Yep typical answer from someone like you. Your loser candidate doesn’t get the nomination so you pass the spot on the ballot and help the Democrat who promotes big government. You’re pathetic.

Simmons is the leader, I guess. If he gets the Republican nomination, you’ll vote for him because the Democrat promotes big government and Simmons doesn’t? I see how it is.

When a Democrat proposes Cap and Trade, that’s big government. But, when a Republican like Simmons cosponsors the Climate Stewardship Act, which was very Cap and Trade like, well Simmons is a Republican so it couldn’t have been big government if a Republican supported it.

When a Democrat says something about having a national civilian security force that’s just as powerful and well funded as the military, well what they’re talking about is establishing a police-state. But, when a Republican like Simmons votes to massively expand federal police powers by voting for thought crimes laws (AKA Hate Crimes), the PATRIOT Act, warrantless searches, national ID cards, the Military Commissions Act, and so forth, that’s what you’d call a Republican limited government approach to establishing a police state.

When a Democrat wants to prohibit offshore drilling or drilling in ANWR, well, they they don’t understand economics and they’re putting our national security at risk. But when Simmons votes to keep a moratorium on offshore drilling and prohibit drilling in ANWR, he’s a Republican so he must have had good and wise limited government reasoning for voting that way.

When a Democrat wants to send foreign aid overseas, that’s an unconstitutional use of tax dollars. But when a Republican like Simmons votes to send aid overseas, he must have a perfectly good Constitutional justification for doing so.

When a Democrat votes for welfare spending bills, they’re redistributionists and socialists. But when Simmons votes for funding things like Section 8, that’s OK, because he’s what you’d call a compassionate-conservative Republican and that doesn’t mean redistributionist socialist at all.

When a Democrat proposes a massive expansion of government into health care, that’s bad. But when a Republican like Simmons votes for a massive expansion of government health care, like the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, that’s good, because Simmons is a Republican and he is for limited government.

When a Democrat votes to increase spending and raise taxes, they’re tax and spend liberals who flunked economics 101. But when Simmons votes to cut taxes and raise spending, pushing a larger bill down the road, that’s just how Republicans roll.

So yeah, maybe a year from now maybe the one guy in the race who will actually do something to shrink the size and power of the government won’t get the nomination. But at least I’ll be able to honestly say I didn’t vote for a big government statist like Rob Simmons.

Yes. Much like Schiff, I don’t have a problem not voting when there isn’t anyone worth voting for. Simmons and Foley are no better than Dodd. And based on some of the stuff Caliguiri has introduced this year, he’s not exactly the kind of limited government advocate I’d like to represent me. I’ll vote for Schiff or no one.

Same with me. I am one of those young college voters and like many others my age I am drawn to Schiff’s platform of constitutional government, sound money, free markets and personal liberty. If the election comes down to Foley or Simmons against Dodd, I’ll be opting out. When are you picking the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil. I will put as much effort as I can to try and get Peter Schiff elected. If he doesn’t make it, at least I’ll know I didn’t stay on the sidelines when Connecticut finally had a chance to elect someone with integrity.

Brenda, I agree in that I don’t see a path for Schiff to the GOP nomination. But unable to get 15% at the convention – an extremely low turnout vote? Wow… you’re drastically underestimating us “whackos.” I assure you, he could get that 15% vote… if he got the right people on his team. 15% for him would be a time-consuming effort, but it absolutely could be done.

Shciff won’t be able to get 15% of the delegates at the convention, it’s as simple as that. Paul Streitz and Miraim Mazullo didn’t even come close to 15% in 2006.

Have you ever attended a major party state convention? You’re delusional if you think Shciff can get the support from 15% of the Republican delegates at next year’s convention. You even admitted you “don’t see a path for Shciff to the GOP nomination” so why even bother wasting time and money jousting with windmills?

And GC… are you holding off on my Dodd piece?

Yep typical answer from someone like you. Your loser candidate doesn’t get the nomination so you pass the spot on the ballot and help the Democrat who promotes big government. You’re pathetic.

In fairness, what JP is saying is the same argument that has been made by conservatives since ‘92 — don’t give us our favorite, and we’ll stay home. And the usual suspects in politics that are supporting Simmons won’t sit out the 2010 election just because the “Club for Growth” candidate or the “Christian Coalition” candidate is the one that got the nod.

And you’re belittling another poster again — or did JP “get what he deserved” too, like anyone with different opinions than you?

You’re kidding me now aren’t you? What he has to lose is HIS SEAT in the US Senate. I give the national Democrats a lot of credit, they and Obamma won’t sit idly by and lose a US Senate seat which will drop them below the magic number of 60.

He’d lose his seat either way. You’re saying he’s altruistic enough to put his principles (which would be better served by a Murphy than a Simmons) ahead of his self-interest. It’s an interesting theory, and I don’t know Dodd personally so I can’t say you’re wrong. But if that’s the case, we’re going through an awfully complex charade on the way to his dropping out.

He has far to much to lose by running again and losing.

Sorry, “too” not “to.” Very bad of me…..

What does Dodd lose by running for re-election, even if he were 10 points down in the polls and seemingly heading for certain defeat? The answer is nothing.

You’re kidding me now aren’t you? What he has to lose is HIS SEAT in the US Senate. I give the national Democrats a lot of credit, they and Obamma won’t sit idly by and lose a US Senate seat which will drop them below the magic number of 60. They will offer him some sort of nice soft landing somewhere, like an ambassadorship, let his wife stay on all those boards of directors. If he thumbs his nose at the gentle request to step aside and loses, he has EVERYTHING to lose Anderson, EVERYTHING. No more candidate committee to solicit funds to pay those seven figure legal bills, no more “connections” no more wife raking in large six figure incomes being on boards of directors, no more US Senate salary, etc.

He has far to much to lose by running again and losing.

Yes. Much like Schiff, I don’t have a problem not voting when there isn’t anyone worth voting for. Simmons and Foley are no better than Dodd. And based on some of the stuff Caliguiri has introduced this year, he’s not exactly the kind of limited government advocate I’d like to represent me. I’ll vote for Schiff or no one.

Yep typical answer from someone like you. Your loser candidate doesn’t get the nomination so you pass the spot on the ballot and help the Democrat who promotes big government. You’re pathetic.

I think Paul got 5-6% in Connecticut,

Check again, it was 4%.

Well, the war’s over. So, now what’s your excuse for not wanting to follow the Constitution and limited government?

JP, I hear whay your saying except, the war is NOT over. It only seems that way because the main stream media stopped reporting about it since their guy was elected.

I can’t find any proof of that, can you? I do remember that some guy claimed that a Shciff client lost a great deal of money:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html

Just for balance, Schiff wrote a response to that.

http://news.goldseek.com/EuroCapital/1233299220.php

You can dedicate (waste) all the time you want and you will lose, trust me on this. How did Ron Paul fare in the Republican Presidential primaries, 3% or less? Schiff is destined for the same or most likely less support in a Republican primary for US Senate in Connecticut.

I think Paul got 5-6% in Connecticut, but from what I gather, most of that was because of his stance on the Iraq War. I mean, Connecticut Republicans were so pro-war that they opted to support the Senator with the single worst Constitutional voting record in the country (Lieberman) just because he was pro-war. They had absolutely nothing else in common except war. Well, the war’s over. So, now what’s your excuse for not wanting to follow the Constitution and limited government?

So what are you going to when Shciff loses the primary, not support the Republican candidate who winds up being the nominee?

Yes. Much like Schiff, I don’t have a problem not voting when there isn’t anyone worth voting for. Simmons and Foley are no better than Dodd. And based on some of the stuff Caliguiri has introduced this year, he’s not exactly the kind of limited government advocate I’d like to represent me. I’ll vote for Schiff or no one.

I have to ask you, what happened in 2008?

Brenda, I’ll tell you what happened in 2008. The Republicans controlled the White House and people were very dissatisfied and they took it out on the party in power. However, the game has changed. Obama and the Democrats are now in control and despite the promises of change and the hope the economy is much worse and frustration is growing. When the country wants to throw the bums out this time, the bums will be Democrat. Unless there is a turnaround, and I hope there is, Democrats will be in for a major ass whooping in CT and across the nation. NO DEMOCRAT SEAT IS SAFE IN 2010!

What does Dodd lose by running for re-election, even if he were 10 points down in the polls and seemingly heading for certain defeat? The answer is nothing.

And of course no one has the balls to stand-up to the thirty year incumbent.

What makes you believe Dodd will drop out?

Let’s be clear. Dodd remains favored to win. If you guys are stupid enough to wage a primary, Dodd’s chances soar to 90%. The one thing I don’t like is that damn cottage. (What is left to be revealed?) And I still think Dodd should retire in favor of Blumenthal, thereby sparing us the coming nastiness.

Let’s be clear, if Dodd is on the ballot, he loses. Just about EVERY poll has him losing to no matter who is running against him. His negatives are so high, I highly doubt he will ever overcome them. That’s why I continue to maintain that he won’t be on the ballot as a US Senate candidate from CT in 2010.

Basically, no matter what, Democrats win-Republicans lose?

I have to ask you, what happened in 2008?

To answer your question, bascially YES.

Let’s face it, it is virtually impossible for a Republican to win in the 1st and the 3rd and probably the 2nd as well. The 4th and the 5th have lots of Republican and Republican leaning voters, all you have to do is look at Chris’ maps here on this site. The first thing that needs to be in place for Republicans to win any of the Congressional seats is widespread dissatisfaction with either the Democrats in Washington in general OR widespread dissatisfaction with the individual Congressman as was the case with Sam in 2000 and Nancy Johnson in 2006.

The 1st and 3rd are almost so safe for the Democrats, the incumbents there could literally get away with serious indiscretions, crimes, etc. and probably still be reelected. That’s not so much the case in the 2nd and certainly not in the 4th and 5th.

So even if those stars line up properly, the Republicans must offer an acceptable alternative to the voters. Gary Koval was not an acceptable alternative to Gedjenson in 1998 but Simmons was in 2000. No acceptable alternative has popped up yet in the 1st or 3rd and probably never will this cycle. Matt Daly in the 2nd is a complete dirt bag and a joke so ya may as well forget him. Daria Novak is a very nice lady but she has no elected experience nor any knowledge about running a Congressional campaign in a district as large as the 2nd. I also don’t see any past or present Republican State Reps or State Senators in the 2nd stepping forward to run against Courtney in 2010 so the Democrats keep that one too.

As far as the 4th and the 5th, my analysis for the US Senate race applies in those races as well.

Let’s be clear. Dodd remains favored to win. If you guys are stupid enough to wage a primary, Dodd’s chances soar to 90%. The one thing I don’t like is that damn cottage. (What is left to be revealed?) And I still think Dodd should retire in favor of Blumenthal, thereby sparing us the coming nastiness.

In terms of Schiff, he’s a snake-oil salesman, and his talk of getting rid of the Fed would be scary, except that only a handful will ever listen to him.

Schiff’s first vote in Connecticut would be in the GOP primary, FOR HIMSELF! Need we say more?

Basically, no matter what, Democrats win-Republicans lose?

I think Dodd is vulnerable. Definitely one of the top Democratic seats this year, along with Harry Reid’s and the Burriss seat in Illinois.

Of the five congressmen, I’d say Himes is the only one that’s not going to coast to an easy victory. He’s a first termer, and if you lose a congressional seat, that’s when you tend to lose. I haven’t followed too closely what’s going on in that district, and in any event, it’s probably too early to tell. DeLauro and Larson basically can’t lose. Courtney or Murphy could lose, but there’d have to be a major event for that to really happen (big scandal, for instance).

Impossible to say. If the economy is worse in November of 2010 than it is now and Obamma and the Democrat’s approval ratings are in the toilet then Caligiuri, Simmons or Foley might stand an outside chance against whoever the Democrat nominee is. On the other hand, if the citizens of this state are generally happy with what’s going on down in Washington and Obamma’s apporval ratings are through the roof (like Reagan’s were in 1984) then NO Republican has a chance in the world to defeat any Democrat who happens to be on the ballot for US Senate from CT in 2010.

Brenda, In your analysis a Republican candidate either stands Zero chance or little chance of winning the US Senate seat. I’m sure Scooper is smiling

Can we assume you feel the same way when it comes to Delauro,Himes,Murphy,Larson & Courtney?

Basically, no matter what, Democrats win-Republicans lose?

I wouldn’t call it “perfect accuracy” he talked a lot (he likes to do that) and if you weed through his tens of thousands of words, sure you’ll find some that loosely line up with what happened. He’s not the only one that said that the real estate market bubble would burst, THOUSANDS of people said that too. Why is it that only a blowhard like Shciff gets credit for predicting the obvious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&feature=related

That youtube video shows that many financial analysts certainly didn’t agree with Schiff. He said that the subprime mortgages were bad, were going to collapse, that bank stocks would collapse, and that you should own gold and not stocks. These were things he said in 2006 and 2007. Meanwhile the other analysts on the show were recommending you to buy Merrill Lynch and Wamu. One guy said the Dow would hit 16,000 (it is now at around 8600).

I’ll admit, I was invested in stocks when the financial crisis hit. My 401K: all stocks basically. I could have put it in a money market, that’s an option. Most of us didn’t get out of stocks. Peter Schiff was openly advocating that point.

There are lots of things to attack this guy for, but his predictive ability on the financial markets is not one of them.

Ok Brenda, then what Republican would stand the best chance of winning vs whatever Democrat that will run?

Impossible to say. If the economy is worse in November of 2010 than it is now and Obamma and the Democrat’s approval ratings are in the toilet then Caligiuri, Simmons or Foley might stand an outside chance against whoever the Democrat nominee is. On the other hand, if the citizens of this state are generally happy with what’s going on down in Washington and Obamma’s apporval ratings are through the roof (like Reagan’s were in 1984) then NO Republican has a chance in the world to defeat any Democrat who happens to be on the ballot for US Senate from CT in 2010.

Either way, Peter Shciff WILL not be the Republican nominee for US Senate from CT in 2010. I’m still taking bets on that, you want in on the action? Since that won’t happen, it’s a complete waste of everyone’s time to speculate “What would happen if…….” since he won’t be there.