Monday, October 23, 2006

Post Debate Report 1

The singing that disrupted Joe's speeches was from the Lyndon LaRouche people, who are now standing in the lobby of the theatre, singing and holding a sign equating Bush and Lieberman with Goebbels and Himmler. Bob shot video and will have it up later. If you did not get a chance to watch live, be sure to catch a stream or watch C-SPAN at 11pm. The second half is not to be missed.

Joe called Ned a liar, and Ned stood up to him and defended himself in a very classy way. Last quick question was about gays in the military, "don't ask, don't tell" -- wish Ned and Alan would say that's Joe's policy with the slush fund. Not one word about that, or the new BS from Tammy Sun, "We'll release our petty cash log when Ned releases his tax returns" Oh yeah, right....Joe's delivered on every promise so far in this campaign. Why don't we set up a records escrow? Ned can put his tax returns in, to show good faith, but they are only made public when Joe's full petty cash accounting is also submitted to a special master.

If I hear Joe whine one more time, I think I will puke.

Ned and Al said they would like to barnstorm the state, continuing debates, with questions from the public in each congressional district. Joe declined.

There will be plenty of analysis on this one, that's for sure. Bob is going to have amazing video.


Josh said...

What about this report from firedog lake:

'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."'

Did you see/hear that?

Anonymous said...

lamont shouldnt be distorting his record; thats just wrong.

Sharoney said...

What Josh asked. Do you have footage of it?

Anonymous said...

thats disgusting to equate himmler and goebbels with lieberman and bush.

Lizzy B said...

It wasn't Lamont that equated himmler and goebbels with Lieberman - it was the Laroche people! I hope Lamont and Schlesinger keep on debating and doing town meetings with or without Lieberman. The more they are seen in public, the better for Lamont to win. As Schlesinger pulls the Republican vote away from Lieberman, Lamont gets closer to winning.

Josh said...

to Anonymous, well, it's not a distortion that he voted for the energy bill. I presume it's not a distortion that Lieberman got oil money. It's also pretty safe to assume that oil people were aided by Lieberman's vote for the energy bill.

It's something that makes you go "hmm.." at the very least

MS said...

Ned- A
Joe- C
Alan- C-

This was Alan's big chance to destroy Lieberman and he fumbled it from the get go.

Anonymous said...

youve got to be joking, ms. alan c-?!?! im not supporting him, but i can admit he was the best one there.

ms said...

I will re watch the debate on CSPAN later tonight, but that was my first impression.

Anonymous said...

Ned did a great job and put the focus on the important issues- let's make sure to keep the message as that - not to get caught up in what Lieberman said afterwards or what some stupid LaRouche people heckled. Keep on message - and then we'll win.

Shadow said...

Lamont was the stand out winner tonight, in that he clearly won bigger than Schlesinger for the first time; Schlesinger was a strong second, but no one can accuse him of stealing Lamont's thunder this time around. Lieberman came in at a distant third, far behind both his challengers just like in the first two debates. The audience BOOED Lieberman when he attacked Lamont, and wildly applaused many of Lamont's answers; this is a major change from the first two debates, and a notable development considering that at the beginning of tonight's debate, each candidate had a good amount of support from the audience - so for that to change over the course of half an hour to a majority of the audience boooing one candidate is just staggering. Nobody watching this debate who is the least bit honest with themselves thought Lieberman won tonight; his only hope is that most voters didn't see ANY of these debates.

Frank Krasicki said...

I don't put much stock in winners and losers but Schlesinger's tin foil cap began to pulsate a little tonight. He's embracing a lot of the extreme right issues that give those voters an option other than Joe.

What is striking about Lieberman is that the polling data is wholly inconsistent with the man, the record, and the things he says. It is hard to imagine Lieberman getting even 20% of the votes based on his performances.

Lieberman sounds like a comedian when he says he wants to clean up Washington or that he has ideas or that he passed legislation for children's health care that is in practice. The man's delusional.

OMG, AND he says he's not for staying the course - he wants to escalate it!!!!!!!!!! He's got to be subliminally advocating a draft. Insane.

Anonymous said...

Voting on the basis of this debate alone would be Ned vs. Alan.


Anonymous said...

yeah, you're right about alan's hat.


NewLondonDem said...

About the future debates: Clearly Lamont and Schlesiger were enthusiastic about it, and Lieberman wasn't. But my impression was that Lieberman reluctantly, with the media spotlight on him, agreed.

It will be interesting to see if he later declines.

Anonymous said...

Joe has obviously forgotten his 'front page rule' when it comes to his slush fund. This from his book:

Instead of “Is it legal?” pols should ask “Is it right?”
People in public office are squeezed by many of the same financial and family pressures that so many others are. But unlike most people, politicians have power, and therefore they are faced with opportunities and ethical challenges others are not.

We are role models. We have voluntarily entered into a contract with the voters that is based on trust. If we violate that trust, our government, our democracy, suffers. So the first question a public figure must always ask himself when making a decision about his personal behavior or actions, about whether to take an opportunity, is not just “Is it legal?” but “Is it right?”

I ask my staff to imagine how they would feel if they knew that a particular action would be questioned the following morning in banner headlines on the front pages of the newspapers. The question should not be if it was legal (hopefully we would not knowingly do anything illegal). We called that our “Front Page Rule” and still try to live with it.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 50-2 May 2, 2000

sunrunner said...

Al & Ned should continue to barnstorm the state--as there is an honest choice (honest being to key word) between the two.

Honest people welcome debate.

Honest people don't demonize (or whine about) those who disagree with them.