So I voted for Specter last night but am content with how things played out.

I think Democrats owed it to him as one of the few guys who would actually stand up to Bush and not vote party lines. Also, as a Pennsylvanian, you kinda had to love the pork that guy could bring home.

But the dude's 80, Sestak's not Toomey, and I know a guy who helped Sestak a lot in previous campaigns and thinks he's a solid dude, so go Joe.

jerseyhoya wrote:I know two things about Linda McMahon. Her husband does pro wrestling stuff and she wrote a $10,000 check to the DCCC a few years ago. Neither of those things make me too excited to see her in the US Senate.

There's probably no need for a rule of thumb here, but former pro wrestlers and their ilk seem apt to make much better governors than senators.

I should know more about Simmons than I do. He seems best suited to serve in an era that's mostly passed in CT - the era of building big honking complicated naval vessels through ginormous government contracts out at the east end of the state. Now, not so much. Blumenthal has never been too good on the stump, but is proving to be an atrocious campaigner at this level.

You like football themed ads?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMloECSLbTM[/youtube]

That's really his high school football coach, by the way, and he's appeared in several ads.

Sestek did well yesterday and all but Toomey is still the guy in the general, right?

traderdave wrote:Sestek did well yesterday and all but Toomey is still the guy in the general, right?

Rasmussen showed Toomey holding a slight lead over Sestak in the polling conducted last week. Toomey would have destroyed Specter had he won, but I don't think it's going to be a cakewalk over Sestak.

Philly the Kid wrote:I heard a great talk this morning on radio by this guy - very interesting analysis

Call me suspicious, but I question anyone's message of what's wrong with our system of capitalism when the message is delivered by a DVD for $19.95.

So Blumenthal did serve during the Vietnam era, and never said he was in Vietnam. What's the problem here?

i guess he said things like "they would spit on us when we came home"

WheelsFellOff wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:I heard a great talk this morning on radio by this guy - very interesting analysis

Call me suspicious, but I question anyone's message of what's wrong with our system of capitalism when the message is delivered by a DVD for $19.95.

You can find his message for free -- Google is your friend. The talk I heard was free of course, it was broadcast on Radio.

pacino wrote:So Blumenthal did serve during the Vietnam era, and never said he was in Vietnam. What's the problem here?

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

ok


anyway, i still wouldn't vote for linda freaking mcmahon

The GOP needs to hope Simmons wins the primary. He can beat Blumenthal now. We dont need our own Al Franken like person.

Like someone said earlier, no one that wrote a 10,000 check to the democrats in the last couple years should be given serious consideration by a GOP primary voter.

Al Franken

he's been a pretty darn good senator

pacino wrote:

Al Franken

he's been a pretty darn good senator

yeah

traderdave wrote:

pacino wrote:So Blumenthal did serve during the Vietnam era, and never said he was in Vietnam. What's the problem here?

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

538 kinds backs me up
it looks like he's exaggerating, not completely lying. i'd say there is a difference. he's boasting like a drunkard, basically. i wouldn't write him off

Rococo4 wrote:The GOP needs to hope Simmons wins the primary. He can beat Blumenthal now. We dont need our own Al Franken like person.

Rock, you're a nutmegger? I was sure you were out in bum fuck indiana somewhere.

Simmons would probably do a pretty good job. He'll almost certainly outcampaign Blumenthal. Blumenthal wouldn't be bad either; he probably wouldn't do much, but that would be ok. But Blumenthal is not really Al Franken, and that's not to knock Franken (though I'm not sure exactly what Franken has done thus far, for good or ill, other than poke a procedural finger in slack-ass Lieberman's eye, which provoked a belly laugh from this onlooker).

Like someone said earlier, no one that wrote a 10,000 check to the democrats in the last couple years should be given serious consideration by a GOP primary voter.

"purity of essence", that's the ticket

pacino wrote:

traderdave wrote:

pacino wrote:So Blumenthal did serve during the Vietnam era, and never said he was in Vietnam. What's the problem here?

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

538 kinds backs me up
it looks like he's exaggerating, not completely lying. i'd say there is a difference. he's boasting like a drunkard, basically. i wouldn't write him off

in general, his misrepresentations seem to come when he's speaking to veterans' groups, and his more qualified statements when speaking to broader audiences.

From the 538 thing you linked to...so basically in front of veterans groups he has pretended to serve in Vietnam, in front of regular folks he feels comfortable telling the truth. I don't know that that's any better.

He should have just apologized for it. This is going to continue coming out in drips and drabs.

Also - The Blumenthal Rules: Why Should Anyone Give Richard Blumenthal a Break?

pacino wrote:

traderdave wrote:

pacino wrote:So Blumenthal did serve during the Vietnam era, and never said he was in Vietnam. What's the problem here?

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

538 kinds backs me up
it looks like he's exaggerating, not completely lying. i'd say there is a difference. he's boasting like a drunkard, basically. i wouldn't write him off

Blumenthal has lied about the nature of his service, and it's a habit over a decade in the making. Lots of pols have done similar kinds of things. I noted upthread that he's also accumulated lots of markers during his career, and CT is a small state - 3 million people. You ordinarily don't need all that many chits to win. But he'll have to call almost all of them in, - maybe then some - if he's gonna win.