Dubya Bush: Not Going To Endorse Fellow Republican in Connecticut
by Bill Simon
How interesting that President Bush/Karl Rove (i.e., the 2-headed snake) will not be endorsing the only Republican in the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut this year.
Why? Because, apparently, once Bush locks lips with someone (e.g., Democrat/Now-Independent Joe Lieberman), he doesn’t want to take a stand against that person, even if it means abandoning a member of his party.
What a swell guy/snake.
Sphere: Related Content
August 17th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
A Bush apologist is hard to find and Lieberman fits the bill.
Not only are they not supporting Schlessinger’s campaign, they are actively topedoing it.
Have you called Isakson or Chambliss to see if they are supporting Lieberman? You could ask them if they stand with or against the President?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Oh, and Lieberman isn’t an independent. There is an actual independent party with a candidate (forgot the guy’s name). It’s a Bush/Rove/Lieberman menage a trois called CT for Lieberman or Lieberman for CT. Either way, it has three of the largest egos on the east coast.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
The Republican running looks like a guy that they actually found in a gambling casino. What a joke, and what a political stunt!
August 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Quietly supporting Lieberman is probably the safest bet. Schlesinger is still in mid-single digits in the polls and probably doesn’t stand a chance. Better Lieberman than Lamont - by a long shot.
August 18th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Bob,
It is all about AIPAC! The Republicans know that Lieberman is a big reccipient of funds from this NGO, and they are supporting Lieberman for there desire to tap into more contributions for other candidates and because to go against a Lieberman they would be supporting an anti-war candidate. The Republicans are not quietly supporting Lieberman!
August 18th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Bob,
Other than the war. Do you support Lieberman votes for Highway,No Child Left Behind, Energy….. You know the 9 trillion dollar debt with interest our kids got IOU for.
Did you study Borrow and Spend economics with all your education?
August 18th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
John Konop,
It’s not “borrow and spend” it’s “borrow and squander.”
And what exactly is the AIPAC stuff? Aren’t they just another special interest buying off congrees? If it were up to me, I would just get rid of all these lobbyists. Weren’t some AIPAC members convicted of some national security violations? Maybe someone here knows better than I.
August 18th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
caroline,
Bob, will tell us how lobbyist make us money via all the education he paid for.
Also Bob, will tell us how “borrow and squander” policy is good for the economy.
I am glad a guy with Bob’s brain will tell us all how this is working out for our kids with 9 trillion dollar IOU he supports.
August 18th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Gosh, John. Are you stalking me so that you can prop up straw men everywhere? I’m sorry you are an economic ignoramous who can’t stand to have your Dobbsian pop economics ideas challenged, but I’m sure caroline isn’t interested in getting stuck in the middle of your distortions.
caroline, AIPAC is Jewish, ergo bad - at least in Linda’s warped mind. Re getting rid of all the lobbyists, I’m reminded of a few items in the bill of rights that such a plan might infringe upon - our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, and our right to petition the government. I’m as disgusted as anyone with the amount of influence they have over many members of Congress, but I would have a much bigger problem with an effort to “correct” this problem by gutting the Constitution.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Bob,
You did not answer the question.
Other than the war. Do you support Lieberman votes for Highway,No Child Left Behind, Energy….. You know the 9 trillion dollar debt with interest our kids got IOU for.
Did you study Borrow and Spend economics with all your education?
August 18th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Bob,
Your comment,
“middle of your distortions”
Are you saying that we are not 9 trillion in the red ?
Are you saying your guys you suppport did not vote for all the pork bills ?
Are you saying we are not borrowing and spending?
Are you saying we are not 1 trillion in the red with Communist China?
Please help the little people understand a highly educated view from you.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
caroline,
Bob, is wrong as usual,AIPAC is an lobbying group for Isreal in America.
Not all Jewish people support nor belong to AIPAC.
http://www.aipac.org/
August 18th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Bob,
All I’m talking about is paid professional lobbyists paid for by the multinationals who use that money to grease the palms of congress. Someone like Jack Abramoff. I’m not talking about the ability of the average american to lobby their congressman.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
John Konop,
Are you going to endorse Price? Or are you going to pass on making an endorsement?
August 18th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
caroline,
Bob,
He will not answer the direct question , he does this when he gets caught with his own………
Highly educated guys like Bob do not like when they get caught by the less educated.
We call this being snooty in my side of the tracks.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
caroline,
Tom Price did not ask for my endorsement or support. I would have a hard time unless he change his position on Trade,immigration and spending.
Trade we cannot endorse the use of child & slave labor.
Immigration to go after illegals only and not employeers looks racist to me and is wrong.
Spending we most stop Ear marks and bring back Pay as You Go.
I would be willing to talk to Mr. Price about the issues, but I do not think he will change his position.
I do not think he cares anyways. Because to many guys like Bob will let the country fall down before doing anything.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I agree that it is senseless to have any immigration policy that doesn’t punish businesses for hiring illegals. My husband owns a small business and they don’t hire illegals. It’s not that hard to not hire illegals. If the illegals weren’t getting jobs, they wouldn’t come here as much as they do now. Did you know that there was a whole committe put together back in 1996 to deal with this issue? It had a number of restrictions in it for immigration. They determined that illegal immigration does hurt Americans. Ralph Reed bought off enough Republicans to kill that one.
Good luck with paygo. Most conservatives, or at least the ones that I have talked to HATE paygo.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
caroline,
Your Point,
“Most conservatives, or at least the ones that I have talked to HATE paygo”
You are right, but that is my point about Bob. He says he is conservative but they want borrow and spend with no controls.
That is why guys like Bob have become worse than the liberal spending Dems they take shots at.
August 18th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
“All I’m talking about is paid professional lobbyists …”
The problem, caroline, is that you can’t selectively take away people’s rights just because you don’t agree with them or think they are greedy and self-serving. Shut down corporate lobbyists and next round someone will shut down conservative social issue lobbyists or whatever other group whoever is in power wants to silence. Besides, every time Congress tries to pass a law ostensibly to get big money out of politics - e.g. McCain-Feingold - all that happens is the same money finds new legal means of buying influence again. You simply can not place legal restraints on who can spend what to try to get laws passed they like. The best you can do is ensure that whatever they spend that benefits any pol or his party is fully and promptly disclosed and completely transparent. Take the last Presidential election, for example. Due to McCain-Feingold, rather than candidates and parties spending only from pools with contribution limits (they did that, too, of course), tens of millions - maybe hundreds of millions - was spent by so-called 527 organizations for the direct benefit of the candidates, but with ZERO restrictions on where they got their money and virtually none on how they spent it. George Soros alone gave tens of millions to Moveon.org, ACT and related left-wing groups to promote Kerry and smear Bush. So you plug one whole, even more flows through someplace else. The answer is NOT to impose even more restrictions on people’s rights.
JMO,
Bob
August 18th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Sorry Bob, but I don’t care about all those issue lobbyists. It’s really easy-you listen to your constituents and vote the way they want you to vote. If you are concerned about the money in politics, you should at the states that have clean elections laws like AZ and see how it works.
BTW, W’s campaign donors dumped millions of dollars into 527’s. I guess you don’t have a problem with that?
August 18th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Caroline,
As I told you,Bob has a hard time with dealing with facts. As I said he talks a big game about being conservative yet supports all the borrow and spend guys.
Bob will not answer how the Energy Bill, Highway Bill, No Child Left Behind… has anything to do with being a fiscal conservative. The reason why is Bob knows he is talking out of both sides of his…….
As I said Bob is what is wrong with both parties. Guys like him spin the facts to pretend they are for something. At the end, Bob does his politics like he is going to football game and wants the home team to win.
August 18th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Sorry, caroline, that you don’t care about free speech and all those other quaint little rights. As for Bush-supporting 527s, sure, there were those, too. Never said I thought they were right, either, now did I?
August 18th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
“Bob will not answer how …”
And John will not answer how anti-trust laws apply to anything having to do with media OR oil. Typical pol, that John. Can’t answer a direct question. Sad, really. I don’t think he CAN answer.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Bob,
I will educate you again for free. But you are going to have to read on your own the links I give you. And I will test you latter. After this I am going to have make some money helping to fill in that high dollar education you paid for.The school of the real world can be yours for a few dollars.
Oil First
I got you information from the right and the left.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206066,00.html
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2038
Media
Once again both sides.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_Reform/GetSerious_MediaReform.html
http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/030730-tk.html
Now Bob try to answer my question with facts and not your usual avoid the topic and facts.
August 19th, 2006 at 7:11 am
So greasing palms is protected free speech? Money equals freedom of speech? I guess we “little people” just have to lie down and take it since you seem to think that “special interest groups” need protection.
I’m waiting to see if clean elections are going to work in the states where it has been enacted. In those states, no one is screaming about stripping people’s right to free speech.
August 19th, 2006 at 7:21 am
John Konop,
Just accept the fact that all those programs are conservative. Borrow and squander is a conservative value. The Iraq War has never been put in a budget. It’s always a supplemental spending bill. Out of control spending is a conservative value.
August 19th, 2006 at 7:28 am
caroline,
I just thought with that high dollar education that Bob paid for he could explain to the less educated why borrow and spend(squander) is a conservative value.
August 19th, 2006 at 7:36 am
John Konop,
Well, I guess he can’t do it since he hasn’t answered you.
Anybody who thinks that piece of crap called NCLB is anything but garbage certainly doesn’t have a child in school
August 19th, 2006 at 8:09 am
caroline,
You are right , my wife is a school teacher.
August 19th, 2006 at 9:38 am
John, I know you CAN read, but DO you? For example, the Cato piece you offered up as some kind of proof of monopoly in the media very clearly refutes your assertion. Heck, the title alone - “What Media Monopolies?” - should have tipped you off, but even if you thought that was meant to be ironic, the conclusion is crystal clear:
“OK, so what’s the problem here again? Media barons monopolizing the airwaves? Hardly. While the old media universe featured television, radio and newspaper, today’s boasts competition between all those old outlets plus cable, satellite and the Internet. Consumers have more and better choices today for news and entertainment today than ever before. Artificially limiting the size of the soapbox that a company can build is uncompetitive, unconstitutional, and not the kind of reality program anyone had in mind.”
So, let’s see what else you’ve got. Oh, two writers for The Nation bemoaning Dan Rather’s unquestioning fealty to George Bush (a quite humnerous argument, doncha think, John?) and promoting draconian regulation of the media, including such things as limiting radio station ownership to two stations per owner, banning commercials during news broadcasts, banning ads “directed at” kids and other such nonsense. And they want new tax credits, assorted subsidies, and the creation of thousands of new taxpayer funded “noncommercial” radio and TV stations across the nation.
Wow, John. That’s quite a free markets agenda you’ve found there. Too bad none of it demonstrates monopoly in the media.
So let’s check into your oil monopoly “proof” - what great knowledge do you have to offer? Oh, Bill O’Reilly bemoaning Exxon’s profits and calling them a “war profiteer.” Never mind that even at their recent record levels, Exxon profits pale in comparison to many other highly competitive industries on standard measures such as operating profit margins or returns on assets and equity (You do know what those terms mean, don’t you John?). Well, that’s certainly proof of something, John. Proof that Bill O’Reilly is an economic ignoramous who is incapable of intelligent conversation. But I see now who you are trying to emulate.
Oh, I almost forgot your other bit of “proof” - some “public interest” organization arguing for price controls. Well, John, economic wise man that you think yourself to be - how does a statement like “the five largest oil producers and refiners control nearly half of U.S. oil production and more than half of all refining capacity” prove monopoly power? I’ll even give you a hint - it demonstrates nothing of the sort.
Here’s another question for you, oh wise one - what happens when you put price controls on something like gasoline? … Well? … OK, I’ll tell you. Shortages, gas lines, rationing, layoffs, recession, those sorts of things, John. Nixon tried price controls, John. Do you remember that? I do. 1971-1973. A disaster we didn’t fully recover from until Reagan’s third year in office.
So, John, you come bearing proof of monopoly, you think? Hardly. You come with three very anti-free markets pieces of garbage and one Cato column that argues directly the opposite of what you said it proves. Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.
August 19th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Caroline, re “So greasing palms is protected free speech?”, no, that would be bribery. Abramoff is going to jail, Caroline. So is Randy “Duke” Cunningham and anyone else caught getting their palms greased. We’re not talking about bribery, caroline, but about lobbying. We’re talking about Georgia farmers or NC textile workers or Oregon loggers or Florida retirees or anyone else - even big multinational corporations like Walmart, IBM or Exxon - with an interest in legislation that might help or harm them spending their own money to hire lawyers to talk to members of congress about their concerns. That is not the same as “greasing palms”, caroline - that is lobbying. If they grease palms, they should go to jail with Abramoff and Cunningham. Otherwise, they are exercising their legitimate constitutional rights. You may not care about such quaint and abstract notions, but I do.
As for the snide little comments from you and John about NCLB, what the heck does No Child Left Behind have to do with anything? I said I’d rather have Lieberman than Lamont in the Senate. That’s really the choice, unless you have some magic way of making Schlesinger a viable candidate. It matters not one tiny bit whether I agree or disagree with him on every single issue. NCLB or anything else. We rarely get candidates for anything that thoughtful, informed people agree with 100% of the time. Only ignorant people like John think that supporting a candidate means 100% agreement with them. Are you like John in that way? I hope not.
August 19th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Dear Bill,
Getting back to your originally intended topic for this thread, do you really think it would be wise for the White House to try to defeat Lieberman, actively backing a non-viable candidate, when doing so will only help Lamont reach the Senate?
BTW, I assume in asking this that you would not want Lamont in the Senate. I hope that is correct.
Anyway, I don’t think it is necessary that they publicly endorse Schlesinger just because he is a Republican. Sometimes party loyalty has to take a back seat to national interest. What is unfortunate is that the CT GOP couldn’t find a way to make their guy a viable candidate so that Lieberman wouldn’t split the GOP vote. But CT is known for NOT being a highly partisan state - they’ve elected independent (former GOP) governors and other high officials in recent years, and they won’t hesitate to vote for an independent now. Supporting Lieberman (though not directly or overtly) is the safest way of ensuring that senate seat is held by a responsible adult, which is what Lieberman is whether one agrees with him 100% of the time or not.
August 19th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Bob,
Lieberman voted for No Child Left Behind, Energy Bill, Highway Bill…. The pork that put us 9 trillion in the red. What part of the pork borrow and spend program do you support.Bob, be a man and answer the question.
By the way Lamont said he was against your borrow and spend pork bills.
As far as monoplies you think John McCain and Bill O’Reilly repersent the isolationist view. Bob you should ask for your money back on that highly paid education.
August 19th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Bob,
I was helping you in the post with the links to try to make an intelligent arguement.
As your teacher I trying to get you past just reading talking points.
August 19th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Bob,
Why can’t these people get off thier butts and write letters to their congressmen? Why do they have to hire professional lobbyists? That is my issue. If your constituents are textile workers, you should be able to vote their interests. It seems to me that you don’t need K street to tell you how to vote.
What do you think of Lieberman saying he will support Harry Reid? He says that he will caucus with Dems. He’s also advertising how “against” Bush he is. Lieberman is trying to have everything his way. He wants the support of Republicans because he needs them to win but he knows how unpopular Bush is in CT and is trying to extricate himself from him.
The NCLB comment was made directly to John Konop. It had nothing to do with you.
I’m not a 100%er.
August 19th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
caroline,
I am with you. And Lieberman,voted for all the pork ! I really do not get it.
August 19th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Caroline, re: “Why can’t these people get off thier butts and write letters to their congressmen? Why do they have to hire professional lobbyists? That is my issue.”
I agree, they should write their congressmen, but why should anyone have the ability to tell them they CAN’T hire someone to argue on their behalf or donate to a group that is pushing an issue they feel strongly about? If someone feels strongly about abortion, for example, can’t they write their congressman AND donate to GRTL? Or if Linda wants to donate to JewWatch or some similar group in addition to sending scary anti-semitic letters to her congressman, what gives anyone, least of all the government, a right to say she’s not allowed? While I agree there is too much money flowing into and out of K Street, my point, again, is that any “cure” will likely only make the problem worse while also infringing on people and views you care about.
Re: “What do you think of Lieberman saying he will support Harry Reid? He says that he will caucus with Dems.”
He already caucuses with the Dems and supports Harry Reid, but if he loses, we end up with Lamont caucusing with the Dems, supporting Harry Reid and, God forbid, if the Dems end up in control of the House, sitting in judgement of President Bush in impeachment procedings. The point is, Schlesinger can’t win (IMO) and while Lieberman is, as John McCain describes him, a “liberal Democrat”, he is not beholden to moveon.org or any other extremist group. If the Republican had a chance, things would be different, but he doesn’t and Lieberman is infinitely better than Lamont. It’s that simple.
August 19th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Bob,
You just put John McCain down as an anti-free market guy.
Remeber your comment,
“So, John, you come bearing proof of monopoly, you think? Hardly. You come with three very anti-free markets pieces of garbage”
A smart guy like you would knows that John McCain is the one who is outspoken about the media becoming a monpoply.You should stop just reading the talking points
All you do Bob is spin the facts to support whatever person you think your team is for.You are a like a band “groupie” for Neocons.
As far as for your support for Lieberman. You still avoid the borrow and spend question. Lamount ran on being for Pay as You Go and against all the pork bills. So how is Lieberman more conservative?
Unless you think the Pork Bills like Energy,Highway,No Child Left Behind , are conservative policy!
And you think keeping Ear marks is conservative policy like your guy Lieberman and most of congress supports?
Which is it Bob?
My guess you will avoid the real question as usual !
August 19th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
“You just put John McCain down as an anti-free market guy.”
Yet more proof that you lack basic reading comprehension skills.
And John, you can add maturity to intelligence and a willingness to listen to the list of characteristics one should hope to find in a candidate for public office. Sadly, you lack all of them.
August 19th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Bob,
Okay, I get it. K street as it stands is okay with you. People who don’t have money to send to lobbyists don’t deserve to have their issues voted on. And frankly, the people that I know who have sent money to lobbyists feel that their voices are poorly represented. With emails, local organizing, phones and faxes, I still fail to see how lobbyists are so important to our system other than to give people who have lobbyists an advantage over the ordinary citizen.
John Konop,
Obviously, the support for Lieberman has nothing to do with the issues. It’s wanting to keep a bush apologist in office and protect a President with a mid thirites approval rating.
August 19th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
“Okay, I get it. K street as it stands is okay with you. People who don’t have money to send to lobbyists don’t deserve to have their issues voted on.”
Wow. I guess Bill should just rename this place “the reading challenged and cognitive dissonance clubhouse.” I’ve never seen such willfull miscomprehension and stuborn denial of reality. You, John and Linda belong together. Have fun wallowing in your ignorance.
August 19th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
yes, yes, let’s do name calling. Hurl invective. It’s so becoming.
The best argument you can give is some vague “slippery slope” argument.
BTW, Lieberman helped kill a bill that banned gifts from lobbyists in the 1990’s. Did he further freedom of speech when he was doing that? According to your logic, he expanded freedom of speech by doing so.
There’s a reason why 2/3 or more of the citizens think that the country is headed in the right direction.
August 19th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
oops, that should be headed in the wrong direction.
August 19th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Bob,
In answer to your question, 1) No, I don’t want Lamont in there…I want a Republican in there.
2) For Bush to support Lieberman merely because Lieberman voted for the war is setting a precedent, is he not? If he supports Lieberman over ANY Republican in this race, shouldn’t he go to any other state and support any other Democrat who voted for the war, but has a Republican challenger?
August 19th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Caroline,
Thank you for correcting what “2/3 of the country” thought.
August 19th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Bill Simon,
That really is a good point. Hillary Clinton has no viable Republican opponent and she voted for the war. I guess with that logic, Bush should go campaign for Hillary?
August 19th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
“For Bush to support Lieberman merely because Lieberman voted for the war is setting a precedent, is he not? If he supports Lieberman over ANY Republican in this race, shouldn’t he go to any other state and support any other Democrat who voted for the war, but has a Republican challenger?”
1. Bush is not, AFAIK, “supporting” Leiberman in any active sense, but merely declining to actively support his opponent with a public endorsement.
2. In “any other state”, the situation isn’t the same.
3. To another’s illogical point about campaigning for Hillary, Bush is not campaigning for Leiberman and Hillary doesn’t face potential defeat by a moveon.org sponsored extremist who would be worse than her, so the point is ridiculous. Not that that’s anything new here.
Bill, you used to run such a sane, GOP-leaning (but moderate) place. Now it’s peopled with racists, anti-semites, right-wing talk show quoting economic illiterates, Bush-haters, government-haters, free markets-haters and like degenerates. A big waste of time. Very sad. See ya.
August 19th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Bye, Bob. Sorry to see you go.
August 20th, 2006 at 7:42 am
Bob,
The truth is you cannot defend Bush and Lieberman being on the same side of pork spending.
So Bob you are smarter than just to use name calling.
The truth is the liberal spending of Bush and congress has gotten out of control end of story.
The point about Clinton is true. If you back the war and spend like a mad man and promote the borrow and spend policy you are on the Bush’s team.
Now if you think running up 9 trillion dollar debt is what you stand for , defend it. But do not, be a baby and just whine to Bill and quit.
Face it the Republican and Democrat are more consevative on spending than Lieberman and Bush bottom line.
August 20th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Hillary has an opponent in the Democratic primary. His name is Jonathan Tasini. He is against the war. Why isn’t Bush supporting Hillary? He isn’t supporting Hillary because she isn’t a Bush apologist. Lieberman is a Bush apologist. It’s that simple.
August 20th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
If Schlesinger can come out as the only pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidate, as opposed to his two “baby-murdering, gay-loving” opponents, he might climb to 20%-25%, and throw the race to Lamont.