Lieberman in "tough fight"

Well, it seems to be another tough weekend for President Bush's favorite Democrat. First Joe bombs at his photo-op and now the Washington Post does an article on his tough primary challenge.

Like President Bush, Lieberman can't seem to catch a break...

hen Lamont announced his primary challenge in mid-March, he was viewed as the longest of long shots, a quixotic blueblood who was scratching a political itch. While many Connecticut Democrats had soured on Lieberman over his war stance, a poll showed that voters backed the three-term senator over Lamont by 5 to 1.

But in the space of six weeks, the newcomer has come on strong. Lamont raised $344,111 from 4,337 online donors and added $371,500 of his own money. He hired a staff of seasoned professionals and signed up several thousand volunteers. The 52-year-old cable television entrepreneur is blitzing the state, hitting as many as three events per evening.

Now, Lamont has turned the Democratic primary into a horse race, giving Lieberman his first real test since he joined the Senate 18 years ago, according to Democratic operatives and analysts in Connecticut. Party leaders were so rattled by the challenge that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called Lamont asking him to back off.

"Some of the party brass said, 'Ned, don't jeopardize a safe seat,' " Lamont recently told students at Southern Connecticut State University, who gathered for a meet-and-greet session. "But you're not going to lose a senator. You're going to gain a Democrat."

The race is one of the few in the country in which a well-established incumbent is being threatened by a challenger from his own party. It suggests that no member of the House or Senate can take reelection for granted, given the voter disenchantment with Iraq and a Congress weakened by a corruption scandal and a meager record of accomplishments.

[...]

Lamont asserts -- usually to a sea of nodding heads -- that the United States should continue providing support to the Iraqis, but that "our front-line military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home."

Voters greet him with a mixture of curiosity and relief. "This is the first I've heard of him," said Kylie Welsh, a 27-year-old student who said she is tired of Lieberman's pro-war views. "I need to do some more research, but I think it's time for somebody new."

Hope you're having a good weekend Joe.

Joe had another bad day in Connecticut

I heard that Joe Lieberman's photo-op didn't go as smoothly as he expected. If only I could of been there with my camera.

I've just finished talking to one of the persons who confronted Joe as he did his photo-op at a local gas station in New Haven today. I guess he couldn't answer why he was the only Democratic senator in New England who voted in favor for the infamous Energy bill that included over 14 billion in tax breaks to oil companies.

I'll give you the full run-down on what happened to Bush's favorite Democrat later but make sure you watch the local news tonight as they caught the whole thing (oh man, this is good).

I tell you, Joe just can't seem to catch a break whenever he appears in the area.

UPDATE: Here's a very brief first-hand account of what happened at Lieberman's photo-op in New Haven earlier today. I think it's fair to say that this person is a fan of Joe.

I followed Keith there, and I think someone might have even called Joe a phony and a hypocrite.

More seriously, we pointed out to the press, Joe's unexplained vote for Bush's Energy Bill, and the fact that Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy, Reed, Chafee-R, Clinton, Schumer, Biden, Carper, Leahy, Jeffords, and yes, New Hampshire's Gregg-R, and Sununu-R, --had all voted against.

I don't know what Joe's message was, but obviously he is trying to get out front of one of our most damaging issues against him. After he gave his spiel, he went and pumped someone's gas for them, keeping in tune with his fake "man of the people" diner stops.

Hey Joe, how about a public forum sometime. We all want to know why you voted for the Bush Energy Bill...

More to come. Like I said before, Joe had a really bad day.

UPDATE: I incorrectly stated that Joe Liberman was the only senator from New England to vote for the energy bill when I meant to say he was the only Democratic senator. Correction was made to this post.

Two weeks

Enjoy your freedom while it last Karl.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to decide within two weeks whether to indict top White House aide Karl Rove, The New York Times said Friday.

Citing lawyers involved in the case, the newspaper reported that Fitzgerald will spend the time reviewing Rove's testimony in his fifth appearance before a grand jury investigating the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. Fitzgerald will compare it to Rove's previous statements in the case.

David Shuster was on Hardball last night and reported on the latest developments surrounding Karl Rove's legal troubles.

The picture tells the story

Priceless.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Ill., center, gets out of a Hydrogen Alternative Fueled automobile, left, as he prepares to board his SUV, which uses gasoline, after holding a new conference at a local gas station in Washington, Thursday, April 27, 2006 to discuss the recent rise in gas prices. Hastert and other members of Congress drove off in the Hydrogen-Fueled cars only to switch to their official cars to drive back the few block back to the U.S. Capitol.

Shameless.

Lamont does Air America

Ned Lamont was on Air America's "The Majority Report" tonight. Seems like Ned isn't afriad to come on a friend's radio show, why won't Joe keep his promise and appear on his friend's show.

In case you missed it, you can here the interview by clicking here.

UPDATE: The file has been updated and you can now listen to the complete interview.

Karl Rove is toast

I can hardly contain myself...

Karl Rove has described his three and a half hour meeting with a grand jury as grueling, and is more worried about being prosecuted than ever, MSNBC is reporting.

RAW STORY has also learned that an MSNBC report tonight will reveal that one of Rove's lawyers said the presidential adviser described his fifth grand jury appearance as "hell." MSNBC's David Shuster is expected to be live on Keith Olbermann's 8pm show this evening, sources say.

The three and a half hour duration is considered highly unusual for a fifth appearance before a grand jury, Shuster reported. His report will re-air at 7pm EST.

Also not boding well for Rove is the fact that the grand jury plans to meet tomorrow. Some are speculating that an indictment for Rove may be handed up tomorrow, though others have claimed such a fast turnaround time is unlikely.

Could it be that my dream is about to come true

No not Karl Rove being taken away in handcuffs, my other dream.

Okay, let me explain...

If you don't know already, I live in Danbury and we have a transportation system. The highways are always clogged with traffic and the rail service is nothing more than a nightmare.

I'll skip the traffic nightmare and talk about the rail dilemma...

The Danbury rail service is part of the Metro-North railroad system and is connected to the silly New Haven Line. I call it silly because in order to get to New York City on rail, you have to travel from Danbury to South Norwalk, get off one train, wait fifteen minutes to pick up a connecting train that eventually takes you to Grand Central Station. Look at the map below and you'll see what I mean.
Click on image to enlarge
In the end, it takes anywhere from two to two and a half hours to get from Danbury to the city (and that's if you don't miss the train in South Norwalk).

Most people who work in the city and live in Danbury drive over to Brewster-Southeast NY and pick up the train that is connected to the Harlem Line. This train travels through Westchester County and brings you to Grand Central in about one and a half hours. It might not seem like much but it makes a huge difference when you travel everyday and you can skip the hassles associated with the New Haven line (overcrowding, connecting trains, dirty trains, etc.) The only problem with picking up the train in Brewster is the outrageous parking fees you have to pay in order to keep your car near the station. When you add the cost of the train fare with the parking fees, traveling to New York becomes quite expensive.

For as long as I can remember, people in the area have complained that Danbury should be linked up to the Harlem Line in Brewster instead of connecting to South Norwalk (again, if you look at the map, it's clear that Danbury is much closer to Brewster than South Norwalk). There is already a track that goes from Danbury to Brewster that currently not in use so connecting the two locations wouldn't be that hard.

Well, it looks like the state is finally attempting to address the situation.

Commuters from New Milford will be able to take the train straight to New York City within the next 10 years, under a massive state transportation improvement bill approved Wednesday by the House.

Officials say if things go well, construction likely would begin at least five years from now.

"It will be statutory. It wouldn't be an option," said Rep. David Scribner, R-Brookfield, the ranking Republican on the legislature's Transportation Committee, stressing the project will be completed. "There is a renewed realization that we need more promotion of public transportation for the overall economy of the state."

The bill, which passed by a vote of 143-4, would also streamline rail travel for commuters from all of the Danbury area traveling to the Big Apple, by building and electrifying new tracks.

Then, passengers boarding the Danbury line will go straight to Grand Central Station. Now they have to change trains at the South Norwalk Metro-North station, so the Danbury line serves as a shuttle.

The 10-year, $2.3-billion transportation package, proposed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and agreed to by legislative Democrats, also includes money to widen parts of Interstate 84 between Danbury and Waterbury; an extended rail line from New Haven to Springfield, Mass., with stops in Hartford and at Bradley International Airport; and money to upgrade ports in Bridgeport, New London and New Haven.

[...]

Before construction, the proposal has to go through four phases.

Phase One — determining the cost and necessity of the train line — took three years and is completed, Trotta said.

Phase 2 will be the environmental-impact study and overview of details, such as what equipment will be needed to carryout construction. If few environmental issues exist, this phase could be completed in a year, but it could drag on for multiple years if problems are discovered.

Phase 3 will be planning and engineering, which should take about a year.

Phase 4, the final phase, is construction.

[...]

"The days of simply widening roads and highways are over," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn. "We must have a greater commitment to mass transit, rail freight and use our deep water ports. That's the only way we reduce congestion."

Sen. Andrew Roraback, a Goshen Republican whose district includes New Milford and Brookfield, looks forward to passing the initiative in the Senate.

"It's certainly a real credit to New Milford," Roraback said. "It's a nice investment that will have benefits to northern Fairfield County and southern Litchfield County."

While it's unknown whether or not they'll actually link up Danbury to Brewster, the ability to travel from Danbury to New York directly might actually become a reality and would help with the traffic congestion on I-84 and I-684.

Lamont hires new media consultants

Lamont's campaign hired these guys? Now we're talking big time folks!

If they can do what they did for Jesse Ventura, then Joe Lieberman is in a lot of trouble.

Ned Lamont's campaign for U.S. Senate has parted ways with his media consultant, Ken Swopes & Associates, and hired a political ad man known for edgier, attention-getting commercials.

Bill Hillsman, whose clients have included Ralph Nader, the late Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and that state's wrestler-turned-governor, Jesse Ventura, is the campaign's new choice.

"There were just some creative tension[s]" with the Swopes firm, said Tom Swan, manager of the Lamont campaign. "We parted on good terms."

In a profile in Mother Jones magazine, Hillsman is described as producing spots "that look and feel more like Super Bowl commercials than typical political ads. The buzz they generate helps Hillsman's underdog clients compete with better funded and more entrenched candidates, getting the attention of undecided voters and giving the media more reason to cover the campaign."

[...]

Based on Hillsman's past commercials, Connecticut viewers could be in store for political ads unlike those typically seen. In Ventura's campaign, the candidate was portrayed as an action figure.

Hillsman told Mother Jones that his own clients frequently have a hard time accepting his work.

"The only one who really got it was Ventura. And that's simply because he was a creature of popular culture. He understood that what we were doing was going to have resonance and traction with people who were interested in popular culture - TV watchers."

Like I said, things are going to get VERY interesting VERY soon.

You're not fooling anyone Joe!

Are you f'n kidding me!?! Joe LIEberman now wants to disband FEMA?!?

Who does he think he's fooling? I hope he doesn't think he's fooling me as I've been ripping into Lieberman since the Katrina diaster.

Here's the deal: Joe Lieberman is the very senator who wanted to include FEMA as part of Homeland security. Also, let's not forget that Joe was also the senator who approved Michael Brown to head FEMA after having an exhausting 8 minute interview with him (I guess Joe was impressed with Brown's resume).

Let's go back into the ConnecticutBLOG's archive for this oldie but goodie.

From the Hartord Courant

Michael D. Brown, relieved of his hurricane relief duties Friday, didn't get much scrutiny from the Senate at a 2002 confirmation hearing.

The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency appeared before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, then chaired by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., when he was nominated as the agency's deputy director. The polite 42-minute hearing attracted only four senators, and before it was over, Lieberman offered his support.

Since Katrina struck last month, Brown has been under fire - and the target of angry Democrats who want him to resign - because of his performance in getting aid to storm victims.

His resume has also been questioned. Time Magazine reported Thursday that Brown's FEMA biography says his previous emergency management experience was "serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight."

But when Brown was an assistant to the city manager of Edmond, Okla., in the late 1970s, he was "more like an intern," with no supervisory authority, Time said.

[...]

But bloggers on Friday suggested that Lieberman could have learned three years ago that Brown might not be up to such a task. An online debate began late Thursday when Juliette N. Kayyem, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, posted an account of Brown's June 19, 2002, confirmation hearing.

Titled "42 Minutes of Shame," she described how "Mike Brown suffered 42 breathtaking minutes of serious nothingness (unless Lieberman's withering questioning regarding whether Brown would sufficiently keep the Senate informed - duh, yes) to become deputy director of FEMA."

[...]

Lieberman talked about FEMA's expanding role, how the disaster relief agency has "got to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks at home." He quizzed Brown about whether the new mission would find FEMA continuing to maintain its network of strong contacts with state and local officials.

"We've already started down that path," Brown said. "Our partnership has to be with all agencies responding to disasters, all first responders."

Lieberman told him, "That's a good answer."

He spent 8 minutes asking Brown a series of questions, including one on chemical and biological preparedness. "Regardless of the cause of the disaster," Brown assured him, "our response is the same."

Later in the hearing, Lieberman returned for a new round of questions, notably one about preparedness in Connecticut in case of a disaster at a nuclear facility.

Brown said FEMA's role was "a very serious one," and he pledged to look closely at evacuation plans to make sure they were adequate.

Such replies were adequate for Lieberman, who told Brown at the end of the hearing, "I certainly will support your nomination."

So, now the person who not only wanted FEMA merged into Homeland security AND approved Michael Brown to head FEMA (after a very intense 8 minute interview) wants to come on TV and say that FEMA should be eliminated?

Two words: Ned Lamont

Help welcome a new kid on the block

ConnecticutBLOG readers, meet the new blogger on the scene, Connecticut Bob! He's an amazing videographer and we're going to be doing some really cool things together (FINALLY, someone to help me out with all this video stuff).

We worked together this past Tuesday videotaping Ned Lamont and John DeStefano as they met with the Monroe DTC. We were even able to get do an interview with DeStefano as he had a few things to say about Governor Rell's State Supreme nominee Justice Peter T. Zarella as well as explain why he feels the candidate who can take Governor Rell down this November.

Working with Bob will really make this site an enjoyable experience as we'll be able to provide you readers more video footage from across the state. Stay tuned, things are going to get very interesting really soon (and I don't think Joe Lieberman will be too happy).

I'll post the video later but for now, please show some love and check his site out. He has footage of Ned Lamont's petition drive in Norwalk last night (as well as some other cool stuff).

Following Ned Lamont: Part 1

Seeing that I finally finish archiving all my video files on my harddrive, I'm now able to post the video footage I shot over the last week (sorry for the delay).

Last week, I decided to follow Ned Lamont around as he traveled across Connecticut’s fifth district. Since Lamont was meeting with people in my area, I thought it would be informative to see him interact with people in my district as well as hear what people had to say about the guy who's challenging President Bush's favorite Democrat.

I was quite surprised with the feedback I received, as it seems like the Lamont campaign has energized Democrats in a part of Connecticut that has traditionally been a Republican-dominated territory. Between his visits to Newtown, Ridgefield, and Southbury, Lamont seems to have captured the attention of many voters who are itching to give Joe Lieberman and Congresswoman Nancy Johnson the boot this November.



First stop: Newtown CT at the historic Newtown Meeting House.

It was Ned's first visit to the Newtown area as people from Danbury, Bethel, Monroe, and Brookfield came to hear what he had to say. The crowd of about 40 listened to Ned's speech and peppered him with an endless series of questions ranging from health care and social security to education and energy conservation.

I was interesting to see how comfortably Ned interacted with the audience as well as how interested people were in what he had to say. I could easily tell that Lamont has come a long way from his first public appearence in Hartford and New Haven just a couple of months ago. He seems to be able to get his message across more effectively as he carefully explained why he's challenging Joe Lieberman as well as debunked the myth that he's a "one issue" candidate.


Since there is so much video footage, I had to cut out a great deal of material but in the end, I think you'll like what you see.

Here are some highlights from last Tuesday's event. I'll post my second report on Lamont meeting with senior at Heritage Village in Southbury later today.

Highlights of Ned's stump speech (sorry for the jerky camera).


Question regarding federal deficit, taxes, health care, and the Bush energy bill.


Question: Why Ned is in the senate race, his views on the CIA wiretap scandal, and censoring President Bush.

April 26 1777

Many of you new readers don't know but I have another blog called Hat City Blog in which I talk about some of the silliness happening where I live Danbury CT. BElieve me, if you live here, you would shake your head in disbelief over the stupidity of the local government but that's a whole different matter. Today is an important day in Danbury's (and American) history so I wanted to share this piece I posted on my other blog with everyone.

Today marks the 229th anniversary of the burning of Danbury by the British troops during the Revolutionary War but you wouldn't of known about it if you read today's Danbury News-Times.

Everyone in the city should take a moment and learn about what happened on this important day in American history. Instead of screaming about immigrants, it would be worthwhile to learn about what happened in this area on this day.

Maybe (just maybe) you'll learn something.

The Danbury Public School website has a great deal of information on the great fire.

A simple google search yields plenty of info on the fire.

St James Church explains why the church was spared from being burned by the British.

Bill Culhane was a member of the 1977 Bicentennial Commission and posted this message on the News-Times forum about the burning of the city (it's sad that the newspaper didn't do a story on the fire and opted instead to publish a meaningless hitpiece on the immigration boycott).

On April 26, 1777, General Tyron and 2,000 British troops marched to Danbury. Their ships were anchored in Norwalk, Connecticut. The British soldiers wanted to come to Danbury to destroy the military supplies that were being housed here for the colonial Army. They also wanted to burn homes of the colonists to show their power.

Many people who were loyal to the British before the burning of Danbury became patriots after the fire. The people of Danbury saw no reason for the British to burn private homes and farmlands. They did not understand why the British would even burn the homes of people loyal to the British.

The homes and farmlands of the people of Danbury were very important to them. They hated to run away from their homes for safety. They hated to come back and see their home burned to the ground.

The burning of Danbury by the British lit the fire of war in the hearts of the farmers, merchants, and craftsman in Danbury. However, throughout the war, some people who lived in Danbury believed in the British. These people were seen helping the British with the fires. They would take hay or straw into the houses and set them afire.

Sometimes a home in Danbury was kept from being burned if it became a headquarters for the British. However, when the British left it was usually burned as well. Mr. Stephen Jarvis, Senior was a Tory, a man who believed in the British. His house was the only house on his side of Main Street.

Reference to the fire can also be found on the city's logo.

There are two references on the seal to the British burning of Danbury in 1777. The central motto, on a diagonal band which divides the seal, is "Restituimus" or "We have Restored". Underscoring this point, atop the shield, is a phoenix rising from a fiery crown. The bird has in its beak a second motto, "Perege Modo", translated from the Latin as "Ever Onward" or Let Us Go Forward".

As bad as it was for the News-Times to not write anything about the fire in today's paper, it's equally disappointing that Mayor Boughton didn't do anything to commemorate this significant event today. As a former history teacher, Mayor Boughton should be the first person to know how important this day is in the history of Danbury as this city was a major supply depot during the war.

Instead of threatening to cut off funding to the Hispanic Center of Greater Danbury because of their school boycott, maybe Boughton should do something more constructive with his time like visiting the various schools in the area and speak to the kids about the importance of this day.

The News-Times not covering this event in today's paper is one thing, but you would expect more from a mayor who's last job was teaching history.

UPDATE (4.27.06): I forgot to mention this link. It's from Connecticut Heritage Gateway and it has great information on the history of Danbury.

Ask Sean where's Joe

Image from Lamontblog
Call Sean Hannity and ask him why his favorite Democrat Joe Lieberman won't come on his show like he promised.

The Sean Hannity Show
3 - 6 EST
1 800 941 7326

Mike Stark calls Lieberman a whimp for breaking his promise to appear on Hannity's show.

We want Joe Lieberman to be a man. We want him to show some spine, some strength. He made a promise to go on Hannity’s show once a month. He can break that promise if he wants to, but don’t expect us to forget about it. If Joe wants to break the promise, he should know that there will be consequences - there always are. But the consequences in this case are pretty mild: just tell us why you’ve turned your back on your BFF.

Doesn’t it say something about a man’s character when he so nonchalantly blows his friends off? Where are the principles?

Stand up for what you believe Joe!! As hard as it was for you to stand up on the floor and criticise Clinton’s peccadillo… well, this should be easy in comparison. I mean, jeez… You are a man that travelled to Iraq and came back again… Now I know that things are rosy over there - because you told us how swell things were and what a bang-up job this President is doing - but still… You are a man of moral courage… So just come out and tell us why you broke your pledge…

We’re waiting.

And we won’t go away. (sorry Hannity)

Pick up the phone and dial.

My dream is about to come true

Sweet!

CNN is told by three force sources familiar with the investigation that this morning Karl Rove, the president’s deputy chief of staff and top political adviser, is meeting with his attorney and is to meet this morning — if it is not already under way — with the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. According to sources, the goal of the meeting is for Karl to clear up some lingering questions about his role in a White House campaign to undermine Ambassador Joe Wilson — remember he was the the critic of the Bush administration case ever going to war in Iraq, his wife the CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose name was Outed.

It’s a complicated legal investigation and it has become a complicated political problem for the White House. Our understanding, Karl Rove is meeting with his attorney this morning, meeting with the special prosecutor this morning and the hope from Rove’s camp is that he can answer the few remaining questions about his involvement, his back and forth with reporters, during that time frame, his comments to the FBI and other investigators including the grand jury that is investigating this for quite some time now. And the hope from the Rove camp, all can be resolved and Karl Rove cleared of wrongdoing in the relatively near future.

Lamont does Southbury: part two

Fresh from his visit to California, the Ned Lamont express made a stop for a second time in Southbury last Saturday. Lamont spoke in front of a packed crowd of aprox. 100 people at Heritage Village and answered numerous thought-provoking questions ranging from global warming to the health care crisis.

Recently, the Southbury DTC voted to endorse Lamont over Joe Lieberman thus handing their 8 delegates the person who's challenging Bush's favorite Democrat. Although I have video footage from Lamont's appearance last Saturday afternoon, I thought while the video file is still processing, we would take a look back at Ned's first appearance in Southbury. Although he was still fine tuning his message (this video was shot back in late February), Lamont impressed the delegates with his criticism of Lieberman with his now famous "Where's Joe" speech (heck, even George Burns smiled).

A full report of Lamont's appearance in Southbury (as well as his Newtown appearance) will be posted shortly. Until then, enjoy this video clip (if the video gets choppy, hit the pause button, and allow the computer a minute to download a portion of the clip).

Ellef, Tomasso get a slap on the wrist

Only 2/12 years?

A contractor and a former top state official, whose cozy relationship of limousine trips and lavish dinners helped take down former Gov. John G. Rowland, were both sentenced Tuesday to 2 1/2 years in prison.

Peter Ellef, Rowland's former co-chief of staff, and contractor William Tomasso also received three years of probation and were each fined $15,000.

[...]

Tomasso's company, Tunxis Management, was fined $102,000 and placed on five years of probation for tax fraud. The company had admitted hiding corrupt payments to Ellef as legitimate business expenses.

Last week, federal prosecutors said Tomasso plied Ellef and other officials with nearly $200,0000 in cash, vacations meals and other gifts. They had asked for a sentence of closer to 3 1/2 years.

U.S. District Judge Peter Dorsey said Ellef had undermined the public's trust.

"I must impose a sentence that makes absolutely clear that people in power to act for the community must do so with total honesty," Dorsey said.

Rowland lies and disgrace the state and he only gets one year, these goons get 2 1/2 years, and the people of Connecticut lose again as we're stuck with the bill.

Ugh!

Zarella withdraws nomination

Something sounds fishy here. Gov. Rell's nomination of State Supreme Court Justice Peter T. Zarella has been controversial from the start but things really went downhill for the Governor and her nominee yesterday.

State Supreme Court Justice Peter T. Zarella asked Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Monday to pull his nomination for the chief justice position, hours after the former chief justice acknowledged he purposely delayed the release of a court ruling in an attempt to help secure Zarella's confirmation.

Zarella said it was apparent that lawmakers would not hold a public hearing on his nomination this legislative session, which ends May 3. That would mean his nomination would not receive final action during the session.

[...]

Rell, who said she believes Zarella is "a man of integrity and outstanding judicial ability," said she is troubled that revelations about former Chief Justice William Sullivan delaying the release of a court ruling has overshadowed the nomination.

"The next step must be to get answers to everyone's questions. Once I am satisfied that all relevant questions are answered and concerns addressed, I will proceed with the nominating process," Rell said in a written statement.

Rell could nominate Zarella or someone else for an interim appointment for chief justice after the legislature adjourns. The General Assembly's Judiciary Committee could then hold a public hearing and vote to confirm the nominee until January, when the full legislature returns for the 2007 session and could vote on a permanent appointment.

It didn't take long for John DeStefano to issue the followiong statement.

While I cannot comment directly on Judge Zarella’s qualifications to serve as State Supreme Chief Justice – it is clear that Gov. Rell should not re-nominate him and that former Chief Justice Sullivan’s actions have irrevocably harmed the confirmation process. Additionally, the sudden resignation of Chief Justice Sullivan and Gov. Rell’s immediate nomination of Judge Zarella to replace him, have already been troubling. Those concerns were immediately compounded yesterday as it is now clear that Judge Sullivan’s acted to protect Judge Zarella’s nomination at a point in time prior to Gov. Rell even saying she knew there was a vacancy. Either Judge Sullivan or Gov. Rell don’t have their stories straight, either way this harkens back to a way of doing business that Connecticut residents thought they put behind them. They deserve better.

This story is still developing and since there is so much material (video footage) regarding this situation, I'll have to post on this story later.

How low can the President's approval rating go?

Wow, he's almost in the twenty's.

Wolf just reported in the "Situation Room" that CNN's latest puts Bush's approval rating at 32% -- with a 60% disapproval.

Lame duck.

A spy speaks out and confirms what we already knew

(Since Blogger seems to be stable now, I'm cross posting my piece I published on My Left Nutmeg)

I'm sorry but you'll have to excuse the tone of this post (and excuse any typos you might find in this piece). Usually, I don't write with so much emotion and since my blogger software is not working, I'm currently unable to post at my blog. After watching 60 minutes last night, I’ve been dying to get this off of my chest because the Democrats in Connecticut are in a unique position to change the control of power in Congress (while handing Bush's favorite Democrat his pink slip).

First, if you missed 60 minutes last night, please go to the CBS website read the article and watch the interview with Tyler Drumheller, the retired CIA officer who was head of covert operations in Europe during the lead up to the Iraq War.

Josh Marshall breaks the 60 minutes piece down in his excellent post on his site.

Drumheller's account is pretty probative evidence on the question of whether the White House politicized and cherry-picked the Iraq intelligence.

So why didn't we hear about any of this in the reports of those Iraq intel commissions that have given the White House a clean bill of health on distorting the intel and misleading the country about what we knew about Iraq's alleged WMD programs?

Think about it. It's devastating evidence against their credibility on a slew of levels.

Did you read in any of those reports -- even in a way that would protect sources and methods -- that the CIA had turned a key member of the Iraqi regime, that that guy had said there weren't any active weapons programs, and that the White House lost interest in what he was saying as soon as they realized it didn't help the case for war? What about what he said about the Niger story?

Did the Robb-Silbermann Commission not hear about what Drumheller had to say? What about the Roberts Committee?

I asked Drumheller just those questions when I spoke to him early this evening. He was quite clear. He was interviewed by the Robb-Silbermann Commission. Three times apparently.

Did he tell them everything he revealed on tonight's 60 Minutes segment. Absolutely.

Drumheller was also interviewed twice by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Roberts Committee) but apparently only after they released their summer 2004 report.

Now, quite a few of us have been arguing for almost two years now that those reports were fundamentally dishonest in the story they told about why we were so badly misled in the lead up to war. The fact that none of Drumheller's story managed to find its way into those reports, I think, speaks volumes about the agenda that the writers of those reports were pursuing.

You think the testimony of Drumheller matters to Bush supporters like Joe? Of course not.

Personally, I've had it with those who continue to support this president. We’ve all heard and seen enough to know without a shadow of a doubt that this President and his supporters misled the American public about the reasons we went to war and now young soilders (National Guard, Reserves) are paying the price with their lives.

Whether it’s global warming, the complete screw-up in New Orleans, Terri Shiavo, or the outing of a CIA agent, this President, and his supporters in Congress continuously lied to the American people and smeared anyone who criticized the administration. Joe Lieberman is the most dangerous of all Bush supporters because as a Democrat, he had no problem turning his back on the party leadership for his own personal purposes.

From his numerous appearances on the Sean Hannity show where he constantly ripped into his fellow Democrats, to his infamous op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal where to lashed out at those who don’t support the commander-in-chief, Joe Lieberman has earned the label of Bush’s favorite Democrat and should be held accountable for his actions. Although we can't give the President the boot (at this point), we can kick every one of his supporters out of office and the voters of Connecticut could do no better than to give Joe Lieberman the boot.

I don’t know about you but I've had enough. We deserve a real Democrat representing the people of Connecticut, not a disgraceful Bush apologist who lashes out at fellow Democrats (who are critical of this President) whenever he gets a chance.

The party didn’t leave you Joe, it is you who left the party and the voters of Connecticut deserve better.

Please go and donate money to this man and help him hold Lieberman accountable. The fact that Joe sneaking around the state holding private meetings and avoiding the public while Ned answers any question any time speaks volumes about who is the most qualified and honest Democrat in this primary.

Okay, I got that off my chest, I feel better now.

Lamont to Bush: give Rummy the axe

Ned Lamont agrees with just about everyone on the planet and states that it's time for Rummy to go.

“I agree with Senator Chris Dodd, and many others, that it’s time for Donald Rumsfeld to go. I’ve said many times that those who got us into the Iraq war should be held accountable. A new Secretary of Defense will allow us the opportunity for a fresh reassessment of the situation, and to craft and carry out an honorable exit strategy.”

Blogging problems and updates

Blogger has been acting funny today and I've been unable to post until a few minutes ago.

After watching 60 minutes last night, I blew a gasket and wrote a piece that intended to post here but since blogger was down, I posted the piece on over at My Left Nutmeg. give it a read, it's not that bad.

Since Blogger is acting funny, I wont' even try to cross-post my piece here at this point. Once Blogger gets it's act together, I'll update everyone on Ned Lamont's appearance in Newtown and Southbury (there is plenty of video footage that I have to share with everyone). Also, I haven't forgotten about Nancy Johnson's appearance in Danbury which many in the area describe as her "jump the shark" moment as she tried to tackle the immigration issue (with little success).

Sorry for all the problems but it's really out of my hands...blogger stinks. I'll be back soon...believe me, it will be worth the wait.

Lieberman does Waterford

CT Blue gives the details and lets just say that Joe didn't win over the crowd.

My wife asked the following question, penned by yours truly:

Even after Bill Clinton endured an impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate, you felt he had not been punished enough, and you suggested that he be censured.

Recently George Bush admitted that he has been systematically engaging in criminal behavior by wiretapping Americans in violation of Federal law. Not only that, he vowed to continue his illegal activites, esssentially asserting that he had no obligation to obey the law. Your response was that you didn't want to "Scold" the president. Needless to say you failed to support Senator Feingold's call for censure. Can you please explain why Bill Clinton's transgressions deserved a "scolding" and George Bush's did not.

First he tried to claim that he hadn't pushed for censure after the trial, but he backed down on that. Then he told us that his speech in the Senate had been the very thing that prevented impeachment, and that if we ever had the chance to talk to Bill Clinton he would surely back Joe up on that. (I'm not kidding, he really said this) I suggested that he have Bill call me, but he forgot to take my name and number. As to George's crimes, as a lawyer he is sure they were in fact illegal, but it is more productive to fix the law to make sure that George has to go to court in order to wiretap. Odd, really, I thought that's what the law already said. Maybe if the law said "we really, really mean this" George would pay attention. Upshot: When George breaks the law, and keeps on breaking it, it would detract from the people's business to do anything about it. We never did learn, by the way, why Clinton deserved censure and Bush does not.

[...]

Here's the question: why is Lieberman doing this? What does he expect to gain. He treats his audience with a sort of thinly veiled contempt. He knows that they know that he is bullshitting them, but he also knows he controls the situation, so they can't effectively call him on it. But that's no way to persuade people, it only pisses them off. He persists in maintaining that the only problem is his position on Iraq, which is clearly not the case.

Sweet! Joe, I don't you impressed CTBlue and I think he's voting for this guy in the primary.

DeStefano steps up his game with a new website

Seems like someone redesigned his website and it's a great improvement (although, the picture onthe frontpage looks a but out of focus. Hey what do you want, I'm a photographer). In any case, it's worth checking out as it's the best website I've seen from any of the candidates currently running for office.

Hopefully the other campaigns (Malloy, Lieberman, Lamont, Farrell, Courtney, Murphy) are taking notice.

Weekend madness

Ugh!

I ran out of harddrive space on all of my computers and I'm forced to do some long overdue archiving (good grief, .dv files are huge). I just burned 20 DVDs and I think I'm going to pass out.

Sorry for the lang delay but don't worry, it will be worth the wait. CTblogger has been a busy boy this weekend and you'll see why tomorrow. Until then, check out the new videoclip over at Crooks and Liars.