<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11782355\x26blogName\x3dConnecticutBLOG\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5344443236411396584', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Saturday, September 16, 2006

You see, Red Sox and Yankee fans agree on some things

Friday, September 15, 2006

Exploiting 9-11

(I orignally posted this entry on My Left Nutmeg)

This is how you fight back against the Republican "fear machine"

Note to the Democratic Congressional candidates: enough is enough. The public has had it with the Republicans using the horrible events of 9/11 to either 1) try to justify the war in Iraq and/or 2.) scare the voters into believing that the Democrats are "soft on terrorism."

I'll make this rant brief.

Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and the horrible Nancy Johnson walked lock and step with President Bush for the last six years. They should be held just as responsible as President Bush for this outrageous war because they supported it every step of the way. These same politicans turned a blind eye to a host of illegal actions from this administration ranging from the events at Abu ghraib and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens, to a host of corruption scandals (Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Bob Ney) and the religious right running out of control (Terri Schiavo).

Every poll has clearly shown that the public wants a change and the only card these Republcians have felt is the "fear card" and after viewing Nancy Johnson's latest ad, we know they these Republicans will go to any means to get re-elected.

Simply put, it's time to rip off the gloves and not let these shameless politicans use the tragic events of 9-11 for their political advantage.

The public deserves better and it's time for the Democrats to lead the way to a better tomorrow.

Remember, Democrats in the majority=SUBPOENA POWER.

UPDATE: Oh my! I forgot to add Joe Lieberman's name the list of cheerleadring Republicans. I must be tired...

A Democratic vote is a vote for change.

It's all about Joe: the handicapped parking edition

Here's a picture of Joe Lieberman's car at Fairfield University this morning.

Nuff said.

MAJOR hat tip to Lamontblog.

Keith Olberman's commentary on the fifth anniversary of 9/11

I've been a little slow in processing my video footage as of late. I'm just overworked with the huge amount of video I'm working on right now. That being the case, if you haven't seen this yet, here's Keith Olbermann's commentary he gave from the site of the World Trade Center on the fifth anniversary of 9/11.

Powerful and moving, a speech like this is long overdue. Thank you Keith.

Here's the text of his speech.

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

The reuturn of the sleeping bear: part two

More goodies from truthaboutjoe.com
In the 106th Congress, Lieberman missed the 3rd most votes of any U.S. Senator. In the 108th Congress, Lieberman again missed the third most votes of any senator. And in the current 109th Congress, Lieberman has skipped the 7th most votes of any senator. [Source: Washington Post’s Senate vote counter]

In just his current 6-year term, Lieberman has skipped 321 votes, or almost 17 percent of all votes. Put another way, Lieberman has skipped more than one out of every 6 votes in the last 6 years. In just the last three and a half years, that absenteeism has gone up further, as Lieberman is now skipping an average of one out of every four votes. [Source: Washington Post’s Senate vote counter]

The Hartford Courant reported in 2003 that "AP noted that Lieberman was en route to a Silicon Valley fundraiser when the Senate voted to pay for the war in Iraq - a war Lieberman fervently supports. And he was lunching with Democrats in Manchester, N.H., when the Senate voted to confirm Tom Ridge as head of Homeland Security."[Source: Hartford Courant, 5/4/03]
Joe calls this type of information negative campaigning, others call it exposing one's record.

Make sure you sign up so you can get your daily cup of Joe delivered via email. It goes great with a bagel.

DANGERstein: liar, liar, liar

The great Scarce strikes again.

Nancy Johnson: a disgrace to the 5th District

The title speaks for itself.

I lived in the 5th District for almost 20 years. I've lived through the era of the shameful slumlord Gary Franks and the silliness of Toby Moffett attempt to campaign in the area (come on folks, I loved the guy also but he really wasn't from the 5th and his loss gave us Franks) but nothing, and I mean nothing, can compare to the outright lunacy of one Nancy Johnson (R-CT).

Don't let her attempts to portray herself as a moderate or independent fool you as it's nothing but a smoke screen. Johnson's outrageous voting record exposes her as nothing more than a Rubber-stamp right-wing Republican who is beholden to special interests to a level never seen before in Connecticut politics.

Using an analogy from a friend, Johnson is the type of person who would carry the water through the desert for the President. Johnson outright supports the head Republican in charge every step of the way on issues ranging from the war in Iraq and Dick Cheney's energy bill, to the revamping of Social Security and neglecting the environment.

If that is not bad enough, Johnson rakes in special interest money at an alarming rate and has proven time and time again that she can be bought for the right price. Whether it's big oil, or big drug companies, if you have a checkbook, you can buy Johnson's vote.

Why am I unhinging on Johnson you ask? Because for everything this person has done in her career, the campaign she is currently running against Democrat Chris Murphy is the most disgusting campaign I've ever witness to date. This "person" had the nerve to use the events on 9-11 to her political advantage going as far as re-creating a funeral in one of her ads. Take a look.

Shocking? Well you haven't seen anything yet...

The DAY AFTER the fifth anniversary of 9-11, an event that will leave an impression on me for the rest of my life, the very day after she participates in the 9-11 ceremony in Danbury, Johnson exploits 9-11 AGAIN in her "new attack ad" which pathetically accusing Chris Murphy as being soft of the war of terror.

Has she no shame?

I'll let fellow blogger CT Progressive give the details (as a side note, please visit CT Progressive's site No More Nancy as it's one of the best blogs in CT.
Johnson attempts to attack Murphy over his opposition to illegal wiretapping through the usual attack ad lies and distortions. Yet the message is completely lost in the sheer stupidity of the ad. See for yourself:

Question #1:

Why is the "average people" image of a bunch of people in rain coats and umbrellas? Does this terrorist attack involve some sort of monsoon? Acid rain? Seriously is that the only picture they could find?

Question #2:

I thought the bad black and white pictures were supposed to be of your opponent? Doesn't a candidate's own ad usually feature them smiling in colored pictures? Why did Johnson's campaign choose to use this picture of her? It's not very flattering. I guess beauty is the price you pay for being "tough" on terrorism.

Question #3:

Are we talking about terrorism or cutting student aid? Nancy probably thought she could slip this one past me...not so fast. Look closely at the image shown when the announcer says, "Nancy Johnson says act immediately." They display a blurry image that's supposed to convey Johnson's action on terrorism, but upon closer review it seems this image has nothing to do with terrorism at all. In fact, it's a chart about financial aid for college students. An odd choice for Johnson to display given her vote this year to support the largest cut in history for federal student aid programs. If you look close enough you can see the chart labeled with "Federal Pell Grant", "Tuition Assistance Program", "Outside Grant or Scholarship", "Federal Subsidized Stafford Loan", "Federal Unsubsidized Stafford Loan", and so on. Perhaps the dots in their columns represent all the times Nancy Johnson has voted to cut these programs.

Question #4:

This is probably the most mind boggling one of them all. Maybe it's some landmark that I just don't recognize, but where the hell is Nancy Johnson standing in her photo-op with the veterans at the end of the ad? Are these people at Area 51 or something? And what are they looking up at and saluting? The flag is clearly located in the lower left corner of the screen behind them. They are all looking in different directions too. Hmm...you think this was a TV photo-op rather than an actual event? But I gotta give Nancy major props for taking the time to put on her red jacket so that she could match the veterans. It's a real nice touch.

Seriously, is this the worst ad you've ever seen? I could not stop laughing when I first saw it. Is Johnson's media person some high school kid? First there was the recreated 9/11 memorial service ad, then the ridiculous game show tax ad, and now the most bizarre ad of them all.

Although I felt that Murphy was reading from the 2004 playbook of John Kerry as he didn't fight back against Johnson's first disgusting ad, in a press release, Murphy finally took the gloves off and ripped into Johnson's bizzare accusations.
"Nancy Johnson's decision to run an ad on September 12 politicizing the 9-11 attacks is disgusting. Her ad is intended to scare people into thinking that we are safer if the Bush Administration is allowed to break our laws, and she should be ashamed," Murphy said. "She is so out of touch with the people of Connecticut that she is listening to people who think politicizing terror is more important than fighting it. Not only is she politicizing the issue, she is making my record up out of thin air."


"Current law gives the federal government the power to access the networks of terrorists that intend to harm us, so long as the President chooses to follow the rules. But the Bush-Cheney Administration has refused to obey existing law. The blame lies also with Nancy Johnson and the Republican Congress, who have abandoned their responsibility to oversee this Administration, rejecting the crucial system of checks and balances which has protected this nation for more than 200 years," Murphy said.

"When I go door-to-door in this district, people tell me they want someone in Washington who will ask hard questions and hold the federal government accountable, not someone who goes along to get along. If Nancy Johnson listened to the people of Connecticut, she'd know that catching Osama bin Laden and protecting the nation are not partisan issues. People want to see a higher standard of discourse in Washington, where an open dialogue can lead to solutions to protect our nation from those who intend to harm us, while simultaneously upholding the privacy rights that form the foundation of our American values. This television ad fails to meet those expectations," said Murphy.

This is not the first time that Johnson has expressed her wholehearted support for the Bush-Cheney illegal wiretapping program. On June 20, 2006, Johnson was the only member of the Connecticut delegation to vote against an amendment that would have prohibited the use of federal funds to engage in electronic surveillance such as wiretapping, unless that surveillance complies with existing law. [Roll Call 295, 6/20/06]


"Nancy Johnson is the only member of the Connecticut delegation - Democrat or Republican - who was unwilling to stand up to George Bush and Dick Cheney and say: Enough is enough, you are not above the law," said Murphy. "The amendment Johnson voted against would only have required that the Bush Administration abide by existing law. That is my position on this issue. I believe that the federal government must play by the rules, just like the people of Connecticut do. Nancy Johnson's loyalty to President Bush is so strong that she supports him even when he breaks the law. Yet again, Nancy Johnson has proven that she is a part of the problem in Washington."
The people of the fifth district can do better than have someone like Nancy Johnson represent them in Washington. It's not that I'm anti-Republican, I'm anti-idiotic and based solely on that point, Johnson has proven that she deserves her pink slip in November.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

DANGERstein strikes again

Either Dan Gerstein is a bad liar or just an idiot.
On his Web page, Lamont states, "I teach in a 50-year-old inner-city public school," referring to Harding.


Rival Senate candidate Joe Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat who is running as an independent after losing a primary battle to Lamont, is taking issue with Lamont's portrayal of himself as an inner-city schoolteacher, saying he's "misleading" the public.

The Lieberman campaign points out that Lamont is a multimillionaire from Greenwich who volunteered to help with a business class at Harding High School.

"The reality is Ned Lamont has trouble with the truth," said Dan Gerstein, Lieberman's communications director.

"Ned Lamont has loudly and widely trumpeted his credentials as an educator and in doing so has unequivocally given people the impression that he is currently a teacher in the Bridgeport public schools. Since Mr. Lamont is touting this credential, there are legitimate questions," Gerstein said.

"He has distorted Lieberman's record and he has a habit of mischaracterizing his own positions on Iraq. If he is not teaching, why does he continue to mislead the voters about his role in the Bridgeport public schools?" Gerstein said.
Stunning, Joe Lieberman, in a attempt to stay away from addressing the issues, attempts to attack Ned Lamont's teaching credenitals.

Let me get this straight, you're attacking Lamont's volunteering credtials? You'e attacking the factsd surrounding Lamont TEACHING AT AN INNER-CITY HIGH SCHOOL?

So I guess these kids are liars?
The CT Post took two seconds to check into team Joementum's claims and came up with this...
The facts surrounding the issue are clear. During the 2004-05 school year, Lamont served as a volunteer teacher at Harding. He helped a certified teacher lead two classes on how to start a business and brought in outside experts to bolster the course.

Hector Sanchez, Harding's principal, said Lamont helped teach once a week, on Mondays, for two periods, which amounts to 1.5 hours for the day. The effort lasted the school year, Sanchez said.

In 2005-06, Lamont volunteered to help teach a similar class at Bassick High School.
Joe, please hire Marion and Sean back. DANGERstein and everyone's favorite assclown Eric Blankenbaker are definitely downgrades...

Sign the petition

Click here and help tell George Bush's favorite Democrat to get back to work and do his job.

Rowland for hire

Good Lord!

I read this piece from Helen Ubinas this morning on our favorite former Governor/disgrace John Rowland but forgot to post about it until Genghis and T-Party brought it back to my attention.

I'm with you GC, I went numb when I saw Rowland's site and I'm just as speechless.

How Ubinas could muster up the energy to write anything about Rowland's site is beyond me. My body blacked out the site from my memory to sheild me from the pain.
In a web page meant to entice folks who might want to hire the former governor as a motivational speaker, Rowland goes on about "his exceptional public service career." There's a slew of photos showing him as a man of the people, and a page devoted to the "landmarks of his legacy."

Landmarks of his legacy? How about the Connecticut Juvenile Training School in Middletown, a $57 million boondoggle to benefit his contractor friends, a juvenile jail so flawed it's been ordered closed?

Or the Bradley International Airport garage, another sweetheart deal for his buddies?

Or his choice for chief justice of the Supreme Court, a Waterbury pol whose effort to skew the system for the benefit of a pal has brought disrepute on the entire judiciary?

How about his legacy as the state's only governor to be driven from office and sent to jail?

He deals with that on his website with one short, sweet, euphemistic paragraph: "Facing preliminary investigative hearings by a legislative panel he stepped down from public office on July 1, 2004. On April 1, 2005, he began serving a sentence of one year and one day at Loretto, Pennsylvania, after accepting a plea agreement."

Sorry, no photo to celebrate that Hallmark moment.

It got me thinking about how some other folks who found themselves in hot water might have explained their falls from grace:

Richard Nixon, facing an inquiry about a burglary, relocated to California.

Louis XVI, facing a certain public disenchantment, lost his ability to wear a crown.

Bonnie and Clyde, facing questions about their banking practices, were sanctioned by federal authorities.

Hey, everyone - including corrupt pols - get to go on with their lives; at least if they're not beheaded. And Rowland did his time.

But come on, to betray the public trust and then turn around and cash in on your bad behavior? Talk about the arrogance of power.
This jerk is now making money as a motivational speaker and is CHARGING PEOPLE to hear him speak.

Why isn't he still in jail?

(Note: Ubinas' name is spelled with a tilde over the n but I'm unable to get the accent to display correctly on the site).

Chris Murphy to deliver National Democratic Radio Address

This is big.
Tomorrow, Democratic congressional candidate Chris Murphy will record the national Democratic response to the President's weekly radio address. The radio address will play on Saturday morning after the President's weekly address which airs at 11:00am EST.
Murphy is one of a very small group of Democratic candidates who will be addressing the nation in this format. According to the campaigns press release, Murphy's address will focus on an issue on many voters minds, health care.

When talking about health care, remember this about Nancy Johnson.

Gov Rell has "issues"

...or should I say an accomplishment page.

The following passage tells the story.
A few of the highlights of Governor Rell's record are below. And in the coming weeks, Governor Rell will be outlining how she plans to build on that record of achievement - how she plans to continue keeping her promise of LEADERSHIP - INTEGRITY - RESULTS.
It's fairly obvious that this page was whipped up because of the attacks from DeStefano's campaign this week because at first glance, this page seems like it was quickly put together at the last minute. What other way is there to explain this passage.
Connecticut's rank among New England states for job growth: No. 2, behind only Vermont. Connecticut's rate of job growth between July 2004 and July 2006 was 1.2 percent, tied with Massachusetts and second to Vermont's rate of 1.5 percent.
Wow, we're only second to VERMONT. Personally, I don't think this is something I would be boasting about.

It's nice to talk about what you did for Connecticut and I'm sure some of these accomplishments are up for debate. Again, where is the issues page? There is a laundry list of problems people in Connecticut and you have to question an incumbent how does not outline how she would address the various issues plaguing our state.

It's now about what you done in the past, it's about outlining your plans for the future. To this date (and with less than two months till Election Day), we haven't heard anything from the Governor regarding how she plans to address the various problems voters face in Connecticut.

After the Rowland scandal, shouldn't the people of this state demand more from someone who played a large part in the Rowland administration? Just because someone is likeable, doesn't mean they're capable of effectively leading this state. You have to question a candidate who (with less than two months till Election Day) refuses to share her vision of Connecticut with the public.

The public deserves more than a laundry list of "accomplishments."

UPDATE: Here page devoted only to issues is still blank.

President Carter on Joe Lieberman

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Team Joementum lying again

Oh damn. Atrios beat me to the punch.

Lieberman spokesmannequin Tammy Sun just issued a statement to CNN regarding Carter's statements:
[I]t is entirely false to suggest that Joe Lieberman in any way equated dissent about the war with supporting terrorists.

Joe Lieberman:
If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.
Too easy.

Nancy Grace: the voice of reason

Will CNN please cancel this show. Pretty please.
Two weeks after telling police that her son had been snatched from his crib, Melinda Duckett found herself reeling in an interview with TV's famously prosecutorial Nancy Grace. Before it was over, Grace was pounding her desk and loudly demanding to know: "Where were you? Why aren't you telling us where you were that day?"

A day after the taping, Duckett, 21, shot herself to death, deepening the mystery of what happened to the boy.


Duckett's family members disputed any suggestion that she hurt her son. They said that the strain of her son's disappearance pushed her to the brink, and the media sent her over the edge.

"Nancy Grace and the others, they just bashed her to the end," Duckett's grandfather Bill Eubank said Tuesday. "She wasn't one anyone ever would have thought of to do something like this. She and that baby just loved each other, couldn't get away from each other. She wouldn't hurt a bug."

Gov Rell caught red-handed

I knew it would be just a matter of time until people start questioning the antics of Gov. Jodi Rowland-Rell.

You see, the governor has been able to walk away from recent troubling episodes in his administration such as the infamous Lisa Moody scandal and the events surrounding her nomination of Peter T. Zarella as Chief State Court Justice.

Now things have changed and it seems that the current and former governor have something in common, they both love taking money from state contractors and they both have a bit of a problem telling the truth.

The Journal Inquirer has the goods.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell - whose office only last weekend issued a statement declaring that she wasn't accepting campaign contributions from state contractors and lobbyists - has received a total of at least $175,000 from more than 200 individuals employed by state contractors and two others identified themselves as lobbyists, state records show.


The reports filed by the governor's campaign committee with the secretary of the state's office reveal that dozens of her biggest benefactors between November 2005 and June 2006 weren't low-level employees at companies that hold state contracts, but high-ranking executives.

Those who filled out a space on Rell's campaign contribution forms identifying themselves as employees of a state contractor, each of whom gave $2,500 to the governor, include:

* Five top officials at three of the biggest insurance companies in Connecticut: Ronald A. Williams of Farmington, president of Aetna; Alan M. Bennett of Madison, chief financial officer at Aetna; Craig R. Callen of Hartford, an Aetna senior vice president; David Johnson of West Hartford, chief financial officer of The Hartford; and Jay S. Fishman of Englewood, N.J., the chief executive officer, chairman, and president of St Paul Travelers.

* Three senior officials at Fairfield-based General Electric: Chairman Michael Neal of Weston, Chief Financial Officer Keith Sherin of Weston, and Vice President and Senior Tax Counsel John Samuels of Greenwich.

* Three principals in MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc., a New York firm that invests in both public and private companies: Ronald Perelman, the financier who serves as the firm's chairman; Howard Gittis, its vice chairman and chief accounting officer; and Barry Schwartz, its executive vice president and general counsel.

* Key executives at various other companies, including: George David of Avon, chief executive officer of United Technologies Corp.; Nathaniel D. Woodson of North Haven, chief executive office of the New Haven-based utility United Illuminating Co.; Michael J. Critelli of Darien, chief executive officer of Stamford-based Pitney Bowes; Larry R. Gottesdiner, chief executive officer of Northland Investment Corp., which owns the Goodwin Hotel and other Hartford properties; and Diane P. Wilson of Berlin, chief financial officer of Vertex Inc., a New Britain-based software and development firm.

Similarly, 59 individuals associated with firms with state contracts also have contributed $1,000 each to Rell.
They included Carl Johnson of Farmington, a partner Blum, Shapiro & Co. P.C.; James S. Ciarcia of Rocky Hill, a financial analyst at Northeast Utilities; William M. Samuelson of Cheshire, director of business and professional banking at Webster Bank; William Huntley, president of racing, sports, and gaming technology at New York-based Scientific Games Corp.; and Charles DiBona of Stamford, a broker at Marsh & McLennan.

The chief spokesman in the governor's office, Judd Everhart, trumpeted Rell's support for tough campaign finance laws in a statement issued last Saturday, when Rell and several legislative leaders were honored by three national watchdog groups.

The statement said the governor was "setting the tone for Connecticut's reforms" by following the requirements of legislation that has not yet taken effect, adding that "her campaign is not accepting contributions from contractors, lobbyists, and other sources banned from gubernatorial campaigns beginning in 2010."
It's Rowland all over again folks and no one should be fooled.

When asked for a comment from the DeStefano campaingn, the response came back as soon as I hit the send button on my email program.
"Gov. Rell has built her entire campaign on this promise, which has now been revealed by the Manchester Journal-Inquirer to be completely false.

Gov. Rell has broken her pledge and it will be interesting to follow this story as her broken promise unravels."

As recently as four days ago she was still telling the press that she was not taking money from state contractors, something that was clearly false.
You can bet that the media will pick up on this story over the next few days and hopefully and while they're at it, remember the following:
Rell has given...

No comment regarding her association with former Gov. John Rowland during the his scandal.

No comment regarding Lisa Moody's status of Cheif of staff.

No comment regarding Rell's nomination of Peter T. Zarella.

No comment regarding Rell not addressing or listing any issues she would tackle if re-elected on her website.

AND NOW, no clear answer regarding breaking her pledge to not accept any money from state contractors.

Can the love affair with Gov. Rell stop now?

After the Rowland scandal, the voter in Connecticut deserve answers.

Get your daily cup of Joe

Learn about the real Joe Lieberman by signing up for daily news alertshere.

Here's a sample of the first serving.
Sen. Joe Lieberman's defensive response to yesterday's revelation that he has been skipping critical Iraq votes prompted us to ask a question: how many total Iraq votes has Lieberman actually missed? A look at the record shows it's even more than we originally thought. Lieberman's efforts to rubberstamp the White House, mislead reporters about his record and avoid taking the tough votes show just how desperate he has become. "Throughout this war, Connecticut needed a second Senator who would ask the tough questions when it mattered and, we need one now," said Ned Lamont. "That's not partisanship. When you're a senator, that's called doing your job."
WARNING: sit down whe you read the rest of this...
LIEBERMAN MISSED 31 OUT OF 61 TOTAL VOTES ON IRAQ: That's right, out of 61 total votes the Senate has considered on Iraq since the invasion, Lieberman has missed 31 of them, or more than half.

LIEBERMAN MISLED REPORTERS; VOTED OPPOSITE OF HOW HE SAID HE WOULD VOTE: But even worse, Lieberman misled Connecticut reporters yesterday about his position on the legislation in question. He claims that had he decided to attend the vote last week on critical legislation to demand President Bush report to Congress on the growing chaos in Iraq, he would have voted for the legislation because he says he believes, "Why not have more information?" Yet, Lieberman has actually voted the opposite way on the rare occasions he's actually shown up to vote. According to Senate records, in 2004, Lieberman cast the deciding vote against legislation "To require reports on the efforts of the President to stabilize Iraq and relieve the burden on members of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed in Iraq." Had Lieberman not voted against the legislation, it would have moved forward. Instead, it died in a Senate debate decided by one vote.

LIEBERMAN SAID MISSED VOTES "AN IMPORTANT ARGUMENT" IN 1988: Lieberman said yesterday that asking questions about why he has missed so many votes on the critical issue of Iraq supposedly means people are "running a negative campaign" against him. But in 1988 when Lieberman questioned why his opponent had missed Senate votes, Lieberman's campaign said that questioning a Senator's willingness to skip votes is "an important argument " and "an issue [because] Connecticut needs a senator who is there." That's exactly the same thing Ned Lamont said yesterday when he asked: "How can you hold anyone accountable when you are not there to vote? These are not procedural matters they are issues of life and death, war and peace."
Now, that's a good cup of Joe!

Who's the sleeping bear now?

It seems like Joe Lieberman can't explain to the press why he missed so many senate votes on the Iraq War. In fact, it seems like he can't (or refuses) to answer any question that is critical of him from the press.

Since the blogs came posted about Joe Lieberman's AWOL on numerous critical Iraq votes in the senate (see examples here, here, and here) the press has had a field day on this story and exposed the hypocrisy of George Bush's favorite Democrat.
Joseph I. Lieberman aggressively used an opponent's record of missed votes to help him win his first Senate race in 1988. Now, Lieberman is the incumbent under attack for absenteeism.


Six of the missed votes last week involved amendments to the 2007 defense spending bill. Lieberman, a Senate Armed Services Committee member who touts his security record, was one of two senators who did not vote on final passage.

What's Lieberman's answer for his AWOL status on the most important issue of our generation? What's the first thing that comes out of his mouth when questioned about missing numerous important Iraq war votes? He crys foul.
"The first thing to say is Ned Lamont is running one of the most negative campaigns I can remember. He constantly criticizes, criticizes, criticizes," Lieberman said.

Lieberman, the individual who did nothing but attack Lamont with countless lies, mocked him in a bear ad, refused to debate him on numerous occasions, and authorized the placing of race-baiting flyers throughtout the African-American commuity during the primary, NOW crys foul when Lamont exposes his voting record on the war?

Amazing, simply amazing.

Lamontblog digs deeper and comes up with these gems from other articles on Joe's AWOL.
The Stamford Advocate gets Tammy Sun on the record:
Lieberman campaign spokeswoman Tammy Sun yesterday said it was a further effort by Lamont to distort Lieberman's record.

"(He) can't help doing anything but attack Joe Lieberman," she said of Lamont in an e-mailed response, adding that Lieberman has a 94 percent voting record since taking office in 1989....

The Senate's Web site confirms the data provided by Lamont, and Sun did not dispute the absences. Sun last week said Lieberman missed Thursday's "typical, party-line procedural votes" because he was accepting an award for his work on youth issues from the Kennedy Center.

The New Haven Register notes Tammy Sun's claim that any Senate vote that is not 50-50 is really just "symbolic":
Lieberman's spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, has referred to the tally as "procedural" and Lamont was asked if, in fact, the vote was just symbolic, since Lieberman's vote would not have made a difference.
Lieberman is too busy accepting awards to vote on the war. Is this the type of senator you want representing you in Washington?

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Joe Courtney unleashes new TV ad

Rob Simmons: number 1 Bush supporter.

Where's Joe when it's time to vote?

It seems like George Bush's favorite Democrat not only missed two crucial votes on the Iraq war last week, but has been AWOL on a wide key issues centering around the war that will define this country for decades to come.

When questioned about his AWOL status when it was time to do his job last week, typical Lieberman brushed the votes aside calling them " procedural" (despite the fact that he WAS IN WASHINGTON D.C. AT THE TIME).

Now, the Lamont campaign unleashed a devestating fact sheet on Lieberman which documents the embarrassing number of votes he has skipped on since the war began. Here are some highlights...trust me folks, this isn't pretty.
• Joseph Lieberman has missed at least 16 Iraq votes since 2003.
• He was the only Senator to miss two key Iraq votes in 2003.
• Lieberman began skipping major Senate votes on Iraq right after the war started.
• He has publicly contradicted himself on support for Bush’s Iraq war policy.
• Lieberman now denies he ever supported indefinite troop presence in Iraq
• Despite all of these votes, Lieberman now claims he’s been trying to "end the war."

LIEBERMAN SKIPPING KEY SENATE VOTES ON IRAQ; HAS MISSED AT LEAST 16 IRAQ VOTES SINCE 2003: On 9/6/06, Lieberman skipped a critical close Senate vote on Iraq. Specifically, the vote was on legislation to require the Pentagon to provide more information to Congress and the public on the potential for civil war in Iraq. The bill Lieberman skipped this critical vote even though the Hartford Courant noted that Lieberman was in Washington that day. In fact, Lieberman attended the vote that immediately preceded this key Iraq vote. That was on a bill to prevent cluster bombing of civilian targets. Lieberman voted against that bill. Lieberman also skipped another close Iraq vote the next day – this time on legislation to stop the Pentagon from trying to artificially influence the Iraqi news media in the wake of embarrassing scandals about U.S. government media tampering that have enflamed anti-American passions in Iraq. In all, Lieberman has skipped at least 16 Iraq votes since the war started in 2003. [Sources: Senate Roll Call Vote #233, 9/6/06; Hartford Courant, 9/7/06; Senate Roll Call Vote #232, 9/6/07; Senate Roll Call Vote #236, 9/7/06]

LIEBERMAN ONLY SENATOR TO MISS TWO KEY IRAQ VOTES IN 2003: Lieberman was the only U.S. Senator to miss a close vote on a resolution to urge the president to better engage America’s international allies to help bear the military and financial cost of the war. He was also the only senator to skip a close vote on a bill that would have created a federal agency overseeing Iraq reconstruction money so as to prevent war profiteering. In both cases, the votes were very close, and the legislation in question was defeated. [Sources: Senate Roll Call Vote #391, 10/17/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #392, 10/17/03]

LIEBERMAN BEGAN SKIPPING MAJOR SENATE VOTES ON IRAQ RIGHT AFTER THE WAR STARTED: Immediately after the Iraq War began in early 2003, Lieberman began skipping critical votes on the war. For example, he skipped a vote on legislation to prohibit the Pentagon from involuntarily deploying to Iraq those National Guardsmen that had been involuntarily deployed for more than six months. He skipped a razor-thin vote on anti-rubber stamping legislation that would have prevented the President from shifting Iraq War funds around without the approval of Congress. He skipped a tight vote on legislation sponsored by Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd that would have provided additional emergency funding for safety equipment such as body armor for troops serving in Iraq. He additionally skipped votes on legislation to require Iraqi oil revenues be used to pay for reconstruction in Iraq; to shift more Iraq reconstruction out of low priorities and into disarming terrorist insurgents; to force the Bush administration to report to Congress on an Iraq reconstruction plan; to establish a bipartisan congressional commission to study how the Bush administration manipulated pre-war intelligence; to demand regular reports on U.S. operations in Iraq; to assert congressional oversight of war funds after news of wasteful no-bid contracts. [Senate Roll Call Vote #398, 10/17/03; Roll Call Vote #397, 10/17/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #396, 10/17/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #380, 10/14/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #376, 10/2/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #287, 7/17/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #284, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #283, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #281, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #278, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #277, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #124, 4/3/03]

LIEBERMAN PUBLICLY CONTRADICTING HIMSELF ON SUPPORT FOR BUSH’S IRAQ POLICY: The Lieberman campaign now claims Lieberman has been a leading critic of the Bush administration’s War in Iraq. For example, a Liebeman spokeswoman claimed to the New Haven register that Lieberman “has repeatedly and harshly criticized the Bush administration” for the War in Iraq. Yet, as the New Yorker noted in a piece just last year, Lieberman has been “unapologetic about his defense of Bush’s Iraq policy.” He told the magazine that “Bottom line, I think Bush has it right.” [Sources: New Haven Register, 9/9/06; New Yorker, 3/21/05]

DESPITE VOTES, LIEBERMAN NOW CLAIMS HE’S BEEN TRYING TO “END THE WAR”: Immediately after losing the Democratic primary, Lieberman launched a television ad claiming to be running specifically because “I want to help end the war in Iraq.” Yet, Lieberman has voted time and time again to continue the war – with some of these votes coming just weeks before he began claiming he’s been trying to end the war. On 11/15/05, Lieberman was one of only 5 Democrats to vote against legislation "that would have pressured the administration to outline a plan to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq,” according to the Washington Post. On 6/22/06, Lieberman voted against two pieces of legislation pushing Bush to draft an exit strategy from Iraq. According to the Boston Globe, one was a "proposal to withdraw US troops from Iraq within a year" and another was a “nonbinding amendment that would have called on President Bush to begin withdrawing troops by the end of 2006 and to make ‘phased redeployments’ out of Iraq thereafter.” [Sources: Washington Post , 11/16/05; Senate Roll Call Vote #322, 11/15/05; Senate Roll Call Vote #182 and #181, 6/22/06; Boston Globe, 6/23/06]

LIEBERMAN NOW DENIES HE EVER SUPPORTED INDEFINITE TROOP PRESENCE IN IRAQ: As recently as August 20th, Lieberman has appeared on national television claiming "I’ve never been for an indefinite, unconditional deployment of American troops" and insisting that such assertions were a "distortion that my opponent managed to convince too many people" about. However, the facts speak for themselves. In 2003, CNN reported on Lieberman’s very clear support for a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. He told the network: "We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq. And wouldn’t that be a dramatic change, where we have an allied government there in Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, where we may have not a permanent police presence, but one or another military base that’s working in cooperation with the government there?” [Sources: CBS Face the Nation, 8/20/06; CNN, 4/20/03]

David Siorta has been ripping the Lieberman camp to shreds lately and filed this report.
That's right, Lieberman has skipped a huge amount of Iraq votes on all sorts of key issues. For instance, he was the only U.S. Senator to skip a close vote on bipartisan legislation to urge President Bush to better engage America's international allies to help bear the military and financial cost of the war. He was also the only senator to skip a close vote on a bill that would have created a federal agency overseeing Iraq reconstruction money so as to prevent war profiteering. He even skipped a vote on legislation sponsored by his Connecticut colleague Sen. Chris Dodd (D) that would have provided additional emergency funding for safety equipment such as body armor for troops serving in Iraq.

Lieberman yesterday publicly dismissed last week's explosive Senate report detailing the Bush administration's brazen manipulation of pre-war intelligence. Despite using the WMD case as his justification for supporting the war, Lieberman yesterday disparaged the damning report as just something of "historical interest" and tried to change the subject by saying he's "focused on the fact that al-Qaida is [in Iraq] now." But "when asked if the decision to go to war with Iraq had a bearing on members of al-Qaida now operating in that country, Lieberman said: 'I'm not going to get into that today'" and then was "hustled away by aides." That's no wonder that Lieberman doesn't want to talk about this issue, hold the Bush administration accountable for misleading the country to war, or get to the bottom of how to prevent such intelligence manipulation in the future - he skipped the key Senate vote to create an independent commission to investigate pre-war intelligence, thus allowing the administration and the GOP to control the investigation through a White House panel and Republican-controlled Senate committee.

Lieberman's skipping votes goes way beyond him just making contradictory statements about Iraq, and cuts to a more fundamental issue: Lieberman's willingness to even bear the most minimum responsibilities of his job when it comes to the most critical life-and-death issues like war. He hasn't skipped just one or two votes. He's skipped a huge amount of the votes the U.S. Senate has deliberated on the Iraq War - with many of those votes being quite close.
Is this the type of senator you want representing you in Washington?

This is what lamont had to say about AWOL Lieberman today.

The stupidity of DANGERstein: the Republicans funding Lieberman's campaign edition

Picking apart Joe Lieberman's pathetic liaraide Dan Gerstein is becoming a daily ritual in the blogosphere. It makes you wonder how this person got his job in the first place.

Here's another gem of a lie from DANGERstein.
A top aide to U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman adamantly is denying a thinly sourced report that the White House used big Republican donors to secretly funnel "millions of dollars" to the three-term senator's campaign committee before the Democratic primary last month.

But while Lieberman's campaign spokes-man, Dan Gerstein, insists there is "not a shred of truth" to the story now being widely circulated on the Internet, he also promised readers of the senator's new campaign "blog" that he would "look into whether or not serious Republican contributions have been made to Joe's campaign."


Gerstein also vowed to personally investigate the matter of Republican contributions to the Lieberman campaign, saying he didn't think the senator had "taken a significant amount of money from registered Repub-licans."

"How's that for transparency?" he asked.
"Sen. Joe Lieberman (?-Conn.) increasingly has been relying on Washington, D.C., lobbyists — Republicans as well as Democrats — to help him hang on to his seat.

"Though it won’t be known until mid-October how much money Lieberman has or will have raised from Republicans since his August primary loss, GOP lobbyists clearly are eager to help him.

"Take, for example, an invitation to an upcoming Lieberman fundraiser circulated by Ruth Ravitz Smith, a GOP lobbyist at Brown Rudnick.

"'I hope that you will join me in demonstrating your support for Senator Lieberman’s campaign for the US Senate,' Smith wrote in the e-mail. 'This will be the only major event for the Senator in Washington this fall. Please help spread the word to colleagues, clients and friends.'

The hypocritical nature of the anti-immigrant community in Danbury

(a cross post from Hat City Blog)

Oh, this is rich!

I came across this letter to the editor in today's Danbury News-Times. Note the portion in bold.
I am writing to discuss the largely overlooked issue of illegal immigration.

Our nation is at a precipice and if we fail to properly address the massive migration of illegal people into this country we will lose the democracy we hold so dear.

It is incumbent upon journalists and newspapers in this country to accurately and fairly report news and information on this issue. I am sad to write that this newspaper has failed in that regard and I truly hope that this lack of journalistic integrity will be addressed.

I ask this publication to live up to the level of reporting that I know you are capable of. In doing so, this paper will help to protect the people of this country from the destruction that illegal immigration will cause on a massive scale.


Those who are pro-illegal immigration are unwilling to listen to the other side of the story. It seems that intimidation, vulgarity and character assassination are the means by which they advance their cause.
Now, when I read the portion I highlighted in bold, I almost spilled my coffee on myself. One moment, we have those in the anti-immigrant community who are crying "foul" and then we have those boneheads who write crap like this:
I read in the paper that Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton raised the Brazilian flag on the City Hall flagpole in recognition of Brazilian independence day.


I hope that when he travels to Brazil, he takes an American flag with him so that he can raise the American flag on a Brazilian flagpole.
This moron wants the mayor, who raised a Brazilian flag in recognition of Brazilian independence day go just go down to Brazil and raise a American flag, beat his chest and scream USA!

Bonehead indeed.

Vulgarity, character assassination, and racist comments are labels that should ONLY apply to the anti-immigrant community wackos (or who I call xenophobes) who are ignored by most in the city. Anyone who has attended a anti-immigrant meeting or seen these people in action know what I'm talking about when I call these people over-the-top (to put it mildly).

Whether it's anti-immigrant people calling up on public access shows, screaming hate-fill rhetoric at immigrant marches, or showing their true colors at their events, it's the anti-immigrant community that have no problem expressing their outright hatred of all immigrants, not just those who are undocumented.

To further prove my case, here's a video highlight of the xenophobes who go by the names of the Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control (CTCIC) and U.S. Citizens for Immigration Law Enforcement (USCILE). Watch these very small segment of the area show their true colors based on a report I did on the immigrant rally held in Danbury earlier this year.

Ripping up a flag...class act Uncle Sam.

I rest my case.

The problem isn't illegal immigration; it's the outright hatred of the people in the anti-immigration community and their inability to express themselves without showing their true racist nature.

OF COURSE illegal immigration is a problem, but it's a national problem and it's needs to be addressed but on a national scale. Since you’re limited to do much on a local level, Boughton is correct in addressing this as federal issue. The problem I have with the mayor is for all the speeches and press conferences he has given on illegal immigration in the last two years, he hasn't done what little he could do locally (within the law) nor is he lead the way in finding innovative ideas to help tackle the issue.

But that's for another post.

A bunch of radicals with no real agenda but to scream racist remarks and nonsense (you know who you are) does nothing to address the problem in Danbury. Most of these people will always hate someone or something whether it's immigrants, African-Americans, or gays...it's their nature to hate since most have nothing else to do with their time. It's because of these morons, who came into existence when Mayor Boughton flip-flopped over building a day-laborer center by Kennedy place he proposed and suddenly became the symbol of the anti illegal immigrant cause, that Danbury is now considered the laughing-stock of the state.

Think about it.

Here we are, more than two years after Boughton first raised the issue AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE CITY IN TERMS OF TACKLING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. All we get is the same old rhetoric from those at city hall with no results which begs the question...is this all ultimately just grandstanding? (I'll tackle that issue later). The only thing that has changed is the number of letters to the editor we have to read from a very small group of racists who do nothing but immigrants on a daily basis (this is WELL DOCUMENTED) and offer up unqualified Republicans such as the person who is trying to portray herself as a hero for senior citizens and running against Bob Godfrey (again). Luckily, there isn't a chance in hell she's going to win in a heavily Democratic district.

But that's for another post.

For many of you who are new to this site, here's what I'm going to do for you (including the reporters/editors at the News-Times who waste their time giving the extremists two seconds of their time). I'll present a very detailed presentation and history lesson of the origins of the anti-immigrant community (many of which DO NOT LIVE IN DANBURY). If we could only get beyond the idiots who scream their hatred, maybe we can look at this issue with common sense. Right now, even listening to these people and their out-of-touch idea is a COMPLETE waste of time.


John DeStefano's busy night

Seems like Democratic gubernatorial candidate John DeStefano was pretty busy last night.

The person who wants Gov. Rell's job first paid a visit to My Left Nutmeg and held a forum with the online community. Here are some highlights from last night's session.
Question (fromdMoney):
First, thanks for coming on here to blog. My question is, Jodi Rell clearly has no vision for the state, but how will you convince people to vote for you over her and close the remaining gap in the polls?

To dmoney:
You beat Jodi Rell by offering a contrast. We Dem's think affordable, universal health care a smart thing - and the right thing - to do. Jodi thinks, well... nothing. That the current system is fine. Then we raise the field op and the $$$ to tell the story. That's how.

Question (from Sue):
I work in Bridgeport as a teacher. If you would, could you lay out what plans you have to help our district (and the rest of the state).

I've just read that there has been a sharp decline in U.S. education grants (via the Hartford Courant). How can we make up the difference?

We help Bridgeport by strengthening curriculum and providing support to the teacher corps to be prepared to deliver it. We focus to closing the achievement gap by offering pre-k and afterschool programming. Let's focus less on the NCLB standards and more on academic achievement.

By the way we have to change the way we pay for public schools. Less property tax based - more state aid - let's look at income based taxes.

What do you think of Jodi Rell's 3.5 Billion Transportation bill?

It was the Legislature's bill. The Governor proposed $340 million. Look at Massachusettes - they are spending much more because they understand it's an investment in economic growth. Gov. Rell's playbook is to go along - with the Legislature, with John Rowland, etc.
You can view the entire discussion at My Left Nutmeg.

That wasn't the end of his night...

DeStefano paid a visit to Yale and gave a speech to a standing room crowd of students who he hopes will volunteer and help him in his campaign.
"America is concerned about the direction of the last six years," DeStefano, New Haven's mayor, told the crowd in Yale's Branford Colelge. "There's one state that is going to provide a leadership role, and that state is..."

The crowd roared: "Connecticut!"

"Two-thousand and six is going to start something in America that is going to finish with the presidential election in 2008. The more powerfully we speak about that this year in November in Connecticut, we can help set the stage," said DeStefano.

In the course of his 30-minute address and question-and-answer, DeStefano laid out a number of his goals for the governorship, including universal health care, a greener energy policy, education reform, and increased job creation. He said that under a DeStefano administration, a law would be passed in 2007 legalizing gay marriage.

In addition to speaking about his reforms, DeStefano focused his attention on recruiting the energy and influence of student Democrats. The Yale College Democrats hosted his talk.


One student attending Monday evening's event, Lily Dorman, said, "He knows that Yale students have gotten involved in the past and hopes more will get involved." Dorman and other attendees suggested that pro-active students could help turn the race around.

DeStefano offered a host of opportunities for his younger party colleagues to return their energies to the gubernatorial race. "When we have change here, you will have the opportunity to be a part of that change," he said. "You not only get a chance to help win elections, you get a chance then to make something actually happen after the election."
With DeStefano closing the gap between him and Rell in the polls, the mayor needs to generate interest in his campaign in a state where the hottest ticket in town is the Lamont-Lieberman race.

By all indications, DeStefano is off to a good start.

In our prayers

Colin McEnroe's mother passed away recently. She went through a tough time which McEnrore talked about several times on his blog and he and his family are in my prayers.

Condolences can be sent here.

Stale slogan...

Stale mayor.
"Hartford: New England's Rising Star" was a slogan intended to sell the city to itself and to others - a brand that placed the lesser-known city in the better-known region, one that hinted at change.

But five years into the slogan's life, some city boosters are sensing it's time for a different message. Hartford, some say, has already risen. Others, perhaps less convinced, wonder how long a star can rise before it, and the slogan, get tuckered out.

"There are clearly lots of opinions as to whether the star has risen, and whether that logo stays the same," said R. Nelson "Oz" Griebel, head of the MetroHartford Alliance - one of several partners in the slogan's parent, the Hartford Image Project.

The initial marketing effort, he said, was an attempt to define the city before its major attractions started attracting. And while Griebel is partial to keeping the logo, he said a broader question is being asked:

"Now, with a lot of the construction completed, what is the best way to market the city?"
How about spending less money on "marketing" the city and fix the problems in Hartford. Maybe if you take care of the issues plaguing the "Insurance Capitol" people would do business in the city again. Marketing games and grandstanding such as Perez's well published "walk" to Jodi Rell office after a teen was killed do nothing for the prople who are in the most need.

How about dropping the marketing plan and fix the education system. Perez should take a walk down to Hartford Public High School and get a clue.

How about dropping the marketing plan and offer a real alternative to hanging out onthe street to the kids who live in the North-End who have no place to go because funding for after-school activities have dried up.

A new marketing plan? Where's the leadership?

Monday, September 11, 2006

The Best War Ever

Condi still dishing out lies to the public

Why would anyone believe anything coming out of the mouth of any member of the Bush Administration? First, we have Dick Cheney still lying about a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, now we get fellow lapdog Condoleezza Rice echoing the pathetic talking point that no one is buying.
US Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice insisted that Al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq were developing weapons of mass destruction prior to the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

Rice, giving a series of interviews ahead of the fifth anniversary of the September 11 Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, brushed aside a recently released US intelligence report saying there was no evidence Saddam's regime was helping Al-Qaeda obtain such arms.

"There were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda," she said on Fox News Sunday.

I guess she was too busy buying shoes and playing tennis to read the Senate Intelligence Report that clearly states the obvious...
Rice stood by the claim Sunday despite a February 2002 report from the Defense Department's intelligence arm which was just released by a Senate Committee and stated that Iraq was "unlikely to have provided Bin Laden any useful (chemical or biological) knowledge or assistance."

"That particular report I don't remember seeing," Rice said when asked if she and Bush had not ignored the assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Yeah, I'm sure you or the President don't recall seeing that report.

Why would anyone trust these people?

Remember, Democrat take over the Congress equals subpoena power.

Unlike other bloggers, for me, the anniversary of 9-11 reminds me why it's so important that the Democrats need to be in a position where they can hold the Bush Administration accountable not only for the lies they told during the run-up to the war, but also for their failures in the lead up to 9-11, taking their eye off capturing Osama Bin Laden as well as their failure to help American citizens during the Katrina disaster.

Unlike cheerleaders Nancy "drug queen" Johnson, Chris "flip-flop" Shays and Rob "the Gitmo rice is great" Simmons, you know that Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney, and Diane Farrell will do right thing and ask the tough questions from people in this administration.

Q & A with John DeStefano tonight!

Democratic gubernorial candidate John DeStefano will be online at My Left Nutmeg tonight at 7 p.m to answer any and all questions from the online community.

If you have something as ask DeStefano, now is your chance. If you haven't signed up at My Left Nutmeg, it would be in your best interest to do so now.

Join the discussion tonight!

Joe skips Iraq votes, says his vote didn't matter

Wow, this is stunning, simply stunning.

Joe Lieberman skipped out on two very key Iraq votes last week that would have held the President accountable for his numerous mistakes and his mismanagement of this war.

According to an AP article, when questioned about his absence, Lieberman spokesperson Tammy Sun (a.k.a. Marion v3.0) states that George Bush's favorite Democrat skipped didn't show up to vote because they were "typical party-line procedural votes."

Major votes on this war (which is the top issue to a majority of Americans) don't matter? Lets take a look at those typical party-line votes.
The first vote Lieberman skipped was on legislation that would have forced the Bush administration to develop a firm strategy to end the burgeoning civil war in Iraq, and then report that strategy to Congress. That's what's called "demanding accountability" - the very thing that Lieberman attacked many of his Senate colleagues for trying to do when he claimed that asking any questions about the war or having Congress fulfill its constitutional responsibilities of oversight supposedly "undermine[s] the President's credibility at our nation's peril." Yet, despite the fact that Lieberman was in Washington, D.C. that day and voted for the bill immediately preceding this key Iraq vote, he skipped this vote. Apparently to Lieberman, demanding accountability from the Bush administration on issues of war and peace is just a "procedural" matter that he feels is A.O.K. to skip out on.

The second vote Lieberman skipped was on legislation to prevent the Bush administration from trying to tamper with media in Iraq. The bill followed embarassing revelations of tampering, which have - not surprisingly - helped enflame anti-American passions in the Mideast. But again - apparently, Lieberman thinks that stopping such behavior so as to help calm the situation in Iraq is just a "procedural" matter that he can miss.
Lieberman claims that he's holding the President accountable and trying his best to bring a end to this war, but again, he's doing nothing more than handing the voters of Connecticut another series of Republican talkingpoints and spin.

Talk is cheap and all Lieberman is giving us is lip service. He's the President's biggest cheerleader when it comes to this war and he has proven time and time again that he will not hold this President accountable for anything.

Is this the type of senator you want representing you in Washington?

Two words: Ned Lamont


(Danbury 911 memorial: photo by CTBLOGGER. Click to enlarge.)

Sunday, September 10, 2006

On the road again


There is so much more to talk about regarding team Joementum leaking constituent Ned Lamont's 1998 email he wrote to Senator Lieberman to the New York Times but I have to get back on the road today.

You see, the festival season is slowly coming to an end so I'll be running around the Danbury area conducting interviews with several politicans as well as covering the Taste of Danbury and the popular Irish festival for my other blog.

I'm also in discussion with various lawyers about legal matters but I'll get into that at some other time.

oh this is SO developing...