<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 30, 2006

Joe Lieberman's greatest hits

I'm covering a serious situation happeneing in Danbury right now so until my return, here's an oldie but goodie.

Joe Lieberman (R-CT)

The writing is on the wall.
George W. Bush moved a step closer to Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman's re-election bid in Connecticut as an independent candidate when Tom Kuhn, the president's college roommate and close friend, co-sponsored a Lieberman fund-raising luncheon Thursday in downtown Washington.

Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, raised more than $100,000 for Bush in the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Also among the Lieberman event's sponsors was Rick Shelby, a longtime Republican operative who currently is executive vice president of the American Gas Association.

The luncheon's sponsors pressed fellow Republican lobbyists to pay a minimum of $1,000 a ticket. Lieberman has announced he will stay in the Democratic caucus if re-elected. But Republicans backing him against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee, hope for a change of heart by Lieberman.
Now, tell me why any Democrat would continue to support this man.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Freedom of speech?

Is this what Joe Lieberman meant when he said that progress was being made in Iraq?
Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year.

Currently, three journalists for a small newspaper in southeastern Iraq are being tried here for articles last year that accused a provincial governor, local judges and police officials of corruption. The journalists are accused of violating Paragraph 226 of the penal code, which makes anyone who “publicly insults” the government or public officials subject to up to seven years in prison.

On Sept. 7, the police sealed the offices of Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based satellite news channel, for what the government said was inflammatory reporting. And the Committee to Protect Journalists says that at least three Iraqi journalists have served time in prison for writing articles deemed criminally offensive.

The office of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has lately refused to speak with news organizations that report on sectarian violence in ways that the government considers inflammatory; some outlets have been shut down.
Hmm, come to think of it, in Lieberman's world, this is progress. No news is good news.

Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley resigns

Oh well, that's what you get when you email boy who "acts much older than his age...and hes in great shape."

The magic number for the Democrats just changed to 14 which makes Democrats winning the three House races in Connecticut even more important.

Thanks Mark!

Why are the Q-poll and Zogby so different?

Okay, at this point, you have to wonder about the methodology used in the latest Q-poll. How can this poll be so different than the other polls done over the last month.

Case in point, take a look at latest Zogby poll (pdf) which was released on the same day as the Q-poll.

First, we find out that the latest Zogby poll shows a much closer race between Lieberman and Lamont (Lieberman: 45.8 / Lamont 44.0 / Schlesinger 4.3), and now we find out that Zogby has the race for governor between Rell and Destefano closer as well (Rell: 49.4 / DeStefano: 33.8 / Thornton 1.3).

The DeStefano Campaign had this to say.
John DeStefano’s gubernatorial campaign is releasing the following statement regarding the latest Wall Street Journal / Zogby poll, just released today, which shows DeStefano trailing Gov. Rell by just 16 points. (34.8 to 50.9) The margin reflects a three point gain from the last Wall Street Journal / Zogby poll - which was released September 11th – and indicated that the race is the closest it has ever been. (The latest poll was taken between September 19 and the 25th).

"The Wall Street Journal / Zogby poll indicates that John DeStefano is gaining significant ground on Gov. Rell - despite her early advantage in t-v advertising," said Derek Slap - Communications Director for the DeStefano campaign. "Frankly, the Wall Street Journal / Zobgy poll is much closer to where our internal polling has us than the Quinnipiac poll.  It is further proof that people realize it's too expensive to live in Connecticut and DeStefano offers real change."
Now, don't get me wrong, Lamont and DeStefano have work to do with a little over a month to go till eleciton day but based on all the other polls conducted, it does seem like these races are closer than it seems to appear in the Q-poll but as we've seen in the primary, you can't get comfortable loking at a poll with over a month to go till election day.

With the debates approaching, both Democrats have to hit a home run and drive their case to the voters. No one has seem Rell and DeStefano one on one and it's been months since we're seen Lamont and Lieberman go at it (and don't forget about Schlesinger who has the potential to pull away votes from Lieberman). WIth a strong debate preformance as well as have a great ground game in place for the final weeks, you would be foolish to count anyone out of this race.

Ned Lamont speaks out against Darfur

Ned Lamont made a visit to my neck of the woods and talked to students at Danbury High School Thursday morning.

The man who's looking to give Joe Lieberman his pink slip answered a series interesting questions from the packed audience ranging from the Iraq War, immigration, and the situation in Darfur, to the No Child Left Behind Law, urban violence and rising college tuition costs.

I have to say, the students asked better question than most other people did on the various Lamont events I've attended. It's promising to see students taking an interest into issues that will have an impact on their lives.

There is hope afterall.

One of the more interesting issues Lamont addressed was the situation in Darfur. For those who don't know, the students at Danbury High are very active in alerting the public about the deplorable situation in Darfur. Recently, the students made a video on Darfur and created a website dedicated to bringing attention to the horrible situation.
"The Promise" is a Danbury High School student video about genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Since 2003, it is estimated that over 300,000 people have been killed in Sudan, with millions more displaced from their homes and at risk of starvation. After school for three months at the end of 2005, a group of students worked with assistant principal Tim Salem on the project. The result is an eight minute documentary meant to raise awareness about the genocide and motivate action. The name "The Promise" is a reminder of the promise the United Nations and the world made in 1945 to hold people accountable for crimes against humanity. With the backdrop of the Holocaust, narration, images and quotations, the focus is on the plight of the children of Darfur. The world was promised "never again". The children and people of Darfur are waiting.
I thought it would be informative for viewers to see where Lamont stood regarding the crisis in Darfur so here's a videoclip of him addressing the issue.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

UGH!

I hate blogger! I haven't been able to post anything since this morning and there is so much to discuss. Unfortunately, I don't know how long this connection will stay up so I fear if I type too much I'll lose my chance to psot anything.

Quick:

Lamont-Lieberman: Q-Poll=10 points versus Zogby at basically even. In the end, it comes down to the ground game period. Anyone who counts Lamont out is out of their minds. Read Lamontblog for a closer look at the numbers.

Rell-DeStefano: simply means that DeStefano has work to do. Not unreachable to make this a tight race but it's time for all the Democratic candidates to step things up.

Rob Simmons: shameless, simply shameless.

Nancy Johnson: ditto.

Danbury Republican Mayor Mark Boughton stirring the illegal immigration pot again. When is he up for re-election?

Grr...I really have so much to post on but again I better hit the "publish post" button before blogger goes down again.

Out of touch Lieberman

Fantasy:

"If anyone asks what progress has been made in Iraq as a result of American involvement, look at this man," Lieberman said. "He [Iraq President Jalal Talabani] has taken the place of Saddam Hussein."

[...]

While "there are challenges, a lot of work to be done," particularly in strengthening internal security, Lieberman heard Talabani say that 12 of the country's 18 provinces are reasonably secure.


Reality:



Any questions?

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Lamont: Lieberman is all talk

Wow. Ned Lamont came out and blasted Joe Lieberman over the love-fest of a meeting he had today with Iraq President Jalal Talabani. You know, the meeting where Lieberman claims we made great progress in Iraq, couldn't bring himself to ask President Talabani any tough questions, and stated that we went to Iraq because they had terrorist there.
"Senator Lieberman has made it clear where he stands. He talks tough on the war, but when the press conference ends he's incapable of taking the tough actions needed to end the war," said Ned Lamont. "Unfortunately, tough speeches won't save our troops or stop the terrorists. Yesterday, he had an opportunity to stand up and do what's right for the people of Connecticut and tell the Iraqi government that it's time to take responsibility for their own future. As too many times before, Senator Lieberman fell down on the job We can't afford to waste any more time while Senator Lieberman works up the courage to do what's right and hold President Bush accountable for his failed policies in Iraq."
Amen.

Chris Murphy rips Johnson in new TV ad

Today, the Chris Murphy campaign released a new ad that rips Nancy Johnson to shreds. Debunking her over her over-the-top "battlestar galatica inspired" television ad, Murphy goes after Johnson for misleading the public on his record and highlights her lock-in-step support for President Bush's war policy in Iraq.

Lieberman: we went to war with Iraq because they had terrorists

Thanks for clearing that up for me Joe. I feel much better about the war now...

"Are there terrorists in Iraq? Of course there are. That's a reason we went in," he said. But he would not comment on the report itself, saying, "We don't know what it says. We have to see it."
So NOW we went into Iraq because they had terrorists. Funny, I thought the bad guys were in Afghanistan. Maybe Lieberman ignored that memo just like he continues to ignore the National Intelligence Estimate.


Is this the type of out-of-touch politician you want representing you in Washington?


(hat tip to Greg Sargent)

Blame game

About who's more to blame for not doing enough to capture Bin Laden...
The recent firestorm over former President Bill Clinton's culpability for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was fueled on Tuesday when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contrasted President Bush's efforts to pursue al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden with Clinton's efforts. Clinton has strongly denied various suggestions that his administration missed key opportunities to kill bin Laden and left the Bush administration without a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy. However, Bush -- whom Clinton says did nothing about al-Qaeda for the first eight months of his presidency -- has the bigger image problem with Americans on the issue.

According to a recent Gallup Panel survey, the American public puts the primary blame on Bush rather than Clinton for the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. A majority of Americans say Bush is more to blame (53%), compared with 36% blaming Clinton.
I remember the "wag the dog" comments from Republicans when Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden. Hell, there was a movie made about the subject.

For those same critics of Clinton to ay that he didn't do enough is rather disingenuous. Unlike the current President, I think Clinton would have acted differently is he was given a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to stike the United States" and I'm positive his Secretary of State wouldn't have been hitting tennis balls with Monica Seles and shopping for shoes in New York City while people were dying in New Orleans in front of everyone's eyes.

Clinton was many things but the label "incompetent" isn't one of them.

Get tough Joe?


If the headline doesn't show you the obvious, the opening paragragh tells the true story about George Bush's favorite de facto Republican Democrat.
A day after saying in a major campaign speech that "we must get tougher with the Iraqi political leadership," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman met Tuesday with Iraq's president and had a pleasant conversation that ended with the two men agreeing progress is being made.

[...]

Asked if he followed through on Monday's "get tough" message, Lieberman said, "This is a question of allies working together. With a friend, you don't essentially put a gun to their head."
This comes from a senator who ignored hasn't read the NIE report.

I love this quote from Lieberman. He deserves another kiss from his best friend.

As he did Monday, he again Tuesday criticized Democratic nominee Ned Lamont for supporting specific timelines for withdrawing U.S. troops.

At the Capitol, though, Lieberman would not specifically define what he meant by rejecting an open-ended commitment, saying his own goal "is not as neat as a deadline but a deadline is a deadly and disastrous alternative."

He said the U.S. could pull back "as soon as Iraqis are able to control their security and control their destiny" and that he had heard "an encouraging, progressive report by President Talabani, an honest report."
With more suicide attacks than at any other period, Lieberman refuses to see the writing on the wall.

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Help me catch Joe Lieberman's lies (again)

Oh man, Lieberman outdid himself yesterday!

George Bush's favorite Democrat told so many lies and falsehoods about Lamont and his views on the war during his speech that I had a hard time keeping track of the garbage coming out of his mouth.

So BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND, I bring you another dose of "Wait wait, don't lie to me: the Joe Lieberman edition."

Most of you know the drill but for you newbies, here's the deal.


We all know that Joe Lieberman is running a dishonest camaign and is will say anything to keep his senate seat.  Unfortunately, there are some voters who take Joe at his word (Sean Smith called them "low information voters) so it's our duty to expose Joe for who he truly is...a Republican.


Here's the rules:


1. Watch Joe do his thing in the video clip (I'm sorry).


2. For every dishonest lie, a misleading statement, and/or distortion of the record you come across, document it in the comment section. Remember, you have to say whether it's a miselading statement, distortion of the record or just an outright lie.


3. Use articles, statements, videoclips to prove that Joe wasn't telling the turth. Remember, providing a video clip is ALWAYS a bonus.


Example:


Joe stated that Ned Lamont wants the troops out by July 2007.


MISLEADING: Joe's trying to give the impression that Ned Lamont wants the troops out by July 2007.


TRUTH: Ned Lamont stated that he wants the troops out 12 months after the Kery-Feingold proposal goes into effect. He also stated that he agreed with another proposal which did not give a definate date. According to Lamont, the important thing is to change the course of action in Iraq and give a clear sign to the Iraqis that the U.S. will not be there forever.


BONUS: (CTBob's video clip of Lamont stating this several times to reporters at Naples Pizza yesterday).


Okay, get to it guys!


Liberman hasn't read the NIE report yet wants to send more troops?

Okay, this is nuts.

Senator Liberman stated that he hasn't read the National Intelligence Estimate report that was leaked to the press and clearly states that the war in Iraq has NOT MADE THE U.S. safer (in fact, the overall terror threat has grown and not diminished due in large part because of the war). Yet not only does he still stubbornly think the war is the right thing, he's calling on MORE TROOPS to be sent.
But Mr. Lieberman used the news of the intelligence report, which he said he had not read, to argue that a deadline for withdrawal would make the threat of terror "exponentially worse" and give a battle plan to factional militias, insurgents, terrorists, Syria and Iran.

Using his harshest language to date to attack Mr. Lamont, Mr. Lieberman called his opponent's stance "a slippery, deadly slope every step of the way."

He's kidding right?

DeStafano's latest ad

The candidates are rollign out their ads now. Here's a new one from John DeStefano entitled "Sugar Coat"

Monday, September 25, 2006

More of the same from Lieberman

More lies.

More undermining the Democrats.

More dishonesty.

What did you expect from George Bush's favorite Democrat?

I'm waiting for the broadcast of Lieberman's lying speech before going in full attack mode but seriously, will the Democrats PLEASE RIP JOE TO SHREDS NOW!

How can anyone respect this man?

Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton and Republicans not doing the city's business

While I digest text of Joe Lieberman's speech from today, I thought it would be rather informative to bring to everyone's attention some of the nonsense the local Republicans are doing in Danbury CT.

You see, I've lived in the Danbury area for about 20 years and until recently, most people wouldn't know that the city existed.

That's until Republican Mark Boughton became mayor.

In the years since Boughton became mayor, things in Danbury have slowly gone downhill. If you turn back the clock, one can see that a primary source of the downfall was Boughton's out-of control increase in condominium and housing development. The increase of condominiums and homes in the area resulted in property rates skyrocketing at an alarming rate, a population surge that the city had a hard time absorbing, and massive traffic problems throughout Danbury and surrounding area (ask anyone in Danbury about traffic on I-84 or Route 7 and you'll get the idea). Now these problems might of happened eventually anyway but Boughton definitely sped things along to the anger of many citizens.

The increase in land development resulted in a boom in such business as landscaping and construction thus, the immigrant population thrived. It's an easy case of supply and demand with developers looking for cheap labor and immigrants looking for a better way of life. Add the fact that Danbury has a low crime rate and a decent education system, walla, you have your illegal immigration problem.

Now although prior to 2005, Boughton never spoke out against illegal immigration, once the mayor's proposal to build a day laborer center was met with outrage from his Republican-base, the mayor suddenly changed his tune and became a critic against illegal immigrants.

Originally claiming that illegal immigrants were draining the city resources (without citing any figures), Boughton made national headlines with his request for local police be allowed to enforce federal law (this was ultimately turned down). Never one to shy away from headlines or media attention, Boughton also made headlines by cracking down on...I kid you not, illegal volleyball courts. Claiming that Danbury has a "serious" problem, the mayor went on a PR blitz doing a host of interviews and public appearances (I like to call it grandstanding).

In a nutshell, the whole circus act the mayor created unwanted drew attention to a normally quiet city. Due to in large part to Boughton's ill-advised statements, racist groups such as the Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control headed by former Minuteman and former Republican senate candidate Paul Streitz found a home to spread their hate-speech and prejudice against the immigrant population (learn about them here, here, and here). All the while this is happening, people ignored the awful political record of the mayor and the Republican-majority.

You see, the Mayor Boughton and the Republican majority in Danbury is pretty much the same as the President and the Republican majority in Washington. Want to divert attention from your own mismanagement, install a sense of fear and people will support you. This use of fear against immigrants was used perfectly by Boughton as he was able to divert attention from his failings as mayor and won another term as mayor in 2005.

With Boughton having nothing to show for his last two years in office, and the Republican majority asleep at the wheel in terms of governing or doing any meaningful work, the mayor is attempting to lay the fear groundwork by bringing attention to the immigration problem again for his re-election bid in 2007.

That's where I come in.

You see, way before following Ned Lamont with a video camera, I made it a point to go to as many local government meetings as possible and try my best to bring attention to the failings of the mayor and the Republican majority. Following the Lamont/Lieberman primary helped in fine tuning my skills and I'm now able to bring to light the gross inaction of the Republican majority in the city.

I hope after reading this post, you'll have a better sense of what's actually happening in Danbury and how the mayor is using his slight of hand ability to keep people from looking at his failures. Here's my cross post from my local blog called Hat City Blog

I'll make this simple and to the point. The Republican-majority and Mayor Boughton are not doing their job.


If the Common Council meetings were televised, you would find that an alarming number of ad-hoc committees are in limbo and nothing is getting done at City Hall. The ad-hoc committee on broadcasting meetings has not met once as well as a number of other ad-hoc committees a majority of which were requested by the Democratic minority.


Enough is enough.


The Mayor and the Republican majority are doing a disservice to the community and it's becoming apparent to the public that they've been in control of the city for way too long.  Important committees such as a review of the way the city hands out grants,  and tax credit for elderly homeowners, and many other issues are not being addressed by this mayor or the Republican-controlled council and it's simply a disservice to the community.


There has been numerous editorials and articles written on the inaction of the Republicans to hold a number of ad-hoc committees including the review grant request and the broadcasting of meetings. Unfortunately, to really know how serious the problem is right now, you actually have to attend the meetings. If you only watch In Our Opinion, you get a very one-sided Republican point of view of what's happening since Lynn Waller can't seem to find it in herself to really criticize the mayor (Republicans stick together). The News-Times has just scratched the surface in regards to the inaction and hypocrisy of Mayor Boughton (i.e., one day it costs 60,000 to broadcast meetings, the next day it costs 90,000 and all the while, he never explains where he got the figures from).


Therefore, this is what I'M going to do for you.


I made a video highlighting the various problems this city is facing, and inaction of the Republicans, and the frustration of the Democrats who want to get something done. Hopefully, after you watch this video, you'll get a better idea of how bad the situation is in our city as it seems like the Republicans have a problem when it actually comes to doing their job.



Enough is enough

Write a letter to the Editor, let your voice be heard.

Go to the meetings and address the council at the public forum, express your outrage.

Enough is enough.

What we need are politicians who are willing to get the city's job done, not politicians who take trips to Brazil, set up useless self-promoting blogs, and propose building doggie parks with the people's taxes.

Enough is enough.

See what I have to deal with in Danbury.

If you want to read the post in full or read about other nonsense in Danbury, I encourage you to check out Hat City Blog (FYI: Danbury was once the hat city capital of the country)

Iraq Report confirms the obvious...so what's Joe going to say now?

I guess Joe Lieberman will have to re-write his speech today.
The New York Times and the Washington Post reported Sunday that the National Intelligence Estimate, a classified consensus of 16 U.S. spy agencies, concluded in April that the war has made terrorism worse and that the overall terror threat has grown since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Lamont decided to send Joe a letter just in case he didn't get the message.
Dear Senator Lieberman:

As I am sure you have seen, the New York Times today reported that the National Intelligence Estimate in April concludes "that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks." The NIE represents the consensus view of the U.S. government's 16 major intelligence agencies. The Times notes that the Iraq War is a major “reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology” and cites one intelligence official acknowledging that the NIE "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse."Let me put this news in terms that you can clearly understand: Our own intelligence agencies now confirm that the Iraq War is undermining America's security and credibility at our nation’s peril.
Can't wait to hear how Lieberman is going to spin this in his speech later today...

UPDATEJoe flip-flop alert. From CLP comment section.
From Lieberman's speech preview:

"We have to realize that reasonable people can disagree on this difficult question, and that does not make you a terrorist sympathizer, on the one hand, or a warmonger, on the other."

I guess his statement of August 10 that:

"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."

is no longer operative.

Joe Courtney's latest ad

Here's a look at Joe Courtney's latest television ad.
Rob, you're in trouble.