<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\x3dhttps://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5344443236411396584', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Lamont campaign meeting wrap-up

Okay, in order to get things up quickly, I'll keep this post short and to the point. I'll update this entry in more detailed later tonight.

In short, WHAT A HUGE TURNOUT! I was plesently surprised with the amount of people who came to support Lamont today. Every district was well represented and shared ideas with the campaign team.

I was also impressed with Lamont's speech. I've seen him several times throughout the state and I have to say that this was his best speech yet. He hit all the right points, energized his supporters, and set a positive tone for the start of his campaign.

Again, I'll update this post throughout the day. I'm alittle behind on things today and I'll complete this post (which will include a better resolution of Lamont's speech) later.

FYI: If anyone is wants a copy of the video from today, send me an email and I'll get it to you ASAP.

Things to note (hat tip to spazeboy):

1. Ned Lamont will make his announcement on Monday March 13th at or around 3pm at the Old State House in Hartford, CT.

2. Absentee ballots for the primary will be available beginning July 18

3. When changing party affiliation from a major party (Republican) to Democrat, you lose all privileges in both parties for 90 days

4. When changing party affiliation from a minor party (Green, Libertarian) or unaffiliated, you are established as a full-fledged Democrat immediately (therefore, eligible to vote in the Primary Election)

5. Connecticut has 1,440 delegates across all DTCs int he state. To get on the ballot, Ned Lamont needs 15% (216) of these delegates. This should not be too big a problem...

6. ...but if it is, we'll be bringing 30,000 petition signatures to put Ned Lamont on the ballot to the party convention on May 20

Without further delay, here's Ned Lamont giving what can be considered his best speech yet.

Right click here to download the video (Quicktime 12 meg)

Click here for photos from today's event

Ned Lamont campaign meeting

(click on image to enlarge)

I just came back from the Ned Lamont's first campaign meeting in New Haven.

I'm currently processing the pictures and video I shot at the event (which is going to take quite a bit of time) and I'll post a full report later.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Howie Klien is getting under Lieberman's skin

Good for you Howie, don't back down. Let Lieberman freak out and don't retract your statement.

Now this is how you start the weekend. Howie Klien's post from today's Huffington Post is so good, I placed it on the blog for everyone to read.
I've only been blogging for a few months now and, like most small bloggers, I always appreciate an opportunity for a wider audience. So when I wrote a post recently about my experiences with Joe Lieberman in regard to his role as a music censor and reactionary culture warrior, I was really happy when my old pal Jane Hamsher encouraged me to submit it to the Huffington Post.

It got a big response and I heard from people I hadn't heard from in years... decades. But then I got an e-mail from the Huffington Post saying "someone formerly affiliated with Lieberman" had challenged my assertions that Lieberman had made "racism quasi-acceptable by framing it as being against unfair affirmative action." The secret accuser also took exception to my assertion that Lieberman was a homophobe for conspiring with Jesse Helms and other far right extremists. It's hard to believe any close associate of Lieberman's would take this action and make demands of the Huffington Post without his knowledge-- if not connivance-- so I assume it is on Lieberman's behalf that he insists I either retract my statements or back them up.

Backing them up is so easy that it's hard to understand why Lieberman or any of his associates would be so foolish as to ask for another round. But... my pleasure, Senator.

Can I get a drum roll please. Break it down Howie!

Let me start with why I expressed the opinion that George Bush's best friend in the Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman, is a homophobe. Back in 2000, Paul Bass of The New Haven Advocate pointed out that Lieberman "sided with Jesse Helms on removing federal money from public schools that counsel suicidal homosexual teens that it's OK (or 'an acceptable lifestyle,' in Lieberman's and Helms' disapproving parlance) to be gay."

This whole "disapproving" thing is what came through so loud and clear for me.

Lieberman may have even thought he was being liberal and groovy when he told The Advocate that some of his best friends are gay. But gay people have a keen sense of when they're being condescended to and if Joe Lieberman is one thing, it is a condescending scold (or is that two things?) As he was putting together his horrendous and ultimately vetoed (saved by a Bush!) Media Marketing Accountability Act he treated homosexuality like a condition that society had to be protected from.

A 2003 piece in the LA Weekly titled "All in all, as Democrat, Lieberman makes a great Republican," takes the bull by the horns when it comes to Lieberman's carefully disguised dog whistle brand of political bigotry:

On gays in the military, Lieberman has enunciated the now-discredited canard that 'homosexual conduct can harm unit cohesion and effectiveness.' (Tell that to the dozens of countries, from England to Israel, that permit openly gay troops in their armed forces.) In fact, Lieberman worked with Georgia's Sam Nunn to fashion the destructive 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, which resulted in escalating expulsions of gays from the military every year after it took effect. Its Catch-22 provisions have directly stimulated a rising wave of violent gay bashing and harassment in the military because victims can't complain without 'telling.'

This is just part of the record that has made Lieberman his party's most notorious theocrat. The Scripture-quoting Lieberman made God-bothering a staple of his 2000 vice-presidential campaign: That August, Holy Joe told a Detroit congregation never to imagine 'that morality can be maintained without religion.' This position was denounced as 'unsettling' by no less than the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (ADL), which released a letter to him arguing tartly that 'To even suggest that one cannot be a moral person without being a religious person is an affront to many highly ethical citizens.'

Prayer in the schools? Holy Joe lined up with the GOP's religious zealots to push it repeatedly in the Senate. Subsidizing parochial schools at the expense of public education? Holy Joe has sponsored legislation to give parents vouchers to send their kids to parochial schools, draining money from the public schools to which most Americans send their kids. And Lieberman just last year joined with rabid gay basher Rick Santorum -- the Pennsylvania Republican who compared same-sex love to bestiality and incest-- to co-sponsor George Bush's faith-based initiatives, praising Bush's 'leadership' in tearing down the constitutional barrier between church and state.

Right after Gore made the colossal error of naming Lieberman to the Democratic ticket in 2000, Dr. Manning Marable, Director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University, wrote in the Detroit Free Press:
Throughout his twelve years in the U.S. Senate, Lieberman positioned himself on the extreme conservative wing of the Democratic Party. He chairs the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the 'centrist' group of elected officials (including Clinton and Gore) who have aggressively pushed their party toward more conservative public policy positions. On a wide variety of issues, Lieberman is clearly to the right of both Clinton and Gore. On gay rights, for example, in 1994 Lieberman supported an amendment offered by reactionary Republican Senator Jesse Helms, which cut off federal funds to any school district that used educational material that in any way 'supported homosexuality.'
Lieberman, in a tough primary battle against a progressive Democrat who comes off as anything but the Inside-the-Beltway professional pol that Lieberman has become, probably did take offense to my charge that he's a homophobe; anyone who would still use that "some of my best friend are..." line undoubtedly doesn't think they are homophobic. But I really don't know any gay people who could look at his record as outlined above and conclude anything else.

It's somewhat harder to believe that a US Senator, an ostensibly Democratic one, no less, does not know that he's providing an acceptable frame for racism when he says affirmative action is "un-American."

Let me go back to the very learned and distinguished Dr. Marable for a moment:

Lieberman has a long record of hostility toward affirmative action that even his liberal apologists in the Democratic Party cannot hide. Back in 1995, when Lieberman took over the DLC, he declared, 'You can't defend policies that are based on group preferences as opposed to individual opportunities, which is what America has always been about.' Lieberman embraced California's Proposition 209 in 1996, which outlawed affirmative action programs in that state. When President Clinton, after months of hesitation, finally put forward the formulation that affirmative action programs ought to be 'mended, not ended,' Lieberman led the opposition within the Democratic Party. The DLC's Progressive Policy Institute issued a report criticizing Clinton's position, and called for abolishing it for government hiring and contracting, and making it voluntary in private business.

On issues of higher education, Lieberman has again played a conservative role. He was the only Democrat to vote against liberal historian Sheldon Hackney, the President of the University of Pennsylvania, to become head of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He claimed that Hackney was too liberal on campus issues of 'political correctness.' Lieberman then became co-founder of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a five-year-old group that reject ''racial preferences,' opposes 'political correctness,' and defends 'Western civilization.'

Lieberman and his co-founder, Lynn Cheney, were on a mission. But could he really not realize that these actions played directly into the hands of the bigots of the GOP, giving them cover for their racist agendas? If so, he's the only one.

It didn't fool the NAACP, who gave him a "D" on his voting record, and it didn't fool Jesse Jackson. "We submit to the senator of this state," Jackson roared in 1995 three years before Lieberman's NAACP "D" grade, that we have marched too long, and have died too young. We have been to too many funerals to turn back now! No, Mr. Lieberman, we are moving forward!"

Anyone one who needs further evidence of what could only charitably be referred to as "racial insensitivity" can read the infamous transcript that made many civil rights partisans denounce Lieberman as a racist here (where Lieberman calls affirmative action "un-American.") Former Congressman and NAACP President Kwesi Mfume branded Lieberman as a candidate with "no legitimacy" in the African American community and compared his political capital there to "confederate dollars" after he snubbed an NAACP convention so he could schmooze with Bill O'Reilly on Fox TV.

And Maryland Congressman Albert Wynn, commenting on a subsequent meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus where Lieberman acted the buffoon as he tried to mend fences, said "basically, people were laughing at him."

But the fact that those affiliated with a United States Senator (sorry-- formerly affiliated) became enraged and demanded a retraction about what one lone blogger like myself had to say about them speaks volumes-- Lieberman must indeed be terrified of Ned Lamont. I can well imagine why. Lieberman is still a rabid supporter of an unpopular and disastrous war; his vote helped put a man on the Supreme Court who is now writing love notes to James Dobson, and the man he's running against-- Ned Lamont-- is someone people really believe in, someone I believe in, someone that people are working their butts off for.

Have a nice weekend Joe.

Ned Lamont comes to CT Blue's backyard

You knew CT Blue would be on the case when Ned Lamont spoke in his area and as always, Blue's analysis of the event is right on the money.
Unfortunately, but predictably, he was ignored by the local media. I saw him about a month ago in New Haven, and I think he's improved, judging purely on surface stuff like speaking style, etc. I assume he's still developing a stump speech.

He even pulled a page out of my book and videotaped Lamont speaking in Groton. Nice job!

Ella Grasso day

It's amazing that she passed away twenty five years ago. Boy, am I getting old.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Lieberman can not seem to criticize Bush for lying about the levees

This is just nuts.

The President clearly lied about the levees yet the President's favorite Democrat gives him yet another pass.

In New Orleans, Mayor C. Ray Nagin (D) was visibly shocked when shown the recording by reporters.

It "seems they were aware of everything . . . that we would need lots of help," Nagin said after a post-Mardi Gras news conference. "Why was the response so slow?"

When the video ended, Nagin turned away and said, "Oh, God."

Democrats in Washington issued statements newly critical of the government response.

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) expressed alarm at "what the president actually knew and when he knew it."

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), ranking Democrat on a Senate panel investigating the storm response, said the video underscored the committee's findings that "government at all levels was forewarned of the catastrophic nature of the approaching storm and did painfully little to be ready."
WTF?!? The video confirmed that this President lied to the American people (again) and his incompetence cost people their lives.

While we're at it Joe, let's not forget about your role in this Katrina mess (next time, try reading Michael Brown's resume before giving your stamp of approval).

This is simply unbelievable. Lieberman had no problem ripping into Clinton when he screwed up and his lie didn't cost anyone his or her life. Joe is simply a worthless Democrat and needs to go pronto.

Yet another reason to vote for Ned Lamont

Money quote

If it weren't for the fact that Bush's incompetence during the Katrina disaster cost people their lives, this quote would be laughable.
"I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing," Bush spokesman Trent Duffy said, citing a variety of orders and disaster declarations Bush signed before the storm made landfall. "He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."
I don't see people, who lost everything in the hurricane, taking any comfort from statements like this.

Lieberman to Shays: Thanks but no thanks

Seems like Joe Lieberman came to his senses and is now backing away from Shays endorsement. I mean, the last thing Joe needs right now is to do something that would further energize Ned Lamont's people.

From the Danbury News-Times
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman has been called the GOP's favorite Democrat. Now, after a major Republican endorsement, other GOP officials won't completely rule out voting for the three-term senator in November.

Over the weekend, U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, R-4th Dist., said he would vote for Lieberman, the three-term Democratic senator, and encouraged other Republicans to do the same.

"I don't see any Republican I would support over Lieberman," Shays said in published reports, as he faces his own tough race this year. "I would love to see the Republican Party endorse him."

For his part, Lieberman, facing a Democratic primary challenger from the left, said he would not accept the cross-endorsement of the Republican Party. And he's not returning the favor to Shays.

"I thank Chris Shays for his support, but of course I'll be supporting Democrat Diane Farrell in her race, as I did two years ago," Lieberman said in a statement read by campaign spokeswoman Diana Fassbender.
Lieberman's acceptance of a Shays endorsement would have been a slap in the face to Dianne Farrell's campaign and that's the last thing he needs right now since seeing that Ned Lamont lives in the same district.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter if accepts an endorsement from a Republican since he has plenty of conservatives raising money for him and in the end, it’s all about the money.
Two prominent Republican lobbyists, Craig Fuller and H.P. Goldfield, hosted a fund-raising dinner Thursday evening at Goldfield's Washington home for Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, seeking re-election in Connecticut this year.

Fuller was President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet secretary and later Vice President George H.W. Bush's chief of staff. Goldfield, a Reagan White House aide and later assistant secretary of Commerce, was a fund-raiser in the two Bush-Quayle campaigns.

While Lieberman is a major voice for lobbyist reform, three of his dinner's five hosts were registered lobbyists. Fuller represents the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Goldfield lobbies for Airbus and for energy companies (ConcocoPhillips, Dynegy International and Gulfsands Petroleum). Co-host C. Michael Gilliland, a partner in the Hogan & Hartson law firm, represents a variety of clients.
So Lieberman passes on Shays but takes the money from his ultra-conservative buddies (I thought he was for lobbyists reform).

Don’t be fooled.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

The President caught in anohter lie

So, no one anticipated that the levees would break in New Orleans?

In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, risk lives in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage of the briefings.

Bush didn't ask a single question during the final government-wide briefing the day before Katrina struck on Aug. 29 but assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."

Six days of footage and transcripts obtained by The Associated Press show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.


Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.

"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."

Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility — and Bush was worried too.
This is getting too easy.

Look at whats happening to that DINO from Texas


You guys are sooo spoiled. Congressional races are rarely polled, and when they are, those polls are rarely released. But we've got one and it offers good news.

Pineda Consulting for Ciro Rodriguez. 2/26. Primary voters. MoE 4.9% (10/29 results)

Cuellar (RD) 39 (45)
Rodriguez (D) 34 (30)
Morales (D) 8
Undecided 19

That's a pretty dramatic turnaround. From the pollsters' memo:

The vote clearly trends in Rodriguez's favor. Despite an initial 10-day on-air head start, Cuellar's support has dropped. In October, Cuellar was garnering 45 percent compared to 30 percent for Rodriguez and 11 percent for Richard Raymond, who has since decided not to run. The most recent tracking poll, which ran from February 23rd to the 26th, shows Cuellar dropping to 39 percent compared to Rodriguez's 34 percent. Victor Morales, the late entry in the race, is getting 8 percent, while 19 percent remain undecided.

Cuellar's drop, Rodriguez's gain and the eventual outcome of the election are all explained by one fact: the more of these Democratic primary voters that find out Cuellar has been taking Republican stands on important issues, the more they support the true Democrat in the race, Ciro Rodriguez. In the February poll, likely voters were asked whether they supported the Republican or Democratic position on the recent changes in Medicare. Not surprisingly, 68 percent said they agreed with the Democrats while only 22 percent said they agreed with the Republicans. Then voters were asked whether they thought Cuellar had voted with the Democrats or the Republicans. Only 37 percent of voters knew that Cuellar had voted with the Republicans. Among those voters, a majority (52 percent) are voting for Rodriguez while only a third (33 percent) are voting for Cuellar.

The implication of this finding cannot be overstated. Democratic primary voters in the district support Democratic positions on issues like Medicare. As they learn that Cuellar has taken Republican positions on these issues, they leave Cuellar and support Rodriguez. Rodriguez's potential for even more growth derives from the fact that almost two-thirds of voters do not yet know that Cuellar voted with Bush and the Republicans on Medicare. If they learn about Cuellar's votes, they will support Rodriguez.

Cuellar is getting hammered on the air, has a massive and motivated ground operation working against it, and is getting gobs of negative press. Quite the dramatic one-day story, no doubt.

Be nervous Joe, very nervous.

Things in Iraq may spark regional war

Does Joe still think things are going well in Iraq?
A civil war in Iraq could lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East, pitting the region's rival Islamic sects against each other, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said in an unusually frank assessment Tuesday.

"If chaos were to descend upon Iraq or the forces of democracy were to be defeated in that country ... this would have implications for the rest of the Middle East region and, indeed, the world," Negroponte said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on global threats.
If? I think we're beyond the point now.
Bombings in Baghdad killed 26 people and four others died when mortar rounds slammed into their homes in a nearby town Wednesday, the second day of surging violence after authorities lifted a curfew that briefly calmed sectarian attacks.


Wednesday's most serious attack — a car bomb near a traffic police office in a primarily Shiite neighborhood in southeast Baghdad — killed at least 23 people and wounded 58, according to police Lt. Thaer Mahmoud.

About an hour earlier, a bomb hidden under a car detonated as a police patrol passed near downtown Tahrir Square, said Interior Ministry Maj. Falah al-Mohammedawi. Three civilians died and 15 were wounded.

North of Baghdad, gunmen ambushed a police convoy, killing an unspecified number of officers and abducting another 10, police said. Four officers were seriously wounded.

The convoy of five minibuses was returning from a training session in Sulaimaniyah when it was attacked about 45 miles northeast of Tikrit, police Capt. Hakim al-Azzawi said.

The assailants drove off in one of the minibuses.

In the eastern suburb Kamaliyah, residents alerted police to a suspicious vehicle, which exploded as police cleared the area, causing damage to nearby shops and houses but no casualties, al-Mohammedawi.

Also Wednesday, mortar shells fell on three houses in the mixed Sunni-Shiite town of Mahmoudiya, 20 miles south of Baghdad, killing three civilians, police Capt. Rashid al-Samaraie said. A fifth mortar shell slammed into the mixed Qadisiyah neighborhood in west Baghdad, killing a woman and wounding a child, Mahmoud said.

Iraq began to tilt seriously toward outright civil war after the Feb. 22 bombing of the revered Shiite Askariya shrine in the mainly Sunni city of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

The government said 379 people had been killed and 458 injured as of Tuesday afternoon in nearly a week of sectarian violence tied to the Askariya bombing. Another 30 died Wednesday.

Yeah Joe, things are going well.

Two words: Ned Lamont



This primary is turning into a political drama.

The twists, the turns...
It's been the subject of whispered conversations among top Republican officials for the past month. Now, U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, R-4th District, has let slip the secret: GOP officials have discussed cross-endorsing Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman this fall.

In an interview today with the editorial board of The Advocate of Stamford, Shays said he intends to vote for Lieberman and is encouraging a Republican endorsement of the three-term senator.

The remark was not immediately reported by The Advocate, but it set off a flurry of calls among Republicans who have been gauging support for the idea among GOP candidates, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell and U.S. Reps. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Nancy L. Johnson, R-5th District.

One GOP operative who was aware of the discussions said premature public disclosure of the possible cross-endorsement probably would kill the idea. That seems to be case.


Republicans (including the most popular governor) are joining forces with a Democrat who is very popular among moderates (which makes up a good portion of the State).


Hmmm...it doesn't looks like Lieberman isn't waiting for Lamont to announce his intentions, skipping the small chess moves, and is trying to win this primary before it starts.


With welcoming Lieberman with open arms, could this be the Republicans best card to defeating the Democrats in the 2nd 4th and 5th district. Lets say Lieberman loses the primary, wouldn't you think the Republicans would latch onto him if he runs as an independent (and I don't care what anyone says, if Lieberman loses the primary, you can bet that he'll find a way to be on the ticket).


Did you catch the front page photo-op and article that ran in the Danbury News Times. You know, the fifth largest city in the state that has a re-elected mayor who is trying to crack down on illegal immigration (a topic that’s important to conservatives who would vote for Lieberman).


Oh, I could see myself taking the picture with Johnson, Shays, Simmons, Rell, and Lieberman holding hands. Hell, maybe Simmons and Lieberman will embrace each other. I’ll make sure I’ll bring my camera for that moment (maybe I'll get 20,000 hit from kos linking to my site again.


What does this mean to voters seeing that it's only the end of Feburary and the general elecion is not until November...possibly nothing. But hey, it makes for great news and it gives everyone something to talk about (check here, here, here and here).

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

He looks even more like a idiot when he tells the truth

Why doesn't he just resign. I can't believe we have three more years of this fool.
VARGAS: When you look back on those days immediately following when Katrina struck, what moment do you think was the moment that you realized that the government was failing, especially the people of New Orleans?

BUSH: When I saw TV reporters interviewing people who were screaming for help.
It looked - the scenes looked chaotic and desperate. And I realized that our government was-could have done a better job of comforting people.
Maybe he should of put the guitar down.

Okay, I'm fired up now

I've been going back and forth over at CT Local Politics over the race for the 5th Congressional seat between Nancy Johnson and Chris Murphy when I said to myself "hey, let's do a in-dpeth feature on this race."

Well, I'm going to get deep into the this important race and give you the rundown on what Murphy needs to do in order to win (which will not be easy). I'm going to have to do some hard research so this will be a multi-part post and will take some time.

Stay tuned...this is going to be good

The cost of war to Connecticut

Don't forget.

From Iraq Coalition Casulities


AshfordHoyt, Robert W.Specialist11-Dec-2004

BethlehemBrennan, William I.Chief Warrant Officer16-Oct-2004

BridgeportFelder, Tyanna S.Specialist07-Apr-2004

BrookfieldSchmidt III, John T.Lance Corporal11-May-2005

DanielsonHoskins, Christopher L.Specialist21-Jun-2005

FarmingtonPaliwoda, Eric ThomasCaptain02-Jan-2004

GlastonburyCoullard, David J.Sergeant01-Aug-2005

GuilfordEaton Jr., Richard S.Staff Sergeant12-Aug-2003

HartfordPhilippon, Lawrence R.Lance Corporal08-May-2005

MonroeDempsey, Kevin J.Corporal13-Nov-2004

New HavenVitagliano, Thomas E.Staff Sergeant17-Jan-2005

NorwalkPerez Jr., WilfredoSpecialist26-Jul-2003

NorwichMartir, Jacob D.Specialist18-Aug-2004

SimsburyDelgreco, Felix M.Sergeant09-Apr-2004

StaffordBraun, Jeffrey F.Private 1st Class12-Dec-2003

StamfordHeald, BarbaraCivilian29-Jan-2005

WaterburyDagostino, Anthony D.Private 1st Class02-Nov-2003

WaterfordChanawongse, Kemaphoom "Ahn"Corporal23-Mar-2003

Lamont does Yale

From the Yale College Democrats Blog (photo credit: Han Xu)
Ned Lamont spoke last night (Monday, 2/27/06) to a meeting of the Yale Democrats and the Yale community at large. Here is a summary of what he said, interspersed with some of my own comments. He made a very good overall impression on the crowd of 80-100 people, mostly students. He gave what is becoming his standard stump speech, followed by a brief Q & A session. I think that he’s getting very good at telling the crowd who he is, what he’s about, and why Lieberman has to go.


After college, Ned worked at a small newspaper in Ludlow, VT. This experience gave him appreciation for the needs of everyday Americans. It seems like those in DC, he said, are not even trying to make a difference anymore.

Who is he?:

He is an entrepreneur, who started his own cable company that, for the first time, offered colleges a choice in their cable service. Now he wants to offer CT residents a real choice for the first time in too long. Through his business experience, he learned that you can’t kick problems down the road – they’ll only get worse.
Obviously, he’s not afraid of a challenge. He wants to challenge the status quo and bring his entrepreneurial approach to CT politics and the US Senate.


Lamont On the issues:

The War:

“’Stay the course’ is a losing strategy. 'More of the same’ is a losing strategy”.

Ned respects Lieberman and his integrity, but stridently disagrees with him. Lieberman’s WSJ op-ed from November spurred him to enter this race. He thinks we needed to ask more questions from the beginning and challenge the President’s litany of questionable assertions. The troops have fought wonderfully, but the leadership in Washington has let them down. We need to hold those leaders accountable for their errors.

He says we need to pull the troops back. Start with reservists and Nat’l guard troops– bring them home. Pull the regular troops back to the periphery – our presence is doing more to destabilize Iraq than to help secure it.

Lamont will stand up to the President – Democrats need to stand up and be heard. The war and our conduct in the GWOT has thoroughly eroded our moral authority in the world, and we need to reclaim it.


Q & A:

Q: If you’re elected, but the senate is still in Republican hands, what should Democrats do?
A: Stand up and make your strong opposition heard! However, he said that Democrats will take back the Senate.

Q: What is your ideal Democratic foreign policy?
A: 1) Utilize our allies. 2) Reclaim the moral high ground. 3) Preserve a viable military option, something the President has not done.

Bottom line?:

“Democrats should stand up and be Democrats again”

Amen to that.

34 percent

Nice. Seems like more people seeing the light and that's not good news for Bush and his friends (hey Joe, I'm talking about you).
The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.


For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall.

Just 30 percent approve of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low.

By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly – the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq.

Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve.

Seems like this president is in lame duck mode and for good reason...you simply can't believe one word this presdient says. This only makes the actions of Joe Lieberman all the more disgraceful (avoiding criticizing the President over the port deal, supporting the president's Iraq policies, criticizing Democrats who disagree with the President).

From Iraq (which Lieberman still supports) to Katrina (Lieberman approved Michael Brown as head of FEMA) this president and his cronies have made one mistake after another which has cost American lives here (failure of FEMA to act quick enough to the Katrina disaster) and abroad (countless mistakes in Iraq).

We can't throw Bush out of office (unless he's impeached) but we can hold those who supported this President's ridiculous policies accountable for their actions and number 1 on that list is should be Sean Hannity's favorite Democrat (as well as Nancy Johnson, Chris Shays, and lets not forget Rob "I love the Gitmo rice" Simmons.

2006 is an election year and it's time to clean house in Connecticut so we can but the Democrats in a position where they can hold this Presdient accountable (remember, Democrats controlling Congress=subpoena power).

Monday, February 27, 2006

Lamont does PoliticsTV

Ned Lamont did an interview from PoliticsTV (formerly names DemsTV) and it's worth watching.

Here are some highlights (major hit tip to LamontBlog, I encourage everyone to go and check that site out):
On why he's running: "We ought to give voters a choice. For too long, they haven't had a choice.... There's some real issues out there that Joe and I don't necessarily agree on and I think people deserve a robust discussion of where we ought to be going as a country and where we should stand on those issues and where Democrats should stand on those issues.... We have a government that's not dealing with the big issues of the day. We need a more entrepreneurial approach to government."

On the culture of corruption in Washington: "I see some of these lobbying reforms that are being proposed - you can't use the Senate gym for two years after leaving office - it seems like something being written for a Saturday Night Live sketch. It doesn't seem like you're really getting to the core of the issue."

Why challenge a sitting senator when your party is in the minority? (same clip as above): "I was talking to a fellow the other day and he said, Ned, your best response is, 'You're not gonna lose a seat, you're gonna gain a Democrat.' One of the issues that I've got with Senator Lieberman is that it's not that he cheerled us into the war in Iraq, which is a terrible foreign policy blunder for this country. It's not that he doesn't necessarily challenge the president as aggressively as he should on Sam Alito and the environment and energy independence and civil liberties and torture. But he also undercuts Democrats by not standing up and not speaking with a clear voice on these issues. And it makes it tougher for the Democrats to rally and speak with a unified voice, which we've gotta do if we're going to challenge these bad policies."

On Iraq: "We did not ask the right questions going in.... I wish Senator Lieberman instead of cheerleading the president, had been there asking the tough questions so we went in there with our eyes open."

On healthcare: "There's nothing more vital... It's a system that's badly, badly broken.... It's of interest to me as a small buisnessman as well because look at how much we're paying for healthcare and when we lose bids, we lose bids to fly-by-night companies that don't even provide health insurance for their folks."

What's the biggest problem in Washington? "Lifelong career politicians.... that leads to a certain cronyism down there. That's not what the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about a citizen legislature."

On checking Presidential power run amok: "You need congressional oversight, you need checks and balances to protect us from a tyranny.... One of the things that really got me involved in this race [was] the Terri Schiavo case... it's an intensely personal decision and it's the last place you want the Federal government intruding. And the Right-To-Life movement got involved, and George Bush flew back from Crawford, TX, and Tom DeLay said the federal government's got to intervene, and Joe Lieberman backed them up on that."

On his Political Heroes: "Bill Clinton, I thought did a wonderful service... I worked hard on the Bill Bradley campaign. I love Bill Bradley cause he was an entrepreneurial politician, he was an idea politician."

On the War in Afghanistan: "One of my strong objections to the invasion of Iraq is that it has distracted us from the rest of the War on Terror."

On Labor Unions: "We have to defend the middle class in this country.... The union movement is very important to that. It's very important that the people we trade with have some labor rights just like we have in this country. The same way that the multinationals are going offshore, I think it's very important that the union movement think broadly as well."

Ned Lamont coming to the Danbury area

Democrat Ned Lamont is challenging Joe Lieberman for Senate and everyone should come out and hear what he has to say.

From My Left Nutmeg
Ned Lamont, described as a “successful businessman and progressive Democrat,” will appear in Ridgefield at a party on Sunday, March 5, from 2 to 4 p.m. at the home of Harry and Lynne Sewell, 138 Haviland Road. The party on March 5 is not a fundraiser, is designed to introduce Ned Lamont to Ridgefield, said Ms. Johnson-Lundberg.

To RSVP, call Karen Schuessler at (203) 438-4962.
138 Haviland Road
Ridgefield, CT
When: 02:00 PM - 04:00 PM

For more informaion on Ned Lamont, check out the following sites:

Democracy for Connecticut
My Left Nutmeg

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Dodd-Lieberman lovefest

The political news show Beyond the Headlines hosted a Iraq war debate bewteen Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman and after watching it, I think it's fair to say that it was more of a love fest than anything else.

I tivo'd the show but I have little to no space on my server at this time (I'm working on freeing up some space now). I'll make the video available for anyone to download and hopefully someone else can take clips from the show and post them. Believe me, there are plenty of Lieberman moments from the show that someone can post and rip apart.

You can view the video and read the transcript by clicking here (thanks to MikeCT).