Looks like Lamont might be the real deal

Daily Kos and My Left Nutmeg (hat tip to Brandford Boy (Nutmeg) and Political Junkie (Kos); they've been all over this thing) broke the story first and I'm beginning to hear from my sources that Ned Lamont is serious about going after Lieberman for the Democratic nod.

A millionaire challenging Lieberman...oh, this is going to be great!

From Daily Kos

It looks increasingly likely that wealthy Connecticut businessman Ned Lamont will give Lieberman a primary challenge.

Lamont has apparently promised to spend over a million dollars of his own money on the race. Lowell Weicker will support his campaign and should be present at the announcement. Kiki Kennedy, Ted's wife, has been promoting Lamont to her personal circle -- the Lamonts and Kennedys apparently have long had a warm relationship. Connecticut Citizen Action Group is apparently aboard.

The big questions are whether DFA and MoveOn get involved as they've been threatening the past couple of months. DFA's Jim Dean is being lobbyied hard by Lieberman on Monday. We'll see how that goes. MoveOn's involvement (which would equal money and boots on the ground) would also be crucial to Lamont's chances.

Anti-Immigrant rally in Danbury was a joke

Well, I guess I got to see yet another silly publicity stunt done by the Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control (CTCIC) that places yet another black eye on the city of Danbury.

Thanks.

The only thing worth mentioning about this silly rally (in which no one really showed up besides counter-demonstrators and the press) was the weather (oh my, it was cold). Don't let no anyone tell you otherwise, this was nothing more than yet another publicity stunt by our favorite little hate-group. I estimate there was about 50 anti-immigrant CTCIC members (at best) versus 80-90 pro-immigrant supporters which is about right since the couter-protesters have always outnumber these CTCIC loonies.

All this rally was about was the usual silly CTCIC crew waving their American flags, yelling "U.S.A" and posing for any camera that pointed in their direction for maximum exposure. Few motorists acknowledged them by honking their horns and most cars just passed by and ignored them. Most of the people I talked to on the street just wanted these idiots to hurry up and leave and I didn't see or talk to anyone who supported the CTCIC (believe me, I walked all around the area and as you can see by the video, unlike the pro-immigrant people who their fair share of supporters, the CTCIC were pretty much by themselves on the street corner.

Now I'm sure the CTCIC are going to say that this rally was a success but I can't see how it was. What did it accomplish...nothing but a reason for reporters to get up early and walk around in the cold saying "now what am I going to write about?" The CTCIC loonies even cut their so-called rally short by about a half an hour to the applause of the counter-demonstrators who sang them a nice song as they packed up and walked away (check the end of the video and see as even the cops even get a chuckle over the song).

Well, I'm also sure that the press is going to make much out of nothing tomorrow but as a person who was there (and unlike most CTCIC members, lives in Danbury) I can tell you that most people I talked to are just disgusted with the CTCIC and would prefer them to leave.

I'll say it again, THERE WERE FEW PEOPLE SUPPORTING THE CTCIC! Look at the video if you think I'm wrong. I was there at 7:45 till the end and at most, the CTCIC got a handful of motorists (maybe 20) to honk their horns in support...that's it. NO new membership, NO people from the area coming down and thanking the CTCIC for all they did...nothing. On the other hand, the pro-immigrant group not only outnumbered the CTCIC, they had decent amount of support from people on the street and even led a small march down Main Street (I was only able to get the end of it on video).

I'll add to this post later as things are very busy right now but I thought it would be important to show everyone the video from the event so when you read this in the paper, you'll know which papers blew the so-called event out of proportion.

You can view the video by clicking here. I'll post a hi-resolution version video later.

Lamont update

I was hoping to do work around the house but this Ned Lamont rumor is gaining steam and is the talk of all the CT Blogs (check here, here, and here).

Like I said yesterday, it's very hard to get info during the weekend in Connecticut and I just came back from the silly anti-immigrant protest in Danbury (I'll post a report later).

For those looking for some info on Lamont, here's a brief profile and his contribution list.

One advantage he has is that he has money (and lots of it) which should give Lieberman some concern. He's also anti-war and wouldn't have the baggage Weicker would bring (income tax) as well as his support (Weicker said he would bow out if a Democrat challenged Lieberman and accoring to rumors, he will support Lamont).

As Drudge would say ...developing.

Rumors of a Democratic challenger for Lieberman

Daily Kos broke the story and My Left Nutmeg followed suit. Don't know enough about this yet and it's hard getting any information on a Friday night but rumor has it that Ned Lamont is seriously interested in challenging Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary.

From Daily Kos

Do you want Joe Lieberman out of the Senate? Or maybe I should ask: how badly do you want Joe Lieberman out of the Senate? Hang on Kossacks, help is on the way in the form of Ned Lamont. He has not formally announced yet, but he is laying the groundwork to run against Lieberman in the Democratic primary. I know you've never heard of Ned Lamont; but you are going to hear a lot about him in the coming months. He is a businessman from Greenwich, Connecticut.; a progressive Democrat who is anti-war, pro-privacy and civil liberties; with the moxie and the money to go head to head with holy Joe for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Connecticut.

What does Lowell Weicker think about Lamont, according to the the author of the Kos posting, Lamont has Weicker support.

From the comments section:

Weicker encouraged Ned to run, and pledged his support.

Like I said, it's hard to get information late on a Friday so we'll have to wait and see how this days out over the next couple of days

Lieberman does Fairfield Weekly

I just finished reading the Fairfield County Weekly interview with Joe Lieberman and I'll add my two cents about the elephant who hides behind the donkey later.

I'll just say that Lieberman must of had his guard down when he agreed to this interview (this is the same paper who called Lieberman a traitor). The guys over at the Weekly could of hit him with some harder questions but they did a excellent (and slick) job in showing why voters should give this guy (who is anti-gay rights (i.e. gay marriage), pro-torture, and out of touch when it comes to the events happening in Iraq) the boot in November.

Again, I'll get into this article later but I encourage you to read it for yourself and read slick Joe in action.

Can't wait to see the ending...

Boy, what a priest

Asshole is the only word that comes to mind when I think about this person.

The Rev. Pat Robertson said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is being punished by God for dividing the Land of Israel. Robertson, speaking on the “700 Club” on Thursday, suggested Sharon, who is currently in an induced coma, and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated by an Israeli extremist in 1995, were being treated with enmity by God for dividing Israel. “He was dividing God’s land,” Robertson said. “And I would say, Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations or the United States of America. God says, This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.”

Why am I forced to have this jerk on my cable lineup?

This is yet another reason I hope cable conpamies are forced to provide it's subscribers the option to select which channels they want as part of their cable package. I'll do anything to get rid of the Trinity Broadcast Network and ABC Family (the wacko channel gives broadcasts the silly 700 Club).

Gov. Rell's Chief of Staff knows how to throw a fundraiser

Wow! When Lisa Moody throws a fundraiser for the governor, SHE THROWS a fundraiser for the governor.

In a rush to rake in as much cash as possible (even if it meant breaking her boss' rules), Moody gathered together some of the biggest donors around town to attend Governor Rell’s now infamous Dec 7th fundraiser. The Hartford Courant published a partial list of donors who attended the event and it reads like a who's who list.

From the Hartford Courant

The heads of at least 15 state agencies were among a who's who of top political appointees contributing more than $50,000 to Gov. M. Jodi Rell's election campaign in connection with a controversial fundraiser now under investigation by two state agencies, The Courant has learned.

About 70 people, many high-ranking officials, attended the Dec. 7 campaign event at the Marco Polo Restaurant in East Hartford, some of them after receiving invitations hand-addressed by Rell's chief of staff, M. Lisa Moody. Sources have told The Courant that attendees wrote checks ranging from $200 to the maximum allowable $2,500.

After initially saying it would make public the list of donors, Rell's 2006 campaign has refused to name those who wrote checks in connection with the event. Because the checks have been returned to donors, the campaign does not have to list them on its official campaign financing report, a Rell spokesman has said.

However, sources have provided the names of about half the people who attended or contributed in connection with the event.

The list includes at least 15 state agency heads, including the leaders of some of the biggest departments - such as Department of Administrative Services Commissioner Linda Yelmini, Public Works Commissioner James Fleming and Leonard Boyle, the former federal prosecutor who is Rell's commissioner of public safety.

Also attending were the leaders of some lesser-known agencies, including Richard Gray, executive director of the quasi-public Connecticut Health and Education Facilities Authority; and Marie O'Brien, president of the quasi-public Connecticut Development Authority.
The list of names demonstrates that the Marco Polo affair was an extraordinary gathering of powerful agency heads and their deputies that would be unusual at a single fundraiser for any Connecticut governor - let alone Rell, who has made campaign reform and ethical government her hallmark.

In addition to Boyle, Yelmini, Fleming, Gray and O'Brien, the following heads of state agencies attended the event: Transportation Commissioner Stephen Korta; Motor Vehicles Commissioner Ralph Carpenter; Environmental Protection Commissioner Regina McCarthy; Labor Commissioner Shaun Cashman; Economic and Community Development Commissioner James Abromaitis; Insurance Commissioner Susan Cogswell; Consumer Protection Commissioner Edwin Rodriguez; Public Health Commissioner J. Robert Galvin; Robert Genuario, secretary of the Office of Policy and Management; and Jennifer Aniskovich, executive director of the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism.

One can see why the Rell campaign was reluctant to provide the full list of names at the gala. Having that many big-time players at one fundraiser is very strange one could conclude that Rell was trying to rake in the cash as quickly as possible and play catch up to DeStefano and Malloy.

Whether this will hurt Rell remains to be seen but if her cheif of staff broke the law in personally handing out invitations for this event, be sure that her Democratic challangers will make this an issue.

There is nothing illegal, in itself, about such an aggregation of appointees at a fundraising event. But questions of illegality have arisen in this case because Moody handed multiple invitations for the Dec. 7 event to several state commissioners in the governor's Capitol office suite - some with her handwritten notation to "bring check" - and asked them in turn to give invitations to subordinates. The list of attendees includes at least 20 political appointees who work for the agency heads.

Officials who passed the invitations on to others may have violated a state law banning the solicitation of campaign contributions by "any department head or deputy department head."

It is unclear from state statutes whether the prohibition applies to the four agencies headed by Gray, Genuario, O'Brien and Aniskovich, even though their presence on the list still could become campaign fodder. But the law clearly applies to all attendees with the title of commissioner.

[...]

Even if no enforcement action results from the two pending probes, the case could bring up the campaign issue of whether it is proper to so directly seek contributions from officials whose jobs, or future reappointment to their jobs, are in the hands of the governor.

Also noteworthy, according to two sources familiar with the episode, is that nearly all of the commissioners took the invitations from Moody without question - even though they had been warned just weeks before that doing so was contrary to Rell's own policy and a potential violation of the long-standing state campaign law.

Like I said, this could be a problem for Rell if Moody used her power as cheif of staff to get so many donors to attend this event. And remember, we still don't have the FULL list of people who attended...

Connecticut says no to new voting machines

Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz does the right thing and scraps the purchase of the new electronic voting machines. The entire process of aquiring the machines has been screwed up since day one and I'm happy that voters will be using the old machines in the 2006 election (we last thing we need is a problem with the new machines in November and a political party to cry foul).

Anyway, am I the only one who was fine with the old machines?

From the AP

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz pulled the plug Wednesday, at least temporarily, on plans to buy high-tech voting machines for the 2006 elections.

She said the finalist in the bid process, Simsbury-based Danaher Controls, misled the state and had not yet sought proper certification to meet state and federal requirements. Bysiewicz's office made the discovery during final negotiations with the company.

Other voting machine companies, she said, also failed to meet the state's needs. Eight firms responded to the state's request for proposals.

"Unfortunately we were unable to find qualified vendors," she said, adding that no company could provide a certified electronic machine that displays a voter's entire ballot and provides a paper receipt that he or she can verify.

A call was left seeking comment with Danaher Controls.

That means Connecticut voters will use the old, mechanical lever machines for statewide elections in November. In the meantime, the state plans to contact all voting machine companies across the country and ask them to apply or reapply to provide new machines.

Bysiewicz said Connecticut will work with federal authorities and the state of New York, which has some of the same requirements, to seek the right devices.

The president of the state's registrar of voters association and two professors who questioned the state's bidding process said they were pleased that Bysiewicz decided to stop everything.

"I haven't met one single registrar that I've talked to in the last six months who's been happy about this process. It's been flawed since Day One," said Richard J. Abbate, who had asked Bysiewicz to open the process to other bidders.

TrueVoteConnecticut, founded by two professors from Yale University and Trinity College, has also been calling on Bysiewicz for months to start the process over again.

"I commend the secretary for doing the right thing and throwing the process open rather than acquiring an inferior machine for the state, which all the indications up until now were that that was going happen," said Michael Fischer, a computer science professor at Yale.

Less emotion and more reporting

GOOD GRIEF, I HATE CABLE NEWS!

This whole wall to wall coverage of the tragedy in West Virginia is a joke. Cable news journalists are nothing more than phony jackasses and could care less about the miners who died in that horrible accident. The cable news channels will be over this story and onto something else by the end of the week (anyone remembers the people of New Orleans).

And enough with the emotional news reporters already! I'm just waiting for Anderson Cooper or Geraldo to shed a tear on-air (quick, find me a kid to hug) or the wackos on FOX claim a connection between liberals and the accident (you KNOW O'Reilly is working on this angle right now).

Cable news has no shame when it comes to taking advantage of a horrible situation for the sake of higher ratings and should be run out of that town by the residents in that community. If these so-called journalists really cared about the conditions those poor miners had to endure on a daily basis, it would of been very easy for them to do an investigative piece months (if not years) ago and possibly saved lives in the process. The horrible conditions miners face is not new news and this particular mine has had numerous violations over the last couple of years (most of the information was just a google or lexis-nexis search away).

If you think I'm being too harsh, hold your opinion of me until after you read a fellow blogger's post on the latest American emotional and tragic story. I felt that his post was so good that I had to post the entire thing so you get my point.

Twelve of the thirteen miners in Sago, West Virginia have now been found dead. The original mine explosion that led to their deaths was so loud that it was heard five miles away.

The grief of the families will be much more muted and quieter. But not that of strangers: the cable newsmen and out-of-town “journalists” who will now share their own grief not only with the family members, but also their demographically correct audiences:

America will mourn with Anderson Cooper.

And then America will mourn with Geraldo Rivera.

A few minutes ago, I watched Gerald on Fox, already emoting; if he has no new news to report, he does have his emotions to share with us all, until he is somewhere else soon emoting with or about something else. At the end of his brief segment, Fox’s anchor of the moment thanked Geraldo for his “truly heartbreaking words” before noting that Geraldo was the host of Fox’s own Geraldo At-Large program. No opportunity is ever last to promote the brand.

It will not be long, of course, before Bill O’Reily screams at someone. Accountability at last!

It has become fashionable of late for journalists to “emote” more on television. The empathetic, caring Anderson Cooper has replaced the laconic and ironic and ratings-challenged Aaron Brown.

During Katrina, reporters didn’t just report, they got mad! Reporters who once feared for their jobs if they asked a tough question at a presidential press conference were now publicly castigating public officials as they appeared on their programs.

The public had long come to view the media as another entrenched and privileged interest group protecting other elite and entrenched interest groups. What a better way to dispel such a belief by other than a little emoting and yelling.

But there are a few problems with this new media paradigm: Being outraged after the fact is not the same as journalists doing their jobs. As it turns out, the mine in which the twelve miners were killed had been cited for safety violations no less than 273 over the course of the last two years.

According to this newspaper report:

In the pat two years, the mine was cited 273 times for safety violations, of which about a third were classified as “significant and substantial,” according to documents compiled by the Labor Department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration(MHSA). failures," a designation reserved for serioussafety infractions for which the operator had either already been warned, or which showed "indifference or extreme lack of care," said Tony Oppegard, a former MSHA senioradviser."That is a very high number, and it is usually indicative of a very poor safety record," Oppegard said… [Many] inspection reports over the past two years fault the mine for "combustibles," including a buildup of flammable coal dust and a failure to adequately insulate electric wires. Sparks from electrical equipment can ignite coal dust and methane gas, triggering fires and explosions…

Although no miners were reported killed at the mine since at least 1995, 42 workers and contractors were injured in accidents since 2000, records show…

Some serious accidents caused no injuries. For example, in the past year, large sections of the mine's rocky roof collapsed on at least 20 occasions but not when workers were in the affected tunnels. Some of the collapsed sections were rocky slabs as long as 100 feet. The most recent roof collapse occurred on Dec. 5, less than a month before Monday's explosion.

J. Davitt McAteer, who headed MSHA during the Clinton administration, said he was troubled by an apparent spike in accidents and violations that occurred beginning about two years ago. "The violations are not the worst I've ever seen -- and certainly not the best -- but I'm concerned about the trend and the direction they're going in. It's indication to those running the operation that you've got a problem here."

All of the above information about the safety violations at the Sago mine have long been public record. Anyone simply could have called up MSHA and had a set of their records in the mail the next day.

As an investigative reporter, I am increasingly amazed that one doesn't even happen to call anyone anymore. So many government regulatory documents are even posted on the web. One does not even have to leave their house to do much of their work anymore.

Brown and CNN could have done a story on mine safety, the lives of miners, and the federal regulations of the agencies involved, weeks ago… months ago… or years ago. But they didn’t and won’t. That takes enterprise and reporting and investigation. Emoting is so much easier and profitable.Anderson Cooper and Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reily have the opportunity in the future to investigate mine safety, the federal regulation of the mining industry, or even stories about everyday life in today’s Appalachia. But don’t count on it. They will move on to the next tsunami, or hurricane, or shooting incident—“one the scene” reporting— in the process making the next mining accident all the more possible. If one does happen, they will be on the scene once again, publicly emoting every last ten cents worth of bling-bling emotion.

An iconic moment in television coverage was when Walter Conkrite, tears welling up in his eyes, had to take off his glasses, in informing the nation that John F. Kennedy had been pronounced dead. Decades later, the late Peter Jennings, for one brief moment, on Sept. 11th lost his composure, and with tears welling up in his eyes suggested that those watching might want to call their children and see if they were alright. The reason we remember those moments was because it was rare for either anchorman to lose their composure. And we knew that they for real.

Anderson Cooper and Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reily we know not to trust, however. They, too, have emotions, but there is a promiscuity, and dare say, even a vulgarity, to their emotions. Their tears and anger are displayed so frequently and with so many that in the end they mean nothing. Their television show will move somewhere else, and the families of the Sago miners will be alone-- or finally left alone-- to grieve.

I couldn't agree more. For goodness sake, leave these people alone and let them grieve in peace. You newshounds in the cable news media didn't care about in the past so don't act like you care about them now.

Manchester rebukes Lieberman

Manchester Democrats promised that they would rebuke Joe Lieberman and that's exactly what they did.

Here's a copy of the resolution. Hat tip to My Left Nutmeg.

Resolution of the Manchester Democratic Town Committee

WHEREAS, Senator Joseph Lieberman has taken a position in support of President Bush and the Bush Administration's orchestration of the Iraq war; and

WHEREAS, we as Democrats take issue with the assertion of Senator Lieberman that there is progress in Iraq based on the appearance of satellite TV dishes or cell phones; and

WHEREAS, we do not believe that Senator Lieberman fully appreciates the human cost of war on our troops as well as the Iraqi people; and

WHEREAS, we believe that the actions of the Bush Administration have served to galvanize the Arab world against the United States; and

WHEREAS, it is the goal of the Manchester Democratic Town Committee to ask Senator Joseph Lieberman to join his Democratic constituents and colleagues in opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq;

THEREFORE, be it resolved that we, the Manchester Democratic Town Committee, do not believe that Senator Joseph Lieberman is acting in the best interest of the American public or the Democratic Party by supporting President Bush in the handling of the Iraqi conflict;

BE IT further resolved that we respectfully ask Senator Lieberman to reconsider his unconditional support of President Bush, but rather that he use his many skills to form a position in the Senate that will permit the Iraqis to manage their own affairs and to bring our troops home by the end of 2006 or sooner if possible.

Will Joe take notice, not unless more town committees follow Manchester's lead but it's a start.

Lisa Moody back at work

Wonder if she'll be organizing any fundrasing events any time soon.

Andrew Foster Altschul wants Dems to be nice to Lieberman

Seems like Andrew Foster Altschul, contirbutor to The Huffington Post wants Democrats stay on message in 2006 and leave DINOs like Joe Lieberman alone.

Don't beat up on Joe Lieberman. What's to be gained? Sure, he's an unctuous, opportunistic schmuck - just ask Bill Clinton - but we are not the party that punishes free-thinking, nor insists on conformity at the price of integrity. Lieberman's entitled to his opinion, self-serving though it might be. Leave him alone and start talking more forcefully about what the Democratic Party wants to do in - or out of - Iraq.

After fully reading Altschul's post, I understand where he is coming from. The Democrats have a lot of work ahead of them if they want to Control Congress in 2006 and win back the presidency in 2008. In terms of looking at the Democrats on a national level, I somewhat agree that it might not be in the best interest of the party to rip Lieberman to pieces.

But this is an election year and Lieberman is up for re-election in Connecticut. We don't need the national Democrats to attack Joe because the state Democrats will have no problem tearing into this guy.

You see, unlike Altchul, I LIVE in Connecticut and Lieberman is not only a unctuous, opportunistic schmuck, but the Democratic senator from my state who's relationship with the President is pathetic and an embarrassment.

His constant critique of fellow Democrats on topics ranging from torture to the war in Iraq (including his famous op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal) is not only shameless, but disgusting. Lieberman is not a free-thinker, he's a self-serving politician who has no problem throwing a fellow Democrat under the truck if it means he gains political points in the process (ask President Clinton). He's the only Democrat I know who has no problem sitting next to Rush Limbaugh and William Buckley at the National Review ceremony (in fact, he was probably the only Democrat there).

Lieberman should be held accountable for his shameless statements and since I'm from Connecticut and a Democrat, I feel it's my right to hold him accountable. What Altschul fails to understand (because he looking at things from a national point of view) is that Democratic voters in Connecticut are extremely upset with Lieberman right now and nothing would make them happier than giving Joe the boot. Someone like a Lowell Weicker could really rally the anti-war base and give Lieberman a run for his money and put him on the defensive (could you imagine the debate these two would have).

To put it simply, screw Joe and don't feel sorry for him or give him a free pass this election year. He has always thought of no one but himself and his own image whenever he opens his mouth and has been a pain in the side of Democrats in Connecticut. This is an election year and the only time the voters of Connecticut hold Lieberman accountable for his actions. No Democrat should come to his defense or campaign for him if he is chalenged by Weicker or another Democrat (can someone give Blumenthal a call).

Again, don't get me wrong, I love Altchul's post but in terms of Lieberman, I say attack the Zell Miller of Connecticut and force him to defend his record. He has no problem attacking fellow Democrats so liberals should have no problem giving him a taste of his own medicine.

Lieberman has made his bed, let him sleep in it.

The history of a Connecticut racist hate group

Dan Zarrella from NobodyIsIllegal.org did a great piece about the hate group which calls themselves the Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control and it's worth a read.

Seeing that these scumbags will be harrassing migrant workers throughout the state including on Kennedy Avenue in Danbury on January 7th, you should read into the background of this racist hate-group.

Don't let their words fool you; they ARE a bunch of white bigoted hate mongers without the white sheets. They bring shame to our state and to the fine people of Connecticut as their hatred towards anyone who is not white is not only outrageous, but also disgusting and puts Connecticut in a bad light.

More information on the CTCIC can be found here and here. I've let my feelings about these assholes known so know it's your turn. Come out on January 7th and give the CTCIC a piece of your mind!

Visit this site often

Check it out

Copy of the Abramoff indictments available

Hat tip to Talking Points Memo and AMERICABlog You can click on either of their links for the complete document.

Silly hate-group planning protest against migrant workers

Seems like the wackos from The Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control are up to their old tricks of doing stupid shit in order to get press coverage. Here's their latest publicity stunt and be sure that they'll be front and center harrassing the migrant workers on Kennedy Avenue in Danbury.

Hat tip to My Left Nutmeg

A headsup to my denizens in the state. A copy of an e-mail forwarded to me by an acquaintance:

STOP THE INVASION
National Protest Day
Saturday, January 7th, 7:30-9:30AM
Illegal Worker Pick-up Site Across America

State and local immigration reform groups across the nation are
holding a national day of protest on Saturday, January 7, from
7:30-9:30AM in their respective areas at illegal worker pick-up
sites.

Sign up today to join this national demonstration through the
Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Reform web site. Groups are
invited to participate, as are individuals.

http://www.fairus.org/site/R?i=OxASX1AAhU4Yw6C4yeSYmg..

This is a great opportunity to stand up against the illegal alien
invasion and make your voice heard!

Go to the website and view the outrageousness of it.

My suggestion?

Join the Protest. That's right. Have them think you are covering an area, then don't. Carry the weapon.

Then:
There is one protest set up in Conn. (click on the, "Contact Sheet for Participating States and Locations" There are two set up for Stamford. (Go to the bottom for list of sites.)

Now, my suggestion. Print out their flyer. Have a group go to a site that you have, "futuritively set up as a ruse." Have a demonstration. Print out scads of the flyers, and burn them.

Then, counterprotest at the, "El Centro" site. Los illegales will be counting on your support. Failure to act will appear as hypocrasy, and will be blasted throughout the blogosphere.

My suggestion, don't waste your time with these assholes by only counterportesting. The Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control (CTCIC) are nothing more than a hate group and a joke. As I sated before, these morons are only interested in publicity and making a scene and the counter-protestors outnumber the members of the group (all 20 of them) at all of their meetings.

My advise, bring a video and digital camera and just like they do the immigrants, take a picture of all of these idiots and monitor their every move. Get each of their names, take pictures of their cars and bring the protest back to where they live. You see, most of these clowns are too afraid to be known of memebrs and they keep all of their meetings private just like a sex offender, every person in the neighborhood should know that they live next to a racist hate-monger.

Yeah, a big ol' counter protest in front of every CTCIC memebr's house. That would be rich!

Abramoff pleads guilty

What a way to start the year. Oh, the Republicans have to be nervous because this guy is going to sing and rat everyone out.

From the New York Times

Jack Abramoff will plead guilty to three felony counts in Washington today as part of a settlement with federal prosecutors, ending an intense, months-long negotiation over whether the Republican lobbyist would testify against his former colleagues, people involved with the case said.

Mr. Abramoff, 46, is pleading guilty to fraud, public corruption and tax evasion, setting the stage for prosecutors to begin using him as a cooperating witness against his former business and political colleagues. In exchange, Mr. Abramoff faces a maximum of about 10 years in prison in the Washington case.

After entering his guilty plea in United States District Court in Washington, Mr. Abramoff will also announce a plea agreement in a related Florida case, in which he was indicted last year. In that case, he is pleading guilty to fraud and conspiracy in connection with his purchase of the SunCruz casino boat line, and will face a maximum of about seven years' prison time.

Mr. Abramoff has been talking to investigators in the corruption case for many months, said participants in the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. They said he had provided a full picture of what evidence he could offer against other suspects.

[...]

Official Washington has been on edge for months awaiting word of Mr. Abramoff's legal future. Once a masterful Republican lobbyist with close ties to the former House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, he earned tens of millions of dollars representing Indian casino interests and farflung entities like the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Through a complicated web of financial arrangements, he helped funnel donations to his lawmaker friends' and their campaigns, and took members of Congress, mainly the Republicans in power, on lavish trips.

Now, after more than two years of investigations, prosecutors have developed a list of at least a dozen lawmakers, congressional aides and lobbyists whose work appears suspect and who are now at the core of the case. With Mr. Abramoff's cooperation, the Justice Department will have a potentially critical witness to alleged patterns of corruption or bribery within the Republican leadership ranks, which in some cases they believe also took the form of campaign donations and free meals at Mr. Abramoff's downtown restaurant, Signatures.

I wonder if any Connecticut Congressmen had any dealings with Abramoff? Seems like we have two big Indian-owned casinos in Connecticut...

Bush populairty a liability to Connecticut Congressmen

The Hartford Courant ran a piece on Monday which outlined the Republicans problems going into the 2006 election. Lets just say that Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, and Rob Simmons won't be inviting President Bush on the campaign trail.

In recent mid-terms, incumbents usually coasted - 98 percent of House members were re-elected in 1998, and 96 percent won in 2002.

This year, though, Democrats see the rare chance to make the election a nationwide referendum on Bush, the Republican-led Congress and the war, and they have been relentless in pushing that agenda.

In recent mid-terms, incumbents usually coasted - 98 percent of House members were re-elected in 1998, and 96 percent won in 2002.

This year, though, Democrats see the rare chance to make the election a nationwide referendum on Bush, the Republican-led Congress and the war, and they have been relentless in pushing that agenda.

He pointed out that Connecticut's three Republican House members were re-elected in 2004, when Bush lost the state by 10 percentage points to Democratic nominee John F. Kerry and when Democratic Sen. Christopher J. Dodd got 66 percent of the vote.

"Is Bush's popularity going to get that much worse in Connecticut this year? I doubt it," Forti said.

But Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th District, considered one of the country's most vulnerable Republicans, was less confident that Bush would not be a drag on GOP candidates.

"If things go badly, particularly in Iraq, you're going to have a very unhappy constituency," he said, "and I'm afraid Republicans will pay a penalty."

"The president's popularity is the issue," congressional political analyst Amy Walter said as she looked around the nation at the more volatile House and Senate races.

[...]

That's not necessarily encouraging news for GOP senators and congressmen in places where Democrats and independents are eager to register a protest of the president's policies.

Republicans this year are up against two historic trends: In presidential election years, the winner's party members usually get a boost because more of his supporters turn out. They are often less motivated in off-years, when turnout drops.

Also hovering over the election is the sixth-year curse: The middle of a president's second term usually means huge House and Senate losses for his party.

Between the Terri Shiavo mess, the blunders in Iraq, the attempt to destroy Social Security, the failure to protect the citizens of New Orleans, the outing of a CIA official, the eavesdropping on American citizens without a court order and the hubris of corrupt congressmen like Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham, the Republican party have reason for concern as they don't look like the same party that brought us the Contract with America back in 1994.

Simply put, voters are now realizing that the Republicans led by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney lied to the people to the pleasure of the radical wingnuts and neocons (a.k.a their political base). People want to know why over 200 billions dollars was spent on this needless war (why people who did everything possible to avoid military service when it was their time, can turn around and call anyone who questions the Iraq war "anti-American"); they want to know why low income people and students are being screwed with cuts to benefits such as student aid and Medicare while taxpayers are enjoying another tax break; they want to know how could FEMA screw the people of New Orleans when we were told they we were more prepared for a national disaster.

The list goes on and on.

Serious questions are now being asked the Republicans in office know that voters are pissed off and their having a hard time defending themselves. Voters in Connecticut are angry...very, very angry and Simmons, Shays, and Johnson are in for the fight of their lives. President Bush's popularity will not improve over this year and the CIA and NSA scandals might bring this President to the point of impeachment.

In order for the incumbent congressmen to have any chance, they need to distance themselves from Bush's record, as his popularity is very low in Connecticut. The Republicans will have a hard distancing themselves from Bush because the Democratic challengers are going to do everything in their power to link President Bush to their record.

This election season will go down as one of the ugliest ones on record as the Democrats smell blood in the water and will spend millions of dollars on advertising and will be throwing mud at the Republicans from now till November. If Lowell Weicker challenges Joe Lieberman, all hell is going to break loose as Weicker will attack Lieberman's pro-Bush relationship and rally up the anti-war liberals and angry Democrats which will could mean even more trouble for the Republicans as people tend to not vote during off year elections.

As the fight for control of Congress heats up, keep your eye on things in Connecticut. Just as Florida and Ohio determined who would be President, Control of Congress can be determined with the races in the 2nd, 4th, and 5th districts in Connecticut and you can be sure that the Democrats and Republicans are very aware of the Connecticut factor.