Farrell, standing at the Bridgeport ferry terminal in the shadow of I-95, the Amtrak and Metro North rail lines, and the international shipping terminal, pointed to the critical confluence of these transportation systems and said they all stood as testament to what hasn't happened – implementation of the 9-11 recommendations for homeland security – something she called "unconscionable."
"I hold Chris responsible," Farrell said. "He, the Republican leadership he supports and President Bush, who he has backed so ferociously, profess to be concerned about terrorist threats. But Chris took his eye off the ball, and on his watch Connecticut's homeland security funding has dropped from $46 million to $13.5 million in the space of three years and we are as vulnerable now as we've ever been."
The release goes on to list the security policies that she backs:
Farrell also backs these homeland security policies:
* A port security plan similar to the one in operation in Hong Kong that ultimately will screen every container that comes into U.S. ports.
* A border security plan that hires agents dedicated to that task and that task alone, not the deployment of the National Guard which is already stretched to the breaking point and better suited for other functions. Inclusion of the 5,525 mile Canadian border as well as the 1,989 Mexican border in any such plan.
* Task force investigation of the gaps in rail service security in the nation, and rapid implementation of real and effective remedies.
* Further closing of gaps in aviation security especially on commuter and cargo aircraft.
* Better communications equipment for all levels of first responders, with special attention to effective communication among federal, state and local agencies.
* A top to bottom review of all nuclear safety issues with an emphasis on evacuation plans for those of us in the shadow of nuclear facilities.
* Development of an integrated justice information system which will prevent potential terrorists from slipping through law enforcement cracks as some of the 9/11 hijackers did.
* Adequate funding for all homeland security priorities.
Coupled with these recent press releases,
DIANE FARRELL AND VETERANS OUTRAGED
BY SHAYS’ LAX OVERSIGHT OF IRAQ WAR
DIANE FARRELL SAYS IT IS EVIDENT CHRIS SHAYS’ PRIORITIES ARE IN IRAQ, NOT IN THE CONGESTED ROADS OF THE 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS STALLS ON CHRIS SHAYS’ WATCH,
it seems clear that Farrell's '06 strategy is distinct from her ultimately unsuccessful strategy in '04. Instead of running on a steady diet of tying Shays to Tom Delay and Republican corruption, Farrell is attempting to tie the unpopular Iraq war to congressional spending in the district.
It is an interesting strategy that has the potential to sway some voters (remember that she only lost 52-48 in '04) if she can get traction with the issue. Of course, it's June and getting traction right now is easier said than done.
Leading into November, the Democrats have potential for momentum-fueled wins in close districts. The 4th went for Kerry over Bush 52-46 in '04 and the registration breaks down 31D-28R-41I. Given those stats, and the potential of a stronger run by Farrell, the 4th has the potential to be a district for which we are all sitting on pins and needles on Election night.
SOURCES:
Press Release, Farrell for Congress. SHAYS SHORTCHANGES CONNECTICUT AGAIN WITH FOCUS ON IRAQ SECURITY INSTEAD OF OUR OWN. 6/13/06
Press Release, Farrell for Congress. DIANE FARRELL AND VETERANS OUTRAGED
BY SHAYS’ LAX OVERSIGHT OF IRAQ WAR. 6/8/06
Press Release, Farrell for Congress. DIANE FARRELL SAYS IT IS EVIDENT CHRIS SHAYS’ PRIORITIES ARE IN IRAQ, NOT IN THE CONGESTED ROADS OF THE 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. 6/7/06
Press Release, Farrell for Congress. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS STALLS ON CHRIS SHAYS’ WATCH. 6/6/06
Poll. Quinnipiac Poll--Connecticut. Conducted by Quinnipiac University May 31-June 1.
CNN Election 2004 Results.
CT Secretary of State 2004 Election Results.
CT Secretary of State October 2005 Voter Registration Statistics.
5 comments:
So even his mom thinks he could lose? I am in good company!!!
/snark
In all seriousness, that is a good article for Shays' - it portrays him exactly how he would like to be portrayed: as a man of principle. And, having previously lived in his disrict for 2 years and worked in it for 5 or 6, I don't really have an argument for that. While I disagree with many of his stands and really couldn't understand his vote for Delay every two years (I give him alot of credit for speaking against the proposed Delay Ethics Rule change), I agree him many times as well and would generally agree that he is, as a Democrat, the best Republican in Congress.
That said, the article also portrays a district that generally doesn't agree with one of the most visible issues that is associated with him. It puts him in very dangerous electoral territory. Bernie Sanders is universally acclaimed as standing up for his principles (one reason why an Independant who describes himself as a Socialist keeps getting elected in VT statewide elections), but he would get crushed in Alabama. An extreme analogy, but I think you can see my point....
Either way, it should be interesting this fall.
Ironic that Ms. Farrell cites the 9/11 Commission as authoritative on the issue of security and simultaneously criticizes the lack of information sharing in our law enforcement setup. After all, it was 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick who helped institute many of those barriers! Also, and for good measure, it is predominantly Ms. Farrell's party that is seeking to undermine the very intelligence gathering apparatus that has thus far prevented more terrorist attacks.
As the number one issue in many voters' minds, I can understand Ms. Farrell attempting to seem hawkish on the issue of security. But, as a member of the Democrat party she faces an uphill battle convincing voters that her party will adequately defend the country, even with the overwhelming disdain in her district for the Iraq war.
bluecoat: First things first: is this blog reserved for liberals? I was under the impression that this was an open forum? (Maybe you need a refresher on the purpose of the blog. Click the "About" section found above. Therein you will find the following mission statement: "All points of view are welcome at Connecticut Local Politics.")
Also, why is the Gorelick connection "bad news"? It is a fact that Gorelick created the wall between the agencies and that the wall lead to a lack of intelligence sharing. Also, why is it "funny" to think that something which happened in 1995 would have repricussions years later? In fact, consider the terrorist acts that occurred after 1995: Khobar Towers, USS Cole, 9/11. As it turns out, we were at war for many years but accept it.
You say I attack the Democrat party on the issue of intelligence gathering without a shred of evidence. Gorelick is a Democrat! Also, Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer, Levin, and Feingold are all Democrats and all discussed to varying degrees IMPEACHING the President for wireless wiretapping of international calls, a program designed to gather intelligence. (Not to mention most of them celebrated the disclosure of the program which no doubt harms our national security interests.) How is that not evidence that the Democrats are obstructing intelligence gathering?
turfgrrl: I did not "conveniently leave out" a point that would refute my own! I am referring to the fact that Gorelick authored a memo in 1995 instructing Louis Freeh to "go beyond what is legally required" in terms of information sharing between agencies during the course of his investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
As far as having a "clue about what conservatives say" on the matter of wiretapping, how is that relevant? I've looked at all sides of the issue and, like all issues, have come to my own conclusion. Why would I be beholden to what a conservatives (you named two) have to say? Also, don't liberals such as yourself criticize conservatives who are consistent with the conservative message? They are portrayed as being mind-numbed robots, as opposed to the "mavericks" celebrated from time to time.
bluecoat/turfgrrl: One of you has me totally out of touch with Republicans, the other has me as a Hannity/Rush clone. Please, make up your mind!
As far as both your arguments go, I think it's safe to say that we have heard one another out and have to agree to disagree at this point. One point of note: Bluecoat, you don't know a thing about me and your assumptions about me are incorrect as to (1) my knowledge of the NSA program, and (2) my knowledge of the 9/11 report. (On that point, just because the 9/11 Commission felt that what one of its members did was okay doesn't make it so! Ever heard the line about roosters guarding the henhouse?)
Post a Comment