Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Will The Real Diane Farrell Please Stand-Up

Living in Enfield, I usually have to search for news on the 4th Congressional District race between Republican Incumbent Chris Shays and Democrat Challenger Diane Farrell. Such was not the case yesterday. As I read through my paper I ran across an interesting article that mentioned that Ms. Farrell does not favor an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. At first I thought it must have been a typo so I researched it further and as it turned out I read it correctly.

According to the Stamford Advocate on August 16th:
Democratic congressional challenger Diane Farrell is against "staying the course" in Iraq, but she also opposes setting a withdrawal date for the U.S. Military.

"I think when people start talking timetable, they start thinking dates certain in their mind, " she said yesterday during a news conference at Norwalk City Hall. "A date-certain timetable is not realistic."

Well no kidding Diane. I'm glad you finally woke-up.

The article continues:
The country's strategy should involve meeting with the warring factions and getting them to agree on their roles in the new Iraqi government, she said.


Shays, who is leaving this week for his 14th trip to Iraq, said the diplomatic strategy Farrell described is exactly what he hopes to accomplish each time he visits the country.

"She is showing a tremendous lack of knowledge," Shays said in a telephone interview. "That is what we are doing every day."

Farrell has criticized Shays for his trips to Iraq and said in a statement after her news conference yesterday that it shouldn't take another personal visit from the Republican incumbent to see that "the situation continues to deteriorate and to understand that the present course is not working."

I'm sorry but I gotta ask, what the hell is wrong with this woman? Is she really this clueless? Where was she she when the Iraqi Prime Minister visited the White House? Maybe on an abandoned island in the middle of the polar ice cap with no power? What does she think Shays does in Iraq; go to the beach?

Since you seem to be almost brain-dead Diane, did you know that Senator Lieberman's campaign took the time to point out that your new found stance must be "well within the Connecticut Democrat mainstream" according to Dan Gerstein? And since it appears you now have the same position as Mr. Shays, why on earth would anyone want to vote for you if they disagree with him on the war? Doesn't seem like you know what distancing yourself from your opponent means.

From another Stamford Advocate article:
Though she supported Lieberman in the primary, Farrell has said she disagreed with him on the war. Lieberman and Shays' views on the war are closely aligned. Both have described Iraq a critical theater in the global war on terrorism. Farrell faced tough questions from several audience members about the war, however.

"There seems to be a lot of confusion about where you stand on the issue," said Murray Paroly, a Greenwich Democrat.

Farrell said she has been consistent on her opposition to the war and that efforts to characterize her as wavering on the issue were politically inspired.

Other Democrats appealed to Farrell to reconsider her position on another delicate issue related to the war -- the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"I was very disappointed when you were not for a firm date for withdrawing troops," former Democratic Town Committee Chairman Betty Bonsal said.

Farrell said that while she is as eager as anyone to bring the troops home, she was reluctant to back a specific timetable.

"None of the people supporting that opinion are military experts," Farrell said.

Billed by her campaign as a community forum for citizens to bring questions, concerns and comments, Farrell spent most of the hour-long meeting attacking Shays, to whom she lost 52-48 in 2004.


On the Iraq war, Farrell criticized Shays' 14 trips to the war-torn country, saying that they did little paint an accurate picture of the conditions on the ground there. Farrell also accused Shays of painting a rosier picture of the situation.

Well at least other people are asking the important question. "Who are you?" And Diane, when did you last visit Iraq? I for one praise Mr. Shays for taking the time to go to Iraq and see first hand what is going on. Not only does he go to Iraq but when Shays returns, he forwards a list of recommendations to the White House and Pentagon after each visit. This proactive approach is certainly better than criticizing others and offering no alternative solution. And yes, I looked at your website Diane. In fact, let's show the people what you have to say.

Here are the main talking points from Farrell's website followed by my editorial after each:

* Have Congress step up to its proper oversight role and get the administration to articulate and implement a transition plan in which the U.S. will reduce its role and begin to bring troops home. Last time I checked, Diane is not a military expert...Congressional oversight is one thing but they shouldn't be writing the exit strategy
* Set achievement benchmarks, rather than dates, for implementing such a pullback. You mean like Shays and Lieberman?
* Begin meaningful Congressional oversight of all aspects of Iraq engagement including reconstruction, private contractors, equipment, and expenditures. Unlike the current Congressional leadership, demand accountability from the Bush administration on all aspects of Iraq involvement. And this different from Shays in what way?
* Renew pressure on the administration to remove Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary. I think the President has been pretty clear on this one...And what makes you think he would listen to a freshman Democrat?
* Recommit to forming a true international coalition with strong Middle Eastern roots that will oversee a collaborative assistance effort for Iraq. Right...so you will make the difference to France, Germany, et al jumping back in?
* Respect the ethnic affiliations of the Iraqi people and work with all parties to establish a cooperative relationship among them. You mean like the President has been trying to do and Shays has worked for as well...Again, stating the obvious and the position of the administration.
* Establish an honest, realistic and timely war funding plan instead of the Republican-supported administration method of emergency supplemental funding bills which makes it impossible to develop a true military finance plan. This one I agree with Farrell on. She actually sounds, dare I say it, like a Republican on this one and she is right.

I just don't get this campaign Farrell is running. She criticizes Shays and the administration for their policy and then recreates an almost identical plan of "her own". A lot of people, including myself, thought that Lieberman's campaign during the primary was the worst one ever. I think I may have to reconsider...

A close race? I think not.


Mark Ginocchio, Farrell opposes setting date to bring troops home , Stamford Advocate, August 16, 2006
Neil Vigdor, Farrell rips Lieberman, Shays for war stance , Stamford Advocate, August 18, 2006
www.farrellforcongress.com, Issue Topics: Iraq


Anonymous said...

Perhaps this campaign will be the final wakeup call for Adam Wood to get a real job.

Anonymous said...

Or maybe if he would show up in a picture without a Heineken in his fist--that might be a good first step.

Anonymous said...

This article is a cheap shot and should be dismissed out of hand. Disgruntled Republican should go get gruntled.

brickbat said...

The fact is that while pols like to say that elections are "about the future", they are also about holding officials accountable for their actions.

Officeholders who blindly supported the administration's wreckless (and inept) policy in Iraq have to answer to their constituencies for their actions.

That is what Chris Shays must do, and it is only right that Diane Farrell point out that she has criticized the war from the start...while he has not.

We all know that what people say when they run for office has a way of changing once their elected. Their platforms deserve some degree of creedence, but circumstances change (I'm being generous here to George "I'm against nation building" Bush).

But if elections are not primarily about accountability, then what are they about?

Anonymous said...

Gruntled--now that's funny.

Anonymous said...

Shays is the clueless one. After trip 13 to Iraq he thought things were still going great with purple fingers in the air. Now that the voter climate is changing he suddenly says things are not going as well and start holding oversight hearings. Where has Chris Shays been for the last 3.5 years?

Chris must be the only conscientious objector to the Vietnam War who believes in preventative war now that he soes not have to serve.

"Mr. Integrity", as his wife calls him should be called "Mr. Hypocrisy".

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:31:

How is the article a cheap shot? It seems to make a valid point, and if you could point out the difference between the positions as set out here by Disgruntled Republican it would be much appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Pullllllllllease! Show me a candidate, any candidate, who is unconditionally willing to set a date certain to get out of the Iraqi war and I will show you someone holding their thumb and and forefinger to their head (L, as in loser.) Diane Farrell has been against the war since before it started when she said we should work with our allies and the UN. Hmmm, how prescient, if only Dubya, Congress and a majority of the 'merican people had her intelligence and foresight...perhaps you wouldn't be disgruntled - just irrevelant.

Anonymous said...

I think that questioning whether or not Diane was brain-dead might be considered a cheap shot to some.

Also, as a result of this post, I did go sleuthing on Farrell's website. She has some interesting new releases that definitely clarify some of her statements.

Oh, and in the interest of fairness, I, too, am from out of district and not a Farrell supporter - I'm from the Fightin' Third.

Links are here, if you want them:


bluecoat said...

This could have been just as easily entitled "Will the real Chris Shays please stand up?" with appropriate criticism of Shays having to backtrack over the last three plus years had DG not been a partisan.

bluecoat said...

and DG: when you say : Living in Enfield, I usually have to search for news on the 4th Congressional District race between Republican Incumbent Chris Shays and Democrat Challenger Diane Farrell. , you are full of balogna since I post links about the race all the time.

TrueBlueCT said...


This diary is about as pathetic as Sean Smith's twisted attempts to turn Lamont into a flip-flopper on the war.

Not many of us favor "immediate withdrawl" of our forces. But almost all Democrats have come to realize that things aren't getting better in Iraq, and that it's time, slowly but surely, to start bringing our troops home.

The rest is just splitting hair as to whether the troops come home via a schedule, or via benchmarks. (which don't look likely to be achieved.)

Again, our consensus, as opposed to the Shays/Lieberman approach, is that three and a half years is time enough for this failed experiment.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 4:47 said: "Diane Farrell has been against the war since before it started when she said we should work with our allies and the UN."

There are so many inconsistancies and contradictions from Farrell, and not just on Iraq, that it's hard to know where to start. (For example, here's a great one - she opposed the President's tax cut package, but supports each individual tax cut as policy. Huh?)

But I digress, because the aforementioned post is my all-time favorite: this notion that Farrell has been against the war from the beginning. LMAO.

For the record, I live in Westport and I support Shays. So call me biased if you want, but the facts speak for themselves.

Farrell never came out prior to congressional authorization of force and stated publicly on the record that if she were a member of Congress she would vote "no". She and her supporters always refer to a Shays town meeting where she asked the Congressman to urge the President to work with our allies and exhaust the diplomatic route prior to going to war. That is not opposition. There were Democrats in Congress who voted "no" yet Farrell never said how she would vote prior to the vote happening. Her post-invasion opposition is all hindsight. Moreover, even she does not deny that she asked RTM leadership not to pass an anti-war resolution in favor of passage of a pro-troops resolution. Some staunch opposition, huh?

Leadership is about making tough decisions, not reading a poll and figuring out what the popular position is. That is the difference between Shays (the former) and Farrell (the ladder).

Excellent post disgruntled. For more on this you should also read Colin McEnroe's blog.

By the way, I challenge the Farrell supporters on this blog to produce a statement by Farrell prior to the Congressional vote on use of force that as a member she would oppose the measure. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:24..i agree with you..and i have the proof...

I was a Dean for President guy along with some folks in Westport like Patricia Taylor.She told me that the anti war folks presented a anti war petition for the TRM which Farrell as 1st selectperson worked to not endorse...I called Farrell and confirmed it...she..is a PHONEY..and i frankly as a progressive dem dont care if she loses..let her join Joementums new party.

Jim said...

Chris Shays, Linc Chaffee and the Queens of Maine out to form their own Clueless and Useless in the GOP caucus. Specter and even Hagel can be auxiliary members.

That said, Farrell may not be the brigthest bulb in the lampshop either, but I don't have a quick and easy solution to Iraq either. At least Farrell won't be the rubber stamp for BushRoveCO that Shays is, his rhetoric notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

BTW why is someone who lives about as far away from District 4 as you can and still live in CT writing such a long essay about this race anyway?

Are there no Congressional races going on up there by Bradley airport?

Try writing about what you know next time.

bluecoat said...

DG left out these two points from farrell's list and I don't know why?
>Formulate and implement a strategy to alleviate the pressure on our strained combat forces and their families, including increasing the size of our military forces to accommodate all duties for which the military are now used: Iraq combat deployment, other military deployments, homeland security, disaster assistance, border patrol.
>Support funding levels to give troops adequate benefits, equipment and other services. Ensure that after our veterans serve so bravely, they are given the health care and benefits they have earned.

and as far as the vote for the use of force, it was for theu use of necessary force but I have been down the road of explaining the steps a cop has to go through before discharging his or her weapon consistent with necessary force - and a cop has to do it most times without the benefit of a staff of national security advisers - Hans Blix was in country and he should have been allowed to finish the job; just ask Shays about his conversation with Blix.

Anonymous said...

I think she was a first selectperson at the time of the resolution, but soon after she started running for congress she was a constant critic

I guess she did not issue a statement about the congressional use of force becuase the Westport Police department had not been called into action yet.

You gotcha guys are silly sometimes.

Anonymous said...

What's that sound ..... it's Farrell flopping around like a fish out of water looking for her position on Iraq.

On August 16 Farrell opposed setting a timetable.

On August 22 Farrell says that the President must establish an exit strategy, which "must include benchmarks for U.S. withdrawal. It could include a timetable for a phased withdrawal."

Yesterday - no timetable.

Today - possible timetable.

Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop...

Anonymous said...

I think it is very interesting that the week that Chris Shays who is an elected official flip/flops himself on his perception on the situation, we get a long tirade from Clueless from Enfield.


D for Demsbetta said...


You're right, not gonna be a close race at all. Guess that means all the Republicans around here, gruntled or not, can just tune this one out for the next three months.

No need to blog it, send money, or even to vote, really.

Glad we've got that settled.

Anonymous said...

If you people think that these Senators and Congressional people are going to wave a magic wand and Iraq is over guess again.

This will just move from iraq to Lebanon to Iran to North Korea that whole side of the world is screwed up we will be over there forever.It should be called The Traveling War Show.

Diane Farrell wont change it neither will Ned Lamont.

I know Ned thinks he is the greatest thing since white bread But do you really think George W Bush is going to take a junior senator(and he would be a freshman unlike Lieberman who has 18 years and connections)from Connecticut He will tell Ned go back your seat in the back of the Senate Chamber and be quiet.He will be lucky if he can speak until a new President is elected in 2008.

Anonymous said...


You are so full of it....

You said 'This diary is about as pathetic as Sean Smith's twisted attempts to turn Lamont into a flip-flopper on the war.

Not many of us favor "immediate withdrawl" of our forces. But almost all Democrats have come to realize that things aren't getting better in Iraq, and that it's time, slowly but surely, to start bringing our troops home.'

Gee, I thought the primary was nearly 50-50. Since when is that 'almost all Democrats....'????

Anonymous said...

Oh how history can be twisted! I was the member of the RTM in Westport who proposed the resolution to which you put the lie. Never was there any pressure or even suggestion from Diane Farrell that it not go forward. And this can be supported by others who signed on to the resolution. YOU CALLED FARRELL AND CONFIRMED IT?? Put your money where your mouth is-give your name so we can call Diane and confirm it. I think not!

disgruntled_republican said...

It's interesting reading everyone's comments some 3 hours after the original post...funny thing is i haven't read a shred of substance that proves me wrong. I suspect i won;t see it.

It isn't meant to be a shot...it is simply my observations as someone who follows politics and is quite extensively involved.

You have never seen me write that i think anyone has the answers nor will you...I merely point out that Farrell very clearly changes with the wind.

As for me writing on the 4th when I am "way up here near Bradley Field", I will continue to write on subjects I feel are worthy in Connecticut....if that's a problem...well, tough.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Trish Taylor...now there's a force to be reckoned with. Her and her friend Marjorie from Hamden tried to trash Diane Farrell in '04 on the Dean blog. Lies, lies, proven to be lies by people who came forth with the real facts. She's still at it, huh? Can you spell personal vendetta?

Anonymous said...

Dear Disgruntled Republican:
Just what do you call Chris Shays saying he heard voices telling him that the Pentagon information was wrong? By your standards, clearly a flip-flop. By others, possible dementia! By the standards on which we elect Congress, (i.e. oversight, checks and balances, all those silly things our forefathers held so dear) clearly a dereliction of duty! Why didn't he ask the tough questions? Can you explain that? No. But you can attack his opposition for things made up by you from whole cloth. It's good to know Karl Rove is so interested in this CT race that is writing under the guise of disgruntled republican. lol

Anonymous said...

Check out disgruntled republican's profile:
"am active in the Enfield Republican Town Committee...As of 7/14/2006 I am an UNPAID advisor to Senator John Kissel's campaign and am heading up web based publicity for his campaign including on blogs and his campaign website..."
What has you disgruntled, DR? That democrats like Diane Farrell will defeat Bush mouthpieces like Shays or that you are UNPAID by Kissel's campaign?

D for Demsbetta said...

Anon @ 7:21 raises a very good point: the George W. Bush factor.

The next Congress can work themselves blue in the face coming up with the bestest most super-genius plan to fix Iraq and get our boys and girls out of there. It can be worked up and supported and guaranteed by the best and brightest in counterinsurgency and nation-building and geopolitical security.

But no matter how good the plan is, there's one fatal flaw. The weakest link in the chain. That's the current Commander-in-Chief. He has demonstrated - repeatedly - over not just his presidency but indeed his entire tenure in this world, that he will screw anything up. Anything.

Maybe that's the question we should really be asking both Farrell and Shays, whether they trust the current president to successfully execute whatever plan they endorse.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 1019 -

So funny I forgot to laugh.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 9:10 -

Chris Shays is the incumbant last time I checked. He can defend his record himself and hasn;t flip flopped on issues. He supported the war from day 1 and still does...

My post on Farrell is not made up at all. I clearly show where I got my information (in case you didn't know what sources means)and I interpited it just how it reads....more than one stance on the same issue. Funny because in one of the articles I mention, a Dem Town Committee Chair points out the same thing...perhaps that DEMOCRAT is wrong too?

Put your blinders up all you want but the facts speak for themselves.

And if I were Karl Rove in disguise, why on earth would I resond? (Yes, I know it was a joke)

bluecoat said...

Shays has moved on his position, Farrell has and so has Bush if anybody wants to look at the facts. And speaking of facts when is somebody going to post a link about George Jepson being named as Chair of the Lamont campaign. Smart move by Ned and inevitable too. It's in the Norwalk Advocate.

Anonymous said...

I few days ago I told ya Yuppie Ned was gonna find a place for workers of the world Tom Swan to hide after the primary, hire some yupsters to run the campaign, and was scoffed at.

Now that Greenwich bred Harvard grad Lamont has hired Greenwich bred Harvard grad Jepsen to guide the yacht of state. where's the CCAG types eating crow about my prediction

bluecoat said...

McCain faults Bush administration on Iraq
Americans led to believe war would be a ‘day at the beach,’ senator says

Anybody who cheers for war is an idiot.

bluecoat said...

Ned isn't Greenwich bred - he is from Long Island!

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should do a post titled: "Will the Real Ned Lamont Please Stand Up?"

The Hartford Courant story today reports that George Jepsen is Lamont's new campaign chairman, an obvious move to get Tom Swan away from the public and reporters.

Read the various quotes about Lamont from very active Democrats:

Donna King, a former chairwoman of Norwalk's Democratic Town Committee and a member of the state central committee, supported Lieberman in the primary race.

She hoped Jepsen would provide a balance to Swan's "far-left voice and message."

Jepsen said Lamont has always been "a moderate, mainstream Democrat."

So who is the real Lamont? Is he the DLC member that Jepsen claims he is (and George has known him for over 20 years)? Is he the moderate business man that owns a non-unionized business?

Or is he the far left "progressive" Democrat that Donna King sees, and DFA and MoveOn.org claim that he is?

Very interesting!

bluecoat said...

Anybody who cheers for war in any way, shape or form is an idiot. And this from Reuters:Iraqi PM says sure his forces can handle security
Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:37am ET
Iraq is not a war for the United States - never has been and never will be. Only the US Congress can declare war and the last one they declared was WWII.

Anonymous said...

Oh, mumsy brought Neddie home to Locust Valley after birth...now he tries to claim commoner status by using "Syosset" as a hometown.

Neddie a Lon guylandah????...fuggahedaboutit....

Anonymous said...

hope Tommie the socialist got some flowers after he was used and abused

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

bluecoat said...
Anybody who cheers for war is an idiot.

Maybe one who so clearly endorses both slavery & the Holocaust is.

Anonymous said...

"Incredibly rich White Anglo Saxon Protestant Harvard alums unite!!!"

"You have only your country club memberships to lose!!"

bluecoat said...

I am not aconscientious objector but this is a decent review from Wikipedeia of what it takes to be one in the US and from Selective Service as well
since the subjetct is germaine to this thread.

Anonymous said...

In my role as a Curry top insider and running the "political support" part of the campaign in the 2002 governor primary we successful convinced the overwheming majority of delegates,town chair and mayor's that Jepsen was a moderate who was part of a " Vichy Government" with Rowland....which he was.

At best Jepsen is a moderate without much passion or committment to progressive issues.Frankly he is a hack who started out as a DOdd staffer..

Its obvious Lamont is dumping Swannie and the leftists in favor of moderate hacks now...." helluva job Brownie..er..Swannie"

meteskyjr said...

What is so wrong with immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Why do most politicians, even those supposedly against the war like Farrell, seem to want our presence there to extend into the indefinite future? What did we gain by staying in Vietnam from, say, 1970 to 1973? We need to commit our resources to the War on Terror, not waste them as a hapless interloper in an endless, bloody sectarian struggle. As I once yelled to Grady Little through my TV screen: "Pedro's done!! Take him out now!!" But then, as now, the big fool just said, "Push on."

Anonymous said...

Two things:

Anon 11:44am--great job with the '02 Curry race. Great job.

CGG/DR/TG/TFG--can we get a new post? Dis ish be stale.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 12:35 -

New post is up...Go Joe Go!

Anonymous said...

Meteskyjr. your analogy would be more akin to telling the Red Sox to leave the field with a lead and a tired pitcher, and then let George Steinbrenner mug all the Red Sox fans, steal all the gate receipts, burn down Fenway Park and imprison the players.

I know Theo Epstein hasn;t done much of a job of late, but I do believe he wants to win. Obviuously the American Left are the mirror image of Douglas MacArthur, for them there is no subsitute for defeat.

Anonymous said...

Well done Anon. 1:35.

Anonymous said...

After all this...it turns out shays is a flip flopper:


"Shays, who has previously opposed timetables for drawing down troops, said he hopes to offer a specific time frame after he holds congressional hearings on Iraq next month."

Will the REAL CHRIS SHAYS PLEASE STAND UP...Hilarious...I bet you are really disgruntled.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting waiting some 3 hours after my original comment about Chris Shays...funny thing is i haven't read a shred of substance that proves me wrong. I suspect i won;t see it.