A group of New Haven Latino clergy known for virulently opposing gay rights measures threw their support behind U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's reelection campaign Thursday in a speech that focused on family values and faith. The group said the senator’s opposition to gay marriage contributed to their endorsing him: "We will not support a candidate that will go against the values of the traditional family as we know it and the Bible teaches us."
[...]
The event was a match between two parties with histories of visible opposition to gay rights causes. The ministers organized a vocal crowd to denounce a proposal to establish a New Haven "domestic registry" for gay couples in committed relationships, for instance, denouncing homosexuality as a sin in an hours-long public hearing. Lieberman voted for a measure proposed by Republican then-Sen. Jesse Helms (Senate Amendment no. 2434 to bill number 1513) to deny federal funding to schools that counsel students, even suicidal gay students, that it's OK to be gay.
[...]
After the speech, a reporter asked what issues, including gay marriage, contributed to the endorsement.
"We're just not supporting Sen. Lieberman based on one issue," responded Hernandez. "The caliber and character of his integrity is what really draws us to say he is the best candidate."
Anti-gay Joe accepts an endorsement for his stance on ONE ISSUE. Ironic, you think?
While Team Joememtum continue to attempt to spin their B.S. version of the story, we have the actual facts from reporters and a pretty pissed off State Rep who was on the scene.
The pro-Joe Lieberman, anti-Ned Lamont protestors that Mr. Lamont's supporters dubbed the "LieberKidz."
We last saw them dogging Mr. Lamont during the heated Senate primary, and today they showed up in force at the morning kickoff of Mr. Lamont's "Stand Up For Change" bus tour, day two, mobbing the parking lot of a Hartford residence for the elderly, and cheering "Vote for Joe" as Mr. Lamont tried to speak with some of the residents.
Mr. Lamont's staff, somewhat outnumbered by the three dozen or so Lieberman supporters, looked annoyed.
"This is what you can do with $387,000 in petty cash," fumed Mr. Lamont's spokeswoman, Liz Dupont-Diehl, referring to the as-yet-unexplained, unusually large petty cash fund Mr. Lieberman maintained during the closing days of the primary.
Later, on the bus, Mr. Lamont weighed in. "I wish Senator Lieberman has showed up for the debate last night," he said, referring to a debate held with his G.O.P. opponent, Alan Schlesinger, which Mr. Lieberman declined to attend.
"Instead, he hires a lot of people to protest at our events. The people of Connecticut want civil debate on the issues," Mr. Lamont said.
I am State Representative Evelyn Mantilla, of the district where Ned made his stop this morning. I helped organize a quick meet & greet with the residents outside the building so as to not disrupt their environment and routine inside and to respect the Hartford Housing authority who manages it. This building is a low income senior housing building. I have fought for these folks for 10 years and they know me well and expect from me truthful information and to be treated with respect. The Lamont advance folks and staff handled the situation well and Ned himself was more gracious than anyone should be expected to be. He still made sure he greeted those who came outside to see him.
The actions of the Lieberman "volunteers" created an environment of intimidation and frankly just downright disturbed the peace of the residents. The crowd created such a tight space that they blocked the entrance to the building and any resident who wanted to get through to Ned, or just leave the building, had to push their way through or put up with getting pushed around themselves.
I am appalled. If they felt they had to make an appearance, they can march with their signs and chant their message all they want...but this was crossing the line. The lack of respect for these folks was beyond anything I've ever seen. These are SENIORS...this was not a rally...it was a simple meet and greet. I can't begin to describe the outrage I feel.
The good news is that I've spoken with a few already and they are clear as to who caused the disturbance. I will personally be out there making sure they come out to vote for Ned.
Keep spinning your load of bull team Joementum, it only make you look more like the jerks you really are.
Ralph A. Ferrucci, the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, filed a complaint Thursday against a Hartford Democrat who violated an agreement with state election officials barring her from distributing absentee ballot applications.
The complaint comes after a disclosure by The Courant that Prenzina Holloway, 69, was working for a company paid by Sen. Joseph Lieberman's campaign to distribute absentee ballot applications and that six people claim she has been handing out the documents in violation of her agreement with the state's Elections Enforcement Commission.
"She wasn't supposed to do anything and here she is doing the same thing that she did two years ago," Ferrucci said Thursday. "With Democrats and Republicans, there has been a lot of corruption in this state. Where does it end? We have to make sure this stops."
The commission fined Holloway $10,000 in July 2005 and ordered her not to distribute absentee ballot applications or to assist voters with them for two years. It agreed to accept $2,000 because of Holloway's financial hardship.
The penalty came after the commission found that she had forged a voter's signature in the 2004 election. It also found evidence that Holloway was in the same room with at least two other voters as they filled out absentee ballots, a violation of state election law.
[...]
Holloway admitted this week that she had worked for Urban Voters and Associates, a company paid $17,550 by the Lieberman campaign since September. She said she isn't involved in the company's absentee ballot operations.
But five people at Mary Mahoney Village, a Vine Street housing complex for the elderly, told The Courant that Holloway and another person came to their doors to give them absentee ballot applications.
A security worker at Betty Knox Apartments, another housing complex on Woodland Street, said Holloway tried to get into the building to distribute applications there.
Now what's the deal with Urban Voters and Associates...who exactly runs this gig you ask?
Urban Voters and Associates employees Prenzina Holloway, the lady barred from distributing absentee ballots. They were paid $17,550 by the Lieberman camapign for .... who knows what they were paid for. I do know, however, that 17k is a lot of money to pay the daughter of a City Councilwoman, who employs her grandmother, and runs the business out of her multi-family home. I can assure you she wasn't doing the same kind of "field consulting" that Tom Lindenfeld was. I tried to find out more information on Urban Voters & Associates, but there is seemingly no reference to their "field operation" on the entire world wide web. Maybe this is their maiden voyage in the industry ... and maybe not.
Lieberman dishes out $387,000 in petty cash spent in 12 days prior to the primary (an amount unheard of) and now he dishes out $17,550 dollars to a "company" (that operates out of a multi-family home) for "field operations" (wink, wink).
When you add that Lieberman sent his goons to cause a scene at a SENIOR CENTER, one has to wonder if the wheels are coming off team Joementum (or does Joe think he's above the law).
I've said it once and I'll say it again...Joe Lieberman will do ANYTHING to get re-elected.
Lieberman out of control, sends his goons to do dirty work
NOTE: Video added!
Good grief!
It seems like it's the days of Richard Goodstein are happening all over again as the Liebergoons went after Ned earlier today at a SENIOR CENTER (man, those jerks are lucky I wasn't there).
Day Two of the Big Bad Bus Tour isn't exactly off to a good start. This morning's first rally was to be outdoors at the Percival Smith Towers Senior Center. Before the event was even underway, a crowd of Lieberman supporters turned up. They have a fake voting booth set up in the bed of a Toyota 4¥4 and speakers that play that insipid jingle, ("When you're in the voting booth/Watch out for the LieberYouth...") over and over and OVER. It looks like a porta-potty on wheels and the music coming out of it is akin to the smell one would expect from such an enclosure.
They started out at the street, holding signs and chanting, a clot of 25 to 30 thick-necked Young Republican types. Then they moved up the driveway to the Senior Center and blocked the bus. They formed a noisy, chanting mob around the bus door and blocked anyone from getting out. Eventually Ned and some others managed to push out through the crowd, but the noise only increased and the LieberYouth pressed tighter, chanting so that the news cameras and microphones couldn't pick up a word Ned was saying.
It was an ugly and intense little scene. The few seniors who had come outside were rushed back in by the Percival Smith staff. I did manage to ask one bright-eyed little senior lady what she thought of all this, but she just pointed at her temple and twirled her finger in the universal sign for "crazy" and then she was whisked away by a staffer.
So this is what it has come down to, Mr. Lieberman? Sending your thugs out to physically intimidate old people? Nice. Classy.
Yes folks, you read this right. Joe Lieberman sent his goons to go and cause a HUGE scene at a SENIOR CENTER. Classic Lieberman tactic...why am I not surprised since I've seen these goons in action throughout the summer.
Remember, Joe Lieberman will do anything to get re-elected:
* Lieberman threw the Democratic Party under the bus by actively looking for Republican support therby placing the Congressioanl Democrats in trouble.
* Lieberman's campaign passed out race-baiting flyers throughout the African American community days before the primary, accusing Lamont of not caring about race-relations (although he taught at an inner city high school in Bridgeport and the quote Lieberman used in the flyer was TOTALLY taken out of context).
* During the primary, holy Joe sent his D.C. lobbyist buddy Richard Goodstein and his Liebergoons to disrupt several Lamont (FYI: this was teh same time Joe dished out 387,000 in petty cash). Two of the most memorable events was the disgusting incident at Ted's in Meriden and the blowup from Goodstein at a Lamont event in Greenwich days later.
First, Teds:
Ned walks into Ted's Steamed Cheeseburgers for the event, and the 3 or 4 booths inside are already packed, as are some of the counter seats, with about 15-20 teenagers and one older gentleman, many of whom had asked for and received Ned Lamont stickers from the Lamont staffers organizing the event. Ned says hi to the owner. As Ned starts talking, the teenagers reveal Lieberman T-shirts. The older gentleman starts yelling "Are You an Al Sharpton Democrat or a Bill Clinton Democrat?" and something along the lines of "because Bill Clinton has the support of everyone and Al Sharpton only has the support of..." trailing off. Ned decides to leave, with his staff fearing for his physical safety.
The entire scene moves outside, where about 6 reporters are there, witnessing the entire spectacle. A near melee ensues as at least 5 of the Lieberman kids continue to yell and scream at Ned and get physically abusive with Lamont staffers, even bloodying a photographer's nose.
A Lamont supporter at the scene noted the Lieberman staffers looked "red in the face" with anger.
Ned attempts to talk with a 90-year-old WWII veteran pilot from Virginia who wanted to discuss his opposition to the Iraq war. The Lieberman kids scream accusations about Ned's patriotism, spewing right-wing bile accusing him of not caring about our troops, and questioning whether he would (not verbatim) "let our citizens die again," assumedly a reference to 9/11.
One reporter goes up and tries to ask some of these kids whether they are volunteers or paid staffers for the Lieberman campaign. The kid screams in response, "Let me see your credentials!" The reporter produces said credentials. The kid replies "those are fake." None of the 15-20 Lieberman kids there would admit to being paid staffers. Nor would they tell the reporters their names, or any other personal information.
This event was even reported on in GQ magazine. For those who are new here, lets go back in time and revisit the scene.
The next stop is just a few miles away at Ted's, a famous cheeseburger shack in town. Ned greets some supporters on the patio outside, and then we file inside to get our steamed burgers. It's small and crowded in here, and though the drill is to stay as far out of the candidate's way as possible, I get pinned right up against Ned in the crowd. Then, all of a sudden, everyone in the restaurant, in the booths and at the counter, everywhere, simultaneously pulls on a white Lieberman T-shirt. It takes a second to process what's happening. "Oh, my God," Ned says. "It's the Lieber people." They start heckling Ned aggressively, using campaign attack lines about taxes and how for sixteen years, until right before this campaign, Ned belonged to a country club in Greenwich that has almost no black members. Most of Joe's supporters in Ted's are kids, but there's one big bald guy, the only adult among them, who starts a loud, frenzied inquisition right in Ned's face. "Are you a Bill Clinton Democrat or an Al Sharpton Democrat?"
"They're not mutually exclusive," Ned says.
"No, I'm asking. Answer me! Clinton or Sharpton?" Ned tries to answer, but the guy interrupts: "I worked for Abe Ribicoff. He couldn't play golf at your country club in Greenwich!" When Ned starts to turn away, the guy says, "Don't turn your back on me, Ned!
"Let's keep this civil for the last five days of the campaign," Ned says, and he starts making his way among the Lieber kids, shaking their hands again.
The big bald guy is right in my face now. I ask him where he's from, what his role is here, and he shouts and wags his finger and demands my credentials, yelling to the crowd that I'm not a legitimate reporter and I must be with Ned. Suddenly, I realize the goal here is to provoke Ned into overreacting on-camera. And if not him, then someone on his staff. And it's working; I want badly to take a swing at this lunatic, and I'm not even on the campaign. I flash back to yesterday and the Banana Man and the thug yelling at Tom Swan, "Hit me! Do it!"
...and again, here's a videocip of Goodstein and the goon's in action days after the Ted's incident (pay attention to the reporter who questions Goodstein about the Ted's incident).
Classic Lieberman playbook, whine about people attacking him while he send out his goons to do the dirty work going as far as making a scene AT A SENIOR CENTER.
Is this the type of person you want representing you in Washington?
UPDATE: I hearing reports from all over the place about the Liebergoons and more stuff is popping up on the blogs about what happened. Click here for David Sirota's report. I'll keep everyone updated if I hear more...
UPDATE 2: I've updated this post with a report from Channel 30. Trust me, this only touch on what really happened. Seems like the Liebergoons are trying to spin this with their own silly account on what happened. Too funny...video speaks louder than spin.
With a new member of my family on the way, it's pretty hard to keep with with Ned Lamont so I decided to pass on attending the debate. While I was at home processing the video footage, the other bloggers had every angle covered and came back with some fantastic reports.
Lieberman throws former campaign manager under the bus
The New London Day caught up with Joe Lieberman Thursday and asked him about the serious questions raised surrounding his 387,000 in petty cash the New Haven Register article. Following the same pattern as during the primary when he blamed his staff for losing, Lieberman avoids taking any responsibility and instead, throws his former campaign manager Sean Smith under the bus.
The senator ducked a question about the Lamont campaign's complaint to the Federal Election Commission about more than $387,000 in petty cash spent during the primary, and following a report in The New Haven Register that some Lieberman workers said they had been paid twice as much as the campaign reported to the FEC.
"Well, I decided a long time ago in my political career that I couldn't be both campaign manager and the candidate," Lieberman said. "So, I'm the candidate."
Oh, I'm sure that comment made Smith feel really great. Teflon Lieberman refuses to take responsibility for anything whether it's the reasons for his unpopularity among Democrats or the reason behind his primary loss.
By the way, did Joe just admit that his campaign violating FEC law? If there wsa no wrongdoing, he could have just said so instead of putting the blame on Smith.
The NRCC, Nancy Johnson and the Today Show conspiracy
Oh, this is too much.
Seems like the NRCC, Nancy Johnson and The Today Show are attempting to do a hitjob on Chris Murphy.
Right now on MSNBC's website, an online poll is being conducted regarding campaign ads and the winner of the contest will featured on the show.
Under the title "Which one is the nastiest ad?" somehow Chris Murphy's "Cleft Palate" made the cut along side the disgusting Harold Ford ad (I guess they missed Nancy Johnson's wiretapping ad or the ad where she re-created a 9/11 funeral.
Anyway, the NRCC are flooding the site with votes for Murphy and it's up to all of us to set the record straight as the attack ad against Ford is by far the nastiest ad out there.
UPDATE: Thanks to you guys, Harold Ford's ad is way ahead of Murphy's ad. The NRCC will do their best to flood the site with votes for Murphy so keep voting!
I know, I know, where's the open thread. Well with so many other sites doing that, I decided to just concentrate on working on the video clips. The debate is almost over and I'll have the video up as soon as possible.
In short, I think it was the best debate yet and I'm happy Joe "Mr. Filibuster" wasn't there whinning and caarrying on like a baby. Finally, we get the old fashion kitchen table debate Ned has talked about throughout his campaign and hear two men address the issues without ripping each other to shreds.
New Haven Register exposes more petty cash problems
This story has legs (warning, this is a LONG but important post).
The New Haven Register came out today with an article regarding the 387,000 in petty cash Joe Lieberman dished out in the final days before the primary.
The Register article raises three serious potential violations of campaign finance laws. The one that most interests me is the possibility that the Lieberman campaign laundered money through their field consultants to convert it to street money.
Also, [Tom] Reyes and another man, Daryl Brooks of New Haven, who ran a consultant service, said they each got one check from the campaign for their services, but they are listed in the third quarter campaign finance report as getting two checks, for a total of twice what the men said they received.
The report lists Reyes as getting two checks for $8,250, one on Aug. 4 and one on Aug. 15. Brooks received $12,200 on Aug. 11 and another check for the same amount on Aug. 15, according to the Lieberman report. Both men said this was inaccurate.
Paying for services not delivered is a hallmark of street money. By writing checks that ostensibly look like they belong, campaigns can give their operatives cash to put on the street around election. Both of these men are saying they only received one check and their bank balances may well reflect that, but it I find it hard to believe that the Lieberman campaign's accountants accidentally cut an extra $20,450 in checks or accidentally added that much money to their records.
No, I think the most probable answer is Alan Schlesinger's hypothesis, that the Lieberman campaign was putting huge sums of cash into play as street money. Schlesinger was talking specifically about Joe's petty cash slush fund, but as I explained earlier this week, street money can be deployed in more ways than just giving cash to bad people to buy votes.
Lastly, street money is used to pay influential community members for services never provided. These people can then funnel the money into vote buying or using their connections to pull in more voters for the candidate who's throwing cash around.
Substitute campaign consultants for influential community members and the extra checks to Reyes and Brooks make sense. This money could well have been used as street money and it's coming from sources that we hadn't considered as legitimate possibilities before the Register article.
This is a serious problem. Again, we're talking about 387,000 dollars spend during the last 12 days before the primary. By comparison, the Lamont campaign reported only 500 dollars in petty cash.
387,000 dollars to 500 dollars...strange isn't it?
Back to Matt:
There are two other salient pieces of information in the Register article, though they apply more towards the Lieberman campaign's failures to keep proper clerical records of their expenditures than something necessarily as sinister as street money. That is not to say that these are not serious violations of campaign finance law that do real damage to the spirit of transparency that good government groups like Public Campaign Action Fund and Common Cause have fought for.
Several young men, who were paid $60 a day out of petty cash to canvass in Bridgeport, said they were paid in cash for aggregate earnings over $200.
Rob Dhanda, 18, or Stratford, said he earned $480 in cash over several weeks, while Walter Ruilova, 18, also of Stratford, said his total was an estimated $360 in cash. Ruilova estimated there were about 30 teenagers working out of the Bridgeport office, each earning $60 a day in cash, over a few weeks.
Michelle Ryan, a spokeswoman for the FEC, would not comment on specifics of the Lamont complaint, but said "in terms of itemization, it is required once the aggregate total to a recipient is in excess of $200."
The Lieberman campaign essentially paid campaign workers off the books. The article doesn't find people who were necessarily paid more than $100 in petty cash (which would be illegal), but these are all individuals who received over $200 and thus should be itemized on Lieberman's reports. Failure to provide full information about these people, including their names and addresses, is an avoidance of the law. At minimum this information continues to fill out our understanding of the extent to which the Lieberman campaign stopped obeying campaign finance requirements and regulations during the Democratic primary.
The Register also includes information that will surely bolster the Lamont campaign's formal complaint to the FEC about the Lieberman petty cash slush fund. Specifically, the Lamont campaign contended that Lieberman failed to keep adequate records in their petty cash journal as to what their disbursements paid for.
At least one man who was hired as a consultant, Tomas Reyes of Oxford, said he has yet to be asked by the campaign to turn over material for the journal, which would justify expenditures of $8,250.
The FEC requires the treasurer of the political committee to keep a written journal of all disbursements out of petty cash, including names, addresses, dates and purposes.
I'm not sure if Mary O'Leary, the NH Register reporter, is entirely clear in this passage as to whether or not Reyes $8,250 was a petty cash expenditure, which would require a record in the journal, or a reimbursable expense for his 8/4/06 check for "field consulting." It strikes me as odd for Reyes to claim that he had receipts for field consulting, a service he provided for the campaign. In any event, it is clear that Lieberman's books are not up to date and accurate, which is a violation of campaign finance laws.
O'Leary gave the Lieberman campaign multiple opportunities to speak on the record about these petty cash and field consulting expenditures and the failures to accurately keep the required records. As they have done since this scandal broke, the Lieberman campaign declined to speak about their petty cash problem.
The Lieberman campaign's continued silence only strengthens the need to ask questions like O'Leary has done in this article. She has brought out new information that demands answers from Joe; if she can't get them, I hope the FEC will. Every piece of evidence that comes out suggests malfeasance, albeit of varying degrees, by Joe's campaign. Lieberman's actions and Lieberman's silence do damage to the health of our elections. The need for truth has never been more clear than today.
I don't want to repeat myself here but if I must.
387,000 in COLD HARD CASH was dished out by the Lieberman campaign in a span of 12 days prior to the priamary and no one knows how the money was used.
Here's Lamontblog's timeline.
First, Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said she wasn't there when it happened:
Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said she wasn't with the campaign at the time of the primary, but her understanding is that there was a staffer in charge of keeping track of petty cash. (NH Register, 10/22)
Then she promised she'd produce the journal detailing petty cash expenditures - one that is required by FEC law:
She said the money was used to cover salaries, food, lodging and transportation for hundreds who were hired to do statewide canvassing. The daily rates ranged from $60 to $75 to $100 for the work, Sun said. She said she would attempt to find the petty cash report by Monday. (NH Register, 10/22)
Then she was "unable to say" why the young workers who assumedly got all this cash weren't listed by name and salary in the FEC report, while their lodging and transportation was:
Sun was unable to say Saturday why the workers, some of whom appeared to have stayed for days or weeks in dormitories at the expense of the Lieberman campaign, were not listed by name and salary. (Courant, 10/22)
Then she hid behind the campaign's lawyer:
"The fact is, our attorney has assured us that the petty cash expenditures and the rest of our FEC report is in full compliance with the law's disclosure requirements just as every campaign Joe Lieberman has run for the last 18 years has been." (AP, 10/23)
Then she reversed herself, said the cash was not used to pay workers, but to pay field coordinators who then threw the cash around to kids:
Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, said today the cash was paid to field coordinators who then distributed the money to workers who canvassed for the three-term incumbent, who's running as an independent candidate after his primary loss to Lamont in August. (Journal-Inquirer, 10/24)
Then she reversed herself, and told reporters they couldn't see the petty cash journal:
Sun declined Monday to allow reporters to examine the campaign's petty cash journal. (Courant, 10/24)
Now, despite promising reporters she would produce records of how almost $400,000 in cash was spent and then suddenly telling reporters they couldn't look at them, and despite still being "unable to say" why the slush fund even existed in the first place, she's calling the whole thing a "kooky conspiracy theory":
"We are in full compliance with the FEC's disclosure requirements, have done nothing wrong, and there's not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. We will not be going beyond the law to release the journal simply because Ned Lamont has some kooky conspiracy theory." (NH Register, 10/24)
Well, I think the New haven Registger just unearth a shred of evidence and raised some seriosu concerns about the petty cash.
Remember, Joe Lieberman will do anything to get re-elected:
* Lieberman threw the Democratic Party under the bus by actively looking for Republican support therby placing the Congressioanl Democrats in trouble.
* Lieberman's campaign passed out race-baiting flyers throughout the African American community days before the primary, accusing Lamont of not caring about race-relations (although he taught at an inner city high school in Bridgeport and the quote Lieberman used in the flyer was TOTALLY taken out of context).
* Lieberman paid a staggering $17,550 to Urban Voters and Associates ( a buisness which is run out of a house) for "field consulting."
17,550 dollars for field consulting?
Accoring to the Courant, Urban Voters and Associates "employee" Prenzina Holloway distrbuted absentee ballots throughout the African-American community in Hartford's North-End for Lieberman although she is barred from doing so.
Holloway acknowledges working for Urban Voters and Associates, a company paid $17,550 by the Lieberman campaign since September to do "field work." But she said she isn't involved in the company's absentee ballot operations.
"That is just a no-no," she said. "And I know it is a no-no."
But five people at a Vine Street housing complex for the elderly have told The Courant that Holloway and another person came to their doors to give them absentee ballot applications, and a security worker at another complex on Woodland Street said Holloway tried to get into the building to distribute applications there. Holloway was barred from the building after getting into a verbal altercation with the worker after he made supportive comments about Lieberman's main challenger, Ned Lamont.
Something just isn't right here and at this point, the mainstream media should quesiton Joe Lieberman and mroe forcefully go after this story.
Here's a chart and a list of Lieberman's petty cash spending compared to other politicians during the same eleciton cycle.
* Ben Cardin (MD) - $0.00 * Kweisi Mfume (MD) -$0.00 * Lincoln Chafee (RI) - $650.00 * Stephen Laffey (RI) - $0.00 * Hillary Clinton (NY) - $0.00 * Jonathan Tasini (NY) - $0.00 * George Allen (VA) - $0.00 * Jim Webb (VA) - $0.00 * Harris Miller (VA) - $0.00 * John Tester (MT) - $0.00 * Conrad Burns (MT) - $0.00 * Bob Corker (TN) - $0.00 * Harold Ford (TN) - $1500.00 * Sherrod Brown (OH) - $0.00 * Mike DeWine (OH) - $0.00 * Ed Case (HI) - $0.00 * Daniel Akaka (HI) - $0.00 * Alan Schlesinger (CT) - $0.00 * Ned Lamont (CT) - $500.00 * Joe Lieberman (CT) - $387,000.00
Lets go back and see what the candidates had to say about Joe's petty cash.
Lamont campaign:
Alan Schlesinger:
387,000 in COLD HARD CASH. Many questions, no answers.
"Lieberman, the once and future Democrat, is winning 73 percent of the Republican vote."
Anyway Doug, when are you going to allow the press and the Lamont campaign to see the voter ID from the latest poll? It's been 24 hours since the request yet no one has heard from you.
Since party identification distribution is rarely requested, we do not include it in our press releases. It has been and continues to be our policy to provide party identification, as well as other demographic information, to anyone requesting that information.
Journal-Inquirer rips Lieberman to shreds in editorial
Oh, this is brutal. While I encourage all to give this editorial a read, here is the real meat and potatoes.
But Joe Lieberman seems to care a lot about whom the Times endorses.
He seemed personally hurt by the Times picking Lamont.
His No. 1 flack wrote a long diatribe on the subject.
And Joe resorted to what has sometimes been his ultimate defense in this campaign: No one understands me.
If we did, you see, we would appreciate him sufficiently.
Lieberman's exact words about the Times editorial board were:
"I don't believe that they've ever really understood my position on Iraq." It's not every man who can out-condescend The New York Times.
Why not just say, "They have their views and I have mine"?
And, anyhow, who does understand Sen. Lieberman's position on Iraq?
Maybe professor Irwin Corey.
To the rest of us, Lieberman's position on Iraq has long been incomprehensible gibberish.
What did Sen. Lieberman say in the beginning?
He was with President Bush in concept but was not convinced of a threat.
What did he say next?
There is a threat, after all.
And Sept. 11 is linked to Saddam and Iraq.
What has he said all along?
A) We must succeed in Iraq.
B) It would be a disaster to withdraw U.S. troops.
What has he said most recently?
Keep the troops there but get them out as soon as is possible.
Huh?
This is not a position at all, but a series of contradictory stances. The senator's "position" is a pudding without a theme.
If you want more detail, look up a long piece in the same New York Times, which appeared Oct. 24. It is an exhaustive examination of Lieberman's many and constantly changing positions on Iraq. (The piece was amended the next day.)
But the key thing is that the senator's position was never moving toward anything - any goal, mission, or even intellectual coherence.
What in the world does it mean to say the troops must stay but they should come out as soon as possible?
When is that?
What is the standard of judgment?
And how do we succeed there? Define success.
Let us ask the senator this simple question:
For what purpose should the troops now stay?
What is their mission?
Is it to subdue the civil war and organize a new nation, or nations?
If so, we need twice as many troops.
We don't have them unless we institute a draft.
This seems unlikely, but calling for more troops in Iraq is an intellectually honest and respectable position. It is, roughly, Sen. John McCain's position.
If the only reason to stay is that there will be chaos if we go, well, we have chaos now. And as long as we have bases in the region, and are "over the perimeter," we are not truly gone.
If the senator's position is, actually, underneath the rhetoric of national strength and not losing a war, that we should give the Iraqis a push and then go - which is the true position of most of Washington now - then how is he different than Lamont other than that Lamont wants to go sooner and insists we admit we made a mistake in Iraq?
In that case, Lieberman would not be able to cast Lamont as naive and soft on terror.
In that case, there would be every reason to vote for Lamont, the honest dove.
It's not just the Times that fails to understand Joe Lieberman's position on the war. Nobody understands it. Because it is contradictory and illogical on its face.
And why is that?
Because Joe Lieberman does not want to choose.
The choices in Iraq are three:
- Keep doing what we are doing.
- Get out - in an orderly way but a quick one.
- Send more troops and temporarily colonize the nation to save it.
Joe refuses to make any of those choices, and then he whines that those pointy-headed eggheads at The New York Times don't appreciate the position he never took.
The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., predicted last week that Iraqi security forces would be able to take control of the country in 12 to 18 months. But several days spent with American units training the Iraqi police illustrated why those soldiers on the ground believe it may take decades longer than Casey's assessment.
Seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by militias, primarily the Mahdi Army, according to Shaw and other military police trainers. Police officers are too terrified to patrol enormous swaths of the capital. And while there are some good cops, many have been assassinated or are considering quitting the force.
"None of the Iraqi police are working to make their country better," said Brig. Gen. Salah al-Ani, chief of police for the western half of Baghdad. "They're working for the militias or to put money in their pocket."
Okay, lets take a look at the scorecard and see where we're at now.
The rationale for going to war in Iraq was a complete lie.
American forces are stuck in the middle of a civil war.
We've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II.
Now we hear that...the Iraq security forces has been infiltrated by militias and the country will not be able to police itself any time soon.
When is enough enough? Republicans like Joe Lieberman, Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, and Rob Simmons continue to cheerlead President Bush's failed Iraq strategy.
The senator won further support in response to a local Democrat who weighed in on the problem of school violence. "I think it all started when we stopped allowing God in the schools," said Robert Limoncelli.
In stark contrast with many Democrats outside the South, Lieberman agreed with the man that religion had been improperly removed from schools.
Referencing the words of a priest, he said, "If you take religion and God out of the public square ... it's not going to remain empty. Something else will fill it up. It'll be the junk that's, and the entertainment culture, or something else."
"The constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," Lieberman continued.
Religion in public schools? Constitution alert! There is a reason Religion is not in public schools...it's a litle thing called seperation of church and state. Maybe Joe should read up on the Constitution before making statements that make him sound like a Jerry Falwell.
The amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If a boy or girl wishes to follow no religion, to be free of religion, then the state has no business establishing religion--any religion--at a state-funded and run school.
It's simple. Keep your religion out of my public school, city hall, and courthouse, period.
As Lieberman continues to think "staying the course" is the best option in Iraq, the New York Times reports on how the military is watching Iraq go into chaos...and they have charts that outline the obvious.
A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict.
A one-page slide shown at the Oct. 18 briefing provides a rare glimpse into how the military command that oversees the war is trying to track its trajectory, particularly in terms of sectarian fighting.
[...]
The conclusions the Central Command has drawn from these trends are not encouraging, according to a copy of the slide that was obtained by The New York Times. The slide shows Iraq as moving sharply away from "peace," an ideal on the far left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the right side of the spectrum, a red zone marked "chaos." As depicted in the command's chart, the needle has been moving steadily toward the far right of the chart.
An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads "urban areas experiencing 'ethnic cleansing' campaigns to consolidate control" and "violence at all-time high, spreading geographically." According to a Central Command official, the index on civil strife has been a staple of internal command briefings for most of this year. The analysis was prepared by the command’s intelligence directorate, which is overseen by Brig. Gen. John M. Custer.
Iraq is a mess and the troops are now caught in the middle of a civil war with no end in sight. A change in direction starts on November 7th with a change in Congress.
As I prepare to send Family, Friends and Neighbors Postcards to another street in my neighborhood,
I input the name of the street and the town name -- that lets me pull up the voter info and discover that most of the people living on that street are seniors.
So, my first pass at sending postcards will be to check off all those folks. Then I go to the Lamont website's Truth About Joe, and look up senior issues.
Joe's missed votes and flipflopping on privatization of social security are all there.
I craft a paragraph that sums it up, and use the copy/paste function to get it copied.
Now I'm set to send my postcards. I paste my customized message, saying I'm their neighbor and want them to know this, into each senior postcard. Voila! Customized message for the people who live near me and might listen to what their neighbor thinks.
Each time a new postcard comes up, I highlight the pre-set message and hit paste again, and my message replaces it. Then I hit SEND and do it again.
Now, this election isn't all about Lamont as Chris Murphy, Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney, and John DeStefano can use a helping hand also. Don't be shy, volunteering is really a lot of fun and any time you can give would be great.
I wonder if the Liebergoons would freak out like Allen's staffers if I ask Joe a question about his wife's dealings with the powerhouse lobbying firm Hill & Knowlton. Better yet, maybe I should ask Joe to clarify his wife's vague title as "senior counselor" in the firm's "health care and pharmaceuticals practice" and whether or not she had any influence in any of his votes.
Among Hill & Knowlton's clients when Mrs. Lieberman signed on with the firm last year was GlaxoSmithKline, the huge British-based drug company that makes vaccines along with many other drugs. As I noted in July, Sen. Lieberman introduced a bill in April 2005 (the month after his wife joined Hill & Knowlton) that would award billions of dollars in new "incentives" to companies like GlaxoSmithKline to persuade them to make more new vaccines. Under the legislation, known as Bioshield II, the cost to consumers and governments would be astronomical, but for Lieberman and his Republican cosponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., the results would be worth every penny. Using the war on terror as their ideological backdrop, the pharma-friendly senators sought to win patent extensions on products that have nothing to do with preparations against terrorist attack or natural disaster.
As the New Haven Register, Lieberman's hometown newspaper, noted in an editorial headlined "Lieberman Crafts Drug Company Perk," that bill is even more generous to the pharmaceutical industry than a similar proposal by the Senate Republican leadership. "The government can offer incentives and guarantees for needed public health measures," it said. "But it should not write a blank check, as these bills do, to the pharmaceutical industry that has such a large cost to the public with what may be an uncertain or dubious return."
Mr. Lieberman, asked about the matter at a campaign appearance today, said that he had discussed it with his staff. "We certainly don't know of anything illegal that that person is doing. We hired a company, and she's working for the company but you know, we've been reassured that she is not doing anything contrary to the court order," he said.
A Hartford Democrat who was fined and barred from involvement in absentee ballot activities last year is working for a company hired by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's campaign to do voter outreach in the city - including the distribution of absentee ballot applications.
Prenzina Holloway was fined $10,000 in July 2005 and ordered not to distribute absentee ballot applications or to assist voters with the ballots for two years, after the State Elections Enforcement Commission found that she had forged a voter's signature in the 2004 election.
Holloway acknowledges working for Urban Voters and Associates, a company paid $17,550 by the Lieberman campaign since September to do "field work." But she said she isn't involved in the company's absentee ballot operations.
"That is just a no-no," she said. "And I know it is a no-no."
But five people at a Vine Street housing complex for the elderly have told The Courant that Holloway and another person came to their doors to give them absentee ballot applications, and a security worker at another complex on Woodland Street said Holloway tried to get into the building to distribute applications there. Holloway was barred from the building after getting into a verbal altercation with the worker after he made supportive comments about Lieberman's main challenger, Ned Lamont.
[...]
Holloway committed absentee ballot fraud in the 2004 election when she voted on behalf of, and forged the signature of, at least one voter, according to the State Elections Enforcement Commission. The commission also found evidence that Holloway was in the same room with at least two other voters as they filled out absentee ballots, a violation of state election law.
Holloway was fined $10,000, but because of financial hardship was made to pay only $2,000. She also signed an agreement saying she would "refrain from distributing absentee ballot applications and shall not assist with absentee ballot applications for a period of two years," starting April 1, 2005.
In the agreement, the commission said it has historically treated absentee ballot abusers "very severely," adding that Holloway's violations in 2004 were serious enough to prosecute.
"If [Holloway] in the future is found to have committed violations of this nature again, she will be referred to the chief state's attorney for criminal prosecution, and the maximum criminal penalties shall be sought," the agreement said.
[...]
But Claudia Dismuke, 85, was one of five voters at Mary Mahoney Village on Vine Street who said Holloway and an older man came to their doors several weeks ago to give them absentee ballot applications. Dismuke said she has known Holloway for years.
"She came by with another man," Dismuke said. "She helped me fill it out and then I put the stamp on it. I mailed it in."
Four other residents at Mary Mahoney Village - James Hightower, Olga Morales, Angelito Vazques and Dorothy McKinley - said they did not know Holloway personally but recognized her when shown a picture. All four said Holloway had given them applications.
[...]
The Rev. Albert Bell, who works the security desk at the Betty Knox complex on Woodland Street, said Holloway came to the facility a little more than a month ago to try to distribute absentee ballot applications.
Bell said Holloway was wearing a Lieberman T-shirt, and that when he went outside on a break he approached her at the entrance of Betty Knox to say, jokingly, "Lamont! Lamont!"
"She went ballistic," Bell said. "Just ballistic, and then said some really nasty things."
Although ALL OF THESE people claimed Holloway broke the law, Lieberman has no problem. I guess he thinks they're lying.
Makes you wonder about that unusually large 387,000 in COLD HARD PETTY CASH the Lieberman campaign was dishing out days leading up to the primary (how does one hand out all that cash in 12 days)?
Matt Browner Hamlin has a great piece on street money and why it's actually vote buying. When you read it, remember that Joe Lieberman spent 387,000 in the span of 12 days prior to the primary.
387,000 DOLLARS IN CASH
Since this issue is so important, I'm pasting the entire post (hope you don't mind Matt). Consider this a cross post.
I had not heard of the term "street money" before about a week ago. Yet as I've looked into the story of Joe Lieberman's $387,000 in unaccounted petty cash disbursements, the term keeps coming up. Street money is a term that describes cash campaigns use to pay people to vote for their candidate. Street money is vote buying. It can be handled by campaign staff, but more often is distributed to go-betweens that will spread it around their neighborhoods. Street money is apparently a phenomenon common to poor, urban, minority population centers - places like Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford.
I want to use this post to explain how street money works, because I imagine there are many other people out there who aren't familiar with the term.
A campaign will rely on the influence or outreach abilities of people who know their community to distribute street money for votes. This can mean local political organizers, ministers, labor leaders, or often drug dealers. There are three basic ways street money can be used to buy votes.
1. Campaign workers will provide their go-between with a list of names from a voter roll in a particular precinct, usually a poor area with low-information voters (in the parlance of Sean Smith). They will promise the go-between a set dollar amount for every name that votes. The go-between will then go out and pay people to vote. At the close of the election the campaign matches the list given to the go-between and the cross-off sheet from the precinct's polling place and pay accordingly. In this scenario the campaign is paying for votes to be turned out with no questions asked.
A go between can turn these votes out however they want. It could be cash or it could be a free lunch. The point is that they are compensated for this and so are the people who vote for the candidate. It's built around quid pro quo and this is one of the most prevalent uses of street money that I've heard takes place in Connecticut.
2. Street money is also used to pay people for work that they never do in exchange for their votes or their support turning out voters. A campaign might pay people in advance to be poll watchers, canvassers, or work phone banks, but the people will never show up and do the work. They get to walk away with money and the candidate gets their votes.
3. Lastly, street money is used to pay influential community members for services never provided. These people can then funnel the money into vote buying or using their connections to pull in more voters for the candidate who's throwing cash around.
As I said before, street money is a disturbingly common campaign tool in Connecticut, particularly in urban centers like Bridgeport and Hartford. Many campaigns use it and in some places it is conventionally concerned prerequisite to winning. This does not mean that a campaign must have a lot of money in play on the streets to win in Connecticut and I am by no means suggesting that all campaigns use street money. But some certainly do.
There are two things that I find truly disgraceful about street money. This practice is a plague on our democratic process. It endangers the health of our elections. It is corruption, plain and simple. It cuts against every civic principle that I hold dear as a Democrat and an American. Buying votes is a crime and any campaign that does so sacrifices all claims that it might make on moral leadership.
The use of street money in urban, minority neighborhoods is premised on the notion that poor voters, black voters, hispanic voters will only care about politics and elections if you pay them to care. Rather than reaching out to poor, minority voters to engage them in the political process, campaigns treat them like chattel whose voting power can be bought and sold. This bigotry is infuriating and is truly the most contemptible form of political campaigning.
Street money is a sad reality. But is it Joe Lieberman's reality? Did the Lieberman campaign use all or some of their $387,000 in unaccounted for petty cash as street money with no questions asked (and no receipts kept)? What do you know, Joe?
UPDATE
42 USCS §1973i(c)
(c) False information in registering or voting; penalties
Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both: Provided, however, That this provision shall be applicable only to general, special, or primary elections held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
A Hartford Democrat who was fined and barred from involvement in absentee ballot activities last year is working for a company hired by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's campaign to do voter outreach in the city - including the distribution of absentee ballot applications.
Prenzina Holloway was fined $10,000 in July 2005 and ordered not to distribute absentee ballot applications or to assist voters with the ballots for two years, after the State Elections Enforcement Commission found that she had forged a voter's signature in the 2004 election.
Holloway acknowledges working for Urban Voters and Associates, a company paid $17,550 by the Lieberman campaign since September to do "field work." But she said she isn't involved in the company's absentee ballot operations.
"That is just a no-no," she said. "And I know it is a no-no."
But five people at a Vine Street housing complex for the elderly have told The Courant that Holloway and another person came to their doors to give them absentee ballot applications, and a security worker at another complex on Woodland Street said Holloway tried to get into the building to distribute applications there. Holloway was barred from the building after getting into a verbal altercation with the worker after he made supportive comments about Lieberman's main challenger, Ned Lamont.
Other sources at the building said she called back a week later to try to "sweet talk" her way into the facility.
4. Hired goons who are barred from handing out to absentee ballots to hand out absentee ballots in the African-American community.
Please take into consideration all of Lieberman's dirty tricks when you read the rest of the today's article.
[Sherry Brown, manager of the Lieberman campaign] knew Holloway had an elections enforcement issue, but she believed it had been settled. She said the Lieberman campaign did not, however, do any background checks on any company hired to do campaign work.
Holloway committed absentee ballot fraud in the 2004 election when she voted on behalf of, and forged the signature of, at least one voter, according to the State Elections Enforcement Commission. The commission also found evidence that Holloway was in the same room with at least two other voters as they filled out absentee ballots, a violation of state election law.
Holloway was fined $10,000, but because of financial hardship was made to pay only $2,000. She also signed an agreement saying she would "refrain from distributing absentee ballot applications and shall not assist with absentee ballot applications for a period of two years," starting April 1, 2005.
In the agreement, the commission said it has historically treated absentee ballot abusers "very severely," adding that Holloway's violations in 2004 were serious enough to prosecute.
"If [Holloway] in the future is found to have committed violations of this nature again, she will be referred to the chief state's attorney for criminal prosecution, and the maximum criminal penalties shall be sought," the agreement said.
[...]
But Claudia Dismuke, 85, was one of five voters at Mary Mahoney Village on Vine Street who said Holloway and an older man came to their doors several weeks ago to give them absentee ballot applications. Dismuke said she has known Holloway for years.
"She came by with another man," Dismuke said. "She helped me fill it out and then I put the stamp on it. I mailed it in."
Four other residents at Mary Mahoney Village - James Hightower, Olga Morales, Angelito Vazques and Dorothy McKinley - said they did not know Holloway personally but recognized her when shown a picture. All four said Holloway had given them applications.
[...]
The Rev. Albert Bell, who works the security desk at the Betty Knox complex on Woodland Street, said Holloway came to the facility a little more than a month ago to try to distribute absentee ballot applications.
Bell said Holloway was wearing a Lieberman T-shirt, and that when he went outside on a break he approached her at the entrance of Betty Knox to say, jokingly, "Lamont! Lamont!"
"She went ballistic," Bell said. "Just ballistic, and then said some really nasty things."
Race baiting flyers, dishing out 387,000 in COLD HARD CASH, and hiring goons who violate voting laws...what's next?
Lagging in two polls, U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-5th District, made a sweep through Danbury on Monday to rally support in the countdown to Election Day.
Johnson was exuberant as she stood in front of City Hall to accept the support of Gov. M. Jodi Rell and other Republicans.
I wonder if other Republicans include Alan Schlesinger.
Seriously, Johnson is down in all the polls and like Joe Lieberman showed his desperation when begging Bill Clinton for help, Johnson shows her cards when begging Jodi Rell to stand by her side.
What even more laughable was Nancy Johnson not uttering the word Republican once during her stump speech.
Johnson spoke frequently Monday about her similarities with the popular Rell, and never uttered the word Republican.
"We're both street ladies," Johnson said of herself and Rell. "Street ladies aren't governed by parties. I never ran a problem by a political party to find a solution."
Memo to Johnson: people are not going to buy your garbage which is why your losing to Murphy in all the polls.
Jodi Rell didn't vote in favor of the Iraq War.
Jodi Rell didn't vote in favor of illegally wiretapping Americans.
Jodi Rell didn't vote in favor of the god-awful Medicare Part D bill.
Jodi Rell didn't accept campaign contributi...well maybe that's where Rell and Johnson are alike in that way.
Political watchdog group urges Lieberman to come clean on petty cash
Today, the nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog group, Public Campaign Action Fund, sent a letter to Senator Joe Lieberman regarding his nondisclosure of 387,000 in petty cash. Here is the letter in full
October 30, 2006
The Hon. Joseph Lieberman
PO Box 231294
State House Square
Hartford, CT 06123
Dear Senator Lieberman,
Your voting record on matters of campaign finance reform, lobbying and ethics reform, and disclosure has been strong in your 18 years in the U.S. Senate. I applaud your recent signature on the Voters First Pledge to clean up Congress, which is a pledge supported by Public Campaign Action Fund and several other national reform organizations, to clean up Congress.
Unfortunately, this commitment to reform and to open government is now being called into question as a result of your campaign's lack of publicly acknowledging how it spent some $387,561 in petty cash in the primary election.
We understand that this letter comes at a time when you are running a competitive campaign against opponents who have criticized you on this issue. We also recognize that your campaign staff is working long hours communicating with the voters of Connecticut, and that the administrative task of assembling an account of the petty cash may not seem, at first blush, to be as important as other matters.
Yet we believe that this issue, if left unresolved, will not simply impact this election, but also elections to come. No other Senate campaign that we know of has ever left undisclosed to the public a sum as large as this. The Federal Elections Commission does not require that you provide a line-by-line accounting of this for public scrutiny. But in the interests of fairness and protecting the public trust, we urge you to make an accurate accounting of these expenses available for the public to view on its own. That way this matter can be put to rest.
Earlier this year, you were quoted in a newspaper article saying that "history shows that money in government has a way, like water, of finding points of vulnerability. But that doesn't mean we shouldn’t try to strengthen the points of vulnerability so the water can't get through." Before you set a historically significant precedent of opening up a serious breach in the campaign finance disclosure laws, we urge you to account for your campaign's undisclosed spending.
Your admirable record on reform and disclosure - particularly your support for the Voters First Pledge - should be allowed to speak for itself, and not be called into question by the non-disclosure of a substantial amount of campaign spending.
With Election Day just eight days away, it is our hope you will release this information immediately.
Sincerely,
Pete MacDowell
Board Chair
As I stated earlier today, this issue is not going to go away until the Lieberman campaingn allow the public to know how they spent this enourmous amount of money in the span of twelve days prior to the primary.
UPDATE: The Lamont camaign respond to letter urging Lieberman to explain himself.
"The citizens of Connecticut have a right to a senator who follows the law and who comes clean about a slush fund underwritten by Washington lobbyists," said Lamont spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl. "If Senator Lieberman has behaved legally, then he has nothing to hide. But if he does not immediately come clean by following the letter and spirit of the law, he raises serious questions about unethical impropriety that voters have a right to know about before this election."
There is something seriously wrong with this picture and this story is far from over.
Voters in Eastern Connecticut confront an unusual and hard dilemma in this year's congressional race in the 2nd District: The choice between two exceptional candidates set against the background of a close and crucial struggle for control of Congress.
If his performance on bread-and-butter issues in the district were the only criterion, the edge would go to the Republican incumbent, Rep. Rob Simmons. He has been outstanding in his three terms in Washington for his accomplishments for his district, his hard work and his attention to constituents' needs. The Day has endorsed Rep. Simmons enthusiastically since he first ran for the office. He is among the most impressive congressmen to serve this district in decades.
But it is hard to ignore the fact that on important national matters, the newspaper and the congressman are at opposite poles. These issues prominently include the war in Iraq, measures taken in the war on terrorism that infringe on both civil and human rights and fiscal policies that threaten to bankrupt the nation. It is in the self-interest of voters to ask not only whether Congressman Simmons has done a good job delivering the bacon for his district, but also whether they agree with him on issues critical to the well-being of the country. Does he represent their beliefs on where the federal government should be leading the country?
Never mind the decision by Congress to support the entrance into the Iraq War on what turned out to be false premises. Most members of both houses supported that action. But Rep. Simmons and his party have stood by the Bush administration for three years on the conduct of the war despite one fatal mistake after another.
Rep. Simmons can rightly say he has fought to increase submarine production, but he also has supported a foreign policy that has eroded the ability of the country to sustain the Navy's fleet, submarines included. The U.S. is spending about $120 billion a year in Iraq. One of the reasons the Navy is reluctant to move ahead with building the two submarines a year the congressman has been seeking is the cost of the Iraq War. And a good argument can be made that the Bush foreign policy and measures taken in the war on terrorism have complicated the job of defending the national interests abroad.
[...]
A Democratic Congress would moderate the arrogance of this administration and bring about real debate on Bush tax cuts, Medicare drug coverage and other measures railroaded through Congress since 1994. A shakeup in Congress would be a step toward addressing public discontent with that institution among more than three-quarters of the American public.
The simple presence of Rep. Simmons' name in the Republican roll-call, regardless of how often he votes for or against his party, helps sustain the number of bodies the Republicans need to maintain control of the House.
This election, more than most, hinges on issues. It provides voters with the opportunity to change the direction the country is taking under the Bush administration, a course with which polls show more than half the American public is unhappy.
Like Mr. Simmons when he first ran for the office, Mr. Courtney has the potential to be an outstanding congressman. Mr. Courtney, too, had a reputation in the legislature for working hard and taking principled stands. His qualities of integrity, intelligence and good nature mirror those of Mr. Simmons.
Eastern Connecticut has many reasons to be grateful to Rep. Simmons. He played an important part in getting the Submarine Base removed from the base-closing list. He was instrumental in guaranteeing that the Coast Guard museum would be located at Fort Trumbull. His military background no doubt helped him bring about these results and protect the military interests of this region. His office was especially helpful and responsive to constituents.
But there is every reason to believe Mr. Courtney can provide equally good representation, particularly if his party takes control of Congress, as many expect it will. If Mr. Courtney's party does succeed in that, Mr. Courtney and his colleagues will have the opportunity to steer a saner and more promising course for the country than the one it's currently on.
In short, Rob Simmons isn't a bad man personally, he's just part of the Republican rubber-stramp" problem in Washington which has given us such great hits as the Iraq War, TORTURE, illegal wiretapping of Americans, the Terri Shiavo bill, and OF COURSE huge tax breaks for the top 1 percent of Americans.
Lieberman spokeswoman freaks out in front media in Stamford
I'm getting reports from those who were at Joe Lieberman's photo-op with Michael Bloomberg in Stamford this morning that the entire thing was one big fake show complete with planted commuters and annoyed "real commuters."
Apparently team Joementum really know how to put on a show as Liebergoon spokesperson Tammy Sun lashed out and said "bite me" to a person who posed a question to her (all of which happened in front of the media).
After the phony "commuter greeting" Bush and Bloomberg left the train station and returned around 9:30 am for a press conference.
During that time, Tammy Sun sat with two members of her all frigid female club.
When I saw Tammy, I said to her, "Hey is it Tammy Sunrise or Tammy Sunset?'
Tammy responded, "BITE ME."
She found that funny and said I could quote her on it. (A cameraman from the NY TIMES and Daily news were there and a couple of witnesses heard the initial Bite Me comment.)
Tammy also said that I "should get a life." Well part of my life is making sure people have better lives and the best way I know to do that is to get rid of politicians like Joe Lieberman.
At least 80 people were killed or found dead in Iraq on Monday, including 33 victims of a bomb attack on laborers lined up to find a day's work in Baghdad's Sadr city Shiite slum. The U.S. military announced the death of the 100th service member killed in combat this month.
[...]
In other violence gunmen killed hard-line Sunni academic Essam al-Rawi, head of the University Professors Union, as he was leaving home. At least 156 university professors have been killed since the war began. Hundreds, possibly thousands, more are believed to have fled to neighboring countries, although Education Ministry spokesman Basil al-Khatib al-Khatib said he had no specific numbers on those who have left the country.
The explosion in the sprawling Shiite slum of Sadr City tore through food stalls and kiosks at 6:15 a.m. (0315 GMT), cutting down men who gather there each morning hoping to be hired as construction workers. At least 59 people were wounded, police Maj. Hashim al-Yasiri said.
Sadr City, is a stronghold of the Mahdi Army loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and has been the scene of repeated bomb attacks by suspected al-Qaida fighters seeking to incite Shiite revenge attacks and drag the country into full-blown civil war.
Ali Abdul-Ridha, injured on in the head and shoulders, said he was waiting for a job with his brother and about 100 others when he heard a massive explosion and "lost sight of everything."
Three and a half years after the start of this war and October has been on the the bloodiest month's for American forces. Joe Lieberman wants you to believe that "staying the course" is the right action (while avoiding the Iraq war altogether in his stump speeches). For someone who says he wants to talk about the issues, he seems to do all he can to avoid "THE BIG ISSUE." Rob Simmons, Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays are just as responsible for the mess we're in right now in Iraq as they, as well as Lieberman, stubbornly the President's war plan without any oversight.
Lieberman, Simmons, Johnson and Shays: part of the problem in Washington.
Lamont, Courtney, Murphy, and Farrell: the solution.
CT Bob caught up with Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and she explained why people should vote for Ned Lamont over her old friend Joe Lieberman.
It's now been over a week since the Lieberman campaign said they would allow reporters to check their journals regarding the 387,000 in COLD HARD PETTY CASH they spent right before the primary.
To put this into perspective, here's a chart of Lieberman's petty cash spending compared to other politicians during the same eleciton cycle.
First, Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said she wasn't there when it happened:
Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said she wasn't with the campaign at the time of the primary, but her understanding is that there was a staffer in charge of keeping track of petty cash. (NH Register, 10/22)
Then she promised she'd produce the journal detailing petty cash expenditures - one that is required by FEC law:
She said the money was used to cover salaries, food, lodging and transportation for hundreds who were hired to do statewide canvassing. The daily rates ranged from $60 to $75 to $100 for the work, Sun said. She said she would attempt to find the petty cash report by Monday. (NH Register, 10/22)
Then she was "unable to say" why the young workers who assumedly got all this cash weren't listed by name and salary in the FEC report, while their lodging and transportation was:
Sun was unable to say Saturday why the workers, some of whom appeared to have stayed for days or weeks in dormitories at the expense of the Lieberman campaign, were not listed by name and salary. (Courant, 10/22)
Then she hid behind the campaign's lawyer:
"The fact is, our attorney has assured us that the petty cash expenditures and the rest of our FEC report is in full compliance with the law's disclosure requirements just as every campaign Joe Lieberman has run for the last 18 years has been." (AP, 10/23)
Then she reversed herself, said the cash was not used to pay workers, but to pay field coordinators who then threw the cash around to kids:
Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, said today the cash was paid to field coordinators who then distributed the money to workers who canvassed for the three-term incumbent, who's running as an independent candidate after his primary loss to Lamont in August. (Journal-Inquirer, 10/24)
Then she reversed herself, and told reporters they couldn't see the petty cash journal:
Sun declined Monday to allow reporters to examine the campaign's petty cash journal. (Courant, 10/24)
Now, despite promising reporters she would produce records of how almost $400,000 in cash was spent and then suddenly telling reporters they couldn't look at them, and despite still being "unable to say" why the slush fund even existed in the first place, she's calling the whole thing a "kooky conspiracy theory":
"We are in full compliance with the FEC's disclosure requirements, have done nothing wrong, and there's not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. We will not be going beyond the law to release the journal simply because Ned Lamont has some kooky conspiracy theory." (NH Register, 10/24)
If the Lieberman camp think this story is going away, they're sadly mistaken.
The latest sparks came early this week, when the Lamont campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission about nearly $380,000 the Lieberman campaign listed as "petty cash" to pay for volunteers in the final two weeks of the primary. Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for Mr. Lieberman, said the money was used to pay for young workers used in the field operation in the last days of the campaign.
By law, a campaign must keep a journal of petty cash payments of less than $100, but it is not required to make the contents of the journal public. Ms. Sun declined to allow reporters to examine the journal, saying there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Several campaign finance experts said that while the expenditure was an unusually large sum of money to be listed as petty cash, it would be legal as long as each of the payments was less than $100.
But judging by conversations I've had with people within the Lamont camp, it's the Joe Lieberman GOTV effort that's on their minds. Specifically, they're obsessed -- perhaps with good cause -- with the matter of Lieberman's nearly $400,000 in unaccounted for petty cash expenses. Lamont's supporters aren't going to let the matter drop, and staffers, as well as unaffiliated Democratic consultants I've been speaking with, seem to find it genuinely extraordinary.
Commentary from Timothy L. Brennan, treasurer for Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz's election committees from 2004 to this past January.
I recently reviewed Sen. Joe Lieberman's filings with the Federal Elections Committee, in which he reported $387,000 in petty cash that was distributed over the 12 days leading up to the primary.
The problem with a petty cash fund in political campaigns is that it may lead to an appearance of impropriety because these are cash payments to people and for purposes that are not disclosed to the public.
For that reason alone, as treasurer, I never allowed a petty cash fund.
Indeed, such campaign finance laws were passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal to safeguard against President Nixon's practice of maintaining a large secret election fund that was used, usually $100 at a time, for illegal purposes including the break-in and bugging of Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. Disclosure laws also exist to protect the American public from vote-buying and other illicit activities that have the effect of robbing people of one of their most fundamental and constitutional rights: the right to vote. This is why Joe Lieberman's extraordinarily large and secret cash fund has raised suspicions.
Accountability begins with leadership.
Joe Lieberman needs to explain immediately and in detail to whom and for what purposes his campaign spent on average $32,000 a day in unaccounted-for cash in just 12 days.
As Connecticut's former attorney general, Joe Lieberman knows that campaign finance information for public campaigns is neither privileged nor confidential. To the contrary, it belongs to the public. The citizens of Connecticut, as they prepare themselves for an informed vote on Nov. 7, are entitled to an answer.
And now we have the coup de grâce. The case of the missing $387,000 in "petty cash" from Lieberman's campaign account during his primary loss to Ned Lamont, even though no more than $100 is ever supposed to be used for the kind of things petty cash usually buys. Something tells me 3,870 times that amount found its way into securing votes the old-fashioned way.
Joe first said he'd release the full details of where that cash ended up, but now he's decided he won't. The Lamont campaign has already filed a complaint with the FEC, because really, nobody should be allowed to upstage Richard Nixon when it comes to electoral sleaze.
In the days leading up to the primary (when the cash was handed out) the Liebergoons, led by DC lobbyist lobbyist Richard Goodstein, came out in large numbers and disrupted several Lamont events. The goons went as far as creating an ungly incident at Ted's in Meriden as Goodstein and his hitmen screamed in Lamont's face and created a dangerous situation for the people in the resturant.
The next stop is just a few miles away at Ted's, a famous cheeseburger shack in town. Ned greets some supporters on the patio outside, and then we file inside to get our steamed burgers. It's small and crowded in here, and though the drill is to stay as far out of the candidate's way as possible, I get pinned right up against Ned in the crowd. Then, all of a sudden, everyone in the restaurant, in the booths and at the counter, everywhere, simultaneously pulls on a white Lieberman T-shirt. It takes a second to process what's happening. "Oh, my God," Ned says. "It's the Lieber people." They start heckling Ned aggressively, using campaign attack lines about taxes and how for sixteen years, until right before this campaign, Ned belonged to a country club in Greenwich that has almost no black members. Most of Joe's supporters in Ted's are kids, but there's one big bald guy, the only adult among them, who starts a loud, frenzied inquisition right in Ned's face. "Are you a Bill Clinton Democrat or an Al Sharpton Democrat?"
"They're not mutually exclusive," Ned says.
"No, I'm asking. Answer me! Clinton or Sharpton?" Ned tries to answer, but the guy interrupts: "I worked for Abe Ribicoff. He couldn't play golf at your country club in Greenwich!" When Ned starts to turn away, the guy says, "Don't turn your back on me, Ned!
"Let's keep this civil for the last five days of the campaign," Ned says, and he starts making his way among the Lieber kids, shaking their hands again.
The big bald guy is right in my face now. I ask him where he's from, what his role is here, and he shouts and wags his finger and demands my credentials, yelling to the crowd that I'm not a legitimate reporter and I must be with Ned. Suddenly, I realize the goal here is to provoke Ned into overreacting on-camera. And if not him, then someone on his staff. And it's working; I want badly to take a swing at this lunatic, and I'm not even on the campaign. I flash back to yesterday and the Banana Man and the thug yelling at Tom Swan, "Hit me! Do it!"
...and again, here's a videocip of Goodstein and the goon's in action days after the Ted's incident (pay attention to the reporter who questions Goodstein about the Ted's incident).
Goodstein's name was not listed on Lieberman's FEC filing. You think Goodstein came up from D.C. to Connecticut to support Lieberman out fo the kindness of his heart? How much was he paid to put on the freakshow?
Here's a list of Lieberman filed during that time period.
How was this money spent? Where Lieberman's staff walking around cities with suitcases FULL OF CASH and if so, why wasn't this reported (remember, only their lodging and transportation WAS reported, not the insame amount of petty cash they had on them).
The Lieberman camp are trying to cover their tracks and the voters of Connecticut deserve the truth. It's just a matter of time...
Oh man, will this day ever end?
