The Replacements

If Kevin Rennie and a few others are right, then the rest of the week is going to see the rollout of more hits against Alan Schlesinger (starting with the fact that he hasn't filed any of his July campaign finance forms), which may finally lead him to drop out of the race.

So who will replace him on the ticket? The Republican state central committee will choose the new candidate. Here's a list of possible and impossible candidates for them to consider:


The Possible
Bill Aniskovich

He's got better name recognition than Schlesinger, can raise money, and would probably appeal to the Republican base. Best of all, he's actually interested. However, his Rowland ties, a reportedly seamy past and his loss to Ed Meyer in 2004 raise many questions about the viability of a potential Aniskovich candidacy.

Jack Orchulli

Republican diehards like him. 67% of the rest of voters decided they preferred the other guy in 2004. But in 2006, 33% or thereabouts might be good enough. He also has money, which is a plus.

Diana Urban

The bad news is that Republicans don't actually like her, as her positions on most issues are quite liberal. However, she could more realistically portray herself as a sane, center-left alternative to Lamont and Lieberman.

Kevin O'Connor

The U.S. attorney has good name recognition and a strong background. He'd be a great candidate, if he were interested. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be.


The Unlikely/Impossible
Jodi Rell

Most popular Republican in these parts. But already has a job, and a big lead over her rivals.

Nancy Johnson, Chris Shays, Rob Simmons

A dream scenario for Republicans would be if one of the three Republican members of Congress took a run at Lieberman, while leaving a capable Republican candidate to run in their district. This is the Weicker 1970 scenario--which, as Republicans recall, actually worked. For example, if Johnson ran for Senate and, say, Sam Caligiuri ran for Congress, GOP chances are pretty decent in both races. But it isn't going to happen.

John Rowland

Waterbury would be a lock. And it's a great story--the once popular governor who has learned his lesson. I swear, a lot of people would still vote for him.

In the end, I imagine that we'll see either Orchulli or Aniskovich enter the race if and when Schlesinger steps aside. Both would be better than Schlesinger--but probably not enough to actually win without some serious outside help. Which may, in fact, be coming. The NRSC is apparently getting interested in this race--and will become more so if Lieberman loses in two weeks.

But if Schlesinger remains the candidate, I don't think their interest will matter for much.

Open Forum

Rasmussen polls are finally public. Gubernatorial, U.S. Senate (general) and U.S. Senate (primary).

Interesting show today on WTIC, looks like.

And now Nancy Johnson is questioning Schlesinger's candidacy. Still waiting for the latest round of revelations.

What else is happening?

Clinton Visits Waterbury

Former President Bill Clinton came to Waterbury yesterday to support friend Joe Lieberman. Clinton defended Lieberman on the central issue of the campaign, Iraq:

"We don't agree on Iraq," Clinton said of Lieberman. "But the real issue is, whether you were for it or against it, what are you going to do now? Let me tell you something. No Democrat is responsible for the mistakes that have been made since the fall of Saddam." (Pazniokas)

There's a lot to argue with in that statement. The case could be made (and has been made) that Lieberman, by providing support for Administration policies and undermining his party’s opposition efforts, exacerbates those mistakes. Clinton’s defense of Lieberman rings a little hollow.

But that’s neither here nor there. Clinton was a hit. He always is. He’ll probably swing a decent number of votes Lieberman’s way. The question is whether or not Clinton’s appearance will help Joe Lieberman enough to save him from defeat. Lieberman hopes so: I would expect to see at least one commercial featuring Clinton appear over the next two weeks.

An attendee who wishes to remain anonymous has sent these observations from the event:

1) There was a HUGE minority presence in the palace theater. Somewhere between a third and a half of the audience.
2) No Destefano supporters showed up (No Kevin Sullivan, No Don Williams, No Marty Looney, No Destefano, No Larson or DeLauro who were said to be out of town). Labor, however, was there in force
3) Malloy did show up but was not invited up on stage. His campaign had a big presence there including wall to wall signs outside as people were leaving almost to the point where it was stopping traffic…
4) Joe Courtney was the only Congressional Challenger absent...and very conspicuously so.
5) George Jepsen was camped out front trying to get a ticket to get in, he even tried to sneak in a few times to no avail....it was hilarious.

We'll see if Bill Clinton's visit helps right Lieberman's ship. If it doesn't, I don't know what will.

Source

Pazniokas, Mark. "Bill Stands By Joe." Hartford Courant 25 July, 2006.

Rennie: Aniskovich?

Courant columnist Kevin Rennie on Political Wire:

Talk grew over the weekend in Republican circles about the advantages of offering the Senate nomination to Lieberman if he loses the primary. The 20-25% a Republican nominee would thrust Lieberman considerably past Lamont. Expectations of more Schlesinger revelations have moved from the if to the when column among party apparatchiks.

Lieberman may first have to get by former Republican state Senator William Aniskovich. The seven term legislator was defeated in 2004 on the heals of his to-the-last-ditch defense of felonious former governor John Rowland. Aniskovich confirmed for me this weekend that he is interested in filling any vacancy. He began today to make calls for support. Aniskovich, a dynamic campaigner when his interest is engaged, might have some troubled convincing Governor Jodi Rell, with whom he has had a strained relationship, to support him. Nevertheless, he is thought to be able to fund a fast start and then persuade donors that a three-way would be a contest in which he would thrive.

Seriously? Aniskovich? Two years ago he couldn't beat a guy who moved from New York 10 minutes before the election in a state senate district with a less than 800 person Democratic registration advantage and now he is going to win the senate election in Connecticut? It would have to be a 10 way race!

Somewhere in Branford, CTKeith is already setting up a table in front of a Stop and Shop and licking his chops...

PS - read the whole post. Dole (Bob not Elizabeth) as broker to get Schlesinger to drop out? Tell me the truth, if this wasn't unfolding in front of you, would you believe it was happening?

Representative Johnson Calls for 'Soul Searching'

This morning, Representative Nancy Johnson (R-5th) became the latest member of Connecticut's GOP elite to take a shot at Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger's collapsing campaign. The article, which appears in the NewsTimesLive, is posted here.

Representative Johnson now joins Governor Jodi Rell, GOP State Party Chairman George Gallo, and Representative Christopher Shays in calling into question the Schlesinger campaign's viability. Adding to the insult of the GOP hierarchy's apparent lack of faith in Mr. Schlesinger's ability to win in November (or even continue on for that matter), Representative Johnson had very kind words for Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman (without going so far to endorse him).

The question becomes, other than Mr. Schlesinger, who is this Republican love affair with Senator Lieberman hurting most? According to FoxNews, the answer is the Democrat Party. But doesn't this hurt the GOP as well? While Senator Lieberman should be commended (and not discarded) for his bipartisan politics, he does not really represent the overall ideals of the typical Republican. This race just keeps getting more interesting by the hour. . .

Sources (UPDATED)
NewsTimesLive, Nancy Johnson Praises Lieberman, Challenger Has Some ‘Soul Searching’ To Do, by Fred Lucas (site last visited July 24, 2006)

FoxNews, Democrats Lose If Lieberman Is Defeated Party, by Peter Brown (site last visited July 24, 2006)

The YouTube Campaign

One of the things we haven't talked about much around here is the explosion of YouTube as a tool for and driver of campaigns.

Here's the upshot: YouTube and sites like it are allowing people unaffiliated with campaigns to make campaign videos and event reports, and, most importantly, to share them. Some of them are scarily good. For example, go watch this anti-Lieberman piece. Doesn't matter if you agree with it or not--it's effective. And it's going to spread all around the liberal web: by the end of today, I bet half a million people will have seen it--if not more.

Ned Lamont's campaign didn't pay a thing for it. They had nothing to do with it--just like they have nothing to do with the hundreds of liberal blogs posting positive coverage of the race. For now, these videos probably serve the same purpose as campaign blogs--they excite and motivate the candidate's base. But what if they start reaching undecided voters? Video is a far more powerful medium than text.

Another new wrinkle. Another small campaign revolution, courtesy of the Web.

Update: This piece from CT Bob is a perfect illustration of the possibilities of this medium. As Bob's video suggests, most incumbent politicians don't really like being questioned by regular people. They'd rather deal with the press, which acts as a sort of buffer between elected officials and the rest of us. The mainstream press is predictable, and follows set patterns and rules. Regular people are not, and do not. I think it annoys the hell out of some officials to have to speak directly to us without the buffer there, and to have to answer our questions because suddenly we've got digital cameras and an internet connection. Everyone can be the media. Scary stuff.

Bring 'Em Home and the Reverse of 1994

The Washington Post has started a series entitled Eight Issues That Will Shape The 2006 Elections, which focuses on eight questions affecting select congressional races this fall, including:

(1) How big a problem is President Bush for the GOP?
(2) Will the corruption issue go national?
(3) Will pocketbook concerns move voters?
(4) Will the immigration issue save Republicans?
(5) Will the Iraq War come home in November?
(6) Can Republicans win the Northeast?
(7) Can Democrats compete in the upper South?
(8) What ballot issues will drive voters to the polls?

Only one question is applied to select congressional races, and in the case of Connecticut's delegation, two races are being closely monitored:

4th Dist. -- Rep. Christopher Shays (R) vs. Diane Farrell (D) -- Will the Iraq War come home in November?

5th Dist. -- Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) v. Chris Murphy (D) -- Can Republicans win the Northeast?

It has always amazed me how one issue can turn an election. In the case of the 4th District, Rep. Shays finds himself caught in dangerous waters as Ms. Farrell has kept continual pressure on him for his position on the Iraq War, and Ms. Farrell seems to be holding him personally accountable for the legislature's alleged oversight failure of the Bush Administrations strategy. If Rep. Shays loses this election, it is clearly (to me) the result of the 4th District's rejection of the Iraq War and the current policies/strategy (or lack thereof).

As for the 5th District, the Washington Post targets this race as a question of whether a Republican can win in the Northeast. It likens this race (and several other races) to 1994 when Republicans took the South by storm. We all know that the Northeast has been a difficult place for a (conservative) Republican to win office (FYI - I'm not referring to Rep. Johnson as a conservative), but I do not think that the climate in the Northeast has changed to the level that a (moderate) Republican can no longer win here. If it has changed, I think the question really is whether this is an indictment of the Bush Administration rather than a shift in whether a Republican can be successful in the Northeast.

Thoughts? Comments? What about the other races in Connecticut?

Source
The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com (date last visited, July 24, 2006)

Fifteen Days

We're heading into the home stretch for the primary. Bill Clinton's in Waterbury today, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will be touring Connecticut with Joe Lieberman beforehand. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is also in the state campaigning for Ned Lamont, and former Clinton appointee Carl Feen is endorsing the challenger. Expect the national media to descend in force starting today, and continuing through August 8th.

All of which means that it's a great time for a predictions thread! Who's going to win in the U.S. Senate (D), gubernatorial (D) and 1st Congressional District (R) primary? By how much?

Feel free to offer guesses about turnout, too. We'll do this again next week to see if perceptions are changing.

Sunday Open Forum

So. What's happening?

A Note from Scott MacLean

I received this email from Scott MacLean, who will be facing Miriam Masullo in the 1st District Republican Congressional primary, with a request to post it publicly.

Dear Genghis Conn and all the Connecticut Local Politics bloggers:

This is Scott MacLean, the GOP endorsed candidate for Congress in Connecticut’s 1st Congressional District. As I’m sure you and the entire Connecticut blogging community know, I will face Dr. Miriam Masullo in the Republican primary on August 8th. Although I am not a registered contributor to the Connecticut Local Politics blog, I read it and am familiar with some of the regular contributors.

I would like to put this question out to the blogging community, Republicans and Democrats alike, so I can listen to your comments and thoughtfully weigh them as I decide what to do in this matter. First the facts:

Last week, I received an e-mail directly from Dr. Masullo herself. It was addressed primarily to two churches, First Congregational Church in Bristol and a CC to my home Church, The First Church in Hartland-Congregational. The subject line if the e-mail said, “Personal and Confidential.” But she also sent a copy to me. Why, I don’t know. The subject line of my copy said, “Personal and Confidential (your copy.)”

So here is my question to the blogging community. What are my ethical responsibilities here? If I was still a practicing Minister, which I’m not, and someone sent me an e-mail saying, “Personal and Confidential” I would feel an obligation to preserve that confidentiality. But I am no longer a practicing Minister. Am I still obligated to preserve the confidentiality of something which was intended for someone else even though a copy was intentionally sent to me by my political opponent? Also, I made no agreement with Dr. Masullo to keep anything personal and confidential and we have no oral or written contract on this or any other matter. In fact, we have never spoken except for the few moments after the 1st District Convention in May. So in some ways I feel that if she sends something to me, directly, that’s it’s fair game and I can publish it. What are your thoughts?

I know you all have some curiosity about what the e-mail says but my question to you concerns the ethics of the matter, so please frame your comments in those terms.

I look forward to the thoughts of the blogging community on this. I’ll weigh them carefully and you’ll be the first to know my decision. If it is your collective wisdom that I am ethically free to publish this and if I then decide to actually publish it (of course the final decision is mine and mine alone) then I will break the story first on the Connecticut Local Politics blog.

Thank You.


Sincerely,

Scott MacLean
Republican Party endorsed Candidate for Congress
Connecticut's 1st Congressional District

Mr. MacLean also included this in a follow-up email, which I am also posting with his permission:

But let me also say something about Ethics in General. When I was in theological seminary I had a two course core requirement in Ethics, so it's an area where I have some specific training and I deem it to be important. But the thing about Ethics that makes it so complicated is not what decision you come up with, on any given subject, but the decision making process you use to get there, the reasoning behind your decision. That's why two different people, each coming up with a different answer, can both be considered ethical if their reasons and justifications are ethically sound.

This is why I welcome the discussion within the blogging community because two different people, coming from different places, can each come up with two different ethically justifiable positions.

Feel free to post your comments and ideas.

Dodd Impresses in Florida

I suppose getting people to like you in Florida isn't a bad start:

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd made a good impression on Florida Democratic Party activists Saturday in his first major appearance since announcing he'll explore a 2008 White House run.

...

Was Dodd impressive enough to be considered for president?

"Oh God, yes!" said Casey O'Harra, 65, who chairs the Lake County Democrats. "I would definitely be able to support him as president."

Jacqulyn Mack, 36, of Sarasota said she likes New York Sen. Hillary Clinton but questions whether she can win the presidency and would love to see a run by former Vice President Al Gore...

But she can see herself supporting Dodd because he is electable. "I've got my options wide open," she said. "I want somebody that's going to win. Senator Dodd's history and his experience and his background give him a great deal of appeal to people across the political spectrum."

"I haven't thought about Dodd that much," said Pat Hogan, the Highlands County Democratic chair. "I probably will. It was a great speech." (AP)

Dodd does give a good, passionate, rousing speech.

Is he electable? I have no idea. The dynamics of 2008 are still taking shape. It's funny, but people in Connecticut are sort of bemused by the idea of a Dodd run. No one really seems all that excited, or that confident of his lifespan as a candidate. But maybe people in other parts of the country will see him differently. We'll see.

Source

"POLITICAL NOTEBOOK: Dodd impresses Florida Democrats as he explores White House run." Associated Press 22 July, 2006.

Rasmussen Rumors: Lamont Ahead in Primary, Even in General

According to this post, a new Rasmussen poll may show Lamont up by 10% in the primary, and actually even with Lieberman for the general election. The poll is for premium members only.

I'll confirm / update as the day goes on.

New York Times Endorses Malloy

The New York Times is endorsing Dan Malloy for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, according to a Malloy press release (the article itself is not available online or in LexisNexis yet):

"My team and I are honored and proud to be endorsed by the New York Times," Malloy said. "The New York Times sees my candidacy as the one best positioned to challenge Governor Rell in the general election, with an understanding of the issues facing Connecticut and a track record to deliver results."

The New York Times editorial states that "...voters deserve a race in which the issues are clearly and forcefully debated, one that ends with a real choice in November. On that count, Mr. Malloy seems the better candidate." And goes on to say, "...Stamford's mayor has the more impressive track record when it comes to tackling the big issues and trying out practical solutions. Mr. Malloy correctly sees that affordable housing, jobs and transportation are all linked." (Malloy)

I have to imagine that for a lot of people, the first time they hear of Dan Malloy will be when they crack open the New York Times's Connecticut section today.

Will it affect the vote? Maybe. A lot of likely voters haven't made up their minds about the gubernatorial primary. We'll see. I'm sure John DeStefano will have something to say about this soon.

Source

"Malloy Receives Endorsement of New York Times." Dan Malloy for Governor. Press Release. 22 July, 2006.

Dodd Goes to Florida

A preview of what we'll be talking about all next year:

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who heads for Florida tonight in an effort to test support for a possible 2008 presidential bid, today reported he has $2.4 million available for his political activities.

The sum puts him far behind well-known Democrats also thought to be vying for the 2008 presidential nomination. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has an estimated $22 million to spend, while Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry has at least $14 million and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh has about $10 million.

Dodd's forces, though, emphasize that he has only been a player for about two months, and is rapidly beefing up his effort. (AP)

Where's the appeal of a Dodd run? He may be able to run as the "I'm not Hillary Clinton" candidate, but there are better anti-Hillarys out there (Warner, Richardson). And I have to think that the idea of nominating another New England senator gives Democrats hives.

That said, he probably wouldn't be that bad of a president. But I can't see him getting that far.

Source

"Dodd Campaign Funds At $2.4 Million." Associated Press 21 July, 2006.

The Lieberman Campaign: What Happened?

How did it come to this?

Joe Lieberman and his campaign staff must be asking themselves just that question this morning. How does an 18-year veteran of the U.S. Senate, a central figure in Connecticut Democratic politics for more than 35 years, find himself in a stastistical tie with a man who was a complete unknown seven months ago? Worse for Lieberman, the poll's not an anomaly:

I just wrote a piece for the latest print issue on the Lieberman campaign and I thought I had a bit of a scoop: a recent unpublished independent poll actually had Lieberman trailing Lamont 48 to 44. Then this morning Quinnipiac--the Godzilla of Connecticut polling--released its first poll in more than a month. It shows Lamont leading Lieberman 51 to 47. Looks like that unpublished independent poll was on to something. (Zengerle)

He must have seen it coming two weeks ago, when he decided to start collecting petitions. His campaign's internal polls probably showed Lamont gaining all through June, and once the gap was closed Lieberman felt like he had no choice but to get those petitions ready.

So how did it happen? Believe it or not, it isn't just those scheming bloggers, or a bunch of antiwar leftists hijacking the Democratic Party. There's more. Yes, part of it has to do with Lamont himself, but this rift between Lieberman and his own party has been building up for a long time. Some examples:

• The Early Years: (This was suggested by tparty at LamontBlog, and he's right)

  I'd only add that while this has really kicked in since his 2000 VP run, this actually all started way before 1998 and impeachment. You can go back to Joe's fight against universal healthcare, his deceit on Clarence Thomas' nomination, his wishy-washyness on affirmative action, his sanctimonious moralizing about Hollywood with Bill Bennett and company, and his ties to right-wing figures like William F. Buckley that got him off the ground vs. Weicker in the first place.

  Good points. It's very interesting to note that Democratic discomfort with Lieberman began with the endgame to the Republican Party's annoyance with Lowell Weicker.



• Attacks on Clinton: Bill Clinton may be coming to Waterbury to campaign for Lieberman later this month, but back in 1998 Lieberman was one of the first Democrats to criticize Clinton over Monica Lewinsky, which added fuel to the Republicans' fire. This is when Lieberman vaulted on to the national stage for the first time, much like Lowell Weicker did during Watergate. And, like Weicker post-Watergate, it caused some in his own party to turn their backs on him.



• A Debate in Which he was Nice: Lieberman was cordial and genial during the 2000 vice presidential debate, when he faced Dick Cheney. Many Democrats felt he did a poor job at best.



• Down a Senator: Lieberman ran for both U.S. Senator and Vice President in 2000. What if he had won the vice presidency, as many believe he actually did? John Rowland would have appointed his replacement, and tilted the balance to the Republicans. President Gore would have faced an entirely GOP Congress thanks to Lieberman. More grumbling.



• Where'd You Go, Joe? I keep hearing that, after 2000, Lieberman was somehow different. He grew less responsive. He became, in his mind as well as in fact, a national political figure. He got too big for tiny Connecticut, which mattered not at all in the presidential primary season, and wasn't a swing state.



• Friend of Bush: There has been a perception building for some time that Lieberman is too close to the Administration. He didn't help matters by going on Fox News and bashing other Democrats, or by making public statements like:



Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and more broadly that they're not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom.

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there.

We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril.

And so on.


• Iraq: The war's never been popular in Connecticut. Lieberman, as seen above, has consistently supported it. That was bound to produce some friction, although Lieberman apparently never saw it coming.



• Worst Campaign Ever: Democrats in Connecticut started seriously searching for an anti-war candidate in late 2005, and conversations about a Lieberman challenger were going on long before that. But Ned Lamont would not have managed to be ahead of Lieberman in the polls right now without Lieberman's help. He has run a vicious, negative, petty and largely pointless campaign. The campaign has done more to undermine Lieberman's image as a genial statesman than Lamont ever could, and it's cost him.



• Independent Joe: Now he's willing to turn his back on Democratic primary voters by running as an independent should he lose. It's the last straw for some.

In short, Lieberman has always managed to annoy a certain slice of Democrats. That slice has been growing steadily during the endless crises of the past five years, and Lieberman himself has poured fuel on the fire during this campaign.

So if the Lieberman campaign is wondering why Connecticut Democrats have "suddenly" turned on their candidate, they should look to the past, and to Lieberman's own actions over the last decade.

Source

Zengerle, Jason. "Ned Lamont: Front-Runner." Blog Post. The Plank. 21 July, 2006.

DeStefano Still Ahead of Malloy

A quick note about the Democratic gubernatorial primary:

16. (If registered democrat) If the 2006 Democratic primary for governor were being held today and the candidates were John DeStefano and Dan Malloy, for whom would you vote? (If undecided q16) As of today, do you lean more toward DeStefano or Malloy?This table includes Leaners.

LIKELY DEM PRIMARY VOTERS (June 8th)

DeStefano 52% (46%)
Malloy 32% (35%)
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2% (1%)
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) -
DK/NA 14% (18%)

This is a jump from the last poll, taken in June. It could suggest that DeStefano's television commercials are having an effect, which is what the DeStefano campaign believes:

“It’s clear John’s message of fighting for working families is resonating with voters,” said Derek Slap – Communications Director. (DeStefano)

I suspect that these numbers are still based mostly on name recognition rather than actual preference. Here's why:

Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?

LIKELY DEM PRIMARY VOTERS (Total; JD voters; DM voters)

Made up 48% ; 47% ; 48%
Might change 51% ; 51% ; 50%

Compare this to Lamont/Lieberman voters:

Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?

LIKELY DEM PRIMARY VOTERS (Total ; JL voters ; NL voters)

Made up 79% ; 77% ; 80%
Might change 19% ; 21% ; 18

So this is by no means definitive. The Malloy campaign believes that a television blitz will help get their candidate's name out there:

We believe that a significant percentage of true primary voters are just starting to focus on this primary race, which is why we are just now ramping up a very intense and highly focused final phase of our paid communications plan (TV, mail, etc.). Conversely, our opponent chose to go very heavy on TV very early. (Malloy)

Could be. Or it could also be that DeStefano's greater name recognition and labor support will carry him to the nomination in August.


Source

Quinnipiac Poll 20 July, 2006.

"DeStefano widens lead in latest Q-Poll." DeStefano for Connecticut. Press Release. 20 July, 2006.

"Malloy Campaign Responds to Q-Poll." Malloy for Governor. Press Release. 20 July, 2006.

Lamont Ahead of Lieberman

Quinnipiac Poll (full poll not yet on QU website):

Among Likely Primary Voters:

Ned Lamont 51%
Joe Lieberman 47%

Absolutely incredible.

Update As for November:

Lieberman (I) 51%
Lamont (D) 27%
Schlesinger (R) 9%

If Lieberman loses the primary, expect that number to go down.

Update 2: The poll has been posted. Thanks MikeCT for spotting it.

Some more numbers:

3. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joseph Lieberman is handling his job as United States Senator?
(Among Democrats)
Approve 47%
Disapprove 44%

(Likely primary voters)
Approve 42%
Disapprove 53%
...
[For Lamont voters] Is your vote more for Lamont or more against Lieberman?
For Lamont 33%
Against Lieberman 63%
...
[For those likely voters who said Lieberman doesn't deserve to be re-elected:] What is the main reason you feel he does not deserve to be reelected?
Position on Iraq 35%
Too conservative/Right wing/Republican 18%
Too Close to Bush 10%

There's more. I'll talk about the governor's race, in which Jodi Rell's numbers are finally moving south and John DeStefano is the clear front-runner for the nomination, in a later post.

Source

Quinnipiac Poll 20 July, 2006.

Joe Lieberman and the Defense of the West

The primary between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman is about a lot of things. Iraq. President Bush. Health care. Democracy. Loyalty. Partisanship. But over the past two weeks, another, more volatile element has arisen: Israel.

Pro-Israel political action committees have donated to his campaign and have urged their national membership to give generously now and later, if Lieberman is forced to run as an unaffiliated candidate.

"Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions ... is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress," said Mark Vogel, chairman of the National Action Committee, a pro-Israel political action committee. "There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman. That is why he is incredibly important to the pro-Israel community."(AP)

Right now, there's a war raging between the militant group Hezbollah, which is currently using southern Lebanon as a base, and Israel's IDF. Israeli planes have been bombing Beirut. Hezbollah rockets are slamming into Haifa. It's been a long time coming. This round was started when two Israeli soldiers were captured. Where it wil end is anyone's guess, although the fears of World War III breaking out are retreating, for now.

Right now, Israel needs friends, and they have relatively few. Europe, which is traditionally in their corner, has found the Israeli reaction too extreme for its liking. Only in America do we hear pundits talking about the war as a defense of the West against barbarism. Only here is pro-Israeli sentiment strong enough to weather actions that resemble shooting ducks with artillery. And in America, Joe Lieberman has been consistent in his support for Israel and Israeli causes.

Vogel said opinion within the pro-Israel community is mixed about whether the United States should have launched the Iraq war. Some prefer Lamont because they argue Iraq is more important than Israel, but Vogel said there is more agreement about staying in Iraq and getting the job done.

"We need to complete the war on terror, which does not include leaving because it sends the terrorists a very bad message: that terrorism pays," he said. "Joe is part of that line of reasoning, which I think the pro-Israel community is pretty unified on." (AP)

How will this war, if it escalates, affect our little primary here in Connecticut? Will Israel vs. Syria or Iran overshadow the divide over Iraq?

Lieberman's campaign has been reaching out to pro-Israel supporters. Michael Kassen, a Westport, Conn., businessman who contributes to pro-Israel causes and various candidates, said the campaign has been in touch.

"This is a group that he can turn to," said Kassen, who gave Lieberman $1,000 in 2005, according to campaign finance records. (AP)

Ned Lamont may be able to compete with Lieberman on Iraq, but what about Israel or Iran? If a real crisis erupts and America is dragged into it, the entire dynamic of the race, of all races in 2006, changes. And, at least for now, Joe Lieberman is in better position to take advantage of it than Ned Lamont.

Source

"Pro-Israel Groups Rally Support For Lieberman." Associated Press 19 July, 2006.

Commission Says Bysiewicz Exceeded Authority in Aiding two Democrats

The state Elections Enforcement Commission has found the Susan Bysiewicz was in the wrong when she allowed two Democrats who had missed paperwork deadlines to appear on the November ballot.

Bysiewicz has said she consulted with Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, also a Democrat, and was told she had discretion to place the candidates on the ballot.

"Nevertheless, the commission disagrees that she has such discretion and finds the exercise of discretion contrary to the express language of the statute and the prior written opinions and long-standing practice of the Secretary's office in interpreting the same statute," the commission wrote in its ruling.

House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, and Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford, the Republican candidate for attorney general, filed a complaint with the commission last month. They said Bysiewicz had required a Republican House member in 2004 to go to court to get on the ballot under similar circumstances. (AP)

The two candidates, both incumbent state representatives, will be allowed to remain on the ballot.

Source

"News and Notes From the Campaign Trail." Associated Press 19 July, 2006.

Poll: Murphy Just Ahead of Johnson

A poll commissioned by the Working Families Party, which supports Chris Murphy, shows Murphy with a slight lead over Nancy Johnson in the 5th District.

The poll showed that 38 percent of the respondents supported Murphy, 35 percent supported Johnson while 28 percent are undecided. (Lucas)

I would very much like to see some independent polling on this race.

Source

Lucas, Fred. "Poll: Challenger has slight lead over Nancy Johnson." Danbury News-Times 18 July, 2006.

The Gubernatorial Debate: Not Ready for Prime Time

This time, the debate from Connecticut wasn't televised live on national TV. People didn't build their schedules around it, or go to a debate-watching party. In fact, the debate between John DeStefano and Dan Malloy was in many ways the antithesis of the Lamont-Lieberman debate of two weeks ago: instead of two bitter rivals who represent radically opposed, ideologically divided factions in the Democratic Party, these two men found more to agree on than disagree, and spent more time attacking the governor than one another.

It was sort of refreshing. It was also sort of dull. Here are the high points:

Both Malloy and DeStefano seemed to stumble out of the gate. Hard to blame them--neither man has really seen much media attention over the past two years. DeStefano seemed nervous, and played with his glasses (which he later removed) and shuffled his notes. Malloy tripped over his tongue a few times, and seemed to lose track of his point. Both men managed to recover, although to differing degrees.

DeStefano at his best seemed like an educated, intelligent man who understood the reasons why government did what it did, and how to make it better. At his worst, he seemed like an aging professor lecturing to a confused audience. He had a tendency to wander off from the question as he tried to educate his audience, and he seemed to ramble a bit. He had to be interrupted several times as he ran over his time. Malloy at his best seemed like a can-do, passionate and driven man, while at his worst he edged over into melodrama. He actually said in response to a DeStefano attack: "There you go again." Sheesh. Malloy also strayed, although he seemed somewhat more coherant.

On the issues, it was difficult to draw distinctions between the two. Both men share the same basic platform--they just have different ways to accomplish what they want and have varying levels of commitment to it. The debate seemed to come down in large part to which of the two men was more genuinely in favor of that platform, and which truly had the better record, and this is where Dan Malloy scored the only two clear hits of the night.

First, with the help of the crusty and entertaining Mark Davis, he dredged up an old story about campaign finance reform, in which Malloy and Susan Bysiewicz both pledged to return money from contractors, etc., if CFR was implemented for 2006. DeStefano didn't, claming it was unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game (DeStefano then held a sizable fundraising advantage). The charge was made that DeStefano wasn't really for it if it would hurt his campaign. Malloy delivered a stinging lecture to DeStefano, which DeStefano was able to effectively parry by pointing out Malloy's melodramatic delivery, but the point remained.

Second, near the end of the debate, Malloy commented on the state of affairs in New Haven's education system, and said that "I want to be a governor who will help you turn that around." Laughter.

Mark Davis of WTNH stole the show by being grumpy, demanding and unwilling to let the candidates weasel out of responding to his (and others') questions. He cut through some of the nonsense like a knife. I kept expecting him to leap out of his seat and start yelling at them. I hope he gets to be a panelist at more of these: he was a welcome relief!

As for who won? On issues, both candidates know their stuff. This was a highly wonkish debate. But Malloy was slightly better at communicating his message, and he seemed sharper than DeStefano, and so came out of the debate in slightly better shape. But his win, if that's what it was, wasn't all that convincing, and I don't think this debate is going to erase much of the confusion voters have about these two candidates.

Kevin Rennie, Carnac the Magnificent?

Kevin Rennie, Hartford Courant, today in National Journal's Hotline Blog:

The three term incumbent’s people concede that he has no effective organization of his own. He has brought in a pro to gin up his ground game with only three weeks left and several million dollars to spend. Lamont manager Tom Swan, an organizing legend in Connecticut, has put together a formidable machine for the challenger.

Kevin Rennie, Hartford Currant, today in Political Wire:

At least two prominent Republicans think that if Schlesinger can be nixed from his spot on the ballot, it should be given to Senator Joseph Lieberman if he loses the August 8th primary to challenger Ned Lamont.

Hmmmm... What do you get if you put those two Kevin Rennie stories together?

Maybe nothing...

But maybe, Lieberman doesn't really need an organization because, if he loses the August 8th primary, he will be running on the Republican line...

[Neither here nor there, but as I wrote that, the sky exploded into thunder and lightning. And evil laughter. Okay, there was no evil laughter.]

UPDATE: By the way, click through both links, the articles are interesting as a whole. My favorite part, from the first article:

Joseph Lieberman is hoping to use fear where work where persuasion has failed.
...
The theme of a Saturday conclave of Greater Hartford Democratic town committee chairs was that if Lieberman loses the primary he will hurt all other Democratic candidates by running as an independent in November. The message was clear: help him now or your favorites suffer in November.

Interesting strategy... Scare people into volunteering for you, that should work!

Gubernatorial Debate Open Forum

What's better on a hot evening than a debate between Democratic gubernatorial candidates? They'll be live on WTNH (channel 8) at 8pm. Put your thoughts here as things happen. (Moderation's off, comments will be real time)

Debate Tonight

Don't forget that John DeStefano and Dan Malloy will be debating live on Channel 8 tonight at 8pm!

Selected State House of Representatives Fundraising - Second Quarter

This post is similar to yesterday's on state senate fundraising. Number in parentheses is the total cash on hand.

Click on the links for more information about the race. Click here for a list of primaries being held around the state.

District 2

Phil Gallagher (R) $5,635.00 ($4,905.00)
Jason Bartlett (D) n/a

District 3

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (D) $5,770.00 ($16,866.46)
Frank DeJesus (D) $10,400.00 ($3,895.37)

District 4

Angel Arce (D) $5,890.00 ($1,586.32)
Kevin Roldan (D) $28,905.00 ($19,572.04)

District 19

Beth Bye (D) $13,914.00 ($12,589.21)
No GOP candidate?

District 30

Rep. Joe Aresimowicz (D) $3,125.00 ($9,515.02)
Edward Pocock (R) $5,540.00 ($21,918.71)

District 37

Rep. Ed Jutila (D) $1,300.00 ($6,924.11)
Paul Formica (R) $7,470.00 ($7,470.00)

District 38

Rep. Elizabeth Ritter (D) $8,170.00 ($6,825.57)
Brian Vachris (R) $350.00 ($152.00)

District 50

Rep. Mike Alberts (R) $9,285.00 ($9,489.79)
Sherri Vogt (D) $6,714.64 ($5,011.31)

District 53

April Teveris (R) $2,103.00 ($2,740.83)
Bryan Hurlburt (D) $2,655.00 ($2,161.47)
Susan Eastwood (D) $3,790.00 ($2,737.37)

District 59

Karen Jarmoc (D) $9,570.00 ($6,086.82)
Charles Woods (R) $1,650.00 ($1,650.00)

District 61

Rep. Ruth Fahrbach (R) $12,134.00 ($13,183.85)
Derek Donnelly (D) $8,045.34 ($13,714.03)

District 65

Rep. Anne Ruwet (R) $2,275.00 ($2,275.00)
Paul E. Cavagnero (D) $1,200.00 ($1,200.00)

District 72

Larry B. Butler (D) $1,490.00 ($428.00)
Monroe Webster (D) n/a n/a
Rodney Parker (R) n/a n/a

District 73

Jeffrey Berger (D) $9,510.00 ($22,880.60)
Anthony Piccochi (D) $8,760.00 ($11,238.36)

District 79

Rep. Kosta Diamantis (D) $100.00 ($1,219.90)
Frank Nicastro (D) $50.00 ($430.40)
Henry Raymond (R) n/a

District 86

Vincent J. Candelora (R) $9,135.00 ($7,136.00)
Ashley Clow Joiner (D) $1,000.00 ($1,000.00)

District 89

Rep. Vickie Orsini Nardello (D) $7,875.00 ($6,974.15)
Roger Kergaravat (R) $1,605.00 ($1,585.00)
Tim White (R) $1,461.00 ($982.77)

District 93

Rep. Toni E. Walker (D) $2,725.00 ($2,725.00)
Darnell Goldson (D) B-4 (self-funding)

District 100

Rep. Raymond Kalinowski (R) $5,522.00 ($8,826.55)
Hope P. Kasper (D) n/a


District 104

Rep. Linda Gentile (D) $350.00 ($2,160.90)
J.R. Romano (R) $4,015.00 ($5,314.75)

District 117

Rep. Paul Davis (D) $1,605.00 ($5,965.53)
Larry Czajkowski (R) n/a

District 120

Rep. John Harkins (R) $10,580.00 ($9,015.94)
Dave Mooney (D) $6,925.00 ($20,635.72)

District 127

Rep. Jack Hennessy (D) $5,255.00 ($10,537.32)
Thomas C. McCarthy (D) $17,605.00 ($7,040.42)

District 132

Rep. Thomas Drew (D) $6,845.00 ($6,778.56)
Chris DeSanctis (R) $7,900.00 ($8,797.80)

District 134

Rep. John "Jack" Stone (R) $2,350.00 ($1,098.93)
Tom Christiano (D) $20.00 ($20.00)

District 136

Rep. Joe Mioli (D) $9,010.00 ($6,653.50)
William "Bill" Harris (R) n/a

District 140

Rev. Bruce V. Morris (D) $5,010.00 ($1,525.80)
Carvin Hilliard (D) n/a
Richard A. McQuaid (R) n/a

Lieberman Wouldn't Sign Green Petitions

This from the always excellent CT News Junkie:

...By 4 p.m. on August 9, Joe's staff will ask at least 30,000 Connecticut residents to sign a petition to support his right to appear on the November ballot as an independent.

Funny thing is, twice on the Fourth of July, Holy Joe refused to do the same for the Connecticut Green Party at the Willimantic Boom Box parade.

I asked him first to sign in support of the Green Party's right to run a slate of seven statewide candidates on the November ballot, including Ralph Ferucci, the Green nominee for Joe's seat.

Sen. Joe refused, but to get me to stop pestering Lieberman, New Haven resident Martin Dunleavy, who was walking alongside Joe, volunteered to sign.

After Joe and his partner-in-crime Hadassah finished marching, Willimantic Green Jean DeSmet approached him. DeSmet, who beat the Republican to come second with 28 percent of the vote in the 2005 municipal contest for Windham First Selectman, asked Lieberman to sign. He turned her down, too.
...
Ned [Lamont] signed my petition, as did half of his campaign staff, from campaign manager Tom Swan to field coordinator Rick Melita and on down the line.(Krayeske)

Interestingly, several Lieberman staffers did sign the Green petition. I wonder why Lieberman himself refused? And how can he reasonably ask people to support his petition drive if he won't sign petitions for others? Has he completely lost all his political marbles?

Source

Krayeske, Ken. "Holy Joe Says No!." CT News Junkie 18 July, 2006.

Swift Greenwich Republicans for Truth

Since Joe Lieberman seems to be channeling George Bush during this campaign, it's just a matter of time before we see this:

SWIFT REPUBLICANS FOR TRUTH

(Ominous music. We see Ned Lamont's picture, blurry, sepia-toned and with a little Snidely Whiplash moustache painted on.)

VOICE: Ned Lamont claims to be a liberal. But is he really? These Republicans tell the story.

(Cut to several well-dressed WASPs sitting in one room of a cavernous mansion)

MRS. PENNYWINKE-SMYTHE: (she is draped with two tons of pearls) Oh, yes, I served tea and crumpets at the meetings of the Greenwich Board of Selectmen back in those days. Mr. Lamont often talked about how much he hated things like the library, and school children.

DUDLEY COVINGTON-ARCHIBALD: (in a top hat) Yes, quite, when we Republicans drew up plans to keep the rabble from (shudders) Norwalk, ugh, off of our pristine beaches, dear old Neddy used to cackle with an evil sort of glee. I must say, I found it quite becoming.

MRS. PENNYWINKE-SMYTHE: Itty-bitty children. He hated them. Stole their lunch money and punched them in the face. What fun we had!

VOICE: But that wasn’t all…

PHINEAS WILLOUGHBY-FFINCH: (Pale, with a serious overbite and a pipe) Do you know he called Pat Buchanan a communist bastard?

PRESCOTT BUSH’S CORPSE: (stuffed, on a very nice couch) I think Ned’s great.

MRS. PENNYWINKE-SMYTHE: He put a lock on the library and charged $500 admission per person.

VOICE: And what did these Republicans think when they found out he was opposing Joe Lieberman?

PHINEAS WILLOUGHBY-FFINCH: Oh, I was very surprised at old Neddy. He used to tell me what a fine and strapping fellow George W. Bush was. He and Joe Lieberman were ever the best of friends.

DUDLEY COVINGTON-ARCHIBALD: He liked to bomb things. He had an artillery range in his backyard. He was very excited about Iraq. I must say I feel betrayed! He’s since taken the cannon out.

PHINEAS WILLOUGHBY-FFINCH: Right, he’s no fun anymore.

PRESCOTT BUSH’S CORPSE: What an ass.

VOICE: Ned Lamont. Shame, shame, shame.

MRS. PENNYWINKE-SMYTHE: You Democrats should all really vote for Mr. Lieberman instead. We like him very much!

VOICE: Joe Lieberman for Senate. At least he’s up front about it.

DeStefano Proposes Freezing Property Taxes for Seniors

This just in...

Saying it’s time to help ease the burden of rising property taxes for our seniors, John DeStefano – Democratic candidate for governor – is announcing a plan to freeze property tax rates for seniors and use a new millionaire’s tax to pay for it.
...
The tax freeze would take effect on the 2007 property tax bills and affect approximately 150,000 senior households who meet income eligibility requirements. (DeStefano)

Wait. I thought taxing the income of the rich was going to pay for education? Is this in addition to that tax?

Setting that aside, it seems like a good idea on the face of it. How will it work?

· Seniors 65 and older whose annual income is $46,000 or less for a single person or $54,000 or less for a couple living together, are eligible to use the program. Income limits would be adjusted annually for inflation.

· Towns will be reimbursed 100% for the revenue lost as a result of the tax freeze.

· Seniors will apply one time to their town assessor to be eligible for the tax freeze. Every year thereafter the assessor will require certification with the tax bill that the senior(s) remain eligible.

· At the sale of the house, or the death of the owner occupant, the tax freeze will end. Should a surviving spouse over the age of 62 acquire the house through the death of the homeowner, the tax freeze will continue.

· Seniors can continue to use any existing tax benefits including the “circuit breaker.”(DeStefano)

Reimbursing towns for the lost revenue... wait. Weren't towns promised reimbursement for lost revenue for some other tax cut proposal? And wasn't that one of the sticking points-- municipalities feeling they wouldn't see a full reimbursment?

Still, it's certainly not a bad idea, and it's a step in the right direction. It isn't the sort of radical property tax reform I was half-expecting DeStefano to come out with, but it would be a benefit to poorer seniors.

Source

"DeStefano announces property tax freeze for seniors." DeStefano for Connecticut. Press Release, 17 July, 2006.

Selected State Senate Fundraising - Second Quarter

Here are some of the fundraising numbers for this quarter from selected State Senate races. Numbers in parentheses is the total amount the candidate has on hand.

Updated 3:30pm with two new entries

Senate 07 - East Granby, Enfield, Granby, Somers, Suffield, Windsor (part), Windsor Locks

Sen. John Kissel (R) - $3,422 ($12,872.52)
Bill Kiner (D) - $19,434 ($24,286.37)

Note: Kiner is more than $17,000 ahead of his 2004 fundraising pace

Senate 12 - Branford, Durham, Guilford, Killingworth, Madison, N. Branford

Sen. Edward Meyer (D) - $9,601 ($42,573.75)
Gregg Hannon (R) - $7,385 ($13,938.53)

Senate 16 - Cheshire (part), Southington, Waterbury (part), Wolcott

David Zoni (D) - $22,265 ($30,387.99)
Sam Caliguiri (R) - $33,625 ($59,054.97)

Senate 18 - Griswold, Groton, N. Stonington, Plainfield, Preston, Sterling, Stonington, Voluntown

Andy Maynard (D) - $18,005 ($17,712.68)
Lenny Winkler (R) - $34,803 ($30,802.37)

Senate 20 - East Lyme, Montville (part), New London, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook (part), Salem, Waterford

Sen. Andrea Stillman (D) - $5,825 ($20,667)
Christopher F. Oliveira (R) - $16,415 ($23,000*)

Senate 21 - Stratford (large part), Shelton, Seymore (part), Monroe (part)

Dan Debicella (R) - $24,375 ($53,235 - $4,109 in unpaid expenses = $49,126 on hand)
Chris Jones (D) - $26,046 ($25,313 - $90 = $25,223)
Thanks to Dave Mooney for this one!

Senate 22 - Bridgeport (part), Monroe, Trumbull (part)

Sen. Bill Finch (D) - $17,255 ($26,917.46)
Robert Russo (R) - $10,470 ($9,600)

Senate 31 - Bristol, Harwinton (part), Plainville, Plymouth

Sen. Tom Colapietro (D) - $9,619 ($28,143.32)
Beverly Bobroske (R) - $24,042 ($17,774.54)

Some very interesting numbers!

*A filing error is leading CFIS to show Oliveira's total as $14,541 - error should be corrected soon

Constitutional Officers Fundraising - Second Quarter

Numbers reflect the total raised this period. Number in parantheses is the total cash the candidate has on hand. Data from the Secretary of the State's website.

Attorney General

Richard Blumenthal (D) - $87,423 ($87,467.19)
Robert Farr (R) - $16,298.69 ($7,973.49)

Secretary of the State

Susan Bysiewicz (D) - $118,079 ($529,919.64)
Richard Abbate (R) - $380 ($5,307.39)

Treasurer

Denise Nappier (D) - $69,645 ($113,909.32)
Linda Roberts (R) - $10,640 ($8,288.80)

Comptroller

Nancy Wyman (D) - $107,109 ($154,650.65)
Cathy Cook (R) - $13,230 ($7,532.50)

Cartoons

Who doesn't like cartoons? Actually, Sen. Lieberman probably won't like these.

This Modern World (in Salon--you'll have to watch a short ad)

Weyant's World, from The Hill

Is it me?

Or does Ray Hackett, who last week labeled the activities of bloggers "vigilante politics," seem a little angry about something? Again?

As expected, the bloggers threw an Internet temper tantrum in response to criticism leveled at them in last week's column.

My favorite came from the one who calls himself Ctkeith, who dismissed any criticism by suggesting 18 years as the political reporter for the Norwich Bulletin wasn't that impressive. He said that "town drunk is a more honorable gig."

A classic example of the intellectual depth one can expect from this particular group.
...
I understand the nature of blogging is to allow individuals a forum to freely express their views and opinions. I was suggesting it serves no useful purpose if it's used as a weapon of hate.(Hackett)

Right back at ya.

Source

Hackett, Ray. "Column: Political bloggers' strongest suit is self-indulgence." Norwich Bulletin 16 July, 2006.

House-79 Primary: Eminent Domain Debated

The Bristol Press reports on a debate between two primary opponents in the 79th House district:

As Nicastro takes aim at the 79th District state representative seat held by fellow Democrat Kosta Diamantis, the city's use of eminent domain in the Bugryn case has created another divide between the two men vying for their party's support in an Aug. 8 primary. Diamantis staked out a simple position: he said he doesn't support the use of eminent domain to take residential property for economic development.

Nicastro said he was shocked to hear Diamantis take that stand because the 14-year lawmaker had never uttered a single peep of protest during the seven-year struggle between the city and the Bugryns over a 32-acre Middle Street parcel the city took from the elderly siblings for an industrial park.

"You said nothing" about it at the time, Nicastro told Diamantis.(Collins)

At least there wasn't a brawl this time.

Source
Collins, Steve. "'Eminent' issue debated." Bristol Press 14 July, 2006.

A list of other state primaries is here.

Fighting Over the Scraps

Republicans Duel for 1st District Nod

I have to imagine that, if he's even paying attention, this sort of thing must make Rep. John Larson very happy.

The Republican primary fight for the right to challenge U.S. Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, in November has turned on religion with challenger Miriam Masullo attacking the religious denomination of the GOP's endorsed candidate, Scott MacLean.

In a recent letter to the district's Republican leaders, Masullo accused the leadership of the United Church of Christ of supporting terrorists and suicide bombings. And because MacLean is a retired minister in the church, Republicans should reject him in the Aug. 8 primary, Masullo said.

Christopher Healy, a Republican leader who put MacLean's name in nomination at the party's May convention, said Masullo's accusations amounted to "delusional ramblings."

"All that stuff is just looney tunes. It's not even worth commenting on," Healy said. (Uhlinger)

Masullo's comments, which are based on the UCC's halfhearted economic divestment from Israel, are misleading and needlessly inflammatory at best, and no one except Masullo's supporters seems to be taking them seriously.

The most interesting aspect of this race, apart from the spat over the UCC, is the fact that Masullo lives in New Canaan. For those of you keeping track, that's in the 4th Congressional District, not the 1st. One can't get much farther away from the 1st District and still remain in Connecticut. In a 2002 Courant article, Masullo claimed that small matters, such as not living in the district, were just a distraction from the real issues:

...Masullo, who grew up in Harlem after fleeing Cuba at age 13, says she could better represent the 1st District because shebetter represents its demographics. The state has seen a surge in Hispanic population in the last 10 years, much of it centered in Hartford and its immediate suburbs. Masullo believes that growing population needs to be reflected in its congressional representation. (Oshrat)

If she wins, Masullo has pledged to become a part of the demographics she wants to represent by actually moving to the district.

Masullo's platform has some decent ideas concerning education and the internet, most notably this one:

The backbone of our American education system was built upon two free, government supported institutions: the public school and the public library. The backbone of our modern education system must become the digital library, operating at local, regional and national levels, as one universal system.

Cool. In fact, Masullo has long spoken out about providing better access to digital resources for everyone. It was one of the centerpieces of her 2002 campaign, during which she accused Larson of perpetuating the "digital divide" between those who could afford internet access, and those who could not. The issue of the UCC is only serving to muddle what could be a very positive message. Although you'd think that someone who is so interested in computer technology would have a better website.

MacLean seems to be hoping that she'll just go away, although past experience suggests that she won't. In 2002, she lost the first district primary to Phil Steele, but continued to campaign as a write-in candidate. She also originally decided to stay out of the primary this year, but re-entered because of MacLean's UCC affiliation. Admittedly, some of MacLean's positions are somewhat to the left of most mainstream Republicans. He is pro-choice, pro-gun control and supports efforts to combat global warming. However, he does support the War on Terror and wants troops to stay in Iraq. From his website:

These Islamic-Fascist terrorists are bad, bad guys and they won’t just go away because we walk away from Iraq. If they are willing to blow themselves up for their cause, they will not quit just because we do. They are highly motivated and we must continue to confront them and defeat them. This is a long term conflict that will not go away soon.

Sounds like a liberal wimp to me. MacLean also has one position which I find fascinating: encouraging democracy by shrinking Congressional districts. Unfortunately, he wants to cut the size of districts down a little too much (his plan calls for an 8,000-member House of Representatives), but the idea itself is worth considering. I'm sure MacLean would rather see smaller districts--that way, he'd have a better shot at a seat.

So the race is on. Who is the "real" Republican? Who is best qualified to carry the GOP standard into November?

Unfortunately for both candidates, it really doesn't matter. The first district has not been won by a Republican since Eisenhower's day, a cultural eon ago, and has been represented by such prominent Democrats as Abraham Ribicoff, Thomas Dodd and Barbara Kennelly. Rep. John Larson is not going to lose. He doesn't even have to campaign to retain his seat, which is one of the safest in the country. Jodi Rell could run against Larson and lose by 25%.

In the meantime, MacLean and Masullo will campaign to win the primary on August 8th. At least both of them have a chance at winning something.

Sources

Oshrat, Carmiel. "1st District Republicans Press on to Primary." Hartford Courant 8 September, 2002.

Uhlinger, Dan. "1st District Challenger Makes Religion An Issue." Hartford Courant 16 July, 2006.

"High Road Beats Rell"

Interesting new site out there, which grades the two Democratic candidates for governor on essentially how well they can stick to the issues without attacking one another. From the front page:

An anonymous Malloy supporter and an anonymous DeStefano supporter will review the messages from the two candidates, as reported in the press and press releases, as well as in the form of TV ads, mailings, etc. The Malloy and DeStefano supporters will jointly award each campaign 5 points for each message supporting Democratic values or opposing the Republican agenda. Each candidate, however, will lose 2 points for each message that attacks the other Democrat. Below are notes and, where available, links recording each of the points awarded to or taken away from each campaign. Only items occuring after the Democratic State Convention are counted.

So far, both candidates are in a dead heat. Looks like the site is still evolving, though, and it'll be interesting to see if either comes out ahead.

U.S. Senate Primary Fundraising - Second Quarter

Here are the raw numbers (thanks to MikeCT for spotting them):

Lieberman: $1.3 million ($4.3 million on hand)
Lamont: $1.9 million ($276,976 on hand)

Two pieces of information from this article are very relevant to these numbers. First (boldface mine):

The campaign, which is not accepting Washington lobbyist money, was left with $276,976 on hand at the end of the most recent reporting period that ended June 30.

And the second:

[Lamont] received $829,936 from nearly 15,000 people and contributed $1.1 million himself. (AP)

The fact that Lamont can forego lobbyist money and still raise over $800,000 from supporters is pretty decent. However, it's worth noting that only 30% of Lamont's money comes from Connecticut, and that his campaign warchest will essentially be empty by August 8th if he keeps up this pace.

It'll be interesting to see if Lieberman's breakneck fundraising pace slows down at all now that he's gathering petitions for an independent run. His massive war chest also gives the lie to the idea that Lamont is going to simply buy a Senate seat. He'll have to pony up a lot more dough if he wants to equal what Lieberman has on hand. There is no information as of right now about how much of Lieberman's financial support comes from in state.

No information on how much Alan Schlesinger has raised.

Source
"Lamont raised $1.9M in latest reporting period." Associated Press 15 July, 2006.

Congressional Fundraising: Second Quarter 2006

Here's the numbers for this quarter, with total cash on hand in parentheses.

Second District:

Rob Simmons (R) - $545,906.39 ($1.3 million on hand)
Joe Courtney (D) - $457,000 ($988,430 on hand)

Fourth District:

Christopher Shays (R) - $638,000 ($1.5 million on hand)
Diane Farrell (D) - $788,000 ($1.4 million on hand)

Fifth District:

Nancy Johnson (R) - $867,000 ($2.62 million on hand)
Chris Murphy (D) - $456,633 ($1.02 million on hand)

Campaign News - 7/15/06

Lots of stories out there worth talking about. Here are just a few:

Nancy Johnson's support for the weakening of language provisions in the Voting Rights Act is taking criticism from Chris Murphy and others.

To Nancy Johnson, the debate over a federal law requiring Election Day help for people who speak English as a second language is overblown.

"I've never had a minority person say, `I can't read Nancy Johnson,'" she says with a smile.
...
"Connecticut has historically been a leader in civil rights. This shows how out of step Nancy Johnson is," said Democratic foe Chris Murphy. "It's hard to understand her motivation."
...
Johnson, the only state lawmaker to vote against the language provision, said it is unnecessary and burdensome.

"Our citizenship laws are very clear," Johnson said. "People are required to read and write English." And, she said, the bilingual ballot provisions can be costly for state and local governments. (Lightman. "Johnson")

Perhaps Nancy Johnson should check to see whether a "minority person" has ever actually voted for her.

A funding mishap involving reimbursements from Mary Glassman's campaign to Dan Malloy's is drawing fire from the DeStefano camp:

Supporters of the Democratic gubernatorial campaigns of Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy and New Haven Mayor John DeStefano are disputing the significance of an error in recent financial filings by Malloy's running mate.

The disclosure statements submitted July 17 by the campaign committees for Malloy and Mary Glassman, his running mate for lieutenant governor, failed to explain almost $109,000 in reimbursements from Glassman's committee to Malloy's.
...
DeStefano's campaign said the lapse raises "very serious questions," but Malloy's campaign said it was an unintentional, quickly corrected oversight. (AP. "Democratic")

Perhaps the DeStefano campaign should remember its own fundraising troubles before throwing stones.

Joe Lieberman comments on the crisis in Israel and Lebanon:

"I will raise the question of whether Iran ... is not provoking this crisis for the purpose of not quite distracting us, but flexing their terrorist muscles as the world begins to pressure them to stop their nuclear weapons development," Lieberman told The Associated Press.

He said Syria, which also has ties to Hezbollah, may also be involved. (AP "Lieberman")

I wouldn't doubt it one bit. Keep a close eye on this conflict, because in between Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Iran is a country containing 130,000 U.S. troops.

Lastly, the Connecticut Post slams the Lieberman campaign for making stuff up in its attack ads:

Thumbs down to the campaign of U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., whose latest campaign ad blurs the line between political semantics and an attempt to downright mislead people. Lieberman, who is currently in the middle of a hotly-contested primary challenge for the Democratic Party nomination by Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, approved the ad that aired across the state last week. The ad shows bumper stickers, supposedly distributed by the Lamont campaign, reading "No More Joe" and "NoMoreJoe.com," accusing Lamont of merely running against Lieberman and not on his own merits. The problem is that the bumper stickers and Web site are completely fake, dummied up entirely by the Lieberman campaign. The tactic is an unfortunate one from the Lieberman camp, especially given the campaign's assertions that the senator is a "principled" leader. If Lieberman wants to attack his challenger in the future, he would be best suited to keep his criticisms based in reality. (Best)

It would be nice.

Sources

"Democratic rivals differ on significance of filing error." Associated Press 15 July, 2006.

"AP Interview: Lieberman suspects Iran is behind Hezbollah." Associated Press 15 July, 2006.

"Best and the rest for the past week." Connecticut Post 15 July, 2006.

Lightman, David. "Johnson Takes Heat On Language Issue." Hartford Courant 15 July, 2006.

Mail from Democrats

Direct mail eats up a lot out of a campaign budget, and a tightly fought contest can see a blizzard of mail coming to the homes of voters.

Here are some examples of direct mail pieces sent out by the campaigns involved in the August primary.


Let's start with Joe Lieberman, and the 80% / 90% attack. Here Lieberman attacks Lamont for voting "with Republicans" 80% of the time when he was a Greenwich selectman. In the early 1990s. Notice the colors: Lieberman gets a clean blue and white, while Lamont gets a sort of sour yellow and a somewhat sicker looking blue. The mailing flips up to give us the obviously slanted records of the two men. The colors are the same. The provocative question, "If he sided with the Republicans in Greenwich, who will Ned Lamont side with in Washington?" is asked, but never really answered. Greenwich Republicans, of course, are very different creatures than the current Washington crop. The flip side calls Lieberman "A principled Democrat with a record of standing up for working families," and so on. The idea here is contrast, which the Lieberman campaign accomplishes by using colors, including an even more gross orange in the lettering for the Lamont side. The Lieberman side, of course, is a nice, clean blue and white. This is a very soft attack piece.

This next ad is another Lieberman mailing. An awful lot of his mail has found its way here--far more than any other candidate.

Here's a big elephant. It represents Ned Lamont. Would you like me to spell it out for you again? Lamont is a rich Republican who is going to beat up your grandmother. Face facts. Also, these circus colors are pretty hideous.



A less attack-filled Lieberman piece is this one. Let's see if we can figure out who it's aimed at, shall we?
Hmm. Kids, families... the headings are "healthy families," "clean air," "strong schools" and "the right to choose." Hang on, I think I've got it!

Why, look! It's an endorsement from each and every female Democratic Senator! There's also more in-depth endorsements with statements on the back. So, women, take heed. These are the issues you care about. Joe shares your concern. Notice the soothing greens. Obviously colors women can identify with. ...Right?


One more from Lieberman. The front of this mailer shows a sub chugging towards us. Remember, it isn't chugging away! Naval colors (blue and gold) are everywhere. Notice that the Bush Administration is responsible for the sub base going on the BRAC list. This is a job for Joe Lieberman, apparently, since he's so opposed to the Bush Administration.

Yes, Lieberman single-handedly saved the sub base, with no help from anyone. Especially any Republicans. Yup. But no attacks here, just a plea to keep him where he says he'll do the most good. Vote for Lieberman. Or lose your job.


Now let's look at some of Ned Lamont's mailers. The first one we'll look at has ghastly, toxic and burning colors all over--mainly oranges and a sort of yellowish-green. The front of the mailer shows a smokestack, with the words "affordable gas prices," "safe and clean environment" and "independence from foreign oil" in the smoke itself. They are apparently going up in smoke. They are also hard to read. The inside of the mailer attacks Lieberman for his support of the "Bush-Cheney energy bill." The final image is of Bush photoshopped in right next to Lieberman. Bush is facing away, while Lieberman is facing towards us. Bush is sort of thumbing at Lieberman, as if to say, "this is my guy." The caption suggests that Lieberman can't stand up for Connecticut if he can't "stand up to George Bush." Again, a sickly green for one's opponent seems required.

Here's the softer side of Ned Lamont:

Oh. My. God. This thing looks like a Mother's Day card, or maybe a wedding announcement. The inside of the card--uh, mailer--is all about what a great guy Ned is. See? Ned's mother thinks he's cool, so obviously he is.

There is exactly one mailer from the Democratic candidates for governor sitting around here (hey! get with the program!), and it's from John DeStefano. It's about his universal health care plan. The front cover shows a woman and adorable blond baby, and probably the nicest picture of DeStefano I've seen (the guy has a knack for taking bad pictures. Every picture I have of him, he's making some sort of goofy face. He doesn't mean to, it just happens). The inside has a less-nice picture of DeStefano, and outlines his attack on Wal-Mart. The great line is "Better health care for everyone without raising your taxes." Uh. Sure. Good luck with that. The best part of the mailer is his attack on Dan Malloy, which looks like Swiss cheese and says "Dan Malloy's plan is full of holes." A great line is "Fuzzy funding formula relies on George W. Bush to pay for his plan."

What's interesting is that every single piece, with the exception of the elephant one, mentions George W. Bush directly. And the elephant piece implies that Lamont will soon be kissing up to Bush.

So I guess we're seeing their strategy in action.

As the month goes on and the primary draws nearer, we'll be seeing many more mailers. I'll post more as they come in.

Fabrizi Gives up Raises

Mayor Fabrizi of Bridgeport is slapping himself on the wrist as part of an effort to repair his damaged image:

Mayor John M. Fabrizi, who tearfully confessed last month to occasional cocaine use while in office, said today he will forfeit two years worth of raises worth about $5,400.

Fabrizi, who is up for re-election next year, also said he directed the police to implement a plan to rid the city of drug dealers.

The move was part of a reform plan Fabrizi announced in an effort to restore trust with voters. (AP)

Great! He can start by telling the cops who sold him his cocaine, right?

He would not say who sold him the drugs and has said he has no plans to leave office. (AP)

Never mind.

Source

"Fabrizi Forfeits Raises After Cocaine Admission." Associated Press 14 July, 2006.

Gallo: Orchulli Could Replace Schlesinger

Alan Schlesinger is still trying to hang on to his U.S. Senate nomination, but George Gallo, chair of the Republican Party, is already mentioning possible replacements. In this case, he's thinking of Chris Dodd punching bag Jack Orchulli, who lost to Dodd by an overwhelming margin in 2004.

John C. "Jack" Orchulli, the former fashion company executive from Darien who unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd in 2004, is a "possible" replacement for the Republicans' 2006 Senate nominee, Alan R. Schlesinger, Republican State Chairman George Gallo said Thursday.

Gallo's comment came shortly before Schlesinger told reporters at the Capitol that he wouldn't quit the Senate race despite allegations that he is a blackjack addict who used a phony name to gamble at the state's Indian-owned casinos, including one that banned him for card-counting. (Michak)

Orchulli was invisible in 2004, and probably wouldn't fare much better than Schlesinger would in the general election. So why favor him over Schlesinger?

Apparently, the fact that he isn't Alan Schlesinger helps. Jodi Rell and George Gallo have done everything they could to derail Schlesinger's campaign. They are not going to let up in their attacks until he steps aside for someone else, like Orchulli. Schlesinger has two options: step aside gracefully now, or continue on and have to face the ire of his own party's leadership during the months ahead.

The odds are not in his favor.

Source

Michak, Don. "Orchulli in the wings for Republicans? But Schlesinger insists he won't fold." Journal-Inquirer 14 July, 2006.

Schlesinger: More Details Emerge

A story today in the Journal-Inquirer is shedding a little more light on Alan Schlesinger's gambling.

The viability of Schlesinger's candidacy was called into question Wednesday when Bradley Beecher, a retired Connecticut State Police officer whose last assignment was as commander of the Casino and Licensing Unit, forwarded to reporters copies of e-mails he had exchanged with Schlesinger and Rell.

Beecher, in his e-mail to the governor, said he was "able to document a long history of improper relationships between Connecticut Republicans and Connecticut casinos" and described Schlesinger's candidacy as "a train wreck in progress."

He said Scheslinger had called him and said he plays blackjack in casinos under phony names because, apart from using the pseudonyms to take advantage of "comped" items like free rooms and meals, "he is a card counter and wants to avoid detection."

Beecher, who after retiring from the state police worked as an investigator for the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission before the tribe eliminated his position in 2004, wrote that Schlesinger "is no longer permitted" at Mohegan Sun because of his card counting.

He also said Schlesinger had volunteered that he lost "at least $50,000" at Foxwoods Resort Casino.

...

"I have no idea what he's talking about," Schlesinger added. "I rarely go to casinos anymore because I don't have the time. The last time I went was before I ran for office to meet a friend from Florida on vacation in Las Vegas. I've not been dying to go to a casino. Last year, there were maybe three or four times I went to a casino."(Michak)

Make of it what you will. There is/was supposed to be some sort of press conference involving Schlesinger today--we'll let you know more as we find it out.

Source

Michak, Don. "GOP Senate nominee says he won't quit race." Journal-Inquirer 13 July, 2006.

Amann Aide Suspended

Republicans, Citing Moody, Call for Inquiry

An aide to one of the state's top Democrats has landed in trouble over a possible ethics violation:

House Speaker James Amann has suspended a top aide for using the Capitol's internal mail system to send political invitations that mistakenly ended up in the hands of Republicans.

Amann suspended Kelly Kirkley-Bey, the daughter of a deputy House speaker, for two weeks without pay Tuesday after two Republican legislators inadvertently received complimentary invitations to Amann's re-election fundraiser via inter-office mail at the state Capitol complex. The state delivery system is designed for governmental, rather than political, mail. (Keating)

Republicans, still smarting from the wounds inflicted upon them by the Lisa Moody hearings, are calling for hearings of their own.

Rep. Robert Farr, a member of the legislative committee holding the Moody hearings, said the Democrat-controlled committee should summon Kirkley-Bey to answer questions about the fund-raiser planned for July 20 at a restaurant in Amann's hometown of Milford.

"Let's get her in here and Amann's staff and talk about how they raise money," said Farr, a West Hartford Republican who is running for attorney general. "If the Democrats feel they have a conflict, Republicans can run the hearing. We'll be fair. ... If they're going to insist on having hearings on Republican issues, then we should have hearings on Democratic issues." (Keating)

Democrats responded by saying that Kirkley-Bey didn't violate election law, so no hearings are necessary or possible.

What bugs me here is that this only came to light because Kirkley-Bey mistakenly sent a few emails to Republicans, who pounced on her. What else is going on that we don't know about?

On the face of it, this seems like a violation that isn't quite as bad as Moody's original infraction. But I can't blame the Republicans for being angry.

Update: An anonymous posted has pointed out the CT News Junkie report that Kirkley-Bey has been in ethics and legal trouble before. Amann apparently gave her a warning about this sort of behavior when he hired her.

Source

Keating, Christopher. "Amann Suspends Top Aide For Letter." Hartford Courant 13 July, 2006.

Ruling: Civil Unions Not Discriminatory

A ruling today by a superior court judge in New Haven has gone against eight gay couples who say that the state's civil union law is harmful and discriminatory:

"Civil union and marriage in Connecticut now share the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law," Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman in New Haven wrote. "The Connecticut Constitution requires that there be equal protection and due process of law, not that there be equivalent nomenclature for such protection and process." (AP)

The matter will be appealed to the state supreme court.

Source

"Judge Rules Gay Couples Not Harmed By Civil Unions Law." Associated Press 12 July, 2006.