Lamont Attacks Bush Over Iraq Speech

Ned Lamont reacted to a speech given by President Bush in Utah today with harsh words, calling the president's position on Iraq "stubborn and unrealistic."

"Once again, President Bush demonstrates a stubborn and unrealistic view of how to defeat terrorism and keep Americans safe," said Lamont. "All Americans want victory in Iraq - our security depends on it, and we owe our troops nothing less. Unfortunately, 'staying the course' won't bring us that victory."

"President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have been wrong since the start of the Iraq war about conditions on the ground and its role in the war on terror," Lamont added. "It's time to take the right steps necessary to allow the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own future so that the United States can refocus its efforts on the global threat of the war on terror, and threats posed by Iran, North Korea and other dangerous regimes." ("Ned Lamont")

The release from the Lamont campaign pointed out the positions of Rep. Chris Shays (R-4th District), who has long been a staunch supporter of the war but now supports a timetable for withdrawal, and others like Rep. John Murtha and Jim Webb as evidence of growing discontent with the way the war is being handled.

As this release shows, the decision by Chris Shays to support a timetable, which is a subtle but very significant softening of his position on the war, leaves Joe Lieberman looking more and more alone on the issue, and helps Lamont tie him to the president's increasingly unpopular Iraq policies. The country, by and large, is unhappy with the way the war is going, and that discontent is going to cost some politicans their jobs. Shays doesn't want to be one of them.

Lieberman, apparently, is willing to risk it. For now.

Source
"Ned Lamont Responds to Bush's Stay the Course Speech on Iraq." Press Release. Ned Lamont for Senate. 31 August, 2006. (no link yet)

Gabe on Leave

Gabe is going to be taking a leave of absence from the site for a few months, due to his increased workload for the semester and the interviewing process. He'll be back after Thanksgiving, but we will miss him sorely until then.

That leaves us down one progressive blogger. If you're interested in filling that hole for what should be a very exciting election season, please contact me. I'd like to have someone in place by next week.

Shays on Iraq

From Hotline on Call:

And Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) discussed his Iraq remarks: "I will just go where the truth takes me. And I will live with the silly criticism. But I have been there 14 times. I know more about Iraq than any member of Congress, any senator. I go there every three months."

More Shays: "I think the president does have timelines. He's just not sharing it with people, the way he needs to" ("PZ Now," CNN, 8/30).

Shays is grabbing for the center on Iraq, which was the issue that hurt him the most. Diane Farrell's move.

General Assembly 2006: Races to Watch (August 30th)

This is an updated list of legislative races worth watching this fall. This post is a little different from previous watch lists: as I'll be linking directly to the district page in the 2006 Election wiki. From there, feel free to make changes and updates as you will. The password is election.

Races to Watch: State Senate

Senate District 7 - East Granby, Enfield, Granby, Somers, Suffield, Windsor (part), Windsor Locks
Kissel (R) and Kiner (D) face off again in what is sure to be a tight race.

Senate District 9 - Newington, Wethersfield, Cromwell, Middletown (part), Rocky Hill
There's a lot of interest in this race. The district leans Democratic.

Senate District 12 - Branford, Durham, Guilford, Killingworth, Madison, N. Branford
Hannon (R) is running a spirited race against Sen. Meyer (D) so far.

Senate District 14 - Milford, Orange, West Haven (part)
Barbara Lisman (R) is facing first-term Sen. Gayle Slossberg (D)

Senate District 16 - Cheshire (part), Southington, Waterbury (part), Wolcott
Caliguiri (R) and Zoni (D) are both raising a ton of money, although Caliguiri is doing much better so far.

Senate District 18 - Griswold, Groton, N. Stonington, Plainfield, Preston, Sterling, Stonington, Voluntown
Andy Maynard (D) and Lenny Winkler (R) are competing for an open seat vacated by Sen. Cathy Cook (R).

Senate District 20 - East Lyme, Montville (part), New London, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook (part), Salem, Waterford
Chris Oliviera (R) is running strongly against Sen. Stillman (D).

Senate District 21 - Monroe (part), Seymour (part), Shelton, Stratford (part)
Jones (D) and Debicella (R) are competing for outgoing Sen. "Doc" Gunther's (R) seat.

Senate District 22 - Bridgeport (part), Monroe, Trumbull (part)
Sen. Finch (D) faces a challenge from Robert Russo (R).

Senate District 31 - Bristol, Harwinton (part), Plainville, Plymouth
Beverly Bobroske (R) has raised a lot of money in her campaign against Sen. Tom Colapietro (D).

Races to Watch: State House of Representatives

House District 2 - Bethel (part), Danbury (part), Redding (part)
This district saw one of the closest races of 2004.

House District 19 - Avon (part), Farmington (part), West Hartford (part)
Bob Farr's district. Beth Bye (D) looks strong here.

House District 30 - Berlin (part), Southington (part)
Edward Pocock (R) is facing Rep. Joe Aresimowicz (D).

House District 37 - East Lyme, Salem
Paul Formica (R) is doing well raising money against Rep. Jutila (D).

House District 38 - Montville (part), Waterford
Brian Vachris (R) is challenging Rep. Ritter (D), in what should be an aggressive campaign from both sides.

House District 50 - Brooklyn, Eastford, Hampton, Pomfret, Woodstock
Rep. Alberts (R) won his seat in 2004 by only 48 votes (0.44%). He is facing Sherri Vogt (D).

House District 58 - Enfield (part)
Sue Lavelli-Hozempa (R) has reportedly been working hard in her campaign against entrenched Rep. Kathy Tallarita (D). Might be worth watching.

House District 59 - Enfield (part)
In my home district, Rep. Steve Jarmoc's wife Karen Jarmoc (D) is running for his seat as he leaves the field. This is reportedly causing some grumbling, and may benefit challenger Charles Woods (R).

House District 61 - East Granby (part), Suffield, Windsor (part)
Derek Donnelly (D) is running a very strong race against longtime incumbent Ruth Fahrbach (R).

House District 79 - Bristol (part)
This race is actually a lot less interesting now that the primary is over.

House District 86 - East Haven (part), North Branford, Wallingford (part)
Vincent J. Candelora (R) seems to be doing well against Ashley Clow Joiner (D) in this race for GOP leader Robert Ward's old seat.

House District 100 - Durham, Middlefield, Middletown (part)
This district was pretty close (under 3%) in 2004, but things may be different this year.

House District 101 - Guilford (part), Madison
First term Rep. Deborah Heinrich (D) may face a tough fight from Noreen Kokoruda (R) in a heavily Republican area.

House District 104 - Ansonia (part), Derby (part)
J.R. Romano (R) is doing well raising funds against Rep. Linda Gentile (D).

House District 120 - Stratford (part)
Democrat Dave Mooney has raised a lot more money than his opponent Rep. John Harkins (R). One to watch.

House District 132 - Fairfield (part)
Chris DeSanctis (R) is challenging Rep. Drew (D), and both have raised significant amounts of money.

House District 134 - Fairfield (part), Trumbull (part)
Rep. Jack Stone was defeated for the first selectman's post in Fairfield last year, so he may be vulnerable.

House District 136 - Westport (part)
Businessman Bill Harris (R) is facing Rep. Joe Mioli (D), who won by a narrow margin in 2004.

Please suggest additions, or make changes to these pages at the CT Election site! You can also check out some recent fundraising numbers for House and Senate races.

Smart, Thin and Rich

What's this? Good news about Connecticut?

So, in order, here are the states with the 5 best and 5 worst average rankings:

Best

CO 40.67
MN 40.00
UT 39.67
WI 39.33
CT 38.67

Worst

SC 7.33
TX 8.00
WV 10.00
GA 10.67
MS 11.67

I'm glad we're in the top 5 for something positive for once.

Of course, you'd think that having a lot of money and intelligence lying around would make for a slightly better economy. Oh, well. No one's saying it's a particularly meaningful list.

Open Forum

Don't forget to check out the CT Election 2006 directory: I've been putting new stuff up over there. I will remind you that it's a wiki, which means that you can (and should!) add information about the races you know best.

What else is happening today?

Gubernatorial Poll

Since this race actually crept out of the shadows today, how about a poll?

If the election for governor were held today, for which candidate would you most likely vote?
	John DeStefano (D)
	Jodi Rell (R)
	I don't know
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Rell, DeStefano Spar over Head Start

John DeStefano today attacked Gov. Rell over her record on Head Start, pointing to a decline in state funding for the program and the fact that Rell had voted against Head Start funding while in the state legislature. From the DeStefano press release:

Standing with students, teachers, and school administrators today in Bridgeport, John DeStefano, Democratic nominee for governor, called on Gov. Rell to adequately fund Head Start and give every child the opportunity to succeed in school.

“There are more than 17,000 three and four year-olds without access to pre-k right now,” said DeStefano. “Under Gov. Rell funding for Head Start has actually declined since 2002. This is not surprising considering she was one of only 7 legislators to vote against Head Start in 1992. If Gov. Rell has her way, it would take another 36 years to find coverage for all those kids. State Rep. Jodi Rell didn’t get it then and Gov. Rell doesn’t get it now.”

Gov. Rell’s opposition to Head Start is not new; as a state legislator, Jodi Rell voted against SB 138, a bill that provided funding for Head Start. Rell was one of 7 legislators, out of 140, who voted against the bill in 1992. The Act Concerning Head Start Program Quality and Allocation of Funding and the Duties of the Child Day Care Council passed with strong bipartisan support. Fifty eight Republicans voted for the bill and only 6 did not – Rell being one of them. (1)

The Rell campaign fired back that DeStefano was misinterpreting the record:

“Pointing to the state subsidies for a federally funded program such as Head Start without taking into account Connecticut’s enormous expenditure elsewhere in early childhood education is disingenuous at best,” Governor Rell said.

“Under my Administration, Connecticut has invested $21 million in early childhood education – more than any previous Governor,” the Governor said. ...

The majority of funding for Head Start comes from the federal government. Connecticut contributes an additional $2.75 million a year for Head Start services and a further $1.77 million for Head Start enhancements (capital improvements, supplies and other needs).

At the same time, Connecticut offers a School Readiness Program that mirrors Head Start in many ways but offers increased flexibility. (2)

The release offered no explanation for the governor's vote against Head Start funding in 1992.

Update 8:27pm

Correction from earlier update: the Rell campaign has stated that Rell does not remember the specifics of the bill as it was a long time ago, but that the bill itself did not, as DeStefano claims, provide funding for Head Start. Instead, the bill was concerned with administrative changes to Head Start that would have placed the education commissioner in charge of the program (instead of the human resources commissioner) and required that "at least 25% of the grant funding go to enhancing program quality."

Sources

1. "Records Reveal that Jodi Rell was one of Only 7 Lawmakers to Vote Against Head Start." Press Release. DeStefano for Connecticut. 29 August, 2006.

2. "Gov. Rell's REAL Record on Early Childhood Education." Press Release. Jodi Rell '06. 29 August, 2006.

DeStefano Catching Up?

The Courant is reporting on a new Zogby poll showing John DeStefano drawing to within 17% of Gov. Jodi Rell:

a new Zogby International poll showed DeStefano trailing Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell by 17 percentage points - a far closer margin than the 32-point spread shown recently by the Quinnipiac University poll. (Keating)

The Rell campaign questioned the poll's methodology:

Rell's campaign immediately raised questions about the reliability and methodology of the Zogby survey, which referred incorrectly to the New Haven mayor as "Stefano" instead of DeStefano.

"That right there gives you an idea of the accuracy of their polling," said Rich Harris, Rell's campaign spokesman. "It just doesn't track with any of the other polls that anyone has taken."

The DeStefano campaign had been unaware of the results and expressed optimism that the race might be closer than expected.

"Zogby's got a good name," spokesman Derek Slap said. "This is consistent with what everybody thinks is going to happen - that this will tighten." (Keating)

The poll probably isn't all that accurate, although it may be correct in showing a narrowing of the race. The breakdown by party, which was available in the print version of the Courant, showed most Democrats preferred DeStefano, while almost all Republicans and a solid majority of independents favored Rell. Unfortunately for DeStefano, this is probably where things will remain--if in fact it's even this close.

Source
Keating, Christopher. "A Union Boost For Lamont, DeStefano." Hartford Courant 29 August, 2006.

RTCs Start Dropping Schlesinger

Not a huge surprise:

Local Republican committees are starting to follow the lead of their rank and file in Connecticut by abandoning the quixotic Senate candidacy of Republican Alan Schlesinger. On August 11th, the Killingworth Republican Town Committee voted to withdraw its endorsement of Schlesinger.

The real question is who they might endorse in his place. Kevin Rennie seems to think they might endorse Lieberman. Could be interesting if they do.

Senate Poll

Political Wire reports on a WSJ/Zogby poll showing Lieberman leading Lamont by ten points: 49.4% to 39.4%.

Schlesinger is getting 2.1%: below the margin of error. Ouch.

Dodd to Visit Iowa, New Hampshire

Sen. Chris Dodd will be heading out to Iowa and New Hampshire next month to test the presidential waters, according to the Courant. His biggest problems right now are his late start, and low name recognition:

Earlier this month, at least six candidates visited the Iowa State Fair, a favorite and well-publicized stop for political hopefuls. A local television station poll at the fair found former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tied among Democrats with 33 percent each.

Dodd was not among the 10 candidates mentioned in the survey.

However, as the article mentions, Dodd is well-known among some of the party faithful because of his brief stint as the head of the DNC during the mid-1990s (a glorious time for Democrats), and he has already raised about $2 million. He also has good connections in New Hampshire and has the added benefit of being a northeasterner, although that didn't help Joe Lieberman.

I suspect that it won't help Dodd, either. The only northeastern senator with a shot this time around is Hillary Clinton, and Dodd is not a convincing alternative to her.

We'll keep an eye on the Dodd campaign as it develops, although a lukewarm reception next month could spell its end.

Source
Lightman, David. "Dodd To Test Waters." Hartford Courant 28 August, 2006.

Shays Comments on Iraq: 2002-Present

The following are quotes made by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-4th CD) on the war in Iraq.

"The dangers we face may never be clear again. The mere existence of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of despots, tyrants and terrorists constitutes an imminent threat to our security." –Chris Shays, October 2002 (1)

"I find it funny how bellicose Chris Shays, a Peace Corps guy, has been these days when someone like me who's been in a war zone is just much more hesitant.” –Rob Simmons, October 2002 (2)

"This crisis has to be resolved now, not two, three or four years from now ... Regrettably, the world community remains divided, but the consequences of allowing Saddam Hussein to continue to manipulate the world community and develop his weapons of mass destruction are just too great." –Chris Shays, March 2003 (3)

"We now have to win the peace in Iraq and that's going to be very difficult ... If we fail to bring some stability to that area, then the whole effort will have been marred." –Chris Shays, following his first trip to Iraq in April 2003 (4)

"If we don't get the electricity and other things running, there will be many more problems.” –Chris Shays, encouraging the Administration to speed up its rebuilding efforts, during his second visit to Iraq in August, 2003. (5)

"The provisional authority has got more things in place ... There is no question we waited too long to do some of this stuff, but it is starting to happen." –Shays reporting on progress in Iraq during his third trip to the region in December 2003. (6)

"If this is their revolution, they [Iraqis] have to have a greater part in it ... They need to be listened to and no one is listening to them." –Shays, during his third visit to Iraq in December, 2003. (7)

"We met with six of the 25 members of the governing council and they have given me a lot more hope for what we can accomplish ... They said they're not going to be asking for more time, that they're up for the job." – Shays, during his fourth trip to Iraq in January, 2004. The governing council was the Iraqi body to which sovereignty was handed in May 2004 (8)

"We want to be out of Iraq and we want Iraq to govern itself." –Shays, speaking with Arab TV during the Republican National Convention, September 2004 (9)

"I believe with all my heart and soul the battle of terrorism is being fought in Iraq right now.” –Chris Shays, in a debate with Diane Farrell, October 2004 (10)

"To suggest somehow that President Bush should have known all this intelligence was false is not justified. It would have been foolish and irresponsible not to act. Saddam wanted us to think that he had weapons of mass destruction." –Shays, attacking Democrats in October, 2004 (11)

''When people say I don't understand what Saddam Hussein had to do with Sept. 11, I don't understand the question. It's like saying I don't understand what Adolf Hitler had to do with Pearl Harbor.'' –Shays, during a debate with Farrell in October 2004 (12)

"It is amazing to think of what is happening in these 20 months." –Shays, visiting Iraq for the seventh time to observe the Iraqi elections in January, 2005. (13)

"My own sense is that it is going to take a few years to get their police and army to the point where we would be able to totally back off." Shays, during his seventh visit to Iraq, February 2005 (14)

"We need to set some benchmarks and have a dialogue about that." Shays in June, 2005. Shays also said that setting a timetable would be a “mistake.” (15)

"I'm coming back pretty optimistic." Shays speaking about his tenth visit to Iraq, which preceded the Iraqi constitutional referendum, October 2005. (16)

"He is one of the few Democrats who is not making politics with the Iraq war." –Shays, referring to Joe Lieberman in March, 2006 (17)

"This is an issue of principle. Chris believes the war is the right thing to do." Shays campaign manager Michael Sohn, March 2006. (18)

I believe very strongly we can't pull our troops out as quickly as Americans want us to ... I'm having every expert on terror I talk to say the last thing you do to terrorists is give them a timetable.'' –Shays, April 2006 (19)

“I don't believe that this would even be a close election [for me] if it wasn't for Iraq. I accept that. If I lost over Iraq, I would be unhappy; but I would live with the knowledge that I've taken what I believe to be the right stand. The war in Iraq is a noble effort we can't afford to lose.'' –Shays in June, 2006 (20)

“I'd like to say I see light at the end of the tunnel, but I'm pessimistic about what I'll probably be reporting.” –Shays in August, 2006, preparing to leave for his 14^th visit to Iraq. (21)

"Our troops cannot be there indefinitely. ... We should be able to tell the American people what kind of timeline we can have to begin to draw down our troops. It may be a timeline the American people don't want to hear. It may not be something that brings them out quickly." –Shays, following his 14^th visit to Iraq in August, 2006. (22)

“A timeline is not an exit strategy.” –Diane Farrell, responding to Shays’ call for a timeline, August 2006 (23)

-------------------------------
Sources

1. Urban, Peter. “Bush wins over Congress on support for Iraqi war.” Connecticut Post 3 October, 2002.

2. Urban, Peter. “Simmons apologizes to Shays for 'bellicose' characterization.” Connecticut Post 6 October, 2002.

3. “State Prepares for War.” Associated Press 17 March, 2003.

4. “Shays says Iraq rebuilding, Palestinian-Israel conflict urgent.” Associated Press 28 April, 2003.

5. Urban, Peter. “Shays calls for speedier rebuilding; Says Bush must push Iraqi plans.” Connecticut Post 28 August, 2003.

6. Urban, Peter. “Shays reports progress in Iraq; Has no protection in 3rd trip to area.” Connecticut Post 6 December, 2003.

7. “Lawmakers call for more Iraqi involvement in their nation's rebuilding.” Associated Press 10 December, 2003.

8. Baldor, Lolita. “Shays, lawmakers are first to stay overnight in Baghdad.” Associated Press 5 January, 2004.

9. Urban, Peter. “Shays faces blunt questions on controversial Arab TV.” Connecticut Post 3 September, 2004.

10. “Shays, Farrell square off in first debate in 4th District.” Associated Press 5 October, 2004.

11. “Iraq verdict fuels firestorm.” Connecticut Post 7 October, 2004

12. Cowan, Alison Leigh. “Using Iraq, a Challenger From Westport Has a Washington Veteran on the Defensive.” New York Times 10 October, 2004.

13. Urban, Peter. “Iraq vote witnessed by Shays.” Connecticut Post 31 January, 2005.

14. Urban, Peter. “Shays: Iraq needs continued U.S. support.” Connecticut Post 1 February, 2005.

15. Urban, Peter. “Pressure builds on Bush to set Iraq timetable.” Connecticut Post 17 June, 2005.

16. Urban, Peter. “Returning Shays optimistic on voting outlook for Iraq.” Connecticut Post 12 October, 2005.

17. “Shays says he intends to vote for Lieberman.” Associated Press 1 March, 2006.

18. Christoffersen, John. “Shays faces tough race over Iraq war.” Associated Press 9 March, 2006.

19. Lightman, David. “Dodd, Shays see reason for Optimism.” Hartford Courant 22 April, 2006.

20. Buck, Rinker. “Out of Step: Why Chris Shays, Fairfield County’s Fiercely Independent Congressman, is Putting his Political Life on the Line over Iraq.” Hartford Courant 11 June, 2006.

21. Lightman, David. “Rivals Sound More Alike; Shays, Farrell Both Pessimistic on Iraq Outlook.” Hartford Courant 19 August, 2006.

22. Miga, Andrew. “Shays says U.S. should consider time frame for troop withdrawals.” Associated Press 24 August, 2006.

23. Pazniokas, Mark. “Shays’ Shift Causes a Stir.” Hartford Courant 26 August, 2006.

Open Forum

Quote of the day:

"I did say to Joe on the way in I wasn't going to hug him."

-Jodi Rell, from a bipartisan event at the Sub Base today

What else is happening?

DeStefano Criticizes Rell over CMT Scores

John DeStefano is criticizing Gov. Rell over today's release of the list of elementary and middle schools not making adequate yearly progess under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

John DeStefano – Democratic nominee for governor – responded today to results of the 2006 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) which show that more than one third of the state’s elementary and middle schools failed to meet the standards of the No Child Left Behind law. All told, 290 schools made the list, nearly double the amount from one year ago. According to Connecticut Voices for Children, Connecticut is one of the 10 states with the worst racial disparities in high school graduation rates.

“Gov. Rell presides over one of the worst achievement gaps in the nation,” said DeStefano. “It is shameful that the gap between black and white high school graduation rates and Hispanic and white high school graduation rates is one of the worst in the U.S. and looking at these test scores it is evident that more of our children are being left behind each and every year. As governor, I would implement the tenets of my Every Child Reads by Third Grade proposal – including universal pre-k for all 3 and 4 year-olds.” ("More")

The list of failing schools is daunting, to be sure. But Jodi Rell is not solely to blame. In fact, while the Rell Administration does indeed deserve some of the blame for this lengthy list, there are other, more immediate and more difficult to solve causes to be dealt with.

Question: What makes a failing school?

Teachers - Teachers almost always get the lion's share of the blame. They're on the front lines every day, they're actually getting paid to directly educate the students and, let's face it, most Americans don't really like them.

There are plenty of bad teachers out there, true enough. How many can you count from your own school days? But even the best teachers can't always overcome all the other forces listed below, and it's getting harder every year.

Parents and Home Life - Parents are a wild card. Some parents care about their child's education. A lot more don't. If parents aren't around, or they're terrible role models, then the chances are good that the child will come into class with learning the very last thing on his or her mind. If students aren't held accountable at home, the school can do little.

Administration - I have met competent administrators. They do exist. They are, however, rare. Bad administration can lead to low teacher morale, and lax student discipline. Neither helps to create a good learning environment.

There's a reason why private schools work: they can get rid of the worst kids. Public schools can't. Good administrators can compensate for this by enforcing discipline, but most administrators fail.

Teacher's Unions - If you ever wonder why incompetent teachers stick around for years and years, despite everything, this is why. The unions have won few other real victories for teachers, however.

Town Government - Public Schools are run by school districts, which are run by municipalities acting either alone or in concert. Town government is tied to the property tax, increases to which are finding more and more resistance from citizens each year. So towns cut the budget. What else can they do? Besides, of course, finding creative new solutions to their problems, really pooling their resources with other towns (every town in most multi-town districts has its own administrative structure and superintendent, for example) or being willing to cede some of their soverignty to the state.

State Government - State lawmakers with little real knowledge of education continue to pile on standardized test after standardized test, with the end result that students know how to take tests. They know precious little else, however. The state is also responsible for the increasingly heavy paperwork load, and increasingly strict (and sometimes arbitrary) requirements that keep a lot of good people out of teaching. The state is also failing towns by forcing them to rely so heavily on the property tax. It's way past time to uncouple education funding from local property taxes.

Federal Government - NCLB is an unfunded mandate, and it's hated by teachers and state/local governments. But it isn't the only one out there. A lot of the budget of a school district is taken up by special education requirements, which come from both the state and federal level.

The federal government has been content to largely ignore the crisis in public education. No Child Left Behind is a poor fix, at best.

There's a reason why private schools work: they can get rid of the worst kids. Public schools can't.

Society (Us) - There is a strong cultural current in America that tells kids to forget about school. It's always been there. But adults have lately stopped telling kids differently. Television, music and all other kinds of media tell kids that there is nothing worthwhile at school beyond socializing. We fail when we don't correct this perception.


DeStefano is pointing the finger at Gov. Rell, and proposing a few fixes to the problems in our schools. At least it's something. But Rell isn't wholly responsible, and the fixes DeStefano is proposing are probably not enough. The problem is simply too big.

Source
"More than one third of Connecticut’s elementary and middle schools get failing grade / DeStefano: It’s time for universal pre-k, not more of the same failed policies from Gov. Rell." Press Release. DeStefano for Connecticut. 24 August, 2006.

Lieberman, Simmons, and Rell in Groton Today

Senator Lieberman (CfL-CT), Rep. Simmons (R-CT), and Gov. Rell (R-CT), who all share Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, will be campaigning in Groton today to commemorate the year anniversary of the Pentagon's reversal of its decision to close the sub base.


I can't make it there, but if anyone can, post descriptions in the comments and email pictures to post...

5th Congressional District: Democracy Corps Poll

Looks like Democracy Corps commissioned some polling of likely voters in the 5th CD. The results of the poll (PDF) [HTML file here] are interesting, and worth a look. More information about Democracy Corps is here: they are not without bias.

Let's look at some of the results. First, the head-to-head matchup:

Q.27 If the election for U.S. House of Representatives were today and the candidates were Democrat Chris Murphy and Republican Nancy Johnson -- for whom would you vote, Democrat Chris Murphy or Republican Nancy Johnson?

Democrat Chris Murphy ...................................................... 40
Lean Democrat Chris Murphy .............................................. 4
Republican Nancy Johnson................................................. 45
Lean Republican Nancy Johnson......................................... 4
(Undecided).......................................................................... 7

And about the recent ad wars in the district:

Of the ads you recall seeing about Chris Murphy, which TWO ads had the most impact on your impression of Chris Murphy?

Nancy Johnson is 'red handed' and shows she has
voted to benefit corporate interests..................................... 33
Nancy Johnson has been in Washington too long and
Chris Murphy will bring change ........................................... 32
Nancy Johnson has cut taxes and Chris Murphy voted
to increase taxes ................................................................. 24
Chris Murphy voted to cut taxes while balancing the
budget and to change Congress we must send new
people.................................................................................. 22
Nancy Johnson fought to lower gas prices and Chris
Murphy is using misleading attacks against her.................. 20
(Other).................................................................................. 2
(None had impact)................................................................ 4
(Have not seen anything) ..................................................... 8
(Don't know/ refused) ........................................................... 8

Too much information in the poll to be reprinted here, but you should certainly go and have a look for yourselves. It basically tells us what we know already--that the 5th District race will be tight. Johnson has a slight edge for now, but that could change. Only 43% of respondants said they'd vote to re-elect her: 44% said they'd consider voting for someone else.

One other finding of the poll, for those of you who just can't get enough Senate race news, is that Lieberman leads Lamont in the 5th District 48%-40%.

Lieberman Decries "Purge"

Just toss this one on the pile with the rest of the bizarre things that have happened in this campaign:

Critics asked a New Haven election official to remove Sen. Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party on Monday, a request which could potentially lead to a hearing in which the longtime Democrat would have to argue that he still adheres to the principles of the party.

The group, whose members described themselves as peace activists, said Lieberman cannot belong to the Democrat Party while running for office under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party banner. (AP)

It is kind of a tricky point, I suppose. If you're running a cutthroat campaign against the nominee of your own party, are you still in good standing? Here's Lieberman campaign manager Sherry Brown's response:

“The purge campaign launched today by Ned Lamont’s supporters is dirty political tricks at its worst, ranking up there with the outrageous tactics that Katherine Harris and the Republicans used in 2000 in Florida to stop all the votes from being counted.

“This kind of ridiculous, partisan game-playing is not going to provide anyone in Connecticut with better jobs, better health care, or better schools. All it’s going to do is deepen our divisions and add to voters frustration with our broken political system.

Okay, so it does kind of, sort of, maybe remind me of the frequent purging of the party rolls in Soviet Russia and other Communist countries. At times, the party rolls grew too large, and the leadership wanted to prune it down for various reasons. Some of those reasons were relatively benign, others far more sinister. But I remember reading of party members hauled before a committee and made to answer questions about Communist ideology and history. These men and women would stay up late poring over volumes of dense and incomprehensible Marxist thought, which they had probably never read in their lives, in the hopes of providing the correct answers and being allowed to stay a party member.

Maybe that's what's going to happen to Joe Lieberman. He'll be made to stand before a committee of low-level New Haven Democrats and answer questions about the ideology behind the Democratic Party's platform in 1988. If he can convince them that Michael Dukakis appearing in that tank helmet was somehow a victory for the proletariat, he'll be allowed to stay.

One thing I'm not reminded of is voting irregularities in Florida. Where did that come from?

In any event, the peace activists who are trying to get Lieberman kicked out of the party are technically correct. The rules say that "...being a candidate for office under the designation of another party or organization" is a no-no. And I'm sure they have good intentions. They want to help Ned Lamont and the Democratic Party, in the end.

That doesn't mean that this isn't a stupid move. It gives Joe Lieberman more ammunition, it makes Lamont supporters look like bullies, and, best of all from Lieberman's point of view, it means that Lamont will have to spend more time dealing with the independent actions of his supporters (who are an independent and action-minded bunch to begin with) rather than focusing on his campaign.

None of that helps Lamont. It will help even less if Lieberman is called before a hearing, because if that happens, he'll be able to say all of his campaign talking points in front of a ton of television cameras, all the while looking like the victim.

And, unlike the cowering, stammering Communists hauled before a purge committee in Soviet Russia, Joe Lieberman will win no matter what is decided.

Sources

"Lieberman's independent run questioned by Democrats." Associated Press 21 August, 2006.

"Lieberman Campaign Denounces Party Purge Effort by Lamont Supporters." Press Release. Friends of Joe Lieberman. 21 August, 2006.

Special Services (Business Improvement) District Coming To Downtown Hartford?

Today’s Hartford Courant included an editorial proposing the next steps to be taken in Hartford’s continuing revitalization. What is that next step? The need to designate downtown Hartford as a business improvement district (also referred to as a special services district).

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 7-339m (2006), “Any municipality may establish by ordinance of its legislative body as provided in this chapter, within its confines, a special services district or special services districts to promote the economic and general welfare of its citizens and property owners through the preservation, enhancement, protection and development of the economic health of such municipality.” Generally, the formation of a special services district results in the implementation of a levy upon the taxable interests in real property within the special services district, the revenues from which may be used in carrying out any of the powers of such district.

The Hartford City Council is scheduled (next month) to entertain a proposal developed by the MetroHartford Alliance (for those of you unfamiliar with the work of the MetroHartford Alliance, I urge you to visit their website here and see the wonderful work this organization performs related to economic development) which seeks the creation of a special services district for downtown Hartford, as well as parts of Asylum Hill and Farmington Avenue to the city line on Prospect Avenue. As the editorial points out,

“If approved by property owners within the district in a special election, it would represent an enormous commitment on the part of the business community to downtown's long-term viability. Property owners would be voluntarily paying an additional tax each year to pay for improved safety, cleanliness, marketing, landscaping, holiday lighting, parking, special events and other services that supplement what city government provides.”

As a disclaimer, I have not read the proposal and, therefore, I do not have full understanding of the purpose and need for the formation of the special services district. According to the editorial, special services districts have been successful in other parts of the State (is there one in West Hartford?). Some questions that should be considered include: (1) if approved by the City Council, does the proposal have the overall support of the property owners within the proposed district (can the property owners handle an additional tax?); (2) does the proposed need for this district signify that the City has failed or become stagnant in its revitalization efforts, or does it reflect a greater desire by the property owners to expand on the City’s revitalization project; and (3) can Hartford transform itself into a 24-hour town, or is this just wishful thinking? All opinions are welcome on this subject (especially, if you have experience in such a district or are a Hartford property owner who could be affected by this proposal).

Sources
August 21, 2006, Hartford Courant (editorial), Downtown's Missing Link

MetroHartford Alliance (website, last visited August 21, 2006), http://www.metrohartford.com

Connecticut General Statutes §§ 7-339m to 7-339t (2006)

Pennsylvania Local Politics

SOMEWHERE IN NORTHEASTERN PA -- It's quiet here.

It's nice to get away from it all, to a house on a lake out here in the Pennsylvania country. It's actually a blessed sort of relief to get away from Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman and the whole knotted mess that's going to be dominating our fall.

I was sitting on the lake shore today when it hit me that I hadn't thought about Connecticut politics in more than a day. I haven't even checked my email (much). I could go on for hours about Lieberman, Lamont, DeStefano, Rell, Johnson, Murphy and all the rest, but to the folks here it just doesn't matter.

It's nice. I sit around, read, go for walks with my wife and generally relax. (I also caught a bat that was flying around the inside of the house with a net. Rustic!)

I did read an article about politics in the local paper this morning that I thought was kind of interesting, though. So I'll share it with you:

he four suburban counties ringing Philadelphia have been a Republican stronghold for decades — with the GOP claiming seven of every 10 voters there in the past — but continue to lose ground to rival parties.

As of Friday, registered GOP voters now number just slightly above 49 percent in Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery, home to one-fifth of the state's registered voters.
...
In the meantime, President Bush lost the suburbs in both 2000 and 2004, helping Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry carry the state.

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who is up for re-election in November, won the suburbs in 1994 and 2000.

But now?

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed his challenger, Democratic state Treasurer Bob Casey, leading 49 percent to 39 percent in those four counties. (AP)

It's a very interesting trend, one perhaps reflected in the changing makeup of Fairfield County. It's also neat that Quinnipiac, which we sort of take for granted as a local pollster, gets cited out here as a major source of polling information.

Casey's well liked and acceptably moderate (he is, for example, anti-abortion), and Santorum seems to have drifted too far into right field for a lot of Pennsylvania voters.

Other than that, I don't know too much about the race.

And that's nice.

Source
"Philly's suburbs turning from GOP." Associated Press 20 August, 2006.

Being Dan Gerstein

It would be fun to have a little door that you could crawl into and edit Dan Gerstein to make him less of a (Connecticut for Lieberman) partisan hack.

Here is what I would do with it (from the Greenwhich Time article on the DTC asking President Clinton to pressure Joe Lieberman to drop his Connecticut for Lieberman run):

"He's doing it a for a reason and believes it's an important reason," Gerstein said, touting Lieberman as an experienced lawmaker who is willing to put aside politics to get things accomplished in do absolutely anything, including playing politics with national security, to return to Washington, D.C.

And this:

"Primary night was the first time that many Connecticut voters saw Lamont on TV, and he's surrounding himself with two of the more divisive and problematic figures in the Democratic Party,We tried and failed to get the Rev. Al Sharpton's endorsement, so we will now attack him publicly. At least we don't have to turn around on Farrakahn! Yet." said Dan Gerstein, a veteran Lieberman aide who was appointed communications director for the campaign last week.

And this:

But then Gerstein posed "a question" for Lamont.

How could he expect to convince "moderate Democrats, Republicans, and most importantly, unaffiliated voters" that he "would be anything other than a rigid partisan rubber stamp in the Senate," the Lieberman spokesman asked, "when the only proof of his independence he can show is that he is slightly to the right of socialist Bernie Sanders on fiscal policy?" Maybe he could use our primary campaign talking points? You remember, the ones that said that he voted with Republicans 80% of the time? Forget all that by the way... The Republican is now a Pinko - My guy is the one that can work with Republicans!
...
Gerstein said today that he never intended to red-bait Lamont,but subtly, saying, "We never raised anything like what the Republican American did."

"I was just being light," he said, adding that Sanders is "not a communist, but a socialist. See? They are nothing like each other. Its like comparing apples and apples with a slightly different taste! I have complete deniability (its just a coincidence that the editorial and my email came out on the same day). [Drops to one knee in a Mary Katherine Gallagher pose, complete with jazz hands] HACKTACULAR!!!"

Dan Gerstein may not have any credibility now, but if we had that door, we could make him credible!

UPDATE: From Newsday:

Dan Gerstein, Lieberman's campaign manager, fresh from calling Ned Lamont a communist, accused Lamont of distorting the senator's statements.

From The Amherst Times (western NY):

“Part of the problem here is that everyone outside of Connecticut wants to glom onto this race, wants to put their own spin on it and wants to use it for their own advantages,” said Dan Gerstein, a Lieberman adviser. “We are not interested in being anyone’s political football. Except for the national Republicans. We need them to win and we need them badly!”

Lamont and Edwards Event

First of all, in addition to CGG's pictures and video below, a few intrepid bloggers have posted video of the event: spazeboy, ctblogger, and tparty. Check out the video if you get a chance... (spazeboy and ctblogger have both promised extended video in the next few days)

The event was a day ago and the sites mentioned above have done great work writing about it (and the print media has covered it as well: NH Register; Courant), so I will just talk about a few points that stood out to me.

John Edwards is scary good at giving a speech. And, if he decides to run for President again (which he certainly seems to be preparing to do), he may find Connecticut to be fertile ground. His campaign got off to a late start and was badly outmanned in '04 and he still pulled 24% - '08 could be another story. Meanwhile, expect to see more possible presidential candidates in Connecticut before November to stump for Lamont. Like John Kerry (scroll down to the updates).

Most political speeches (at least since Bobby Kennedy) don't spend much time on poverty (unless they are based on the work of Charles Murray). It was refreshing to hear two politicians get up on a stage and speak eloquently about the scourge of poverty and how, as a nation, we are missing an opportunity to combat it. If Lamont continues to discuss the topic, it may help him continue to erode Joe Lieberman's Democratic support (check the maps to the right to see where each candidate found their support in the primary) without (IMHO) having much of an effect on Rs or Is.

I think events like this generally do more for the Presidential aspirant than they do for the Senate candidate. Here, did John Edwards stumping for Ned Lamont sway even one vote over to Ned Lamont? I think its likely that most supporters of Edwards who are strong enough supporters to be swayed by their guy's endorsement were already Lamont voters. That said, this race is a little different. Events like this have the potential to aid Lamont in that they can create buzz, generate donations, and generally put pressure on Lieberman to abandon his indy run. Of course, one event isn't going to do all that, but if we see a steady parade of national Democratic leaders coming through Connecticut, and a steady stream of contributions going to Lamont and not to Lieberman, the pressure on Lieberman to preserve his dignity will become that much higher.

Friday Open Forum

An interesting story about state legislatures swinging towards the Democrats. I suspect that in our own, the GOP may pick up a handful of seats, although they won't come close to controlling either chamber. More than anything, we may see a lot of incumbents from both parties in danger.

Lieberman's approval ratings are down a bit among Democrats and (crucially) independents, and slightly up among Republicans.

Lastly, I am going on vacation starting today. I probably won't post much (if at all) over the next week, and I won't be checking email that much. I will leave you in the very capable hands of CGG, disgruntled_republican, True Gentleman, turfgrrl and Gabe.

What else is happening?

Lieberman Campaign Encouraged, Cautious Re: QU Poll

In response to the Quinnipiac Poll which shows Senator Joe Lieberman ahead of Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont, the Lieberman for Senate campaign has issued the following statement:

"This poll is a very encouraging sign for our campaign. It shows that Connecticut voters from across the political spectrum have had enough of the partisanship and polarization that has broken Washington and want a Senator who will rise above petty politics to get things done for our state. That's just the kind of principled leadership Joe Lieberman has provided for the past 18 years, and why his call for a new politics of unity and purpose is resonating with Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.

“But we recognize that it’s still quite early, and we certainly know from experience that campaigns are not decided by early polling. The fact is we are in the challenger in this race -- we are challenging the conventional partisan politics -- and we are going to keep running as if we are behind. We plan on taking our message of positive change and real results to the voters every day between now and November 7th and fighting for every vote.”

This is clearly a different campaign being run by Senator Lieberman and his new staff (which is still evolving) than the campaign leading up to the Democratic primary. Senator Lieberman will continue to reach out to voters across the political spectrum over the next several months, hoping to champion the message that voters are tired of partisan politics.

NRSC "Favors" Lieberman Win

Joe Lieberman is favored by the National Republican Senatorial Committee:

This morning, a source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in a phone interview that the party will not help Schlesinger or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.

"We did a poll and there is no way any Republican we put out there can win, so we are just going to leave that one alone," said the NRSC source.

Instead, the NRSC is pulling for Lieberman over Ned Lamont, who rode an anti-war message to a victory in the Aug 8 primary.

I have to wonder whether all the support Lieberman is getting from Republicans will come back to bite him, especially if independents are in an anti-Republican mood in November.

Lamont and Edwards Event

John Edwards will be coming to New Haven to campaign with Ned Lamont today at 5:45 at the Harkness Courtyard.

Google Map

If anyone is planning on attending, please stop by and say hi!

Lieberman, Rell with Large Leads

A new Quinnipiac Poll of likely voters shows Joe Lieberman leading Ned Lamont by double digits, while Gov. Rell maintains her large lead over rival John DeStefano.

If the 2006 election for senator were being held today and the candidates were Ned Lamont the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger the Republican, and Joseph Lieberman running as an independent candidate, for whom would you vote?

Ned Lamont (D)............38%
Alan Schlesinger (R).......4%
Joe Lieberman (I).........49%

If the 2006 election for governor were being held today and the candidates were John DeStefano the Democrat and Jodi Rell the Republican, for whom would you vote?

John DeStefano (D).........28%
Jodi Rell (R)...................60%

Bad news for Lamont and his supporters, although it's worth noting that Lieberman hasn't cracked 50% and Lamont has managed to overcome a significant deficit before. This poll shows how effective Joe Lieberman, with the aid of Republicans and certain segments of the national media, has been at spinning his disastrous primary loss. This race will almost certainly narrow, but the fact that 72% of likely voters have made up their minds in the race should be troubling for the Lamont camp.

The race between Rell and DeStefano will also narrow, but probably not enough to give John DeStefano a fighting chance. Right now, only 50% of Democrats are supporting DeStefano. 72% of voters in this race have also made up their minds.

The poll surveyed 1,083 likely voters from August 10-14, and has a margin of error of +/- 3%.

Source
Quinnipiac Poll. 17 August, 2006.

Investigator: Garfield Clear

An independent investigator has stated in a report that Elections Enforcement Commission director Jeffrey Garfield violated no laws when he discussed a possible settlement to part of the Moody affair with Gov. Rell's campaign manager:

The executive director of state's Elections Enforcement Commission did not violate any laws when he and Gov. M. Jodi Rell's campaign manager discussed a possible settlement to resolve campaign finance law violations by state commissioners, according to a report released Wednesday.

But the independent investigator who wrote the report said the communications between campaign manager Kevin Deneen and Jeffrey Garfield, the commission's executive director, "clearly gave rise to an appearance of impropriety."AP)

See what happened here.

So Garfield is off the hook. For that. Moody herself is still being investigated for possibly lying to a legislative committee.

Source

"Report: Elections official didn't violate laws in Moody case." Associated Press 16 August, 2006.

Hunting, Fishing, and Camping For All

Come September Connecticut (and New England) residents will have another reason to cheer at Rentschler Field in East Hartford. That's right, Governor Jodi Rell has announced that Cabela Inc. will begin construction of New England's first Cabela’s store, which sells merchandise for hunting, fishing, camping and other outdoor activities. It is estimated that the store will create 4,000-5,000 jobs - how's that for election season economic development!!

"Today is about job creation," Rell told dozens of officials at the football stadium, which occupies about 75 acres of the 725-acre Rentschler Field tract that its owner, United Technologies Corp., wants to develop.

For those of you who have never been to a Cabela’s, you are in for quite an adventure...Keep up the great job creation and economic development, Governor Rell!

UPDATE/CORRECTION

Please note that I inadvertently referenced the Cabela's store as the source for creating 4,000-5,000 jobs. The new Cabela's store should create approximately 300 new jobs, and the overall Rentschler Field expansion project will result in approximately 4,000-5,000 new jobs. [Sorry for the confusion, and a special thanks to "Grumpy" for bringing my error to my attention.]

Source

Uhlinger, Dan, The Hartford Courant, August 16, 2006, East Hartford Cabela's Plans Announced

GOP to Pour Money into Congressional Races

No big surprise here:

House Republicans have reserved more than $40 million worth of television advertising time for the fall, most of it aimed at holding seats they control, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast.

Republican incumbents in the Philadelphia area - Reps. Jim Gerlach, Curt Weldon and Mike Fitzpatrick - as well as Connecticut Reps. Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson are slated to get roughly $10 million combined in party advertising. (AP)

Simmons and Johnson are facing very tough challengers this year in the form of Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy.

Interestingly, it seems like Chris Shays isn't among those receiving money.

Also, no advertising dollars are slated so far to help GOP Rep. Christopher Shays keep his Connecticut district even though Democrats have reserved $2 million to try to unseat him. His district in the southern part of the state watches television from the New York City media market that's among the most expensive in the country. (AP)

Both Simmons and Johnson are outraising their opponents by significant margins so far: only Shays is not. He has been outraised by Farrell in both of the last quarters, and she is neck-and-neck with him in cash on hand.

So either Shays is going to get some significant funds later on, the GOP is cutting him loose, or they don't believe Farrell is as big a threat as she's made out to be.

Source
"House GOP plans $40M ad push." Associated Press 16 August, 2006.

Open Forum

Schlesinger goes on Hardball. It's not pretty.

Molly Ivins and Susan Campbell write about the Lamont-Lieberman race, while Ned Lamont pens a piece for the Wall Street Journal.

Colin McEnroe explores election irregularities.

And, most importantly, I really hope Xena gets to be a planet. I think that makes me a nerd.

What else is going on?

Connecticut Economic Outlook Mixed

DeStefano Attacks Rell over Job Numbers

The DeStefano campaign today attacked Gov. Rell over job figures in a new report on the Connecticut economy released by the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis:

Saying that “Governor Rell offers false optimism, but no new ideas or leadership to stop Connecticut’s worsening jobs loss,” John DeStefano, Democratic candidate for Governor, today responded to the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis’s (CCEA) new Economic Outlook concerning the uncertain future of Connecticut’s job growth.
...
The report predicts that Connecticut’s anemic job growth shows no signs of improving and in fact will get worse over the new few years. According to the Outlook, economic growth, wages and job growth will all decline between now and 2008. Connecticut’s job growth rate, already about half the national average, will drop again in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Fred Carstensen, director of the CCEA, stressed that “State leaders must strengthen investments” in developing industries and educational programs to create jobs. (DeStefano)

The report itself offers a mixed view of the Connecticut economy:

...The CCEA Outlook anticipates real growth continuing through 2008, at modestly lowered rates, falling from 3.5% in 2006 to 2.8% in 2007 and 2.6% in 2008...

Following the national pattern, the CCEA Outlook sees growth in employment lagging growth in output as increasing productivity continues to undermine the need to hire significantly more employees. Even so, the CCEA Outlook forecasts Connecticut employment continuing modest growth, falling from the 0.8% rate of 2005 to 0.6% in 2006, 0.5% in 2007 and 0.4% in 2006... The picture that the CCEA Outlook provides emphasizes the continuing challenge to Connecticut of building its competitiveness so its economy will generate sufficient jobs for its own citizens. (CCEA)

The report stresses that, while the economy isn't exactly booming, it is healthier than it was in 2003, when there was no economic growth at all.

Still, the picture painted is that of a listless, albeit not lifeless, economy. By 2008, the report forecasts, Connecticut employment will have regained the record levels of 2001, although growth continues to be slow. The report also emphasizes the ties Connecticut's economy has to events beyond our control, such as hostilities in the Middle East and disruptions to the flow of petroleum.

It is DeStefano's charge that Rell has not taken economic leadership of the state, despite the fact that the economy has generally improved (albeit slowly) on her watch. According to DeStefano, "With strong leadership, creative ideas, and a smart hard-working labor force, there is no reason why Connecticut should not be a top 10 job growth state so our children can find jobs here."

However, without a serious economic crisis brewing, DeStefano's argument has yet to resonate with voters.

Sources

"DeStefano: Rell offers false optimism, but no new ideas or leadership to stop Connecticut's job loss." DeStefano for Connecticut. Press Release. 15 August, 2006.

UCONN/CCEA Connecticut Economic Outlook: State Gross Product Breaks $200 Billion; Employment Continues Sloooooow Recovery. Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis: 2006.

Something About a Party

I read this in the Journal-Inquirer yesterday:

Connecticut is about to see what it is when most party leaders are friends with an independent candidate who wants only to rejoin them and there is no Republican threat.

Yes, 40 years ago it would have been unthinkable in Connecticut for someone holding any special position in a party to support an independent candidate. But Connecticut's parties have disintegrated a lot since then. (Powell)

The entire piece is well worth a read (some nice history about former Speaker Richard Balducci, who was from my old hometown of Newington, Lowell Weicker and Tom Dodd), but the upshot, that party endorsements really don’t help at all in an age of party disintegration, is pretty accurate.

Which means that the endorsement of Bill Clinton, which didn’t help Lieberman at all, probably won’t help Lamont either. It also means that the endorsement of Jim Amann, who I guarantee you a majority of Connecticut voters have never even heard of, will mean nothing as well.

Politics today seems to be more about individual loyalty instead of party loyalty. And why not? What good are the parties? The Democratic Party in Connecticut is an aging, creaking conglomeration of competing interests, haphazardly cobbled together into a body that is impressively large, but ultimately non-functional. The state Republican Party is a mere rump of its former glory, without even the strength to rid itself of a stubborn and doomed Senate candidate.

Neither has anything approaching the unity or discipline seen regularly in the days of Henry Roraback or John Bailey. This is also true on the national level, although the Republicans are a little more unified than the Democrats. Really, though, personal loyalty seems very able to trump party, especially where Joe Lieberman is concerned. That's why the Republicans aren't pushing for Schlesinger's removal. That's why Karl Rove can call the Lieberman campaign with offers of support, despite the fact that he's a Democrat. There's loyalty there. Same thing with Amann.

Which makes efforts like this and this pretty interesting. The Democratic Party's membership, or at least a small (but, following Lamont's win, newly powerful) part of it, is trying to enforce a discipline that hasn't existed for decades--if it ever existed at all--on the leadership. To them, partisanship is not an obstacle, but something to be strived for, as they persue a return to power for their party and an effective block against the Bush Administration.

The bonds of individual loyalty are still very strong, though. It's likely that Jim Amann won't change his mind, and that he won't suffer any consequences for his endorsement of Lieberman.

At least for now.

Source
Powell, Chris. "Democrats' party loyalty show for Lamont was a charade." Journal-Inquirer 14 August, 2006.

Clinton Parts Ways with Joe

So much for "the hug."

Lieberman has characterized his loss - and the need for his subsequent independent run - as liberals in the party purging those with the Lieberman-Clinton position of progressiveness in domestic politics and strong national security credentials.

"Well, if I were Joe and I was running as an independent, that's what I'd say, too," [former President Bill] Clinton said.

"But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.'"

"His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position, which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. ... This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"

Clinton said that a vote for Lamont was not, as Lieberman had implied, a vote against the country's security. (ABC News)

Clinton also said that he had campaigned for Lieberman because of their long friendship. I wonder if he'll return to Connecticut to campaign for Lamont?

Source
"Clinton Sounds Off on Terror, Republicans." ABC News 15 August, 2006.

Update: I just noticed that both tparty at LamontBlog and I, entirely without meaning to, basically made the same post. Same opening zing and everything.

I will add that a ton of Lieberman supporters at his HQ on election night were wearing those buttons. Not sure how they feel about Clinton turning on Joe...

Not so Swift

Republicans and Republican-linked groups continue to express support for Sen. Joe Lieberman's independent bid, including a group that brings back memories of 2004:

Connecticut's U.S. Senate race continued Monday along its unpredictable way: The White House declined to endorse the nominee of state Republicans - and a new "Vets for Freedom" group with ties to the GOP advertised its backing of incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is waging an independent campaign for re-election after losing last week's Democratic primary.

The group's full-page ad Monday in The Courant created an immediate stir: Former Democratic State Chairman George Jepsen, a top adviser to Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont, said the ad showed that "national Republicans, in their effort to help Joe Lieberman, clearly have a well-laid-out strategy to attack Ned Lamont."
...
[George] Jepsen, a senior Lamont campaign adviser, said he saw a similarity between the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans effort and Monday's ad by the Vets for Freedom.

"So, the swift-boating begins," he said. (Lender)

The Lieberman campaign, of course, said that they had nothing to do with the ad, and the veterans' group claims that they are the ones being smeared--by a paranoid Lamont campaign.

So. This ad really isn't "swift-boating," which seems to mean character assassination on a grand and audacious scale, but parallels between the 2006 Senate campaign and the 2004 presidential campaign do exist. In fact, they've existed for a while. A lot of the same themes keep bubbling to the surface, and many of the charges hurled and positions taken are like those of Bush and Kerry. Lieberman has attacked Lamont for flip-flopping on Iraq, and not having a clear position, while portraying himself as resolute and tough on terror. The fact that Lieberman's attacks have lately been supported by a Republican echo chamber makes the parallels that much stronger. Lamont, on the other hand, has done all he can to tie Lieberman to the Administration and its failures in Iraq.

To put it another way, Ned Lamont has to a degree been running against George Bush. Joe Lieberman is currently running as George Bush.

It isn't hard, then, to see why Lamont supporters would be a little jumpy about GOP-linked veterans' groups taking out full-page ads. Who knows where it could go next?

Source
Lender, Jon. "`Vets For Freedom' Creates Stir." Hartford Courant 15 August, 2006.

Two Takes on Lieberman and Foreign Policy

Two interesting editorials today on Lieberman and his foreign policy views:

First, Spencer Ackerman of (the normally Lieberman-supporting) The New Republic, writing in the American Prospect, takes Senator Lieberman's reputation as a foreign policy expert to task:

Leave aside Lieberman's unseemly eagerness to paint his opponent as a jihadist cat's-paw. There's a bigger problem with his pitch: Lieberman isn't strong on defense at all.
...
But belligerence isn't the same thing as wisdom -- and hawkishness does not always lead to a safer America. Lieberman has, of course, been the most vigorous Democratic defender of the Iraq quagmire, which has laid waste to U.S. defense capabilities in a way that not even Vietnam was able to. Many have asked why Lieberman has been the lone Democratic hawk to face a vigorous liberal primary challenge, and the answer is surely complex. But part of it may be that while other Democratic hawks emphasize the risks of withdrawal, Lieberman is unique among Democrats in defending the wisdom of the invasion itself, a position so inexplicable as to be nearly insane. Indeed, Lieberman's judgment on defense questions is like that of a stopped clock: the hawkish position, applied consistently, has to be right sooner or later. What Lieberman is asking Connecticut -- and the Democratic Party, and the country -- to accept is that the only secure America is a bellicose America. And that position is a guarantee of future Iraqs.

Also, the Courant has an editorial from Frank Harris, III, the chairman of the Journalism Department at Southern Connecticut State University, who wonders why Senator Lieberman is comfortable condemning the lies of Presidents about sex but not about war:

Eight years ago, the senator righteously called out Clinton for his moral indiscretion and his lies regarding Monica Lewinsky - the sex lies; yet since the Iraq war, the senator has remained silent regarding the lies of George W. -the war lies.

For those who may have forgotten, amid the troops coming home in body bags and bandages, not to mention the thousands of civilian casualties and the further destabilization of the Middle East - George W. and his administration have, in effect, looked into the eyes of the American people and lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Remember the weapons of mass destruction and the assertion that Iraq was complicit in the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001, and that there was indisputable proof?

If Lieberman were consistent in applying moral outrage to immoral, disgraceful behavior that damages the country - as he did with Bill about Monica - he would find gaping holes in the Bush administration's war in Iraq.

Amann Sticks with Lieberman

Jim Amann is backing Joe Lieberman. Why?

Connecticut House Speaker James Amman of Milford is sticking by Lieberman. He says Lieberman has called him three times since last Tuesday's primary asking him for support. Amman says he has not heard anything from Ned Lamont, the Greenwich businessman who won the primary. (AP)

He just wanted to feel appreciated. Is that too much to ask?

Source
"House speaker stands by Lieberman." Associated Press 14 August, 2006.

Bush Won't Back Schlesinger

PoliticalWire reports Another setback for Alan Schlesinger:

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said this morning that President Bush will not endorse Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger (R) over Sen. Joe Lieberman even though he's the Republican nominee.

And this after Schlesinger was pretty much the only Republican in Connecticut not desperately trying to distance himself from Bush:

I am one Republican who does not run away from the president," said Schlesinger, adding that he would welcome a chance to campaign in Connecticut with Bush.

All this for Joe Lieberman? Or is all this just to create as much discord in the Democratic ranks as possible?

Open Forum

Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%. Could be good or bad, depending on how you look at it.

Malloy thinks about the future. At least his doesn't involve being crushed by Jodi Rell.

Slightly old news, but Elissa Wright in Groton won her race when someone flipped a coin. Can we decide Lieberman-Lamont that way, too?

Congressional Races Update

We're done with our Democratic primary, but our neighbors to the north are just getting started with theirs, which is scheduled for next month.

What else is happening?

"Red Ned"

Never say bad things about Waterbury:

As The New York Times reported Aug. 3: "Mr. Lamont prefers not to talk about his background. 'I've been blessed,' he will say, but beyond that he can turn testy." Ordinarily, such cantankerousness would raise suspicions among inquisitive reporters -- "What's he hiding?" But liberal journalists adore him because they share his world view on abortion, homosexual marriage, universal health care, racial quotas, loopy environmentalism and especially the war against Islamic terrorism.

They are blood brothers, or more accurately, fellow travelers. Just as journalism has become a hornet's nest of socialism (communism not yet perfected), if you shake Mr. Lamont's family tree, a lot of Red apples will fall.
...
Ned Lamont, in turn, has surrounded himself with people who may be characterized fairly as dedicated socialists and borderline communists.
...
Corliss Lamont was the only Lamont unashamed to declare his communist sympathies and beliefs publicly, but that doesn't make Thomas, Ted and Ned any less Marxist. Red Ned may label himself a progressive, but when he espouses goals shared by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, et al., he gives away his true color. ("Ned")

Multi-millionaire business owners for the society-wide redistribution of wealth? I guess so.

The lesson here is that one's campaign manager should always say that Waterbury is a very, very nice city, indeed.

Hat tip to an anonymous poster in this thread

Source

"Ned Lamont's true colors." Waterbury Republican-American 13 August, 2006.

Congressional Races Update

Now that the primaries are over, Connecticut's congressional races are starting to creak and groan back to life.

1st District (map)

Scott MacLean won the Republican primary, defeating Miriam Masullo by a wide margin. Incumbent John Larson, whose website is currently a lovely shade of blue-green (and nothing else), has yet to really get his campaign underway. Given the wide advantage Democrats enjoy in the district, he probably won't need to do anything until Halloween.

2nd District (map)

Joe Courtney (D) and Rob Simmons (R) continue to run hard and raise money. Robocalls from independent groups either defending or slamming Rob Simmons have been plaguing 2nd District households since spring, there was a anti-Courtney push poll a few weeks ago, and yesterday I got a glossy "legislative update" from Simmons, but otherwise very little seems to be happening here.

Expect the campaign to kick into high gear sooner rather than later. This is one of the most-watched races in the country (again). Simmons is doing his best to claim the center, which has been a successful strategy for him. His website shows him with Jodi Rell and John McCain, two Republicans who are very well-liked in these parts (remember that McCain won the presidential primary here in 2000). Simmons has also expressed support for Joe Lieberman's independent bid. Courtney seems to be focused on tying Simmons to the excesses of the Republican-led House. This was unsucessful in 2002 and 2004, but may work better this year.

3rd District (map)

Incumbent Rosa DeLauro faces Republican Joseph Vollano and Green Party candidate Daniel Sumrall. The Greens have had a ballot line in the 3rd District since 2002, and so didn't need to petition their way on this time.

However, in this heavily-Democratic district, the impact of both challengers to the popular DeLauro is expected to be slight. Vollano, like MacLean, doesn't seem to be getting much in the way of official Republican support.

4th District (map)

Rep. Chris Shays (R), Diane Farrell (D) and Richard Duffee (G) are facing off in the hotly-contested 4th District. Farrell has spent a lot of her time attacking Shays's position on Iraq, which was basically her strategy in 2004, when she lost to Shays by a very narrow margin. She has also been doing what all three Democratic challengers are doing this year: trying to tie a moderate Republican to the conservative leadership in Washington.

Shays was one of the first Republicans to openly support Joe Lieberman's bid for re-election, and is working hard to retain his image as a maverick. This, too, is a race which will shortly become a lot more visible.

5th District (map)

This is going to be the nastiest race of the year--barring possibly Lieberman-Lamont II. Nancy Johnson (R)) is facing Chris Murphy (D) in a tight race that has already taken to the airwaves.

Johnson has released a series of television ads attacking Murphy. She has also released an ad in which a 9/11 widow talks about Johnson's comforting words at the funeral. Both were powerful pieces, prompting a quick response from the Murphy campaign.

This race is going to be very tight, and both candidates seem well aware of it. The fact that Nancy Johnson was running attack ads in July shows just how seriously she is taking this race, which may be her most competitive since 1996. Certainly one to watch.

We'll be trying to focus on congressional races more as the campaign season really gets underway.