve on the frontlines of combat; the majority of soldiers never even get to fire an M-16 at any of the enemy during their entire service. Going by the chickenhawk line of reasoning, where only those who serve have the authority to comment and talk about war, does that mean the combat soldier's opinion somehow outweighs the opinion of the soldier who serves as a mechanic? Maybe we should have our generals take point and lead the charge? Starting with George Bush? How does that make any kind of logical sense?
Do you believe that crime must be fought? That criminals must be stopped from victimizing our society? It's dangerous work. Because I support crime-fighting, does that mean I have to join the police force, since they are placing themselves in danger, and I am not?
I think being a firefighter is a necessary and honorable profession. I am very grateful to firefighters. Again, I am on the sidelines, when the 911 call comes through and the firetruck sounds its siren; I'm the one pulling off to the side of the road. Should I feel guilty, because those brave souls are fighting a fire in MY neighborhood, and I am not? If I am not satisfied with some policymaking involving the police dept or the fire dept, am I not allowed to have an opinion because I never served in either of the two? Then perhaps we should not criticize our Congressional leaders since most of us have never held a Senate or House seat, let alone been in the President's cabinet. After all, we don't have their perspective and their unique experience; therefore, we should just shut up. That's what you're saying.
Now, there is some merit in that; but taken in the manner in which the anti-war Left wants it to be taken in, can you see why it is not an argument that deserves serious attention?
Posted by: wordsmith at November 01, 2006 02:06 AM (nrGCx)
7I am also a Veteran.
And a jackass. Telling Gary to "stick a fork in it"? A real class act you are. So you're a veteran of what, exactly? Spewing bullshit? Or are you a Kerry "anti-war movement" veteran or a Murtha "cut-and-run" veteran? If you are a vet, thanks for your service, all the same; but it doesn't give you immunity from being daft in the head. You can't hide behind that aegis and demand respect, when you haven't given any.
I don't take kindly to cheerleaders like the chickenhawks in the GOP that feign "patriotism" by slapping a bumper sticker on their car,
Like the "chickenhawks" in the GOP?
Republicans with military service: 15.6%
Democrats with military service: 9.6%
Independants with military service: 0.2%
Posted by: wordsmith at November 01, 2006 02:21 AM (nrGCx)
Connecticut Man1, your comments do more to convince readers not to vote for Democrats than anything I could ever write.
Statements you can't back-up? Check.
Moonbat speak (chickenhawks, neocons, et. al.)? Check.
All indicative of your standard, garden-variety sociopath.
Thanks for your help.
Posted by: Gary at November 01, 2006 11:17 AM (QoxB+)
I am so sorry you were slighted by one of us. As you know, Kerry is retarded and most real Democrats would lift the ban on assault weapons if you could get off a good enough shot. Today's real Democrats are so much more like Reagan Democrats than Reagan ever was, sir, that I believe a quick inventory of your beliefs and your adopted party is in order. As for his poorly timed quote, I am a firm believer that he is even worse with words than President George "Food on your family" Bush. As I said on my site, Kerry forgot to say "Us," which wouldn't be the first time a politician forgot about "Us." God Bless You and I pray the healing can begin.
Posted by: Lunatic1 at November 09, 2006 12:39 AM (RjZEG)
The same summer that brings a man to the moon and free love to a small farm in Woodstock, N.Y., shakes up the safe, happy life of vacationing housewife Pearl Kantrowitz (Diane Lane). When a mysterious traveling salesman (Viggo Mortensen) offers her his heart, she's swept up in the passion of newfound love. But as her husband discovers her infidelity, she must choose between the life she's always known and a future with no limits.
Gary's take: Diane Lane as a Jewish mother in the '60's? What a terrific performance, one of my personal favorites. Diane plays Pearl, a woman married too young because she got pregnant and longs for a taste of the freedom that might have been. Excellent supporting cast, particularly Liev Schreiber as her husband Marty and Anna Paquin as her teen-age daughter Alison, who's coming of age is set in contrast to Pearl's own past and the cultural upheaval of 1968.
I l-o-v-e Liev Schreiber in this movie. I'm shocked to say I'd choose him over Viggo in this film, cos Viggo is always so dang hot. If I remember correctly, those sideburns kind of kill that feeling in this movie...
Posted by: Georgia Girl at October 31, 2006 09:09 AM (ZMwFa)
She resembles a lot in this picture with DouglasÂ’ wife. Did you know that she had her debut at the age of thirteen near Laurence Olivier? I am not sure of the title, but, if I am not wrong, it was Â“A Little RomanceÂ”. ThatÂ’s true; the best role was on Â“A Walk on the MoonÂ” with Viggo, I mean Aragorn
Posted by: Bouquets at November 03, 2006 11:47 AM (vcUSw)
Actually, it was that movie that made me first fall for her - I was at the tender age of twelve.
Olivier dubbed her the "next Grace Kelly".
Posted by: Gary at November 03, 2006 01:56 PM (PLHs9)
Different Rules For Whiny Dems
As explained by David Frum:
Democrats may say what they please and do as they please - Republican speech must be carefully scrutinized for any hint of inappropriateness - and all Republicans be immediately called on to disavow anything anywhere done with less than perfect gentlemanliness & elegance.
Democrats may strike in any way they like - and may go sobbing to the media if they get back any portion of what they dish out.
And it works, because after all: in this game, the ref wears their jersey.
This is just soooo true.
Anyone who saw the 60 Minutes interview with Nancy Pelosi can confirm it.
Nancy was asked about all the mean, hateful, nasty, petty, bitchy things she has said about President Bush. She responded something like "I have to do what I have to do."
But you can imagine the lamestream media response if Bush or Cheney told us what they really thought of her.
It's too bad we don't have a news media that takes seriously it's obligation to inform voters so they might make better electoral choices. If the playing field in the media were even, the GOP would win 75% of the seats in the legislature.
Yet, liberals will shout themselves blue in the face claiming there is no liberal bias in the DNC/MSM.
Another example is the coverage of the economy.
If there was a democrat in the White House, the papers (NYTimes, LATimes, Boston Globe)would be running front page stories on how good the economy is almost daily.
Posted by: Mark at October 29, 2006 10:56 AM (uUD7+)
This is so remarkably true... even among the blogs it is evident. Democrat-aligned ones are full of hate, vitriolic comments, and general-purpose anger and name-calling, and no one says a thing about it - or if they do, they are supporting it. Should a Republican-aligned blog make some kind of snide remark or backhanded comment, however jesting, they are immediately called on it, with the person complaining expecting a full-blown apology and retraction.
No bias my skinny white arse...
Posted by: Linoge at October 30, 2006 10:02 AM (HoGA+)
CT-2 - Simmons Ad
I haven't really commented much on the CT Congressional races because I've been so focused on Joe Lieberman. But this ad for Simmons really hits home:
"How does a mother put that into words?"
And will Democrat Joe Courtney do all he can to keep our soldiers safe? Or will he vote to cut funding for our troops? I have no doubt that voters who can answer these questions honestly will pull the lever for Simmons on Nov. 7th. Plain and simple.
Earlier this year I would have thought CT-2 to be the most vulnerable of the three Senate races. Now I'd have to say its more likely CT-4. CT-5 is safe at this point.
NJ Supreme Court Ruling Brings New Issue To The Forefront
Yesterday's ruling on same-sex marriage in NJ will have some impact on Nov. 7th. The difficulty is figuring out the size of that impact.
Lefties will rightly assume that this decision hurts Democrats but for the wrong reason. They believe that any effect will be the result of Christian Right bigotry against gays.
Wrong. This is the major fallacy on which they assess opposition to same-sex marriage. Certainly anti-gay bigotry exists to a certain extent but most Christian Conservatives don't "hate gays" as many on the Left would assert (as if they even know any). Liberals find it so easy to hate their political opponents that they have trouble grasping the concept that you can be opposed to something without being motivated by the same kind of hatred.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is a majority opinion in this country because a majority of the population is against redefining the institution of marriage. If same-sex couples were to simply seek legal rights comparable to those that afforded to traditional marriage - something along the lines of domestic partnerships or civil unions - they would run into very little opposition. But in the minds of most Americans, a redefinition of a cultural institution like marriage is neither desired nor warranted. And when this happens via judicial fiat rather than the consent of the governed, then you have a problem.
Gays rightly want to have the ability to determine issues such as hospital access, estate planning, tax partnerships, and so on -- the "incidentals of marriage", as the court puts it. The court ordered the legislature to recognize these relationships as either marriages or civil unions, but both are basically contractual relationships, and the government recognizes and enforces these routinely...
...This issue really is simple. If two adults want to live together, nothing stops them from doing so, no matter the gender composition of the relationship. The government cannot stop adults from doing so, and has no real interest in doing so. What gays want is an active government sanction for the relationship, and that is a legitimate public policy interest for the people of New Jersey -- and the people should make that decision. As long as gay couples can contract as described above, no one faces any kind of discrimination for their relationships.
What the NJ Supreme Court has done is remind voters - two weeks out from a mid-term election - about the importance of having a Judiciary that interprets laws rather than making them up at their own whim. The President has a six-year record of appointing the former and, in order to ensure that this continues for the next two years, the Senate must remain Republican-controlled. And even that doesn't guaranty anything.
Gee, wouldn't this all be easier if we could vote on this kind of thing?
Political implications? Big reminder to the social conservative base and other folks worried about the judiciary that they don't cotton to courts making these decisions for them.
Again, how exactly will this affect turnout among both Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents? Impossible to tell.
But voters now have some new post-election consequences to chew on in the voting booth. And for States like Tennessee and Virginia that have same-sex marriage bans on the ballot this year it could provide the kind of motivated turnout that heavily favors the GOP and keeps their Senate seats - and Senate control - in Republican hands.
Boom. NJ Court pulls a Massachusetts. Rules in favor of "rights" for same-sex couples but gives NJ legislature six months to decide whether call it same-sex marriage or just civil unions. Media frenzy to follow...
Stolberg undermines her own thesis, although readers have to press several paragraphs into the piece to figure that out. First, Bush has raised a lot of money in the areas where he has campaigned; the Sarasota visit raised $375,000 for a Congressional campaign, a rather impressive showing; the average cost of an entire Congressional campaign hovers around $2 million as of 2004. Bush raised 20% of that in one showing. He has also campaigned for George Allen, who now leads James Webb, as well as incumbents likely to win re-election such as Richard Pombo in California -- hardly a place where a Republican albatross would show up.
Once again, Bush seems to have confounded political analysts. In 2002, pundits expressed surprise that Bush would risk his standing as President by campaigning in a midterm election the Republicans were sure to lose. He went full throttle on campaign mode for that election, and voters rewarded him with clear control of the Senate and a wider margin in the House. In 2004, analysts were certain that Bush would lose in the middle of an unpopular war and were proven wrong once again, although in their defense no one expected the Democrats to pick such a poor challenger as John Kerry.
The President's approval ratings may be saging among those who are inclined to dislike him anyway, but despite the intra-party bitching lately his presence in this campaign is a plus in driving up enthusiasm throughout the base.
Them Funky Polls
Another poll, another flawed methodology.
The MSM is trying their hardest to dampen GOP spirits. And another day brings another poll - one that says to Republicans: "You're Doomed!"
But hold on a minute, we ought to take a closer look behind the numbers. And BullDogPundit - once again - points out some peculiarities that go to the heart of its credibility.
In the poll, 22% of respondents arenÂ’t even eligible to vote. And of those 78% that are registered, a full 25% either claimed they would Â“probably voteÂ”, or that chances were, at best 50/50 that they would do so. And strangely, 78% were registered, 22% werenÂ’t and 3% Â“had no opinionÂ”. Um, thatÂ’s 103%, which strangely does match the historical voting participation rate in many of many urban areas, graveyards, pet stores, homeless shelters (in Democrat wards) and AlzheimerÂ’s wings of nursing homes.
WhatÂ’s also interesting is that the poll doesnÂ’t ask these people if they actually voted in 2004 (or 2002), and if so, who they voted for.
Further, just looking at the demographics should give you pause. The poll is made up of 35% Â“IndependentsÂ” and Â“OthersÂ”, which Republicans only make up 28% of all respondents (Democrats make up 30%). In 2004, only 26% of voters were Â“IndependentsÂ”, and that was in a Presidential race. So come on, do these idiots really think that on election day 40% of voters are going to be unaffiliated with either party? Give me a break.
Add to that all these polls of local races that show conflicting results and - call me silly - I'd have to say that I'm having a hard time believing the hype.
And neither side should. This is going to come down to turn out - pure and simple. And for the last two election cycles, the GOP has the edge there. It's GOTV is effective. The Democrats GOTV comes down to bribing homeless people with booze and smokes.
DNC Chair Howard Dean has been squandering money on his 50-state pipedream and now his Committee is resorting to borrowing money, while Republicans have plenty of cash on hand.
Two weeks to go and a Democrat takeover over of Congress is far from assured.
It boils down to nothing more than a combination of two age-old strategies. First, if you convince an enemy he is beaten, whether he really is or not, his motivation for succeeding will diminish considerably, if not evaporate entirely. Second, if you repeat something enough times, for a long enough time, no matter how outlandish, erroneous, or fallacious the "something" is, people will start believing it.
Kind of sad that people are resorting to these kinds of ploys, but considering how much the Democrats are enamoured of the second, the first was just a matter of time...
Posted by: Linoge at October 25, 2006 08:18 AM (dPy7Q)
And As Long As We're Talking About The French...
I couldn't resist. A version of the Melissa Theuriau montage WITHOUT the loud new-age music in the background. So you can clearly hear her lovely voice.
While the motivation of the French government's decision to aid the nascent United States in it's struggle with Great Britain is suspect and often dubious, we ought to take this opportunity to remember the individual French soldiers and sailors who lost their lives in this conflict from 1778-1783. This list of names is here.
I love it!! This was my result:
You are clever, and often come up with intelligent and funny comebacks to other people's stupid remarks.
I'm not sure how true that is but I definitely enjoyed yours.
What ya know....
I loove being EVIL
Posted by: Skye at October 23, 2006 10:21 PM (5eXsu)
I would say that you canÂ’t be both sly and close minded at the same time. Being sly requires some brains and not so close ones. Some people feel good trying to say harsh words, but they are the ones who donÂ’t think to what they say. They only take advantage of peoplesÂ’ superficiality and ignorance.
Posted by: Flower shop delivery at October 25, 2006 05:49 AM (vcUSw)
Lonely, 9-year-old Willie Morris (Frankie Muniz) lives in the flea-bitten town of Yazoo, Miss. He stinks at sports and has no playmates. So, over the strenuous objections of his hardnosed father (Kevin Bacon), Willie's mother (Diane Lane) buys him a dog that he promptly dubs "Skip." Before you know it, Skip transforms Willie's life: He makes friends, plays sports and develops an unbreakable bond with the spunky terrier. Based on a true story.
Gary's take: A story in the mold of "Old Yeller" without the whole shooting of the dog routine. But, yes, it's a tiny bit of a tear jerker - but with a happy ending. Diane is a stand-out as the loving mom. Imagine having a mom who looked like the picture above? Can you say therapy? Anyone who's ever had an attachment to a family pet will easily connect to this story. A fun and touching movie about friendship.
Posted by: Shawn at October 22, 2006 01:36 PM (621cV)
I don't know, man, in that one she looks a weeee bit too much like Lisa Marie Presley....
Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at October 22, 2006 10:18 PM (6c8Dx)
Your blog is just great The contents are worth reading again. And you have good collection of photos in your site.
My name is Mark Johnson, and I've been visiting your blog Ex-Donkey for last six months.
IÂ’m a recent UC Berkeley Political science grad and I along with some fellow Princeton alums have been working hard to launch our own internet startup called Rizzleweb.com.
Rizzleweb is basically an online political community where people can log on and write performance reviews\comments for congressmen, senators, the president, and various other local and state officials across the country. I was hoping that if it would not be too much trouble you could place a link of our site on your blog. If this is not possible (which we completely understand), we still hope you will check out our site, and post some reviews.
Your contribution will encourage us to put more effort in improving our website.
Posted by: Mark Johnson at November 01, 2006 01:21 AM (Lkx/P)
Posted by: Gary at October 20, 2006 09:07 PM (Z0vta)
This episode blew the bar off the chart! I really can't wait till next week!!
The spoiler sources were close, Gary...as spoiler sources go.
They were right about the Pegasus, Ellen, and close on Casey. Although, I strongly suspected that Casey was not Kara's. The scene in the hangar bay of Galactica tore my heart out.
Loved Baltar and Three's conversation about hate and civilization teaching their children.
Posted by: skye at October 20, 2006 09:27 PM (tvnBd)
Way O/T but I met and had the chance to chat with Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt this past Tuesday at a Townhall.com meeting in Philly.
Have pics to prove my O/T comment.
Posted by: Skye at October 20, 2006 09:31 PM (tvnBd)
THAT was FRAKKING AWESOME!!!
"We're falling like a rock!" then "poof!"
And the Pegasus - Gods rest her soul - taking out not one, but two (maybe more!) base stars - very poignant ending for a great battlestar.
Fantastic episode, especially with the special effects on those ships. Thank you to the writers!!! Thank you to the whole frakking show!!!
Posted by: Starbuck at October 20, 2006 10:16 PM (EvFfn)
The latest Quinnipiac poll (and perhaps the last before the election) shows Joe Lieberman surging to a 17-point lead! Not only did Lieberman add 3% from the last poll, Ned Lamont LOST 4%!
Things are looking grim for the "Freshmaker". Remember the remix of this ad?
It's even funnier to watch now. Heh.
All the Lefty bloggers were trying to convince themselves that Republican Alan Schlesinger wiped the floor with Lieberman in Monday's debate. Apparently, it mattered very little to Lieberman's supporters. In fact, he hurt Lamont more:
While 35 percent of Connecticut voters watched Monday's candidate debate, another 35 percent said they heard or read about the debate. Of those who watched the debate or read or heard about it, only 3 percent say they changed their mind about whom they would vote for as a result of the debate.
Ned Lamont needed to score a knockout in the debates to catch Sen. Joseph Lieberman, but he apparently didn't lay a glove on him," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.
"Lamont's negatives are up and he has fallen farther behind in the matchup against Lieberman because of his drop among independent voters and men.
"Observers had speculated that Alan Schlesinger would benefit from the debate exposure and take Republican votes away from Lieberman," Dr. Schwartz added. "Instead, he took Republican votes away from Lamont."
So, what are you guys going to try next? Reverse psychology? "Don't vote for Ned. He's too good for CT"?
The poll was taken before the debate....Schwartz is a buddy of Whiney-joe....The Q poll has always slanted heavily to Mr Liarman.
Wait until next week....better yet, Dont drive yourself crazy. Wait until Nov 7.
I dont know if CT can take another 6 years of this whiney crybaby.
Posted by: Don Rumsfailed at October 20, 2006 01:03 PM (kqvJl)
For what it's worth, I don't think the margin is really 17 points either. I think it's more like the 13 point spread of the SurveyUSA poll, or the 10 points of the Rasmussen poll. It could very well be only 8 points like the UCONN poll.
But no matter how you slice it, Lamont is in a deep hole and he's making up zero ground.
It won't be me who's driving himself crazy until Nov. 7th.
But then some of you wingnuts have already reached your destination. Enjoy your stay.
Posted by: Gary at October 20, 2006 02:23 PM (PLHs9)
As I said this morning, double the margin of error and add 5 and Joe is still winning! Ned is a loser, plain and simple.
Posted by: JimK at October 20, 2006 06:21 PM (n7l2w)
The only poll that really matters is the voting results...
So, in this election cycle the dems will not only lose the election, they also will lose a seat in the senate.
Posted by: Skye at October 20, 2006 06:56 PM (tvnBd)
Skye has it right. Lamont is in a deep hole and continues to dig deeper on a political basis, and a hole in his checking account. He's running 100% on ego and has no knowledge what it requires to be a U.S. Senator. I guess KOS and the crazies got him the nomination.
Posted by: Scrapiron at October 21, 2006 01:52 AM (fEnUg)
Hate Joe's politics on 99% of the issues. But he's on target with the important one - defending the USA. This conservative will hold his nose and vote for Joe.
Posted by: bird dog at October 21, 2006 05:55 AM (vFS/o)
Posted by: Gary at October 21, 2006 09:05 AM (Z0vta)
No Skye, the dems wont lose a seat, they just wont gain one...Lie-berman hasnt been a Dem for a long time.
Lets vote Joe and Bush and defend America from the true threats, Habeus Corpus and the Bill of Rights.
Posted by: Penny at October 21, 2006 09:37 AM (HJ9PE)
The Freshmaker video is still very funny. Ther are more satirical videos of Lamont at notned.com
Posted by: notned at November 06, 2006 02:31 PM (UuMbS)