Lucas Chokes Down on More GOP Talking Points

Fred Lucas of the Danbury News Times "Connecticut politics Blog" chokes down on another GOP talking point:
"Electing Democrats really does mean a free lunch."

Considering the Abrahmoff scandal and the documented evidence of free meals he was giving to Republican power brokers at his "Signatures" restaurant, don't you think your GOP talking point is beyond being a bit hypocritical?

Serious and honest reporters offer pieces that are objective, balanced and factchecked. Not talking points tailored to their own personal political views.

I think the News Times Live is practicing irresponsible Journalism ethics in allowing your continued dissembling of GOP talking points under the banner of "Connecticut Politics." If they wanted to be honest they would call your Blog "The GOP Failed POV". And I am not the only one that is noticing your one sided reporting.

Okay, this is getting too silly.

You couldn't find one person who's in support of this proposal Fred?

This sore-loser proposal is a no-brainer and makes sense. Why have a primary if you can just ignore the results of your party and run as a independent? The primary battle between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman ultimately was a great waste of money and time for the party as a whole as Lieberman used a loophole to his advantage. If Lierberman would have just ran as an independent in the first place, the Democratic Party could have saved a great deal of money but instead, Lieberman used the party to his advantage (money, GOTV), only to dismiss the results of the primary and run as an independent.

ctblogger is correct. Money wasted and time wasted were keys to Lieberman's election win. If Lieberman had dropped his already failing primary bid earlier on it would have allowed the entire Connecticut wing of the Democratic party to concentrate more fully on the election races for the Senate , the House, and for Governor. The entire point of the Lieberman plan was to bog down the Democratic party for his and other Republicans benefit.

"During the campaign, Bysiewicz argued that if Lieberman and Lamont faced off in the general election, then there was no point in having a primary because it was a waste of taxpayers' money to fund two elections with the same candidates."

Just as you Bush flacks claim that voters put Lieberman in... They also voted Bysiewicz in, and she was up front about her agenda. You "joe whiners" can claim ignorance in this, but that does not change the fact that she promised to change the "weasel loophole" and she is delivering on her campaign promise.

I bet we won't see Joe deliver on his campaign promise to "bring the troops home" as soon as possible. Bush is already floating the "add 20,000 troops in Iraq" trial baloon that McCain floated a week ago. You know Joe will bend over on Bush's newest "Stay the course!" rhetoric.

But don't forget that CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid shot down that idea as soon as McCain floated it.

Joe should have been a man and joined the walk of RED SHAME before the primaries. Instead he used a wussy loophole for the benfit of his Republican benefactors.

You wanted to keep this wimp-protector law in place? You should not have voted for Bysiewicz.


ctblogger said...

The rabbit hole gets deeper, check out my latest post on Lucas' "sore loser law" story.

ctblogger said...

In defense of Lucas, I think the purpose of his post was to talk about a bet he made earlier with another reporter. The wager was lunch.

Although I have some questions regarding several of his articles, I don't think this blog entry falls into the category of slanted journalism. I'd encourage everyone to just read his articles and see if there is a pattern. Someone on this site commented about his articles on Nancy Johnson and I noticed that his articles on Lieberman were alittle overboard (the one on Sunday was very strange).

My main gripe with the paper is the lack of local government news. I'm just noticing a patterns in Lucas' reporting on federal races with is giving me concern and his sore loser law article is really over-the-top as well as completely false.

Anonymous said...

I am guessing you are not familiar with the connotations of that "democrat free lunch" remeark? It is sometimes used to describe the free lunches corrupt politicians get from lobbyists. It is often used by republicans as a democrat slur "Free lunch bunch" etc.


ctblogger said...

Oh my!

fuzzyturtle said...

I thought "democratic free lunch" was about subsidized school lunch programs for little kids.

I should get out more .

Connecticut Man1 said...

The problem with finding out a lot of this stuff about the wing-nuts... You have to actually read the places where the garbage in garbage out process happens...