Comments on: Dubya Bush: Not Going To Endorse Fellow Republican in Connecticut

By: Charley Levinson

Charley Levinson — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:57:21 +0000

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.

By: caroline

caroline — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:28:35 +0000

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.

By: John Konop

John Konop — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:42:16 +0000

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.

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 04:41:56 +0000

Bye, Bob. Sorry to see you go.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:20:33 +0000

“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.

By: caroline

caroline — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:48:32 +0000

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?

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:41:14 +0000

Caroline,

Thank you for correcting what “2/3 of the country” thought.