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

Friday, September 14, 2007

DANGERStein's reaction to Lamont-Lieberman poll: No comment

I guess someone threw up in their mouth a bit and didn't have much to say about the new poll showing his man Joementum losing to Lamont if the GENERAL election was held today.
Dan Gerstein, a key figure in Lieberman's re-election campaign who remains a paid adviser to the senator, said today that after checking with Lieberman's office he had decided to decline comment on the poll.
Maybe we'll have chance to ask Joe how he feels about the new poll when he comes out of his shell and makes an appearance at the Capitol on Monday.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

We told you so!

On the heels of the new poll showing that Ned Lamont would easily defeat Joe Lieberman if the election was held today, David Sirota comes out with a post that should be a must-read for those in the local mainstream media who dropped the ball (you know who you are).
According to a stunning new poll released today by the nonpartisan firm Research 2000, if Connecticut's 2006 Senate general election was re-run and happened today, Ned Lamont would defeat Sen. Joe Lieberman handily. What is of particular significance in the numbers is that the shift is due precisely to the deception that Lamont supporters had been exposing during the campaign - but which reporters refused to cover both during the race and in the post-election analysis. This deception on the issue of Iraq goes straight to how the media and political Establishment will do anything to keep this war going. And the two lessons that come out of this poll after looking at its details are worth remembering.

As the poll shows, if the race were held today, Lamont would garner 48 percent of the vote, Lieberman just 40 percent and Republican Alan Schlesinger would get 10 percent. This represents roughly a 16-18 point swing from the actual results (Lieberman 49, Lamont 40, Schlesinger 10), and according to today's poll, the major shift from Lamont to Lieberman would be among Democratic and Independent voters.

You may recall that in a post-election analysis I wrote for In These Times after working for Lamont, I noted that Lieberman's entire general election strategy was about pretending that, if reelected, he would lead the fight to end the Iraq War. The man literally portrayed himself as the leader of the antiwar movement after he lost the primary. His very first ad in the general election was him looking to camera saying ""I want to help end the war in Iraq." During debates he said "No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do." It was, as a well-known YouTube video showed, a positively Nixonian enterprise by Lieberman - and it was a deliberate effort to confuse precisely the same Democratic and Independent voters who now say they would vote for Lamont. As I reported:
"Our internal polling showed that somewhere between 12 and 15 percent of the population said they simultaneously opposed the war and supported Lieberman's position on the war-a signal that Lieberman's confusion campaign was working."

During the campaign, we did all that we could to point out how Lieberman was lying about his position on the war through as many venues as possible - blogs, candidate speeches, and television advertising making the point that "a vote for Lieberman means a vote for more war" (an ad that Lieberman actually held a special press conference to attack for supposedly being not true). But in the general election's stretch run, the independent validators in the race - the local and national media - refused to report on Lieberman's actual positions and votes continuing to support Bush and the war, and this key slice of Democratic and Independent voters remained confused. They voted for Lieberman because they believed that he perhaps had been pro-war before, but had changed - when in fact the only thing that had changed temporarily was his language, but not his actions.
We told you so...

Lamont would win rematch

From Kos.
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 9/10-12. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)

For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

Lieberman Lamont Schlesinger
49 42 9
Dem 34 62 4
Rep 67 10 23
Ind 53 41 6

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

Lieberman Lamont Schlesinger
40 48 10
Dem 25 72 3
Rep 69 7 24
Ind 38 49 9

Lieberman won 50-40-10 in 2006, so the poll tracks closely. But even if you account for a slight Lamont bias, it still looks like buyer's remorse.


The Research 2000 Connecticut Poll was conducted from September 10 through September 12, 2007. A total of 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone.

Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers. A cross-section of exchanges was utilized in order to ensure an accurate reflection of the state. Quotas were assigned to reflect the voter registration of distribution by county.

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 4% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any subgroup, such as for gender or party affiliation.


Men 283 (48%)
Women 317 (52%)
Democrats 210 (35%)
Republicans 126 (21%)
Independents/Other 264 (44%)
18-29 102 (17%)
30-44 186 (31%)
45-59 180 (30%)
60+ 132 (22%)

QUESTION: For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?


ALL 49% 42% 9%
MEN 51% 38% 11%
WOMEN 47% 46% 7%
DEMOCRATS 34% 62% 4%
REPUBLICANS 67% 10% 23%
18-29 41% 52% 7%
30-44 44% 47% 9%
45-59 54% 37% 9%
60+ 56% 34% 10%

QUESTION: If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?


ALL 48% 40% 10% 2%
MEN 44% 43% 12% 1%
WOMEN 52% 37% 8% 3%
DEMOCRATS 72% 25% 3% -
REPUBLICANS 7% 69% 24% -
INDEPENDENTS 49% 38% 9% 4%
18-29 63% 31% 5% 1%
30-44 54% 34% 11% 1%
45-59 42% 47% 10% 1%
60+ 37% 48% 12% 3%

Seems like some people regret voting for Joementum.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Joe Lieberman: Worse person in the world

I couldn't agree more...

As usual, hat tip to the great Scarce for the clip.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Never forget

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

September 11 2001 is a day I'm sure many residents of Danbury (as well as the nation) will never forget.

I remember that morning when I woke up, made my usual cup of coffee, walked outside to my porch and saw the clearest sky I've ever seen. As usual, I was running behind schedule and scrambling to get ready to work. While ironing my clothes, I was catching up with the morning news (I think I was flipping back between Good Morning America and Today) and laughing at the thought of my friends goofing on me when I walk into the office late.

I can recall going for the remote and just about to press the power button when someone on television broke with the news that "something" hit one of the World Trade Center towers. Now, this happened about a quarter to nine and I didn't see the tower on TV when I turned it off...I just thought some small single engine plane hit the building or something.

I jumped in my car and while I usually listen to Stern in the morning, I tuned to 1010 WINS to find out what was going on and that's when I first learned that something serious happened. By the time I made it to my job, the second tower was hit and it finally hit me...the country was under attack.

I remember going into the office and seeing complete chaos. The internet being completely down (the WTC was a major hub for communications), people on their cell phones trying to get in touch with friends and loved ones who worked in the city, and work coming to a complete standstill. There was no way to get any information except for the radio (we had no TVs in the building) so people walked outside and hovered around cars listening to news reports.

I remember the moment the first tower collapsed and my heart dropped as I realized that a friend of mine worked at the tower from time to time and none of my friends knew whether or not he was at the WTC on that day.

He had a young son and a daughter on the way.

I remember the horrible feeling of emptiness, a dark feeling you get when someone close to you passes away. That blank expression that people get when they’re hypnotized and you don’t know what to do.

By late afternoon, I remember saying “the hell with this”, packing up my things, and left work. I couldn't get any work done...no one could get anything done on that day. My thoughts were on my friend, his family, and all those people who lost their lives. Driving around town, you could see that everyone had the same look of shock and disbelief on their faces. It was like, how could such a beautiful day turn into a nightmare?

I pulled over to a restaurant that had a television and it was there for the first time that I witness with my eyes what I only heard on the radio and it made the situation even worse. The only bright spot of that day was the phone call I got telling me that my friend didn't have to work in the city on that day but he lost a lot of colleagues who never made it out of the building.

That was a brief look at what I remember the most from that day and to be honest, I don't even know why I'm writing this for.

Maybe it's because the memory of that day is fresh in my mind as I watch the memorial service.

Maybe it's because that moment was a turning point in my life when I decided to get more politically active.

Maybe I just wanted to share my feelings with someone who going through the same emotions right now as we remember those who lost their lives six years ago.

Whatever the case, I know in my heart that I'll always recall that experience on that terrible day on every September 11 for the rest of my life. My heart goes out to all those who lost a loved on that horrible day in our country's history. I pray that none of us will never forget and pass on our experience to the next generation who will never know what the beautiful New York skyline looked prior to September 11, 2001.

Monday, September 10, 2007

As Lieberman whines, is anyone listening?

Boy, Joe Lieberman is upset over a MoveOn.org ad?

1. Who didn't see this coming.

2. Does anyone care about anything that comes out of Joe Lieberman's mouth?
Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats, denounced a MoveOn.org ad in Monday's New York Times questioning the credibility of Army Gen. David Petraeus, calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to distance themselves from the attack as well.

“The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today by MoveOn.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- has a solemn responsibility to condemn," Lieberman said in the statement.

“As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to denounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen. Petraeus," Lieberman said. "General Petraeus deserves no less."

In the full-page ad, MoveOn.org questions whether Petraeus would "betray us" by manipulating facts in his much-anticipated progress report. The ad also accuses the general of "cooking the books for the White House" when he delivers his report on Capitol Hill Monday and Tuesday.

Lieberman, who was the target of numerous anti-war groups during last year's contentious Democratic primary, joins Republican leaders in both chambers who uniformly denounced the MoveOn ad Monday.

“Democratic leaders must make a choice today: either embrace the character assassination tactics Moveon.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops in the fight against al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said in a statement.
Ahh, the ol' 9/11 Iraq Al Qaeda card being used again by Lieberman and the war-mongers.

Thankfully, MoveOn.org stands behind their ad.
"We stand by our ad," said Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn's poltical action committee. “MoveOn.org stands by every fact in our ad and challenges Republican Leader Boehner, Senator Lieberman or any other politician to refute our facts.”

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Danbury Democratic Mayoral candidate Helena Abrantes releases new radio ad: "Danbury Can Do Better"

On Friday, Democratic Mayoral candidate Helena Abrantes launched a new radio ad entitled "Danbury can do better" that receiving a great deal of positive feedback from those I talked to at the Taste of Danbury who heard the ad on WLAD.

Outlining her political and business resume, Abrantes presented her vision for Danbury, which centers around "returning vision, hope, respect, and results for Danbury."

Running on the theme of improving the quality of life in the area, in the ad, Abrantes outlines a number of her goal if elected mayor, which includes getting a handle on irresponsible development, addressing traffic concerns including road improvements, reduce rising water and sewer rates while controlling property taxes, and investing more manpower to the police force.

Abrantes also gives a preview of goal views for the environment by announcing the establishing a "Danbury goes green" initiative as well as a realistic open space program.

You can listen to the new radio ad below.