vt.Buzz ~ a political blog: At the debate

Falling behind in the polls, Rainville drops back behind the blocking of her offensive tackles Douglas and Barnett and throws deep. It's a Hail Mary! It's despiration time folks and they are tossing one more irrational "analysis" up there for grabs.

Both candidates did well at the debate. However, on the question that really matters, Rainville flopped. She can't explain why she signed on to support Bush and his Congress when they have grossly failed our state.

Throwing the Hail Mary of "Raiville 'shredded" Welch" is a sad sign from a weak campaign.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:37 AM, September 16, 2006

And, I love the new bogus poll from New Hampshire. Remember, New Hampshire is the home of Rebpublican dirty tricks:

* The republican party paid to get Nader on the ballot in 2004.

* NH Repbulican leader was found guilty of using a phone bank to disrupt democracy in 2004.

* Tarrant's campaign manager, Tim Lemon, lost a gubernatorial campaign that featured fake letters criticizing his opponent.

It's great to see Vermont invaded by New Hampshire republican operatives!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:33 AM, September 16, 2006

So sad that the Bernie brigade is trying to cast a legitimate polling operation that's been operating since 1985 with a completely transparent business model as "bogus." Tell that to all of the major networks, right and left wing blogs, and other media outlets (oh yeah, and Scudder Parker), who seem to have no problem with ARG's credibility.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:53 AM, September 16, 2006

"Both candidates did well at the debate."

This coming from a supporter of Peter Welch who is a lawyer and experienced politician with dozens (if not more) debates under his belt? Debating Martha Rainville who has had exactly three political debates in her life?

If the best you can say is that "Both candidates did well" I have to score that as a net victory for Rainville, in the analysis of a Welch supporter.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:28 PM, September 16, 2006

ARG's results for each race has been "surprising" the last two times they went up with a poll. That's because ARG is contradicted by every other poll out there.

Yes, their methods are clear. They are "innovative". They are spectacularly inaccurate.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:58 PM, September 16, 2006

Actually, the two other polls they've got on their home page right now - Bush approval and CT senate - are right in line with most other polls out there right now.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:35 PM, September 16, 2006

Children, children, children. Yes, Martha is a Republican. Yes, this means that 4 in 10 Vermonters won't vote for her simply on that fact. I respect that and I appreciate that. My aunt who lives in Dummerston happens to be one of those 4 in 10.
Bad news for Welch is that 4 outta 10 ain't 50% + 1.
Here is the bottom line. Rainville is by far the better of the two candidates. Her record speaks for itself. Her intellect speaks for itself. Her integrity speaks for itself. She is awesome. Check out the debates. Please.
You think I'm drinking the koolaid? That's your right. But here is what I think. I think that all you "liberals" out there should take another look at the FEMALE who suceeded in a MALE dominated world by SMASHING through every glass ceiling she ever came in contact with. And, ask the Vermont soldiers about Martha's record, they will tell you she has a record that is above reproach.
Ask yourself, all you self-described Bush haters (I hate him to but I don't let it cloud my judgement on other issues)you are honestly going to vote for a white, male trial lawyer who ambulence chased and cut TV commercials talking about his dead wife?
That's the choice.
Martha vs Peter.
PS, Act 60, which drove all the young people in this state out and replaced them with rich, white bond traders from Boston, yeah, that's Peter.
Have some SELF-respect.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:20 PM, September 16, 2006

Children, children, children. Yes, Martha is a Republican. Yes, this means that 4 in 10 Vermonters won't vote for her simply on that fact. I respect that and I appreciate that. My aunt who lives in Dummerston happens to be one of those 4 in 10.
Bad news for Welch is that 4 outta 10 ain't 50% + 1.
Here is the bottom line. Rainville is by far the better of the two candidates. Her record speaks for itself. Her intellect speaks for itself. Her integrity speaks for itself. She is awesome. Check out the debates. Please.
You think I'm drinking the koolaid? That's your right. But here is what I think. I think that all you "liberals" out there should take another look at the FEMALE who suceeded in a MALE dominated world by SMASHING through every glass ceiling she ever came in contact with. And, ask the Vermont soldiers about Martha's record, they will tell you she has a record that is above reproach.
Ask yourself, all you self-described Bush haters (I hate him to but I don't let it cloud my judgement on other issues)you are honestly going to vote for a white, male trial lawyer who ambulence chased and cut TV commercials talking about his dead wife?
That's the choice.
Martha vs Peter.
PS, Act 60, which drove all the young people in this state out and replaced them with rich, white bond traders from Boston, yeah, that's Peter.
Have some SELF-respect.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:20 PM, September 16, 2006

Peter Welch is a good man, and he will do a very good job in Congress. It is not Marha's year.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:37 PM, September 16, 2006

I am a middle of the road type of vermonter and I like to vote for the person that I think is the better of the two candidates and I am amazed that people are not mentioning that Peter is an ambulance chasing lawyer who was made his money off of being a bottom feeder. I am not a partisan individual but I am amazed the democratic party couldnt get a better person to run. I think Martha's record of service to vermont and the nation will put her over the top. I dont think her party label matters, she will fight for vermont like she fought for the troops.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:53 AM, September 17, 2006

There's nothing wrong with being a trial lawyer. Martha's supporters are continuing their attack on Peter Welch, instead of focusing on the issues. I guess they think that they can't win on the issues.

Incidentally, there are plenty of issues with Martha, including her acceptance of contributions from a defense contractor.

Peter Welch is a good and decent man. He will make a great Congressman!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:00 AM, September 17, 2006

I consider myself independent. I voted for Bush, and I voted for Pat Leahy.

I probably lean Republican...but,

I'm voting for Peter Welch. Martha's not a bad candidate at all, but I feel that it is time for a Democratic congress. The House of Reps. was designed to be a voice of the people, more so then the Senate... with districts being Much, much smaller. It's clear that our voice is saying we want something different... not all Democrats... but a balance of power.

That's my reason for voting for Welch.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:45 PM, September 17, 2006

I am a dem and i have voted for leahy and dean but I just cant belive that we couldnt get martha to come over to our side. She did a fantastic job as commander of the guard and she has a record of service during her time in the guard. I wish our party could have got a better person to run for the job and by the way I am a lawyer and my colleagues and I and most other people do not have a high opinion of any lawyer who advertises his services on TV. Those types of lawyers give decent lawyers a bad name. I am going to vote for Martha because she has fought for vermont and will continue to do so in DC even though she is a republican. I think people need to split their ticket more often. Its really time for people to examine who the person is and not what party they are with.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:52 PM, September 17, 2006

Martha is lying when she says that the Democrats courted her. It never happened.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:40 AM, September 18, 2006

You, you there, anonymous... you simply can't be taken seriously on a political blog if you will not own your remarks. Just a handle, PLEASE, so that the thread can be followed. I mean, be as chicken as you want, but just do us a favor and unite your comments under a single name. Otherwise, these comments can only be regarded as muck from the campaigns. Get it?

Oh, and the level of discourse here does little to permit us to think it IS otherwise.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:36 AM, September 18, 2006