Tuesday, September 19, 2006

CT02 - This just in

Press Release received today from the Courtney campaign:

Getting it Done? Simmons' Hypocrisy Knows No Limits
Simmons' Message Thanks Joe for Putting Politics Aside to Save Base from BRAC

COLCHESTER, CT
– Rob Simmons paid to unleash his very first TV ad of the 2006 campaign -- a personal and negative attack on accomplished former State Legislator Joe Courtney -- claiming personal success in saving the submarine base from base realignment and closure (BRAC), politicizing a sensitive issue for eastern Connecticut.

Simmons obviously forgot that just a few short months ago, he personally called Joe Courtney to thank Joe for helping him to save the base and for not politicizing the issue. In his own words excerpted from the message, "And I just wanted to say to you how much I respect your decision back on May 13 not to take political advantage of the process, uh, uh, I think that was the, the high road. I think that without the support of, of everybody involved we wouldn't have been successful." [sic]

In last night's candidate debate at the Garde Arts Center in New London, Rob Simmons asked if Joe Courtney would have been able to save the base. Well, according to Rob Simmons' own words, Joe did just that – along with everyone in eastern Connecticut.

"Rob Simmons' hypocrisy is astounding and Simmons has been caught in what's become typical of desperate Republican Members of Congress across the nation clinging to their incumbency by their fingernails," stated Brian Farber, Communications Director, Joe Courtney for Congress. "Simmons will stop at nothing to revise history to his own benefit and contradict even himself for political gain. Joe Courtney will change the direction of this country while restoring obviously needed integrity to Congress."

Click here to listen to Rob Simmons' message thanking Joe Courtney for not politicizing the BRAC process.


"I[...]look forward to seeing you or hearing from you any time in the future."
- Rob Simmons, voice mail to Joe Courtney

In all fairness, Courtney has held his fire. This isn't politics as usual from Rep. Simmons, who sounded sincere in his voice mail. Does it suggest that Simmons is getting desperate late in the campaign?

Here is the CTLP post on the BRAC announcement last August.



Source:
Courtney campaign press release, 19 September 2006

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

From when Chris Mc was added earlier this month....

"Also, we are adding Chris MC as a nonpartisan "issues" blogger. He will be exploring many vital issues in-depth in his postings, and we are glad to have his expertise."

This is a political post plain & simple. I am a republican so you now see that both sides are questioning his addition...is it issue facing the state or as a liberal blogger?

Please clarify GC.

Anonymous said...

A fair post, though I would delete Brian Farber's (or anyone's) cell # as not for public consumption.

I'm also confused about the "issues" blogger designation. However, there are plenty of liberals who would contest Chris MC's classification as one.

Anonymous said...

This seems like a perfectly reasonable issue to me...

Here you have one candidate who didn't make it an issue, was thanked by the other candidate for not making it an issue, and then you have that same candidate make it an issue on the same candidate who didn't make it an issue.

It seems to me that Chris Mc is doing his job quite well in bringing these issues to our attention.

Chris MC said...

Well, at least both sides are equally sure I'm being partisan.

Seriously, we received a grant specifically for (although not exclusively for) the purpose of covering the Congressional races. If I receive press releases from the Simmons campaign on an issue of substance like this, I won't hold it back. If the Simmons, Johnson, Murphy, Shays, Farrell campaigns want to send it to another contributor, that is fine too. As I've said before, and because we have no obligation to cover them under our grant, I am mostly avoiding the Gubernatorial and the Senate races.

Not that I expect it to satisfy anybody, but I have exactly the same concerns you are raising, although it is appearance more than reality. The feeling around the table (we actually had a meeting this evening) is that we are each going to do our best to contribute to the blog in as professional a manner as possible, without pretending to anybody where are partisan allegiances lie.

Farber's info was part of the press release, and clearly not a secret, but doesn't need to be up and has been deleted - thanks for that heads up.

Anonymous said...

Where did this audio come from? Actually recorded from Courtney's answering machine. Seems kind of irresponsible to not attribute the source on this one.

Anonymous said...

Whether he is designated as a conservative, liberal, issues, or whatever kind of blogger, I really appreciate Chris MC being a frontpager. He's a bright guy who's talking from the center. We could use plenty more.

Chris MC said...

Yep A12:43, that is how it sounds, off of Courtney's voice mail or answering machine. I can only cite our source for it. So the post itself is fine there. There is no question in my mind that this is Rob Simmons speaking.

Unless Simmons disputes that this is his voice mail, might we be getting close to picking nits?

And A1:05AM, thanks for the support .

Anonymous said...

ChrisMC:

you'd show more "balance" in your posting if you actually focused on the bigger issue here: Simmons' TV ad.

The ad can easily be found on youtube.

the issue isn't Simmons' voicemail to Joe Courtney; it's the content of his ad which basically says, "I'm Rob Simmons, I've saved jobs in Connecticut; my opponent has done nothing to on jobs."

Farber completely ignores that charge and instead focuses on the voicemail.

Avoiding the jobs issue is smart politics on Farber's part. It's perceived bias on your part.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight: Joe Lieberman, Jodi Rell and a host of state legislators can campaign on their role in saving the sub base, but Rob Simmons can't? That is absolutely ridiculous.

There is nothing wrong with what Simmons is doing.

He was right that DURING the BRAC process, politicians trying to tak epolitical advantage could/would have hurt CT's fight to keep the base open. Imagine Courtney or Dodd or DeLauro or other Ds blasting Bush for the proposal to close the base and then blaming Simmons because he is Bush's guy. That is the type of partisanship that would have hurt us. It is the type of partisanship that all avoided in CT, not just Joe Courtney. I actually commend Simmons for his gracious call to Courtney, who basically did nothing to save the base anyways.

Courtney can do better than this.

BTW, I'm sure if Dodd were running he would be using the sub base in his ads too.

Anonymous said...

Simmons saying during the debate that "all Congress can do is withhold money" when speaking about the Iraq War makes him unfit to sit in Congress.

Simmons,and the entire Republican majority,have failed in their duty to keep the Congress an equal of the Executive barnch of Government.

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen the Democrats doing much either, except blowing a lot of hot air.

Courtney really made a fool of himself for this press release. It shows that he doesn't care about all of the jobs that Congressman Simmons saved when he got the base off the BRAC list...And Yes, it was Simmons, and Simmons alone, who saved the base. Rell and Lieberman were there for eye candy. It was Simmons' connections in the Pentagon and his relationship with the BRAC chairman that saved the base. Simmons proved to the committee that the base needed to stay open, and he has every right to use this victory to his advantage.

Joe Courtney is just plain jealous that he hasn't done anything to help the people of Eastern Connecticut. Rob Simmons has done so much for Eastern CT that it boggles the mind anyone could be so ridiculous as Joe Courtney.

The Architect said...

I don't see in that quote in the news release where Rob Simmons acknowledges any role by Joe Courtney in helping to save the base.

Anonymous said...

of course, had the Subase closed, Joe Courtney and the Democrats would have NEVER made it an issue in the campaign.....

bluecoat said...

the subbase is right on the Navy's schedule to be closed down in two decades; getting it off the list hasn't stopped the layoffs at EB or the redployment of work; what really stopped it at the core - and I hate to admit this - was Blumenthal's challenge to the Navy's incomplete envronmental remediation plan, which they are in the process of fixing, but nobody is going to bring that out ionto the political arena.

disgruntled_republican said...

bluecoat-

The following is directly from the BRAC FINAL REPORT which can be found here:

COMMISSION FINDINGS

The Commission found that excess capacity exists in the surface-subsurface category, that significant savings would accrue, and that a solid business case was made for closure of Submarine Base New London. However, the Commission also found that decoupling and displacing long-standing collocation relationships with the undersea centers for excellence, the Submarine School and a nearby submarine construction company could adversely affect operational readiness. In addition, the Commission found the arguement of overall economic impact compelling. Further, the Commission's analysis found serious doubts about the threat assessment and reluctant Force Structure Plan basis for the number of required Fast AttackSubmarines. These factors combined to present an inherently unknowable and therefore unacceptable security rick to national security if the base were to close.

Do tell me where it says a single word about the environment in there bluecoat. It doesn;t. Or do you claim to know Mr. Principalli personally, as Mr Simmons does, and he told something other than what was listed here. Certianly Dick's claims didn't hurt but it was not the deciding factor. The paragraph above has Rob Simmons written all over it.

bluecoat said...

DG: and your post has "I support Rob Simmons" all over it. I stand by what I said: the base is right on schedule to be shut down in twenty years with the only thing in the way as far as the Navy is concerned is they needed to clean up the environmental plan. Groton will be on the list again and the state needs to confront reality - it will be shut down.

disgruntled_republican said...

Yes, I do support Rob Simmons 100%. I have never made any bones about that. I also know that he, not Dick or Joe Courtney, was the driving force behind keeping the base open. It was his contacts and his experience.

Furthermore, the Navy doesn't give 2 shits about the environment bluecoat. And, what makes you an expert on what the Secretary of Defense is going to do in 20 years...or who the SOD will be then?

I agree it will be looked at but if we here in CT do things right between now and then with the base and surrounding area, it won't make the list.

Anonymous said...

Man I wish we could all be as smart as you bluecoat. I mean, we have a written report that says nothing about the environmental issue, yet only you know that this is why the base was saved. I applaud you genius.

BTW, this is the same AG who was going to bring the Big East to its knees right?

It is time for a new hobby there bluecoat.

bluecoat said...

Read the whole BRAC report, which includes reference to the testimony before it, and the original DoD report and not one excerpt - and look at the layoffs at EB. In other words look at the facts, not the political rhetoric and denials. The base will be closed right on schedule.

disgruntled_republican said...

Yes bluecoat, read the whole thing. I did. And I stand by my comments.

bluecoat said...

Ahh... good for you for you read the BRAC report , which included reference to the testimony and the DoD report. BUT you make no mention that you have you looked at the layoffs and redeployments subsequent to the BRAC being accepted by Bush - look at what DoD is doing with the base.

Anonymous said...

The layoffs at EB have nothing to do with the submarine base. EB is a private company that is having financial difficulties, and so must layoff workers to survive. The submarine base can't just give it business. You're ignorant if you think the two are connected like that.

To counter layoffs, Congressman Simmons has tirelessly worked to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for Electric Boat. He has stood up against the Navy, the Pentagon, and the administration in trying to do what is right for the people of eastern Connecticut.

And no, bluecoat, there is no ways that base was removed from the BRAC list because of environmental issues. That's just an ignorant, straw-grabbing statement.

disgruntled_republican said...

bluecoat-

Can you provide a link a place to get information on redeployments subsequent to the BRAC?

bluecoat said...

EB builds, repairs and maintains submarines for the US Navy and Simmons said the base had to stay open because EB did the work next to the base. The Navy will continue on schedule to close the base just as they always planned - the only thing standing in their way is the incomplete environmental remediation plan, which they are in the process of fixing. Spin, spin, spin and deny.

FrankS said...

The environmental valuation & cost-benefit analysis for the Groton closure was a point in BRAC's consideration.

Principi and panel member Philip Coyle challenged the Navy's figure of $23.9 million to clean up a century's worth of contamination at the Groton submarine base.

Settling environmental claims Blumenthal made, a 1994 agreement that requires the Navy to do a complete environmental review before the base property can be transferred.

"Clearly, the Navy underestimated the cost of cleaning up Sub Base New London in the event of its closure," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn. "Judging by the questions asked during today's BRAC Hearing, the commissioners share our concerns that the Pentagon failed to account for both federal and state environmental standards."

Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., and Gov. M. Jodi Rell also signed the letter.

"As was referenced during this morning's hearings, the environmental costs involved in cleaning up the base are not known, and could costs in the hundreds of millions," Simmons said.

An archive of related articles can be found here

disgruntled_republican said...

Can you just simply answer my question?

bluecoat said...

Thank you FrankS for that on the environmental costs. I am simply looking a this the way the Navy is - not the way the CT politiciainas are.. And DG: I didn't see your question before - just the anon post above it from the Simmons campaign - so you should complain to whoever the moderator is that has other things to do. But no I won't answer your question because I don't have the time to dig up the info that is out there in the public domain - but as you can see from FrankS's uncoordinated assist above, my opinions are based on facts that are out there.

bluecoat said...

and the statement that EB, a division of General Dynamics, is "having financial difficulties" is pure bull; it's a business and a very profitable one at that making business decisions that are in the best interests of its stakeholders and customers.

disgruntled_republican said...

bluecoat -

Do you need a refresher on rules? YOu can;t claim anyone is a campaign staffer on CTLP - you know that.

bluecoat said...

I din't call anyone a staffer - I tagged the campaign rhetoric for what it obvioulsy was and is.

disgruntled_republican said...

Holy crap bluecoat,

Do you even read what you write?

From you post in this thread at 2:05pm, EST:

And DG: I didn't see your question before - just the anon post above it from the Simmons campaign -

What would you call that? Anon could be a 75 yr old grandmother in Fargo ND but you specifically said the post was from the Simmons campaign.

bluecoat said...

it's poetic license DG; and if you want to police somebody, call your friend Jodi and tell her that state computers are logged on to CTLP; and then ask her why? She likes to respond to problems and scold people.

bluecoat said...

and DG: you defamed the United States Navy when you said they don't give two shits about the environment as well as demonstrating your ignorance of how it goes at navy bases. I seriously doubt the navy is actively contaminating the environment anymore based on the military people I have met and conversed with at environmental seminars and training sessions over the last quarter of a century. As for the others that flew by the seat of their pants - it's a good way to crash and burn; they should really be more careful.