Murphy, who is the chairman of the state’s Public Health Committee, said Johnson does not vote outside of party lines and rarely takes a stand against policies that harm valuable social programs.
"People in the Fifth District are fed up with the Republicans’ drive to destroy health care, Social Security and education," he said, "and Nancy Johnson’s complicity in all that is unexplainable." (Moore)
Not bad. Let's see if it resonates with 5th District voters.
Murphy had been widely expected to throw his hat into the ring following his move across his state senate district from Southington to Cheshire. Cheshire falls within the 5th District, while Southington falls within John Larson's 1st District.
Also in the race is Waterbury alderman Paul Vance, who announced about a week ago.
Keep an eye on the Fifth District Congressional Watch for more.
Source
Moore, George. " Murphy to challenge Johnson in 2006." New Britain Herald 26 April, 2005.
1 comment:
Sen. Murphy has struck me as a strong progressive and a bright guy. He has good, if imperfect ratings from progressive organizations.
Also see his legislative Web site and and his Johnson Watch site.
Thus far, Paul Vance has not impressed me as a progressive. In an interview a few days ago on the Ray & Diane show on WTIC AM, he repeatedly said we need to make Connecticut more “business friendly” and cut state spending. (Let’s set aside why a federal candidate wants to focus on the state budget.) For you Orwell fans, that’s CBIA-speak for cut corporate taxes (more than the hundreds of millions the state cut in the 90s); keep shoveling corporate welfare through hundreds of millions in special tax breaks (which are by policy kept secret by the state); and cut state spending for kids, the poor, the elderly, etc. He had little else of substance to say. I’ve also heard he attended a DLC conference in recent years. We don’t need a Johnson opponent who starts aping her rhetoric right out of the gate.
Parenthetically, he brought up these ideas as the answer to the potential “problem” of CT losing a Congressional seat because of the higher projected population growth of other states. CT’s population is expected to grow 8% by 2030, compared to 51% in South Atlantic states and 65% in Mountain states. Does he think that slashing taxes and modeling our schools and other public programs on Mississippi’s will result in, say, 50% population growth for CT? Is the addition of 1.5 million new residents in a densely populated state plagued by sprawl a desirable outcome? But this isn’t about making any sense, it’s about his appeal to monied interests.
Post a Comment