<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\07511782355\46blogName\75ConnecticutBLOG\46publishMode\75PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\46navbarType\75SILVER\46layoutType\75CLASSIC\46searchRoot\75http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\46blogLocale\75en_US\46v\0752\46homepageUrl\75http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\46vt\0752618633873490899171', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Lieberman campaign knows no shame

Grr. Why is it every time I'm away from my computer, Joe Lieberman does something that causes headlines.

I've been covering the Taste of Danbury and the Danbury Irish Festival for a report I'm doing on my local blog when all hell breaks loose over at team Joementum.

Hey Joe, it would be nice if you didn't screw up while I'm doing another assignment. Now I have to play catch-up to all the other blogs.

It seems like team Joementum's latest attempt to smear Ned Lamont has backfired again as a campaign aide leaked a private email Ned Lamont sent to Senator Lieberman in 1998.

What's wrong with that you ask? Well, let me walk you through this screw-up step by step.

1. Back in 1998, Ned Lamont wasn't running for senate, he was a fellow constituent when he sent Lieberman an email regarding the senator's very public rebuke of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

2. In 2006, Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont had an on-the record dinner with several reporters and he criticized Lieberman for his over-the-top 1998 speech. NYT smear goddess Anne Kornblut had this lovely exchange with Chris Matthews about her time with Lamont (hat tip to the great Digby).
MATTHEWS: ... What's going on? You had dinner last night with Mr. Ned?

ANNE KORNBLUT, THE "NEW YORK TIMES": He came in and had dinner with a few of us and yesterday, of course, was back to school day.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Well why was Lamont carrying favor with you guys last night?

KORNBLUT: Well, we are a local New York metropolitan paper, for one thing, but I think at the same time he wants to come to Washington and thank a lot of the Democrats, the national Democrats who are supporting him and essentially turning against Lieberman, their long-time friend.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Is he too waspy?... Didn't he just drop out of the Greenwich Country Club so he could run?

KORNBLUT: Well that's why he can afford to run, right?
You can see where this is going right.

Lord knows why in 2006 with over 2600 American soldiers dead in Iraq, Osama Bin Laden still at large, that reporters like smear goddess Anne Kornblut feel the need to question Lamont about an issue which NO ONE IS THINKING ABOUT (two words: gotcha journalism) but here's Lamont's response (please remember the portion of Lamont's quote IN BOLD).
In answering repeated questions about the scandal, Mr. Lamont noted that he had young children at the time - his eldest, 19-year-old Emily, sat next to him during the first course but then left.

"Everybody condemns what he did," Mr. Lamont said, referring to Mr. Clinton. "But it's how our country responded and handled it, turned it into an impeachable offense and dragged it across the front page of the paper for a long time."
3. The brilliant minds at the Lieberman campaign somehow go through senator Lieberman's records, find the email Lamont sent to Lieberman back in 1998, and leaked it to the New York Times in a pathetic attempt to show that Lamont somehow flip-flopped because according to team Joementum, Lamont supported Lieberman's rebuke of Clinton before he was against it (cue up the smear machine Anne).

Ned Lamont, who this week chastised Senator Joseph I. Lieberman for his public rebuke of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, wrote to Mr. Lieberman at the time praising the eloquence of his speech on the Senate floor.

"I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," Mr. Lamont, then a cable television executive, wrote in an e-mail message to the senator's Washington office on Sept. 16, 1998, two weeks after Mr. Lieberman's speech.

[...]

A campaign aide to Mr. Lieberman alerted a reporter to the e-mail late Friday, after an article about Mr. Lamont's recent comments appeared in The New York Times. Mr. Lieberman's Senate office then faxed a copy of the message.
Now, I'll get back to this hit piece from the New York Times and debunk it in a second. I need to finish this point before ripping that article to shreds.

4. Based on Senator's Lieberman own privacy policy, someone at team Joementum did a BIG boo-boo.
My office will not share any personal information communicated through my Web site with any outside organization or individual, except in the following situations: (1) when needed to perform constituent casework at your request; (2) in the course of an authorized law enforcement investigation or emergency posing an imminent risk to public safety; or (3) if you choose to participate in my interactive online E-Government comment page, and authorize me to publish your comment, your name, and the organization you represent.
Now personally, leaking a private constituent's letter to a newspaper for political gain is bad enough (if I'm right, the only way someone should have this access to this type of communication is through a FOIA request) but breaking you own privacy policy for political gain is just as outrageous. Whoever leaked this to the Times should be fired but since we're talking about Joe Lieberman, I'm sure no one will get the axe (he is running as a Republican you know).

OH YEAH: That debunking of that crappy article in the Times...

Remember that part of Lamont's quote I told you to store in your head.
"Everybody condemns what he did," Mr. Lamont said, referring to Mr. Clinton. "But it's how our country responded and handled it, turned it into an impeachable offense and dragged it across the front page of the paper for a long time."
Okay, lets go back to that piece of garbage hit piece in the Times.
Ned Lamont, who this week chastised Senator Joseph I. Lieberman for his public rebuke of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, wrote to Mr. Lieberman at the time praising the eloquence of his speech on the Senate floor.

"I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," Mr. Lamont, then a cable television executive, wrote in an e-mail message to the senator's Washington office on Sept. 16, 1998, two weeks after Mr. Lieberman's speech.
Well, it seems like the smear machine at the Times cherry-picked Lamont's email to Lieberman to give the impression that Lamont was supportive of Lieberman's grandstanding.

Why don't we read Lamont's email IN FULL.

"I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant because I thought it might make matters worse; I was reluctant because no one expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or how Gingrich lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton's misbehavior."

I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end.

Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the though that Clinton testifying about oral sex before a grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.

You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, a lot more than any of us care to know and should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe should be censured for lying --and let's move on.

It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.

Sincerely,

Ned Lamont
Greenwich Connecticut

cc Sen. Dodd, Rep. Shays
The letter sounds pretty much the same as what Lamont stated earlier this week huh?

Now, clearly this letter was written because Lamont wanted Lieberman to denounce Ken Starr's shameful tactics back in 1998 and not about Lamont supporting Lieberman's statement. When Lieberman didn't do the right thing and chastise Starr and his Republican buddies, it's fair for Lamont (like everyone else in Connecticut at the time) to conclude the obvious, that Lieberman was just grandstanding when he gave his speech (and given the fact that Lieberman can't bring himself to publicly criticize Bush for the numerous screw-up during the war, it's even more apparent now that Joe let his ego get the best of him back in '98).

More cherry picking crap from the Times...and trust me, I'm for from being done with this story.

...still developing.

Yet ANOTHER hit piece from the New York Times

Okay, this is outrageous and Jennifer Medina should be ashamed of herself.

Grr...I'm on the road so I don't have the time to give Medina's crappy article the proper ass-kicking it deserves so I'll get to it later.

WHy do I have the feeling that Anne Kornblut hands is all over this? One thing is for sure, I don't think the Lieberman camp knows about the pile of turd they just stepped into...

Trust me when I say developing.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Urge WTNH not to broadcast fake GOP-u-Drama



The blogosphere has been in a uproar over ABC's right-winged GOP-u-Drama "path to 9-11" and unless you've been living in a cave, you should knwo the details of this disgusting hitpiece.

In case you haven't heard abou t this piece of trash film, this so-called piece of work includes scenes that are compeltely false, all in an effort to place a majority of the blame for 9/11 on President Clinton as oppose to the real person who was asleep at the wheel George W. Bush.

Keith Olbermann broke it down on Countdown recently. Watch it and get pissed off.

Now, are you upset? Want to do something about in Connecticut. Well, itskevin from MLN has the details.
It would be great if a lot of us could send emails and/or call WTNH. Here's the contact info:

To send an email:
Use the feedback form (for department, select the programming option) available here

To call:
(203) 784-8888

For additional contact resources (click here):

UPDATE:
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo had a great idea. Let's also pursue this through the station owner, LIN TV Corp., based in Providence. Their number is: (401) 454-2880. Ask them (politely of course) what they plan to do. If you get any interesting replies, please post them in the comments, and/or send them to Josh at talk@talkingpointsmemo.com

Here are a few bullet points to stress:

-- The Path to 9/11 was written by a right-wing activist.
-- The program includes a scene showing Sandy Berger telling a CIA officer on the ground in Afghanistan NOT to take out Bin Laden when we could have. This never happened.
-- Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke (counter-terrorism head under both Clinton and BushCo), 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste and others in a position to know ALL refute some of the key scenes in the program.
-- In an effort to gin up ratings and/or political gain, advance copies of the program have been provided to numerous right-wing outlets and blogs -- including Rush Limbaugh, who has been promoting it for days -- but not to left-wing outlets or even Clinton administration offcials.
-- ABC has been promoting the program as an objective look at the events that led up to 9/11, going so far as to provide study guides to schools. The Scholastic Corporation has been involved in this effort.

Joe Lieberman: from DINO to IINO?

Oh oh, I feel a Drudge light moment...

Man, Joe can't find any love. I guess he better stick to campaigning in Waterbury.

It seems like the de facto Republican who claims to now be an independent just pissed off the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP) and who are pissed off and want him to stop using the term "Independent."

Personally, I rahter use the word Ignore when I see the letter "I" next to his name.
From the CUIP press release:
An organization representing independent voters today registered an objection to the certification of Joseph Lieberman as an independent candidate for U.S. Senate.

In a letter to the Secretary of State, Jacqueline Salit, the Political Director of CUIP, asserted that Senator Lieberman's application was deficient on its face and failed to comply with election law standards required this year of other groups.

Connecticut law requires candidates seeking to circulate nominating petitions submit an "Application for Nominating Petition" to the Secretary of the State. The Lieberman submission was devoid of the name, identity and contact information of the Applicant which the application requires.

"There is mounting concern among independent voters in Connecticut that Mr. Lieberman's so called 'independent candidacy' is a fraud on the voting public," states Salit. "He is not an independent, but is rather a Democrat who availed himself of an escape hatch in state Election Law allowing to reinvent himself as an 'independent-in-name-only' candidate after he lost his own party's primary."

The letter concludes with the recommendation that the Secretary of State withhold certification of Mr. Lieberman's candidacy in light of the failure in his submission.
Here's the letter in full:
Ms. Susan Bysiewicz

Secretary of the State
State of Connecticut
30 Trinity Street
Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Ms. Bysiewicz,

I am writing in my capacity as Political Director of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, Inc. We are a national organization which advocates for and represents the interests of independent voters, including many in Connecticut who are concerned about the independent candidate status your office is about to confer on Senator Joseph Lieberman.

I want to bring to your immediate attention a significant omission in the submission of Senator Joseph Lieberman to legally qualify himself for the ballot as the U.S. Senate candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. I believe this constitutes a fatal flaw in Mr. Lieberman's petition and necessitates the removal of his name from the November, 2006 ballot.

The failure occurred in his submission of the "Application for Nominating Petition" filed by the Connecticut for Lieberman Party with your office on July 10, 2006. Specifically, no identity was provided of the Applicant as required; i.e. the space where the name and address of the Applicant should appear was left vacant. Consequently, Mr. Lieberman's disembodied submission does not meet the requirements of Sec. 9-453b of Connecticut Election Law which specifies that "the person requesting" nominating petition forms must supply a range of information. As the "Application for Nominating Petition" form makes plain, disclosure of the identity of the applicant is required information. Mr. Lieberman's submission failed to provide it.

Given the amount of media and political controversy that surrounded Mr. Lieberman's decision to continue his candidacy in the event of losing the Democratic primary, it is plausible that the applicant preferred that his or her identity not be revealed at the time of the submission. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the Secretary of the State to ensure compliance with the law, even if the candidate is a United States Senator who is embattled in his own party's primary.

It has come to my attention that the Secretary of the State did apply a strict standard on this very issue of the identity of the "Applicant" in the submission of another "Application for Nominating Petition." In that instance, the Independent Party sought your office's approval for a party name and the issuance of petitions to field a statewide slate. Mr. Michael Telesca, on behalf of the Independent Party, was given specific instructions by your office about the need to identify an appropriate "Applicant."

While the Secretary of the State has demonstrated in its dealings with the Independent Party that it attaches great importance to the identity of the "Applicant," in the case of Mr. Lieberman's submission, the same standard was not applied.

There is mounting concern among independent voters in Connecticut that Mr. Lieberman's so-called "independent candidacy" is a fraud on the voting public. He is not an independent, but is rather a Democrat who availed himself of an escape hatch in state Election Law allowing him to reinvent himself as an "independent-in-name-only" candidate after he lost his own party's primary.

In light of the political sensitivities surrounding this situation, I believe the Secretary of the State has a heightened obligation to apply the strictures of Election Law consistently for all applicants.

I understand that your office will receive a final submission from "Connecticut for Lieberman" on September 13th. I strongly recommend that you withhold certification of Mr. Lieberman's candidacy in light of the failure in his submission

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Salit

cc: Lesley Mara, Deputy Secretary of the State
Have a nice weekend Joe!

UPDATE:It seems like CUIP Political DirectorJacqueline Salit's offense of Lieberman's use of the term "independent" is well documented. Here's a transcript of a conversation Salit had with strategist, philosopher, and fellow independent, Fred Newman.
[...]

Newman: Well, the country's going independent and the independent movement is going center-left, which substantively means anti-war.

Salit: You're saying that the independent movement is heading center-left. But, part of what we're looking at is, of course, that Lieberman is now running as an independent in Connecticut and he's a pro-war Democrat.

Newman: He's not an independent. The question that we, as independents, have to bring into Connecticut, is a question for Joe Lieberman.

Salit: The question to Lieberman is?

Newman: What is it that you're independent of? You're surely not independent of the traditional Democratic Party. You ran your whole campaign on the basis of being identified with it.

Salit: True.

Newman: And you're surely not independent of George Bush because you were seen in every poster embracing him. So what is it that you are independent of?

Salit: Right.

Newman: I take it that what you're attempting to be independent of is losing your job. That's the only thing that I'm certain that you're independent of.

Salit: That doesn't really define being an independent.

Newman: Not exactly.

Salit: Some political players are already trying to play into that issue on the other side. Example: the Bloomberg endorsement of Lieberman. Actually, the two New York politicians to endorse Lieberman as an independent are Mike Bloomberg and Ed Koch. The Bloomberg message is: 'I'm supporting Joe Lieberman. He's the best candidate and the fact that all the Democrats who supported him in the primary are now saying well, we're going to support the Democrat Lamont shows that they're willing to support a political party over their political views and their political beliefs, and that's partisanship of the worst kind.' And, says Bloomberg, 'I'm an independent, and I think that what Lieberman has done is admirable and is independent because it’s putting principles before parties and, hence, I'm supporting him.'

Newman: Why didn't Lieberman run as an independent before he lost?

Salit: Because he thought he was going to win the Democratic primary.

Newman: And he made plain that if he did win, he wouldn't run as an independent. So, how is he an independent?

Salit: He's not. He's simply being pragmatic.

Newman: That's why he held the independent petitions until after the election was over.

Salit: Correct.

Newman: So what kind of independent is he? At least Bloomberg had the courage to declare himself an independent before the election was held.

Salit: Right.

WTNH: George W Bush stumps for Simmons


Oh, this is rich!

On Wednesday, former President George H. W. Bush came to Connecticut to stump for rubber-stamp Republican Rob Simmons. As you know, Simmons is in the fight of his life against Democratic challenger Joe Courtney and since the war in Iraq is unpopular, he, like fellow rubber-stamp Republicans Nancy Johnson, Chris Shays, and Joe Lieberman, has done everything possible to distance himself from the current President Bush.

Looking at the screenshot from their news report. It seems like WTNH wouldn't let Simmons off the hook that easily which is just fine with me.

Subliminal message? Who knows. One thing is for sure, somewhere Joe Courtney is laughing his ass off.

The Chris Murphy interview


5th CD Democratic candidate Chris Murphy is a man on a mission.

This 32-year old State Senator representing the 16th District is currently taking one of President Bush's strongest Republican supporter, Nancy Johnson in on of the most competitive and closely watched Congressional races in the nation.

For someone who's been in politics far less than Rep. Johnson, his political resume is quite impressive.
During his first year in the Senate, Murphy steered the passage of an impressive array of landmark bills advancing public health, including the state’s workplace smoking ban. He also authored legislation that prohibits hospitals from engaging in overly aggressive collection practices against uninsured patients. In addition, he authored bills that expand low-cost prescription drug access for the uninsured, establish new government powers to be utilized during a bioterrorism attack, and increase whistleblower protections for hospital employees.

In 2004, Murphy worked to pass legislation increasing standards for auto emissions in Connecticut, and he authored and passed bills protecting nurses from being forced to work overtime shifts and implementing new patient safety protections for hospitals. He also led the fight for increased federal funding for Connecticut nursing homes.

That same year, Murphy introduced legislation that would provide vital funding for stem cell research here in Connecticut. Murphy's work that year helped lay the groundwork for future victory on this important issue, and in 2005 Murphy succeeded in passing Connecticut's landmark stem cell investment act, one of his proudest accomplishments.
His message is simple and easy enough for anyone who's had enough with the status-quo to understand...it's time for a change. Unfortunately for Johnson, it seems like Murphy's message is resonating with the voters in the fifth district.

Although Johnson has over 4 million in her warchest and is a 24 year incumbent, according to the latest poll by Democracy Corps, Johnson only leads Murphy by five points (49-44) making this race almost a dead heat and once you look at the numbers closely, you can understand why there is concern in the Johnson camp.
How would you rate the job being done by Nancy Johnson as U.S. Congresswoman -- excellent, good, just fair, or poor?

Excellent...11
Good...32
Just fair...32
Poor...18

Excellent/Good ...43
Fair/Poor...50

If the election for U.S. House of Representatives were today and the candidates were Democrat Chris Murphy and Republican Nancy Johnson -- for whom would you vote, Democrat Chris Murphy or Republican Nancy Johnson?

Democrat Chris Murphy ...40
Lean Democrat Chris Murphy ... 4
Republican Nancy Johnson...45
Lean Republican Nancy Johnson...4
(Undecided)...7

Total Democrat Chris Murphy...44
Total Republican Nancy Johnson...49

Based on what you have seen on TV lately, are you feeling more favorable or less favorable toward Nancy Johnson?

Much more favorable...11
Somewhat more favorable ...21
Somewhat less favorable ...20
Much less favorable ...17
(No difference)...6
(Have not seen anything)...17
(Don't know/refused) ...7

Total More favorable ...32
Total Less favorable...37

Based on what you have seen on TV lately, are you feeling more favorable or less favorable toward Chris Murphy?

Much more favorable...10
Somewhat more favorable ...18
Somewhat less favorable ...13
Much less favorable ...10
(No difference)...6
(Mixed)...1
(Have not seen anything)...28
(Don't know/refused)...16

Total More favorable...27
Total Less favorable...23


Recently, I had a had a chance to sit down with Chris Murphy and discuss why he's running for Congress as well as why he feels that he can do a better job in Washington than his Republican counterpart.


One thing is for certain; this is going to be a very interesting campaign to watch as the fall election cycle gets underway.

For more information on Murphy and his campaign, check out his website and make sure to meet Chris as his travels across the 5th district on his 41 towns on 41 days tour.

Gov. Rell and John DeStefano on the issues

Here's where Gov. Jodi Rell and John DeStefano stand on the issues.

First here's Democratic Candidate John DeStefano's list of issues (from his website).
Universal Healthcare (Connecticut CAN!)

Job Creation (Connecticut Jobs One Program)

The Plan for a Moral Minimum Wage

The DeStefano New Energy Plan

Protecting Connecticut's Environment

The DeStefano Early Education Plan (Every Child Reads by Third Grade)

Predatory Lending Policy

Education for the 21st Century

The DeStefano Transportation Plan

A Plan for Connecticut's Children & Families

Domestic Violence Policy

The DeStefano Pay Equity Initiative

Issues of Importance to Women

The DeStefano Plan for Connecticut's Dairy Farmers

Creating a Sensible Tax System

Property Tax Freeze for Seniors

And now, with less than two month away from election day, here's Gov. Rell's list of issues (from her website)
Content Coming Soon
You get the picture?

Lt. Gov. Democratic candidate Mary Glassman took the gloves off and had this to say about Rell's lack of concern (via press release).
"With less than two months away from Election Day, voters are still waiting for to hear from the Governor about how she will address the critical issues facing Connecticut 's families," said Mary Glassman - Democratic nominee for Lt. Gov.

"Not only is the Governor silent when it comes to energy and health care concerns, but voters have no place to go to get information on her positions on other issues. Incredibly, her campaign website provides only a blank issues page."

[...]

"I am proud that since the campaign season began Mayor DeStefano and I have been talking about important issues facing the citizens of Connecticut - stagnant job growth, lack of affordable and adequate health care and stronger support for education from preschool to higher education," said Glassman. "John and I challenge the Governor to run a campaign of ideas and to lay out a vision for Connecticut . Voters deserve nothing less."
I ask again, why should Jodi Rell be re-elected and when will the media stop the love-fest with the governor and start asking her some real questons regarding the issues that voters are concerned about?

Keith Olbermann in Fear Factor: the Bush Administration editon

Here we go again. The Bush administration using the fear card as we approach Sept 11th. I thought it was very convient that the President admitted that there are CIA secret prisons although I thought admitting that would be bad since it would tip off the terrorist? And by the way, did the President admitted to something that could be illegal?

Isn't amazing what a Supreme Court decision can make you do? ANd since we're using the fear card, where is Osama? Oh yeah, Pakistan announced that they made a peace deal with the warlords who are allowing Osama to walk free (remember what Bush said about people who harbor terrorist).

Do you feel safe with these guys running the show?

Keith Olbermann does his thing and breaks all the silliness from the Bush administration.


NOTE: This is how supporters of Lieberman think of Lamont (and don't forget that this image is from a site on Lieberman's own blogroll which he recently removed).

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Murphy knocking doors in Danbury

(cross post from Hat City Blog)

5th CD Democratic candidate Chris Murphy's 41 towns in 41 days tour recently made it's way through the Danbury area.

The man who wants to give Nancy Johnson her pink slip knocked doors with fellow Democrats Jim Kelly and 109th State District Democratic candidate Joe Taborsak and the campaingn filed this video report.

Goddard sets the record straight regarding Lieberman poll

Attaboy Taegan!
Editor's Note: Though a Republican firm, this is the Lieberman campaign's internal poll.
Thanks for setting the record straight and informing your readers that the Public Opinion Strategies poll is nothing more than a poll from the Lieberman campaign.

Yet another example of People-Powered Media (PPM) in action. You're back in my good graces Taegan (and I promise to spell your first name correctly in the future).

Lamont releases new ad, urges voters to sign the petition against swift-boat group

Today, Ned Lamont released a new TV ad entitled "Patriot" at the same time Joe Lieberman's swift-boat friends "Veterans for Truth" releases their pro-Lieberman ad. This so-called group are nothing more than Washington lobbyists and political operatives with ties to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and headed by no other than Dan Senor...you know, the former advisor to Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority who was partly responsible for losing 9 billion U.S. dolars under his watch as well as a source of the majority of the screw-ups after the U.S. took over Iraq.

Yeah, that guy.


The Lamont campaign had this to say about their new ad, Joe's swift-boat group, and reminds us that not all veterans are happy with our junior senator .
As we release our latest ad, "Patriot," Senator Lieberman has new friends releasing ads of their own: Allies of the infamous "Swift Boat Veterans." The group, "Veterans for Truth" has deep Republican ties, including former advisors to President Bush and is one of those mysterious 527 organizations shielded from disclosing individuals funding their effort.

[...]

The "Veterans for Truth" ad thanks Senator Lieberman for supporting President Bush and the Iraq War. But one Connecticut veteran shared his tale of Senator Lieberman's "support" in a letter to the editor of a local paper several weeks ago.

When Collin Halloran explained his unit had been issued sub-standard equipment, the response was that "[Senator Lieberman] left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion."
I am a registered Democrat and a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan with the 1-102 Infantry Battalion of the Connecticut National Guard. Last week I received some newspaper clippings in the mail that sparked my interest: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has been successfully challenged and forced into a primary that will take place in August.

As some readers may have heard, in January my battalion was issued substandard equipment for our deployment to Afghanistan. Originally, we were issued M-16s rather than M-4 carbines, rifles with shorter barrels and collapsible butt stocks. As a politcally active member of the battalion, I began to get in touch with Representative DeLauro and Representative Simmons, who both responded quickly and enthusiastically. Senator Dodd also responded quickly and gave me prompts on how to further validate my request for weapns.

However, I did not receive a response from Senator Lieberman's office. I continued to leave messages for both him and his military aide, now senior counselor, Fred Downey, who reprsented Sen. Lieberman at the Battalion's send off ceremony on Jan. 4. After several messages, I finally received a return phone call. However, I was not met with the same enthusiams expressed by other legislators; I was immediately confronted with an inquisition that seemed to have the purpose of dispelling the belief that the battalion was ill equipped. Rather than listen to our specific concerns, the "benefits" of the M16 were highlighted and the advantages of the M4 were downplayed.

Lieberman's office left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion, some who have been on as many as five deployments. The others in Washington were not so quick to abandon us...

Lieberman has never hesitated to voice his support for the war, and recently voted against pulling troops out of Iraq, so where was he when over 500 of his own constituents were being sent overseas to fight on behalf of his great country? It appears the senator was so concerned with climbing the political ladder, he forget what his job is really about: the people...

When my absentee ballot returns to the States next month, Lamont's name, not Lieberman's, will bear the check. when August 8 arrives, will you stand for the hypocrisy?

Sincerely,

Colin D. Halloran

Letter Source: The Town Times - Middlefield, CT. June 30, 2006.
You see, not all veterans are proud of Joe's cheerleading of this war and many veterans in Connecticut are very upset about Dan Senor's swift-boat group attempts to attack Ned Lamont.

If you're just as outraged as many veterans are over the "Veterans for Freedom" smear campaign, please go to the Lamont campaign site and sign the petition which calls on Sen. Lieberman to denounce the ads.

You can view Lamont's new ad below.

Bolton nomination scrubbed

I wonder if Sen. Chris Dodd had anything to do with this? If he did, then GOOD FOR HIM!

From Reuters
Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday scrubbed a planned vote on President George W. Bush's bid to keep John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, did not explain why the vote on whether to send Bolton's nomination to the full Senate was removed from the day's agenda and did not say if or when it would be taken up again.

Eric Blankenbaker and Dan Gerstein: Dumb and Dumber

Just when you think the Lieberman campaign can't do anything more pathetic, they prove us wrong yet again. Will this finally get Dan Gerstein fired? CTBob has the details.
On the Joe2006 blog tonight, millionaire-lawyer non-combatant successful-draft-deferrer Joe Lieberman's campaign director, Dan Gerstein, brought up the topic of wife beating in relation to his discussion of the Senator's possible campaign contributions.

While addressing the questionable validity of a story about GOP fundraising efforts for Lieberman that was posted by their OWN CAMPAIGN STAFF on their OWN BLOG, Gerstein asked if it was possible to prove the Senator doesn't beat his wife.

After several messages questioning Gerstein about the wife-beating topic, the Lieberman spokesman said "Joe Lieberman does not beat his wife."
You have to read Dan's comment to actually get the full effect of his incredible level of stupidity.
Let me get this straight. You are asking us to disprove an anonymous, single-sourced story from a magazine of questionable credibility that not one respectable news outlet has even come close to picking up on? What's next, you want us to provide evidence that Joe Lieberman doesn't beat his wife?

Seriously, folks, I am more than happy to answer legitimate questions raised on the blog, and I apologize for not doing more of it yet (been a little busy doing a few other things), but can we please have a little perspective? Thanks.
This is so stupid that I don't know where to begin. Lets see, assclown Eric Blankenbaker says that the Insight Magazine article which stated that the White House and the GOP raised money for Lieberman's campaign was " is as phony as all the others that came before it" without providing any evidence to debunk the article THEN silly Gerstein flips out on the comments and states "What's next, you want us to provide evidence that Joe Lieberman doesn't beat his wife?"

Are you following the logic in all of this folks?

Well, Gerstein just couldn't put that shovel down and kept digging a whole for himself when the people commenting about his post jump all over him and ask former spokesperson who was recently demoted to provide evidence that Joe didn't beat his wife (well, dumb-dumb brought up the subject).
First, Joe Lieberman does NOT beat his wife. Second, I will personally look into whether or not Joe's campaign has taken a significant amount of money from registered Republicans. I don't think so. But I can make sure. How's that for transparency?
Oh, this is rich. After assclown Blankenbaker screams that Insight Magazine story is false, Gerstein says that he'll look into the matter and states that Joe doesn't beat his wife (although, he's the person who brought up the topic).

I'm at a loss for words...

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

New poll shows bad news for Lamont?

Taegan, you're kidding me right? Please tell me you were kidding when you did this post.
A new Public Opinion Strategies (R) poll finds Ned Lamont (D) trailing Sen. Joe Lieberman (I), 51% to 35%, in the Connecticut U.S. Senate race. Republican Alan Schlesinger receives 4% of the vote, while 10% remain undecided.

Key finding: When asked which candidate is running a negative campaign, 40% say Lamont compared to 19% for Lieberman.
Now, I like Political Wire and they even cross link to this site from time to time but man, someone REALLY dropped the ball on this one.

I'll give Tim Tagaris the honors and let him break this down. Trust me, this is so easy that I honestly think Tim was able to find this information before he finished his cigarette.
Public Opinion Strategies = Neil Newhouse (link)

Neil Newhouse = Joe's Pollster (link)

New Poll = Internal Poll (link)

Wanna disect it, wanna push it? Release it in full.
Get it, got it, good.

Now Taegan, I'm a big fan of your site so please do the right thing and do a follow-up post and fully disclose the connection between Public Opinion Strategies and the Lieberman campaign. It would have been nice if you told your readers about the Neil Newhouse connection.

I'm disappointed in you Taegan, very disappointed.

Sullivan hearings begin

This is not going to be good news for Gov. Jodi Rell as the disciplinary hearing into the actions of former Supreme Court Chief Justice William J. Sullivan started today.

For those who do not remember, Justice Sullivan delayed the release of a court decision by potential successor Justice Peter T. Zarella in order to help Zarella win confirmation as the new Chief Justice. The release of Zarella's decision would have damaged his chances of becoming the next Chief Justice.

The events surrounding Zarella's nomination process has been bizarre from the beginning starting with Gov. Rell strong-arming the legislature's judicial committee to speed the nomination process along with Sullivan's possible illegal actions. Gov. Rell has never explained why she attempted to speed Zarella's nomination nor has she or anyone from her staff acknowledged whether or not they knew about Sullivan's action beforehand.

Yesterday, Democratic candidate John DeStefano issued a press release and urged Gov. Rell to come clean and explain her role in the entire affair.

"Gov. Rell should explain why she put unprecedented pressure on lawmakers to fast track Justice Zarella's nomination," said Derek Slap – DeStefano campaign spokesperson. "Voters have a right to know if she or anyone on her staff knew of Chief Justice Sullivan delaying the release of the court decision and withholding it from lawmakers who were about to vote on Justice Zarella's nomination."

The court decision in question said the judicial branch's criminal and motor vehicle dockets are not open to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. Justice Zarella voted in the majority, against the public disclosure of information. Chief Justice Sullivan is now accused of improperly delaying the release of Justice Zarella's vote.

An editorial in the Hartford Courant on April 16th reads, "Nobody -- least of all Gov. M. Jodi Rell -- has persuasively explained why the legislature must rush to judgment on the nomination of Associate Justice Peter Zarella to be chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court."

Another article said Gov. Rell's actions amounted to, "blindsiding legislative leaders." Rep. Michael Lawlor - co-chair of the judiciary committee, was quoted as saying, "I smell a rat, and we're going to figure out what it is," said Lawlor. "I do know one thing. Usually, when there is an attempt to sneak things through at the last minute, there's a reason for it. It's incumbent on us to find out what that reason is."

"Gov. Rell privately berated lawmakers, including members of leadership, and used all the power of her office to rush through a nomination," said Slap. "Just as former Chief Justice Sullivan is publicly explaining his role in this process, so should Gov. Rell."

Well, after many months, it seems like we're going to get some answers as today Sulivan admits to delaying the release of Zarella's decision.
Former state Supreme Court Chief Justice William J. Sullivan acknowledged delaying the release of a court decision earlier this year to help a potential successor win confirmation, fellow Justice Richard N. Palmer testified at a hearing Wednesday.

Palmer and acting Chief Justice David M. Borden were the first two witnesses at a hearing on whether Sullivan violated state law and the judicial code of conduct by holding the decision to help Justice Peter T. Zarella, Gov. M. Jodi Rell's nominee to become chief justice.

[...]

The Judicial Review Council, an independent body that investigates complaints against judges, charged Sullivan in July after he admitted delaying the release of a decision in which Zarella voted with the majority to keep certain judicial records secret from the public. Sullivan was concerned Zarella's position would be an issue during legislative confirmation hearings.
The entire situation surrounding the Rell nominating Zarella was strange from the start and many questions surrounding Rell's actions have gone unanswered. With Sullivan's hearing back in the spotlight, questions regarding Rell's role in the matter is sure to resurface.

You can watch the hearing online at CT-N now.

My impressions on Joe Lieberman's new site

First impression: I can't access the site on my Macintosh.

Second impression: I can't access the site on my Mac in WindowsXP mode.

Third impression: Finally able to access the site on my WindowsXP machine...wow, they sure beat the hell out of the bold font.

Fourth impression: The first blog on their blogroll has a picture of Bin Landen wearing a Lamont sticker on his turban and another post compares Lamont to David Duke therefore, Lieberman is linking to hate sites? Very classy senator.

Fifth impression: Has Joe Lieberman done anything besides getting earmarks for the people of Connecticut because that’s all I see when I click on the "Fighting for Connecticut" section.

Sixth impression: From Dan Gerstein's first post on Joe's blog:
The fact is, for the last several months we ceded the online debate to our rivals.
Wow, Dan comes right out the gate lying his ass off. Gerstein never "ceded" the online debate he wrote for LieberDem along with assclown Matt Smith. Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake slammed Dan for lying about his role in the campaign while blogging for LeiberDem and Matt's pathetic rebuttal is a blogger classic complete with backpedaling updates whenever Jane slammed them again (you go girl).

Last impression (before I became bored): Nice to see that Joe's using the site to talk about everything besides the issues. I mean really, going after Lamont’s spokesperson because she used a lower case d in the word Democrat?

Also, I'm still waiting to hear about that "hacking" update regarding Lieberman's last site.

BTW: Love the lack of a RSS reader on the blog. Maybe they'll get that fixed when they make the site available to Macintosh users.

UPDATE: Matt over at Emboldened goes through Joe's blogroll which is entirely right winged (to say the least).

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Poll reports on the obvious (and Joe Lieberman could care less)

People are pissed off and want a change.
Most Americans are angry about "something" when it comes to how the country is run, and they are more likely than in previous years to vote for a challenger this November, a new poll suggests.

A majority of Americans surveyed -- and a higher percentage than recorded during the same time last year -- said things in the United States are going "badly." Among this year's respondents, 29 percent said "pretty badly" and 25 percent -- up from 15 percent a month ago -- answered "very badly." By comparison, 37 percent described the way things are going as "fairly well," and 9 percent answered "very well."

Of these people, 76 percent said there was "something" to be angry about in the country today. By comparison, 59 percent felt that way when polled in February.

[...]

A majority -- 55 percent -- said they are more likely to back a challenger in races on this year's ballot. Such anti-incumbent sentiment is higher than the 48 percent recorded as "pro-challenger" in a similar survey in 1994, when the GOP took control of both houses of Congress.

[...]

The economy topped the list of respondents' concerns, with 28 percent calling it the most important issue when deciding how to cast their ballots. Coming second was Iraq at 25 percent, followed by terrorism (18 percent), moral issues (15 percent) and immigration (14 percent).

Democrats lead Republicans by a 10-point margin, 53 to 43 percent, among likely voters asked which party's congressional candidate they would support in November, and Democrats held a 56-40 lead on the same question among registered voters.
This is not good news for Republican cheerleaders Nancy Johnson, Chris Shays, Rob Simmons.

The only saving grace is that the captain of the cheerleading squad, millionaire Joe Lieberman, is running a de facto Republican campaign and is trying to rally up the conservative base in Connecticut for his own selfish gain and his inability to do the right thing will ultimately hurt the very Democrats he once supported prior to his embarrassing primary loss.

Condoleezza Rice: A disgrace to all African-Americans

Outdoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's comment in which he compared those who opposed the war to fascists, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice drinks the Bush-flavored kool-aid and takes the administration's pro-war rhetoric to a whole new disturbing level.
Secretary of State Rice compared the Iraq war with the American Civil War, telling a magazine that slavery might have lasted longer in this country if the North had decided to end the fight early.

"I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," Rice said in the new issue of Essence magazine.

"I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'" Rice said.

That's right folks, African-American Condoleezza Rice just compared critics of the war in Iraq to those would approve of slavery. As an African-American who strongly opposes this stupid war, words cannot express how offensive her remarks are but unfortunately, I'm not really surprised since I lost ALL respect for this woman a long time ago when she should her true colors during the Katrina disaster.

For those who need a quick history lesson on what the Secretary of State was doing while hundreds of African-Americans were DYING in New Orleans, lets roll that video tape again...

When questioned about the Bush Administration's failure to cut their vacation plans (including hers) in order to help those who were dying (including HER OWN PEOPLE) in front of our eyes on television last year, Condi get an attitude.
"I resented the notion that the President of the United States, this President of the United States, would somehow decide to let people suffer because they were black," Rice told the magazine.

"I found that to be the most corrosive and outrageous claim that anybody could have made, and it was wholly and totally irresponsible."


Oh, you "resented" the notion that notion that people are pissed off because you and the rest of the administration didn't cut your vacation plans which included you hitting tennis balls with Monica Seles at the U.S. Open or buying shoes at Ferragamo on 5th Avenue in Manhattan.
According to Drudge, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recently enjoyed a little Broadway entertainment. And Page Six reports that she's also working on her backhand with Monica Seles. So the Gulf Coast has gone all Mad Max, women are being raped in the Superdome, and Rice is enjoying a brief vacation in New York. We wish we were surprised.

What does surprise us: Just moments ago at the Ferragamo on 5th Avenue, Condoleezza Rice was seen spending several thousands of dollars on some nice, new shoes (we've confirmed this, so her new heels will surely get coverage from the WaPo's Robin Givhan). A fellow shopper, unable to fathom the absurdity of Rice's timing, went up to the Secretary and reportedly shouted, "How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless!" Never one to have her fashion choices questioned, Rice had security PHYSICALLY REMOVE the woman.


Yeah, got'cha Condi.

What does the self-promoting woman who never has a problem reminding us that she was a poor black girl from Alabama say about her role in the whole Katrina screw-up?
Asked if she felt personally accountable, Rice said, "The government did its best. People aren't perfect, and this response was not perfect. You know, I do foreign policy, I don't run Homeland Security. I don't run FEMA. I do foreign policy." She added, "I did what I could to coordinate the international response."
Oh, so that's her excuse for hitting tennis balls and buying expensive shoes as a category five hurricane ripped not only New Orleans, but her own home state.

Condoleezza Rice: a disgrace to all African-Americans.

(update: JoeBob is correct, Condoleezza Rice proved last year that she's a disgrace to all Americans, not just African-Americans. Therefore, it's with great honor that I update this post on his behalf).

What's wrong with this picture

Reports of the parade are coming in and one thing is for sure, Republicans love Joe

From the Hartford Courant.
Beth Parmelee, a Republican from Southington, said she came to the parade just to support Lieberman.

"It was amazing to see the support he received today," she said. "If this parade was a poll, I think he would have been out way in front. I think he will have a lot of Republican support on Election Day."

From the News-Times
There were also strong pockets of support for Lieberman along the route -- often, like Zoghbi, Republicans who will march across party lines when they vote in November.

"We are Lieberman supporters and we are conservative Republicans," said Russell DeMarco, who was at the parade with his wife, Diana. "That makes us a rarity in Newtown."

Lieberman (R-CT)

Oh all the times to go out of town...

WTF?!?

Now let me explain things first boys and girls. I've been going to the U.S. Open every Labor Day weekend with my family the last four years and this year was special because it was Andre Agassi's last tournament.

Now, I've been waiting for the day when Ned Lamont would visit Danbury and although he did stop by for a festival, he didn't stop by Democratic headquarters...not until this weekend when I was OUT OF TOWN! To top if off, Ned and Joe marched in the Newtown Labor Day parade and you have the makings for a incredible political blogger day.

AGH! I missed all the fun! Well, actually I didn't as I was able to take some amazing photographs and build by photography portfolio (anyone need a freelance photographer). Cruise over to CTBob as he was Johnny on the spot and has an amazing video report. I couldn't believe the size of Lamont's supporters in the video...my goodness it was huge! Poor Joe walked all alone with no one standing by his side. So sad...so pathetic...so poetic.

It's pretty late and I have limited details on Ned's appearance in Danbury but from what little I heard, Democratic Headquarters on Main Street was standing room only which is amazing. Reports of up towards 100 people came by to hear Ned speak which is the largest I've ever heard for a DTC event in Danbury (hell, I didn't even know the place could hold that many people).

I'm off to bed. I'll get back up to full speed tomorrow.

UPDATE: Okay, I heard that once again, the Lieberman goons went on a rampage and tore up some Lamont signs. When will the media report on these jerks when they go after Lamont supporters (anyone remember Meriden).

Read about what happened and all the other silly stuff here. It's amazing that CNN would devote anytime to this stupidity as I'm assuming that what happened was SO minor compared to everything else that happened (which was positive).

You can read the AP report on the event here.