All Three Rell Vetoes Stand

Gov. Rell has vetoed three bills this year, all of which were allowed to stand by the legislature today.

The governor nixed legislation that would have set in state statute a new contracting standards board and created rules for privatized contracts. She also vetoed bills that would have allowed state prosecutors to bargain for additional pension benefits and allowed adopted children to obtain their birth certificates when they turn 21. (AP)

Click here to see list of Gov. Rell's vetoes from last year, none of which were overridden.

Of the three, the contracting reform bill is the one that most desperately needs to be passed. Maybe next year.

"Lawmakers opt not to try and override three Rell vetoes." Associated Press 19 June, 2006.

Hurricanes Win Stanley Cup

I can't stand it.

Oh, well. Who needs NHL hockey, arena football, ABL basketball, CBA basketball or the occasional Celtics game anyway?

Maybe we can get a curling tournament in or something.

Governor's Race: Rell Still in Lead

I was in Boston all day. It was hot there. Sounds like things were exciting back here! Figures.

According to a Rasmussen Poll released today, Gov. Rell is still in fine shape, although her lead has shrunk. Her lead is less than reported in the last Quinnipiac Poll, and because it measures likely voters and not just Connecticut residents it can be said to be a bit more accurate.

She outdoes her prospective opponents by a little more than twenty-five points—a decline from her 40 point advantage, but not a terribly worrisome one. Rell now leads Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy 58% to 31% and leads New Haven Mayor John DeStefano 59% to 31%.

In other words, the only bad news for Rell in today’s poll is that the election is still five months away.

Despite the chipping away at her lead, Rell remains very popular, including among Democrats, at least 40% of whom support her reelection bid in each match-up. She is viewed favorably by 75% of all voters, 86% of GOP voters, 70% of Democrats. (Rasmussen)

As the election approaches, the Democratic party faithful, which is about 30-35% of the vote, will rally behind any candidate who is a Democrat. What this poll shows is that Malloy and DeStefano can count on the base, but not much else. If the eventual nominee can get Rell's lead down to 15% by Labor Day, this race will be worth watching.

In other gubernatorial news, the Rell campaign is opening a campaign office in Stamford this Saturday. Michele Fedele, Lt. Gov. candidate and Stamford resident, will be there to open it. I notice that they aren't opening a New Haven office. Hm.

Also, John DeStefano has a new TV ad about universal healthcare. I have yet to check this out.

Sources

"Connecticut Governor: Rell (R) Leading by 25%+." Poll. Rasmussen Reports. 19 June, 2006.

Guilty Plea on DOT theft and Obstruction of Justice

Raymond Cox, 52, of Plymouth pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz in New Haven to theft and obstructing justice, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.

Cox was the assistant DOT rail administrator who oversaw the renovation of DOT's offices at Union Station in New Haven.

The details are not pretty. Cox apparently arranged for a unnamed individual to prepare fake bids so that a renovation project had been bid competitively. No mention on whether this is part of the culture of DOT or not, but considering the pace of work on our roads, one has to wonder.

The Hartford Courant, Former State Employee Pleads Guilty To Theft, June 19, 2006 Associated Press

Trouble in Bridgeport

An FBI report surfaced in Bridgeport with an alleged drug dealer claiming there is a videotape of John Fabrizi using cocaine. The alleged drug dealer, Shawn Fardy, has plead not guilty. Records show that at least 13 phone calls were placed from Frabrizi's phone to Shaw Fardy between October and December 2004. Fardy is however, a member of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee.

Fabrizi could not be reached for comment. His spokeswoman, Caryn Kaufman, did not return telephone calls Monday.

Fabrizi, who took office after Joseph Ganim was convicted of corruption in 2003, said last week he has no plans to resign.

U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor said Friday that Fabrizi was not a target of the drug investigation. He said FBI reports, which summarize statements made by witnesses but are not always corroborated, are typically filed under seal. He apologized to Fabrizi after the document was released.

The Hartford Courant, Mayor urged to address drug allegations, June 19, 2006, AP.

N.H. Register: Senate Primary Could "Hurt All Democrats"

The New Haven Register posted this editorial today (tip of the hat to CommonSenseDem--as a rule, I don't read the papers that make me jump through annoying hoops like the Register does) defending Joe Lieberman on the premise that a primary threat jeopardizes a "safe" Senate seat. The salient points:

The insurgent strategy suffers from two major flaws. First, in potentially putting a safe Democratic seat in play for Republicans, it is extraordinarily short-sighted. Second, it rests on a faulty premise about Lieberman’s record in adhering to core Democratic principles in his voting and his advocacy.

The strategy contrasts sharply with how Pennsylvania Democrats are treating a similar situation. There, Democrats rallied around state Treasurer Bob Casey in his quest to unseat Republican Rick Santorum, the incumbent U.S. Senator — even though Casey’s pro-life position on abortion puts him on the wrong side of a core Democratic issue. (Haas)

The Pennsylvania situation is very different, however, in that Pennsylvania Democrats have chosen the best candidate to defeat an entrenched incumbent. In this case, there is no strong Republican alternative. Alan Schlesinger has yet to catch fire, although he may be waiting for the outcome of the Lieberman-Lamont fight. Most observers don't think that there is much of a chance of the seat swictching from one party to the next, especially if Republican voters stay home.

Then again, it may be worth asking what the consequences of a Lamont victory would actually be. Would the party unify behind him? Or break apart?

Source

Haas, Lawrence J. "Challenge to Lieberman could hurt all Democrats." New Haven Register 18 June, 2006.

Some Days the Bear Gets You

It's been a lousy week for Joe Lieberman.

It started off with a Lamont ad calling for him to support the eventual primary winner, and then got worse when Lieberman's friends tried to help by saying wild, dimwitted things. Lamont got endorsements from two big teachers' unions, then, even worse, a Rasmussen poll showed Lamont only six points behind among likely primary voters.

It was then that the strategic geniuses at the Lieberman campaign decided to unleash their secret weapon: Son of Bear Ad, which turned out to be a miserable, unwatchable flop. Lieberman ended the week with an acerbic interview with David Broder, in which he compares the Lamont campaign and its supporters to a "crusade or jihad." Nice.

The one bright spot in the week, in which the Lieberman campaign agreed to a debate, seemed like a bitter concession, especially given the venom of the Lieberman press release.

Now, newspapers which saw Lamont as something of a novelty (and Lieberman as a foregone conclusion) a month ago are now taking a hard look at the Joe Lieberman who has been revealed by this week's events, and asking tough questions about his character and motivations. Connecticut voters who were paying attention might be starting to ask those questions, too.

So it can't get worse, right? This has to be rock bottom for Joe Lieberman. The image he's spent years honing, that of a prudent, intelligent, thoughtful compromiser with a ton of integrity, has been tarnished, perhaps irrevocably so. His campaign is wasting time and money on ads and statements that hurt more than they help, and the media honeymoon Lamont is enjoying just keeps getting longer.

Lieberman is a smart guy with a ton of campaign experience. He'll find a way to pull out of the nose dive somehow. We may see some campaign shakeups, a couple of firings here and there, and maybe some better-made ads and a stronger defense of his record. The debate will give Lieberman a chance to gain back a lot of ground, if he can manage to show up as Joe the Statesman, and not as the bitter, arrogant candidate we've seen over the past week.

He'll come out of it. But by then, it may be too late. There is one way things could get worse for Lieberman, of course, and that's being Joe Unemployed next January.

Rowland! the Musical

In honor of the fact that both John Rowland and Bill Curry are back in the news lately, here is the song list for "Rowland! the Musical" (first conceived of in this post a long time ago).

Act the First: The 2002 Election

1. (Curry) The Corruption Song/Overture
2. (Rowland) It's Nice to Have Friends
3. (The Tomassos) Contractin'
4. (The Rowlands) Hot Tub of Love
5. (Barbara Kennelly) That Wascally Wolland
6. (Curry) Governor Me? ...Maybe.
7. (The Democrats) Oh, Great. It's Curry Again.
8. (Nancy Johnson & Jim Maloney) Incumbency Blues
9. (Curry) Mumbling is a Strategy
10. (Rowland) There's an Election?
11. (Jodi Rell) John Never Comes to Visit Anymore
12. (Rowland) Waterbury!
13. (Curry) Hey! Running for Governor Over Here!
14. (George Jepsen) Oops.
15. (The Democrats) We Really Need A New Candidate Next Time
15. (Curry) You Haven't Seen the Last of Me! Or Maybe You Have.

Act the Second: The Fall (2003 and 2004)

1. (Curry) See, Didn't I Say?
2. (Rowland) Bring me the Heads of the Journal-Inquirer Editorial Staff!
3. (Richard Blumenthal) The Lawsuit Rumba
4. (The General Assembly) Shh! We're Taking a Nap
5. (Jodi Rell) People Are Watching My Cable Show!
6. (Curry) Hot Tubs and Indiscretions
7. (Rowland) I'm Really (Kind Of) Sorry
8. (Patty Rowland) Patricia's Yuletide Lament
9. (Rowland) I Said I Was Sorry!
10. (Curry) See, I Told You So
11. (The Democrats) We Are Very Pure (Someone Hide Newton)
12. (Rowland) This is Everyone's Fault But Mine
13. (Curry) Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!
14. (The Media) We Finally Found an Interesting Story
15. (Rowland) The Resignation Blues
16. (Jodi Rell) I Was Knitting the Whole Time
17. (Curry) See? See? See?
18. (Full Cast) The Campaign Finance Dance
19. (Curry) The Corruption Song/Finale

I know. It's sad when I start going into reruns.

Courant: Bingham Succeeding in Torrington

This is an interesting article on Ryan Bingham, who last year was elected mayor of Torrington at the tender age of 22.

Since his election, Bingham has gone at the mayor's job studiously, as he did pursuing his political science degree at Marist. He's spent long hours talking to everyone from former city officials to department heads to citizens about what he needed to do and what he needed to know. He spent his first 100 days in office on a "listening tour"; and he has breakfast each Wednesday at Lamonica's, a city luncheonette where anyone can stop by to talk to him. He also makes it a point to personally respond to calls, letters and visits to his office at city hall.
...
At city hall, department heads say Bingham's work ethic and his willingness to ask questions and listen to answers have impressed them. Age simply isn't an issue, one said.

"He's wise beyond his years," Roraback said. (Owens)

I think a lot of us were expecting Bingham to be a one-term wonder, or a inexperienced mayor in over his head. Instead, it seems like Bingham has not only taken charge, but that he's actually good for Torrington. I'd say, given this article, that his chances of re-election next year are pretty good. Who knew?

When I was 22 and 23, I was busy graduating college, getting married, doing cruddy temp jobs and moving into a one-room apartment in Enfield. I had no idea what I was doing. That Bingham has somehow managed not only to figure things out but apparently make a difference is impressive. Republicans need to keep an eye on him.

Source

Owen, David. "Torrington's Young Turk." Hartford Courant: Northeast Magazine 18 June, 2006.

Weekend Open Forum

What non Senate race things are happening this weekend?

The Two Liebermans

Joe Lieberman drags out the ghost of John Bailey in an interview with David Broder to talk about the evils of primaries:

"John Bailey genuinely believed that primaries were not only divisive but often didn't pass the ultimate test of finding the candidate who could win," he said. If Bailey were alive, his attitude would be, "We have an incumbent senator who is quite popular in the state; we have an opportunity to elect three Democratic congressional challengers; we have a very tough race for governor. Why would we want to challenge an incumbent senator who could lead the other candidates to victory?" (Broder)

Bailey was a smart, strong chairman whose specialty was getting Democrats elected, and keeping them in power once they got there. He and other party bosses weren't especially good for democracy. The current system, which allows much easier access to primaries than was ever the case in Connecticut, devolves power away from the parties and puts it in the hands of the voters. Which is where it belongs.

Lieberman also made this troubling statement:

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that." (Broder)

Well, first off, the Republicans have done that. The nearly-successful primary challenge to Arlen Specter is a good example of that trend within the GOP--and they're a moderately successful bunch.

Secondly--jihad? You're kidding. Please tell us you didn't mean that. Please?

The interview is a good example of the Two Liebermans. There's Noble Joe, who is principled and unafraid to put party aside and take a stand for what he believes in. This is admirable and all-too-rare in a politician. I like Noble Joe, even though I sometimes disagree with him. Then there's Baron Joe, who believes he deserves his seat for life, that his opponent has no right to challenge him, and that he is entitled to go to any and all lengths to retain his spot in the peerage. Baron Joe is the one who released that dumb bear ad yesterday. He's the one spouting nonsense about jihad, invoking kingmaker John Bailey's ghost and issuing vicious statements, press releases and advertisements. He's paranoid, angry and unafraid to put party, people and common decency aside in order to win. I don't like Baron Joe. He has no place in a democracy.

This split personality seems to happen to good men who spend too much time in Washington. It's sad. I have to think that if John Bailey were alive today, he'd be quietly taking Lieberman aside and saying:

"Joe. Too much. Back off. You're losing us. You're better than this. Right?"

But Lieberman has no one to do that for him. I wonder if he's even listening anymore.

Source

Broder, David. "Antiwar Crucible in Connecticut." Washington Post 17 June, 2006.

McCain Leads Poll in 2008 CT Presidential Primary

Well we knew it wouldn't be Bill Frist topping the list, but the support among Independents reveals something about how Connecticut voters are far more conservative than liberal. 61% is strong support. See the detailed results by American Research Group, Inc. here. McCain won the CT 2000 presidential primary 48% to George Bush's 46%. What is interesting in that presidential primary is the total turnout for both parties, Dems 177,301, Republicans 178,985.

Lieberman-Lamont Debate in the Cards

The Lieberman campaign has accepted Lamont's request for a debate, according to a recent release:

The Lieberman Campaign announced today that they have accepted an invitation, on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s behalf, to debate Ned Lamont. The debate will take place on July 6th, during the Senate’s Fourth of July recess, and air on WVIT – the NBC affiliate.

“We look forward to seeing the Greenwich Multi-Millionaire take a break from his attack politics to address some real issues,” said Sean Smith, Lieberman’s Campaign Manager. “Voters want to know where the candidates stand on the issues that matter to them and we believe that they deserve that.” ("Lieberman")

So mark your calendars.

Source

"Lieberman Campaign Challenges Lamont: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is." Friends of Joe Lieberman. Press Release, 16 June, 2006.

Lieberman on the Attack

Bear Ad Returns

Joe Lieberman has dragged out the bear ad again. Remember the bear ad from 1988? In it, Sen. Lowell Weicker was portrayed as a sleeping bear who had missed too many votes. Now, apparently, the bear has a cub. You can watch the ad here on Lieberman's website.

The same DC consultant hit man, Carter Askew, designed both ads. The new one shows Weicker coming out of his cave, still angry 18 years later that Joe Lieberman beat him. But he's too lazy to run again. "Instead of coming out of hibernation," the narrator informs us, "he sent his bear cub instead." (In fact, Weicker had nothing to do with Lamont choosing to run for Senate.) It portrays Lamont as a whining, hop-about baby who doesn't want to run against Lieberman because he previously gave Lieberman a campaign contribution. "But I agree with the Republicans 80 percent of the time!" cartoon Lamont protests in a shrill toddler's voice. But as a "cub" he has to listen to the big bear.

The new ad brings another modern Beltway campaign attack mode to Connecticut: Bush adviser Karl Rove's strategy of taking your own weakness and turning it into your opponent's weakness instead, through relentless misrepresentation of facts. (Bass)

The evidence does in fact suggest that Weicker didn't have a hand in urging Lamont to run. Yes, there are Weicker/Lamont connections (Lamont was a Weicker appointee in the 1990s, there are several high-profile Weicker people working for or around the Lamont campaign, and Weicker is holding a fundraiser for Lamont this weekend), but the idea of Weicker forcing Lamont to run is nuts.

While the Lamont ads have at times attacked Lieberman (the dog ad, for example), the attacks from Lieberman's camp have been much more vicious, more personal, and prone to focusing on small details that are either old, taken out of context, or entirely made up.

The bear ad worked in 1988 because it capitalized on voters' long-simmering dislike of Weicker, who had been in the Senate for eighteen years. But now, most people have only dim memories of Weicker as a senator or even as governor. An attack ad primarily featuring Weicker the Bear seems out of place and odd, and the depiction of Lamont as a hyper bear cub with a squeaky voice in a pink shirt (was that deliberate? I have to think so) is the worst sort of personal attack.

It's pathetic. Joe Lieberman should be better than this. The image he's crafted for himself of a noble, conscience-driven statesman demands that he be better than this. People support Lieberman because they believe he's a good man. If he keeps slinging this kind of toxic mud, they may change their minds.

Ironically, so far the Lieberman ads have had little effect on polls. Lamont continues to gain. What if Joe Lieberman just sacrificed his credibility and his noble image for nothing?

Source

Bass, Paul. "The Bear Is Back." New Haven Independent 16 June, 2006.

Greens Mounting a Challenge

Thornton on his Rival Candidates: "They're Insane."

The Hartford Advocate has a story out today about Green Party gubernatorial candidate Cliff Thornton, whose major difference with his rivals revolves around the war on drugs:

...Hartford native and Glastonbury resident Thornton, a long-time drug legalization advocate and first-time political candidate, saw a clear distinction between his campaign and the campaigns of DeStefano and Malloy.

¨I´m not insane. They´re insane,¨ Thornton said. Their insanity, he said, stems from support of drug prohibition.

¨DeStefano and Malloy are applying the same tactics that have been employed for almost a century, in and around drug prohibition. We have had almost a century of the war on drugs,¨ Thornton said. ¨Yet there are more drugs selling for cheaper prices on our streets than ever before. Would you say it´s time to look at something different than what we´ve been doing?¨ (Bulger)

The crazy thing here is that Thornton actually has a point. What we're doing about drugs isn't working. Maybe legalization isn't the answer, but so far no one else is even addressing the problem. Too bad no one's paying attention.

Such is the fate of the Green Party: to be forever ahead of the curve, then forgotten or shoved aside when everyone else catches up. Case in point: Iraq. A lot of Americans are upset with the way the war is being handled. Greens were out protesting it long ago. Another example is campaign finance reform and public financing, which were Green ideas long before Democrats and Jodi Rell discovered them.

So why can't the Greens get their message out? Funding is one issue: they don't have any. Members are notoriously cheap, and the party won't take corporate donations (not that any corporations would give to them). Another issue is the party members themselves: there aren't enough of them, and they don't get along. For example:

¨We´re a party that´s in the process of rebuilding, quite frankly. We´ve had an office we haven´t had a chance to fully staff,¨ Tim McKee, Thornton´s campaign manager, said. In order to get Thornton on the ballot, the Greens need 15,000 signatures by Aug. 9. McKee said they currently have just under 1,000.

Meanwhile, the party is still reeling from defections and from a divisive 2004 election.

¨I think people know that the 2004 presidential race split us quite a bit. Locally, people like [New Haven alderwoman] Joyce Chen switched and became a Democrat. [Hartford City Council member] Elizabeth Horton-Sheff left because she thought we were talking too much about international issues like the war. Quite frankly, this is the first time we´ve had to talk about statewide issues,¨ McKee said. (Bulger)

Worse, the Greens that I remember from my short time with them in 2002-3 were divided into factions, each vying for control of an essentially powerless organization. Infighting in small organizations can be deadly. Some of those fault lines may still remain.

In addition to all this, the Greens still have to struggle with lingering anger over the 2000 election. Paradoxically, some of the anger Democrats and other liberals feel towards the Bush Administration gets aimed squarely in their direction, when people remember that they're there at all.

The future of the Greens as a party seems pretty bleak, right now. They'll be stomped in the election like always, after which they may either revert to trying to win the odd municipal race or two or perhaps disappear entirely.

But their ideas, like radical new directions in drug policy, will stick around, and maybe edge into the political mainstream over the next couple of years. Not that they'll get any credit for them. By then, they'll be way beyond that old chestnut anyway, and on to something even crazier.

Source

Bulger, Adam. "Green Thumbs Up." Hartford Advocate 15 June, 2006.

Open Forum

CEA endorses Lamont.

AP article: Lieberman has to decide soon whether or not to run as an independent.

It's been a lousy week for Lieberman, and a very, very good one for Ned Lamont.

There are other campaigns out there. But it's like everyone is holding their breath, waiting to see what will happen next.

(While we're waiting, go contribute to the wiki!)

Joe Independent

The Prospect of an Independent Lieberman Becoming More Likely

Political Wire has a story up today that Lieberman "allies" are planning for an independent Lieberman run. This could mean a any number of things from a bunch of guys thinking up a contingency plan to Lieberman supporters, friends and advisors actually laying the groundwork for an independent Joe.

Even more interestingly, one report in the previous post (hat tip to CTObserver) suggests that Lamont may be as little as six points behind Lieberman (40%-46%), according to a Rasmussen poll. (Update: That poll number now confirmed. Lamont is actually within the margin of error.)

So maybe it'll happen after all. And if it does, what then?

First, despite the polls, there's no real guarantee that Lieberman will actually win in November if he's an independent. He'll have to battle Lamont for Democrats and independents (who seem to be trending towards the Democrats this year), and conservatives will have their own candidate in Alan Schlesinger. Lieberman, as the primary race is starting to show, can't necessarily count on Democratic votes to carry him. If Democrats see him actually leave their party, it could turn a significant number who might have voted his way against him. A Lamont victory, or even a Schlesinger victory, over an independent Lieberman, is possible. Niether are likely, mind you, but the possibility is there.

But what if Lieberman does win? Polls suggest he will. Then what?

Connecticut will essentially have a Jim Jeffords. If Lieberman leaves the party, will he continue to caucus with Democrats? Or will he cross the aisle? What if it's up to Lieberman to decide which way the Senate will go for the next two years? Jeffords swung the Senate. Lieberman could do it, too. If that's the case, he'll be in a great position, and will probably be one of the most powerful and influential men in Washington. For a while.

If not, he'll be a man without a party, which means he'll either be the kind of guy who can easily go back and forth between the camps, or someone nobody will ever talk to.

It will almost certainly mean that this will be his last Senate term.

Now that an independent Lieberman is seeming more and more likely, these sorts of questions are going to come up. If the Rasmussen Poll is right, and Lamont is within easy striking distance, we can expect to start asking them to him very soon.

Farrell Hits Shays Where It Hurts... In The Ear...Mark!

From a Farrell Press Release titled, "SHAYS SHORTCHANGES CONNECTICUT AGAIN WITH FOCUS ON IRAQ SECURITY INSTEAD OF OUR OWN" (Release is not yet online, but the press release page is here):

Farrell, standing at the Bridgeport ferry terminal in the shadow of I-95, the Amtrak and Metro North rail lines, and the international shipping terminal, pointed to the critical confluence of these transportation systems and said they all stood as testament to what hasn't happened – implementation of the 9-11 recommendations for homeland security – something she called "unconscionable."

"I hold Chris responsible," Farrell said. "He, the Republican leadership he supports and President Bush, who he has backed so ferociously, profess to be concerned about terrorist threats. But Chris took his eye off the ball, and on his watch Connecticut's homeland security funding has dropped from $46 million to $13.5 million in the space of three years and we are as vulnerable now as we've ever been."

The release goes on to list the security policies that she backs:

Farrell also backs these homeland security policies:

* A port security plan similar to the one in operation in Hong Kong that ultimately will screen every container that comes into U.S. ports.
* A border security plan that hires agents dedicated to that task and that task alone, not the deployment of the National Guard which is already stretched to the breaking point and better suited for other functions. Inclusion of the 5,525 mile Canadian border as well as the 1,989 Mexican border in any such plan.
* Task force investigation of the gaps in rail service security in the nation, and rapid implementation of real and effective remedies.
* Further closing of gaps in aviation security especially on commuter and cargo aircraft.
* Better communications equipment for all levels of first responders, with special attention to effective communication among federal, state and local agencies.
* A top to bottom review of all nuclear safety issues with an emphasis on evacuation plans for those of us in the shadow of nuclear facilities.
* Development of an integrated justice information system which will prevent potential terrorists from slipping through law enforcement cracks as some of the 9/11 hijackers did.
* Adequate funding for all homeland security priorities.

Coupled with these recent press releases,
DIANE FARRELL AND VETERANS OUTRAGED
BY SHAYS’ LAX OVERSIGHT OF IRAQ WAR
DIANE FARRELL SAYS IT IS EVIDENT CHRIS SHAYS’ PRIORITIES ARE IN IRAQ, NOT IN THE CONGESTED ROADS OF THE 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS STALLS ON CHRIS SHAYS’ WATCH,

it seems clear that Farrell's '06 strategy is distinct from her ultimately unsuccessful strategy in '04. Instead of running on a steady diet of tying Shays to Tom Delay and Republican corruption, Farrell is attempting to tie the unpopular Iraq war to congressional spending in the district.

It is an interesting strategy that has the potential to sway some voters (remember that she only lost 52-48 in '04) if she can get traction with the issue. Of course, it's June and getting traction right now is easier said than done.

Leading into November, the Democrats have potential for momentum-fueled wins in close districts. The 4th went for Kerry over Bush 52-46 in '04 and the registration breaks down 31D-28R-41I. Given those stats, and the potential of a stronger run by Farrell, the 4th has the potential to be a district for which we are all sitting on pins and needles on Election night.

SOURCES:

Press Release, Farrell for Congress. SHAYS SHORTCHANGES CONNECTICUT AGAIN WITH FOCUS ON IRAQ SECURITY INSTEAD OF OUR OWN. 6/13/06

Press Release, Farrell for Congress. DIANE FARRELL AND VETERANS OUTRAGED
BY SHAYS’ LAX OVERSIGHT OF IRAQ WAR. 6/8/06

Press Release, Farrell for Congress. DIANE FARRELL SAYS IT IS EVIDENT CHRIS SHAYS’ PRIORITIES ARE IN IRAQ, NOT IN THE CONGESTED ROADS OF THE 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. 6/7/06

Press Release, Farrell for Congress. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS STALLS ON CHRIS SHAYS’ WATCH. 6/6/06

Poll. Quinnipiac Poll--Connecticut. Conducted by Quinnipiac University May 31-June 1.

CNN Election 2004 Results.

CT Secretary of State 2004 Election Results.

CT Secretary of State October 2005 Voter Registration Statistics.

AFT Endorses Lamont

This just in... According to a recent press release, AFT Connecticut, an arm of the AFL-CIO which is mainly a teachers' union, is endorsing Ned Lamont.

AFT Connecticut, the state’s second largest AFL-CIO union representing more than 26,000 professionals, including healthcare, higher education, and public employees, has endorsed Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate in Connecticut.

“This endorsement came down to the issues of education and healthcare and the draining of resources from our state in order to fund the war in Iraq,” said Sharon Palmer, president of AFT Connecticut. “Ned Lamont understands these issues and agrees with our positions.”

Joe Lieberman, of course, has support from some of the heads of organized labor in Connecticut, but this is a pretty decent endorsement. Connecticut AFT has been flirting with the Lamont campaign, as detailed in this article from last month:

Leo Canty, vice president of the American Federation of Teachers Connecticut chapter, echoes Dorman's complaint [about Joe Lieberman].

"When a significant issue comes up in the Senate, we don't have to worry about Chris Dodd being a strong supporter. There's quite a bit of doubt about Joe Lieberman," he says.

Yet Canty's union "opted not to make any endorsement" at its annual convention this month. Its delegate body will gather again in June and could reconsider then.

"There are a lot of individuals who are supporting Ned Lamont," he says. "But many people are waiting to see if he has traction." (Bass)

Apparently he has traction.

Interesting.

Sources

"AFT Connecticut Endorses Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate." AFT Connecticut. Press Release. 12 June, 2006.

Bass, Carole. "Lieberman, Lamont, Labor. Fairfield County Weekly 25 May, 2006.

Open Forum

For all the non-Lamont chatter (which is making us obsolete)!

The Feds have stepped in to run the trash collection agencies which were involved in racketeering and price fixing in the Danbury area.

In a related story, the minor league hockey Danbury Trashers, who have as their logo a mean-looking trash can with a stick, are cancelling their season. The owner, of course, is involved in this whole trashy mess.

In other hockey/refuse news, the Carolina Hurricanes are getting closer to winning the Stanley Cup. Not that anyone is bitter about that. Especially not me. No way.

There's also an interesting article in the New Haven Independent about Hispanic support for DeStefano (or lack thereof), and why it may have cost him the convention.

Lastly, don't forget to go check out/contribute to CT Election 2006, the new Connecticut elections wiki! Go add a candidate from your area, or help us flesh out our knowledge of something. Check out the aboutpage for more info.

What else is happening today?

Former Democratic State Chair Advises Lieberman to Run as an Independent

John Droney, a former Democratic state chair, is encouraging Joe Lieberman to run as an independent in August. Surprise.

"I think to be terrorized through the summer by an extremely small group of the Democratic Party, much less the voting population, is total insanity for a person who is a three-term senator," Droney said.
...
"Every single weirdo in the left wing will be there," Droney said. "That's what the Lamont strategy is all about."
...
Droney's suggestion was not welcomed by the Lieberman campaign. The senator's staff has been trying to discourage speculation that Lieberman, who is more popular with Republicans and unaffiliated voters than Democrats, might run as an independent. (Pazniokas)

There's a lot that's interesting in the article, such as the attack ads on Lamont's record that just serve to make the Lieberman campaign look small, and the fact that Nancy DiNardo is a little less than neutral on the subject of the primary.

But maybe the most telling bit comes at the end.

Ken Dautrich, a public policy professor at the University of Connecticut, said the ad [in which Lamont calls on Lieberman to support the Democratic nominee] reinforced Lamont's claim that Lieberman's relationship with the Democratic Party has grown tenuous.

"It's brilliant, because people who vote in the Democratic primary are people who like being Democrats," Dautrich said. "True believers in the party are the ones who actually turn out to vote in the primary."(Pazniokas)

Given that we don't know what turnout is going to be like (probably low), those true believers may swing things Lamont's way. They also won't be thrilled by Lieberman's refusal to answer whether or not he'll run as an independent.

Lieberman could have done this better. He could have run high-minded ads defending his position on various issues, like Iraq, without referring to his challenger at all. He could have stayed away from negative ads altogether. He could have redoubled his efforts to reach out to the left and to activist Democrats, and he could have very easily promised Democrats that he wouldn't desert them if he felt too threatened.

But he didn't. So now he may be sailing right into the perfect storm.

Source

Pazniokas, Mark. "Lieberman Ally Advises: Run As An Independent." Hartford Courant 13 June, 2006.

Lamont Ad Calls for Lieberman to Back Primary Winner

A Lamont radio ad that is beginning today is calling on Sen. Lieberman to back the winner of the August primary--essentially trying to force the senator to either agree to compete as a Democrat and abide by the primary result, or declare himself an independent.

In radio ads that began airing Monday, Lamont said he'll support Lieberman if he wins. He said Lieberman, who has not ruled out running as a candidate unaffiliated with any party in the November election, should back a fellow Democrat.

Campaign officials for Lieberman said they are focusing on winning the Aug. 8 primary and not collecting signatures for an independent run. Still, Lieberman has said he is not ruling out a possible run as an independent candidate. (NBC 30)

Not that Lieberman's going to answer. He's going to wait as long as he possibly can before committing. I have to say, his evasive behavior seems to suggest that he's going to cut his ties with the Democrats at some point during the next month or so.

That wouldn't be a smart move. Connecticut Democrats have invested a lot of time and their own personal reputations in Joe Lieberman. They wouldn't be happy if he abandoned them.

If he does declare his independence, we'll know that this race isn't about policy, issues or values. It's about Joe Lieberman winning another term.

Source

"Lamont Calls On Lieberman To Endorse Him If He Wins Primary." NBC 30 12 June, 2006.

Malloy Proposes $10 million in Arts Funding

Rell hasn't embraced the arts like Rowland once did, and JDS embraced Rowland and his delivery of state funding. So here is Malloy offering a funding plan for the arts. According to the AP article $10 million each year. You'd think that our local press would have covered this, but this showed up in Long Island's Newsday. With the Arts & Ideas Festival running in New Haven you'd think that some local news entity would have picked up on this.

"I believe the time has come to step up our investment in the arts at the local and regional levels so that communities throughout the state _ from our cities to our small towns _ can enjoy the cultural, social and economic benefits of a thriving and vibrant arts community," Malloy said in a written statement.

Malloy's proposed Connecticut Arts and Cultural Enhancement Program would invest in artists, performers, historic sites, landmarks, community theaters and museums. It would be administered by the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism and funded by growth in state hotel tax revenue.

Malloy also wants to set aside up to $10 million to expand local aid for towns in eastern Connecticut most affected by the growth of the tourism industry.

News and notes from the Connecticut campaign trail
AP June 9th, 2006

Net Neutrality: Congress Votes, Shays & DeLauro Get It

Net Neutrality means that every site on the internet, and every service on the internet is reachable at the same speed. The determining factor is how much bandwidth you as the consumer pays for. The Telcos want to change that. They want to sell preferred access on the Internet, kinda like selling express lanes to specific destinations starting at your driveway.

From CNN:

Telecommunication companies already control the pipes that carry the Internet into your home. Now they want control which sites you visit and how you experience them. They would provide privileged access for themselves and their preferred partners while charging other businesses for varying levels of service.

But why change a good thing? Right now, the Internet is a level playing field for everyone. The wonky term for this is "Net neutrality." When the Internet is neutral, everyone can use it, just like everyone can use public roads or airwaves. All businesses on the Internet get an equal shot at success.

Full results here, but our delegation voted this way:

DeLauro -Y
Larson - Y
Shays - Y

Johnson -N
Simmons-N

Good thing Shays and DeLauro are looking our for the consumer, but Johnson and Simmons showed either their ignorance of the issue, or could care less about the small businesses, consumers and fair play in this state.

Keep the Internet neutral, fair and free, By Craig Newmark Special to CNN Saturday, June 10, 2006; Posted: 12:23 p.m. EDT (16:23 GMT)

UPDATED: I inadvertently left off Larson. He gets it too.

Battle Flag

I was reading the Journal-Inquirer this weekend when I ran across this story about a mural painted at Stafford High School which drew fire, and is now being painted over, for being offensive. Most of the images cited as offensive were, in fact, pretty harmless. However, there was one that stuck in my mind: Someone had painted a Confederate battle flag. Underneath was some sort of inscription--I don't have the paper in front of me so I can't tell you exactly what it read--which said something like "This is my culture, respect it."

Stafford is a pretty white place, as are most of the little semi-rural towns in northern Tolland County. Imagine being one of the very, very few black kids at that school. Imagine walking down the hallway and seeing that painted there. What would you think?

And what if that wasn't the first time?

I was a high school teacher for a couple of years in a small town very like Stafford, and there was a certain group of kids who had all kinds of Confederate flag gear. This ranged from stickers on notebooks to decals on their cars to the real deal flying from the flagpole outside their homes. There were a few kids who were obsessed with that flag. They put it everywhere.

Why?

This is Connecticut. We not only have no historical connection to the society that produced that flag, our forerunners actually fought a bloody war to bring that rebellious society to heel. So what was this deep connection these kids felt for that flag? It made no sense to me.

I actually asked a few of them about it, and was told that "it's a redneck thing." That made a little sense. They defined themselves as country boys, and they tended to come from the families who had lived in these little towns forever. The families who moved into the new suburban-like developments from towns like South Windsor, Manchester and Enfield didn't have the same attitude. Still, I had to ask myself--was it a racist thing, too? There was obviously something secret, since the kids sometimes, when they remembered, went to great lengths to hide it, or, when displaying it, cocked a defiant attitude.

I also knew those kids. I heard some of the things they said, and saw through some of the code they put in their writings and speech. There was an undercurrent of defensive racism and homophobia, of Connecticut's answer to Good Old Boys feeling threatened by the encroaching suburbs and the modicum of diversity they brought, to their actions, words and deeds. Sometimes it became much more than an undercurrent. There were incidents. Some had to do with race. Many more had to do with sexuality.

Worse, it wasn't just the kids. Their fathers, brothers and uncles were just as bad. I met a few of them. Big guys. Intimidating. Their trucks sported Confederate flag decals, too.

On the whole, it was a pretty stupid thing of that principal to cover up the mural in Stafford. Kids need to express themselves, and they need exposure to art. That Confederate flag, though... that has to go. One way or another.

Source

Soper, Kym. "School officials whitewash murals on high school walls: Students, parents upset over decision; art teacher suspended over assignment." Journal-Inquirer 10 June, 2006.

Weekend Open Forum

Interesting article in the Courant this morning about liberal bloggers and the Lamont campaign. Worth reading, if only to see how blogs can help shape and be shaped by campaigns.

Thanks for everyone who has contributed to the campaigns wiki so far! If you know anything at all about your local state senate or house race, please consider going there and posting it! Even a little bit of information that can be expanded later is extremely helpful.

I do have House and Senate information about the last election cycle, which may be helpful to you. Let me know if you have trouble accessing these Excel files.

What else is happening today?

The 2006 Connecticut Election Wiki

I have been doing my best, with your help, to keep track of Connecticut candidates and local races. However, it's been difficult to do, since so much keeps happening all the time. Therefore, I'm pleased to announce that I've created a wiki for the express purpose of helping voters keep track of candidates in the 2006 Connecticut elections!

The address of the wiki is: http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com/. I encourage you to go there and look around! I especially encourage you to add as much content as you can manage. You, the committed political observers and activists, are the best resource this blog and this state has for information about the upcoming elections.

The list of candidates for House and Senate races is woefully inadequate. Please help by going to http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com/, looking around to see what the style and content is like, and adding what you can. The password to edit the wiki is posted on the front page.

I am the administrator of the wiki, so I'd ask that you contact me if you see something that is inaccurate. I would also ask that you make your entries be as factual as possible. For example, the "Ned Lamont" entry could contain a lot of biased information, depending on who is doing the posting.

I'm excited about this, and I look forward to seeing what gets posted. If we succeed, http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com/ will be one of the premier online sources of information about the upcoming election. I hope you'll at least go and look around!

What's Wrong With The Race For Governor?

Campaigns tend to resemble the battlefields of ideas that only the campaigners seem concerned about. Oh sure, they run focus groups and polls, listen to ardent supporters and activists and distill the cacophony to positive spinology with a side dish of attack the other guy. But in the end, the bullet point driven spiel sounds hollow to most voters because it lacks authenticity.

Take Rell’s elimination of the car tax proposal. On the surface a good idea. Anyone can see that there is something inequitable when the owner of Honda Civic in Bridgeport pays 3x the car property tax than the owner of the Honda Civic in Greenwich. The opposition to the idea formed its battlefield along the “who’s going to pay for it” line and the idea, the part about the inequity and more problematic the inefficiency of the tax got lost in the battlefield.

The interesting thing was that prior to the proposal, there was no groundswell of people clamoring for it’s repeal. Plenty of people don’t like it, or think its to high, but it wasn’t even near the top of the list of what concerns most residents.

Likewise, healthcare. The Malloy and DeStefano campaigns released plans to address and issue that really doesn’t affect most residents. Like the car tax, people don’t like that their health care costs too much, or that they have to wait for doctor appointments, or change primary care physicians with each insurance plan or employment change. But it’s not near the top of the list of what concerns most residents.

So why aren’t the campaigns talking about what really concerns residents most? Part of the answer, is that they don’t really know. To know what the majority of the state’s residents are concerned about means that you have to listen to concerns expressed by people and companies that don’t vote. Part of the answer is also that they do know, but since there are no clear cut answers to these problems they simply ignore them. Somehow, I don’t think the guys who sat around the oak table plotting the American Revolution thought that way.

So what is the biggest problem facing Connecticut? Simple. Gridlock. Our state, despite its many virtues, is completely and totally hampered by the difficulty in moving people, goods and services efficiently and cost effectively. Our roads and highways are commuter parking lots, our parking lots are overflowing, our train infrastructure has little intrastate capabilities, and we have failed to compete economically with our neighboring states. There are no cheap internet services. There is no investment in optimizing government through regionalization and technology adoption. There is no education strategy for adapting our workforce to new needs.

You can’t expect job growth without addressing the brain drain of this state. When young people can’t afford to live and work in the same town, they move to where they can. When companies can’t attract top shelf talent, they move to where they can. Only a few years ago it was difficult to manage a workforce that was decentralized. Today its not. Tomorrow it will be even easier. Without location based amenities to compete with against other states, Connecticut will creak to a standstill, becoming a larger land-based Nantucket where home renovations and tourism fuel a seasonal economy with imported workers.

With the capital markets in New York City and the intellectual markets in Boston, Connecticut is in the perfect position to grow the next generation of industry leaders. Without the political will to address the ability of people, goods and services to flow freely within the state as well as to New York City and Boston, it won’t happen.

Will any of the candidates for Governor speak to the future of Connecticut in the information age? Somehow I doubt it.

Predictions...

Okay, some of you have asked for this. I've been a little busy with a project (I'll fill you in soon, it should be pretty neat and I'll need everyone's help for it).

So. Make some predictions. Here are mine, just off the top of my head:

DeStefano over Malloy in a squeaker in August. Rell over DeStefano by about 10% in November.

Lamont will come within 10% of Lieberman, maybe closer, over the next month. The television ads will get nastier and nastier. I still don't see him leaving the party, unless Lamont starts getting within that 10%. Other than that? I have no idea what will happen.

Democrats will lose a couple of seats in the General Assembly.

There will be no Republicans elected as constitutional officers. Again.

Of course, I could also be wrong. In fact, I probably am. So what do you think is going to happen over the next few months?

Open Forum

Some bits of news...

Robert Farr is criticizing Richard Blumenthal for using assistant attorneys general to ferry him around while his regular driver is out with an injury. Farr is running against Blumenthal.

If I'm ever elected to anything, I'm driving myself.

Gov. Rell is trying to broker a deal with Fort Trumbull residents which would allow them to remain in their homes.

The DeStefano bloggers will be live-blogging the debate between DeStefano and Malloy today.

What else is happening?

Lamont Gains Ground on Lieberman

Ned Lamont is gaining on Joe Lieberman, according to a Quinnipiac poll released this morning.

There's an awful lot here, but here's what people are going to be talking about today:

19. (If registered democrat) If the 2006 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont for whom would you vote? (If undecided q19a) As of today, do you lean more toward Lieberman or Lamont? *Includes voters leaning toward a candidate.

LIKELY VOTERS

Lieberman 55%
Lamont 40
SMONE ELSE(VOL) -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) -
DK/NA 4

This is a likely voters number, which means that it's a good bellwether for the primary. Suddenly, Lamont is much too close for comfort. If Lamont keeps his momentum up, the election on August 8th will be a close one.

Lieberman also leads Lamont 57%-32% among registered Democrats. This is up from Lieberman's lead of 65%-19% among registered Democrats in the May 2nd poll. The convention provided a huge boost for Lamont: gaining 13% in a single month against an entrenched incumbent is no mean feat.

Remarkably, 76% of respondants still have no idea who Lamont is.

The negative advertisements released by the Lieberman campaign in recent weeks have obviously not had the desired effect.

To sum up: good news for Lamont, terrible news for Lieberman. One has to wonder if those rumors of Lieberman bolting the party carry any weight.

See the next post down for the rest of the poll.

Source

Poll. Quinnipiac Poll--Connecticut. Conducted by Quinnipiac University May 31-June 1.

Q-Poll: Convention Win Brings Malloy No Boost

Rell Still Leads by a Wide Margin

Despite a narrow convention victory, Dan Malloy has not gained much ground on front-runner John DeStefano, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released this morning.

Among likely voters, Malloy trails DeStefano 46%-35%. Among registered Democrats, DeStefano is ahead 37%-28%. Compare the latter number to the May 2nd poll, in which DeStefano led Malloy 32%-24%. DeStefano's lead has actually increased among registered Democrats.

Gov. Rell leads both candidates in potential matchups. Rell would defeat DeStefano 64%-24%, and she would defeat Malloy 65%-22%. The governor's approval rating remains strong at 75%.

Both Democratic candidates still suffer from a lack of name recognition. 59% haven't heard enough about John DeStefano to form an opinion, and 79% haven't heard enough about Dan Malloy, despite his convention win. Maybe they're not focusing on the right issues. Both candidates have been touting complex health care plans, lately, but only 3% of respondants list health care as the most important problem facing Connecticut today. Taxes, economy/jobs and education top the list.

The Malloy campaign seems unconcerned about the poll. This from a (very) recent press release:

We're confident that as more people learn about Dan's unmatched record of creating jobs, lowering crime, providing universal pre-K for every child, and as they hear about his plans to create 100,000 jobs and provide universal health care for Connecticut, Dan will do in the primary what he did at the Democratic Convention: he'll fight hard, and he'll win.(Malloy)

Except, of course, that people actually need to learn about him, first. July should be an interesting month.

Other tidbits from the poll include the fact that Joe Lieberman's favorability rating is hovering at 48%. Only 40% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of him. George W. Bush's approval ratings are down to 24%--which is right smack in the middle of Rowland Territory. Lastly, 44% say that Sen. Dodd would make an "excellent" or a "good" president, while 37% say he'd be a "not so good" or "poor" president.

Source

"Malloy campaign responds to Q-Poll." Press Release. Dan Malloy for Governor. 8 June, 2006.

Poll. Quinnipiac Poll--Connecticut. Conducted by Quinnipiac University May 31-June 1.

Malloy Upgrades to Universal Health Care

Dan Malloy today announces his plan to provide universal access to health care for Connecticut citizens. You can read his full plan on the Malloy for Governor website.

The plan is very similar to an earlier proposal by rival John DeStefano. Malloy initially planned to grant universal health care access only to children, but has since, perhaps spurred by DeStefano's plan, broadened the scope of the plan to include everyone.

The ultimate goals of the two plans are the same: universal access to health care. The differences, as this graphic shows, are mostly in the nuts and bolts.

A key difference between the Malloy and DeStefano plans is how to pay for medical care that has become so expensive some state legislatures have largely avoided even attempting universal coverage.

DeStefano said he can fund the entire $350 million program by closing corporate tax loopholes, an idea Rell's campaign says simply equates to an increase in corporate taxes.
...
By contrast, Malloy will avoid a direct corporate tax increase but said businesses can decide voluntarily to spend up to 1 percent of their payrolls to join the state employee health insurance pool - an idea pushed repeatedly by former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Curry. The idea is that small businesses would have access to lower insurance premiums by buying into a large insurance pool.

Malloy is also calling for Connecticut to raise its cigarette tax by 63 percent - to the same level as neighboring Rhode Island, at $2.46 per pack. ... Malloy's plan says the cigarette increase not only would generate more taxes, but would contribute to improved health.
...
Malloy would cover nearly half of the uninsured simply by expanding Medicaid, making far more people eligible by increasing the income thresholds. As a result, adults earning 200 percent of the federal poverty level - rather than 100 percent - would become eligible for adult coverage, Malloy said.

Rather than expand Medicaid, DeStefano would create the Connecticut HealthCare Consortium as a "one-stop marketplace" for businesses, families, and individuals to purchase health insurance coverage in a large pool.(Keating)

Just how much more can politicians flog the cigarette tax, which essentially is a way for government to take advantage of addicts, to fund their projects? I wasn't fond of Rell's attempts to raise "sin taxes" either. Government shouldn't legislate morality.

That's an aside, however. Both plans are well-intentioned, and would be better than the patchwork system we have now. Unfortunately, neither plan is really a solution. The Malloy plan's funding, which partially comes from cigarette taxes and tobacco settlement money, is on a very shaky foundation, as is DeStefano's. Corporate tax loopholes may be closed, but what if the economy tanks? What if businesses relocate to North Carolina? What if people stop buying as many cigarettes, or the tobacco settlement money dries up?

Yet, both plans are steps in the right direction. They are full of new and innovative ways of providing care and funding the program. Not all may be workable, and many may need a good deal of debate and refinement. However, Gov. Rell has yet to address health care in any meaningful fashion, and the federal government seems stuck in park on issues of concern to the vast majority of Americans. Neither plan is perfect, but it's better than the status quo.

I would like to see the General Assembly debate the merits of a universal health care plan in the 2007 session, no matter who wins the gubernatorial election.

Sources

"Dan Malloy Announces Plan for Universal Health Care in Connecticut." Press Release. Malloy for Governor. 7 June, 2006.

Keating, Christopher. "In Governor's Race, Duel Over Health Care." Hartford Courant 7 June, 2006.

Stamford Municipal Employees' Union to Endorse DeStefano

DeStefano Strikes At Malloy in his Own City

Remember when Dan Malloy was making trips up to New Haven to meet with (and be endorsed by) New Haveners disgruntled with the DeStefano administration?

Now it's payback time.

According to a recent press release, DeStefano will be holding a news conference tomorrow with the UAW local 2337 to announce their endorsement of his candidacy for governor. The UAW 2337 represents about 400 Stamford city workers.

DeStefano has spent the first few weeks after the convention campaigning hard. Malloy, by contrast, has been relatively quiet.

This may well wake Malloy up.

New Media Attracting State Politicians

When the history of this election cycle is written, no one is going to be able to ignore the impact of blogs and what FireDogLake is calling "people-powered media" at not just the federal level, but the state and local as well.

Two years ago, going into the 2004 election, there was perhaps one or two infrequently-updated blogs covering Connecticut politics. Now there are dozens, a significant portion of which are updated regularly and contribute original content.

The most interesting, creative and dynamic section of the Connecticut blogosphere is the network of liberal blogs supporting Ned Lamont, at the core of which is My Left Nutmeg, the community format of which may be the single most useful for blogs. That site was visited by John DeStefano, who talked with them about his health plan in an effort to generate excitement among progressives about his campaign. He's right to do so. The site is a nexus for some of the most committed activists in the state.

Ned Lamont's campaign is aware of that. His blog functions less like a traditional campaign blog, and more like an independent political blog. They quote news stories, post quick opinions, take and post pictures and so on. The language is conversational and informal, and makes for interesting reading.

Lamont himself wrote a diary for Daily Kos, in which he not only expressed his original opinion, but responded to comments for about an hour. I bet he raised a ton of money from it, not to mention generated immense good will among the people who make up a crucial segment of his base of support.

On the other side, Connecticut Conservative has interviewed several politicans, most recently Rob Simmons. While the conservative Connecticut blogosphere doesn't have a campaign like Lamont's to gel around, and so are therefore less connected, they are growing and they continue to produce original content.

What's the impact of these blogs? Who's reading? Well, this site's readership has grown to about 1,000 or more unique visitors per day, and about 3,500 page views. Other sites are doing just as well, or better. Beyond that? Who knows? It's hard to judge. Candidates certainly think there's something out here worth seeing. Maybe it's only money, but it could also be a new and positive kind of exposure, and a connection to committed political activists and observers.

It's changed the way Connecticut does politics. How much? We'll see in August.

Open Forum

Violence continues in Hartford with lawmakers set to unveil a plan to help put a stop to it. The plan apparently includes a cease-fire between neighborhood groups, among other things.

I hope it works, for the sake of these kids who stand to lose the most from the violence.

What else is happening today?

Weekend Poll #2

40% of respondents to the recent poll about the Democratic gubernatorial primary ranked "Ability to defeat Jodi Rell" as the most important issue to that vote. So, which candidate actually has that ability? Malloy? DeStefano? Neither? Both?

No staffers, please.

Democrats: Which candidate do you believe has the ability to defeat Jodi Rell in November?
	Dan Malloy
	John DeStefano
	Both: She's toast!
	Neither: Rell will stomp all comers
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Oh, as for the other poll? No way am I masochistic enough to ask this crowd which candidate for Senate will do a better job on the Iraq War! Interesting that 43% chose that, though.

Bass Tears Into Lieberman

Wow. This editorial by Paul Bass is one of the harshest and most unflinching portrayals of Sen. Lieberman's political career that I've ever seen.

The Bush administration values Joe Lieberman because he has been a crucial ally in efforts to free Enron-style corporate crooks from regulation, transfer wealth to the wealthy, hound gays, trample on the rights of government critics and sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis to dishonest, dangerous military adventurism.

Lieberman understands how, in campaigns, you can make people forget all that. You can change the subject by making fun of your opponent for being rich. Then, with millions of dollars from wealthy donors, you can reinvent your record. (Bass)

There's much, much more. One of the principal defenses of Joe Lieberman has been his high ratings from liberal interest groups. Bass dismantles that notion:

Now it's true that Lieberman earns high marks on Democratic interest group "report cards." That's because he plays a shell game in which liberal interest groups are complicit. He gets the "right" mark for voting against Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination, for instance. But he gives the Bush administration the vote it needs to make Alito a judge, by voting to stop a filibuster.

Similarly, he held back on voting for Clarence Thomas's nomination until the first Bush administration saw it had the votes. Then Lieberman could safely vote against Thomas and earn the "right" grade. (Bass)

Bass describes Lieberman as the quintessential Washington politician, who will do anything to stay in power while simultaneously turning his back on the people who put him there. Bass says "Good people do awful things when power tempts." He's right. They do.

The list of charges Bass brings against Lieberman is exhaustive. What's worse is that I'm sure it's only scratching the surface. I know there's more.

Lieberman's greatest strength is that he appears to be a decent, honest, regular guy who fights for what he believes in. He appears to be a man of conscience, a rare statesman in a time of partisanship.

But what if that's not entirely true? What if Bass is right about Lieberman, even only just a little bit? What if Lieberman has become too much a creature of Washington, and too little the New Haven attorney general we sent to the Senate eighteen years ago?

If so, Lieberman has arrived at a very, very dangerous moment. This is one of those rare years when national winds are blowing against incumbents-- all incumbents-- and Connecticut Democrats could find themselves hungry for change for the first time in a generation.

Read the article. Then tell me: is this the end of Joe Lieberman?

Source

Bass, Paul. "Seasonal Memory Lapses." Hartford Courant 4 June, 2006.

What if?

Or, I'm Bored and It's Sunday

(A report from the lovely Parallel Connecticut, where John Rowland is still governor and you actually married your high-school crush. Not that it worked out.

What's been happening in the parallel governor's race? Let's take a look...)

Blumenthal on a Roll?

It all seems downhill from here for Richard Blumenthal, who looks set to become Connecticut's first Democratic governor since William A. O'Neill left office in 1991.

Blumenthal, who captured his party's nomination by a wide margin over New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, was leading both of his potential Republican challengers by twenty points or more in a recent Quinnipiac Poll. The wildly popular attorney general has so far run a cautious, mistake-free campaign, and his convention feat of holding DeStefano under 15% has assured him of a primary-free August. DeStefano, apparently seeing the writing on the wall, dropped out of the race shortly after the convention ended.

Blumenthal's campaign has so far been free of strife and mistakes, but it has also been curiously free of issues or ideas. Blumenthal has yet to say what he will actually do as governor, beyond vague promises to ensure health care for children, fix Connecticut's transportation problems and clean up some of the ethical issues surrounding the outgoing Rowland administration.

The addition of another cautious sort, Senate President Kevin Sullivan, to the ticket as Blumenthal's running mate, suggests that this won't be a season where we see much in the way of bold proposals or new ideas. This could be a weakness, if the Republicans can rally behind their eventual nominee in August. At this point, Blumenthal and Sullivan seem assured of victory in November, but they could be vulnerable to a smart, committed and clever Republican. Should one, you know, ever show up.

Actually, the more interesting race is over who will succeed Mr. Blumenthal as attorney general. George Jepsen and Susan Bysiewicz are headed for a brutal August primary. Audrey Blondin looks set to move into Ms. Bysiewicz's spot after Rep. Andy Fleischmann dropped out.

Republicans' Last Gasp

Following her loss at the Republican state convention to former State Senator Bill Aniskovich, Lt. Gov. Jodi Rell is vowing to soldier on. Rell gained 36% of the vote at the divided convention, more than enough to guarantee a primary in August, but her chances look grim.

Rell, who is still relatively unknown statewide despite twelve years as Lieutenant Governor, has had trouble raising money, and her platform of ethics reform and modest tax cuts hasn't caught fire with the party faithful. Worse, she's seen as too close to Gov. Rowland, whose third term has been plagued by ethics scandals which seemed to touch everyone in the administration except the governor himself. The myriad ethical problems of Rell's campaign manager, Lisa Moody, have just made things worse. Rell's protestations that she knew nothing of the scandals surrounding Moody and other members of the Rowland administration ring hollow. What has she been doing for twelve years? Knitting?

Not that Aniskovich is clean as a whistle. His wife was made director of state tourism by Rowland, which some Republicans find a little fishy. Still, Aniskovich is distant enough from Rowland for Republicans looking for a fresh start after twelve years. His campaign has raised a decent amount of money and, polls show, has the best chance of defeating Blumenthal in November. His choice of New Britain Mayor Timothy Stewart as his running mate is an interesting one, and his plan to reduce taxes on businesses and the wealthy to spark economic growth is sure to get him votes in August. Also, his close victory over Ed Meyer in 2004 helped to prove his electoral credibility, something which Lt. Gov. Rell lacks.

Rowland himself, who is spending the entire month of June at his cottage at Bantam Lake, had nothing to say on the matter. He has so far been publicly neutral on the governor's race, although he is rumored to be supporting Aniskovich. That could be the kiss of death from a man whose approval ratings hover around 30%.

Rowland's legacy seems secure enough, especially as the massive cross-Sound bridge linking Bridgeport with Long Island gets underway. Allegations of bid-rigging are still floating around the bridge project, but so far Rowland remains curiously untouched. It may be possible that Rowland will in fact be remembered for what he built, and not for the scandals surrounding how he built it.

But after twelve years of him, it seems that Connecticut is ready for something different.

Weekend Polling

Here are some polls about the upcoming Democratic primaries:

Which of these issues do you feel is the MOST important to the August Democratic gubernatorial primary?
	Jobs/economy
	Health care
	Ability to defeat Jodi Rell
	Transportation
	Taxes (local and state)
	Education
	Ethics
	Crime
	Other
	I don't know
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Which of these issues do you feel is the MOST important to the August Democratic U.S. Senate primary?
	Health care
	Jobs/economy
	Retaining the seat/Building a Democratic majority
	Taxes and budget
	Iraq War
	Opposing/Investigating President Bush
	Ethics
	Immigration
	Other
	I don't know
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Feel free to add responses in the comment section.

Open Forum

Oh, right. Politics!

Fort Trumbull is still stalled, although things may be resolved soon. Too bad there was no action on eminent domain this session.

Also, there's more corruption in Bridgeport. Sigh.

What else is happening out there?

Thoughts on the Investigation

In May, the Connecticut political blogosphere had a month that ranged from excellent to troubling. Excellent, in that many bloggers attended the Democratic and Republican state conventions, and delivered interesting, thoughtful and up-to-the-minute coverage of those events. We faced a test of our mettle as citizen journalists, and I believe we did quite well. New technologies have allowed the easy upload of picture and, most importantly, video to our sites, which greatly enhances the quality and interest level of blogs and Web-based news organizations. Many of Connecticut's political blogs found national attention for their coverage of the Lamont campaign and Lamont's strong showing at the convention.

More troubling, of course, was the series of pro-Lieberman postings made to this blog under the names of prominent Democrats Harry Reid and Barack Obama, which began on May 4th and continued through May 7th, which, at the behest of another poster, has apparently triggered an FBI investigation.

Although the postings themselves were ultimately harmless and easily forgotten, and I find it unlikely that anyone from the Lieberman campaign was involved or that any laws were violated, we need to consider how to deal with this sort of thing.

Firstly, I have received several requests from posters to contact Blogger and ask them to divulge the identities of posters, or to trace them through IP addresses. I will not do this, unless compelled by law. There is a certain level of privacy and anonymity expected by users of the Web, and, while that privacy is largely an illusion, I will do whatever I can to protect it here.

Secondly, if you suspect that a particular posting is out of line, offensive or possibly illegal, please report it to me and I will consider whether or not to delete it. You can "report" by emailing me or simply by posting. I try to read every comment posted, especially those addressed to me. If I decide that the posting is offensive or violates campaign laws, I will remove it. I have been a lax moderator in the past. I will be more mindful of possible ethical breaches in the future.

Thirdly, it shouldn't have to be said that posting as someone you are not is wrong, and Web communities have long frowned on this practice. A derivation of a popular figure's name is acceptable, but the name with no embellishments, additions or substantive and visible alterations is not (i.e., "Mmmm Jodi Rell" is fine, "Barak Obama," misspelled as it is, is not). We are usually very good at policing ourselves and at shunning or dismissing those who don't comply with the rules of the Web-based society we have created. Again, if this happens, please report it to me and I will delete the offending posts and re-issue this statement about identity stealing. The problem can also be reported to Blogger, who can take more concrete action such as revoking memberships.

I believe that these less extreme actions are more effective in discouraging this sort of behavior while still keeping this blog and others viable forums than what took place. I am deeply concerned about the ramifications of those actions, and by the possible precedents set. How long will it be before we start siccing the law on one another, and not just on potential violators of campaign laws?

Make no mistake: if I suspect for a moment that this sort of nightmare will happen, I will shut this site down and delete its archive.

What's done is done, and we are left to deal with the consequences. Somewhere, the FBI may be either knocking at the door of a frightened kid who posted something stupid, reading the words we type on this site, or, more likely, throwing this whole investigation into the trash. We can't stop what has been set in motion.

We can, however, decide not to let paranoia, political zeal and anger allow us to undermine and possibly destroy all the remarkable progress this medium has made over the past year.

As of now, I consider the matter closed. The investigation may bear fruit, at which point we will deal with it. However, it is my hope that we can move on from this. We have an exciting and historic campaign season ahead of us, and I believe that blogs will play a crucial role in shaping it. Let's take what we can from this incident, without recrimination, blame or anger, and then move forward together into our future.

Rell Vetoes Adoption Rights Bill

Gov. Rell yesterday vetoed a bill that would have allowed adopted children to obtain a copy of their birth certificate when they turned 21.

Rell said the bill jeopardized the privacy rights of birth mothers who placed their children for adoption with the understanding that their personal information would remain confidential.
...
While acknowledging that the bill was "well-intentioned and much-needed in certain respects," Rell said the right to privacy is "a basic tenet of personal freedom" and the bill "violates that principle."
...
Rell said she worried about the "chilling effect" that the bill would have on future adoptions.(Poitras)

Proponents of the bill, including Sen. Bill Finch (D-Bridgeport), criticized the governor's decision.

Finch said the legislature never sought to open all adoption records, which can include sensitive court documents regarding the termination of parental rights and potentially embarrassing personal information associated with such a decision.

"All we sought was access to the original birth certificate," Finch said. "And if I don't own my own birth certificate, who does?" (Poitras)

I don't know much about the mindset of parents who give children up for adoption, but wouldn't it seem cruel, almost, for the state to give those children to show up unannounced on their doorstep two decades later, demanding answers?

And yet, we all do want to know where we come from, and who we are. Right now adopted children can have access to adoption records, if the biological parents agree. It isn't a perfect system. If they say no, or can't be reached, what then? I can't imagine the frustration.

I can't decide whether this bill would have made things better, or much worse. So it's probably good that it remain on the shelf for another year.

Source

Poitras, Colin. "Adoption Rights Bill Vetoed." Hartford Courant 2 June, 2006.

A Good Idea, Intra-town Finance Boards Meet

Fred Wilms, chairman of Norwalk's Board of Finance and candidate for the State Senate's 25th District held a meeting with other towns' Finance Board members.

For two hours last night, they tackled myriad issues, including the need to eliminate the automobile tax; how to grapple with school board budgets that comprise 70 percent of all municipal costs; and revaluation sticker shock in the wake of escalating residential real estate prices.

The main topic was school board budgets, which represent two-thirds of municipal expenditures. School budgets are separate from town and city operating budgets.

More of these types of meetings should be held by our towns.

The Norwalk Advocate Finance board chiefs discuss challenges, By James Lomuscio, June 2 2006

FBI Investigating Posts on Connecticut Local Politics

The article is here, if you haven't read it.

So we're the news today. Let's talk about it.

Here's what happened. On several occasions in the past, a poster posting under the name "Harry Reid" and another posting as "Barak [sic] Obama" have left weird, pro-Lieberman messages, and have responded to posts questioning their identity. They appeared to be a strange sort of ineffectual satire, and no one appeared to be taking them seriously. I decided to let them be, as they were neither grossly offensive nor slanderous.

But now an investigation has been opened into these comments to see whether or not someone in the Lieberman campaign posted those messages in an attempt to give the senator some kind of boost. If this is the case, they need to find a more productive use for their time.

But that does raise some questions. Who posted the comments? Does it matter, if it wasn't someone in either campaign? Should the FBI be involved? Where does satire stop (if indeed satire it was) and violation of campaign law begin? Am I, as administrator of this site (I don't own it--Blogger does) responsible in any way, if a violation has in fact occurred? Is Blogger? Will this site exist tomorrow?

Not easy questions. I can't even begin to think about the political effects of this. So there you are. I still haven't heard from the FBI (although I probably wouldn't be allowed to tell you if I had). We'll see what happens next.