Thursday, March 09, 2006

Six Questions for Senator Joe Lieberman

The following are the answers to six questions I recently submitted to Sen. Joe Lieberman. I'd like to thank the senator and his campaign for their assistance.

Q: I'm sure you're well aware of the well-publicized potential campaign of Ned Lamont of Greenwich, whose focus is opposition to the Iraq War. What do you think of Mr. Lamont and the prospect of a Democratic primary? Are you concerned?

A: The good people of Connecticut have elected me to represent them three times and I hope I have earned their support a fourth time. But I do not take anything for granted and I intend to continue to work hard to earn that support. I am accustomed to having opponents and I am ready for any challenge. I play to win – every time.

Q: If there is a primary, which is looking more and more likely, what reasons can you give Connecticut Democrats to vote for you instead of Mr. Lamont, former Gov. Weicker or another antiwar candidate?

A: Before I was even an elected official, back in the early 1960s, I went to Mississippi to help in the fight for voting rights for African Americans. It’s who I was, am, and will always be. For almost 18 years now, I have been a fierce advocate for the people of Connecticut, and I’ve been fighting for the progressive principles that are the foundation of the Democratic Party for more than 40 years. I have taken on a lot of tough fights—to save jobs, to secure funding for local projects, and to protect our environment. But there is still more to do. The future of the Long Island Sound is at stake, local jobs are being threatened by big corporate mergers and overseas competition, women’s privacy rights are under siege, our school children are being shortchanged by the Republican majorities in Washington, and this Administration and Congress have been relentlessly assaulting the basic rights of working men and women to organize and bargain collectively.

Let me be clear on the issue of Iraq. Like everyone, I want to bring our troops home. But, in order to do that, we have to establish a functioning and democratic Iraq - as opposed to the despotic dictatorship that once represented a dire threat to the Middle East, and the rest of the world. At this particular stage, our troops are essential to achieving that goal but I believe that substantial troop reductions can occur this year as Iraqi security forces become more capable and the new Iraqi government assumes the responsibility for governing Iraq.


Q: Many Democrats in Connecticut, including the Manchester town committee, are perplexed by your continuing support for the war. Is there anything you can say to these Democrats to win back their support?

A: In my many decades of public service I have always been guided by my core values and tried to do what I think is right for Connecticut and right for the country. That sometimes means that I am going to make decisions that others on the left or right don't agree with, and I respect the diversity of their opinions.

I’m going to say to people who disagree with my position on the war, “Let’s talk about it and I’ll hope you’ll conclude, whether you agree with me or not, that I’ve been talking about this for a long time now because I sincerely believe it is the right thing for our country.”

I also hope and expect that Connecticut’s Democrats will consider the totality of my service to Connecticut and to the Party, rather than basing their opinions on our differences over one issue. The Democratic Party has always had diversity and inclusiveness as part of its core beliefs and that value is one of the reasons I’ve been proud lifelong Democrat. Our Party is not, or should not be, about litmus tests on any particular issue, including the war in Iraq.

Q: Democrats have failed to win control of either the House, the Senate or the White House for three successive national elections. In your mind, what must the party do to be successful in 2006?

A: If Democrats are ever going to want to get back in power we’ve got to come up with a positive constructive program, particularly on security. We are going to have to reassure the American people that that Democrats will use the power of our government to protect people’s security in a dangerous age. National security is what government, particularly the federal government, is about before anything else and unless we reassure them, the public is never going to listen to us on everything else, including a lot of stuff that I think they agree with Democrats on such as investing in education, ensuring universal access to health care, and protecting the environment.

Q: You voted against the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, but did not support a filibuster attempt. Why? Do you still believe that this was the right course of action to take?

As I said in my floor statement to announce my opposition to the nomination, I reviewed Judge Alito’s lengthy record I was left with profound doubts about whether he will protect and advance the Supreme Court’s constitutional role as the single institution in our government that our Founders freed from popular political passions so that it could protect the rights our founding documents give to every American. Personal freedom and equal opportunity are America’s core ideals, and our Courts have been and must be the great advancers and protectors of those ideals. The accumulation of his personal statements during the 1980s when he was a government attorney, and his 15 years of judicial opinions, caused me to fear that Judge Alito will diminish the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate guarantor of individual liberty in our country.

As you know, I did vote for cloture on Judge Alito’s nomination. As part of my agreement with the Gang of 14 I agreed to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances. Though I strongly opposed Judge Alito’s nomination, I did not find that the situation met the extraordinary circumstances threshold. Unfortunately, it was clear the nomination was going to pass and I felt it was time to move on to other Senate business that affects our state.

Q: Do you believe military action will be necessary against Iran?

Well, I think most of the world agrees that the security and stability of the world are threatened by Iran’s program to develop nuclear weapons. For two years, the EU – in coordination with the U.S. -- has engaged in a vigorous and conscientious engagement with Iran. Unfortunately, the Government of Iran has responded by reneging on multiple treaty obligations and other pledges, and continuing to push forward with their nuclear program.

Of course all options for dealing with Iran’s quest to develop nuclear weapons should remain on the table. But there are diplomatic and economic options that should be our priority and that can succeed. Given the recent agreement among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council that Iran will be “reported” to that body, I urge our respective governments to pursue vigorous measures under UN auspices to induce Tehran to abandon its aspiration for a nuclear arsenal. However, should the efforts at the United Nations fail, then we in the transatlantic community must be ready to apply a cohesive regime of sanctions against Iran in an economic coalition of the willing.

We must engage in more vigorous outreach to the Iranian people, who hear only the official drumbeat of a nuclear program as a source of national pride. We must support more energetic assistance to pro-democracy dissidents inside of Iran, and the dedication of far more resources for broadcast and electronic outreach to the Iranian people, who by all accounts, remain alienated from the fanatical clique that rules them.

(Note: These questions were submitted by myself and answered by Sen. Lieberman between 1/24/2006 and 3/9/2006.)

95 comments:

TrueBlueCT said...

GC--
You are giving Joe a free ride. Why won't he come and answer questions from the public, like the other candidates did?

Speaking of the public, when is Joe's next public appearance? What does it mean when he won't, (or probably can't), have an open public forum to speak with his constituents about the war, and some of his other stances on the issues?

CTRepublican said...

I have to say that I respect Joe and his team for responding to GC.

I've never been a Joe Lieberman fan, but in the wake of his failed nationwide bids, I think he may have run the gauntlet and come out a statesman after all. He is a liberal, and I hold that against him. But his pragmatism is honorable nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

trueblue, Joe's next public appearance is 11:30 Friday morning at the Mark Twain House.

The League of Conservation voters is endorsing him.

Not exactly a public forum. But it is a public appearance.

tparty said...

The "single issue candidacy" meme needs to stop now.

Lieberman has failed Connecticut Democrats on any number of issues: on national security, on Iraq, on judicial nominations, on Terri Schiavo and the "right to life" case, on approving Bush's tax cuts, on selling out Democrats on Social Security, on school vouchers... do you need more?

Still, his abdication of Democratic values on all of these issues isn't the most salient issue here. Neither is the fact that Joe Lieberman has never had to defend his record to Connecticut Democrats.

What is even more important is not THAT Lieberman disagrees with Democrats, but HOW he does it. He gave away the party's advantage on the creation of the Homeland Security Department, which directly led to losses in the 2002 midterms. He tried to give away the party's advantage on Social Security, which could have led to privitazation. He is either politically naive or politcally devious. Either way, he hurts the party, and he hurts Democrats.

I respond to more of Joe's answers at LamontBlog.

I have sent my post as an email to him and hope he will respond to me.

s p a z e b o y said...

Let's get Joe on here, or some other forum, perhaps to take some questions that aren't worded so much in his favor. He wants to earn some support, I don't think dodging a live Q&A is a good way to earn it. If he hasn't dodged a live Q&A, why haven't you invited him to one. Ned came online. (I don't believe that the comments section of a blogspot blog is the best place for a "live" Q&A)

Regarding question 1, the focus of the Ned Lamont campaign cannot be fairly characterized as "opposition to the Iraq War." The catalyst for Ned's run, as he has said many times, was Joe Lieberman's feature in the Wall Street Journal titled "Our Troops Must Stay"

Regarding Senator Lieberman's answer to question 2, where he states, "I want to bring the troops home," has he changed his mind since November when his WSJ piece was published? I'm sorry, I interrupted Senator Lieberman, he goes on to say, "But... ...significant troop reductions can occur this year..." Oh can they? Pretty please?

Regarding Senator Lieberman's response to question 3, I must say that he really has been talking about regime change in Iraq for a long time. So have many Democrats, all of which have realized that they were wrong. Regardless what his heart says, Joe Lieberman is wrong on Iraq, and I find it condescending that he expects those of us who realize what a great folly this war is to "conclude...that I’ve been talking about this for a long time now because I sincerely believe it is the right thing for our country." Why should anyone trust Joe Lieberman's gut feeling (which he has foolishly stuck to for so long) over their own analysis of the facts?

Regarding question number 4, what is Joe Lieberman's plan for national security? To support the Bush administration at every turn? To be George W. Bush's favorite Democrat and sole supporter of the recently unraveled deal that would turn over control of U.S. ports to a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT with ties to two 9/11 hijackers? Joe Lieberman, I hope that if you're reading this, that you'll conclude that whether we agree or disagree, I've been writing about these things for a long time.

Also, about Democrats winning, what has Joe done lately to win elections for Democrats in Connecticut? I'm asking, because I don't know. If he has done something, it must not have worked.

Now we're at Senator Lieberman's response to question number 5. He wouldn't filibuster unless there were extraordinary circumstances...per his agreement as part of the "gang of 14". Where do Joe's loyalties lie? President Bush? The Republican Party? The Gang of 14? Or the State of Connecticut? If he really felt that Samuel Alito was not right for America's highest court, why did he vote for cloture, knowing full well that his vote against Alito was more valuable as a vote against cloture?

As far as question six, Joe feels that all options are on the table. I haven't the time nor space to respond to that. Plus, it's getting chilly in here, must be a draft.

And Joe had 6 weeks to fill out this questionnaire? Between 1/24/2006 and 3/9/2006? I think he could have done better. Then again, 18 years is long enough for someone to be in the Senate.

MikeCT said...

Good questions and predictable reponses by Joe. In case anyone missed it, Lamont is formally announcing on Monday.

Also Politics TV (an "Internet TV network") has video clips of its interview with Lamont, and also an interview with Chris Murphy. (For Murphy, click on the "Full Clip" link to see the entire interview.)

TrueBlueCT said...

Questions for Joe:

Is Sean Hannity really a "wonderful American", and how do you reconcile your friendship with Sean and the hate-filled bile he spews?

Do you regret your comments in support of the Terri Schiavo intervention by Congressional Republicans?

Will you die a Democrat, or is there a chance you might quit the Party? (you hinted that you would be on the November ballot, one way or the other.)

Your house in New Haven is for sale. Where do you intend to live during your next term?

Are we in another Vietnam? What if Iraq isn't winnable? (the Humpty-Dumpty principle.) At what point do we admit a mistake?

Hamas just won the Palestinian elections. Do you think our occupation of Iraq played a part in the extremists' rise to power?

What do you think of Saudi Arabia, and their repressive regime? Should we be pressuring them towards Democracy?

Torture! Is it an American value? If not, how do you square your vote in favor of Alberto Gonzales confirmation?

Are all the Gitmo detainees guilty? Shouldn't there be some system of due process?

The Bankruptcy Bill. You voted for it before you voted against it. Why didn't you join the filibuster attempt when so many Democrats were strongly against it?

Anonymous said...

Joe Lieberman is a good Senator. As a Republican is dificult for me to say that but he has stood side by side with the President of the United States on the war unlike his cut and run friends. Yes, Joe is willing to stand up for something he believes in even when some in his party oppose him. This year, as a loyal Republican I will vote for Joe Lieberman.

Anonymous said...

GC, nice job

Hey all you Nedaholics, like 'em apples from Texas....Cuekkar and DeLay win the same day

s p a z e b o y said...

In response to truebluect's questions, there's no way Joe would ever answer them.

In defense of our host here, Genghis Conn, I can see why one would ask questions that Joe is likely to answer.

Then again, the fact that Joe Lieberman took all of 6 weeks to give answers to 6 questions does not impress me, nor should it impress anyone else.

Here are the questions posed to Ned Lamont:

1. For our readers who don't know much about you, please introduce yourself. What's your background? What experience do you have in politics and government?

2. What specific policy differences do you have with Senator Lieberman (including and beyond the war)? In short, why should Democrats vote for you instead of him, should you run?

3. You've mentioned health care as a priority. As a businessman, why would you support universal health care? Would you favor a Canadian-style system, or something different?

4. What level of support have you received from Democrats and ordinary citizens? Have you received pledges of support from local, state or national Democrats or other political figures?

5. Several political observers have said that winning a primary against Lieberman is impossible. Given his huge fundraising advantage, and his generally good numbers, how do you plan on defeating him?

6. When do you plan on making your intentions known?

All of those are pretty fair questions. They're fair to Ned Lamont and they're fair to Senator Lieberman. Also, the questions aren't as leading as the ones in this Q&A, the first two of which erroneously frame Ned Lamont as an "antiwar candidate" instead of a Democratic Candidate.

Ned Lamont is a Democrat for Senator. If Lieberman is not referred to as a "pro-war" candidate, it is unfair to refer to Ned Lamont as an "anti-war" candidate. I expect better from a self-declared political moderate unaffiliated with either party.

Also, what's up with all the anonymous commenters supporting Joe? Is it so hard to sign up at blogger.com and put a name with your opinions?

tparty said...

"unlike his cut and run friends"

Like William F. Buckley?

Like George Will?

Like 60% of the American public?

Like 72% of our troops in Iraq?

That's alot of "cut-and-run friends."

This year, as a loyal Republican I will vote for Joe Lieberman

Yep, Lieberman's core support is pretty much limited to loyal Republicans these days. Too bad he has to run in a Democratic primary...

ctblogger said...

Anon 7:23 Texas+open primary=Republicans voting in a Democratic primary; Connecitcut+closed primary=Democrats only.

TrueBlueCT said...

The League of Conservation Voters is endorsing Joe?

But what about this?

2005 LCV rating-- 70%
2004 LCV rating-- 56%
2005 LCV rating-- 42%

Hell, both Simmons and Shays score better over the same time period.

Obviously, when Joe got scared and flip-flopped on Broadwater and their Long Island Sound project, Joe was smart enough to simultaneously cut a deal with the League. (Will you endorse me if I vote against Broadwater?)

MikeCT said...

TrueBlue,

True story from circa 1992: A friend was talking with a staff person from the League of Conservation Voters in DC and asked them why they endorsed a conservative Dem with a poor environmental record (by their own measure). The League staff person said, "Yes, people at the grassroots don't understand that. But we understand that here."

Anonymous said...

trueblue---

VoteSmart got the LCV scores for Joe slightly wrong. 70% in 2005 is correct, 56% is for 2003-2004, and he got an 88% in 2001-2002. Go to www.lcv.org to check their scorecard.

In 2003-2004, I seem to recall he was busy running for something or other up in New Hampshire and missed a lot of votes which probably dragged his vote down a bit...

Shays does have a more consistent record on environmental issues than Joe. But no way can you give Simmons the same credit. His pro-enviroment votes always seem to come only after Republican leadership determine that they don't need his vote.

But just watch. LCV is bound to be spineless and endorse Simmons instead of Courtney. After all, this is the same outfit that endorsed Bill Aniskovich back in 2002.

Anonymous said...

A bunch of CT Fund for the Environment staff and board members are also on the LCV board. Since CFE endorsed Joe when he flip-flopped on Broadwater, it makes sense that LCV would also endorse him.

LibertarianFreak said...

Yeah, LCV is a bunch of nitwits. (In Connecticut. Their D.C. staff are a lot smarter than they used to be.)

But what interests me here is that Joe is pandering for the treehugger endorsements so early. Sounds like someone's got him scared.

Genghis Conn said...

For those of you who think I was "too easy" on Sen. Lieberman: I was just as tough on Ned Lamont, when I asked him six questions two months ago. I've done my best to be fair to both sides.

The purpose of the Six Questions series is not to entrap, harass or berate candidates: it's to allow them to speak their positions on issues we care about, so that voters can make up their minds about who would best represent them.

I suggest reading the Ned Lamont interview for purposes of comparison.

Anonymous said...

You know what Spaze boy- this is what your profile says:

Profile Not Available

The Blogger Profile you requested cannot be displayed. Many Blogger users have not yet elected to publicly share their Profile.

If you're a Blogger user, we encourage you to enable access to your Profile.

So shut the F^ck up.

Ronald Regan said...

GC, Don't pay attention to a few critics. You can't please everyone. You did a nice and fair job with Ned and Joe...Please, keep up the good work.

s p a z e b o y said...

"Secondly, I'd like to remind everyone to try and refrain from malicious personal attacks. We all disagree around here, but there's no reason to bash other posters."
hmm...

Also, I should thank Ghengis for getting Joe to answer some questions. Like I said before, I can see why he would ask questions that Joe will actually answer. It gives those of us who disagree with Joe an opportunity to do so...though Joe himself will likely never read it.

tparty said...

If I didn't make it clear, GC, I think your questions to both candidates have been very fair and on the whole very good (although I did take issue with your assertion that the Lamont campaign's "focus is opposition to the Iraq War," which is really just a Lieberman talking point).

It's Lieberman's answers I have problems with, not your questions.

I very much appreciate your interviews with both candidates. I hope Sen. Lieberman will come on for a Q&A with commenters at some point as well.

M said...

Why is Joe the only er um "democrat" receiving GOP-type contributions from the pharmaceutical industry? Is there a conflict of interest if say, he holds stocks, his wife works with Pfizer and he responds to lobbyists with a series of legislation, so that you know, like, Pfizer can extend their patent on the epilepsy drug Neurontin? Doesn't letting the pharm companies spike their prices and extend patents contribute to the rising cost of healthcare that he "deplores" so much?

See I am just an average citizen, so . . . we could all benefit all benefit from one of those bon mots that you are so good at, Joe.
P.S. You did your darndest to back the preznit on that UAE deal. So Sorry, things didn't work out.
But hey! Who said the path to hell is paved with political opportunism?
Also people on the blogosphere are calling you coathanger Joe because of your *role* in the Alito filibuster and the recent legislation in South Dakota and Mississippi. Does that hurt your feelings, or do you kind of like it because you are only nominally prochoice anyway, and like hanging out with such luminaries as Jerry Falwell, Santorum? Love the Save the Jews for Jesus infomercial by the way. How come you had your staff do a scrub. Your hair looked nice.

By the way Joe, if you have to enter the private sector sometime soon, I suggest you (1) work as a lobbyist for the pharm industry or insurance, or (2) convince Israel to let Pat Roberts** develop his Jesus playground there, so that you and all your End Time buddies can get the ball rolling. It must be hard coming out of the closet as a neocon in a blue state.

Anonymous said...

Lieberman smarmed his way through those questions. He's so good at stonewalling constituents.

Anonymous said...

We must engage in more vigorous outreach to the Iranian people, who hear only the official drumbeat of a nuclear program as a source of national pride. We must support more energetic assistance to pro-democracy dissidents inside of Iran, and the dedication of far more resources for broadcast and electronic outreach to the Iranian people, who by all accounts, remain alienated from the fanatical clique that rules them.
Yes, the people of Iran who are living in relative prosperity and comfort to those of Iraq, who see nothing but death day by day, brutal oppression, military regime and civil war. Read Reading Lolita in Tehran , Joe. If you don't cry your heart out over the idea that any kind of comfort & stability will be shot to hell and that literature lovers will be torn the bits by "preemptive strikes" or war, than you are (1) morally deaf, or (2) completely inhumane and icecold. By the way, Joe, many people in Iran have satellite dishes. If they're listening, they're not running in the direction of the U.S. whether they want democracy or not. That was all shot to hell with Abu Gahraib among other things.

TeddySanFran said...

I would like to know more about the questions and how they were developed. Were the questions submitted as is six weeks ago and only just answered? Or was there some negotiation with Sen. Lieberman over the form and content of the questions? What form did that discussion take?

I think in the interest of transparency and fairness, modifiers like "anti-war" should not be used by the blogger in formulating the questions. Ned Lamont is not a one-issue candidate and Sen. Lieberman should have been called on that.

Perhaps it would be wise to develop a set of questions submitted to each candidate, with the opportunity reserved to ask one followup.

That said, thank you for doing this work and posting it for all to read. Your commenters have valuable suggestions -- myself I exclude from this evaluation -- and I recommend you incorporate their ideas.

But what do I know? Look who MY senators are!
=

Anonymous said...

TeddySanFran,
you are absolutely, Lamont is not a one issue candidate. In fact there are so many issues, where to start?

John Nowicki said...

Feh...here's the latest from Joe.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2006/03/09/news_6145659.html?part=rss&tag=gs_&subj=6145659

Yes, that's right...ol' Censorship Joe is ringleading a plan to burn $90M investigating computer games.

Body armor for the troops he voted to send off into gunsights? Don't have the money.

Rebuild New Orleans? Don't have the money.

Teach those bastards at "Rockstar Games" a lesson for making "Grand Theft Auto"? Joe can't write a check with our money fast enough.

It's time to send Joe to cash in his bankruptcy bill earned markers with the financial lobbying industry. This demonstrates he can't be trusted in office anymore.

Anonymous said...

I was shopping at Danbury mall last week when two old people with clipboards handed me a flyer calling on chris murphy to give back illegal campaign donations. something about him violating ct law against taking money from lobbyists while legislature in session. anyone know anything abotu it? i refused to sign something they shoved in my face, but from looks of it a lot of people did sign....not good if murphy is doing this. i thought he was different...

turfgrrl said...

Lieberman's position on regulating "violence" in games is a long held one, and one that I "violently" disagree with. Lieberman has a bad habit of thrusting his moral issues over competence and thinking that the government should be in the business of regulating entertainment. Sadly, his position is a popular one in Connecticut with our hoards of nanny state supporters. I don't see this issue being a negative for him.

Anonymous said...

tuffgirrl,
at the cost of 90Million$$$$? when there is no money for . . .
body armor, rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuilding New Orleans, for our school systems, medicare, social security, for port security, & for senior citizens who can't afford prescriptions, etc. . . . Let's ask *who* would benefit from this legislation first, and at the cost of whom? Is it a pork deal, or is some kind of pecksniffery involved? Let's ask all this, so the soccer moms have more info to chew on.

Anonymous said...

Nanny state=Out of date. Government Paternalism = next step to totalitarianism.

Anonymous said...

I think the questions were fair and the responses were predictable. I respect Lieberman and voted for him twice in 2000.

But as sincere as his views are, they are not those of his constituents. They people in this state and this country want us out of Iraq. For Joe to say, "Hey, I can ignore the people whenever I want to," is just not acceptable.

Finally, if the Senator believes that Iraq is just a single issue, that shows how utterly disconnected he is from reality. Are you relatives heading out to Iraq, Senator Lieberman? My cousin is heading there now. I find little comfort in your assertion that our soldiers' lives are just part of a "single issue."

Also, I find it very disturbing that the only positive comments on Joe's answers seem to be coming from the Republicans.

Senator Lieberman, I was once a proud supporter of yours. Since 2000, you have become Sean Hannity and Fox New's favorite Democrat. They count on you to reliably disparage your own party. When some of your best friends are neocons, but more and more Democrats are not, and when you begin to criticize your fellow active Democrats as "hard left" while praising your Republican opponents, when you pre-endorse McCain over any 2008 Democratic candidate for President, it seems less and less logical that you are in this party.

If you want to be a Republican, please join them. I respect that. But don't pretend you're a Democrat.

Anonymous said...

When will you attend a funeral in Connecticut for those killed in Iraq?

(If you have the guts to send troops their, honor and respond to the family's grief when their bodys are returned.)

Anonymous said...

in response to teh Chris Murphy question, the answers is yes. There is a state law that says an elected offical can't solicicite funds while in session, Murphy has a loop hole, the money is for a congressional run.
He is going against the spirit and the intent of the law. My understanding is most of the money he is raiseing is coming from groups needing something from him as a senator.

MightyMouse1 said...

So Murphy calls for Johnson to be ousted in the name of reform, but chooses to cut corners around campaign finance law?

Sounds like a great candidate, someone who will fit in great in Washington!

MightyMouse1 said...

Lamont is not a single issue candidate? RIGHT.

Anonymous said...

MightyMouse1,
Please by all means explain how antiwar, prochoice, healthcare and civil rights issues are *one* single issue. I think you oversimplify yourself. Do you like coathangers?

Anonymous said...

re: murphy taking lobbiyst contributions - there actually isn't a law stating that a candidate can't solicit during session. the law just forbids soliciting from certain pacs run by lobbyists i think. not sure if murphy has taken that kind of money or not.

Anonymous said...

do the republicans seriously want to have a conversation about who takes special interest money??? we all know nancy is one of the top recepients of pharmaceutical money in the ENTIRE country, and she takes that money while she's in session (and always has). if nancy wants to have that conversation i'm sure the people over at the murphy camp would welcome it. johnson must really be getting worried about this race if she's coming out negative so early!!!

Anonymous said...

we all know nancy is one of the top recepients of pharmaceutical money in the ENTIRE country, and she takes that money while she's in session (and always has).
And Joe's intake ranks him among the GOP. I think that supposedly hurt Gore in 2000, because sh...the Vice Presidential Candidate is sh . .. .

Anonymous said...

MightyMouse1,
Please by all means explain how antiwar, prochoice, healthcare and civil rights issues are *one* single issue. I think you oversimplify yourself. Do you like coathangers?

Not to mention on compassion, humanity & overall attentiveness to constituent's (not Pfizer CEO) complaints etc. Joe ranks null. Hobnobbing with the religious right, Pfizer, he's there.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:07
I'll direct you to CGS-9-333l(e) where members of the General Assembly are prohibited from receiving money/gifts from lobbyists and PACS formed by lobbyists during the legsilative session. There is no such ban for Congress people so what Murphy is doing (which is totally legal by the way) is accepting money from state lobbyists and lobbyist pacs who have legislation before his Public Health Committee. If you don't want to take my word for it you can check his campaign committee on the FEEC website yourself.

Anonymous said...

wow, i didn't know that murphy was taking lobbyist contributions while chairing the public health committee. going to be tough for him to run against the GOP culture of curruption when he is guilty of the same sins. seems like it will also be difficult or murphy to raise money after session is out if those lobbyists no longer have business in front of his commttee

Anonymous said...

guys, please lets not eat our own young here. the point is that we should be trying to help the guy knock off nancy. once she is in as ways and emans chair it will be another 6 years until we even have a shot. let's get behind chris murphy... the poor kid is getting no respect. i heard that he was at the sikorsky strike yesterday and they wouldn't even let him speak! w need to treat our pro-union candidates better than that... they let shays speak but not murphy, who is 100% pro-union?

Anonymous said...

Johnson gets donations from special interests. From his web site, a press release Murphy says" That was bad enough. But now we have learned that she was raking in contributions from the drug and insurance industries at exactly the same time as she was shepherding this bill through the House. In Nancy Johnson’s Washington, that’s business as usual."


Now look at Murphy's contribution lists, heavy on Healthcare interests and lawyers. Is is a surprise that he is the chair of the Public Health committee?? I guess in Murphy's Hartford, that's business as usual."

Anonymous said...

Would he be at Sikorsky if he wasn't running for Congress, seriously? He wanted to get his mug shot with Hoffa so he could parade around Waterbury and New Britain with the picture. To a union guy, it's an insult.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:40,

nice job quoting the law-- no one is saying that Murphy is breaking the law here (although he is certainly trying to bend the heck out of it). Put down your Murphy pom-poms and look at the facts.

The point is that one of his biggest campaign themes is that Johnson is a shill for the Republican special interests. He loses all credibility on this issue by being a shill for Democratic special interests.

How can he pretend to be the reform candidate, when he is seeking campaign contributions from people and groups that have business in front of his committee?

Anonymous said...

The reason that the Unions did not let Murphy speak is because they know that he is not a "Brother". The Union leadership knows that Murphy owns a foreign-made car (Audi, typical elitist liberal German-made car). This guy better get his act together.

MightyMouse1 said...

Joe is now anti-choice, anti-healthcare AND anti-civil rights? C'mon, Lamont supporters, you need to show where Joe has been 'bad' on these issues.


Joe's voting record over his years in public service shows that his opponents are reaching for straws.

Anonymous said...

The only people these Lamont supporters are kidding are themselves... his candidacy is aboout one issue, Iraq. And the more they say it isn't, the more they lack credibility. Now prepare yourself for the onslaught of ranting and raving about it being more than one issue... but the first issue they'll site is the War. And like it matters, Lamont doesn't stand a chance, he should give his money to the Katrina Fund.

TrueBlueCT said...

The "one issue" is that Joe has been a lousy Democrat.

His support for the "Long War" would be forgivable, if only Joe could keep his mouth shut, and not talk down to Democrats who differ with him.

Anyway, Joe's favorability rating with CT Republicans is a whopping 71%. That's 15 percentage points better than his Democratic numbers, and this gap is really the reason behind the Lamont primary.

Lieberman has been playing to the other side, and isn't it great he's getting called on his sh*t!

disgruntled_republican said...

OK, I have read enough, time to tune in...

Murphy taking those monies is wrong, dead wrong. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. To be honest, I am shocked that he and his campaign would allow such a thing(tongue in cheeck) while running as a "reform candidate. Looks like the only thing he is looking to "reform" is his bank account.

Someone said "stop eating our own" regarding the Murph-Dog...do you feel that same about Joe?

While I don't support him (or Joe at this point) Ned is not a one issue candidate. Was it one issue that got him involved? You betcha but that can be said of the majority of people in elected office. You can't fault him for that. Additionally, to those of you that atre critical to him, at least he is running.

Had something else I wanted to say but forgot...Ill post it when I remember...perhaps I should have written it down.

THIS JUST IN:
Gail Norton quits Bush Cabinet...chew on that beotches

disgruntled_republican said...

I jst read an interesting article on Sen. Clinton and Wal-Mart. For those interested here is the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187471,00.html

Anonymous said...

Who cares about Gail Norton?

Anonymous said...

Senator Lieberman also has the dubious distinction of belonging to the Committee for the Present Danger, which has already advocated for Regime Change in Iran. What PNAC was for Iraq, CPD is for Iran.

So if "one issue" is the war, it looks like Joe wants to double up.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 150...

It was learly a joke...fact is the answer is no one. Did you have coffee this morning?

red october said...

Who is advising Lamont on natioanal securtiy and foreign policy matters? Howard Dean?

And I agree that Joe must go but for other reasons tan lamont has stated.

Anonymous said...

MightyMouse1 said...
Joe is now anti-choice, anti-healthcare AND anti-civil rights? C'mon, Lamont supporters, you need to show where Joe has been 'bad' on these issues.

Joe is nominally prochoice. That is worse. It is deceptive. He voted against the Alito filibuster & cast a meaningless no vote.His Naral ratings meen zilch. Check what CT NOW has to say about him.
Joe has stated he doesn't like abortion (and I can find you some quotes) and is rumored to almost have voted Aye on Clarence Thomas.
Joe believes that the government should get involved with Terry Shiavo-like cases.

Lamont doesn't. He is also prochoice thru and thru.

Joe does not believe in state/church separation. He believes noone can have morality unless they have religion (see Antidefamation league.)He hobnobs with the likes of those who hold these same views. (documentation supplied on request.)

Joe has had bad ratings with the NAACP. He also likes school vouchers and that drains the school system and it is an old segregationist tactic of the cracker south.

Lamont believes in putting money into public schools.

Joe made up a list of academics who were unpatriotic with Lynne Cheney. etc. etc. etc.

By the way is your name Gerstein?

Anonymous said...

Lieberman deconstructed

Let me be clear on the issue of Iraq. Like everyone, I want to bring our troops home.

Then why support the establishment of 10 permanent bases in Iraq?

Joe and Permanent Bases in Iraq

But, in order to do that, we have to establish a functioning and democratic Iraq - as opposed to the despotic dictatorship that once represented a dire threat

What threat? There was no imminent threat. No WMD's.

to the Middle East, and the rest of the world. At this particular stage, our troops are essential to achieving that goal

So is Iraq either functioning or democratic? Or is it a dysfunctional and more dangerous place then before the American invasion and occupation?

Or as even some conservatives such as William F. Buckley and Francis Fukuyama now admit the continued American presence in Iraq is destabilizing. We have become part of the problem.

but I believe that substantial troop reductions can occur this year as Iraqi security forces become more capable and the new Iraqi government assumes the responsibility for governing Iraq.

Iraq has 0 troops battalions in combat readiness to fight the insurgents alone. This is down from 1 of 125 last summer.

Pentagon: Iraqi troops downgraded

Essentially, Lieberman is parroting the administration's positions on every point without regard to the truth or even reality. On certain points one could say he's just outright lying.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The reason that the Unions did not let Murphy speak is because they know that he is not a "Brother". The Union leadership knows that Murphy owns a foreign-made car (Audi, typical elitist liberal German-made car). This guy better get his act together.

Ooh, sounds ominous. Ein Bruder? & Nancy Johnson is Krankenschwester?

aarchie said...

Hey Gabe you are falling down on the job. disgruntled republican, would you please learn how to embed a link. Go up to the right there on this blog and click on the HTML help link that GC has provided. don't be a meathead.

Anonymous said...

And the more they say it isn't, the more they lack credibility. Now prepare yourself for the onslaught of ranting and raving about it being more than one issue...
That's exactly the problem with GOP politics. They rant & rave over one talking point over and over again. Flip, Flop. Frenchman etc.
For the record, it's not one issue. The last straw was his vote against the Alito filibuster. Prepare yourself for a tide of revelations and dissatisfaction over and over again.

red october said...

anonymous is advising Lamont?

Anonymous said...

Red October, etc.
You're obviously not reading any of Lamont's statements, interviews etc.

red october said...

Hey anonymous the lamont adviser You mean, I don't buy what I hear or see from Lamont because I have followed the lamont the cable guy in the various media. He's no redneck that's for sure. His rhetoric is fantastic for rallying the dumpjoe folks but very very short on reality. You won't get votes by calling the voters names - that's sort of basic politics.

CGG said...

I'm surprised that Lieberman agreed to participate, especially since IMO the interview didn't do him any favors. At least he's not changing his opinions in the face of opposition though. That's unusal for a member of the US Senate. Having two candidates with actual opposing viewpoints should make for a healthy primary. It gives Democrats a chance to assess where we stand, and the values we want represented in Washington.

MightyMouse1 said...

Anon 2:04pm says "Joe has stated he doesn't like abortion."

Yea, you are so right-- we need more politicians who "love abortion." Idiot, even those who make the choice to have an abortion would be hard pressed to say they 'like abortion'.

I do not know who Gerstein is.

Anonymous said...

Lou Gerstein was the president of IBM for a while ther Might Mouse but they probably mean another guy

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:04pm says "Joe has stated he doesn't like abortion."

Yea, you are so right-- we need more politicians who "love abortion." Idiot, even those who make the choice to have an abortion would be hard pressed to say they 'like abortion'.

I do not know who Gerstein is.


My point is--and we'll leave that ad hominem slightly redneck sounding attack aside-- that Joe is nominally prochoice. He sides with the religious right, Rickie Santorum, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. In fact, you should see him in one of those Save the Jews for Jesus infomercials. He spends very little time with the Democrats these days. His method is to cast a vote in favor of women's right to choose, when the Repubs don't need his vote. (Check his voting record please, before you call more names.) Please excuse my mistaken choice of words, but I think you know what I meant. Rhetoric just doesn't stand in for the facts. I am just a citizen who is speaking for myself and what other people are talking about, what CT-NOW has said and what Lamont has said in his statements and interviews. If you don't want the whole nation to end up like South Dakota, where women have to carry a rapist's baby, than vote for Lamont. If you don't care, vote for Lieberman whose voting record is inexcusable and an insult to all women.

Silver Fox said...

Silver Fox said...
Here is the press release from CTGOP. They sent it out the day Rahm Emmanuel was here for Murphy. This is what started it. To all my left of center counterparts, I apologize for quoting Gallo.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006
MURPHY TAKES OVER $100,000 IN LOBBYIST, SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY


MURPHY TAKES OVER $100,000 IN LOBBYIST, SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY

SOLICITS FUNDS DESPITE CONNECTICUT LAW
AGAINST IN-SESSION FUNDRAISING

Hartford, Conn. February 21, 2005 – State Sen. Chris Murphy has raised thousands of dollars in campaign cash from lobbyists and political action committees with business before his Senate committee, according to public reports on file with the Federal Elections Commission, Republican Party Chairman George D. Gallo said today.

By soliciting and raising this special interest money, Murphy is reversing his previously held position and ignoring a Connecticut law that prohibits state legislators from raising campaign donations from lobbyists during the legislative session. Murphy is exploiting a loophole that bans such fundraising by legislators seeking re-election -- but not by those running for federal offices, such as Congress. Yet Murphy said in a campaign press release last year that he made a conscious "decision to start fundraising only after the conclusion of the legislative session on June 8."

"Now that Murphy sees Congresswoman Nancy Johnson pulling way ahead in financial support, he has decided he can no longer wait, but must raise money, any way he can - even if it exposes him to shameless hypocrisy and violates the spirit of Connecticut's campaign finance law," Gallo said.

Murphy has taken thousands of dollars in political contributions from organizations and individual lobbyists regularly plying their trade before the Legislature's Public Health Committee, including the Connecticut Dermatologists PAC, the Oral Surgeons PAC and the Physician Anesthesia Services PAC. In addition, Murphy's FEC reports reveal donations from numerous lobbyists with health-related clients.

Murphy has collected more than $40,000 just from health care-related lobbyists and PACs since announcing his candidacy for Connecticut's 5th Congressional District last year. He has taken more than $100,000 in special interest money at the same time he cynically criticizes Congresswoman Johnson for receiving what he decries as "special interest" contributions.

And tomorrow, Murphy is hosting another special interest fundraising event at $1,000 a ticket for "host" status at a Hartford restaurant.

"Chris Murphy has shown a shocking disregard for his own self-avowed credo against taking campaign donations from special interests," Gallo said. "He says one thing and does another. It's a classic bait-and-switch campaign tactic. And it's one that Murphy himself decried just last year… why the change of heart?"

“During the debate of the recently passed campaign finance reform legislation, many legislators, including Chris Murphy, stated that politics must be cleaned up by eliminating special interest money,” Gallo said. “Murphy has violated the spirit of the legislation he was advocating for just this past November.”

Gallo said Murphy owes the public an explanation about the dramatic change of heart that has led him to aggressively solicit special interest money during Connecticut's legislative session.

"Perhaps his reversal is due to the fact that Murphy is dead last in fundraising among Democratic candidates challenging Republican incumbents in Connecticut and that Nancy Johnson has nearly six times as much cash on hand, $2.2 million to $380,000?" Gallo said.

Interestingly, on numerous occasions, Murphy has hypocritically attacked Congresswoman Nancy Johnson for accepting contributions while Congress was in session, which is allowable under federal law.
###



CTGOP Murphy Release

Perfect time to jump ship...where are all you Maloney Baloney and Bill Curry boosters? PMD? Anyone?

Anonymous said...

Murphy's Law: DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.

MightyMouse1 said...

Anonymous,

It was a very poor choice of words, but before you decry 'attacks'- perhaps you should stop calling people rednecks (I am from Middlebury, a real ranching town) or claiming that anyone who supports Joe on this blog must be working for him (I am assuming that Gerstein is a Joe employee?).

Joe has a record to be proud of when considered in total.

Anonymous said...

Chris Murphy is not violating any laws or any spirits of laws or any ghosts of laws. I don't even know if there are any lobbyist contributions on his FEC filing -- did anyone check?

I am surprised that Nancy Johnson wants to focus people in this election on campaign fundraising. She has raised TWO MILLION DOLLARS and most of that comes from lobbyists and PACs.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

It was a very poor choice of words, but before you decry 'attacks'- perhaps you should stop calling people rednecks (I am from Middlebury, a real ranching town) or claiming that anyone who supports Joe on this blog must be working for him (I am assuming that Gerstein is a Joe employee?).

Joe has a record to be proud of when considered in total.

Right. You used the word idiot and took my words out of context but whatever. I am from a "real" town as well. Put that aside. And please with links and evidence so that people can look up what you're saying, support Joe's record. Give specifics. We who support Ned have already given specifics here. Let's go. Do you know how do do it? It's Thomas at GPO (Gov Printing Office). Not some partisan site.
Otherwise, please don't claim you are some guy from a ranching town --and I've never heard someone from CT use the term "ranching town"--with more credibility than anyone else here. I will tell you my problem with Joe. I am a woman who has closely followed his performance with regard to women rights. It fails. You can not accuse me of being less genuine than yourself.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, quoting a GPO pamphlet for "evidence" against Murphy. Where's the weapons of mass destruction, somewhere in Niger at the bottom of a flooded uraniam mind?

Anonymous said...

i was at that rally at sikorky and it was weird becauise they let bysewitz and i think wyamn and of course our attorney general blumenthal talk but then they didn't let kevin sullivan and murphy and courtney talk even though they were all there in the front with the other politicals

oh and they also let shays talk which i was surpirsed because he is a republican

Mark_Gibb said...

Has anyone suggested that Murphy actually changed his position or amended a bill as a result of a campaign donation?

Johnson wrote the Medicare drug plan while she was taking record amounts from the pharmaceutical companies. And what did they get?
1) A specific ban on Medicare ever using its buying power to try to get better drug prices.
2) A ban on re-importation of US-made drugs at lower prices.
3) Obstacles put in the way of cheaper generic drugs.

And Johnson is going to make this a campaign issue?!?!

Anonymous said...

In fact MightyMouse1,
you are all attack. From the very beginning you stepped into this thread you twisted people's words dishonestly, you called names "idiot", you made baseless assertions and criticisms. You are a perfect GOPer. No one is looking for *your* vote, because you are the type that supports the wrong cause in the face of surmounting evidence. Go back to your ranch in Texas.

Anonymous said...

Listen live to Ned Lamont on Air America (5:30)

Anonymous said...

Obstacles put in the way of cheaper generic drugs.
What a coincidence. Same with Pfizer-loving Lieberman.

Anonymous said...

Lamont on Air America: Lieberman undermines the party unity. The joke among democrats is that he only votes with democrats when Republicans don't need the vote. Lamont on choice for women, Terry Schiavo, gov. wiretapping, etc. Excellant!

Anonymous said...

Get there just in time to hear Sam Seder rant about how Lamont is going to change the face of politics nationwide.

MikeCT said...

To the Johnson campaigners:

Pull-eeease ask Nancy Johnson to make campaign finance and corruption the centerpiece of her campaign! You folks have no shame! As a federal candidate, Chris Murphy follows the same rules as Nancy Johnson about the contributions that he can solicit and accept. There is no "loophole" in the state law, since the state has no jurisdiction over federal elections. But you know that perfectly well, which only demonstrates your cynicism and hypocrisy.

But speaking of the influence of the health care industry on a public official, let's take a look at the numbers for Nancy Johnson, who as Chair of the Health Subcommittee of Ways & Means, has carved out a lucrative career selling out her office for top dollar:

* $642,530 Amount of money Nancy Johnson, co-author of the Medicare Part D bill, has taken from Pharmaceutical companies

* $82,250 Amount Nancy Johnson took from the Pharmaceutical industry in June of 2003 alone—during the 20 day time period when the Ways and Means Committee was considering the Medicare Part D bill

* #2 Nancy Johnson’s ranking of all members of Congress in her acceptance of money from the drug industry since 1990

* 23% According to a Kaiser Family Foundation Report released in February, only 23% of respondents had a favorable impression of the Medicare Drug Benefit.

In the 4th quarter of last year, nearly every one of her PAC contributions was from out of state, and she is almost entirely funded by big insurance and pharmaceutical corporations and the medical industry. Her individual contributions are the same - health industry execs.

In the third quarter,
* 80% of Johnson’s money came from out of state (individuals & PACs), while 80% of Murphy's money came from CT
* Most of her contributions (60%) come from PACs, while Murphy raised 74% from individuals
* 2 out of 3 of her PAC dollars came from Washington - she received contributions from only 4 Connecticut PACs

In the first quarter, not one of her individual contributions came from a Connecticut resident.

Murphy wants to get private money out of politics, which is why he supported public financing of elections in Connecticut. Would Nancy Johnson? Of course, not! It would end her political career. She is a creature of Washington and health industry executives. Without their money, she is like a fish out of water.

As the word about this spreads, Chris Murphy's odds of success will only improve.

Anonymous said...

You can listen to a recording of Ned Lamont's entire interview on Air America Radio on the Ned Lamont Resource page (see top of page). These people are quick!

Anonymous said...

MikeCT,
Let's parallel that with a report on Lieberman's special relationship to the pharmaceuticals industry with accompanying legislation.

Anonymous said...

Nancy Johnson=Pharmaceutical Hag
Joe Lieberman=Republican Garden Troll

M said...

It was a very poor choice of words, but before you decry 'attacks'- perhaps you should stop calling people rednecks (I am from Middlebury, a real ranching town) or claiming that anyone who supports Joe on this blog must be working for him (I am assuming that Gerstein is a Joe employee?).
A ranching town in New Haven County? I live not so far away. That's a little odd to say the least. I've been to Middlebury, but don't know it very well.

Anonymous said...

What's funny is that all the Murphy people disregard his campaign finance reports but immediately attack hers.. does anyone have anything to say about his.. and we'll see whether or not his contributions reflect univeral health care.. because when they do.. i'll let you know.

m said...

What's funny is that all the Murphy people disregard his campaign finance reports but immediately attack hers..
Noone is disregarding his campaign finance reports. You have not read the comments in this thread. But Johnson's take in is so enormous, it throws Murphy into the shadows of insignificance.

Anonymous said...

Oh um, anonymous, please don't send us so patently dishonest, as something coming from the GOP.

red october said...

What's the problem with saying that Lamont is no redneck? That never meant that Joe was because he isn't even if i never would vote for him now that i have converted to capitalism.

And did anybody see thisin today's New York Times with more details on Moodygate.

Anonymous said...

red october said...
That never meant that Joe was because he isn't even if i never would vote for him now that i have converted to capitalism

Converted to Capitalism? And pray tell what God do you worship? If you are implying Lieberman is a socialist, then you're wildly misinformed. If you're for unfettered capitalism and screw everyone else then he's your man. If you're lucky enough to be in the 99.9%, then you're in luck. He voted for Bush taxcuts and will continue to do so, even though the military can't afford body armor.

red october said...

I didn't say what Joe was because he is nothing but a pleaser, don't you know. Read my posts there ryan.

video games online said...

Your blog I found to be very interesting!
I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with
the information you have posted here.
I have a video games online
site.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Best regards!