With friends like these …
Alan Schlesinger won the Republican Primary Election in Connecticut. Schlesinger has been a loyal Republican for many years. According to his website, " For 20 years, Alan Schlesinger has been serving the citizens of Connecticut at the local and state level ." He is a loyal Republican. Therefore, why has the Bush Administration and the NRCC refused to endorse him?Could it be that he is behind Lieberman in the polls? "Schlesinger would pull just 4 percent of the vote in a three-way race with Lieberman, who is now running as an independent, and Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont, according to a poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University in Hamden. His support slipped from 9 percent in July's poll." Associated Press
Even with such dismal poll numbers, what is the historical precedent for a sitting President refusing to endorse his party’s candidate for high office? Interestingly "In 1991, President George H.W. Bush refused to endorse Louisiana Gubernatorial candidate David Duke." – White House Statement
BTW – Duke is a professed and proud Klansman.
Are we to assume that Alan Schlesinger ranks with the Klan, and the GOP is making a statement of American Values by refusing to endorse him?
No, sadly it appears the Administration and Party that demands loyalty of its members does not return the favor when the chips are down.
With friends like this, does Alan Schlesinger stand a chance? Well, so much for twenty years of faithful service.
QuestionItNow
posted by REB 84 at
8/20/2006 01:15:00 AM
11 Comments:
From the post at "Will America Lead":
REB,
You said:
"As a co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, Ben Cohen is an extremely sucessful capitalist. The Voice of Sanity portion of this post is dedicated to the very effective way he demonstrates how America's official priorities and central government spending are inconsistent with a viable, healthy democracy.
Take some time to view his B-B's and Oreo cookies demonstrations. I trust even you will get the point."
I think one of the reasons Ben Cohen is a successful capitalist is because he has a talent for business (I'm not doubting that whatsoever), but he also is doing what good capitalists do; trying to reduce costs he has to put out for health care. I don't believe he has that big an altruistic reason for saying what he does, especially since I've worked for corporations run by guys like Cohen for over 20 years. He wants the federal government to do it so that he won't have to, and in order to keep taxes at their current level, he figures the government needs to reduce its defense budget. He's wrong, and wrong in a way that is easiest for him. If he really wanted to reduce the costs of health care, then he should be working on tort reform and how he, Ben Cohen, can work with the health care industry to reduce medical costs for his own workers. Then, he can pass this information to other industry leaders and business people. Cohen wanting the government to do it is the lazy man's way; all it will do is politicize an already too political environment in the health care industry.
Government is in the business of defending its people, and it does that by having a strong defense and enforcing its laws, which would include sensible regulation. The private sector can take care of the rest within the law.
By
Steve, at 12:52 PM, August 22, 2006
This post is too funny. You're worried about the "hypocrisy" of the Republican party (and, yes, there are many hypocrites in the Republican party) after Lieberman gets dumped by the hypocrites in the Democratic party. Howard Dean's brother ran Ned Lamont's campaign, while Howlin' Howie tried to appear impartial. And here's the kicker; in a show of what the Dean and Lamont Democrats think of the people, they're trying to keep Lieberman off of the ballot (after he legally re-entered the race as an independent), using the courts, now that Lieberman is leading Lamont by double digits. And the Democrats are the friends of the people? I'm not buying it.
BTW, did Lamont sell his Wal-Mart stock yet?
By
Steve, at 4:06 PM, August 22, 2006
You said:
'Even with such dismal poll numbers, what is the historical precedent for a sitting President refusing to endorse his party’s candidate for high office? Interestingly "In 1991, President George H.W. Bush refused to endorse Louisiana Gubernatorial candidate David Duke."
BTW – Duke is a professed and proud Klansman.
Are we to assume that Alan Schlesinger ranks with the Klan, and the GOP is making a statement of American Values by refusing to endorse him?'
That's pretty funny coming from people who support the oldest ex-Klansman still infecting the Senate, liberal Democrat Robert Byrd (who, I understand, still shows racial insensitivity to those not of his color, on occasion).
How next are you going to try to sell this? You could say he's not Christian enough, or that it's because he's Jewish that keeps Republicans from endorsing him. Oops, wait a minute, can't do that. Lieberman's Jewish. Hmmm...Muslim? Nah.
You know what? Who cares. If Lieberman had won the primary, the election would be no contest, regardless of how much money is given to Schlesinger. Since Lieberman's running as an independent (with name recognition), and Connecticut is majority of registered independents (Democrats come in at a distant second, followed by the Republicans), he'll probably be a lock for the seat again anyway. The hypocrisy comes into play in that the Soros-backed Dean Democrats went hard after Lieberman, but are soft on Clinton, and her voting record is roughly the same as Lieberman's, including her war vote. Yet, there is no challenge to Clinton from a Lamont-type challenger.
I don't think you all should even think about even mentioning the Klan, especially since Byrd is still is in the Senate. And worry about your own candidates and the hypocrisy of the liberal Democrats.
By
Steve, at 12:20 AM, August 23, 2006
Steve,
I will respond to the Ben & Jerry's comment now and get back to the rest later.
First, Ben & Jerry's was sold back in 2000 Ben & Jerry’s Sells Out so the argument that Ben Cohen is just trying to reduce his health care costs by asking that the government allocate more resources to helping American citizens does not hold water.
There is no silver bullet to solving the health care crisis in America. Check out the following article for a less biased view of the tort reform debate Tort Reform – The Jury is Still Out.
Yes, government should defend its citizens. Still, do you really believe we need 60,000 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb to protect America?
By
REB 84, at 2:09 PM, August 23, 2006
"First, Ben & Jerry's was sold back in 2000 Ben & Jerry’s Sells Out so the argument that Ben Cohen is just trying to reduce his health care costs by asking that the government allocate more resources to helping American citizens does not hold water."
Whatever. He's still a businessman, and would still want the companies he has financial interests in (stock) to lower healthcare costs. Doesn't matter if the people keep electing representatives for not creating a universal healthcare debacle.
And yes, there is no healthcare silver bullet. But putting the politics of the federal government in charge (because that is what would happen) of so-called "universal" healthcare would be like a bullet to the head of the American taxpayer.
"Yes, government should defend its citizens. Still, do you really believe we need 60,000 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb to protect America?"
They're paid for already. And, yes. Overwhelming military power is the surest way to defend the country. Israel learned that without using it, Hizbollah (and its puppetmasters in Damascus and Tehran) will be back again, and probably very soon, and probably more lethally.
By
Steve, at 2:58 PM, August 23, 2006
For those of you confused by this multi-pronged discussion, please visit End Times Propaganda and a Voice of Sanity. The Ben & Jerry's references relate to something called "American Pie" that supplies plenty of examples of national budget priorities - of which health care is only one. It argues rather persuasively that American central government spending is out of step with our true national prioirities . Therefore, I'll let these links speak for themselves.
BTW - I revisited the "American Pie" site and found I misspoke earlier. "Our nuclear stockpile today includes nearly 10,000 warheads. Their destructive force would stack up against 150,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs.
Meanwhile, according to the experts, as much as $13 billion could be cut from U.S. nuclear spending each year without compromising our national security or our standing as the world's strongest nuclear power.
We think those funds would be better invested in programs that benefit America's children."
This is no socialist perspective as Steve earlier attempted to argue. And unless we decide to Nuke our way out of every conflict - with thousands of bombs left over - this $13 billion is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money.
By
REB 84, at 12:08 AM, August 24, 2006
Now I will return to the topic of this post. Steve, once again you have used one of the more familiar propagandist techniques. You have ignored the salient points and changed the subject in order to attack the premise.
The premise here is not that there are no hypocrites or racists in the Democratic party. The point here is that this current administration has demanded loyalty above all else. However, it has been demonstrated that this administration and the RNCC do not return the favor. The case of Schlesinger is a perfect example.
By
REB 84, at 12:14 AM, August 24, 2006
"This is no socialist perspective as Steve earlier attempted to argue."
Yes, it is. Just because you are in denial of this doesn't mean what I say isn't true. In fact, it justifies my point.
"And unless we decide to Nuke our way out of every conflict - with thousands of bombs left over - this $13 billion is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money."
You completely ignore my argument regarding Israel. Hizbollah has absolutely no inkling of negotiating or diplomacy. To think otherwise is to continue to be in a state of denial. They must be treated like the Nazi vermin that they are and destroyed. Who does it is immaterial to me.
I reject Bush's attempt to make nice with Iran. As with Hizbollah, a more direct approach is absolutely needed. Nukes? No. Using the military? Not at this time. But the only thing that will move the mad mullahs and their pet Ahmadinejad is a gun to their head, either proverbially or factually. One Nazi regime was enough; if we don't deal forcefully with the new Nazis, we will see a real World War III. And if you don't believe the Iranian leadership is made up of neo-Nazis, then your state of denial is complete. Like when some say Saddam Hussein wasn't involved with Al Qaeda; he was, even if he wasn't involved with 9/11.
"Now I will return to the topic of this post. Steve, once again you have used one of the more familiar propagandist techniques. You have ignored the salient points and changed the subject in order to attack the premise.
The premise here is not that there are no hypocrites or racists in the Democratic party. The point here is that this current administration has demanded loyalty above all else. However, it has been demonstrated that this administration and the RNCC do not return the favor. The case of Schlesinger is a perfect example."
All it does is confirm that you know nothing about the administration and the RNCC (they spent heavily on getting the RINO Arlen Specter re-elected in 2004, and are doing the same with super-RINO Lincoln Chaffee). The real reason is that Schlesinger doesn't have a chance and everybody knows it. He knows it, you know it, and Schlesinger knows it. He may not like it, but that's the life of a politician.
And then you threw in that idiotic Klan and David Duke reference. David Duke was never considered a Republican. In fact, I believe he is a big Cindy Sheehan fan and was down in Crawford last year with her.
By the way, didn't the Democrats demand the loyalty of Joe Lieberman and want him to stay out of the race, after they dumped him? And aren't they being mercilessly critical of him not doing it? In fact, as I noted, Lamont supporters had photo-shopped an image of Lieberman in black-face, showing their racial (in)sensitivity. And that was before the primary. Typical modern "liberal". The "liberal" Democrat becomes a racist in order to gain political points, and then tries to tell people Republicans would do the same thing, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support it. NONE!!! And there is plenty of evidence proving the "liberal" Democrat will be a racist, as I've stated. Another "liberal" Democrat did the same thing with a Michael Steele picture. Nothing like the disrespectful, dishonest, and disgusting campaigning techniques of the modern "liberal" Democrat to show how evil Republicans are.
By
Steve, at 3:04 AM, August 24, 2006
Dude, you obviously did not read my previous post where I directly quoted the definition of socialism, so I won't bother repeating it here. Once again you are repeating the attempt to redefine words to fit your idealogy.
When was the last time you were in the middle east? What makes you the expert here? You and I are both at the mercy of the news media and filters presented to us. To act like we know the answers to an extremely complex historical situation is unbecoming. Yes, Hezballah is a terrorist organization. Yet, to believe dropping bombs on civilians will reduce the threat is dangerous.
BTW - Iran is a far greater threat to Israel than to us. I heard today that Israel has ordered two new submarines from Germany. These subs are capable of carrying nuclear missiles. This looks very much like the old MAD model of the US Soviet standoff during the cold war.
WTF does Saddam have to do with anything we are talking about and what kind of Bush dope are your smoking. BTW - The US Government was involved with Bin Laden when they helped fund his crews fight against the Soviet Union. They were much more involved with helping fund Al Qaeda in the early days than Saddam ever was.
The David Duke reference came from a White House Press briefing in response to a reporter's question about a precedent for a sitting US President refusing to endorse his party's candidate for high office. Your buddy Snow originally stated that there were many instances. However, the Duke example was the only one they cited. The idiocy you pointed to came from the White House.
What evidence do you have to support your "black face" photo assertion? This smells like pure rad-con propaganda. Sort of like calling Lamont "the Al Qaeda candidate."
If you want more on Lieberman, check out a far more in depth portrait of his record from Jersey McJones More Than One Issue
By
REB 84, at 11:42 PM, August 24, 2006
"Dude, you obviously did not read my previous post where I directly quoted the definition of socialism, so I won't bother repeating it here. Once again you are repeating the attempt to redefine words to fit your idealogy."
Here's your definition from the other post:
so·cial·ism n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
I would say that nationalized health care very much fits the first description of the definition. I would say that guys like Cohen, whether for altruistic or personal reasons, are trying to get the country to go the socialist route. We've got that going here in the People's Republic of Illinois where Chairman, excuse me, Governor Blagojevich implemented his "All Kids" health insurance plan without telling anybody how it will be paid for down the road. And he still hasn't balanced the budget in this state as he promised four years ago. Nanny-state policies lead to two things: bad government, and more poor people, and potentially real poverty. Look at New Orleans and Louisiana and their nanny-state policies and how it failed them before, during, and after Katrina, much more than Bush and FEMA failed them.
"When was the last time you were in the middle east? What makes you the expert here? You and I are both at the mercy of the news media and filters presented to us. To act like we know the answers to an extremely complex historical situation is unbecoming."
I was never in the Middle East. I'm no expert on the intricacies of Arab politics. I also don't care about Arab politics. What I see is a liberal democracy, Israel (whose citizens can worship as they please and there is full sufferage for all its people, regardless of race, gender or religion), under assault by nations run by Arab and Persian thugs, and those governments' support of terrorist groups to destroy our ally, Israel. I believe Bush has the opportunity, and is missing it big time, to do the one thing that I believe will resolve much of the problems; insist or force Israel's neighbors to recognize Israel's right to exist and sign peace treaties with it, as Egypt and Jordan have done. This would include Palestine, even if Hamas is in charge. Then international law will have some meaning, not the joke that it is now.
"Yes, Hezballah is a terrorist organization. Yet, to believe dropping bombs on civilians will reduce the threat is dangerous."
Do you know how much irony is in that statement? Hizbollah purposely sends missiles and rockets into Israeli cities where there are no troops, targeting civilians on purpose. Israel drops leaflets on Lebanese towns to tell the civilians to leave, but Hizbollah forces the people to stay so that suckers like you can say Israel bombs civilians. Then, groups of morons (the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) say Israel committed war crimes, even though the evidence clearly shows Hizbollah as truly guilty of war crimes. Amazing.
I am truly sorry that civilians get killed during a war. It's not something that is the policy of either the Israeli or U.S. government, but it happens when the enemy has no morals. Al Qaeda didn't target our military, they struck the WTC and Pentagon with hijacked airplanes as missiles. Hizbollah commits an overt act of war by crossing the Israeli-Lebanese border, killing eight Israeli soldiers, and kidnapping two others, then launching their missiles purposely into civilian targets. But these enemies must be destroyed. The governments of Afghanistan and Lebanon could have taken care of the problem, but didn't. So, the U.S. and Israel went to war against these enemies.
I don't have time tonight to discuss the rest of your comment. But you did say:
'What evidence do you have to support your "black face" photo assertion? This smells like pure rad-con propaganda. Sort of like calling Lamont "the Al Qaeda candidate."'
Well, why don't you just click on the link to read it from the horse's mouth, Jane Hamsher at firedoglake.com. Like Dick Durbin did after his "U.S. soldiers are Nazis" comment, Hamsher issues a non-apology, refusing to take responsibility and admit she was wrong.
By
Steve, at 1:56 AM, August 25, 2006
With friends like these… was cross-posted at TeamBio.org. Follow the title link to view additional comments.
By
REB 84, at 10:24 PM, August 30, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home