<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11782355\x26blogName\x3dConnecticutBLOG\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d2618633873490899171', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Friday, September 15, 2006

Nancy Johnson: a disgrace to the 5th District

The title speaks for itself.

I lived in the 5th District for almost 20 years. I've lived through the era of the shameful slumlord Gary Franks and the silliness of Toby Moffett attempt to campaign in the area (come on folks, I loved the guy also but he really wasn't from the 5th and his loss gave us Franks) but nothing, and I mean nothing, can compare to the outright lunacy of one Nancy Johnson (R-CT).

Don't let her attempts to portray herself as a moderate or independent fool you as it's nothing but a smoke screen. Johnson's outrageous voting record exposes her as nothing more than a Rubber-stamp right-wing Republican who is beholden to special interests to a level never seen before in Connecticut politics.

Using an analogy from a friend, Johnson is the type of person who would carry the water through the desert for the President. Johnson outright supports the head Republican in charge every step of the way on issues ranging from the war in Iraq and Dick Cheney's energy bill, to the revamping of Social Security and neglecting the environment.

If that is not bad enough, Johnson rakes in special interest money at an alarming rate and has proven time and time again that she can be bought for the right price. Whether it's big oil, or big drug companies, if you have a checkbook, you can buy Johnson's vote.

Why am I unhinging on Johnson you ask? Because for everything this person has done in her career, the campaign she is currently running against Democrat Chris Murphy is the most disgusting campaign I've ever witness to date. This "person" had the nerve to use the events on 9-11 to her political advantage going as far as re-creating a funeral in one of her ads. Take a look.

Shocking? Well you haven't seen anything yet...

The DAY AFTER the fifth anniversary of 9-11, an event that will leave an impression on me for the rest of my life, the very day after she participates in the 9-11 ceremony in Danbury, Johnson exploits 9-11 AGAIN in her "new attack ad" which pathetically accusing Chris Murphy as being soft of the war of terror.

Has she no shame?

I'll let fellow blogger CT Progressive give the details (as a side note, please visit CT Progressive's site No More Nancy as it's one of the best blogs in CT.
Johnson attempts to attack Murphy over his opposition to illegal wiretapping through the usual attack ad lies and distortions. Yet the message is completely lost in the sheer stupidity of the ad. See for yourself:

Question #1:

Why is the "average people" image of a bunch of people in rain coats and umbrellas? Does this terrorist attack involve some sort of monsoon? Acid rain? Seriously is that the only picture they could find?

Question #2:

I thought the bad black and white pictures were supposed to be of your opponent? Doesn't a candidate's own ad usually feature them smiling in colored pictures? Why did Johnson's campaign choose to use this picture of her? It's not very flattering. I guess beauty is the price you pay for being "tough" on terrorism.

Question #3:

Are we talking about terrorism or cutting student aid? Nancy probably thought she could slip this one past me...not so fast. Look closely at the image shown when the announcer says, "Nancy Johnson says act immediately." They display a blurry image that's supposed to convey Johnson's action on terrorism, but upon closer review it seems this image has nothing to do with terrorism at all. In fact, it's a chart about financial aid for college students. An odd choice for Johnson to display given her vote this year to support the largest cut in history for federal student aid programs. If you look close enough you can see the chart labeled with "Federal Pell Grant", "Tuition Assistance Program", "Outside Grant or Scholarship", "Federal Subsidized Stafford Loan", "Federal Unsubsidized Stafford Loan", and so on. Perhaps the dots in their columns represent all the times Nancy Johnson has voted to cut these programs.

Question #4:

This is probably the most mind boggling one of them all. Maybe it's some landmark that I just don't recognize, but where the hell is Nancy Johnson standing in her photo-op with the veterans at the end of the ad? Are these people at Area 51 or something? And what are they looking up at and saluting? The flag is clearly located in the lower left corner of the screen behind them. They are all looking in different directions too. Hmm...you think this was a TV photo-op rather than an actual event? But I gotta give Nancy major props for taking the time to put on her red jacket so that she could match the veterans. It's a real nice touch.

Seriously, is this the worst ad you've ever seen? I could not stop laughing when I first saw it. Is Johnson's media person some high school kid? First there was the recreated 9/11 memorial service ad, then the ridiculous game show tax ad, and now the most bizarre ad of them all.

Although I felt that Murphy was reading from the 2004 playbook of John Kerry as he didn't fight back against Johnson's first disgusting ad, in a press release, Murphy finally took the gloves off and ripped into Johnson's bizzare accusations.
"Nancy Johnson's decision to run an ad on September 12 politicizing the 9-11 attacks is disgusting. Her ad is intended to scare people into thinking that we are safer if the Bush Administration is allowed to break our laws, and she should be ashamed," Murphy said. "She is so out of touch with the people of Connecticut that she is listening to people who think politicizing terror is more important than fighting it. Not only is she politicizing the issue, she is making my record up out of thin air."


"Current law gives the federal government the power to access the networks of terrorists that intend to harm us, so long as the President chooses to follow the rules. But the Bush-Cheney Administration has refused to obey existing law. The blame lies also with Nancy Johnson and the Republican Congress, who have abandoned their responsibility to oversee this Administration, rejecting the crucial system of checks and balances which has protected this nation for more than 200 years," Murphy said.

"When I go door-to-door in this district, people tell me they want someone in Washington who will ask hard questions and hold the federal government accountable, not someone who goes along to get along. If Nancy Johnson listened to the people of Connecticut, she'd know that catching Osama bin Laden and protecting the nation are not partisan issues. People want to see a higher standard of discourse in Washington, where an open dialogue can lead to solutions to protect our nation from those who intend to harm us, while simultaneously upholding the privacy rights that form the foundation of our American values. This television ad fails to meet those expectations," said Murphy.

This is not the first time that Johnson has expressed her wholehearted support for the Bush-Cheney illegal wiretapping program. On June 20, 2006, Johnson was the only member of the Connecticut delegation to vote against an amendment that would have prohibited the use of federal funds to engage in electronic surveillance such as wiretapping, unless that surveillance complies with existing law. [Roll Call 295, 6/20/06]


"Nancy Johnson is the only member of the Connecticut delegation - Democrat or Republican - who was unwilling to stand up to George Bush and Dick Cheney and say: Enough is enough, you are not above the law," said Murphy. "The amendment Johnson voted against would only have required that the Bush Administration abide by existing law. That is my position on this issue. I believe that the federal government must play by the rules, just like the people of Connecticut do. Nancy Johnson's loyalty to President Bush is so strong that she supports him even when he breaks the law. Yet again, Nancy Johnson has proven that she is a part of the problem in Washington."
The people of the fifth district can do better than have someone like Nancy Johnson represent them in Washington. It's not that I'm anti-Republican, I'm anti-idiotic and based solely on that point, Johnson has proven that she deserves her pink slip in November.