Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Open Forum

Another attempt to court Latino voters by DeStefano and Malloy. Lots of sniping.


A fundraiser for Ned Lamont... in Massachusetts? Hey, we don't have fundraisers for Deval Patrick in West Hartford, now, do we? ...Do we?

DeStefano is poised to announce a universal health care scheme for Connecticut today. I'll let you know as soon as I get more information.

What else is happening today?


Thomas Craven said...

The most recent numbers I have heard/seen say that somewhere between 200 and 400,000 CT citizens have no health care coverage/insurance.

IMO Mayor Destefano is taking too big a bite at this problem. I continue to think that he sets unreasonable goals and policy.

We should all hope that our Governor has increadibly high expectations, but lets force them to be realistic with us voters.

I just kinda of feel like he is pandering to the lowest common denominator - "Everything for Everyone! In Year 1 of my Administration."

This State could really use a dose of realism.

disgruntled_republican said...

Interesting to see Ned having not one but TWO fundraisers out of state. I personally think this is a risky move in will surely become a contensious primary...he is giving Lieberman some fuel to throw on a fire. I don't know how much fuel it will be but still doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

TrueBlueCT said...

Risky Move? You're kidding me. Genghis, I trust you don't have a double standard. How can you make mention of Ned raising money from friends in New York and Boston, without making mention of where Joe's money is coming from?

For those who want a real story, check out Joe Lieberman's donors.

FrankS said...

Amann is taking the political offensive in support of increased transportation funding, after the pothole on the Pearl Habor Memorial Bridge effectively closed I-95 in the New Haven area earlier this week showcased that bridge's deterioration..

The lack of transportation improvements should draw more of Malloy's and DeStefano's attention.

Jimmy Higgins said...

LaMont should concentrate on raising money in Ct not Mass unless he is aiming to be the 3rd Mass Senator.

Genghis Conn said...

That link doesn't go anywhere...

At this point, both candidates have a substantial amount of out-of-state financial support: Lieberman from business, pharmaceutical and other interests and Lamont from liberal donors and groups nationwide.

But isn't Lieberman's out-of-state fundraising one of the reasons why you say he's out of touch? I think Lamont is frankly asking to be held to a higher standard, here.

Not that it's a problem... it was just odd. I always find it strange when our candidates look for support and money amongst people who will not be voting for them.

tparty said...


Please, point me to one single quote where a pro-Lamont blogger or commenter criticized Lieberman for raising money out-of-state.

If you can find even one, I'm sure you'll find one or more replies right after it saying that's not a valid criticism of Lieberman. Much of Lamont's ActBlue support comes from out-of-state, after all.

If you can't find one, retract your statement that "Lamont is frankly asking to be held to a higher standard" if you want to maintain any shred of credibility.

TrueBlueCT said...

Who Owns Joe Lieberman-- The "K" Edition!

Neil Kadisha, Beverly Hills, CA, CEO of Ominet Capital-- $3100 to Joe.

Diane & Jefrrey Kahan, Glencoe, IL, $4,000 out-of-state dollars to Joe.

Hakim Kambiz, Paseo Del Mar, Owner, Santa Monica, CA, another $4,200 California dollars to Joe.

Robert, Max and William Kargman, Tremont Ventures LLC, Boston MA, $4,000 to Joe.

Lauren Kaufman, Student, Miami FL, $4200 to Joe. (I wonder what is hiding behind this!)

Brian & Susan Keller, Madison, CT, NV Perricone, $8400 to Joe. (Yeah, I know, CT! I just want to point out the NV Perricone fundraiser for Joe. What do they get in return?)

David Kessler, Plymouth Meeting, PA, $2,000 to Joe. And another Schiffrin & Barroway attorney! Hmmm, what's up with these guys pooling there money for Lieberman.

Alan Kick, Avon, CT, Aerospace Sales, $4,000 to Joe. Areospace Sales, I wonder, for whom??

Jeffrey & Karen Kirshner, Marina Del Ray, CA, KMK Capital, another $8200 Californian dollars to Joe. Boy, it must be fun to be rich!

Sidney & Dorothey Kohl, Investors, Palm Beach, FL $4,000 to Joe.

Joseph Komwasser, Developer, Los Angeles, CA $4,200 to Joe.

Please, check it out for yourself. Stunning!

TrueBlueCT said...

Sorry Genghis, try this link:

Joe Lieberman's donors.

TrueBlueCT said...

And no Genghis, my argument here isn't that Joe is out of touch, (though he is).

My argument is that Joe is owned by Corporate America.

Why would an out-of-state donor give $8400 to Lieberman? To buy access and influence, period.

Interestingly, I heard Hadassah left her job as a Hill & Knowlton lobbyist.

disgruntled_republican said...


Truebluect's post good enough for you?

To say Lamont bloggers have not been critical is an outright lie. I can recall many occasions where the dialogue was simply "bash Joe and where his money comes from" and on numerous occasions it was said "look who owns Joe" referring to out of state donors. I haven't the time to look back right now but I will a bit later and I assure you that numerous posters can be found that can be labeled as pro-Lamont bashing Joe's revenue sources...

tparty said...


TrueBlueCT is merely pointing out a double standard. And he says pretty clearly that his primary issue with Lieberman is not that the money comes from out-of-state, but that it's corporate money. That has nothing to do with geography.

All of this is much ado about nothing. Candidates raise money from out-of-state all the time.

My only issue is that in saying "Lamont is frankly asking to be held to a higher standard," Genghis attributed certain criticisms of Lieberman not just to Lamont supporters, but to the Lamont campaign. That's just a flat-out misrepresentation which should be corrected.

Genghis Conn said...

If you say he's owned by corporate interests and not beholden to the people of his state, then that's basically calling him out of touch.

And if Lieberman's beholden to corporate interests, who is Ned Lamont beholden to? You? Me? Or some Californian?

I know I'm inviting your wrath, here (again), but that seems like a legitimate question.

I liked Lowell Weicker's old campaign slogan: "Nobody's Man But Yours."

Genghis Conn said...


Split hairs all you like.

Jimmy Higgins said...

all senators are owned or influenced by either corporate or individual interests.....

tparty said...


Financially, Ned Lamont is beholden mainly to the thousands of rank-and-file Democrats across the state and country who have given an average of less than $50 per person.

I'll take that base of grassroots support over the megamillions and private jet flights coming from corrupt energy companies and Washington lobbyists that are supporting Lieberman.

But continue to refuse to back up your assertions with evidence if you like.

ctblogger said...

I think Lamont is frankly asking to be held to a higher standard, here.

I think your way off base here GC and thirdparty pointed this out clearly.

And for disgruntled republican saying that Lamont's out-of=state fundraising is giving Lieberman fuel to throw on the fire is laughable when you look at Lieberman's numerous out-of-state fundraisers.

There's a huge difference getting help from grassroots organizations versus getting hooked up by huge corporations, conservative lobbyists and thinktanks. In any case, the criticism is who donatiing to Joe, not if he's receiving the money from out-of-state. I've been to numerous Lamont events and I've never heard him, his campaign, or pro-Lamont bloggers make a deal out of Joe raising cash out of state, they make a big deal out of the people who are donating to Joe.

I must say I'm somewhat dissapointed to see a double standard here.

TrueBlueCT said...

ThirdParty, do you think Joe sold CT out with his vote on the 2005 Bush Energy Bill?

See the Roll Call vote here.

Both RI Senators voted against.
Both NY Senators voted against.
Both NJ Senators voted against.
Both VT Senators voted against.
Both MA Senators voted against.
Both NH Senators voted against.

Senator Dodd voted against. Based upon what did Joe break ranks with our New England and tri-state Senators?

My understanding is that it gave control over Broadwater to FERC.

TrueBlueCT said...

watching CNN about Iran. Does everyone understand that under the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war, we should be invading, or at least bombing, Iran--right now!

Senator Lieberman has been a firm believer in the Bush Doctrine. In a 10/29/01 WSJ op-ed, Joe wrote this:

"That is why it is imperative that we hold firm to the Bush Doctrine: to be unshakable in our support for allies who are steadfast, and unyielding in our challenges to those who are not; to be uncompromising in our demands that countries like Syria and Iran end their support of terrorism before we open our diplomatic and economic doors to them; and to be unflinching in our determination to remove a uniquely implacable enemy and terrorist, Saddam Hussein, from power before he strikes at us with weapons of mass destruction."

Does Senator Lieberman still believe in the Bush Doctrine. If so, why is it not being applied to Iran?

disgruntled_republican said...

Please not I did not ctritize, I simply speculated as to the effect of the fundraiser.

Can anyone tell me where I can see the list of donors to Lamont's campaign? I checked the fed's website and they don't show any records yet.

TrueBlueCT said...

Disgruntled, not up yet with the FEC yet. With over 4,000 donors it's going to be a long report. If the donation is under $200 or $250, it doesn't usually get reported.

Anyway, the FEC site is user friendly. Check it out at

disgruntled_republican said...


You cite Lieberman's Op-Ed in the WSJ where he states:
That is why it is imperative that we hold firm to the Bush Doctrine: to be unshakable in our support for allies who are steadfast, and unyielding in our challenges to those who are not; to be uncompromising in our demands that countries like Syria and Iran end their support of terrorism before we open our diplomatic and economic doors to them"

If you would please, show me where it says "bomb Iran" it that piece.

Thomas Craven said...


"to be uncompromising in our demands that countries like Syria and Iran end their support of terrorism before we open our diplomatic and economic doors to them"

Im not saying Im one of them, but it seems that many people think that in todays political environment, that when this our government is "uncomprimising in our demands", it is in fact, ready to "bomb them".

Whenever a government is "uncomprimising" with its foreign policy, blood-shed soons follows.

Jimmy Higgins said...


There has been a vamping up in DC of plans and specches preparing us for military action against Iran within the last few months...

Please check Joe's office and the DC media to see if he is or has been quoted as supporting military action of any kind against Iran.

Thomas Craven said...


Was that directed at me?

If so, I am neither a genius nor Lamont Staffer.

If not, relax.

turfgrrl said...

There's a real threat that Bush and his band of incompetents will blunder into a bombing of Iran. If we review the videotape of 2002, the Bush administration had opportunities to support the Iranian push towards a more democratic instead of theocratic government. Instead, Bush was fixated on Iraq, the only secular lead government in the region. The rubber stamp congress enabled by Shays, Johnson and Simmons will provide no check to the executive branch's march to war in Iran. We've seen this playbook before, and once again it's springtime for Bush, he's going on tour.

TrueBlueCT said...

disgruntled, here you go from Newsmax:

Joe Lieberman: U.S. Prepared for Iran Strike

disgruntled_republican said...


In mentioning Shays, Johnson and Simmons I noticed you left out Lieberman and Dodd. Take Joe out of it, I know the response I'll get but what about Dodd...seems he has been getting a free pass on all of this. Why is that?

It should also be noted that unlike Iraq, there is a clear sense of concern among all industrialized nations when it comes to Iran as this article clearly shows when it says: "European countries pushed ahead with efforts to have Iran brought before the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear activities". Please note, it says EUPOREAN NATIONS not the Unites States of America, which, last time I looked at a map, is not in Europe.

Don't try to lay Iran and anything going on there on Bush or Lieberman. While they obviously have a part, as do ALL members of the United States Congress, they aren't driving the ship on this one.

cgg said...

I've given money to out of state candidates before, and I will again. Like it or not political fundraising is a national effort, even for members of congress. Other than making out of state contributions illegal I don't know what you could do to stop that.

There are plenty of valid reasons to give money to an out of state candidate. You're interested in assuring that your party has the majority in the next congress, or a candidate advocates for an issue that's important to you personally. With so much anger at Lieberman nationally it makes sense that Lamont's fundraising efforts would be national as well.

disgruntled_republican said...

Thanks for the'll note it says "if necessary". Also, last time I checked Joe wasn't the Commander in Chief or the Secretary of Defense.

TrueBlueCT said...


you ever given $8400 to an out-of-state candidate? Cuz that's what Lieberman is collecting from some of his "backers".

The husband gives $2100 to the Primary, and $2100 to the general, and then the wife does the same, $2100, and $2100.

Those families who really want to score with Lieberman have other families give. What I like are the $2100 donations from college students.

TrueBlueCT said...


This is better. A full transcript of Lieberman's "Face the Nation" appearance.

I really want to know what Joe thinks about Iran. Is it an "imminent" threat? Should we just cross our fingers and hope Iran doesn't build a nuke? Is Israel more or less safe under the Bush/Lieberman foreign policy? Isn't our occupation of Iraq a huge part of the reason Iran is desperate for an atomic bomb. What does Joe think about tactical bunker-busting nukes?

Such a rich vein to mine in the hopes of seeing whether Joe has re-examined America's failed foreign policy.

AB said...

"DeStefano is poised to announce a universal health care scheme for Connecticut today. I'll let you know as soon as I get more information."

The operative word here is Scheme. Becuases that exactly what Universal healthcare would be. A scheme designed to take tax dollars and choice out of the hands of nearly 90 percent of the population whom have adequate coverage and use it to fix a problem that affects 10-12 percent of the public.

Want to see how well Universal healthcare works, dont look at Europe or Canada, look at the plan in place in Tennessee....its a colossal failure......

disgruntled_republican said...


Thank you...perfectly demonstrates my point.

TrueBlueCT said...

Yeah, well the "if necessary" part is what worries me. I sure as hell didn't think it was necessary to boot Saddam. But Lieberman, Cheney, Rumsfield and Bush couldn't wait to go to war.

Iran getting a nuke is bad, bad, bad. But bombing/invading another Islamic country is also bad.

cgg said...

TrueBlueCT is there a reason why you felt the need to explain campaign donations 101 to me? I wasn't even talking about Lieberman, but defending Lamont's right to raise money outside of Connecticut.

turfgrrl said...


In mentioning Shays, Johnson and Simmons I noticed you left out Lieberman and Dodd. Because our senate representatives are already democrats.

Don't try to lay Iran and anything going on there on Bush or Lieberman. While they obviously have a part, as do ALL members of the United States Congress, they aren't driving the ship on this one. Forget Lieberman, Bush and Cheney are driving the ship on this one. Dodd and Lieberman support investigations of the Bush administration, and Shays, Johnson and Simmons don't. Let's look at the Plame outing again. Plame and her team was working covertly on Iranian nuclear proliferation. With that intelligence asset gone, the CIA is no longer working towards preventing Iran from acquiring technology required for making a nuclear weapon. More importantly, the CIA now can't certify the real status of Iran's nuclear status to Congress. So that leaves Bush and Cheney driving the golf cart to a war based on spurious claims. Again.

But don't stop there, the Bush administration let Ahmed Chalibi tip off the Iranians that the US had broken the Iranian secret codes. So now the nSA can't trust what they decipher or have to spend time re-cracking the codes, presumably until some other Bush flunkie tips off Iran again.

Dodd and Lieberman as members of the minority party can't initiate an investigation in the Senate. Shays, Johnson and Simmons as members of the majority party in the House could. They aren't. They have to go. For that matter Bush has to go, but we don't get that till 2008.

Anyone who cares about foreign policy should have deep reservations about the Bush administration's actions and be outraged that the House and Senate act in lockstep with the administration. Our national security is at a greater risk with this reckless administration, and so it is important that this election cycle, CT voters demonstrate that CT does not want to remain beholden to GOP representation in the House that does nothing but rubber stamp the Bush agenda.

disgruntled_republican said...

I dont disagree totally. I think there should be an investigation into the leaks but even if one of the 3 call for it won't happen due to the leadership in the House/Senate. I do not think they should be tossed from office for that reason alone. There is much more that they do than call for an ivestigation that they all know leadership wont go for.

Is it a big surprise that the Republican House and the Republican Senate tend to support the agenda of the Republican President? I know it has been a while since the D's had that set-up but come-on.

You say our national security is at greater risk with Bush..I strongly disagree. 4 and 1/2 years...thats the last time an American civilian not in a war zone was killed by a terrorist. Zero...that's the number of terrorist attacks on our soil since 9-11-01. We have added the Homeland Security Dept, an Intellegence Czar, streamline intel and in the past year or so Bush has worked more closley with head os states from Europe (which justifiably so was one of the biggest beefs against him) and we are now working with the likes of France, Germany, Britan, Italy and so on to solve the Itran thing. The mess-ups arwe in the past and while I think an investigation should happen (and will in the Senate) it is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now that will have any bearing on the current situation with Iran.

TrueBlueCT said...

Nothing was directed to you. I've given $50 and $100 contributions to out-of-state Dems. I even gave Richard Morrison, the guy running against Delay last cycle, a total of $200.

All I was trying to do was contrast our small dollar actions, with the Maxing-out crowd. You and I aren't trying to buy anyone. Most of the big, big contributions have strings attached.

MikeCT said...

Bill Kiner's Web site is up. He is the Democratic challenger to Sen. Kissel. He lost the 2004 election by only 1.64%.

The Greens have nominated a disbarred lawyer for Attorney General. Nancy Burton defends her past behavior and considers the disbarment a "badge of honor", but the details are not clear from the article. Says they are on her Web site, which I can't find.

Joe Lieberman gets 80% of his money from out of state. He will not be raising a couple of Lamont fundraisers as an issue.

MolotovCocktails said...

Aaron B.--

Yet you call yourself a Christian?

AB said...


How does my statement that throwing out sufficient healthcare for 90 percent of the population to fix the 10-12 percent that is broken make me "un Christian"? For that matter how do you even know I am a Christian? perhaps I am Jewish?

In any event. i agree we need t help those who have no coverage, but we dont scrap what works for the overwhelming majority. We find a solution targeted specifically and seperately for those uninsured. That can be done, by allowing those folks to gain access to and purchase coverage at rates that those of us who have corporate paid plans have. Thast th ekey everyone needs to cant be another entitlement. The majority of taxpayers cant afford that.

turfgrrl said...


The house and senate are a check against absolute power by the executive branch. The GOP lead house and senate have failed that responsibility in so many ways.

Of course we are not safer. The Bush administration has not only destabalized the middle east, but managed to reduce world oil supplies, increase opium production and alienate Venuzuela, from which we get close to 80% of our oil imports.

Tossing out the "we haven't been attacked since .." chesnut is kind of silly. That's like driving a pinto and saying but "we haven't exploded since we started driving the car."

Career foregin policy and security experts have all come forth to say we are not any more secure than we were on 9/10/01. The establishment of Homeland Security is a joke. In fact countless color coded jokes have been made, and sadly the only benefits have been to the duct tape makers. Our ports are totally insecure, and was it not the Bush administration that was willing to grant security oversight of 21 ports to a company owned by the nation state of the United Arab Emirates? Coincidentally the country that several 9/11 suicide attackers were from? The country where wahhabism is funded by the monarchs who control the same company that was bidding on the ports?

But back to our feckless 3 congresscritters. Shays has done nothing for the 4th, letting our transportation infrastructure decay. For that alone, he is not worth sending back to DC. Johnson and Simmons (and Shays) voted for the reckless medicaid part D bill that was a payoff to pharmaceutical companies that care more about treating disease symptoms, than the health of their consumers.

AB said...


You say the medicaid part D prescription plan was reckless. Was it reckless for those folks ( a few whom I know) who know are able to purchase prescriptions drugs whereas they could not before? Is it, is it a very good start, yes. Stop dreaming about Universal givernment funded healthcare, it aint happening, nor shoudl you want it to. As for it being a payoff toe the big bad Pharmaceutical companies. You lefties need a new line of attack.....big business is evil, thast the same old line you continue to use. Its business that creates jobs, its business that funds every major research project in this country today. Is bug business perfect, hell no. But there is no greater example of corruption than government. If you absolve your democratic leaders you choose to ignore both history and reality. You hero is Bill Clinton, one of the most unethical characters in american history. A liar to the core along with his wife. Wake up....

2indaPink said...


If you think the Middle East was stable before Bush, then you're dreaming...

FrankS said...

Aaron B,

" Its business that creates jobs, its business that funds every major research project in this country today. Is bug business perfect, hell no. But there is no greater example of corruption than government"

Corruption is a two way street, business interests would generally abhor oversight or government involvement but there are some functions of a society that cannot rely on businesses alone.

What business would educate individuals long before and without the promise or commitment of a return on that investment could be realized?

turfgrrl said...

Aaron B.

Who said big business is evil? The fact is that the medicare part D is just bad legislation, owing to the reality that it was written to accomodate the pharmaceutical companies not us lowly taxpayers who fund the thing, nor the people who need it. The costs of this fiasco is just one big money transfer of taxpayer money to pharma and insurance companies. So much for GOP small government promises. I guess that's what happens when you allow your policy to be set my trotskyite neocons, who favor big government that bankrupts.

turfgrrl said...


The Mideast is a hot bed of militant Islamist who are driving out the moderates in countries where political stability was tenuous. But don't take my word for it, just follow what George Bush Sr. has said about it and Newt Gingrinch, and William Buckley and the rest of the cadre of real conservatives with foreign policy interests.