Rell, Gallo Urge Schlesinger to Reconsider Candidacy

This is starting to get really interesting. I really am not sure how much longer Schlesinger can stay in the race following this:

Gov. M. Jodi Rell and GOP State Chairman George Gallo publicly urged fellow Republican Alan Schlesinger to reconsider his candidacy for U.S. Senate after learning Wednesday that he gambled at the Foxwoods Resorts Casino under an assumed name while an elected official in the 1990s.
...
Schlesinger said he did nothing wrong, other than try to keep his name off Foxwoods' marketing list. But Rell and Gallo said his behavior was troubling, signaling that Schlesinger will face pressure to quit the race.

"Gov. Rell is disturbed by this new information and believes that Alan Schlesinger should seriously consider whether he should go forward with his campaign," said Judd Everhart, a spokesman for Rell.

"I share the governor's concern about Alan Schlesinger, and I will be meeting with him within the next day to discuss his U.S. Senate bid," Gallo said.(Pazniokas)

He's done. If the two leaders of his party in this state have lost faith in him, then he really can't make a credible run. He can either stay in and hurt the party's best chance at a Senate seat in years this November, or give way to another candidate. Gallo will probably try to convince him that he ought to gracefully step aside. He probably will.

The sad thing is that Schlesinger's offense doesn't seem all that bad. So he was a card counter. So he played blackjack. Big deal. Card counting isn't illegal, and from his account he wasn't even very good at it. But the Republicans desperately want to run the best candidate they can to capitalize on discontent within the Democratic Party, so Schlesinger, who now has just a whiff of impropriety about him, has to go.

So what's the next move for the GOP? Who will replace Schlesinger, who wasn't the best of candidates on a good day, on the ballot? Will any high-profile Republicans even want to risk it?

Source

Pazniokas, Mark. "Rell Urges Schlesinger To Reconsider Candidacy." Hartford Courant 12 July, 2006.

How to Replace a Candidate in Six Easy Steps...

Connecticut's Election Law is generous with regards to replacing candidates on the ballot (See Connecticut General Statutes § 9-460):

1. Make sure it is not less than 10 days before the election.

2. Have your candidate voluntarily withdraw his name.

3. Have your candidate file a letter of withdrawal with the Secretary of State.

4. The party may then make a new nomination following party rules.

5. Wait for the Secretary of State to certify the new nominee. Once this is complete, your party has a new nominee!

6. Given the wackinesss of this race, repeat as necessary!

The relevant part of the statute is as follows:

If any party has nominated a candidate for office ... and such nominee thereafter, but prior to ten days before the opening of the polls on the day of the election for which such nomination has been made ... withdraws such nominee's name ... such party ... may make a nomination to fill such vacancy or provide for the making of such nomination as its rules prescribe.
...
No withdrawal, and no nomination to replace a candidate who has withdrawn, under this section shall be valid unless the candidate who has withdrawn has filed a letter of withdrawal signed by such candidate with the Secretary of the State in the case of a state or district office. ... No nomination to fill a vacancy under this section shall be valid unless it is certified to the Secretary of the State in the case of a state or district office.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-460.

As far as I can see, the party cannot replace the candidate if he does not withdraw unless he either dies or becomes disqualified to hold the office for which he was nominated.

More Senate Musical Chairs

Schlesinger to drop Out?

From Hotline (thanks to ctblogger for pointing it out first:

Expect calls for Connecticut Republican United States Senate nominee Alan Schlesinger to abandon his race to begin in the next several days. Questions are being raised about the former state representative’s gambling habits that have Republicans sounding rattled.
...
The most serious trouble for Schlesinger, however, comes from Republican state chairman George Gallo, who told me this afternoon that the gambling questions raise “a lot of questions which Mr. Schlesinger is going to have to answer in the next couple of days.” Gallo, who is close to Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell, said, “Our mistake is that we only vetted candidates using their real names.”

Schlesinger isn't the strongest candidate to begin with, so this might be a way for Republicans to ditch him without looking like opportunists should Lamont win the primary.

Schlesinger's campaign manager came on the Bruce and Colin show this afternoon to say that Schlesinger won't be dropping out, but if the GOP wants him gone, what choice does he have?

The only problem is who would replace him. There are exactly zero high-profile Republicans in Connecticut who aren't running for something else. If Schlesinger got out, would Urban be the nominee? Republicans don't like her, but independents might. She may even have a better chance to split Lamont and Lieberman down the middle.

Wild.

Hearing on National Strategy for Victory in Iraq Hurts Representative Shays

On July 11, 2006, Representative Christopher Shays (Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations) held a hearing to examine the Bush Administration’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (see the Subcommittee’s briefing memorandum). In his prepared opening remarks, Representative Shays stated:

"I am not afraid we will lose the war in Iraq, in Iraq. I am deeply concerned we will lose the war in Iraq here at home. Our efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help bring democracy to the most troubled part of the world is truly a noble effort that must succeed, because as Ambassador Khalilzad said, “What happens in Iraq will shape the future of the Middle East, and the future of the Middle East will shape the future of the world."

However, Representative Shays’ strong words (which were fired at the anti-war movement, including his challenger, Diane Farrell), are completely overshadowed by the recently released General Accounting Office’s report GAO Report which contends that the Bush Administration's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is flawed in several ways, such as its lack of details concerning which agencies are responsible for the various efforts in Iraq, the evolving nature of the U.S. role as Iraqi forces assume greater control, and, most importantly, that the Bush Administration has failed to provide Congress with enough information on the estimated costs and funding sources for reconstruction.

The hearings have to be deemed a failure for the Shays campaign, and a victory for his opponent, Diane Farrell, who has time and time again stressed that the Bush Administration’s (with the unwavering support of Representative Shays) Iraq policy is significantly flawed and that Congress has continually failed in its oversight role. (See this letter letter from Ms. Farrell to Representative Shays on July 10, 2006).

Sources
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform (website: http://reform.house.gov) (last visited July 12, 2006)

General Accounting Office (website: www.gao.gov) (last visited July 12, 2006)

Diane Farreell for Congress (website: www.farrellforcongress.com) (last visited July 12, 2006)

Antiwar Independent Republican to Enter Senate Race

You heard me.

Just when you thought the Connecticut race for the U.S. Senate could grow no odder, Republican state Representative Diana Urban today took out petitions for an independent run, creating the possibility of a four way race should Democrat challenger Ned Lamont defeat Senator Joseph Lieberman in the August 8th primary. Lieberman has also taken out petitions.

Urban, 56, will be running as an anti-war candidate and in a brief telephone interview sounded like a Republican version of Cindy Sheehan. The three term state legislator, claiming the Bush administration possesses a “flat learning curve”, says America went into Iraq for the wrong reasons. She says she was heavily influenced by recently published account of the war, Cobra II. On a more philosophical level, she cleaves to the Sun-Tzu’s Art of War, declaring that her campaign strategy comes from him: “The path will reveal itself to you.” (from The National Journal's Hotline On Call)

Urban won't be giving up her seat in the state House of Representatives' 43rd district: she's unopposed in that race.

A note of caution: I've only seen this story appear on Hotline On Call. No AP article, not a mention elsewhere. I'll keep an eye on it to see if it pans out.

(Thanks to Aldon Hynes for catching this one)

John DeStefano: The Communicator Governor

The Town Line Diner in Rocky Hill nestled in a working class neighborhood in a Wal-Mart shopping center typifies the suburban towns that lie along I-91 between New Haven and Hartford. It was here that John DeStefano met with CLP as part of our series on "Meet The Gubernatorial Candidates".

DeStefano, never shy about talking about politics, and what he thinks, opened the conversation with a speech, "just for you guys."

The Big Idea

"Good politics is porous, and it's open"

For DeStefano, the son of a New Haven police officer, it has meant a greater accessibility and openness to new ideas on how to tactically change policy. No matter where a question started, DeStefano invariably brought it back public education and how New Haven has brought many different approaches together from community based policing to establishing a "Democracy School" to foster an open, bottom-up, approach to government.

"Everything I thought about making the public schools successful, I just think, it is essential to strong democracy," explained DeStefano. "In New Haven , it meant something called Democracy school, we actually run classes on civic engagement.

He then touched on plans to sign a vendor to create a wireless network in New Haven, making it the first wireless city in Connecticut.

From his stands on community based policing to universal healthcare DeStefano believes in the give and take of the ideas is the path to good governance.

DeStefano acknowledges that much is work in New Haven has been through the efforts of the many people trying different things but always with an eye on building consensus. As DeStefano pointed out whether it was the Sikorsky labor dispute or the Yale labor dispute, the negotiations were a study in understanding human nature.

At times during the wide open conversation, it seemed that DeStefano was running against Hartford instead of the mayor from Stamford, although Malloy was never far from the conversation.

His recent comments about Jodi Rell's proposals addressing the violent crime in Hartford had stirred emotions. He stood by his words though, adding that you "Can't police yourself out of this."

Specifically to Rell's proposals; "Jodi's response is literally that, a 1950's southern response. I don't think she gets it."

DeStefano's experience in New Haven has led him to be much more interested in engaging populations where they are and much more interested in prison relief programs.

Like many good conversationalists, the subject turned to other related issues, and DeStefano pounced on the estate tax.

Criticizing Dannel Malloy and Jodi Rell, DeStefano says its absurd to fix or eliminate the estate tax. To DeStefano there's no linkage between wealthy families and job creation in this case.

DeStefano held more contempt for eliminating the car tax. He explained how he believes that the benefit of eliminating the car tax is exclusive to wealthy people only, providing the anecdote that Greenwich resident, Tommy Hilfiger who owns 21 cars would get the most benefit from eliminating the car tax. What DeStefano does not say is that Greenwich also has one of the lowest car tax rates in the state causing the disparity between the Greenwich Hilfiger often paying less in tax per car than the average 1992 K-Car owner in Bridgeport.

Tomorrow is another day.

Echoing the words of Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind, DeStefano opined, that If you don't get everything you wanted to day, tomorrow is another day. To make a city strong - he spoke to making it safe - making the schools work for the middle class and increasing economic opportunities.

"Your usual small town isn't begging for wal-mart, they just want to make their school budget work, right? Well maybe there's a way to do both. You got to believe in the win-win."

With suburban sprawl DeStefano paints a wistful look at how urban areas and the suburbs can coexist because the urban areas want the density and the suburban areas just want to preserve the character of their towns.

DeStefano bristled at the suggestion that his city still had a reputation that people from the suburbs avoided coming into New Haven.

"The fact is I have school district with 21,000 kids, 1700 of them are suburban kids that come form 21 school districts. I have the largest inner district magnate program in the state of Connecticut."

"People come in each and every day sending their kids to come to public schools in new haven."

"Look at whose renting housing in downtown New Haven."

"There's a generation of kids experiencing New Haven starting at 11 o'clock tonight. They are suburban kids."

But DeStefano's support of the kids coming into New Haven wasn't all that evident just a few years ago where the city of New Haven fought to close down clubs like The Tune Inn and refused to give permits to local young artist groups like ideat village. Local merchants too remain wary about DeStefano's new wisdom regarding local businesses, smarting from his strong support to the ill-fated Long Wharf Mall. As for the perception about New Haven it remains, out there whenever there's talk about the economic benefits of various New Haven festivals.

And when it came to building big box stores, New Haven wasn't the choice of Walmart (Branford), Target (Milford), Best Buy (Orange), Sam's Club or Lowe's (West Haven & North Haven).

DeStefano deserves credit for creating Connecticut's cultural capital, with strong support for education, the arts, and for making New Haven a more enticing and safe city. But his message of regional economic development still isn't reaching his suburban neighbors.

The ghosts of DeStefano's pasts stand in contrast with the DeStefano of the present. The DeStefano of the future though seems headed in the right direction.

"It's time to regional planning and development. You gotta start thinking this way. It's bull that we are paying $5 million a year for Wal Mart, one of the wealthiest corporations on planet earth, not to get way, to get away with not having decent health care for their employees. "

Whether its universal health care or transportation, the issues that drive change must be paid for. To this, DeStefano gave a thoughtful response.

"You have to explain to people why they should care about paying for it. This is not about getting people in Farifield County home earlier at night. It's about growing jobs and wealth."

Jobs cluster around transportation infrastructure ports and then highways. You gotta give people the reason."

"How do you pay for it? One you have to have a governor who doesn't refuse to go down to Washington D.C."

This is where DeStefano of the future broke free from the every day reality of a political record.

"Connecticut in America, has a special role in creating change across the nation. Civil rights laws, or the character of the nations economy. Connecticut has always been the kind of place where things happen --first. It's something we've lost in our politics and in our policy."

"We've had that tradition of being innovators and ingenuity. And we're not anymore. On some social policy we are, right, campaign finance reform... Think about this, in one year, out of the legislature, it didn't come out of the governor's office, campaign finance reform and civil unions."

"We ought to be doing that on redefining the economy."

As he said, "A smart little state like Connecticut does it, makes it work, makes some mistakes, fixes the mistakes, That's Connecticut's gift to the rest of nation, this constant sense of innovation and new ideas."

Whether DeStefano succeeds in his mission to win the Democratic primary on August 8th remains to be seen, but for DeStefano, tommorow will always be another day.

The Other Primary

My Left Nutmeg is reporting that there will be a debate next week between John DeStefano and Dan Malloy, shown live on Channel 8.

This time, I don’t think it’s going to be simulcast on C-SPAN and MSNBC. The day after won’t see a fury of blog postings and editorials claiming that one candidate or the other emerged victorious. No one will be commenting on the fit of Dan Malloy’s suit, or the tone of John DeStefano’s voice. Very little ink will be dedicated to the ideas the two men put forth.

Why?

First, it’s July. Who really thinks about politics in July? Secondly, even if you are thinking about politics now, chances are you’re much more interested in Lamont-Lieberman than in DeStefano-Malloy.

There’s a reason for that. On most issues, the two men just aren’t far enough apart to form the sort of passionate followings that Lieberman and Lamont have. Both candidates have a pretty progressive record, and espouse progressive causes. The only debatable points seem to be which one is more progressive or electable than the other.

Lastly, the conventional wisdom suggests that, barring a sinkhole swallowing Brookfield, Jodi Rell will crush whoever happens to be luckless enough to win the primary. Which is probably true. People like Jodi Rell, mainly for reasons having little to do with actual policy. Worse, now Rell actually has money. When one of the two Democrats emerges, exhausted and financially depleted, she’ll be waiting with full coffers and an approval rating somewhere in the 70s.

Maybe then we’ll start paying attention. But probably not before.

Which is too bad, in a way. Some of the things they have to say are pretty interesting, and are worth discussing. For example, we probably should have a debate on uncoupling education funding from property taxes. We ought to talk about universal health care, better transportation and smarter job growth.

But we won't. We're not ready yet.

Open Forum

John DeStefano on the Primary and Education

On Saturday, bloggers from all over Connecticut sat down with Democratic gubernatorial candidate John DeStefano, the mayor of New Haven. This will not be a piece comparing DeStefano with Malloy--rather, it will explore a few of DeStefano's positions on the issues and provide some commentary.

Diet Coke vs. Diet Pepsi

DeStefano started the meeting with a short speech about politics and communication. One of the more enduring images from that speech was his belief that "politics are about big ideas... and choices... not Diet Coke vs. Diet Pepsi." DeStefano, who characterized his rivals Jodi Rell and Dan Malloy as the two barely distinguishable beverages later on in the discussion, is portraying himself as an alternative to more of the same.

So many decisions are made "within a small universe of people," DeStefano said. It's time to open that up.

He also commented on the state of the primary, and what differentiates him from his Democratic rival. "I am...dramatically different from Dan," he said. "What you see is a sum of issues that speak or families in the middle." An example of this, he said, was that "...I don't give speeches to labor. I idenfity with labor." The more bold, progressive stands he is taking on issues relevant to the middle class will help him win the primary.

Schools and Property Taxes

I asked Mayor DeStefano about education and property taxes. He said that homeowners are overburdened by the property tax, and that Connecticut towns are too dependent on it. In fact, he said, only New Jersey is more dependent than Connecticut on the property tax. DeStefano wants to "shift the way you pay for schools" onto the state income tax, basically by raising taxes for people making over $500,000/year. He also wants to create a floor for reimbursement of special education costs.

Lisa Moody

"I don't think Lisa Moody should resign. I think the governor should fire her."

Commentary

John DeStefano is a candidate who believes in the big idea. He is personable, engaging and very social, as well as willing to try to explain the underpinnings and theories behind his ideas instead of simply laying them out there.

His support from labor seems genuine, and may end up making a difference. The diner in which we met was right around the corner from Connecticut AFL-CIO headquarters (they had DeStefano/Slifka lawn signs, the first I'd seen, although now my neighbor has one too), which may have been why we were interrupted by an enthusiastic supporter of DeStefano's. They may feel he understands their issues far better than the other two candidates, and his stand against Wal-Mart and the abolition of the estate tax may be bearing this out.

He is an innovator, and seems more interested in the end goal than in how he'll get there. His answer for how he expected to pay for his transportation plan was frustratingly (and deliberately) vague--he believes that the details can be worked out depending on the situation. He may, in fact, be correct, but he may find that a lack of firm plans won't help him with a recalcitrant legislature.

John DeStefano is a charming and down-to-earth man with a good understanding of human nature, which might make a run against a charming, down-to-earth and popular governor an interesting race.

More commentary and reactions coming soon. Thanks to Frank Chi and John DeStefano for setting up and attending this meeting.

A(nother) Connecticut Party

Strikingly original.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman filed paperwork Monday that will allow him to collect signatures to petition his way onto the November ballot if he loses an August primary.
...
Lieberman also filed papers with the secretary of the state's office Monday to create a new party called Connecticut for Lieberman. (Haigh)

What? Not going for the Working Families Party cross-endorsement? Didn't want to revive A Connecticut Party?

At least his party name is very descriptive.

Source

Haigh, Susan. "Lieberman campaign files forms to run as petitioning candidate." Associated Press 10 July, 2006.

Malloy Leads Gubernatorial Fundraising

The fundraising numbers for Q2, according to each campaign:

Dan Malloy: $650,000 (approx.) - $1.3 million on hand
Jodi Rell: $641,226.25 - $1.74 million on hand
John DeStefano: $340,002 - $1.25 million on hand

Wow.

FBI Raid of Congressional Office Legal

Stepping away for a minute from the on-going allegations of corruption in Connecticut, a federal judge has ruled that the FBI's raid on Representative William Jefferson's (D-La.) congressional office did not violate the Speech and Debate Clause.

See here (And yes, I have purposefully linked to FOX News for all of you to enjoy).

In the opinion, Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan stated: "Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office."

I have not read the complete opinion yet, but I do find this comment troubling because of the potentially sensitive information that a congressman/woman or senator may have in their possession. I'm looking forward to seeing if Judge Hogan's opinion addresses this issue.

Source, FOX News website, Judge Rules FBI Raid on Rep. Jefferson's Office Was Legal, July 10, 2006

Hamzy: Stop "Witch Hunt" of Moody

William Hamzy, Republican state representative from Plymouth and former state chair of the Republican Party, had a piece published in the Courant today:

It became clear that the hearings were little more than a partisan witch hunt aimed at bringing down an enormously popular governor when the committee flatly refused to expand the hearings into similar ethical lapses by Democratic legislators.
...
Because Moody had indicated in her testimony that she "did not fully read and ... absorb" the memo, some Democratic leaders are demanding that Moody resign or be fired. Others are saying that a perjury investigation by Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano is necessary.

As Moody's attorney has pointed out, she has not denied reading the memo. She has simply indicated she is unfamiliar with its contents - which considering that she has read and edited thousands of memos over the years, is not an unreasonable statement.

That hardly amounts to perjury.

Could Lisa Moody improve her interpersonal skills? Yes. Does Lisa Moody have trouble dealing with subordinates? Yes. Is she corrupt? The answer is no. (Hamzy)

According to her testimony, which is, for the record,

"My testimony is I did not read and memorize that memo."

she actually did deny reading the memo. Since it's pretty obvious that she did read it enough to suggest changes, she either has an absolutely terrible memory or she lied under oath to a legislative committee. One is a bad quality for a chief of staff to have. The other is one of those things that should get you fired and slapped with a hefty fine.

This isn't a partisan witch hunt. The legislature has a right to expect those speaking before it to tell the truth, especially if they are under oath. The public has a right to expect the officials of its government to be free of corruption.

Hamzy says that Moody is not corrupt. I say that we haven't yet determined if she is corrupt, and that the legislature has the right and the duty to do so. It would be nice if the Democrats in the legislature policed themselves with such zeal, but the fact that they don't doesn't mean that the case against Moody isn't legitimate.

It is especially crucial in light of the ethics scandals of the past decade that we determine the truth of this matter. Let's get to the bottom of it.

Sources

Hamzy, William. "End Partisan Witch Hunt." Hartford Courant 10 July, 2006.

Lender, Jon. "Memo's Changes Point To Moody." Hartford Courant 1 July, 2006.

His Own Worst Enemy...

Digby has a point when she writes (WARNING - The link will lead you to one of those crazy internets sites where someone with a computer is destroying America one voter at a time. Or something.):

The real joke in all this is the fact that I don't think anybody really thought that Lamont had a chance in the beginning and were just hoping to put some pressure on Lieberman to stop kissing Bush on the lips.
...
Instead, he has been testy and superior, behaving as if he were entitled to the seat --- even saying in the debate this week that his old mentor would have counselled Lamont not to run for the good of the party. This from the man who says he doesn't care what the party decides in its primary. [Typo Corrected]

So, is Joe Lieberman his own worst enemy?

Yes. Yes, he is.

So....... The Senator has a new ad out...

Video here.

Complete story here.

Did no one think to themselves, roughly around the time they were editing the final line of the ad, you know, the one that says, "I'm Joe Lieberman and I approve this message", "Maybe we shouldn't create an ad with a fake Ned Lamont bumper sticker that has a fake website address previously used for a GOP primary in Arizona, and maybe we shouldn't make it look as much like the real Ned Lamont bumper stickers as we can, and maybe we shouldn't use the word "ELSE" (emphasis in ad) to imply that the bumper sticker is actually put out by the Lamont campaign, and maybe, just maybe, if we did all that and it was in the ad that the law requires our candidate approve verbally, it might, I don't know, make him look like a liar"?

Really, how hard is it to get a job running a Senate campaign? I would have thought that it would be harder than getting to be the GM of the Knicks, but apparently it isn't.

One last point (which, in fairness, I am about the last person to write about): No where in the ad or in any text does the campaign mention the word "Democrat". Still "totally focused on winning the Democratic primary" or trying out ads for the indy run?

Save us from New Yorkers

And Californians, Too

It's nice that the nation is interested in what's happening in Connecticut. We don't get much attention. We're too small and usually too Democratic to matter in presidential races, and we're not as nuts as Massachusetts on social and tax policy, so we get ignored.

But now that Ned Lamont is drawing within striking distance of Joe Lieberman, the rest of the country has taken notice of us.

You know what? I think I liked it better the other way.

David Brooks weighs in:

Sometimes history comes with previews. In the 1930's, the Spanish Civil War served as a precursor to the global conflict that was World War II. And in a smaller fashion, the primary battle playing out on the smiling lawns of upscale Connecticut serves as a preview for the national conflict that will dominate American politics for the next two years. (Brooks)

"The smiling lawns of upscale Connecticut"? Has he seen the distinctly unsmiling dirt pile that is my lawn? Has he been to Connecticut past Greenwich? To David Brooks, we barely exist at all, except as a one-dimensional backdrop for a bit of national political theater.

Then there's this from the LA Times:

Ned Lamont's challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman in next month's Connecticut primary has blossomed into a full-scale Democratic civil war. What's at stake is the legitimacy of partisanship.
...
But if Lieberman's allies are irritating and often wrongheaded, alas, his enemies are worse. Lieberman recently declared, "I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party." Markos Moulitsas, the lefty blogger from Daily Kos who has appeared in a Lamont commercial and has made Lieberman's defeat a personal crusade, posted this quote on his website in the obvious belief that it's self-evidently absurd. But shouldn't we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party — say, to our country? Partisanship isn't nothing, but must it be everything? (Chait)

Lost amidst the screaming from out of state is the simple essence of the Lieberman/Lamont primary, which is that every once in a great while, Connecticut voters get cranky. At those times, it is our right as citizens of the world's first constitutional democracy to boot out the incumbent and replace him or her with someone else.

The simplest question, free of all national strings, is this: Does Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont better represent Connecticut's Democrats?

Then in November, when the primary is forgotten, all of our voters get to decide which candidate best represents Connecticut as a whole. It will probably be Joe Lieberman. We usually play it safe. But then again, this time we might not. Maybe we don't like the war so much. Maybe we're sick of the same guy in office, year after year. Maybe we want change, for once.

We aren't just some sprawling suburb of New York, bursting with millionaires and coffee-slurping intellectuals. This is a real place. We exist. We live, breathe, have families, go to work and play out our lives right here. Our voters don't care about the legitimacy of partisanship. We don't care about a liberal inquisition, or party purges, or an impending Democratic civil war. We don't care about Markos Moutsalis, David Brooks, Joe Biden or Maxine Waters.

We care about Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont. The national implications can play out as they will.

Sources

Brooks, David. "The Liberal Inquisition." New York Times 9 July, 2006.

Chait, Johnathan. "Purely foolish Democrats." Los Angeles Times 9 July, 2006.

Open Forum

Ray Hackett calls blogs and bloggers examples of "vigilante politics."

I am vengeance. I am the night. I am... Blogman!

I really need to get my cape back from the cleaners.




More seriously, Scarce at My Left Nutmeg reports on an accident at Sailfest in New London and the heroism of a Lamont staffer.

The Moderate Voice comments on the Lamont/Lieberman race and its implications for moderates and centrists. Some of it I agree with, some of it not.

Site News: Comments are still moderated (although there was a moment after the debate and this weekend when they were not). I'm pretty pleased with the way comment moderation has worked so far. Even when comment moderation was off, people kept their conversations (mostly) civil. I've only had to delete a handful of posts.

Bloggers Meet with DeStefano

A group of bloggers from this site, ConnecticutBLOG and My Left Nutmeg met with gubernatorial candidate John DeStefano at the Town Line Diner on the Wethersfield/Rocky Hill town line. Over the next few days, CGG, Turfgrrl and I will be posting reactions to and reports from the meeting. Also check the other sites for more reports, reactions, photos and video.

Enfield Parade

Politicians at the Enfield parade.







John DeStefano greets supporters.











Gov. Rell















Gov. Rell













Rep. Rob Simmons takes flight













Alan Schlesinger - Republican for U.S. Senate













Attorney General Richard Blumenthal













Bill Kiner - Democrat for State Senate







Also spotted were Mary Glassman and Joe Courtney. A brilliant move by the Rell campaign was having hundreds of yellow, blue or white "Jodi Rell" balloons to hand out to people. They were a big hit. There were Lieberman supporters handing out stickers, but curiously absent were any Lamont supporters. I was surprised at this.

A big thank you to the Enfield Celebration organizing committee, of which our own disgruntled_republican is a member. I had a great time!

The Endless Debate Thread

Post whatever thoughts you have left on the debate here. Most of the reaction I'm seeing out there is that Lamont did okay, but that Lieberman may have shot himself in the foot. Since expectations for Lieberman were pretty high (after all, he's an 18-year veteran of the Senate, and has run for president and vice president), that translates into sort of a win for Lamont.

CTLP reaction here:
Turfgrrl
Genghis Conn's first impressions
Debate poll

Other sites:
My Left Nutmeg
Colin McEnroe

Scroll down for more content--we've got lots to say today.

The Empty Suit Won't Go To Washington

Last night's debate between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman was all about positioning Ned Lamont as a credible alternative to Joe Lieberman. Credibility was the ongoing theme with Lieberman questioning the relentless half truths and distortions of his record in a direct confrontation of Lamont, and Lamont scrambling to sound credible when talking about the issues.

Aside from the fact that Lamont was nervous and seemed transfixed by some unseen headlights bearing down on him, his answers were devoid of debate and just a repetition of his campaign slogans, and empty business speak. In other words, Lamont was exactly who he is, a suit used to selling features without fundamentally understanding what he is talking about.

Lieberman by contrast was at ease, at times aggressive towards Lamont. His performance was not the usual dry and boring recitation of nuanced policy points. He poked holes through Lamont's wavering statements on Iraq, and highlighted his long history of opposing Bush administration policies. Lieberman articulated his positions, why he held them and where they fit in his political philosophy.

Lieberman successfully framed Ned Lamont as a guy who was running against George Bush and Lamont helped by turning every answer into a George Bush attack. The big problem for Lamont was that George Bush was on another channel answering questions from Larry King, and the guy he is really running against is Joe Lieberman.

Last night more people tuned in to watch the Mets and Yankees win, than the debate. They missed the opportunity to be introduced to Greenwich's version of Lynn Westmoreland. It is unlikely that the debate will sway the people who watched much. The angry liberals will continue their war on the war, and baseball games will attract more interest. The question of who will show up on August 8th remains unanswered, but the larger question of who should be going to Washington in November looks like Joe Lieberman.

Moody-Gate

The Courant editorial board notices that something is amiss:

A governor who touts ethics in government as one of her highest priorities wouldn't be expected to throttle an ethics investigation in its crib. But that's exactly what Gov. M. Jodi Rell is trying to do by chastising Democrats who ask questions about the misconduct of her chief of staff, M. Lisa Moody.
...
We can imagine the likes of John Rowland or Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon trying to short-circuit an investigation of an aide. But not a governor who has staked her reputation on delousing state government after the scandal-plagued administration of her predecessor.
...
An ethics-first governor should not try to quash an inquiry behind the scenes. Could it be that Mrs. Rell is just another politician?

Go read the entire thing.

The most disturbing part to me is the inference that Governor Rell is trying to quash the investigation by threatening House Speaker Amann and Senator Meyer. If she knows of improprieties in the offices of Democrats, she should have them investigated, not use them to sidestep her own ethical issues. To me, that means she is covering up two (or more?) abuses.

Is anyone else tired of our state being known as Corrupticut?

Debate Poll

Well? Who do you think won?
	Joe Lieberman
	Ned Lamont
	Neither/It was a draw
Free polls from Pollhost.com

First Impressions of the Debate

I just finished watching the debate, and I do have some first impressions I want to get down.

Mad Joe

First, I can't believe how angry Joe Lieberman looked the entire time. He seemed personally offended by the notion that he was being challenged. He seemed kind of whiny and petulant the entire time.

He was rude. He interrupted. He didn't respect the rules of the debate, and stepped on Lamont's time. He actually wagged his finger at Lamont a number of times. Poor Joanne Nesti looked like she had been hit by a bus a couple of times, and I noticed that she tried to give Lamont extra time near the end.

Attack of the Senate Candidates

Secondly, Lieberman's attacks didn't really hit home, except for the part about the tax returns, which Lamont sort of dodged. But they were numerous, and they were nasty. He kept saying "There you go again," or "There he goes again." Who are you, Ronald Reagan? Painting Lamont as a conservative Republican in a liberal Democrat's clothing just didn't seem to be working, and Lamont shrugged it off.

Lamont's attacks, on the other hand, at least had a foot in reality, although they were just as numerous. The Bush-Cheney-Lieberman energy bill was a good one. Also, Lamont's last question to Lieberman, when he asked if, like Lieberman had said in 1988, that he still thought it was time for a change after 18 years. Lieberman handled it well, but it was a nice touch.

Amazing Claims

Lieberman saved the sub base? Huh. I thought Rob Simmons saved that thing. And good luck getting rid of earmarks. Wow.

Iraq

This is where Lieberman seemed close to losing it, and where I think Lamont did best. Lamont's position on Iraq, despite what Lieberman said, seemed pretty clear to me. On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure what Lieberman wants to do there. Lieberman did make good points about regional instability, but trying to scare voters with terrorists seems rather more like the party opposite.

The Winner

In order to win tonight, Joe Lieberman had to convince Democrats that he was, in fact, one of them. He failed. His attacks will remind voters of Bush's attacks on John Kerry in 2004, and he wasn't very reassuring on Iraq, which is the central issue of the campaign, if not our times. This debate often seemed to me like a debate between a Republican and a Democrat, not two Democrats.

For Ned Lamont to win, he had to keep up with the more experienced Lieberman, keep his cool, and lay out his positions without succumbing to Lieberman's attacks. He did this. He looked cooler and calmer on camera (despite that thing he does where he pops his eyes out of his head) than Lieberman, who just looked angry and self-important.

On the issues, Lamont managed to state his positions more clearly than Lieberman, who unfortunately has to stand on his record. Lieberman got plenty of statesman points (when he was calm), but I'm not sure that's what voters are after. I actually expected Lieberman to be a policy encyclopedia in this debate, and he wasn't. There were a couple of places where Lamont's policy knowledge was obviously less than Lieberman's, but Lamont kept up well.

In the end, Lamont exceeded expectations. Policy-wise, they were about even. Lamont won hands down on style. Lieberman, on the other hand, looked like he didn't want to be there--like NBC30 is beneath him.

Victory to Mr. Lamont.

A Request

Would the governor's chief of staff please remove herself from the Capitol?

That is all.

Campaign Finance Law Challenged

Remember that great campaign finance law passed during the landmark 2005 session? Remember the public financing part of it? Well, hold everything.

The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and several minor party candidates said Thursday they filed a federal lawsuit claiming Connecticut's campaign finance law violates the candidates' rights to free speech and association.
...
Democratic and Republican candidates would qualify for public financing of $25,000 for a House race, $85,000 for a Senate contest and $3 million to seek the governor's office if they meet private fundraising thresholds of $5,000 for a House campaign, $15,000 for a Senate race and $250,000 for governor.
...
"The Connecticut legislators who drafted this law in the dead of night knew that they were creating a system that would perpetuate two classes of political parties that are separate and unequal," said S. Michael Derosa, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and the Green Party's candidate for secretary of the state. (AP)

How did I know Mike DeRosa would be involved somehow... Sigh.

There's a fine line between encouraging complete equality and opening the door to a whole slew of minor candidates like DeRosa who would, even if fully funded, draw only about 5-10% of the vote: if that.

Yes, the thresholds are a little extreme. They should be lower, or some sort of sliding scale should be introduced (get 10% of the signatures, get 10% of the money). But full equality would just be a funding nightmare. We just couldn't do it.

I have a feeling that this law will be struck down. If so, it may time to look at other ways of leveling the playing field in the state.

Source

"ACLU files lawsuit challenging campaign finance law." Associated Press 6 July, 2006.

New Haven's "No-Tell" Policy Bad For Our Security

As I read through the news this morning, there were many different topics to choose from for my first "front-page" post. Do I address the Connecticut General Assembly's never-ending Government Administation and Elections Committee investigation of Governor Rell's Chief of Staff, Lisa Moody? Do I comment on the resignation of former DCF Chief Kristine Ragaglia from her fraud investigative position at DSS? Do I comment on tonight's Lieberman-Lamont debate (which has the interest of most of the readers at this time)?

I have chosen, however, to address the City of New Haven's "No Tell" policy of not reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities. As the New Haven Register points out, a total of 68 cities and state governments have policies declining to enforce federal civil immigration violations for community policing reasons. While I understand that many cities/states cannot bear the financial/manpower burden of enforcing the federal immigration laws, I find the practice of not reporting immigration violations, simply because they are civil violations, to be deplorable and a threat to our national security.

I do not share the position of many of my conservative colleagues that we should close the borders to immigration. This would be quite un-American, as our nation is one of immigrants. However, illegal immigration brings with it a threat to our citizens. I find it amazing that a man running for Governor would make it his policy to turn a blind eye to the law (any law). I placed a telephone call to the Mayor Dan Malloy's office and was informed that, to the best of their knowledge, the City of Stamford does not have a similar policy.

The adoption of "no-tell" policy is a severe hindrance to the federal government's enforcement of our immigration laws and a risk to our security. Instead of ignoring illegal immigration, our local/state law enforcement agencies should be cooperating with the federal government to enforce the laws of our land by reporting incidents of illegal immigration. I don't think that is too much to ask.

http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16884377&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7576&rfi=6&xb=gulat

(Please forgive me for the lengthy web address, I haven't quite figured out how to save the link as a title only.)

Welcome to Connecticut, Senators!

The Courant, in an article about the debate tonight, reports that Senators Biden, Boxer, and Salazar will be campaigning with Senator Lieberman in advance of the primary. In fact, Senator Salazar has gone so far as to declare his support for Lieberman even if he loses the primary.

In welcoming our guests, I thought it would be fun to use their visit to highlight how Lamont's support (and conversely the opposition to Senator Lieberman) is all about the war and only the war. Oh. And some other stuff. [Ed. - If you are fully committed to the idea that the only reason the left-wing liberal loonies support Lamont is because they hate the war (and by extension - America), CTLP asks you to please stop reading now. Exploding heads are extremely difficult to clean out of keyboards.]

Welcome Senator Barbara Boxer!

Senator Boxer recently "...expressed her support of her esteemed colleague with whom she had worked many times over the years, and said all of the opposition to Joe was based on his support of the war. She said other groups, like women, were backing Joe because he was so good on their issues."

Interesting. Now (PAC and CT) and Connecticut Choice Voice tend to disagree. Click through the CCV link to read 5 compelling reasons why.

Also, lets not forget the infamous Plan B quote, "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital". I wonder if Senator Boxer thinks that rape victims having to find their way to another hospital to get Plan B is a women's issue that the Senator is "good" on? Hat tip to CT Bob for covering this extensively, but especially for the maps.

Welcome Senator Ken Salazar!

Senator Salazar, along with Senator Lieberman, is one of the 7 Democrats in the gang of fourteen, a group whose purpose is to make sure that only nut-jobs are filibustered. Or something.

As it turns out, one of the Republican members (Senator Graham) coached Justice Alito in his preparation for the confirmation hearings. I am sure that he did not coach him on how to avoid the wrath of the gang of fourteen though. Also, should a Senator who will later sit in judgment on a judicial nominee coach the nominee in preparation for the hearings? Yeah, bipartisanship!

I would like to take this opportunity to formally invite Senator Salazar over for poker while he is visiting Connecticut. Before we play, I may help the decks "prepare" for the game. That's okay, right?

Welcome Senator Joe Biden!

I saved this one for last, because the bankruptcy bill fiasco is when I started contemplating not supporting the sitting Senator from my party.

I am glad that Senator Biden is coming all the way from MBNA, er, I mean, from Delaware to support Senator Lieberman, even though they voted differently on the bankruptcy bill.

Stop laughing. Senator Biden voted in favor of the bill and Senator Lieberman voted against it. Seriously, what's so funny? What the heck is a cloture vote anyway? Why are you crying?

All kidding aside, in my humble opinion, the bankruptcy bill will go down in history as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever bought by an industry (FYI, Senator Salazar voted for it too). But don't take my word for it. I introduce Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, her brief summary on why the law will be a disaster, and her longer study on the same topic. For the attention span deficient: Most of the people declaring bankruptcy are doing so because of a catastrophic medical disaster.


Welcome Senator - Wait, who are you?!?

We are all political junkies, right? Hold that aside for a second and ask yourself if the average nutmegger cares who Senators Biden, Boxer, and Salazar are supporting in the Connecticut primary. I am getting a big no.

But at least the Lieberman folks can still hammer Lamont for having all of his support from out of state. Right?

Sources:
Hartford, Courant, Mark Pazniokas, Faceoff For Heart Of Party, July 6, 2006.
Dnver Post, Mike Soraghan, Salazar to stump for embattled Democrat, July 5, 2006.
Fire Dog Lake, Jane Hamsher, Clueless, June 10, 2006.
NOW Press Release, NOW PAC Endorses Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, May 16, 2006.
Connecitcut Choice Voice website, Five Reasons Why We Cannot
Support Senator Lieberman.
CT Bob, Lieberman vs. the Day After Pill, May 4, 2006.
Wikipedia, Gang of 14.
Village Voice, James Ridgeway, Alito and His Coaches, January 10, 2006.
Talking Points Memo, Michael Negron, No Title (2 Posts), March 11, 2005.
Talking Points Memo, Elizabeth Warren, No Title, March 19, 2005.
Health Affairs, David U. Himmelstein, Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Thorne, and
Steffie Woolhandler, MarketWatch:
Illness And Injury As
Contributors To Bankruptcy, February 2, 2005.

The Purple People Reality

Christine Todd Whitman spoke in support of Chris Shays at a Westport fundraiser.

Whitman, who published a book last year, "It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America," which is critical of the Bush administration, said she was concerned by the "narrow litmus test" parties provide for many politicians.
The parties "need to be more inclusive," she said. "The Republican Party is big enough to include many different ideas."

Diane Farrell released a statement before the fundraiser, blaming Whitman for the rollback of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts and the Endangered Species Act.

Political attacks by both parties have alienated moderate voters, who make up the majority of the population, Shays and Whitman said.

"A majority of voters were not red, they were not blue, they were purple," Shays said.

"We need to start competing for that big center, where the majority of Americans are," Whitman added.

Shays and Whitman are right, in Connecticut the majority of voters turn out to be quite purple. Farrell's attack on Whitman's environmental record skips over the work Whitman accomplished in New Jersey as governor, and that Whitman sharply criticized the Bush administration after her EPA departure. Shays will do well keeping the purple in mind. The challenge for Farrell will be defining a different shade of purple. Releasing negative statements about a speaker at an opponent's fundraiser is not the way to do it.

The Norwalk Advocate Former New Jersey governor backs Shays, By Mark Ginocchio, Published July 6 2006

Debate Preview

JOANNE NESTI: Welcome to tonight's debate between Senator Joe Lieberman and his challenger, Ned Lamont of Greenwich. As agreed, both candidates are appearing in a hermetically sealed environment, protected from the public, journalists, opinion polls and tiny germs. No one but Bob the cameraman has actually been allowed in to see them--I'm moderating this discussion from a day spa in Rhode Island.

Gentlemen, welcome.

LIEBERMAN: Hi, Joanne. Can we make this quick? I have important Senator stuff to do.
LAMONT: Good to be here. And no you don't. None of the other senators like you.
LIEBERMAN: Yes they do. Chuck Schumer likes me.
LAMONT: He doesn’t count.
LIEBERMAN: Jerk.
LAMONT: Warmonger.
LIEBERMAN: Blog-lover.
LAMONT: Bear commercial maker.
LIEBERMAN: Weicker toucher!
LAMONT: Bush smoocher!
LIEBERMAN: Republican communist!
LAMONT: Republican Republican!
LIEBERMAN: Your supporters are hippies!
LAMONT: Your supporters aren’t even Democrats!
LIEBERMAN: One issue wonder!
LAMONT: Wrong on every issue!
LIEBERMAN: Float builder!
LAMONT: Droopy Dawg!
LIEBERMAN: You’re short!
LAMONT: You have terrible hair!

[They begin to bite and slap one another]

GERRY BROOKS: Joanne, shouldn’t we stop them?
JOANNE NESTI: What? Sorry, I’m having some sort of seaweed draped over my head. Are they still talking?

[Cut to JOHN DESTEFANO and DAN MALLOY sitting on a ratty old couch, watching the debates]

DESTEFANO: Why don’t our debates ever get covered like this?
MALLOY: Because you suck.
DESTEFANO. …Shut up.

[Cut to JODI RELL, ALAN SCHLESINGER and GEORGE GALLO, sitting on a much nicer couch]

SCHLESINGER: This is great! I’m totally going to win!
RELL: [Rolls her eyes] Suuuure you are, Alan. George, tell me we’re making progress on Operation Skull and Bones?
GALLO: Yes, the reanimation of Hiram Bingham is nearly complete. The guys at Pfizer helped.
RELL: Goooood.
SCHLESINGER: What? What was that?
RELL: Nothing, dear.

[Cut back to debate. LAMONT has LIEBERMAN in a full nelson]

LAMONT: Say it! Say you’ll support the primary winner!
LIEBERMAN: Never!

JOANNE NESTI: Well, folks, there you have it. The most important debate Connecticut has seen in years. I’m sure the three or four of you who are actually voting in August will get a lot out of it.

Coming up next on NBC, endless reruns of Friends. I’m Joanne Nesti. Good night.

Lieberman Takes the Fall

The fallout from Sen. Joe Lieberman's announcement that he was collecting signatures for a possible independent run should he lose the August primary continues.

The Journal-Inquirer Keith Burris had this to say:

Democratic primary voters in this state hate the war. They want to vote for something else. They want choice and change.

Joe Lieberman and his party are at odds.

So how does Joe deal with that?

Well, his operatives say these Democrats are radical and extreme. And Joe says Democratic primary voters are not the majority of the state. He says, "I'm asking Democrats ... to consider my total record."

In other words: FORGET THE WAR. I NEED TO KEEP THIS JOB.

But we can't forget the war. The war is the issue. (Burris)

Worse for Lieberman, his friend and colleague Sen. Hillary Clinton announced yesterday that she would support the winner of the primary, even if that happened to be Ned Lamont.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," the New York Democrat added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters." (AP)

This is especially bad for Lieberman, considering how close he and Clinton are on many issues--including the war. Now there are unconfirmed reports that the DSCC is going to support the primary winner, too.

The news for Lieberman hasn't all been bad, of course. He still has some diehard supporters:

State House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, said he is backing Lieberman in the primary and will back him if he runs as an independent. "I'm aggravated that some guy named Ned . . . is trying to buy himself a U.S. Senate seat," said Amann. (Hladky)

But Amann has been mostly alone. All of the sudden, it seems like there's a rush among Democrats to distance themselves from Joe Lieberman. Even if he wins in August or November, his stature will never be the same.

Sources

"Sen. Clinton: Lieberman on own if he loses Dem primary." Associated Press 5 July, 2006.

Burris, Keith. "There are times when politics is more than a game." Journal-Inquirer 4 July, 2006.

Hladky, Gregory and Mary O'Leary. "Independent's Day." Middletown Press 4 July, 2006.

Bipartisanship!

The level of political discourse takes yet another turn for the worse:

The topics Reps. Rob Simmons and Zoe Lofgren are charged with considering are among the gravest - homeland security, national intelligence, government wiretaps.

Lately, though, the exchange between the House intelligence subcommittee's top members and staffs has been straight from the schoolyard.
...
Simmons, the chairman, is "wimpy," says Lofgren, the panel's top Democrat.

Lofgren, D-Calif., "would rather debate in the sandbox," counters Todd Mitchell, Simmons' chief of staff. "What's she going to say next, that Rob has cooties and gives wedgies?" (Lightman)

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not receive a wedgie from an ex-CIA officer.

What's worse is that there is a very serious issue underlying this apparently ridiculous fight:

Their clash began in earnest in January, about six weeks after news broke about the National Security Agency electronic eavesdropping on civilians in this country without first seeking court warrants.

Lofgren ... wanted a hearing and called the subcommittee's inaction on the NSA reports a "failure."
...
Simmons and King countered that he does not have the power because other committees, notably Judiciary and Intelligence, had authority over NSA spying and were pursuing the matter. Homeland Security, he said, does not have jurisdiction.(Lightman

I guess it could be worse. In 1856, Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina objected to Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts delivering a stidently anti-slavery speech, in which he insulted a South Carolina senator.

So Brooks beat the crap out of him on the Senate floor.

Things aren't that bad yet. But they certainly aren't good, either.

Source

Lightman, David. "Californian, Simmons In A Squabble." Hartford Courant 5 July, 2006.

Announcements

First, the good news. Anonymous comments are back. Anyone may post a comment on this site.

Second, the bad news. Comments are now moderated. This means that there may be a significant time lag between when you make a comment and when it appears on the site.

We will be trying things this way for the next week or so. If it works, comments will stay this way.

July 4

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

From the Declaration of Independence.

One of the signers of that declaration was Samuel Huntington of Connecticut. The other signers from Connecticut were Roger Sherman, Oliver Wolcott and William Williams.

Huntington is not a well-known Founding Father, but he not only signed the Declaration of Independence, but served as president of the Continental Congress from 1779-81 and, later, as a popular governor of Connecticut (1786-96).

Because the Articles of Confederation went into effect during Huntington's term as president, some have called him the first president of the United States. This is a matter of some debate, of course. What is undeniable is that Huntington was a great patriot who served both his state and his country well. As president, Huntington oversaw some of the darkest days of the Revolutionary War, and as governor of Connecticut he helped the state to ratify the Constitution.

So here's to Samuel Huntington, a great Nutmegger and a great American.

Happy 4th, everyone!

Lamont Responds to Lieberman Announcement

Excerpts from Ned Lamont's response to Joe Lieberman's announcement earlier today:

On the one hand, Lamont said, "The war is a big issue. It speaks volumes about what kind of a country we are."

On the other hand, Lamont said his campaign focuses on a host of issues on which he and Lieberman disagree, citing the energy bill, school vouchers, and Alito's Supreme Court nomination.

...

He did characterize Lieberman's independent petitioning as in keeping with the senator's stands on issues like school vouchers, social security, and the Supreme Court nominations of Alito and Clarence Thomas -- as "hedging his bets."

Lamont also responded to Lieberman's argument that Lamont's personal wealth (estimated at between $90 and $300 million) requires Lieberman to take extra steps to compete fairly. Lamont noted that Lieberman has had up to $7 million in the bank and far outspent the Lamont campaign...

"If he wants to cap spending, let's go at it," Lamont said, referring to a previous challenge to Lieberman to agree to a maximum each campaign would spend. He noted that Lieberman has raised millions from "corporate lobbyists." Lamont added that "well over 10,000 people" have made small donations to his campaign.

"If he wants to run as a Democrat, run as a Democrat. Stop gaming the system," Lamont said. "Over 18 years on a lot of issues, he has tried to have it both ways." (Bass)

Paul Bass portrays Lamont as cool, calm and confident. Which he has every right to be, considering Joe Lieberman just gave him the best shot he's going to have at a Senate seat.

The primary is Lamont's to win. His first big test will come on Thursday night--when he'll have to face the cameras and Joe Lieberman not as a plucky upstart, but as a serious contender who is expected to carry the primary. Everyone will be watching to see how he does.

I hope you weren't planning on doing anything for the next month.

Source

Bass, Paul. "Lieberman Launches "Cut & Run" Campaign." New Haven Independent 3 July, 2006.

Lamont: Building Exclusion One Bit at a Time

A few weeks before the Democratic Nominating Convention, Ned Lamont visited the Weston DTC pitching his candidacy in an earnest way. Where Lamont has been well received in small towns, many in eastern Connecticut, his message has not appealed quite as well closer to home. Nor, after a glance at the delegate map of the convention does it seem to resonate much in the urban corridors as well.

That night revealed two things about the Lamont campaign and what they didn't want to emerge as an issue. The first concerned Lamont's membership in the Round Hill Club. A few days before, according to Lamont's scheduler, he had resigned his membership to the club because he did not want it to become a campaign issue. The reasons for it becoming an issue vary, according to people who were there than night. The Round Hill Club does have a certain reputation, that actually much of Greenwich has, concerning just who can become a member. Perhaps it is better expressed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who wrote in a preface to his book:

“If Greenwich is the Republicans’ Mecca, then the Round Hill Club is the Kaaba. In the foyer I passed beneath an oversized photograph of Senator Prescott Bush, a former Greenwich resident and the current president’s grandfather. Somebody pointed to an anteroom and commented: “That’s where George met Barbara,” referring to the president’s mom and dad. It was the club’s annual meeting—always well attended—and as I stepped to the podium I looked out over a sea of skeptical faces, the faces of affluent conservatism.” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy

Membership to an exclusive club in Greenwich for a successful businessman is hardly a contentious issue. It just so happens that it is common knowledge that this is the Bush family's club, and according to Vanity FairPrescott Bush, grandfather to George W., was once president of the club.

Maybe such coincidences wouldn't be so interesting were it not for the campaign Lamont is running against Joe Lieberman. Since the Lamont campaign is so fixated on Senator Lieberman's rhetoric about all things George Bush, perhaps they don't want it known who Lamont actually hangs out with on the golf courses, cutting deals and otherwise engaging in country club business.

The second item that the Lamont campaign wished to downplay was the business record of Lamont. Some business people, like George Soros, align their business interests with their politics. That is quite an admirable thing to do and It is generally a good indicator of one's political philosophy, though not necessarily one's political affiliation.Lamont Digital Systems, according to its web site, Lamont Digital Systems builds and operates advanced telecommunications networks for college campuses and residential gated communities serving over 175,000 subscribers. Residential gated communitiess are not quite the type of housing one expects from a liberal thinking executive, especially in North Richland Hills, Texas.

Senator Lieberman has a long record of support for the people who don't live in gated communities, and don't belong to exclusive Greenwich country clubs. The blogsphere would have you believe that Ned Lamont would never support a single Republican agenda. Except of course, if there was a digital video system in a gated community involved.

Lieberman Hedging His Bets

Senator to Start Collecting Signatures

Sen. Joe Lieberman will start gathering signatures for a run as an "independent Democrat" should he lose to Ned Lamont in August, the Hartford Courant is reporting:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is to announce today he will petition for a place on the November ballot as an "independent Democrat," giving him a chance to stay alive politically should he lose an Aug. 8 primary for the Democratic nomination.

Lieberman began making courtesy calls to leading Democrats late this morning. (Pazniokas)

Lieberman needs to collect 7,500 signatures by August 9th.

Doing this three days before the debate is like handing Ned Lamont a bat with a nail through it and saying, "Here. Club me with this."

It also suggests that Lieberman is really not all that interested in what Democratic primary voters have to say. What, exactly, is an "independent Democrat" anyway? A Democrat who isn't a Democrat?

No matter how he tries to spin it, this is not where Joe Lieberman wanted to be right now.

Source

Pazniokas, Mark. "Lieberman To Start Petition Drive." Hartford Courant 3 July, 2006.

Fabrizi Gets Warm Reception at Bridgeport Parade

Lieberman Booed

The people of Bridgeport seem very willing to forgive John Fabrizi for using cocaine while in office.

Midway through the Barnum Festival's Great Street Parade Sunday, Mayor John M. Fabrizi broke free from a steady stream of outstretched handshakes.

"Hey, I'm going to get blamed for holding up the parade," Fabrizi apologized, pressing forward.

Applause, broken only by sporadic gaps in the 1-mile parade route, along with shouts of "Yea, John," made the mayor's day.
...
"He's not a bad guy. He didn't steal any money or anything," said Jason Marrizi, a street vendor from Ansonia, who stopped to wave as the mayor passed by.

"He made a mistake but the mayor is the mayor. I think he's doing a good job," said Juan Planas of Bridgeport. (Lambeck)

Cozying up to George W. Bush, though, that's unforgivable:

The only negative shouts seemed directed at Lieberman, who is facing a primary challenge from Ned Lamont of Greenwich.

"Hey, look at that, a Democrat walking with a Republican," came one shout to Lieberman.

"How's the president," shouted another parade watcher, giving Lieberman a thumbs-down sign. (Lambeck)

Wow. I guess that's why he doesn't release his schedule.

Source

Lambeck, Linda Conner. "Thousands Watch the Barnum Festival's Great Street Parade." Connecticut Post 3 July, 2006.

Look Out Moderate Noble Statesman! Out-Of-State Left-Wing Kooks' Gon' Get Your Senate Seat!

In the past few weeks, and I would expect this to continue until August 8, we have heard from blog commenters, Op-Ed writers, a former state party chairman, sitting Senators, and the chairman of the electoral group pledged to electing Democratic Seantors the idea, in some cases explicit and in some implied, that the primary challenge to Senator Lieberman is in some way illegitimate - a product of left-wing nuts, 60s re-enactors, out-of-state meddlers, and [GASP] bloggers.

We Are Your Neighbors

This goes without saying (or at least it should) - Only Connecticut residents, registered to vote as Democrats, are eligible to vote in the Connecticut Democratic primary for the Senate. That would exclude Kos, Atrios, David Sirota, Chuck Schumer, Marshall Whitman (who would be excluded even if he were Joe Lieberman's neighbor because you have to be, umm, a Democrat), and Steven J. Nider.

Unfortunately for the Senator, it would include the 40% of a too-small sample of Connecticut Democrats that said they would vote for Lamont (within the absurdly large margin of error) in the last Rasmussen poll, the 50% of Connecticut Democrats who disapproved of the Senator in the last SUSA poll, and the 1/3 of Connecticut Democratic Party insiders who voted for Lamont at the convention.

It also includes the four houses on my block and the roughly 20 in my neighborhood that are sporting Lamont yard signs. If the primary were held today, based on yard signs, and had a run-off, the run-off would be between Lamont and Coldwell Banker.

There has been some noise among the Senator's supporters that the "weirdos" and "kooks" are not exactly welcome voting in the same primary that they do. With respect, their only option then is to change parties, because the weirdos and kooks, aka Connecticut Democrats who disagree with them, are going to vote in the Democratic primary, as is their right.

"But only the left-wing fringe shows up at primaries!" Not so. Only the motivated show up at primaries. The fact that the challenger's supporters' level of motivation is higher than the incumbent's should explain something about the dynamics of this primary. This is a democracy - if you want your guy to win, agitate, organize, and motivate until more people vote for him - calling your fellow voters names probably isn't going to help your cause (unless your cause is to look like a spoiled child who finds someone else playing with their favorite toy).

IS anyone else turned off by the undertone that the Senate seat belongs to Lieberman and that the Democratic party in Connecticut belongs to the Connecticut Democratic party machinery? I think, and I may be misreading over 225 years of the evolving history of the American Democracy, that the seat belongs to the people of Connecticut and the party belongs to the voters who register and show up. Regardless of their ideology. No?

One final note on the primary before I recharge my rant batteries:
The argument about where the Senator's opposition is coming from (in-state or out-of-state, moderates or wild-eyed leftists, people angry about the war or people angry about closeness to President Bush and the Republicans or people angry about the energy bill or people angry about the bankruptcy bill or people angry about Alito or people angry about Gonzalez or people angry about Vouchers or people angry about Social Security, etc.) is largely irrelevant. The fact is, the rank and file of the Connecticut Democratic Party are unhappy enough with a sitting Senator with a ~$6,000,000 fundraising advantage that a primary challenger is within 6 MoE points in a poll a month before the election. Likewise the discussion of whether Lieberman and Dodd are actually seperated at birth twins when it comes to their voting records. Something is causing this unhappiness and it isn't a blogger sitting in Northern California.

Disclosure: I stole and then paraphrased the title of this post from Julius Lester's Look Out Whitey! Black Power Gon' Get Your Mama! Go read it so no one sues me...

The World Comes to Connecticut

I was reading the British newsweekly The Economist on Saturday when I saw something very, very familiar: one of those famous kiss buttons right above a short article about the race. Media interest in this campaign is only going to grow as August approaches--especially if Lamont remains close in the polls.

In fact, there very well may be more people outside Connecticut paying attention to this race than inside. Take the two editorials that appeared in the Hartford Courant this morning. The first, a pro-Lieberman piece called "No Conservative: Lieberman's A JFK Democrat" was written by Marshall Wittman, a DLC fellow and creator of the Bull Moose Blog, and Steven J. Nider of the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute. Both are based out of Washington, DC, and do not live in Connecticut.

The other, an anti-Lieberman piece entitled "Who's Lieberman Represent? Not You" was written by David Sirota. On his blog, Sirota rails against those out-of-staters who would tell Connecticut Democrats what to do:

They predictably regurgitate the fallacy that Lieberman is a “centrist” - and then these two well-known right-wingers from Washington, D.C. proceed to try to lecture Connecticut Democratic primary voters about how Joe Lieberman is supposedly the reincarnation of John F. Kennedy.

I swear - sometimes it is really just incredibly amazing how arrogant these out-of-touch, Beltway-insulated Establishment apologists are, how stupid they think the public is... (Sirota)

Which is fine, except that Lieberman doesn't represent Sirota, either. According to his biography (.pdf), Sirota currently lives in Montana.

This primary was never ours. We have to accept it. National and international media, blogs and pundits have taken Connecticut's affair and infused it with symbolism and meaning that transcends the petty concerns of Democrats in Rocky Hill or Groton. Right now, this primary is about the future of the Democratic Party, the growth of the liberal netroots, opposition to the war in Iraq, and President Bush. We've been drawn into the orbit of these huge, national issues--they dwarf us.

On primary day, though, it'll be about one Connecticut Democrat after another, alone in a booth, looking at two rows of levers. On that day, all the self-important national pundits won't matter a single bit, and the political world will revolve around Connecticut instead.

Sources

Sirota, David. "Who's Lieberman Represent? Not You." Hartford Courant 2 July, 2006.

Wittman, Marshall and Steven J. Nidler. "No Conservative: Lieberman's A JFK Democrat." Hartford Courant 2 July, 2006.

Fun with Ned and Joe

Chapter #27,493: Debate Week

It’s Fourth of July week. Everyone is tuned-out, taking off and basically in a mood for baseball, hot dogs and hitting the beach.

In other words, it’s a perfect time for what may be the most crucial and fascinating debate of the year: Lieberman vs. Lamont.

Yes, this Thursday at 7pm, Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman will face one another in the eerie, otherworldly stillness of a television studio, with a few news anchors and the cameramen as their only live audience. Even reporters will be sequestered in a different room. The debate will be broadcast live on WVIT (Channel 30) to them as well as to the rest of us.

Joe Lieberman is an old hand at high-stakes debates, although the jury's out on whether he's ever actually won one. Lamont, as is the case with just about everything else, is untested.

Lieberman's been off-balance for the entire campaign so far. There's a good chance he'll try to use the debate to regain his footing. The best case scenario for Lieberman is if he essentially has one of his better debates, and Lamont makes a couple of rookie mistakes. That gives Lieberman a chance to define Lamont for voters, while looking like the seasoned statesman his campaign wants him to be.

The worst-case scenario for Lieberman is if he comes off as an angry, bitter, self-important jerk--which is exactly what he's been doing for most of the campaign. If this happens, all Lamont has to do is keep his head above water and hope his weird charisma translates well to live television.

I'm betting on a polished, gracious and wise Joe Lieberman to show up at the debate. Note that I said that he'll show up that way. Where he'll be by the end of it is largely up to Ned Lamont.

New Conservative Commentator

I'm pleased to announce that we've selected a new conservative poster. Thanks to everyone who applied.

Our newest poster has been a frequent and respected commenter at Connecticut Local Politics, who has opted for a change of handle for personal and professional reasons. He has been posting under his real name (TSCowperthwait), but will now be posting as The True Gentleman. Welcome, True Gentleman!

He will be making his first posts over the next week.

Ethics Mess

Today John Rowland gave his first speech since he left prison.

"It seems like just yesterday I was at the White House staying in the Lincoln bedroom and everything was wonderful," he said. "And then almost overnight I'm standing in line for toilet paper at a prison in Loretto, Pennsylvania." (AP)

How quickly the mighty fall, and all over a scandal involving ethics in state government.

Someone ought to tell Lisa Moody that.

A copy of an ethics memo, central to a legislative committee's investigation of fund-raising violations by top Rell administration officials, bears notations in the apparent handwriting of gubernatorial chief of staff M. Lisa Moody - raising questions about Moody's sworn testimony that she didn't read the memo.

Word of the existence of the hand-edited draft of the May 2005 memo - obtained Friday by The Courant, a day after the governor's office said it had no such document in its files - prompted a legislative leader to say that he'll ask his committee to consider requesting a criminal investigation into whether Moody perjured herself or obstructed the legislative investigation.

"It now appears that Lisa Moody has lied under oath to the legislature, has perjured herself, and, and effectively has obstructed the legislative process," said state Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the government administration and elections committee. (Lender)

Governor. Please. For the good of the state, ask for the resignations of both Lisa Moody and Jeffrey Garfield. Both of them have done far more harm to the state and to the credibility of state government than should be allowed, especially in an administration that has made ethics such a high priority. Both lied to the legislature in one form or another. They should go. Period.

Surely there must be many good, decent and honest people in Connecticut who are qualified to do their jobs. Governor, please find those people and replace Moody and Garfield with them. It's the right thing to do.

If they don't, then we've really learned nothing from our experience with John Rowland.

Sources

Lender, Jon. "Memo's Changes Point To Moody." Hartford Courant 1 July, 2006.

"Former Conn. governor makes his first speech after prison." Associated Press 1 July, 2006.