Windsor Democrats censured Joe Lieberman last night for his stance over the war, even though at least a few of them seemed to agree with him on just about everything else.
Legislative Democrats are readying a huge transportation plan which could include a third lane for I-95 between Old Saybrook and Groton, and the possible completion of Route 11 (again), to name a few. The plan is supposed to be bigger, better and more expensive than the governor's plan.
John DeStefano will be outlining part of a jobs plan today in Hartford.
Kevin Sullivan visited the state police yesterday, and didn't like what he saw.
What else is happening, today?
25 comments:
Maybe Sullivan should spend less time with his surprise 'press jaunt' visits and campaigning for his protegee Murphy and instead try to work on bringing JOBS to Connecticut. so full of crap......
The amount of fundraisers being run by legislators who voted in favor of the campaign finance law is astounding. It's a shame that no one is willing to blow the whistle on these guys...they are absolute dogs. The media needs to stop giving them a free pass.
Nancy Johnson's camp took a hit yesterday, as her choice for majority leader, DeLay protege Roy Blunt, was upset by DeLay's rival John Boehner. We're not holding our breath, however, in anticipation of a meaningful change of direction for the Republicans.
Meanwhile, Johnson continues her pattern of evading responsibility while trying to change the subject. She is rapidly getting a well-earned reputation in the main stream media for avoiding direct questions.
In the last week alone she has ducked both WTNH's Mark Davis and The Litchfield County Times' Scott Benjamin on the controversy over her receipt of some $87,000 in special interests' contributions over just a three week period during which she was championing legislation benefitting those special interests - at the expense of the seniors and taxpayers in CT05 - known as the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.
I'm sure the Hartford Courant will expose all Republicans who had a fundrasier right before the session that supported campaign finance reform. Their pretty good about that.
CT05 Admin-
Thanks for the press release. Since you say "we" I assume you are working for her opponent? Wouldn't this qualify as the typical one sided rhetoric that both camps put out regularly? Also, I assume that means that your candidate WILL NOT be accepting special interedt monies? Oh, unions do qualify as a special interest group by the way.
anon 11:50-
They will and I am sure the Democrats will get a free ride on the same issue.
anon 11:14 - dont get your panties in a bunch because Sullivan is doing something with his position as LG. Just because Rell was either complicit or complacent during her almost decade on the state payroll as Rowland's lap dog and showed the initiative and moral fortitude of a small ball of bellybutton lint doesn't mean that all LG's moving forward should be so bad.
Re: the legislative fundriasing going on right now, both R's and D's are playing by the rules currently in place. And I wont even get into the fact that the whole CFR debate is a sham anyway because it was the state contractors and the Rowland/Rell administration that was the impetus to begin with! BTW - Rell vetoes the contracting reform bill TWICE!!!
And you fools who rely on this insane notion and quiet understanding that the media in CT has a liberal bias should get off of your Bush talking points - The Courant, the Republican American, The JI, TIC, ATR, NHRegister, and ConnPost are all clearly, fiercely and proudly fiscally and socially conservative. The local news doesnt have the guts to be biased either way (in their 4 minutes devoted to actual news a night), and all but the free papers remaining could hardly be called biased in either direction.
Sullivan's right, spending $55,000.00 a month to lease vehicles and park them, is costing this state jobs and wasting taxpayers money.
Leasing these types of vehicles also seems overly expensive, when the State can deal directly with Ford.
Shays is in big trouble in lower Fairfield County - his home base. He backed Blunt, voted to trim entitlements, endorsed a losing candidate in the Darien 1st Selectman race, got caught at a recent library 'meeting' forgetting a co-sponsored bill, appeared weak on immigration in an area where undocumented workers flood the market (see pg 1 Stamford Advocate 2/3-today) and got confused on the effects of recent meedicare legislation, and appeared more interested in national politics than meeting the needs of the locals. He's in for the fight of his political life and he knows it. Could be the year a Democrat knocks him off in a razor tight election.
From the NRCC Today..
The election of Rep. John Larson (CT-01) to the post of Caucus Vice-Chair marks another success for House Democrats in their ongoing effort to create a 'synergy' of hypocrisy within their leadership.
Less than two months ago, during his campaign to become the fourth-ranked House Democrat, Congressman Larson's SYNERGY PAC cut a check for $2,000 to the "Congressman William Jefferson Legal Expense Trust Fund."
Last month, Rep. William Jefferson (LA-02) was implicated by one of his former aides for seeking "bribes, jobs for his children and other favors for providing political support to a company setting up Internet(Los Angeles Times, 1/12/06)
"Congressman Larson is the newest hypocrite on a Democrat leadership team full of them," National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Carl Forti said. "If Nancy Pelosi and her leadership group are going to stand with their ethically questionable members, then they will all go down together."
I love Open Forum.
Deb - You are correct that this year's fundrasing has been astounding. In January alone there were as many fundraisers as there typically is in an entire year. The percentage of Democrat fiundraisers exceeds the percentage of Democrats in the legislature. I also agree that the press tends be biased in favor the Democrats, however there are occassions where the Democrats have been taken to task in the press, for example page C3 of last Sunday's Courant: "Shameless Shakedown - Legislative Democrats Busy Squeezing Lobbyists" by Kevin Rennie
disgruntled_republican - Chris Murphy has already accepted special interest money (union and non-union). At least several of his fundraisers this year have been hosted by so-called special interest groups.
Anonymous - You are correct that legislators are playing by current fundraising rules and I have no real beaf with their current fundraising efforts. My beaf is that they allow the blame for requiring CFR to be put on other groups but take no responsibility for the problem themselves. They are the ones who have been actively soliciting campaign contributions from special interest groups, unions and lobbyists. They need to admit that they have been culpable as well.
"disgruntled republican"
What an odd screen name for someone saying exactly what the proud republicans say.
"Since you say "we" I assume you are working for her opponent?"
As I've said before, neither I nor CT05.net is affiliated with either of the Democratic hopefuls. CT05.net is the current manifestation of what began as a grassroots organizing effort on my part over two years ago to bring some much needed attention to Nancy Johnson's true allegiances and role in the privatization of the US Congress.
"Wouldn't this qualify as the typical one sided rhetoric that both camps put out regularly?"
I fail to see the need for anyone, specifically the media in its various forms, to repeat the lies and distortions put out by the propaganda machine known variously as the RNC, Fox News, Karl Rove, Grover Nordquist, the NRCC, and so on.
What I post here and on CT05.net are my views and information which I am careful to attribute and link to. This is in sharp contrast to the daily talking points memoranda that are faxed directly to the staff of Congresswoman Johnson and other Washington Repblicans as well as their multitude of corporate sponsored "think tanks" and various political entities.
"Also, I assume that means that your candidate WILL NOT be accepting special interedt monies? Oh, unions do qualify as a special interest group by the way."
Your fixation on the unions is laughable. In fact, I am laughing right now. Nothing about CT05.net has anything whatsoever to do with the unions. And if you pay attention, you'll notice that I am hardly the darling of the New Left around here.
Defending Nancy Johnson and the status quo and attempting to portray Connecticut's printed press as left-leaning is just asinine, and betrays a dependence on the kind of "Rush room" dittohead mentality that passes for political discussion in Republican circles.
Shays has 900K in the bank. Johnson has 2.2m . I don't think either of them are sacred of being knocked out in a "razor tight race".
Oh and CT admin...way to win people over!
The fundraisers this year are not a liberal or conservative, democrat or republican issue, it is a systemmic problem rooted deep in leadership in both houses and both parties. Who knows when it will improve, but, if you think that campaign finance reform will successfully stop the ugly quagmire that is fundraising in CT you are sorely mistaken.
Special interests, which, by the way, is every interest, have their place in the old gold dome. Lobbyists, their clients, their interests and their families are not the issue. Out of all of the problems this state has seen over the past 5-10yrs, not one lobbyist is in jail. But, the liberal/conservative/bias/un-biased/democrat/republican media refuses to report that...One day, some lobbyist or special interest groupie will retire and be set finacially and personally and will blow the whistle on the way the State House and Senate are run. Until someone doesn't have repurcussions over their head for speaking up; same ole' shi* different day.
CT05 Admin-
Perhaps you should slow down and get off your high horse. I have been a regular posting on here but have been away for a bit so you will have to forgive me for not being aware of your affiliation sir. Now, read your post and tell me how any reader would think that "we" would not be refering to Chris Murphy & co.
Further more my handle is referring to this state and country as a whole and the political climate as a whole (If you look back at most of my previous posts, you will find this to clearly be the case). While I am Republican I am not your "typical republican". Again, this can be proven by looking back at previous posts.
As for my special interest comments, clearly you support Mr. Murphy. I have no opinion, I am in the 2nd district. All I am saying is you as an obvious Murphy supporter should not be critizing Johnson for taking special interest monies when the candidate you clearly support has too. Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?
I do feel that Johnson has been there a bit too long. I feel the same about Shays and DeLaro...I am in favor of term limits if you couldn't tell.
As for my unions comment, if they aren't special interests then what are they?
You say, "Nothing about CT05.net has anything whatsoever to do with the unions". Again, reading your original post, how would I know that you we posting on behalf of you webisite? At this point, read your original post again.
You then state: "Defending Nancy Johnson and the status quo and attempting to portray Connecticut's printed press as left-leaning". Nowhere in my post did I say anyhting of that nature nor have I ever tried to potray the connecticut media as left-leaning. I for one find them balanced on most stories. If you are referring to my comment to anon what ever the hgell time it was, I am simply stating that is the way it seems to happen. Am I wrong? Additionally, in the future I would ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Oh and I hate Rush...please dont ever compare anyhting I say to him...much obliged.
Oh, one last thing...don't you think that the Murphy campaign has talking points too? Any well run campaign does. After all, these things are all an act, aren't they?
Branfordboy,of My left nutmeg, was in attendence of the Windsor DTC meeting (I was too) and His story was Frontpaged at DailyKos.
Reading the Courant story it is obvious that the "reporter" got his quotes before the meeting and bolted.
How sad he didn't even know the second resolution,which was a laundry list of Liebermans supposed sins,was tabled and may well be rought up at the next meeting.The courant proved again they do "call in Journalism".
4.7% unemployment
I thought everything was terrible under Bush?
Blumenthal getting into the race...? I'll believe it when I see it.
What do you say, Lamont supporters? Would you back Blumenthal?
disgruntled_republican said...
"... I have been away for a bit so you will have to forgive me for not being aware of your affiliation..."
Fair enough. Let's call it a genuine misunderstanding on both our parts.
"...my handle is referring to this state and country as a whole and the political climate as a whole ..."
Again, fair enough. You will grant, however, that the dominant influence has been the increasingly well-funded and increasingly disciplined and focused Republican Party and affiliates, I hope?
"...how would I know that you we posting on behalf of you webisite?..."
Because of the links to the website, and the screen name. When I post on other topics, I do it under my own name, btw.
"You then state: "Defending Nancy Johnson and the status quo and attempting to portray Connecticut's printed press as left-leaning"..."
Again, valid point - I got a bit lazy there and addressed a couple other posts in the thread without setting them off. Kinda committed the same sin I was criticizing you for.
However,
"...After all, these things are all an act, aren't they?...
This again deflects the criticism and attempts to make the messenger the issue. Rather O'Reilly-like, I hope you'll consider.
"...All I am saying is [that] you as an obvious Murphy supporter should not be critizing Johnson for taking special interest monies when the candidate you clearly support has too. Sorta like the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?"
No, I wouldn't. And this is where your argument veers off course. My efforts predate Murphy's and Vance's candidacies. Either of them (or their staff) will readily confirm, I trust, that I am in no sense actively working for them.
But the real point, the one that sets me off, is that you are (unintentionally, since you've insisted otherwise) then lumping me and by implication anyone else who criticizes Nancy Johnson and intends to see her retired from office together as mere self-interested partisans.
There is a fundamental difference between an officeholder who has, in effect, gone on the payroll of an industry for whom you are drafting and championing legislation that funnels tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of specific corporations and into the pockets of your contributors, and what can fairly be described as legitimate political donations.
Murphy did put out a substantive and well-researched allegation, and it is fair to notice that I did not ignore it.
Neither should you.
This just in....FEDS transfer ex-Governor Rowland to "Al-Salaam Boccaccio 98" to finish out his term!
deanfan84
Which Aide? Given Blumenthal's opt out of the governor's office, at his age, there may be not other opportunities?
I heard Ed Marcus is a "Lieberman Dem", lol.
The Obama thing doesn't make sense- I think Obama choose Lieberman as his mentor in the Senate? I think he also coosponsored that ethic reform bill last week along with Fiengold.
To 1:13pm person on Shays, Johnson -
If you think it's just a money game then you'd be right. If you think Farrell can't raise the money, you'd be on target. Guess what...Farrell has already raised a fair amount and she did not have the advantage of a complete year while serving as 1st S. in Westport. And also -- don't you think the Dem/Rep parties are going to spend a fair amount as well. I do. One more thing to consider - Shays backed the losing guy in the House race and will have to pay a price- no tickie-no stichie as they say and no support - no $$ from the House fund. Also - my friends in Darien say he blew off his old friends ands ended up backing a looser who got walloped and lost to a Dem who won 60% of the vote in a town that boasts a Rep base of sizeable numbers- more than 2/3's of the registered voters.
Post a Comment