Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Mr. Peabody and the Senate Vote Wayback Machine

Now here's something you'll really like, The Washington Post provides a nifty database of votes by Senators along with what the "official" GOP and Democratic Position was. This makes looking at the voting record of a particular Senator crystal clear. Click on the vote itself and see the actual vote totals. Pretty simple.

So what would have happened if the killer bees had Ned Lamont voting in place of Lieberman? The answer is that the vote outcomes would not have changed. Which means that every outrage the killer bees feel would still be an issue. The killer bees would have you think that the actual votes don't matter much, "it's the rhetoric" that matters.

Except that the Democrats as a party have a long history of governing better, a tradition Senator Lieberman is a part of. Governing means actually doing things, instead of just talking about it. The work of a senator includes sponsoring legislation, and amending bills. The committees who control what gets sent on are all are chaired by the members whose party holds the majority, the Republicans. As it turns out, being able to compromise and make deals is a good thing. A senator can't be effective he's not willing to work with his colleagues, just look at Bill Frist as an example.

The killer bees would have you think that this primary vote is about the soul of the Democratic party. It's not, it's about the soap box of the Democratic party.

56 comments:

MikeCT said...

If you took half the energy and time you spend insulting Lamont supporters and instead spent it promoting the Democratic challengers you obviously feel should be prioritized, you might actually accomplish something. But apparently, electing Democrats is less important to you than the negativity and condescension that you thrive on. You can't negate Lamont by talking about Lamont every day. If you want Democrats to talk about other important races, then talk about other important races.

leaveonlyfootprints said...

There is a place where rhetoric and governing meet - and it's the Senate if it's anywhere.

Lieberman literally opened debate for the Republicans while debating the Iraq amendments. Russ Feingold and John Kerry were both cut short so the Republicans could speak, and then the first person to speak on the Republican time was (who else?) Joe Lieberman. I'm thrilled with all he has done for ANWR, etc., but no "Democrat" should be the lead-off hitter for the Republicans. That is the difference.

Bender Is Great said...

Bzzz......

Bzzzzzzzzz....

Jim said...

The real problem lies in the Democratic caucus forcing Joe Lieberman to speak on Republican time. I think Harry Reid has done a great job as Minority Leader, but Democrats need to get in the habit of listening to dissenting views within the party. Joe should've been able to give his same speech on Democratic time.

Lieberman is a valuable moderate voice in our party and there are some who don't accept him for it. He isn't facing a tough primary challenge because he spoke on Republican time. He spoke on Republican time because it was either that or silence. That's a shame.

bluecoat said...

Joe is a political chameleon; and that's why he needs to go...

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl...loves to personally insult anyone left of GWB and especially those of us who are in favor of Lamont.

She doesn't post factual articles at all and frankly she willfully twists the truth.

TrueBlueCT said...

Bruce--

You should ask Turfgirl about two things.

1) Why she likes Joe Lieberman..., and

2) About her CONFLICT OF INTEREST in reporting on Lamont/Lieberman.

In fact, maybe as a front-page poster, Turfgirl herself wants to tell us about her conflict of interest.

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl..YOU were put in as a " neutral and independant" ..please explain to us why you like Lieberman and what your conflict of interest is..

GC..could you check her out and get back to us on this...no one put in as neutral and independant should be posting with conflicts...it would cheapen the total validity of CLP.

bluecoat said...

if we aren't allowed to call each other names anymore; how come turrffy is calling BR and other Lamont supporters killer bees when that is not a name they have chosen for themselves? Personaly, I don't care if it's killer bees, the bubonic plague or dog shit that gets rid of Joe at the polls on August 8 (and again in Novemeber most likely and unfortunately) as long as he goes...

ctkeith said...

Bruce,
Heres a partial list of Turfgrrls clients from her own website.

AOL/Time Warner
+ Melanie Eve Barocas
+ Channel Sources
+ Digrazia Vineyards
+ Dun + Bradstreet
+ Enteractive
+ Fusco Corporation
+ Iomega Corporation
+ Jacob Marley's
+ Kirby Lester
+ Message Center Management MCM
+ Major League Soccer
+ Modem Media
+ New Haven International Festival of Arts + Ideas
+ Novartis
+ OfficeMax
+ PC NET
+ Power Smart
+ Schick
+ Smart World Communications
+ Software AG
+ Speedware
+ Telemar
+ UPS
+ WondriskaR


I wonder if she got a bonus from Fusco for getting GC to put her on the front page here?

Shouldn't those on the front page here reveal their conflicts BEFORE they post?

BRubenstein said...

Isn't Lynn Fusco of the Fusco Corporation Joe Lieberman's Treasurer? If so...the Turfgrrl is in a conflict i believe...her failure to disclose the conflict speaks loudly if it is in fact so.

GC...please check out what Keith posted and if in fact it is accurate..i suppust she be removed.

BRubenstein said...

Isn't Lynn Fusco of the Fusco Corporation Joe Lieberman's Treasurer? If so...the Turfgrrl is in a conflict i believe...her failure to disclose the conflict speaks loudly if it is in fact so.

GC...please check out what Keith posted and if in fact it is accurate..i suppust she be removed.

BRubenstein said...

I believe Lynn Fusco is the Treasurer of the Lieberman Campaign and is a principle of Fusco Corporation as well. If that is the case then Turfgrrl has a conflict and should be removed as a prime poster here.

GC..please check out the information that Keith has provided and let us know the results.

bluecoat said...

jackie lightfield -- turfgrrl Huh????

bluecoat said...

I don't know what this or this means except that it looks like ctkeith got the list of clients right.....I know Hillary was hiring a blog expert to do counter offensive work for her....turrfffy, have you been a bad grrrl??

Derby Conservative said...

At risk of having Rube call for my removal from this Blog, I'm going to stick up for Turfgrrl. She has no duty to disclose her business clients...she's not an elected official nor is she an actual member of the media. This is a blog, a place where people post their opinions. The fact that you "people" don't agree with turffy gives you no right to intimidate her. I agree that she should have top back up her posts with facts when called on, but so should we all, and we're all guil;ty of posting an opinion or 100 that we can't substantiate. Give it a rest fellas, just because you don't like her thoughts doesn't mean you have to bully her.

GC, I would submit to you that anyone that has referred to Turfgrrl as "turdgrrl" should be santioned in some way. The Lamont Thought Police are getting way out of hand.

bluecoat said...

she uses a small "t" there, DC you have maligned her by making it a big "T"...do you want Schlesinger to win or not....let everybody expose Liberman and farrell and Malloy for what they are...

BRubenstein said...

Derby Conservative...i didnt call her that name...nor have a "intimidated" her intentionally..

I do say this however...she seems to have an apparent conflict of interest...a client owner/principal of a firm contracting with her appears to be Lieberman's Treasurer...she at the very least would have a moral and/or ethical duty to tell us of the conflict.

While i will wait for GC to get back to us...if the facts are correct from those that posted it..she really has some " splaining to do" to those of us that thought she was posting free of conflicts.

bluecoat said...

Diane Farrell who backs Joe has this to say over on her website about the issue that is most important to her:"I have been deeply concerned by the current administration’s headlong rush into war with Iraq. This War has alienated our allies, solidified the US position as an object of resentment and mistrust in most of the Arab World, destroyed much of Iraq’s infrastructure and increased its ethnic strife and increased global terrorist activity. A huge economic burden has been placed on the United States to fund a war entered into without a strong, committed coalition. Worst of all, the Administration’s lack of an exit plan has resulted in the tragic loss of life of hundreds of our American servicemen and citizens as well as thousands of Iraqis.” it's right in line with Joe's position as you can clearly see.......most everybody at the DLC has a price to take a position...

bluecoat said...

I don't remember seeing the "d" used anywhere either...

TrueBlueCT said...

Umm, how would such a disclosure read?

"Just so you know, the company I own does substantial business with the Fusco Corp. Fusco President Lynn Fusco is Treasurer of the Lieberman 2006 Senate campaign."

The rest of us can then decide for ourselves whether this financial relationship might bias what Turfgirl writes. (which seems to be all anti-Lamont these days.)

bluecoat said...

ACR said New Haven was corrupt but this doesn't sound like corruptionHit & Run With Friends Like Fusco: Developer takes FBI deal--& sues for more.
by Paul Bass - July 19, 2001
it sounds like Joe campaign tactics used in the business world and the world of local NH politics but here it says Fusco was tied well to JDS New mall arriving at Long Wharf so am I confused? not really just lazy right now...but politics is always what it is...

BRubenstein said...

Bluecoat...back in 2003 the Westport DFL brought the Council a anti-war resolution....claiming the war was entered into under false premises..etc..Dianne Farrell worked hard to make sure the anti war resolution wasnt on the council's agenda and defeated it...take with a grain of salt anything she says about the War...

BRubenstein said...

Trueblue...ive no problem with Ms. Fusco and/or Turfgrrl's purported business relationship with her..i just wish she was more forthcoming in her posts which we were led to believe would be neutral and independant.

bluecoat said...

BR - yeah, I don't remember the specifics but I was aware of that; I think we've discussed this before that I think she did the right thing about not getting that into town govt. business but for the wrong reasons...I take lots of things she says with a grain of salt and pepper because I have seen her record....

Jim said...

BR,
Should any anti-war expression from someone who once supported the war be taken with a grain of salt? Senator Kerry seems to have won over the anti-war crowd just recently, and he certainly played more political games with the war than Diane Farrell has. A lot of smart, principled Democrats supported this war initially and have since come around. I count Diane Farrell among them.

BRubenstein said...

Jim..If she was really truely against the war..then she shouldnt be supporting one of the chief war advocates ( joe Lieberman)He isnt just a iraq war supporter...he is a main mover of it and Bush's favorite Democrat.

Her support of him will hurt her in November...wether or not Joementum leaves the party

bluecoat said...

John Kerry has never played politics on his position on the war in Iraq and now the occupation; but lots of folks who don't understand the principles of war and the limited powers of a legislator to impact military operations think he has played politics...with the help of Joe's friend GWB...

TrueBlueCT said...

bluecoat--
Re Kerry and Iraq, before he won the nomination, I was pointing out to everyone that he had gotten not one, but both his Gulf War votes wrong.

The first one I'll give him credit for. I myself was pretty worried about Saddam's army and the number of casualties we would suffer in urban warfare in Kuwait. I was wrong. For the most part the army decided not to fight that hard for Saddam.

But with respect to Gulf War II, Kerry's vote was very much a chicken-shit political ploy.

Jim said...

BR,
I have the same position as the likes of Diane Farrell and John DeStefano. Joe Lieberman couldn't be more wrong on the war, but they're not about to overlook his accomplishments as a great U.S. Senator for Connecticut. It's not hard to see which candidate has the track record and national reach to do good work for the state of Connecticut.

TrueBlueCT said...

Jim--

Was Joe wrong when he voted in favor of the Bush Energy Bill last year? And when he voted for CAFTA after NAFTA proved not so good?

Jim said...

I honestly don't meant to repeat Lieberman campaign talking points, but they do have some merit. When I refer to his accomplishments, I mean that don't believe that a Ned Lamont and Chris Dodd delegation would've been able to save the Groton sub base like Lieberman did.

Lieberman's support for NAFTA and CAFTA was based on his principled support for free trade. The merits are debatable, but he was a Democrat standing for what he believes in. As a pro-life Democrat, I certainly deviate from the party platform from time to time, but I would never take seriously accusations that I'm a DINO. Lieberman has balls. I respect him for standing up for unpopular policies that he really believes are the right thing to do.

Jim said...

...and I honestly don't mean to use awful grammar that puts my entire argument into question.

BRubenstein said...

jim..his national reach is with the national republicans...its no small wonder that the likes of ANn Coulter,Sean Hannity,Bill Bennett and others have endorsed him...they own him...and his lousy votes for the war...alito clochure vote...vouchers...privatisation....NAFTA..CAFTA...and much more place him out of the mainstream of my party.

stamfordpartisan said...

turrfgrl -

Don't take any crap. I hope your business is good, and I appreciate your comments here usually.

I followed the links to old Bass stories about Lynn Fusco and JDS. What do you make of that? How can Rubenstien say "ive no problem with Ms. Fusco" when she represents disquieting corporate money influence over Mayor DeStefano?

Jim said...

Coulter, Hannity, and Bennett have obviously given their tongue-in-cheek support to Lieberman simply to fire up liberals. The more infuriated Democrats get with Lieberman and his right-wing "supporters" the more they can turn around and say "Look, they're angry." I think we all know better than to take that lot seriously.

BRubenstein said...

Stamford....dont twist what i said...i said ive no problem with Fusco's relationship with Turfgrrl...you purposely twisted what i said for nefarious purposes.

ctblogger said...

Wow,

If this is true about Trufgrrl, shw has some explaining to do.

As a blogger, you should explain yourself if there is a conflict of interest and TrueBlue and Keith offer a pretty solid case.

If Trufgrrl has a friendship with Lynn Fusco, then she should be removed from this blog pronto. I mean really, do you think Lynn (and Lieberman's camp) don't know that Trufgrrl posts here (I was amazed on the ease in which TrueBlue and Keith were able to connect the dots. It's amazing the power of a google search).

FYI: Lynn Fusco is Joe Lieberman's treasurer...get the picture.

This is bad...real bad.

I'm not a fan of Trufgrrl because she just throws bombs without backing it up with facts but this goes way beyond that. Not letting anyone know about your relationship with Lynn Fusco and the Fusco Corporation is a big no, no and I bet Genghis didn't even know about it.

Wow.

CommonSenseDem said...

The Lamonters (at least the ones on this site) sure know how to dish out their own opinions but they clearly don't know how to take it when (GASP) other people (namely other Democrats) on this site have different opinions. Boo hoo..the Lamont love-fest has subsided for a whole *two days* and you guys react like someone is trying to eat your young. Give me a break--if you think a reference to killer bees is an insult you may want to have someone double check your sensitivity chip, because it's a little too alert.

The rhetoric used by several of the Lamonters on this site reminds me of something their least favorite person (and mine as well), George W. Bush, said a few years ago (oh wait, GWB might be their #2 since they've saved #1 for Joe Lieberman)...anyway, GWB said something along the lines of "You are either with us or against us." To all of you with open minds on this site, why don't you think about this quote for a minute. Does it remind you of a message (and overall feeling) exuding from a certain campaign (and it supporters) right now?

As a proud Democrat, I'm sick of this message and I'm sick of the exclusivity associated with what the Lamont supporters believe is the CT democratic party.

Turfgirl, thank you.

CommonSenseDem said...

The Lamonters (at least the ones on this site) sure know how to dish out their own opinions but they clearly don't know how to take it when (GASP) other people (namely other Democrats) on this site have different opinions. Boo hoo..the Lamont love-fest has subsided for a whole *two days* and you guys react like someone is trying to eat your young. Give me a break--if you think a reference to killer bees is an insult you may want to have someone double check your sensitivity chip, because it's a little too alert.

The rhetoric used by several of the Lamonters on this site reminds me of something their least favorite person (and mine as well), George W. Bush, said a few years ago (oh wait, GWB might be their #2 since they've saved #1 for Joe Lieberman)...anyway, GWB said something along the lines of "You are either with us or against us." To all of you with open minds on this site, why don't you think about this quote for a minute. Does it remind you of a message (and overall feeling) exuding from a certain campaign (and it supporters) right now?

As a proud Democrat, I'm sick of this message and I'm sick of the exclusivity associated with what the Lamont supporters believe is the CT democratic party.

Turfgirl, thank you.

bluecoat said...

Jim said:I have the same position as the likes of Diane Farrell and John DeStefano. Joe Lieberman couldn't be more wrong on the war, but they're not about to overlook his accomplishments as a great U.S. Senator for Connecticut. and that sounds like a good reason to vote for Chris Shays instead of Farrell since obviously the war isn't that big a deal with her...LMAO

and trueblue, kerry's vote(s) on Iraq I notwithstanding, he voted in the fall of 2002 for the use of necessary force to disarm Saddam Hussein; he didn't vote for any war nor did anyone else; and as Kerry toldd the Village Voice he never thought George Bush would f--k it up as he did; there are principles of war that are constantly ignored in the debate about Iraq and limited powers of a federal legislator don't seem to be understood as well..

bluecoat said...

and BTW, I don't know anything about Lynn Fusco or the veracity of the info in the links I posted, I just Googled out of curiosity and posted...

turfgrrl said...

for the record -- It's interesting that suddenly I have become the obsession of certain individuals. It's amusing, really. The development of the current conspiracy theory is a fascinating proof to everything I have opined about the anti-Lieberman crowd. So thank you for making it crystal clear that you have little of substance to add to any political discussion.

I have an 18 year history online, various companies, and hundreds of clients. I've even had a few campaigns as clients. None of this relevant, or is it a conflict of interest.

What I write is my opinion, you can choose to enjoy it, disregard it or argue with it. I've provided countless links to buttress arguments. I engage in conversations with those that debate the points or my conclusions. I enjoy the froth of a good argument, too bad some here prefer character attacks.

Finally, thanks for all the kind words and support to all who've communicated with me today.

ctblogger said...

I have an 18 year history online, various companies, and hundreds of clients. I've even had a few campaigns as clients. None of this relevant, or is it a conflict of interest.

This is different and you know it. You're a blogger on a popular political site, you have a connection (and I would say direct) with the treasurer of the Lieberman campaign but you never posted a disclaimer and that's wrong.

Imagine is I let someone who was friends with John Hartwell post on my blog and all he did was rip Joe Lieberman while never mentioning that
he is buddies with the treasurer of Lamont's campaign.

You're arrogance will be your downfall and I promise you as the "two degres of seperation" relationship between you and the Lieberman campaign circulates throughout the national blogs, the credibility of this site will be put into question and it will all be due to you.

It's bad enough that you're dishonest and too weak to back up any of your claims with facts, people now consider you to be a mole for the Lieberman camp.

See you on the 8th :-)

ctblogger said...

Imagine is I let=Imagine if I let...

damn typos.

Genghis Conn said...

Also for the record, I've talked to turfgrrl and am satisfied that there is no conflict of interest here. I'll leave it to her to divulge the details she told me about her business if she so chooses, but you can see what she said about Fusco here (referred to as Lynn Fusso, obviously a typo). Again, there is no conflict of interest that I see and turfgrrl has my complete confidence. Really.

Thanks everyone for your vigilance, and apologies to turfgrrl.

KillerBee said...

Turfgirl. Hey, glad you are back. A couple of questions:

1) How well do you know Lynn Fusco?
2) How many Lieberman staffers are you on terms with, and are they feeding you material?
3) How much money a year do you make from your contract with Fusco Corporation?
4) What percentage of your income does said $$$$ represent?
5) Are you a registered "R", "D", etc., and do you intend to vote in the August 8th primary?

I would think these are fair questions for a front-pager who is repeatedly attacking Ned Lamont.

And everyone else, just remember who started this disagreement. Ol' high and mighty herself.

ctkeith said...

Typical,

The "I'LL DARE YOU ACCUSE ME" defense instead of,I made a mistake,heres everything.


Karl Rove would be so proud.You've even got the victim part down pat.

KillerBee said...

CommonSenseDem...psst!!

I don't think Turfgirl is a Democrat. I think she is a businesswoman first and foremost, (seems really competent at what she does for a living, in contrast with her blogging), but it would be nice to know.

What are the chances she deigns to go on the record?

Neal said...

A few comments for and about Turfgrrl.

1. When a Senator's approval rating is less than 50% within his own party, don't you think it's worth the time to figure out why?

2. What are all these great accomplishments that Lieberman has achieved for CT? He opposes the popular consensus within our state on major issues. The war is of course #1, but women's rights ranks way up there. He's been a disaster on healthcare. And his "personal passion for free trade" has been a slap in the face for our working class.

3. Everyone's always trying to defend Joe as being a man of principles. This is a bunch of crap. First of all, when your principles are wrong, that doesn't deserve an award. Second, he's a hypocrite and infrequent visitor to realityville. Joe is the one that turned this campaign negative, NOT Ned Lamont. Joe goes on TV to say that although many people disagree with his position on the war, he wants to listen. Well, I've gone to talk with him as have many other anti-war Nutmeggers. Joe treats us like crap in person, and his handlers try to restrict contact. This is not a man of principles.

4. With regard to potential conflicts of interest, I totally disagree with GC. If Turfgrrl makes money from her dealings with a key Lieberman staffer, that would clearly influence her opinion. This goes way beyond just friendship. I have friends at the Lamont campaign, but I don't rely on them for my livelihood, nor can I expect any direct financial benefit if Lamont wins (other than the windfall we will all receive by ending a spending cycle of $250 million a day in Iraq.

5. Turfgrrl, aka jackie lightfield, is not a registered Democrat in CT according to the state party database. Maybe she's a Republican or Undecided. Only she can answer that. Or, as she seems to have been born in Canada, maybe she's not able to vote here at all.

Turfgrrl, there are many good candidates that could use your passionat support. Why not stop beating the dead horse of Joe Lieberman, and help us beat Jodi Rell, Shays, or one of the other CT Republicans who's time has come.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Neal said... "
"personal passion for free trade" has been a slap in the face for our working class. "


You're entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

For starters I hope you're rude to everyone you know who drives a Toyota (the only vehicle manufacturer in No. American, Europe or Japan with zero CT content throughout their entire line. (Even cars not sold in the US often have some CT content.)

Next, don't look now but no state in 50 gained more with NAFTA than we did. CT's number one export destination is in fact MEXICO.


Sorry to interupt your little rant...carry on now.......

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrll wasnt forthcoming about the Fusco assertions and GC wasn't either...If Fusco is a client and Treasurer of the Lieberman Campaign...then she should say so...and GC should ask her not to post anymore...i have the feeling that neither of them want to tell us the truth about this potential conflict and what they know....its so sad to see a coverup like this...there goes their credibility.

turfgrrl said...

killer bees-- There are always unintended consequences. By persisting in your quixotic search for some sort of validation of your conspiracy theory you are in fact promoting my business. I think that is inappropriate, I had no intention of profiting from my political commentary.

The client you are so fixated on is a former client. The last work done for that client was roughly 10 years ago. The site has not really been updated much since 2001.

That being said ... buzz on. I'm sure the Lamont campaign is proud of your activities.

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl..im not interested in your business or clients..the only thing i am interested in is honest ( but hardhitting) political discourse.

Anonymous said...

Bonjour a tous, si vous vous interesse au domiciliation ,et que vous etes desireux de creer votre propre societe dans l'etat du delaware, aux etats unis, je vous conseille un site tres serieux:http://www.atrium-corporate.com.
Celui ci propose de vous aidez dans toutes les etapes de la creation de votre entreprise de A a Z, jusqu'a la creation d'un compte bancaire, sans meme que vous vous deplaciez.
Je suis actuellement en contacte avec le gerant du cabinet (fort consciencieux!!), et je peux vous affirmer que cela vaut le coup!!
si vous avez des interroguations, ou si vous voulez en savoir plus, il vous suffit de consulter le site : http://www.atrium-corporate.com
ou de contacter Mr Corona a l'adresse mail suivante:consultant@usa-corp.com
Vous en serez d'avantage sur domiciliation.
En esperant vous rendre service.
Bien a vous.

web hosting reviews said...

web hosting reviews BLOGGGGGGGERS

I would like to tell everyone I know about a new web site for web hosting reviews... If you are looking on ways to mkae money starting a business and need a site to host it on . Visit http://webhost-er.com/ Today