Can't remain silent on Whitnum - Greenwich Time

I don't respect those who complain about what is happening in the country yet make no effort to get involved in order to change it.

[Stamford Talk]

I don't think Jim is going to debate her, is he? I think he already has an event planned on the day she invited him to her debate.

[Go Jimmy Himes]

I hope he doesn't debate her. I don't think anyone should have to debate someone who calls him a Nazi and then says that the Prime Minister of Israel caused 9/11. Some things should be beyond the pale.

[finally]

Finally someone begins to debunk the absurd candidacy of Lee Whitnum. This is a truly bizarre character. Good for Sarah Littman for finally cutting through the ridiculous reporting of Neil Vigdor, who's been trying to make her out as some sort of wronged fighter for goodness struggling against the Democratic machine. In truth, she's a very strange character who has absolutely no business running for Congress. Compared with Jim Himes, who is tremendously well qualified and experienced, she is not a legitimate choice.

[True Colors]

One hates to dismiss all challengers, since it is possible that a challenger to either party's nomination might be someone great, but in this case, it's a pity that the district has to spend thousands and thousands of dollars holding a primary for someone who seems kind of unbalanced.

I'm surprised she has so much apparant support in other corners of The Advocate comments. Or is she writing it herself?

[Yikes]

True Colors wrote:

Or is she writing it herself?

It wouldn't be the first time.

[Vox Pop]

Yikes wrote:

<quoted text>
It wouldn't be the first time.

This is just too juicy not to bite.
I am not one of her supporters.
But, I firmly believe that it is a disservice to all the Democrats in the 4th Congressional District that not one single impartial debate will be conducted anywhere before the Primary.

Everyone is nibbling around her views and conduct. And perhaps the absence of a forum is a comment on that. I don't know. But you Dems out there won't have a chance to ever enjoy one side-by-side session with these two. Are you all so smug that it doesn't bother you, even a little?

Then there's the notion of electability. Perhaps she will prove to have been a kindly peition fluke. Just remember, there have been other candidates whose parties saw them as programmed to fail, or gave them no chance, who were elected.

[Publius]

Vox Pop wrote:

<quoted text>
This is just too juicy not to bite.
I am not one of her supporters.
But, I firmly believe that it is a disservice to all the Democrats in the 4th Congressional District that not one single impartial debate will be conducted anywhere before the Primary.
Everyone is nibbling around her views and conduct. And perhaps the absence of a forum is a comment on that. I don't know. But you Dems out there won't have a chance to ever enjoy one side-by-side session with these two. Are you all so smug that it doesn't bother you, even a little?
Then there's the notion of electability. Perhaps she will prove to have been a kindly peition fluke. Just remember, there have been other candidates whose parties saw them as programmed to fail, or gave them no chance, who were elected.

The fact is that most debates draw very small audiences, and that would be even more true for a primary.

So this is not really about having two candidates "side by side" for an hour and a half in front of maybe 50 people, most of whom are part of the campaigns.

It is really about an extremely weak outsider with no credentials, little support, and very controversial views desperately seeking an issue she can get some press coverage on.

[Yikes]

Vox Pop wrote:

<quoted text>

Everyone is nibbling around her views and conduct... Are you all so smug that it doesn't bother you, even a little?

Since you quoted me, let me be clear: my comment was in regards for her well documented online behavior. Let me give you one example. She assumed a nom de plume to threaten bloggers with "legal action" if they didn't remove mentions of her from their sites. In other cases she's attempted to buttress her online image by posting positive comments about herself under an assumed name.

I am not nibbling around her views and conduct. I am straight out telling you that her views are out of line with the Democratic party in this district, and her conduct befits that of a mental patient, not a United States Congressman.

Personally, I don't vote for anti-Semites. I don't vote for people whose conduct online is frankly bizarre. I don't vote for people who use ham-handed tactics to attempt to silence the blogosphere.

No debate will change my feelings. Nothing will.

How does that make me smug?

[Publius]

Yikes wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you quoted me, let me be clear: my comment was in regards for her well documented online behavior. Let me give you one example. She assumed a nom de plume to threaten bloggers with "legal action" if they didn't remove mentions of her from their sites. In other cases she's attempted to buttress her online image by posting positive comments about herself under an assumed name.
I am not nibbling around her views and conduct. I am straight out telling you that her views are out of line with the Democratic party in this district, and her conduct befits that of a mental patient, not a United States Congressman.
Personally, I don't vote for anti-Semites. I don't vote for people whose conduct online is frankly bizarre. I don't vote for people who use ham-handed tactics to attempt to silence the blogosphere.
No debate will change my feelings. Nothing will.
How does that make me smug?

Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

[Yikes]

Publius wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

I would, Publius, I would. But I am frightfully shy and reserved.

[Jon Kantrowitz]

A debate is scheduled on Channel 12.

[Vox Pop]

Yikes wrote:

<quoted text>...No debate will change my feelings. Nothing will.
How does that make me smug?

You, personally, probably not. But that's not the point.
Firstly, there has been an on-going stream of comment
about her, not just yours.
Secondly, I don't care how objectionable her views are - to both of us, and many others. It's safe to assume our statements that we don't support her are true.
Forget the person for a minute.
You have an entire Congressional District out there with a primary coming up. There has yet to be one single venue where these two met and debated. That, per se, is galling to me.
It wouldn't matter how many people came. Those who wanted to know more would.(A subsequent posting says Channel 12 will host them. If so, good. Even better that it will be more convenient for people to witness.)
If there is a debate, the endorsed candidate will have an opportunity to expose his opponent - as you see her, or otherwise.
My only objection to the vacuum is just that.
I respect your feelings, but want to remind you that even tacit limiting of expression is worse than no expression at all. The latter is a quiet step toward a world a person who doesn't vote for anti-Semites would shudder to see again.

[True Colors]

Vox Pop wrote:

<quoted text>
You have an entire Congressional District out there with a primary coming up. There has yet to be one single venue where these two met and debated. That, per se, is galling to me.

I agree that it would be helpful to see the two of them debate. Just a thought, anyone can organize a debate...if it's so galling to you that the regulars aren't doing it, call up the candidates' offices, get a date, book a free space (UCONN, Harry Bennet Library, or other) and take out a free notice in the Area Briefs of the paper--if the paper won't give you a free ad--to publicize it. You can write the questions, have people submit questions at the door, or do a town meeting format, whatever you wish.

Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world." If this is important to you, go for it! I'll come.

[Vox Pop]

True Colors wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that it would be helpful to see the two of them debate. Just a thought, anyone can organize a debate...if it's so galling to you that the regulars aren't doing it, call up the candidates' offices, get a date, book a free space (UCONN, Harry Bennet Library, or other) and take out a free notice in the Area Briefs of the paper--if the paper won't give you a free ad--to publicize it. You can write the questions, have people submit questions at the door, or do a town meeting format, whatever you wish.
Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world." If this is important to you, go for it! I'll come.

Frankly, I would be seen as biased, not impartial.
Your suggestion has already been considered.
And, it appears that Channel 12 will do the deed.

[AccuracyIsNice]

They were hosting a debate "16 hours ago" when you posted that it was a shame that there was no debate.

Monday June 28th

[Yikes]

Vox Pop wrote:

<quoted text>
I respect your feelings, but want to remind you that even tacit limiting of expression is worse than no expression at all. The latter is a quiet step toward a world a person who doesn't vote for anti-Semites would shudder to see again.

I agree with the poster who suggested that you should organize the debate if you feel so strongly that Lee Whitnum's voice should be heard.

No one has decreed that Lee Whitnum cannot debate Jim Himes. That would be shushing of her ability to express herself. Instead, the LWV has simply passed on hosting the debate. There's quite a difference.

[AccuracyIsNice]

Not to mention that you commented on the GT story that reported that the CableVision debate was happening a couple of days ago...

[Publius]

True Colors wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that it would be helpful to see the two of them debate. Just a thought, anyone can organize a debate...if it's so galling to you that the regulars aren't doing it, call up the candidates' offices, get a date, book a free space (UCONN, Harry Bennet Library, or other) and take out a free notice in the Area Briefs of the paper--if the paper won't give you a free ad--to publicize it. You can write the questions, have people submit questions at the door, or do a town meeting format, whatever you wish.
Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world." If this is important to you, go for it! I'll come.

Well, you might. But i think the issue is whether the other candidate would.

[Aggie]

Exactly!! I'm not sure what exactly is going on at the Greenwich Time, but something is rotten given the reporting that Vigdor has been doing. He and Lee go back a ways, apparently, so his bias is clear. How ethical is it to have him reporting on the campaign of someone he has a relationship with?

It's not just Vigdor though. I get the feeling there's pressure from outside.
I think Lee's got someone over a barrel and he's pulling strings and pushing buttons on her behalf.

It's about time the head office brought a clean broom to the Greenwich Time and cleaned house.

That said, I welcome a chance for Lisa Lee to get up in front of an audience to show the world just what a crazy loon she really is. And I do hope there are some pointed questions about who pays her bills.

finally wrote:

Finally someone begins to debunk the absurd candidacy of Lee Whitnum. This is a truly bizarre character. Good for Sarah Littman for finally cutting through the ridiculous reporting of Neil Vigdor, who's been trying to make her out as some sort of wronged fighter for goodness struggling against the Democratic machine. In truth, she's a very strange character who has absolutely no business running for Congress. Compared with Jim Himes, who is tremendously well qualified and experienced, she is not a legitimate choice.

[Shameful]

The author of this column was fired for writing it.