Greetings from Newport

This has to be the worse time to go to Newport but I have no choice when it comes to a timeshare.

Sorry I missed all the bloggers (oh, Turfgrrl, you're so lucky) but I'm out of town till Sunday.

BTW: If anyone is planning to visit Newport anytime soon, may I recommend that you stop by Jack and Josie's cafe. It's by far, my favorite place to hang in Newport as it's a BYOB cafe with free wifi access (and they make the best smoothies in town).

I'll be posting from J&Js tomorrow and I'll give you a tour of the place.

Oh, oh, oh Turfgrrl, I can't wait to meet you...

Blogger problems

Don't email me about the weird characters in my "Did Lieberman take a page out of a dishonest blogger's playbook?" post. Blogger is having problems again and I can't do anything about it.

Political insiders and expressing the obvious

Joe could lose this thing.

National Democratic insiders aren't pulling many punches when it comes to Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) primary in Connecticut against businessman Ned Lamont. They are saying that Lieberman could lose.

The senator is having considerable problems with older white men, and his allies are counting on strong support in the minority community and from women to squeeze out a victory over the anti-war challenger.

But Republicans did Lieberman no favor this week with recent floor votes on Iraq, and the senator stayed true to his principles by voting against both Democratic resolutions. That undoubtedly gave Lamont and the anti-Lieberman crowd more ammunition to make their "he's out of touch with us" argument.

Lieberman's refusal to say that he will abide by the results of the primary and rule out an Independent bid is also giving Lamont's folks just what they want -- evidence that Lieberman isn't a "real" Democrat.

This part of the article is EXACTLY the same thing I'm hearing here in Connecticut.

Many insiders seem to believe that allies of Lieberman will begin a petition drive to get him on the ballot as an Independent sooner rather than later, just in case that's the only way for him to appear on the ballot in the fall. So even though the Democratic left could score a victory in the primary in August, Lieberman might still have the last laugh in November.

I'm not sure about the last laugh. If Joe jumps ship, it will not only piss off Democrat voters, it will also make it easier for people who were forced to support Lieberman publicly, to finally denounce George Bush's favorite Democrat.

Joe, we're waiting for you to collect just one signature before the primary. It's just a matter of time.

CTBob says Joe has issues

I couldn't agree more.

Did Lieberman take a page out of a dishonest blogger's playbook?

Insert foot into Joe's mouth.

"In the morning [Lamont] said he was against the Kerry Amendment for an immediate withdrawal," Sen. Lieberman said. "By the end of the day he said he was for it."

Now, this is just pathetic and goes to show how desperate Lieberman's campaign is at this time. Now, they're just making shit up.

For this exercise, I'll take a Lamont quote from an article that another "so-called" blogger tried to use against Lamont yesterday.

A second measure offered by Sens. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., would have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. It got 13 votes.

"I would have supported them both, Lamont said. "You've heard me say before, I think it's time to get our front line troops out of harm's way."

Like I said several times before, Lieberman's campaign is grasping at straws and it's pretty obvious that his campaign is going down in flames. At this point, most people who follow politics know that Joe's team is just throwing anything at the wall and seeing if anything sticks. My bet is if Joe loses the debate (which he will) he'll have no choice but to go back on his word and either jump ship (and/or) collect signatures while campaigning for the primary.

I give credit to Ned for his quick response to Joe's dishonesty.

"I want to make it clear that I would have supported both of the Democratic resolutions on Iraq, just as thirteen Senators did," Lamont told reporters in New Haven today. "I issued a statement on the Reed/Levin amendment because I believe that Democrats need to speak with one voice whenever and wherever possible. Both of these amendments are a step in right direction, and I'm disappointed that Senator Lieberman didn't support the Democratic consensus.

"Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman not only chose to vote against the Democratic proposals, he used Republican time to issue Republican talking points-undermining Democratic priorities everywhere," Lamont added.

Lieberman, who has voted for every authorization to fund the war and who wrote and introduced the resolution calling for the war, voted against both Democratic amendments yesterday. Campaign manager Tom Swan blasted the Lieberman attack on Lamont.

"His efforts to deflect from his record, by misrepresenting Ned's, is purely Rovian," said Swan. "These tactics, along with his votes, are a strong reminder why he is considered by many to be George Bush's favorite Democrat. Attacking Ned is an attempt to divert attention from his own record-in support of the war, voting for the Bush/Cheney energy bill, and in support of right-wing judges and other Bush priorities.

"There is no evidence to support his claim that the war is making us safer," Swan added. "All the experts tell us the Iraq war is not capturing or stopping the real terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Senator Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut and out of touch with reality."

Out of touch with reality is an understatement. Lieberman's Rove-like tactics will only anger voters who support Lamont and will upset undecided voters who are waiting for Lieberman to finally talk about the issues and defend his record (which he has not done to this point). Just like calling Joe a Republican, then a partisan Democrat, and finally Weicker's cub, this latest attack on Ned is sure to backfire and will hurt Lieberman in the end.

When will Lieberman get around to talking about the issues? The voters in Connecticut are waiting...

Who's dumber?

Joe Lieberman or his campaign team.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) further inflamed his party's liberal base yesterday by opposing two Senate measures seeking to limit the scope of the war in Iraq.

In doing so, Lieberman may have further jeopardized his chances of defeating businessman Ned Lamont in the state's Aug. 8 primary. Lamont, a political unknown until a few months ago, has drawn national attention and rising poll numbers at home in recent weeks -- especially after he drew support from a third of the delegates at a recent state party convention.

"This is further evidence of why a lot of people call Joe Lieberman 'George Bush's favorite Democrat,' " said Lamont spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl.

Liz throws out the red-meat and what does Lieberman's spokeperson say in response...

Lieberman spokeswoman Marion Steinfels acknowledged that Iraq is an "emotional" issue, but she dismissed any impact of the senator's votes yesterday on the primary contest.

"There are a lot of other things the voters of Connecticut are worried about," she said.

As evidence, she pointed to a Quinnipiac University poll in May that showed 12 percent of Democrats said they would vote against a candidate solely because they disagreed with his position on the war.

Good grief, is that the best you can do Marion? It's tough defending a dishonest politician like Lieberman but nonetheless, your comment is pretty sad and as weak as it gets. Thankfully, the Post didn't let you off the hook with your nonsense.

Quinnipiac polling conducted earlier this month, however, showed Lieberman ahead of Lamont by 15 points among likely Democratic primary voters, a somewhat slim margin, given that the challenger was virtually unknown statewide and Lieberman has a long tenure in elective office.

Keep up the great job Lieberman staff, you're making Lamont's job that much easier.

Open message Democrats: Don't screw up

ENOUGH WITH RESPONDING TO THE REPUBLICAN'S CHARGE OF "CUTTING AND RUNNING"

If there is any reason why Democrats are called weak, this is it. Instead of forcefully stating their case, they fall into the Karl Rove trick of responding to a Republican charge (which in the end, brings a false sense of legitimacy to the smear).

Stop it!

It's too simple. Democrats need only to make their point forcefully and as one voice. Stop falling into the trap of replying to silly charges, it's a waste of time and it's the only thing Republicans know to how to do well...insult others instead of accepting any sense of responsibility for their inability to govern.

A clear majority of the public think that this war was a mistake and that we should get the hell out of there. What Democrats need to do is simply state their case to the Americans people forcefully and repeatedly. The Republicans (and Lieberman) have nothing to offer in regards to how best to handle the crap they created in Iraq so they play the only hand they know, criticize those who oppose them.

If the Democrats stand strong and make their case to the people, traitors like Lieberman will lose the primary (and the general election when he jumps ship), Republicans in Washington will lose control of Congress, and we can finally have some real hearings into the lies we were told in the run-up to this war.

Remember, we lost in 2002 and 2004 because of the same bullshit the Republicans are trying to do to the Democrats in 2006. Don't fall for the trick again (please).

Genghis says "why the double standard"

Genghis over at Connecticut Local Politics raises an interesting point regarding Bridgeport Mayor John "8-ball" Fabrizi and his admission that he used cocaine (which he only acknowledged after someone allegedly videotaped him doing lines).

Here's the deal. You have yet another politician from Bridgeport admitting to wrongdoing yet refuses to resign and probably won't get charged with anything.

Is this fair?

Look at it this way, I'm a 6'3" African-American who's about to be a father and if I admitted to doing drug use, you know I'd be in some serious trouble. I'd probably have my kid taken away form me (and he/she isn't born yet). With that being the case, why is Mayor Fabrizi getting off the hook so easily?

Hasn't the people of Bridgeport been through enough scandals already? Shouldn't "Mr. 8-ball" do the honorable thing and step down as Mayor?

FYI: Fabrizi seconded Lieberman's nomination at the State Convention.

Still waiting on an answer to my question

I'm still waiting on a reply to my simple question from the following officials:

Senator Chris Dodd
4th Dist. Congressional candidate Diane Farrell
Lt. Gov Kevin Sullivan

I'm waiting...

New program launched on Lamont's site

Ned Lamont's campaign unvieled a new program on their website today. The new feature called "Ned's Family, Friends & Neighbors" is a unique way for people to spread the word about Ned's campaign to others in their area. This new program is sure to change the way campaigns get their message out to the people and I encourage everyone to check it out.

Family, Friends & Neighbors is a web-based resource for you to help spread the word about the campaign that is changing the face of politics. This is where the netroots meet the grassroots. You'll use our web tools to help you tell your friends, family and neighbors about Ned - and how they can help as we take back the heart and soul of the Democratic party.

Lieberman does not fail to disappoint

What do you want me to say about Joe Lieberman opening the debate for the Republicans against both Democratic proposals on how to proceed in Iraq?

At this point, are you surprised? Well, I'm not and basically Lieberman has no choice but to stick his ground because like his Republican colleagues, he has no plan to offer besides the "stay the course" nonsense which has contributed to the countless deaths of young Americans who are being blown up by IEDs.

Hasn't Connecticut had enough of Joe? Don't we deserve better leadership during these times? How much more of "stab in the back" Joe do you need to see until you get the message that Lieberman is not only bad for Democrats in Connecticut, but bad for the nation as he does not work for the good of the Democratic Party as a whole.

Having a difference of opinion is one thing but, Joe Lieberman undermines the Democratic Party and chance he gets and his performance last night was no exception.

David Lightman from the Hartford Courant weighs in on Joementum's grandstanding last night. Spazeboy gives his two cents and recorded Joe in action.

Personally, I've had enough of Lieberman, the lies and smears from his pathetic campaign, and the shame he brings to the Democratic Party.

August can't come soon enough.

See where your Democratic State officials stand when it comes to answering the question

I've created a special section of ConnecticutBLOG that will keep track of which Democratic state officials will support the Democraitc nominee for Senate, which ones will jump ship with Joe Lieberman once he announces his plan to run as an independent, and those who are on the fence.

Click here to see the list.
This page will be updated frequently so please check back often. A link to the page is also provided in the navigation bar under the "Tips and comments" section.

Wanna help out? Call or email your Democratic officials and demand that they answer the simple question:

"Will you support the Democratic nominee for Senate"

Don't you think we deserve an answer to such a simple question?

UPDATE: Due to the genius of BrandfordBoy, the categories are updated.

Even potential pesidential candidates are answering the question.

From Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (via Daily Kos):

Joe Lieberman is a friend. He has been a great Senator for the state of Connecticut.

The voters in Connecticut will make their decision on August 8th and I will support the nominee.

Call or email your Democratic leaders in Connecticut and ask them this simple question:

"Will you support the Democratic nominee for Senate"

The voters in Connecticut deserve an answer.

David Sirota takes over New Haven on 21st

(post bumped to top)
Mark the date!

On June 21st, author, political strategist and former Capitol Hill operative David Sirota will join Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont in New Haven at an event to promote Sirota’s bestselling controversial new book, “HOSTILE TAKEOVER: How Big Money & Corruption Conquered Our Government – And How We Take It Back” (Crown Publishers, pub date: 5/9/06). Sirota’s book is the first and only book in the aftermath of recent major scandals that aggressively tackles corruption — and both parties’ complicity in it. The book includes passages on Connecticut politicians like Sen. Joe Lieberman and Rep. Rosa DeLauro. As former Vice President Al Gore said of “Hostile Takeover”: “Every politically engaged citizen should read this book.” The event will be held at 7:00pm at Atticus Book Store at 1082 Chapel St. in downtown New Haven.

Pulling no punches and naming names in both parties, Sirota takes readers on a journey analyzing the darkest lies, myths, and half-truths perpetuated by Big Money interests and peddled by the most high-profile politicians. Sirota’s book was named a political bestseller by The Book Standard – the publishing industry’s leading newsletter. Sirota has appeared on, among others, CNN, MSNBC and CNBC to discuss the book, and will be the featured guest of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report” on June 14th.

[...]

Using both wit and personal anecdote, Sirota expertly details how government today deliberately refuses to protect citizens from a soulless, greedy corporate oligarchy. Exposing Republicans and Democrats alike, Sirota shows how Big Money interests own our government and control the rhetoric that comes out of politicians’ mouths. The result is a grossly distorted political debate that hides the real solutions to America’s problems.

DeStefano calls on Gov. Rell to testify

From John DeStefano's press release:

DeStefano believes that Connecticut families deserve to know the truth about improper fundraising in the governor's office, especially in light of new revelations stemming from an interview with Gov. Rell that was not included in the draft report to the legislative committee investigating wrong doing in the governor’s office.

The interview with Gov. Rell - and its deletion from the draft report – shows that Gov. Rell's Chief of Staff repeatedly asked commissioners to lie, and that Gov. Rell knew about it. Incredibly, she still thinks it's appropriate for Lisa Moody to occupy the most powerful unelected position in state government.

What's more, the interview with the Gov. indicates that she knew her Chief of Staff was soliciting campaign contributions from a lobbyist's wife – in violation of Gov. Rell’s self-imposed ban on accepting lobbyists’ contributions.

"It is unacceptable, especially in the wake of Gov. Rell's partnership with former Gov. Rowland, that Connecticut families still don’t have all the facts about improper fundraising in the governor's office and that she continues to keep Lisa Moody as her Chief of Staff," said DeStefano. "Unfortunately for Connecticut, it's beginning to feel like déjà vu all over again."

At this point, I think the people of Connecticut deserve some answers from the Governor and hopefully, more Democrats will be demanding the Gov. Rell to testify.

The scandal no one is paying attention to in Connecticut

At this point, people should be very concerned about Gov. Rell's administration. Hopefully, these new revelations will draw attention to this scandal.

Democratic lawmakers said Tuesday they may reopen hearings into state elections chief Jeffrey B. Garfield's investigation of fundraising violations by top state officials after learning that he deleted sections of a draft report by his agency that might have embarrassed Gov. M. Jodi Rell and her chief of staff, M. Lisa Moody.

"I am very disturbed by this withholding of information," said Rep. David D. McCluskey, D-West Hartford.

[...]

Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the committee, agreed. The panel had been hoping to reschedule a meeting on issuing a final investigative report for June 30, but Caruso said Tuesday's developments put that in doubt. "I think we need to pursue this," he said.

The legislators also want to ask about a set of e-mails Garfield turned over to the committee Tuesday. The e-mails were sent in February, while Garfield's agency, the State Elections Enforcement Commission, was in the midst of investigating the fund-raising violations. In one e-mail, Moody, who was central to the investigation, invited Garfield to a restaurant for drinks. Garfield declined.

Both the unedited draft report and the e-mails disclosed Tuesday were turned over to the committee only after the lawyer hired by the Elections Enforcement Commission to investigate its handling of the case, Daniel Klau, discovered they had not been disclosed in April, when the legislative committee requested all relevant documents.

[...]

The Elections Enforcement Commission's report contained some intriguing details surrounding Moody's distribution of invitations at the Capitol for a Dec. 7 Rell campaign fund-raising event. But the unedited version of the report contained even more potentially embarrassing information - which McCluskey and Caruso said they would have sought to pursue.

For example, Garfield deleted the original report's only account of a Dec. 30 interview of Rell by two investigators from Morano's office. The deleted section says Morano's investigators informed Rell that at separate meetings, Moody told two officials - a state agency staff chief, Brian Mattiello, and public utilities Commissioner Anne George - that "this meeting never happened." The Garfield-edited version indicates that Moody made that comment only to Mattiello.

That made a big difference to McCluskey, who said, "Two's more than a coincidence. ... If we had known that, maybe that would have stimulated us to bring in Anne George" as a witness.

Among Garfield's other deletions:

Investigators told Rell that Moody solicited the wife of a lobbyist (George is married to a lobbyist). Rell has proclaimed that her campaign will not accept lobbyists' contributions.

When Moody handed out invitations for the Dec. 7 fundraiser to subordinates in the governor's office, she allegedly said: "I am not giving you the strong arm, but I am."

Former gubernatorial ethics counsel Rachel Rubin said she warned Moody that it was wrong to hand out invitations at the Capitol. Moody said Rubin merely told her to "be careful" about giving an invitation to a staff member she had reduced to tears moments earlier. Garfield cut Rubin's version and left Moody's in.

You get the picture? Simply said, this entire episode has been fishy since the beginning and this new information could be damaging to Rell if the Democrats re-open this case (and if the media pays closer attention)

Nancy DiNardo answers the question

From Roll Call:

"I will be endorsing the Democratic Party candidate, who I anticipate
will be Joe Lieberman," said Nancy DiNardo, the state party chairman.

More bad poll results for Lieberman

The new Survey USA results are in and it's not good news for team Joementum.

Among all adults in CT Lieberman falls from 59 to 55 percent approval.
(click on any of the images to enlarge)
Among liberals, Liberman is taking a nose dive.

Hell, he's even losing support among Republicans...

Two more kids die too soon.

I guess that "just stay the course" bullshit is really working out.

The U.S. military recovered the booby-trapped bodies of two missing soldiers Tuesday, and Iraqi officials said the Americans were tortured and killed in a "barbaric" way.

Will someone please tell me why did these kids had to die?

What are they fighting for in Iraq?

What's the mission...what's the objective?

When is enough, enough? How many more kids have to die based on a lie?

We went into this war based on lies and misinformation from neo-cons such as Dick Cheney, Richard Pearle, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz. Those lies were supported by the ultimate shameless Democrat Joe Lieberman which is why he needs to be booted in the primary. DinoBoy and the rest of the neo-cons continue to lie to this very day about everything regarding the war and they all should be held accountable for they have blood on their hands.

Every time I hear of about another kid getting blown up over in Iraq, it makes my blood boil because we were lied to by this administration and everyone knows it. The neo-cons and idiots like Joe Lieberman are too weak to simply say "we made a mistake" and work to get the U.S. the hell out of Iraq because they had a master plan about the middle east years before 9-11 (I recommend that everyone do a little research on the Project for the New American Century and learn something).

For these wackos, the death of these two poor young kids means little when it comes to their master plan and people like Joe Lieberman gives these neo-cons cover because he agrees with their position. Think I'm wrong, again, I encourage everyone to look into the Project for the New American Century and understand the mindset of the neo-cons who took us to war.

Always remember, to the Bush administration, they're just numbers.

Video of Bridgeport Mayor Fabrizi's confession

Why do all the real bad Democrats seem to come from Bridgeport? I wonder if he and Ernest Newton ever did lines together...

Video from Veredictum.com.

Okay, now I'm confused

Is Ned Lamont too much of a Republican or a partisan Democrat.

You can't have it both ways Joe.

"I've been really fed up by the rigid partisanship in Washington, not just about the war," Lieberman told reporters later. Of Lamont, he said, "Part of his attacks on me are that I haven't been partisan enough, haven't been a polarizer enough."

Huh? Sunday, Ned Lamont is a multi-millionare who sides with the Republicans over 80 percent of the time and today he's a partisan Democrat?

Are you confused as me? Ned sure seems to be.

Lamont said Lieberman's comments were surprising, considering that Lieberman previously has attacked him as being too cozy with Republicans while Lamont was a local official in Greenwich.

"He's got to be making up his mind. Half the time he accuses me of being too bipartisan when I'm on the board of selectmen in Greenwich. And the other half, it's this accusation," Lamont said.

I said it before and I'll say it again, Joe Lieberman's campaign is the gift that keeps on giving. Trust me folks, Joe Lieberman is scared shitless and he's trying to use anything that will stick to Lamont but it's not working (which means Joe is screwed).

I can't wait for that "hot day in August" when the voters of Connecticut shut Joememtum down for good.

Lieberman site update

Aww...

Seems like Joe took the "bear ad" down from his site today. I guess he got the message that his stupid ad basically sucked and backfired big time on him (gotta love Joe's brilliant consultants).

Also, it's nice to see that Joe staying loyal and keeping Bridgeport Mayor John "8 ball" Fabrizi on his endorsement page. Too bad he's loyal to a self-admitted cokehead but can't be loyal to the Democratic party and say he'll won't run as an independent.

This part of his site is the most laughable:

Will Ned agree to a debate and answer questions on issues that matter to real voters?

[...]

"We look forward to seeing the Greenwich Multi-Millionaire take a break from his attack politics to address some real issues," said Sean Smith, Lieberman's Campaign Manager. "Voters want to know where the candidates stand on the issues that matter to them and we believe that they deserve that."

Oh, where do I begin? Hmm...let's see, Ned has been asking Joe to debate him since the beginning of his campaign but Joe has dismissed him until now (when he sees that Ned is going to kill him in the primary). How about the fact that Ned had asked for a series of "old fashion kitchen table debates" since the first event I've attended (and I have the video footage to prove it since I followed Ned across the state during his first three months on the road).

As for Ned attacking him? Who's the person who ran the stupid bear ad? How about the misleading negative ad in which he called Ned a Republican?

Joe, you just don't get it. This isn't Washington D.C. and the voters in Connecticut are well aware of your Rove-like tactics which is why your poll numbers are sinking faster than the Titanic.

Do you really want to win this election Joe? To put it simple, you haven't made your case to the people yet while Ned to killing you to the point that it's embarrassing. Here's a clue, no one is buying what you're selling, and it's that simple.

CTKeith gets Rep. DeLauro to answer the question

CTKeith is by far the hardest working man in the business and he received this statement from Rep. Rosa DeLauro's office regarding whether or not she'll support the Democratic nominee for Senate.

I will not make any statement wich might be seen as me being anything but 100% behind Joe Lieberman.I believe Joe will win the primary and will deal publicly with the resuls of the primary AFTER they are in.

It doesn't quite seem like she answered the question. This is not about Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont...it's about whether or not she (and the other Democratic officials in Connecticut) will support the Democratic nominee for Senate.

I think we deserve an answer to this simple question. Can you help me by giving her a call.

Again, here's the simple question:

"Will you support the Democratic nominee for Senate"

Rep. Rosa DeLauro's office:

New Haven (203) 562-3718
Washington DC (202) 225-3661

UPDATE: Keith gives the full rundown on his call with DeLauro and gives this assessment:

Believe it or not I'm willing to accept that for now and MOVEON.Heres why;

In the end Rosa's Loyalty will help our cause.

I've known Rosa for a very long time and when Lamont is chosen by Dems in a primary over Joe Lieberman Rosas Loyalty will again be called on and the only loyalty I know where Rosa's is stronger than personal loyalty is party loyalty.

It will be Rosa and a handful of others who will have to convince Lieberman that he must accept the will of the Dem Primary voters and Gracefully exit the stage.

After our conversation and a followup call with staff I am 100% sure that after Aug 8 Rosa will support the Democratic nominee for both Governor and Senator. I'm Disappointed that she wouldn't simply go on the record and answer that question with a simple YES yet more sure than ever that Rosa will indeed Support whomever wins the Primary 110%.

I'm disappointed also. It's a easy question to answer and it has nothing to do with Leiberman or Lamont; it has to do with party loyality. I guess until Rep. DeLauro answers the question, she's placed in the "on the fence" category.

Jepsen endorses Lamont

Former State Senate Majority leader and former Chair of the Democratic Party George Jepsen endorsed Ned Lamont. This is a big endorsement for Lamont and it should further prove that his bounce after the convention was not a fluke.

Joe, you better be concerned.

Video courtesy of Spazeboy

NOTE:I incorrectly stated George Jespen's position. This post has been updated, sorry for the mixup...I was dealing with a serious case of jetlag this morning.

I don't care what anyone says...

They're still considered the Hartford Whalers to me!

I'm back

Boy, what bad timing it was to go to Vegas (well, I didn't have a choice as my wife's best friend got married out there).

So much news surrounding the Lieberman/Lamont race that I don't know where to start. I'll just have to digest everything in and start posting full speed tomorrow.

Note to all all Democratic officials: you'll be getting a phone call from me. I have a simple question to ask...

UPDATE: The response from Democratic state officials are coming in fast. A special edition of ConnecticutBLOG has been created to keep you up to date on who's on board in terms of supporting the Democratic nominee for Senate. Check back soon, I promise you won't be disappointed...

Joe Lieberman: Lets get Iran

In case you need any more proof that Joe Lieberman is bad for Connecticut (and the nation).

On Friday, the Senate rejected a bill proposed by Rick Santorum to take a harder line against Iran by, among other things, funding Iranian groups devoted to regime change, significantly increasing punishments for companies which do business in Iran, and requiring the President to determine if such companies should be banned altogether from U.S. markets. The Bush administration opposed this legislation (likely because it committed the sin of Congressional "interference" in presidential foreign policy decision-making). And all but four Democrats voted against the hard-line Santorum bill. Joe Lieberman was one of the four Democrats to vote in favor of it.

This effort by Santorum (and Lieberman) to push the administration into a more aggressive posture against Iran preceded by one day this story in The Washington Post, which revealed that in 2003, Iran attempted to engage the U.S. in comprehensive negotiations to resolve all significant disputes between the two countries, including Iran's nuclear activities and its position on Israel. The Bush administration flatly refused the offer to negotiate, and even attacked Switzerland for agreeing to pass along the Iranian offer and vouch for its authenticity.

Just as was true with Iraq, most hard-line Iran war agitators are completely uninterested in inducing Iran to disarm. What they really crave is a change of government as soon as possible, something which is attainable most effectively by war. They don't want to pursue diplomatic measures that could result in a cessation of Iran's nuclear activities because a non-nuclear Iran with no regime change does not even remotely satisfy their goals. Anything less than forcible regime change will be perceived by them as dangerous "appeasement." Exactly as they viewed the first Gulf War, achieving concrete goals while failing to use our military to get rid of governments we dislike is weak and misguided. Government-changing war is the only solution that works.

Does anyone doubt on which side of this Iran debate Joe Lieberman will fall? He did not become one of the most vigorous supporters of the Iraq war because he has unique views about Iraq. He supported that war -- and still does -- because he subscribes almost completely to the neoconservative world-view that the Middle East must be re-made and re-created in our image, using as much military force as necessary, in order to rid that region of anti-Israeli and/or anti-U.S. governments and replaced with more compliant ones. Here is what Lieberman told then FOX News analyst Tony Snow back in 2003:

SNOW: Do you believe Iran is ripe for a regime change?

LIEBERMAN: Well, yes. I mean, I think it would be in the interest of the world, and most particularly of the Iranian people, to have a regime change in Iran.

I'm not suggesting military action by us, but Tom Friedman of The New York Times, I believe, said recently -- or a while ago that there's no nation in the world where the government is more anti- American and the people are more pro-American than Iran, and that's the equation we have to flip.

Lieberman's foreign policy views compel support for war in Iran every bit as much as they compelled support for the Iraq invasion. That's because, as much as any other national politician in either party, Lieberman embraces neoconservatism at its core, and is one of the leading advocates of its principles.

It's simple. Joe Lieberman is a neoconservative masking as a Democrat and it's time to hold him accountable. The people of Connecticut deserve sound judgement from their senator which is clearly not what we're receiving from Lieberman.

Back online (sort of)

Geez.

You would think that my hotel (Circus Circus) in Las Vegas would be hooked up for wireless internet access but unfortunately this is not the case. I'm sorry for the delay but it's been a real pain in the ass hooking up here and paying 10.00 per internet session sucks. My blogging will be limited until I can get back in the area (Monday night)

Here's the latest on where some of our Democratic officials stand on supporting the Democratic nominee for Senate.

2nd district Congressional nominee Joe Courtney is on board.

Joe Courtney, the Democratic challenger for Congress in the 2nd District, said he will work in November for the Democratic ticket.

Also on board is 5th Congressional nominee Chris Murphy. In a telephone call on Friday, Murphy's manager Sarah Merriam confirmed that Murphy will strongly support whoever is the Democratic nominee for Senate.

Now, for the people who have yet to answer.

A phone call was placed to Lt. Governor Kevin Sullivan's office on Friday and I talked to his staff but I'm still waiting for a reply on whether or not Sullivan will support the Democratic nominee.

Also, I contacted Susan Bysiewicz office and I'm still waiting for a response.

It's important to know where your Democratic leaders in Connecticut stand on supporting the winner of the primary. If Joe bolts, how many others will go with him? How many support Lieberman bolting the party? Shouldn't we know the answers to these questions?

Check out a full list of all the leading Democratic officials in Connecticut by clicking here. Call or email and ask them in light of Joe Lieberman's not ruling out running as an independent, if they'll support the Democratic nominee for Senate.

I've completed a new section of this blog which will keep track of whick Dems are supporting the Democratic nominee and which ones are not. I'll have the new section posted as soon as I'm back in town.

Hold your officials accountable.

UPDATE: Susan Bysiewicz is on board. From her office.

A Statement from Susan Bysiewicz on the race for U.S. Senate:

"As the person whose office runs the primaries in Connecticut, it is my policy not to endorse any particular candidate running in a Democratic primary. I will, however, be supporting the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in the November elections."