Thursday, July 06, 2006
Waking Ned Lamont, Part 2
Part One of "Waking Ned Lamont" can be found HERE.
Cast of Characters:
Senator Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Incumbent Senator
Ned Lamont, Democratic challenger to Joe Lieberman
Sam Seder, Liberal Talk Radio host and often referred to "Sham Cedar" when I write.
From his own campaign site, Lamont explains other reasons why he is running against Joe Lieberman.
Lamont says the money spent on the Iraq war could be better spent in the U.S. In other words, at the expense of protecting us from terrorism, you would prefer to tax and spend for your special interests and failing social programs?
Lamont says that health care is a "crisis". Is it? Did your Democratic party offer any solutions, such as the Personal Medical Savings Accounts or just criticize any solutions and ideas offered by people outside of your own party? For the past six, ten, twenty and thirty years, the Left has only cared to use health care as a divisive political issue with no intention of fixing it.
Lamont says that public schools are "struggling"? Really? The public educational system, overseen and operated for decades by a complete liberal mindset at federal, state and local levels, is..."struggling"? Why, that just can't be, can it?
The next thing you'll try to tell me is that the Blue State of New Jersey is "closed" because it couldn't reach an operating budget. That is, until today when NJ's Blue and Liberal Governor Jon Corzine announced the only way to solve their problem is with...a...tax hike - (GASP, NO!) - I know, I know - stunning, isn't it?
Back to Lamont, who says he wants creative solutions to old problems. Yes, Ned, as long as those creative solutions come only from members within your own party. If a creative solution is offered by anyone from the opposing political party it has no chance of being implemented and every reason for being shot down, labeled as unworkable or based on a false premise even if it takes a lie, like the Liberals did with Social Security Reform.
The solvency of Social Security is an issue. While the democrats only want to keep it alive as a political issue, George Bush offered a plan to plug one of the many holes in it, that of allowing a SMALL Percentage to be invested. If any recipient wanted to opt out of investing, they had the option to do so. Now, this was not the save-all of Social Security, but it was a start.
And the democrats responded with "there's no problem with Social Security," bringing out their very finest smear merchants to badmouth and fib about how Bush was going to ruin Social Security.
As far as catering to special interest groups, C'mon Mr. Lamont, your company web site says the following about the business you started:
I'm also pretty sure there is an extensive process involved in winning those two targeted consumer groups, two groups representing a vast amount of wealth. I bet there's at least a little bit of lobbying and special interest concerns going on when it comes to colleges and universities and Gated Communities, huh Ned? Lamont would prefer that you believe there is no lobbying involving in winning contracts and bids from the institutions of higher learning or gated communities.
Ned uses the key word of "invest", second from the last paragraph, on this page of his campaign site:
Ned? Wake up!
The Washington Post notes:
What is the Democratic Party telling the supporters of Lieberman? Well, folks, politely they are telling his supporters to go jump in a lake. The Democratic Party Politburo is telling you they cannot and will not support, endorse or back Lieberman because they've found a more liberal candidate in Ned Lamont and they're throwing their to support him. If Lamont wins. If not, DPP says they will support Lieberman. Do these actions strike anyone other than me as a party in complete disarray and meltdown?
Joe Lieberman is the latest to be cannibalized by the Hardcore Far Left of the Democratic Party. It's Zell Miller In Connecticut!
Tomorrow: Waking Ned Lamont, Part 3: Is Lamont A Genuine Alternative To Lieberman Or Does He Just Say The Right Thing With Regard To the Iraq War?
©2006
Cast of Characters:
Senator Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Incumbent Senator
Ned Lamont, Democratic challenger to Joe Lieberman
Sam Seder, Liberal Talk Radio host and often referred to "Sham Cedar" when I write.
From his own campaign site, Lamont explains other reasons why he is running against Joe Lieberman.
Lamont says the money spent on the Iraq war could be better spent in the U.S. In other words, at the expense of protecting us from terrorism, you would prefer to tax and spend for your special interests and failing social programs?
Lamont says that health care is a "crisis". Is it? Did your Democratic party offer any solutions, such as the Personal Medical Savings Accounts or just criticize any solutions and ideas offered by people outside of your own party? For the past six, ten, twenty and thirty years, the Left has only cared to use health care as a divisive political issue with no intention of fixing it.
Lamont says that public schools are "struggling"? Really? The public educational system, overseen and operated for decades by a complete liberal mindset at federal, state and local levels, is..."struggling"? Why, that just can't be, can it?
The next thing you'll try to tell me is that the Blue State of New Jersey is "closed" because it couldn't reach an operating budget. That is, until today when NJ's Blue and Liberal Governor Jon Corzine announced the only way to solve their problem is with...a...tax hike - (GASP, NO!) - I know, I know - stunning, isn't it?
Back to Lamont, who says he wants creative solutions to old problems. Yes, Ned, as long as those creative solutions come only from members within your own party. If a creative solution is offered by anyone from the opposing political party it has no chance of being implemented and every reason for being shot down, labeled as unworkable or based on a false premise even if it takes a lie, like the Liberals did with Social Security Reform.
The solvency of Social Security is an issue. While the democrats only want to keep it alive as a political issue, George Bush offered a plan to plug one of the many holes in it, that of allowing a SMALL Percentage to be invested. If any recipient wanted to opt out of investing, they had the option to do so. Now, this was not the save-all of Social Security, but it was a start.
And the democrats responded with "there's no problem with Social Security," bringing out their very finest smear merchants to badmouth and fib about how Bush was going to ruin Social Security.
As far as catering to special interest groups, C'mon Mr. Lamont, your company web site says the following about the business you started:
Lamont Digital Systems designs, engineers and constructs advanced video, data and telephony networks as well as provides content, applications and maintenance services including digital video programming, high-speed Internet, telephony and security for college campuses and residential gated communities through two divisions: Campus TeleVideo ("CTV") and Gatehouse Networks ("GHN").
I'm also pretty sure there is an extensive process involved in winning those two targeted consumer groups, two groups representing a vast amount of wealth. I bet there's at least a little bit of lobbying and special interest concerns going on when it comes to colleges and universities and Gated Communities, huh Ned? Lamont would prefer that you believe there is no lobbying involving in winning contracts and bids from the institutions of higher learning or gated communities.
Ned uses the key word of "invest", second from the last paragraph, on this page of his campaign site:
The war, and Bush and Lieberman priorities, are cutting funds from programs that invest in our future. Student loans, Social Security, health care that everyone can afford "these are the issues that Ned will fight for, bringing a businessman's" ability to reach consensus without sacrificing the bottom line.
Ned? Wake up!
The Washington Post notes:
Lieberman, who not long ago appeared to be coasting to easy reelection with strong bipartisan support, now faces a potentially career-ending challenge from Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont. The challenger has climbed in recent polls by tapping support from Connecticut liberals and others who recoil at Lieberman's strong support for the Iraq war.
Lamont, who will debate Lieberman Thursday [Tonight, folks - ed.] night in Hartford, said his opponent's move shows a lack of respect for Democratic voters.
What is the Democratic Party telling the supporters of Lieberman? Well, folks, politely they are telling his supporters to go jump in a lake. The Democratic Party Politburo is telling you they cannot and will not support, endorse or back Lieberman because they've found a more liberal candidate in Ned Lamont and they're throwing their to support him. If Lamont wins. If not, DPP says they will support Lieberman. Do these actions strike anyone other than me as a party in complete disarray and meltdown?
Joe Lieberman is the latest to be cannibalized by the Hardcore Far Left of the Democratic Party. It's Zell Miller In Connecticut!
Tomorrow: Waking Ned Lamont, Part 3: Is Lamont A Genuine Alternative To Lieberman Or Does He Just Say The Right Thing With Regard To the Iraq War?
©2006
Alabama Internet
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.
