Friday, September 01, 2006

Three Connecticut Congressional Races Among Top Races To Watch

In today’s Washington Post political blog, The Fix, Chris Cillizza once again outlines the Top 20 U.S. House races to watch this November. Not surprisingly, Connecticut’s hot trend in politics continues as the races in the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Districts all make an appearance in the Top 20. Below are Mr. Cillizza’s rankings and comments on the Connecticut races.

17. Connecticut's 4th District: This race slides down the Line as we hear that Rep. Chris Shays' (R) favorable ratings are extremely healthy -- making it difficult for 2004 nominee Dianne Farrell to peel away the necessary votes to defeat the incumbent. Shays, who recently made his 14th trip to Iraq and proclaims that he understands the situation there better than any other member of Congress, is expected to lay out a plan for a withdrawal timeline next month. After years of support for the war, will voters see this as a flip flop on Shays' part? Or will the move win him support among war opponents who will give him credit for searching for solutions? (Previous ranking: 9)

15. Connecticut's 5th District: Given her demonstrated fundraising ability ($2.6 million on hand at the end of June) and her longevity in Congress (24 years), Nancy Johnson (R) isn't an obvious target. But, Republican insiders say that's "red handed" commercials that ran earlier this cycle did damage to Johnson's image. Plus, state Sen. Chris Murphy (D) is running an extremely active campaign with $1 million in the bank. The district is extremely competitive (Kerry won it by 1,100 votes in 2004) and if voters are looking for a fresh face Johnson could be in trouble. (Previous ranking: N/A)

11. Connecticut's 2nd District: There are two ways of thinking about this race. If voters in this eastern Connecticut district see their vote as an expression of dissatisfaction with President Bush and the war in Iraq, then Rep. Rob Simmons (R) is in serious trouble. If, however, the main motivating factors for voters are more local in scope -- like Simmons' help in saving the Groton submarine base from closure -- then the incumbent could pull it out. Republicans note that Simmons already beat Democratic nominee Joe Courtney soundly in 2002, but the environment has changed drastically since then. (Previous ranking: 7)
What I find interesting is that while the races in the 2nd and 4th Districts both tumbled in this week’s ranking, the race in the 5th District made its debut. Personally, I think Representative Shays is the most vulnerable of the three incumbents, but I still believe that all three incumbents will win re-election (although, it should be very close).

Cillizza, Chris. “The Friday Line: U.S. House Races.” Washington Post, The Fix (Political Blog) September 1, 2006.


bluecoat said...

The Triumph of Unrealism piece by George Will that I posted elsewhere today probably belongs here as well with this quote being hoghlighted for this thread:The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.

Anonymous said...

two years ago on the "beltway boys" on the saturday before the election, mort kondracke (a reasonable commentator) had simmons pegged as a loser because that's what the polls were saying. Rob won with 58% of the vote. As long as Rob and DC Rs stay paranoid about the 2cd, Rob wins.

Satisfied in northern D2! said...

Mr. Simmons has served the entirety of D2 well... He's assisted North Central CT with transportation planning, revitalization, recreation strategy, homeland security, fair-trade protections for CT manufacturers, and has led candid discussions on the importance of intelligence gathering and the way our national defense is conducted.

My children have called his office for school project-related questions and have received near-imediate responses. My husband has also called with concerns and have been treated equally as well.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

I very much agree with the last statement- at this time, it looks like the 3 Rep seats will hold, with Shays being the closest call.

Ned Lamont has helped these guys by taking the air out of the room, preventing their challengers from getting mindshare in the electorate.

I think the Dems will retake the U.S. House- but if it's close, these races will be key. And the 52% of CT Dems who voted in the primary will bear partial responsibility for another two years of Denny Hastert.

Oh, and with Lieberman winning, the whole Lamont effort becomes a HUGE NET LOSS.

Anonymous said...

Chris Murphy's numbers are getting stronger and the race is very competative. On his side are the public's desire for change, his excellent campaigning skills and loads of grassroots support. Nancy looks very vulnerable this time, her record is making her base unhappy; her deciding vote that passed the "Reverse Robin Hood Bill"; the mess that is Medicare Part D; her diminished record on the enviornment; and frankly she hasn't brought a lot of support home to Connecticut. The poll numbers are reflecting public sentiment, it's time for a change in the 5th District.

The True Gentleman said...

Anon 1:59, I'm not quite sure I follow this comment: "and frankly she hasn't brought a lot of support home to Connecticut." Can you clarify a little? I read this and think you mean that she doesn't engage in pok barrel politics - I think that is a positive, not a negative.

The True Gentleman said...

...and "pok" is supposed to be "pork." Sorry for the blatant typographical error.

Anonymous said...

I'll politely disagree with the foregoing analyis.

At least one, probably two and perhaps three of the challengers win in November. The climate is too far gone for all three Republicans to survive - especially if the numbers continue to fall. For example the poll released today showing the erroding support for the war on terror.

That said: I would rank Courtney the best shot, Murphy number two and Farrell a distant third to win.

While Courtney did lose four years ago, things are very different today. Its a democratic area, where John DeStefano may actually be able to help a little (he'll likely run well in parts of the district - even though he isn't likely to win himself).

Murphy has always defied expectations. He beat an incumbent republican for his State House seat. Won a republican state senate seat. His fundraising is far exceeding what anyone thought. Every new poll shows him closer and closer to Nancy. moreover, if she wasn't scared why was she running attack ads in April, May and July - hell in April he hadn't even been nominated yet and she was attacking.

Finally ,Farrell - not so sure here. This is a rematch and as close as she came in 2004, it was still three or four points. I find it hard to fathom that, barrring a complete Democratic tidal wave, that Farrell can win. She came close (but not nearly as close as Charollote Koskoff in the 6th in 1996) in a good Democratic Presidential year with John Kerry driving the vote (he won CT with a good margin). And Chris Dodd on the Ticket. If she couldn't win then, I find it a tough battle to win now with Rell on the ticket. Rell will run very well in the 4th cd. Essentially Farrell will need to win a bunch of towns that Rell wins too in order to pull it off. That is a tall order indeed. (don't get me wrong, I hope she wins, I'm just not counting on it)

Anonymous said...

snore. the real story is lamont-lieberman.

TrueBlueCT said...


It's ludicrous that you would seek to blame the record-breaking 140,000+ Democrats for the mess that Joe Lieberman is creating.

Your logic would toss the primary process out the window. Heck, it would come close to tossing the whole two-party system.

What Joe Loserman is doing according to selfishness and ego is almost unprecedented. He's basically attacking like an entitled prick. (not to mention Bi-Polar Joe has adopted the Republican Party as his new base.)

That you seem to take glee in all of this would only seem to demonstrate one thing, --that you, like Joe, are a "Democrat" who knows nothing about basic loyalty.

My guess is that you are secretly a Republican operative.

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...


Joe Courtney is a nice guy. He earned my respect by the way he approached the Sub Base closing issue, effectively suspending "politics as usual" and offering his resources to Rob Simmons in particular and Team Connecticut in general to help save the base.

That alone distinguishes him from people like DeStefano and Kevin Sullivan -- JDS used the opportunity to take shots and KBS issued a news release calling the closing "almost certainly a done deal."

All that being said, he's not going to beat Simmons. He's just not. No one works harder for their district or knows it better than Simmons. And Joe lacks the zing to win on charm alone.

Murphy, by contrast, exudes the same greasy, disingenuous smarm that makes DeStefano so unlikeable. Forget him.

And Farrell's negatives are through the roof. Not only is she every bit as unlikeable as the rest of the Donkey Stable, she can't open her mouth without equivocating.

My prediction: Dems are 0-fer in Congress, apart from the incumbents.

Angel Feathers Tickle Me said...

Love to all...........

I prefer the mountains of PA

Anonymous said...

The rankings, in my opinion, are on target with Simmons being the most vulnerable of the 3, followed by Johnson and then Shays. I also don't think that this should come as any surprise, because the 2d is the least Republican of the 3 districts.

I don't think that Shays is vulnerable. Shays traditionally has much better numbers in non-Presidential election years. Farrell's negatives are going way up and she knows it. Although the district is largely anti-war, it is also one of the more educated, independent thinking districts in the country. That is why no one, other than partisan Ds, believes Farrell when she calls Shays a "Republican lapdog". Finally, the 4th CD has elected a Republican for the past 40-odd years, even in really bad R years ala Watergate. The other 2 districts have a history of electing Ds.

My prediction: Simmons loses a very close race, Johnson wins, but it is much closer than expected (Murphy runs again in 2008) and Shays wins by the same margin as 2004.

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

Please, TrueBlue/DeanFan, keep on confusing the bile and bitterness you've helped foment within your own party with the "will of the people" ... Those of us in the mainstream are eternally grateful for your efforts.

The True Gentleman said...

TrueBlueCT, I may be mistaken, but I think FatGuy was referring to the perception that Mr. Lamont is an extreme liberal whereas Senator Lieberman had appeal across the political spectrum (except the liberal side as we recently learned). I'm sure FatGuy would agree that Senator Lieberman's continued campaign throws a wrench in the fall elections. As for your comment, "That you seem to take glee in all of this would only seem to demonstrate one thing, --that you, like Joe, are a "Democrat" who knows nothing about basic loyalty," what does that even mean. If you are questioning FatGuy's loyalty as a Democrat because he does not care for Mr. Lamont that is funny. I mean, it was the Democrats who decided they didn't like the Democrat they elected several times in the past -- that doesn't say much for loyalty either.

bluecoat said...

For some local color on Shays/Farrell from the Wednesday Westport News as promisedShifting Shays Blurs Landscape By DON CASCIATO and yesterday's Westport Minuteman Shays shifts position on Iraq where both Editors are from the left somewhat with the Westport news editor having once run for state office - as a Democratagainst Tymniak as I recall..but not 100% sure.

bluecoat said...

and speaking of loyalty; isn't it the Republicans in CT, who already decided the guy they had known and loved in state politics for years and endorsed to run for the US Senate overwhelmingly at their convention just months ago, who told the Whitehouse to stay out of the mix and they'd take care of things in the election?.

The True Gentleman said...

That's fair, Bluecoat (except the "the guy they had known and loved in state politics for years" portion is a bit of stretch, don't you agree?). I knew I'd get hit back with that, but you have to remember that it was TrueBlueCT who made that initial comment about party loyalty on the Democrat side as he challenged another Democrat.

Anonymous said...

Courtney has the best chance simply because of the nature of the district. CT-2 is the bluest congressional district in the country held by a republican, and this is the one place where people will vote to oust the GOP congress--neither Simmons' fervant base nor Courtney too-nice-to-be-a-politician problem will stem that tide.

I don't think Murphy's really got a shot, unfortunately. That it looks like it's closing is typical as an election nears, and not really indicative of the electorate. He lacks name recognition and she doesn't lose. How long has she been in that seat?

And Diane, dear sweet Diane. She was screwed in the primary. All 3 are hampered by the continuation of the Senate contest (note that I'm not blaming either lamont's challenge or joe-mentum's staying in the race--that's for y'all to judge) because it dominates the coverage, but Farrell needed Malloy on the ticket to win. It was the only way to get Dems out in F'field County, which is why her team worked so hard for Malloy at the convention. DeStefano doesn't help any of them, but I don't think he hurts Courtney too much. His primary win dashed any hope Farrell had of victory however.

Sadly, the State Democratic primary really did set the State Democratic Party up for what could be a disastrous November.

Losing 2 if not 3 important congressional challenges and losing a senate seat during a cycle in which the party is trying to win control of congress--not to mention the gubernatorial drubbing which awaits.

At least we've got the constitutional offices locked up.

Danny Moore said...

I have to disagree with the above comments that R's will hold their seats. Perhaps the D candidates aren't as popular as they could possibly be (one of the inevitable outcomes of the adversarial political system we have), but none of the Repubs exactly get peoples toes atapping. I mean, Johnson is what, 75? Republicans just don't have a lot of reason to come out and vote, where as Dems have three of the best candidates they've ever had in these districts. I think all three, especially Murphy (I'm in the fifth, thats the area I know best), will pull it off this year. And I met Murphy a few months back- he's a politician sure, but I thought he was pretty genuine in what he's doing. He seemed like he really wanted to hear what folks were talking to him about.

lisoundgirl said...

Johnson has been there for 24 years - way too long! Murphy was the underdog in previous general assembly races, and pulled off upsets. All signs point to this being his year to win the 5th

bluecoat said...

I could probably do a Google Search on this blog and find some glowing comments about Alan Gold from some regular partasans on this blog that predated what I happen to think are non-sensical negatives TG, but I always ha a problem with his "split the difference" approach to every political issue he picked; for instance he was going to cut the troops in Iraq by half(as if a US Senaotr has that power) and redeploy hem for immigration control becasue Liberman and Lamont were fro more and no troops in Iraq respectively at the time but that's politics and this is reality in real time:Sep 1, 4:13 PM EDT
Pentagon Gives Gloomy Iraq Report
By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer

Anonymous said...

lisoundgirl said: "Johnson has been there for 24 years - way too long!"

I'm just curious, did you express the same opinion in 2004 with Sen. Chris "24 yrs in the Senate" Dodd?

If you are opposed to people serving for too long then it should work both ways shouldn't it?

Anonymous said...

truebluect said at 3:33 "that you, like Joe, are a "Democrat" who knows nothing about basic loyalty."

trueblue, I am a Democrat from Trumbull. My State Senator Bill Finch is sticking with his endorsement of Joe Lieberman. I don't agree with him, but it would be unfair to say that he "knows nothing about basic loyalty" as you suggest.

I think it is quite the opposite. Bill is endorsing Joe because of his sense of loyalty. I just think we need to stop beating each other up and concentrate on who the real opposition is here.

TrueBlueCT said...

The anger is all about the Bush agenda and the stupid Iraq War. And of course it applies to those "bi-partisan" Democrats who have enabled Bush, instead of standing up to him in opposition.

Anyway, last I checked the majority of Americans were both in favor of a Democratic Congress, and were also against the Iraq war. So you, your lousy President, and this insane war aren't in the mainstream. Sorry.

I am questioning FatGuy's loyalty b/c he doesn't want to accede to the two-party system and the primary process. For example, Kerry was like my fourth choice. But after he won, I did what all good party members do, namely I embraced Kerry's candidacy, gave him a few bucks, and did all I could to support him.

This is the way the game works. All across the country. It really is that simple.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 457 said

"My State Senator Bill Finch is sticking with his endorsement of Joe Lieberman."

Has anyone else heard that?

Anon. 457, how do you know that is true?

Any other dems other than Amann & Finch endorsing Lieberman?

bluecoat said...

Waht ever happened to Newt Gingrich's Contract with America that I know Shays signed on to that called for term limits - at least I think it did?

TrueBlueCT said...


If Finch is playing that game, it's news to the rest of us. Last I heard he was sitting this one out, as a "non-combatant".

So without further proof, I'm going to regard you as just another Republican trouble-maker.

Nice try.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 4:57 said - For what it's worth, I ran into Bill several days ago in Bridgeport and he told me that he was sticking with Joe. I told him that i respected his decision and that I was supporting him 100%, even though I am voting for Lamont.

tbct, please feel free to call Bill yourself (or anyone else can call him for that matter) if you want to check for yourself.

PS He never said to me that he was a non-combatant. Isn't that what Lieberman said?

The True Gentleman said...

TrueBlueCT, got it - thanks for the explanation. One thing I don't get is your comment to ADANR in which you state "[s]o you, your lousy President, and this insane war aren't in the mainstream. Sorry." The thing is, I didn't like Bill Clinton's policies or the way he conducted himself, but I never once referred to him as someone else's President. Are you an American citizen? If so, than President is YOUR President. You don't have to like him or his policies, but he still is the President of this country. Complain about his policies and make arguments as to why you think they are wrong -- but seriously, inferring that he is not your President takes away from all of the worthwhile comments you make.

Anonymous said...

bluecoat: the Republican Contract with America did not call for term limits as one of its 8 points. The contract did state, however, that there would be a vote within the first 100 days on several bills, one of which was term limits. Articles at the time indicate that there were some areas where there was not universal agreement, term limits being one of them. Rather then promise term limits, the contract promised a vote on the bill. I do not know if they had that vote, and/or if Shays voted for it. Give me more time and I will find the answer.

BTW, the first bill passed under the contract was Shays' bill.

Here is the contract with america:

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

bluecoat said...

Bush is the President of the United Sates of America; he is not my President at all. If we/I were to address to him directly I would do it respectfully as Mr. President and notmy President This is a Democracy not the Republic of Iraq - somewhat nuance but etiquttely(made the word up) correct.
For instance, long before the invasion of Iraq, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts addressed Bush one on one this way:Mr. President, don't rush to war.

TrueBlueCT said...

Sorry dude. I ain't owning Bush. He's the worst ever, (we all know it), and his poll numbers show clearly that I am not alone among those who have walked away from him.

If he ever seemed to listen or care about what the other side thought or wanted, it might be different. Those guys are power-mad, and till recently, they just haven't cared about the Democratic half of America.

P.S. Never did I come close to disowning Daddy Bush, Ronald Reagen, or Gerarld Ford. W is alone among the bunch in being a complete embarassment.

P.S.S. I'm sure you've always been a perfect gentleman to both Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter. Right?

Anonymous said...

Anyone even know what Nancy Johnson's position on the Iraq war is? She has been ducking that question for quite some time and it is time that she tells her constituents what she thinks. and NOT through a spokesman. I want to hear it from HER!

Anonymous said...

This election season is just starting and all the congressional challengers have made gains in the polls through simple means; door-to-door, large events and fundraisers. None have spent much money on advertising and still their numbers and name recognition rises. Nancy Johnson is a perfect example, she has spent well over 1 million dollars on negative ads to out her opponent early, Chris Murphy, to no avail. Murphy stands an excellent chance of winning this year.

Nancy Johnson should focus more on her record and the “F” she received from in their Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record, based directly on her voting record.

Anonymous said...

bc - Term limits were not one of the eight reforms listed in the Contract with America.

The Republicans did promise, as part of the contract, to have a vote on term limits w/in the first 100 days, because they had criticized the Democrats who were in the majority at the time for blocking a term limit bill from even getting an up or down vote.

Anonymous said...

I see Mr, Mooney is engaged in age discrimination. Perhaps his would-be consituents in Stratford ought to take note.

Nancy is 71 years old and campaigns like she's 30 years younger. She took Jim Maloney who is 13 years younger and turned him every which way but loose in 2002.

I think a lot of DC pundits are getting spun by the DCCC who wouldn't know the difference between Waterbury, CT and Waterbury VT. No Peace Pops in the Brass City

Anonymous said...

even James Carville says Murphy is why is he so likely to win?

All I;ve seen thrown at Nancy is boilerplate Democrat talking points

Anonymous said...

No one knows Nancy's postion on the Iraq war because she's spending all her time trying to get voters to think of her as a sweet grandmother type. Please! She won't talk issues- in Danbury last month she wouldn't answer a question about her position on immigration. What's up with that?

Anonymous said...

Anon. 748 said: "She won't talk issues"

Please Anon 748 ... really???

I have know Nancy Johnson for a long time and her problem is not that she doesn't want to talk issues, rather, her problem is that you usually can't get her to stop talking.

Just remember, everyone said Maloney - who was a great door-to-door campaigner and an excellent retail politician - was going to beat her and she cleaned his clock!

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>she has spent well over 1 million dollars on negative ads to out her opponent early, Chris Murphy

Don't confuse "defining the opponent" with "negative".

All Nancy's done is point out facts and one of them is that Chris is a snake.

Where's the people that helped him win his PZC seat, his house seat, his senate seat? Why is it that he has to get all new workers and volunteers for every election?

Simple - he leaves a wake.

Murphy makes Rowland on his worst day look good.

The True Gentleman said...

Actually, TrueBlueCT, yes I have. I was against the impeachment proceedings because I don't think his acts were an impeachable offense. And Jimmy Carter was (and still is) a sound statesman with great intentions (he just wasn't a very good President in my opinion). Either way, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were my President and I respect the office they held. I would never say that they were YOUR President. But I guess that is the difference between us. If you don't like something, you just attack and try to discredit it by refusing to recognize it. I on the other hand will attack and try to discredit it but still have the decency to respect the position (but maybe not the person).

Anonymous said...

I was against the Clinton impeachment because I didn;t want Gore to run in 2000 as the incumbent. No amount of chads would have beaten him then.

Anonymous said...

By the way, is Courtney gonna apologize to Simmons about his bogus attacks over Joe Wilson (the Tawana Brawley of DC politics)?

Anonymous said...

while we're at it, here's another chance for Diane Farrell to bail out of a previously long held position

Anonymous said...

My humble predictions:

Shays wins relatively easily as he can most persuasively separate himself from the Bush/House GOP agenda and Farrell has bungled the war issue.

Simmons in a razor thin win. Sub base makes the difference

Murphy in a close race. Of the three incumbents, Johnson will have the toughest time divorcing herself from the DC mess. In addition, due to the 2002 redistricting, she is not well known in a substantial portion of her district. Those people don't know Johnson any better than they know Murphy.

Anonymous said...

you mean "the substantial part of her district" where she outpolled the sitting incumbent in 2002...which is the same area which is home to the incumbent Governor?

I'm not sure Murphy is all that well known outside Southington. Which is not in the 5th District

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

True Gent:

TBCT/DeanFan could't recognize a nuance if it bit him in the ass.

Don't hold your breath.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>I'm not sure Murphy is all that well known outside Southington

Just as well for him.

You'd be hard pressed to find 3 active Dems in Southington that would have anything nice to say about him in private.

He doesn't seem too popular with his own party's regulars in Wolcott either.

zepp714 said...

"Murphy, by contrast, exudes the same greasy, disingenuous smarm that makes DeStefano so unlikeable. Forget him."

I can't speak to DeStefano's charms, but I'd think that Murhpy's comparative youth and freshness make him all the more appealing.

Maybe Murphy looks a little politican-like in his ads now and then, but his charisma, likability and considerable policy gravitas are all lacking in the Johnson camp. And he connects person to person -- people seem to get a kick buzz from the guy, and I think the debates are going to really drive that home.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...


You're probably too young to remember Billy Sol Estes or Robert Vesco; look them up as Murphy's cut from the same bolt of cloth.

bluecoat said...

For the hell of it I'll try one more time: the President of the US is president of the country not president of the people - he works for the people and for instance, lives in the peoples' house on Pennsylvania Ave in the DoC. in England the subjects used to - and ceremonially still do - refered to the King as My Lord and the Queen as My Lady. We don't do that crap here in the US - remeber about the rebels throwing the tea in Boston Harbor and the Declaration of INdependence from Mother England, TG? If, however, you were in the military he would be YOUR Commander-in-Chief because he alone tells you what to do and you must salute and execute any lawful order.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Apologies for my absence since my last post. True Gentleman and others have it right. And I think I will exercise a point of personal privilege.

TrueBlue, your loyalty is to a system- my loyalty is to a set of principles first, then party.

I don't accept the primary results as the be-all, end-all in this case. If someone legitimately experienced in Connecticut Democratic circles challenged Lieberman and beat him, I'd accept it. I DO NOT accept the Greenwich millionaire formula for overthrowing a guy who appeals to most of the state- in a state with a broad, unaffil, independent tradition.

If Ned Lamont owned a successful pizza place in North Haven and was married to a school teacher, he would not have won the election. Even though his experiences would be more in line with the Democratic electorate, he wouldn't have the dough to make a splash.

The people of Connecticut- all of them, will ultimately determine whether they feel loyalty to Joe.

TrueBlue, your loyalty was effectively bought and paid-for by Ned and Annie Lamont. How does that feel?

Anonymous said...

bluecoat - why can't you understand this. Is it right for an American to say, "He's not my President?" Of course not. How stupid is it to say, "Bush is not my President, he's the country's President." I mean, come on. Since 2000, many Bush haters have said "He's your President, not mine." That's just dumb, and it's not true. Even if you hate the man, he is still your President, my President, our President ... and yes President of the United States.

Wow! Get over it.

TrueBlueCT said...

Sorry, not my President. You idiots who voted Dumbya into office need to stand up and take responsibility.

I tried my best before disowning him however. You Bush-lovers are just impossible to reach.