[Interior of a bus. The windows are blacked out. A clearly nervous reporter with a British accent speaks quietly into the camera]
REPORTER: Day three. We aren’t sure where we’re going. The campaign has thus far refused to give any information regarding our whereabouts or our eventual destination, for fear of alerting the enemy to our presence.
STAFFER [in army fatigues]: Keep it down!
REPORTER: We’ve also been told to make as little noise as possible. Why this is, I don’t know. Rules are quite strict. Reporters found posting to the internet are assumed to be a security risk, and are let off the bus wherever it happens to be at the moment. I’ve heard terrible stories about reporters lost for weeks in the wilds of Kent or Putnam. Chilling. All I can tell you at this moment is that we’re moving, and we’ve been moving for some time.
[The bus screeches to a halt]
STAFFER: Okay, everybody out! Move, move, move!
REPORTER: This is it. Let’s go.
[There is a general scramble as reporters, staffers and others exit the bus. The camera takes a confused shot of the bus, which is painted to look like a school bus. The words “Not Joe Lieberman’s Bus” are painted on the side]
STAFFER: Go! Go! Everybody inside!
[Camera pans to reveal Rosie’s Diner, a wonderfully greasy establishment in Groton. Joe Lieberman, flanked by security, leaps out of the bus and heads for the diner.]
STAFFER: Too late! Look!
[The “Kiss Float” truck comes screeching around the corner.]
BLOGGER: [Yelling over a megaphone] Senator, we’d like to ask you a few questions--
STAFFER: Sh-[bleep]! Inside! Now!
[Another staffer stumbles and falls]
OTHER STAFFER: Help!
STAFFER: Leave him! He’s finished!
[Everyone races for the diner. Six goons surround Lieberman and hustle him inside. The REPORTER and his camera crew follow just behind. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief. Staffers collapse into empty diner seats.]
REPORTER: That was close.
[Cut to haggard STAFFERS sitting in a booth, smoking cigarettes]
STAFFER: They always know. I don’t know how they do it. There’s gotta be a leak or something, someone’s gotta be a spy. [He starts twitching] Everybody’s a spy…
STAFFER #2: I got a wife and kids back in California. What I wouldn’t give to be back there. Damn this campaign. Damn Connecticut.
STAFFER #3: [Identity blacked out] Look, man, I can’t talk openly. But you know, they said we’d be greeted as representatives of a popular incumbent. They said it would be easy, we’d be home by August. They didn’t say nothin’ about this sh-[bleep]. It’s total bull. The people here hate us.
STAFFER #4: [Examines greasy french fries] Food’s good, though.
[Cut to LIEBERMAN making the rounds in the diner. Two old men, a sailor and Zippy the Pinhead sit at the counter, sipping coffee]
REPORTER: The Senator is about to try to make contact with the locals. This can be a touchy business.
LIEBERMAN: Hi, how are you… hi, I’m Joe Lieberman… Hi…
OLD MAN #1: Huh? Whazzat? Tryin’ to read the paper. Go ‘way.
LIEBERMAN: Hi, I’m Joe Lieberman… hope I have your vote! Heh, heh.
OLD MAN #2: I’m a Republican. But I’d vote for you if I could. You’re great. Not like those other Democrats. Damn Democrats. Always raising taxes! Making poor Bill O’Reilly look bad! [Starts to boil over with insane rage] Always forcing pretty young women to get abortions! Making Osama bin Laden a national hero! I hate ‘em! I hate ‘em all! [Calms down] Except you.
LIEBERMAN: Ah. Thanks. Uh. [Moves on]
REPORTER: This has so far not gone well. This has sadly been typical of diner stops. We’ll see how he does with the last two.
SAILOR: Hi.
LIEBERMAN: A member of our nation’s proud military, I see. Good for you! You know, I saved that sub base you work at.
SAILOR: Yeah, thanks. More cold winters in Connecticut. Look, maybe you can answer a question.
LIEBERMAN: Sure.
SAILOR: It’s about the war—
LIEBERMAN: Well, that’s great. Nice to meet you! [He moves on quickly]
[He comes to the last customer—who is Zippy the Pinhead]
LIEBERMAN: Uh. Hi.
ZIPPY: Sorry. I was wrestling with th’ meaning of modern life, as expressed by this Danish.
LIEBERMAN: Never mind.
REPORTER: Some days on the campaign trail are better than others. In the last establishment, he convinced three old ladies that Ned Lamont was some kind of demon from the spirit world. That was an all-too-rare success, though. Morale is low, as staffers wonder just what their mission is, and if they’ll ever be able to carry it out.
STAFFER: Okay, let’s move! The enemy is outside! We have to clear a path to the bus! Let’s go, move!
[Everybody springs into action]
REPORTER: And we’re left to wonder if we’ll survive it, at all. Reporting from somewhere in Connecticut, for BBC News.
[Fade out]
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
If a Campaign Fell Apart and No One was Around to Hear...
According to LamontBlog, no one is showing up for Lieberman's farewell "Tomorrow" tour. Actually, based on several reports from blogs and newspapers I've read, this is quite true. Lieberman isn't encountering big crowds, or attracting hordes of cheering supporters to his rallies.
The New Haven Independent reports on a rally in New Haven which seems to be about par for the course:
This could be because the Lieberman campaign is operating theDiners of Connecticut "Tomorrow" tour under an odd cloud of secrecy. They aren't posting the information on Lieberman's official website. Most campaigns have an extensive events section on their sites, because, well, they'd like people to attend their events. Lieberman's campaign has avoided doing this, probably because they're desperately hoping that those guys with the truck won't show up (they do anyway).
In fact, the schedule isn't even released to the media until the day before. Usually there is less than 24 hours' notice. The schedule rarely gets published in local or state papers, so even if Lieberman supporters who weren't tipped off ahead of time wanted to go to these events, they would have a difficult time finding out where and when they were happening.
It's a bizarre way to run a tour that is supposed to be Lieberman's final burst of sustained campaigning. This tour is supposed to get him back in the race. If anything, it's going out of its way to try to avoid the primary altogether.
Which may be the point. The Lieberman campaign may just be trying to get past August 8th, win or lose, so they can concentrate on the general election. Depending on how bad the polls are for them (we'll see tomorrow when Quinnipiac releases it's latest), a primary victory may be out of the question anyway. Petition gathering has quietly been stepping up, and although the campaign denies it, preparations for an independent run must be underway.
In any case, the bus tour will continue today in southern Connecticut. If you want Lieberman's schedule, ConnecticutBLOG has graciously posted it for you.
Source
Bass, Paul. "Lieberman 'Rallies' Dixwell." New Haven Independent 31 July, 2006.
The New Haven Independent reports on a rally in New Haven which seems to be about par for the course:
Joe Lieberman failed to attract even a dozen genuine neighborhood supporters to an anemic reelection campaign rally in his New Haven hometown's Dixwell section Monday. (Bass
This could be because the Lieberman campaign is operating the
In fact, the schedule isn't even released to the media until the day before. Usually there is less than 24 hours' notice. The schedule rarely gets published in local or state papers, so even if Lieberman supporters who weren't tipped off ahead of time wanted to go to these events, they would have a difficult time finding out where and when they were happening.
It's a bizarre way to run a tour that is supposed to be Lieberman's final burst of sustained campaigning. This tour is supposed to get him back in the race. If anything, it's going out of its way to try to avoid the primary altogether.
Which may be the point. The Lieberman campaign may just be trying to get past August 8th, win or lose, so they can concentrate on the general election. Depending on how bad the polls are for them (we'll see tomorrow when Quinnipiac releases it's latest), a primary victory may be out of the question anyway. Petition gathering has quietly been stepping up, and although the campaign denies it, preparations for an independent run must be underway.
In any case, the bus tour will continue today in southern Connecticut. If you want Lieberman's schedule, ConnecticutBLOG has graciously posted it for you.
Source
Bass, Paul. "Lieberman 'Rallies' Dixwell." New Haven Independent 31 July, 2006.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
U.S. Senate Endorsement
We have made our U.S. Senate endorsement: Ned Lamont.
How this works: The team members of the site voted on the candidate they supported, and the candidate with more support was endorsed. An endorsement and a dissent were written and posted.
Why we're doing this: Endorsing candidates allows us to express our opinion on the candidates. Since we have such a wide variety of opinion among team members and readers, we also thought it was important to publish a dissent from the endorsement.
Links:
Yestersday: Gubernatorial Endorsement
How this works: The team members of the site voted on the candidate they supported, and the candidate with more support was endorsed. An endorsement and a dissent were written and posted.
Why we're doing this: Endorsing candidates allows us to express our opinion on the candidates. Since we have such a wide variety of opinion among team members and readers, we also thought it was important to publish a dissent from the endorsement.
Links:
Yestersday: Gubernatorial Endorsement
Lamont for Change
On August 8th, all eyes will be on Connecticut, to see if political neophyte Ned Lamont can knock off a three-term incumbent senator, who in 2000 was his party’s nominee for vice president.
Some are calling this a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Others liken it to a purge by liberals against a good and decent man. In the end, though, this fight is over which man Connecticut voters believe deserves the post more. In short—should Connecticut stick with a loyal, if flawed, servant, or take a chance on someone new?
We need to take the chance.
The list of Democratic complaints against Sen. Lieberman is a long one, but this campaign has from the start been propelled by one major issue: the war in Iraq. I disagree with Mr. Lamont’s recommendation that we bring troops home right away, but I also believe that doing nothing, and allowing the current state of affairs to continue, is by far the worst thing we could do. A new perspective is needed.
Much has been made of Sen. Lieberman’s vaunted bipartisanship, and his willingness to compromise with and support Republicans even at the expense of his own party. This can be a virtue, as many have pointed out. But moderation and bipartisanship can very easily slip into the appeasement of extremism and the stubborn endorsement of dysfunction. On issues like the handling of the Iraq War, the troubling expansion of executive authority and the even more troubling failures of the Republican majority to govern effectively through several crises, a “bipartisanship” that undermines his own party’s attempts to keep the majority honest rather than strengthening ties between both sides is disastrous. In all things, there should be moderation—moderation itself included. Sen. Lieberman doesn’t seem to realize this.
Sen. Lieberman’s conduct during this campaign has also been disappointing, and speaks to a side of his character we don’t often see. From all accounts, he is a good and decent man. But he has been defensive and prickly when challenged, he has largely avoided the issue of Iraq, and his campaign has viciously attacked his opponent on the most insubstantial of grounds, while dismissing all charges made against him as those of a tiny minority. His refusal to engage the serious questions that voters have about his record on Iraq (which he turns aside by encouraging voters to look at the rest of his record, instead), and above all his decision to run as an independent should he lose the primary seems to indicate that the concerns of Connecticut Democrats interests him less than his own desire to stay in office. This is undemocratic.
Lamont is inexperienced, this is true. His inexperience has become less pronounced as he has grown as a candidate, but it is still there. It will be his biggest handicap as a senator, should he make it that far, but it will be a handicap shared by many others if the course of this election year holds true. It shouldn’t be a reason to vote against him. The idea of keeping a candidate in office just because he or she is experienced, despite glaring flaws, leads us into the trap of serial, unwarranted incumbency. This is also undemocratic.
Ned Lamont has been a welcome change from Sen. Lieberman. On many issues, he is certainly more liberal than Lieberman, but he speaks to the concerns that Democrats from all walks of life have: health care, taxes, the economy and, above all, the Iraq War. He is personable, likable, and surprisingly unpretentious.
Sen. Lieberman has failed to realize that, if he wants to win the support of voters, he needs to do more than shake their hands in a diner. He needs to listen to them—and to understand them. Lamont listens, and understands.
Voters desperately want change, this year. We can’t keep doing things the same way in Washington. Lieberman, who seems insulated and out-of-touch, doesn’t realize that. Lamont, on the other hand, embraces it. This, above all other reasons, is why we endorse Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate nomination.
Some are calling this a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Others liken it to a purge by liberals against a good and decent man. In the end, though, this fight is over which man Connecticut voters believe deserves the post more. In short—should Connecticut stick with a loyal, if flawed, servant, or take a chance on someone new?
We need to take the chance.
The list of Democratic complaints against Sen. Lieberman is a long one, but this campaign has from the start been propelled by one major issue: the war in Iraq. I disagree with Mr. Lamont’s recommendation that we bring troops home right away, but I also believe that doing nothing, and allowing the current state of affairs to continue, is by far the worst thing we could do. A new perspective is needed.
Much has been made of Sen. Lieberman’s vaunted bipartisanship, and his willingness to compromise with and support Republicans even at the expense of his own party. This can be a virtue, as many have pointed out. But moderation and bipartisanship can very easily slip into the appeasement of extremism and the stubborn endorsement of dysfunction. On issues like the handling of the Iraq War, the troubling expansion of executive authority and the even more troubling failures of the Republican majority to govern effectively through several crises, a “bipartisanship” that undermines his own party’s attempts to keep the majority honest rather than strengthening ties between both sides is disastrous. In all things, there should be moderation—moderation itself included. Sen. Lieberman doesn’t seem to realize this.
Sen. Lieberman’s conduct during this campaign has also been disappointing, and speaks to a side of his character we don’t often see. From all accounts, he is a good and decent man. But he has been defensive and prickly when challenged, he has largely avoided the issue of Iraq, and his campaign has viciously attacked his opponent on the most insubstantial of grounds, while dismissing all charges made against him as those of a tiny minority. His refusal to engage the serious questions that voters have about his record on Iraq (which he turns aside by encouraging voters to look at the rest of his record, instead), and above all his decision to run as an independent should he lose the primary seems to indicate that the concerns of Connecticut Democrats interests him less than his own desire to stay in office. This is undemocratic.
Lamont is inexperienced, this is true. His inexperience has become less pronounced as he has grown as a candidate, but it is still there. It will be his biggest handicap as a senator, should he make it that far, but it will be a handicap shared by many others if the course of this election year holds true. It shouldn’t be a reason to vote against him. The idea of keeping a candidate in office just because he or she is experienced, despite glaring flaws, leads us into the trap of serial, unwarranted incumbency. This is also undemocratic.
Ned Lamont has been a welcome change from Sen. Lieberman. On many issues, he is certainly more liberal than Lieberman, but he speaks to the concerns that Democrats from all walks of life have: health care, taxes, the economy and, above all, the Iraq War. He is personable, likable, and surprisingly unpretentious.
Sen. Lieberman has failed to realize that, if he wants to win the support of voters, he needs to do more than shake their hands in a diner. He needs to listen to them—and to understand them. Lamont listens, and understands.
Voters desperately want change, this year. We can’t keep doing things the same way in Washington. Lieberman, who seems insulated and out-of-touch, doesn’t realize that. Lamont, on the other hand, embraces it. This, above all other reasons, is why we endorse Ned Lamont for the U.S. Senate nomination.
Lamont Endorsement Concurrence
(Note: This was written by Gabe as a compliment to the Lamont endorsement)
While I agree with the sentiments expressed in the main endorsement, I would like to add a few thoughts on three issues not mentioned above that have helped form my view that Ned Lamont would best represent Connecticut Democrats in the general election. Generally, there is a time for bipartisanship and a time to stick to partisan guns; in my opinion, Senator Lieberman too often sees the former and rarely sees the latter.
First, on the bankruptcy bill, regular readers are well aware of my belief that this legislation will ultimately be known as a debacle of Hidenberg-esqe proportions (for a good review of the reasons why, please see Professor Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Talking Points Memo blog). Senator Lieberman, after voting with the Republican majority to allow the bill to come to a vote (the crucial vote in this case as a majority was clear but a 60 vote super-majority was not), voted against the bill and came home with the message that he had fought the Republican Bankruptcy Bill. In this case, the Senator’s “moderation” in not supporting a filibuster will ultimately hurt many of Connecticut’s families when they need help the most. And savvy Connecticut voters are smart enough to be insulted by the Senator’s “I voted against the bill after I voted for it” campaign trickery. Mr. Lamont would have fought against the bankruptcy bill from beginning to end.
On Social Security, while I received a door-hanger yesterday from the Lieberman campaign stating that the Senator had stopped “Bush’s disastrous plan to privatize Social Security”, the reality is that Senator Lieberman equivocated on the Bush’s Social Security phase-out plan, made noises about working with the Republicans on it, and only announced that he was against it when it was clear that the plan was dead. Again, Connecticut voters are not as “low-information” as the Lieberman campaign seems to want us to be. Mr. Lamont is strongly against the “privatization” of Social Security.
Finally, on reproductive privacy issues, the Senator has taken a recent position that renders my support in the primary impossible. He displayed a shocking willingness to place the burden of finding emergency Plan B medication on rape victims rather than on private hospitals that receive public funding. In stating, “In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital”, he displayed a callous disregard for the plight of rape victims who want to prevent becoming impregnated by their rapists. Mr. Lamont is in favor of requiring all hospitals that receive public funds to disperse emergency prescriptions of Plan B to rape victims.
On each of these issues, Senator Lieberman had a chance to stand for core democratic principles: helping people enduring a perilous economic situation is more important than enriching the banking and credit card industries, standing proud in protecting the most successful social program in our country’s history in Social Security, and protecting rape victims from having to suffer the indignity of becoming impregnated by their rapist against their will. On each issue (and it is important to note in response to the Lieberman campaign’s claim that Mr. Lamont is running only on opposition to the Iraq war that these are all issues separate from Iraq), Mr. Lieberman passed up that chance where Mr. Lamont would not have. It is for these reasons that I support Ned Lamont in the Democratic Primary.
While I agree with the sentiments expressed in the main endorsement, I would like to add a few thoughts on three issues not mentioned above that have helped form my view that Ned Lamont would best represent Connecticut Democrats in the general election. Generally, there is a time for bipartisanship and a time to stick to partisan guns; in my opinion, Senator Lieberman too often sees the former and rarely sees the latter.
First, on the bankruptcy bill, regular readers are well aware of my belief that this legislation will ultimately be known as a debacle of Hidenberg-esqe proportions (for a good review of the reasons why, please see Professor Elizabeth Warren’s work on the Talking Points Memo blog). Senator Lieberman, after voting with the Republican majority to allow the bill to come to a vote (the crucial vote in this case as a majority was clear but a 60 vote super-majority was not), voted against the bill and came home with the message that he had fought the Republican Bankruptcy Bill. In this case, the Senator’s “moderation” in not supporting a filibuster will ultimately hurt many of Connecticut’s families when they need help the most. And savvy Connecticut voters are smart enough to be insulted by the Senator’s “I voted against the bill after I voted for it” campaign trickery. Mr. Lamont would have fought against the bankruptcy bill from beginning to end.
On Social Security, while I received a door-hanger yesterday from the Lieberman campaign stating that the Senator had stopped “Bush’s disastrous plan to privatize Social Security”, the reality is that Senator Lieberman equivocated on the Bush’s Social Security phase-out plan, made noises about working with the Republicans on it, and only announced that he was against it when it was clear that the plan was dead. Again, Connecticut voters are not as “low-information” as the Lieberman campaign seems to want us to be. Mr. Lamont is strongly against the “privatization” of Social Security.
Finally, on reproductive privacy issues, the Senator has taken a recent position that renders my support in the primary impossible. He displayed a shocking willingness to place the burden of finding emergency Plan B medication on rape victims rather than on private hospitals that receive public funding. In stating, “In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital”, he displayed a callous disregard for the plight of rape victims who want to prevent becoming impregnated by their rapists. Mr. Lamont is in favor of requiring all hospitals that receive public funds to disperse emergency prescriptions of Plan B to rape victims.
On each of these issues, Senator Lieberman had a chance to stand for core democratic principles: helping people enduring a perilous economic situation is more important than enriching the banking and credit card industries, standing proud in protecting the most successful social program in our country’s history in Social Security, and protecting rape victims from having to suffer the indignity of becoming impregnated by their rapist against their will. On each issue (and it is important to note in response to the Lieberman campaign’s claim that Mr. Lamont is running only on opposition to the Iraq war that these are all issues separate from Iraq), Mr. Lieberman passed up that chance where Mr. Lamont would not have. It is for these reasons that I support Ned Lamont in the Democratic Primary.
A Dissenting Opinion
If the Pentagon can use football analogies to describe the bureaucratic give and take of administration then it is left for the Senate to be described in terms of baseball analogies. In many ways Connecticut’s relationship with Joe Lieberman is in its 9th inning. In 2000, when Lieberman was the Vice Presidential Candidate and later in 2004, when Lieberman ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Lieberman was in baseball parlance, looking for a trade. The national political stage is the big show, and on it Lieberman has opened himself up to criticisms of being too much of anything but a true Democrat.
But the real question for Democrats to ask is not whether Lieberman is a purer bluer Democrat than the next guy, but whether a lifetime of service to the state can be tossed out because of post game comments that seem to provide “appeasement” to the enemy, in political terms the Bush administration.
And like a baseball game, the Senate, a body of only 100 players, there is no single Senator that drives policy single-handedly. It’s a body of deliberation, of give and take and of compromise. Where the unruly House can vote on party lines despite misgivings on any position, the Senate has held itself to a higher standard. The Senate is the check to the impetuous House. And like any good baseball team, there are roles to be played in the Senate that require special skills and hard work in order to win the game.
Under this reality, Senator Ted Kennedy can broker a deal with the Bush administration and push horrible legislation such as NCLB. And Senator Diane Feinstein can vote for a Medicare Bill that is also horrible legislation. But for Joe Lieberman, his comments in support of the Iraq war are deemed a betrayal to the Democratic party.
It wasn’t always so. In 1998, when the House Republicans were screaming for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, it was the deliberative Senate that checked the partisan fury. Bill Clinton would have been impeached had it not been for Joe Lieberman, stepping into the breach, and providing the very public moral scolding that diffused the momentum of the rancor amongst his colleagues.
The NYT has insisted that this race is not about resumes. But it is. In its endorsement of Ned Lamont, the NYT had one sentence to say about Lamont. The unfailing truth is that if Ned Lamont had been a Senator these past 6 years, nothing would be different. We’d still be mired in Iraq, Bush would still be appointing hacks to federal agencies, and the vote totals in the Senate would still reflect the reality of a Republican majority.
It was just last year when the Republicans under Bill Frist were threatening the so-called nuclear option, over the decision that some within the Democratic caucus wanted to stop Bush's high court appointments. Frist’s reaction was to threaten to change the Senate rules to permanently bar the use of filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. Lieberman and other moderate Democrats then worked a compromise, with some more tempered Republicans, the gang of 14, that protected the right of the minority to filibuster court nominees in the future in extreme circumstances.
But back to Iraq. The war against the war, was fought and lost in 2003 and then again in 2004. Bush was re-elected, and gained stronger majorities in Congress. Instead of focusing on the defeat of Republicans Connecticut Democrats have put in office, the anger against the Bush administration has been pushed onto Lieberman, not because of his votes, but because of what he’s said in punditry land. Never mind that Lieberman’s position to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein dates to 1998, before Bush took office. In 1998, he co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, which passed unanimously in the Senate, and made regime change the official policy of the Clinton administration.
Washing our hands of Iraq may sound appealing as a campaign tactic, but that debate revolves around our politics, and not about what is good for Iraq. And this thinking is so short term. Just as the Clinton administration understood the need for a stabilizing force to prevent Bosnia from igniting an extremist breeding ground of terrorists, so we must look at Iraq under the pragmatists eye of what could go more terribly wrong were we to abandon the country to Shiite fundamentalists.
To abandon Lieberman because he is willing to have this debate is an injustice to the ideals of a democracy. If nothing else, there has been too little debate about Iraq, and to stifle the very thing that a deliberative democracy is known for harkens another era in another sea change of armed conflict.
Lamont campaigns solely on his one note on his one issue, that he is not Joe Lieberman. But being principled despite the prevailing election winds is what marks Lieberman as the most JFK style Democrat of politicians. As John F. Kennedy wrote in Profiles In Courage, “In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience - the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men - each man must decide for himself the course he will follow."
For these reasons we dissent with the majority and support Joe Lieberman.
But the real question for Democrats to ask is not whether Lieberman is a purer bluer Democrat than the next guy, but whether a lifetime of service to the state can be tossed out because of post game comments that seem to provide “appeasement” to the enemy, in political terms the Bush administration.
And like a baseball game, the Senate, a body of only 100 players, there is no single Senator that drives policy single-handedly. It’s a body of deliberation, of give and take and of compromise. Where the unruly House can vote on party lines despite misgivings on any position, the Senate has held itself to a higher standard. The Senate is the check to the impetuous House. And like any good baseball team, there are roles to be played in the Senate that require special skills and hard work in order to win the game.
Under this reality, Senator Ted Kennedy can broker a deal with the Bush administration and push horrible legislation such as NCLB. And Senator Diane Feinstein can vote for a Medicare Bill that is also horrible legislation. But for Joe Lieberman, his comments in support of the Iraq war are deemed a betrayal to the Democratic party.
It wasn’t always so. In 1998, when the House Republicans were screaming for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, it was the deliberative Senate that checked the partisan fury. Bill Clinton would have been impeached had it not been for Joe Lieberman, stepping into the breach, and providing the very public moral scolding that diffused the momentum of the rancor amongst his colleagues.
The NYT has insisted that this race is not about resumes. But it is. In its endorsement of Ned Lamont, the NYT had one sentence to say about Lamont. The unfailing truth is that if Ned Lamont had been a Senator these past 6 years, nothing would be different. We’d still be mired in Iraq, Bush would still be appointing hacks to federal agencies, and the vote totals in the Senate would still reflect the reality of a Republican majority.
It was just last year when the Republicans under Bill Frist were threatening the so-called nuclear option, over the decision that some within the Democratic caucus wanted to stop Bush's high court appointments. Frist’s reaction was to threaten to change the Senate rules to permanently bar the use of filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. Lieberman and other moderate Democrats then worked a compromise, with some more tempered Republicans, the gang of 14, that protected the right of the minority to filibuster court nominees in the future in extreme circumstances.
But back to Iraq. The war against the war, was fought and lost in 2003 and then again in 2004. Bush was re-elected, and gained stronger majorities in Congress. Instead of focusing on the defeat of Republicans Connecticut Democrats have put in office, the anger against the Bush administration has been pushed onto Lieberman, not because of his votes, but because of what he’s said in punditry land. Never mind that Lieberman’s position to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein dates to 1998, before Bush took office. In 1998, he co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, which passed unanimously in the Senate, and made regime change the official policy of the Clinton administration.
Washing our hands of Iraq may sound appealing as a campaign tactic, but that debate revolves around our politics, and not about what is good for Iraq. And this thinking is so short term. Just as the Clinton administration understood the need for a stabilizing force to prevent Bosnia from igniting an extremist breeding ground of terrorists, so we must look at Iraq under the pragmatists eye of what could go more terribly wrong were we to abandon the country to Shiite fundamentalists.
To abandon Lieberman because he is willing to have this debate is an injustice to the ideals of a democracy. If nothing else, there has been too little debate about Iraq, and to stifle the very thing that a deliberative democracy is known for harkens another era in another sea change of armed conflict.
Lamont campaigns solely on his one note on his one issue, that he is not Joe Lieberman. But being principled despite the prevailing election winds is what marks Lieberman as the most JFK style Democrat of politicians. As John F. Kennedy wrote in Profiles In Courage, “In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience - the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men - each man must decide for himself the course he will follow."
For these reasons we dissent with the majority and support Joe Lieberman.
"George Bush and Joe Lieberman Are in a Ménage à Trois With America"
Lamont on the Colbert Report. Go watch.
Also, Dionne: Lieberman = Javitz? Uh oh.
Source:
E.J. Dionne, Hartford Courant, Rightward Trend Reverses, August 1, 2006.
Also, Dionne: Lieberman = Javitz? Uh oh.
Lieberman's core problem was not even his support for the war. It was his eagerness to challenge the legitimacy of fellow Democrats who have called attention to the administration's mistakes. Lieberman, confident of Democratic support, seemed to crave the affection of Republicans most of all.
Source:
E.J. Dionne, Hartford Courant, Rightward Trend Reverses, August 1, 2006.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Creating a Ground Game From Scratch in Eight Days? Priceless.
Or about $240,000 per day. Whatever.
Thats a nice chunk of change. Imagine how much more effective it would be if it wasn't created from whole cloth about 10 hours ago, didn't depend on a strategy from another state, and involved people who were passionate about the candidate instead of about the 60 bucks. In other words, kind of like Ned Lamont's ground campaign.
Oh, and:
(emphasis added)
Sweet. Maybe if she were a little younger...
Before the Anonymice come out in force in the Comments to claim that Lamont is buying the election, he is still being outspent 2 to 1. And he isn't picking up a hundred large a day from out of state corporate donors. And he isn't threatining to use a Millionaires' Amendment to increase the amount those donors can give to $12,600 (although I am still pretty sure he can't do that).
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Sources:
Mary E. O’Leary, New Haven Register, Lieberman tries a 'younger' pitch, July 31, 2006.
David Lightman, Hartford Courant, Big List Of Big Givers Bolsters Lieberman, July 29, 2006.
Smith said they now have between 200 and 300 volunteers and paid staff, to canvass daily. Democratic workers in New Haven said the campaign told them it hopes to hire up to 4,000 workers by Election Day.
...
[New Haven Alderwoman Jacqueline James, D-3,] estimated 56 young people were hired out of about 500 people who showed up, attracted by the $60 a day fee, or about $800 for the duration.
Thats a nice chunk of change. Imagine how much more effective it would be if it wasn't created from whole cloth about 10 hours ago, didn't depend on a strategy from another state, and involved people who were passionate about the candidate instead of about the 60 bucks. In other words, kind of like Ned Lamont's ground campaign.
Oh, and:
She said LGS does not know the demographics of the city at all. James suggested that they match inexperienced teens with more savvy workers, but this was rejected.
"They kept saying this is how we do it in New Jersey. I kept telling them, ‘This is not New Jersey,’" said James, who no longer volunteers for Lieberman.
(emphasis added)
Sweet. Maybe if she were a little younger...
Before the Anonymice come out in force in the Comments to claim that Lamont is buying the election, he is still being outspent 2 to 1. And he isn't picking up a hundred large a day from out of state corporate donors. And he isn't threatining to use a Millionaires' Amendment to increase the amount those donors can give to $12,600 (although I am still pretty sure he can't do that).
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Sources:
Mary E. O’Leary, New Haven Register, Lieberman tries a 'younger' pitch, July 31, 2006.
David Lightman, Hartford Courant, Big List Of Big Givers Bolsters Lieberman, July 29, 2006.
More Senate Campaign News
According to the official Lamont blog, Joe Lieberman had agreed to debate Ned Lamont this Sunday on WTNH with Mark Davis, but then backed out.
Fortunately, I have a visual of what I believe the debate would have looked like. I leave it to you to determine which is which.
Also, the Lieberman campaign has been distributing racially charged fliers in and around black churches.
Voters are also switching from unaffiliated to Democrat in droves. I'm not sure who that's good for.
One more week to go, folks.
Fortunately, I have a visual of what I believe the debate would have looked like. I leave it to you to determine which is which.
Also, the Lieberman campaign has been distributing racially charged fliers in and around black churches.
Voters are also switching from unaffiliated to Democrat in droves. I'm not sure who that's good for.
One more week to go, folks.
Pictures from the Campaign Trail
Frank Gerrantana sends us these pictures from the taping of a Lamont commercial in New Britain this weekend:
Do you have pictures of the closing days of the primary campaign? Send them in! Click on "about" for my email address.
Do you have pictures of the closing days of the primary campaign? Send them in! Click on "about" for my email address.
Lamont Campaign Snafu Again
Wasn't it just a few short weeks ago that the Lamont campaign suffered the embarrassment of failing to file FEC paperwork correctly? Why, yes, and they do it again. Here's the link to the FEC letter. OF course it was the Lieberman staff that sent out a press release on the subject, so it goes without saying that their position is that FEC SLAMS LAMONT FOR HIDING NAMES OF PAID STAFF. They also remind us that Lamont has failed to provide the past 5 years in income tax returns. Could it be that some not so Liberal expense show up in itemized schedules? Who knows. Perhaps time to lay off the Guinness, Lamont staff.
Gubernatorial Endorsement
We've made our choice for the Democratic nomination for governor: Dan Malloy.
How this works: The team members of the site voted on the candidate they supported, and the candidate with more support was endorsed. An endorsement and a dissent were written and posted.
Why we're doing this: Endorsing candidates allows us to express our opinion on the candidates. Since we have such a wide variety of opinion among team members and readers, we also thought it was important to publish a dissent from the endorsement.
Tomorrow: Our U.S. Senate endorsement.
Links:
Malloy: A Slightly Better Choice
DeStefano Dissent
How this works: The team members of the site voted on the candidate they supported, and the candidate with more support was endorsed. An endorsement and a dissent were written and posted.
Why we're doing this: Endorsing candidates allows us to express our opinion on the candidates. Since we have such a wide variety of opinion among team members and readers, we also thought it was important to publish a dissent from the endorsement.
Tomorrow: Our U.S. Senate endorsement.
Links:
Malloy: A Slightly Better Choice
DeStefano Dissent
Malloy: A Slightly Better Choice
It must be frustrating to be either Dan Malloy or John DeStefano. The race for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination has been going on for something like two years, now, and the media consensus that has developed boils down to “Flip a coin.” Democrats who go to the polls on August 8th will almost certainly know whether they’re going to vote for Lieberman or Lamont. They’ve probably known for months. The choice there is pretty clear. It’s less so with DeStefano and Malloy.
Each man offers a universal health care scheme. Each promises a better transportation plan, and property tax relief. Each says he wants to turn Connecticut’s lackluster economy around, and each points to the record in his city as proof that he can do just that.
But Dan Malloy has done a better job of communicating his message, and this is a major part of what makes him the superior candidate.
Malloy is the better public speaker: he tends to favor concise bluntness over the more wordy style of his rival. DeStefano likes to take time to explain his positions and the theories behind them, a noble effort which often gets bogged down or wanders off onto other paths.
Malloy’s proposals also seem a little more concrete than DeStefano’s. Malloy’s plans are usually richly detailed and often more realistic than DeStefano’s, which seem sparse by comparison. Malloy’s ideas are also more business-friendly, which is desperately important to a state that is losing jobs. Lastly, Malloy’s plan to uncouple property taxes from education seems a lot clearer than DeStefano’s, and it will take clear leadership to accomplish that worthy goal. The unintended consequences of policy have often been an afterthought in the gubernatorial race, but Malloy has often spoken to the practice of measuring results and examining policy enacted. It is clear that under Malloy, the overarching question of "Can it work better?" would be a guiding principle.
John DeStefano is a good man with a lot of very bright ideas, but many of his plans seem to lack a good dose of realism. One of the major problems with DeStefano’s proposals is an over-reliance on taxing the wealthy, and, in some cases, a lack of specific plans for financing his proposals. His plan to establish pay equity between men and women would result in the creation of a huge, unmanageable bureaucracy that would poke into the books and practices of every single business in Connecticut. His willingness to let the details of funding some of his ideas be taken care of later is also unsettling.
DeStefano also seems to make poor political decisions. For example, his comment that Jodi Rell’s plan for combating urban violence was like that of a 1950s Mississippi governor was absolutely over-the-top, and his strange willingness to roll back things like mandatory hospital stays post-childbirth and insurance coverage for birth control as part of his health care plan has left him desperately trying to reclaim the votes of women. Also, his unwillingness to return campaign money raised from contractors should campaign finance reform pass in time for the 2006 election was foolish, at best.
Malloy, by contrast, is a far more credible candidate who seems less prone to missteps. His record in Stamford is slightly more impressive than DeStefano’s in New Haven, although it’s difficult to compare the two cities. Stamford is one of the safest cities in the nation, as Malloy is fond of saying. New Haven has also made great strides under DeStefano, but Stamford’s example is the better one.
Most importantly to Democrats, Malloy has a better shot at giving Jodi Rell a run for her money in November. Rell is aware of this: it’s why she picked a running mate from Malloy’s city of Stamford. A contest between DeStefano and Rell would end up being more about DeStefano than Rell’s record or Connecticut’s future, which would be a shame. A race between Malloy and Rell would still offer clear distinctions, as well as a lively debate over the future of the state.
There are still problems with Malloy. His lack of union support may cost him later on, and his name recognition is extremely poor, even now. But he is the better choice to face Gov. Rell in November. We endorse Dan Malloy for the Democratic nomination for governor.
Each man offers a universal health care scheme. Each promises a better transportation plan, and property tax relief. Each says he wants to turn Connecticut’s lackluster economy around, and each points to the record in his city as proof that he can do just that.
But Dan Malloy has done a better job of communicating his message, and this is a major part of what makes him the superior candidate.
Malloy is the better public speaker: he tends to favor concise bluntness over the more wordy style of his rival. DeStefano likes to take time to explain his positions and the theories behind them, a noble effort which often gets bogged down or wanders off onto other paths.
Malloy’s proposals also seem a little more concrete than DeStefano’s. Malloy’s plans are usually richly detailed and often more realistic than DeStefano’s, which seem sparse by comparison. Malloy’s ideas are also more business-friendly, which is desperately important to a state that is losing jobs. Lastly, Malloy’s plan to uncouple property taxes from education seems a lot clearer than DeStefano’s, and it will take clear leadership to accomplish that worthy goal. The unintended consequences of policy have often been an afterthought in the gubernatorial race, but Malloy has often spoken to the practice of measuring results and examining policy enacted. It is clear that under Malloy, the overarching question of "Can it work better?" would be a guiding principle.
John DeStefano is a good man with a lot of very bright ideas, but many of his plans seem to lack a good dose of realism. One of the major problems with DeStefano’s proposals is an over-reliance on taxing the wealthy, and, in some cases, a lack of specific plans for financing his proposals. His plan to establish pay equity between men and women would result in the creation of a huge, unmanageable bureaucracy that would poke into the books and practices of every single business in Connecticut. His willingness to let the details of funding some of his ideas be taken care of later is also unsettling.
DeStefano also seems to make poor political decisions. For example, his comment that Jodi Rell’s plan for combating urban violence was like that of a 1950s Mississippi governor was absolutely over-the-top, and his strange willingness to roll back things like mandatory hospital stays post-childbirth and insurance coverage for birth control as part of his health care plan has left him desperately trying to reclaim the votes of women. Also, his unwillingness to return campaign money raised from contractors should campaign finance reform pass in time for the 2006 election was foolish, at best.
Malloy, by contrast, is a far more credible candidate who seems less prone to missteps. His record in Stamford is slightly more impressive than DeStefano’s in New Haven, although it’s difficult to compare the two cities. Stamford is one of the safest cities in the nation, as Malloy is fond of saying. New Haven has also made great strides under DeStefano, but Stamford’s example is the better one.
Most importantly to Democrats, Malloy has a better shot at giving Jodi Rell a run for her money in November. Rell is aware of this: it’s why she picked a running mate from Malloy’s city of Stamford. A contest between DeStefano and Rell would end up being more about DeStefano than Rell’s record or Connecticut’s future, which would be a shame. A race between Malloy and Rell would still offer clear distinctions, as well as a lively debate over the future of the state.
There are still problems with Malloy. His lack of union support may cost him later on, and his name recognition is extremely poor, even now. But he is the better choice to face Gov. Rell in November. We endorse Dan Malloy for the Democratic nomination for governor.
One Week to Go
Greetings to readers coming in from around the country. There's a lot of great coverage of the primaries and other races on the site from the weekend. Please check out all of the following links!
U.S. Senate
And once again, it's time for predictions. Who's going to win on August 8th? By how much? What will the turnout be like?
U.S. Senate
- Six Questions for Rep. Diana Urban
- "I used to be against Joe"
- Lieberman in Enfield
- Courant Endorses Lieberman, Malloy
- NYT Will Endorse Lamont
- The Hug
- More Mail from Democrats
- Ned Lamont Comes to Suffield
- Joe (Finally) Takes His Show on the Road
- The Millionaires' Amendment
And once again, it's time for predictions. Who's going to win on August 8th? By how much? What will the turnout be like?
Six Questions for Rep. Diana Urban
Note: Rep. Diana Urban, an antiwar Republican, is trying to petition her way onto the U.S. Senate ballot. She must collect 7,500 valid signatures by August 9th. She answered these questions, sent by me via email, between 7/28-7/31, 2006.
1. This is a pretty crowded race already, and one that already includes an antiwar candidate in Ned Lamont. What made you decide to jump in?
It has always been my (not so secret) plan to serve /represent more people. Who would have thought that a seated senator would be challenged by a brave political neophyte and that candidate would start making inroads presumably because of the war with Iraq( however, I believe the D’s discontent with Lieberman goes deeper than that and has to do with alliances formed and positions taken over time) Add in a “R”candidate who served in the legislature but no one can really remember what he stood for and you have “opportunity”
I also felt that if Lieberman actually won the primary there would be no anti war candidate in the race as Lamont has publicly stated that he would not run as an independent if Lieberman won, that he would support the designated Democratic candidate.
In addition, for me this is not just about the war, it is about a country that is at a crossroads. The global economic system requires more education and yet we are cutting Pell grants in favor of tax credits ( who does that favor?). 120,000 kids graduated from High School this year fully capable of going to college and can’t afford it. We are leaving our children a polluted planet to deal with ( inter generational equity) and we are fighting a war while cutting taxes creating a huge deficit(which includes the estate tax while we have yet to get an Earned Income Tax Credit in the State of Connecticut) and laying the ground work for a major recession. We favor factory farming (subsidies and all..some to foreign owners) over family farms. And the growing gap between the rich and the poor reminds me of a Teddy Roosevelt quote that I love to use in speeches “ This will never be a great place for anyone to live until it is a reasonably good place for everyone.”
So this and more... including my 24 yr old son who did a year of service in DC teaching inner city kids saying to me “ You don’t even get it Mom, you need to do more”... lead me to finally (it was an evolving process) file to petition on the ballot.
2. Your positions on issue like the war, the environment and others seem quite different from most others in your party, and you are known for disagreeing with your own caucus. What kind of Republican are you, and do you think Republicans will vote for you?
I have said this time and again, I am a Republican in the mold of TR, Lincoln, Claudine Schneider and I do not know where my party has gone. If you read “Crunchy Cons” you will find parts of it ( although I am vehemently pro choice) and if you go back to what real “Conserve”..atives used to talk about, you will find other parts. This is fertile ground for a discussion about where are country is headed and what the parties actually mean . I have a vision that is inclusive not exclusive and that is what I have based my whole career on and that is what I brought to the Ct General Assembly. So I work on Affordable Housing , and Results Based Accountability , and Low and Moderate Income Microenterprise programs, and universal health care, and animal issues and the cycle of violence and Global Warming and Education for all our kids. I guess it just seems like the right thing to do ( Spike Lee).
A number of people on My own Republican Town Committee have signed my petition and have been quoted in the paper supporting my independent run. Many people signing the petition are Republicans as well as Democrats and Independents. People like what I have to say and they also like the fact that my record backs up my words.
3. Do you think you'll get enough petitions signed to qualify for the ballot? How many would you say you have at this point?
We have about 3800. We expect around 20 % will be invalidated so it is a steep hill to climb. The experience makes it worth it. I now have 55 volunteers and everyone has stories about how incredibly supportive people are. People are eager to participate in a true grass roots effort, making them feel like they really count. I am out getting signatures too and I have been overwhelmed by how much people want me to continue and to not back down in this independent bid. The thoughtful questions and the mini debates that I have had are ample evidence that people not only get it they want to participate. I have had people tell me that they don’t vote because politicians “ just don’t care about me, they care about being re elected.” and then I talk to them about winning by 34 vote in my first election in 2000. And then running unopposed the second time and having my own party offer $10,000 to anyone who would primary me ( New London Day Op Ed By Morgan McGinley) and STILL running unopposed, which I am again in this election..Why??? I believe it is because I work for the people and the people of my district know that. I do not mince my words and worry about the next election. I am concerned about policy and what is best for the long term. I guess that is why I am known as a maverick...and people listen and then say “give me that petition, I want to sign” It is , as I mentioned , an awesome experience.
4. You're running for both the U.S. Senate and your 43rd House District seat at the same time. As you know, one of the complaints against Joe Lieberman is that he ran for both the Senate and Vice President in 2000. How do you justify doing something similar? Will you drop your 43rd House District bid if you qualify for the Senate ballot?
I have always wanted to serve more people, I have a vision based on 22 years of teaching economics, running my own small business, raising an incredible son and serving for 3 terms in the CT General assembly. Should I fail in my bid to get on the ballot, I still want to be able to serve the people of my district. As I write this, I am working on two RFP’s as Co Chair of the Results Based Accountability Work Group of Appropriations, the Energy Bill, 4 Bills on Animal issues, the Earned Income Tax Credit, SB701 on Property Tax that we lost in the final 3 days of the last session, Getting together the Environmental caucus to decide what we will be doing to expand our work on global warming, talking to Nancy Wyman ( the Comptroller) about our continued efforts for affordable health insurance for small business and continuing with the Affordable Housing Task force with the Partnership for Strong Communities These and many other issues are so important to me. Ct law allows me to do what I am doing. Were I to get on the ballot, I would get my volunteers together and assess the situation and make a decision about continuing to run for both offices at that time.
5. What would your priorities be as a U.S. Senator, should you be elected in November?
First and foremost, a re evaluation of A US foreign policy that has lead us in the wrong direction. A combination of a fossil fuel based policy that ignores what Portland Oregon has accomplished ( building a vibrant economic web while cutting GreenHouse Gases to their ‘92 levels) and an administration that seems oblivious to the dangers of unilaterally pushing this policy. We have as a nation made errors , but the magnitude is in this administration dwarfs what I have seen before. I have a policy paper on Iraq and the Middle East that I can make available to you.
On the domestic front, we have people losing their jobs to outsourcing and off shoring but no concerted effort to back and fill the economy with small business and microenterprise ( I have national awards in this area)And we are not helping our kids that need the help to finance a college education that would enable the US to be productive in the global economy. Global Warming is real and we need to start to talk about SUSTAINABILITY..the planet has 6 billion people and carrying capacity is around 11 billion. The impacts of Global Warming will hasten resource wars, famines. We ignore this at our own peril. The debate needs to be framed in a way that people can understand. Al Gore’s film is a huge step in that direction. Universal health Care: The System we have now is economic lunacy. People use the emergency room for their health care, without treatment things spiral out of control costing much more to treat, prevention ( the demand side of the equation..see Paul Krugman’s essay) is ignored. Energy Policy that favors the multi national oil companies rather than subsidizing de centralized alternative energy and promoting efficiency and conservation ( the biggest bang for the buck in the short run)Animal Abuse and the cycle of violence..80% of rap sheets for juveniles show some form of animal abuse.. programs directed an anger management, counseling could help, Affordable Housing: we can’t expect people to succeed without a safe and decent place to live. The list goes on and on and I believe that most politians are so concerned about being re elected that they are afraid to face these issues head on. I am not and have proven that over and over.
6. Do you believe that you can win? Why or why not?
You don’t do this unless you believe that you can win. People get it and they are hungry for a voice to articulate the concerns of “Everyman” I started late but it truly was an evolving process. The response has been more than even I ever expected and galvanized me and my volunteers to work even harder. Want to join us??? Email Chris at DianaUrban2006(at)softhome.net. She is my volunteer Campaign Manager and would be happy to try to answer your questions.
1. This is a pretty crowded race already, and one that already includes an antiwar candidate in Ned Lamont. What made you decide to jump in?
It has always been my (not so secret) plan to serve /represent more people. Who would have thought that a seated senator would be challenged by a brave political neophyte and that candidate would start making inroads presumably because of the war with Iraq( however, I believe the D’s discontent with Lieberman goes deeper than that and has to do with alliances formed and positions taken over time) Add in a “R”candidate who served in the legislature but no one can really remember what he stood for and you have “opportunity”
I also felt that if Lieberman actually won the primary there would be no anti war candidate in the race as Lamont has publicly stated that he would not run as an independent if Lieberman won, that he would support the designated Democratic candidate.
In addition, for me this is not just about the war, it is about a country that is at a crossroads. The global economic system requires more education and yet we are cutting Pell grants in favor of tax credits ( who does that favor?). 120,000 kids graduated from High School this year fully capable of going to college and can’t afford it. We are leaving our children a polluted planet to deal with ( inter generational equity) and we are fighting a war while cutting taxes creating a huge deficit(which includes the estate tax while we have yet to get an Earned Income Tax Credit in the State of Connecticut) and laying the ground work for a major recession. We favor factory farming (subsidies and all..some to foreign owners) over family farms. And the growing gap between the rich and the poor reminds me of a Teddy Roosevelt quote that I love to use in speeches “ This will never be a great place for anyone to live until it is a reasonably good place for everyone.”
So this and more... including my 24 yr old son who did a year of service in DC teaching inner city kids saying to me “ You don’t even get it Mom, you need to do more”... lead me to finally (it was an evolving process) file to petition on the ballot.
2. Your positions on issue like the war, the environment and others seem quite different from most others in your party, and you are known for disagreeing with your own caucus. What kind of Republican are you, and do you think Republicans will vote for you?
I have said this time and again, I am a Republican in the mold of TR, Lincoln, Claudine Schneider and I do not know where my party has gone. If you read “Crunchy Cons” you will find parts of it ( although I am vehemently pro choice) and if you go back to what real “Conserve”..atives used to talk about, you will find other parts. This is fertile ground for a discussion about where are country is headed and what the parties actually mean . I have a vision that is inclusive not exclusive and that is what I have based my whole career on and that is what I brought to the Ct General Assembly. So I work on Affordable Housing , and Results Based Accountability , and Low and Moderate Income Microenterprise programs, and universal health care, and animal issues and the cycle of violence and Global Warming and Education for all our kids. I guess it just seems like the right thing to do ( Spike Lee).
A number of people on My own Republican Town Committee have signed my petition and have been quoted in the paper supporting my independent run. Many people signing the petition are Republicans as well as Democrats and Independents. People like what I have to say and they also like the fact that my record backs up my words.
3. Do you think you'll get enough petitions signed to qualify for the ballot? How many would you say you have at this point?
We have about 3800. We expect around 20 % will be invalidated so it is a steep hill to climb. The experience makes it worth it. I now have 55 volunteers and everyone has stories about how incredibly supportive people are. People are eager to participate in a true grass roots effort, making them feel like they really count. I am out getting signatures too and I have been overwhelmed by how much people want me to continue and to not back down in this independent bid. The thoughtful questions and the mini debates that I have had are ample evidence that people not only get it they want to participate. I have had people tell me that they don’t vote because politicians “ just don’t care about me, they care about being re elected.” and then I talk to them about winning by 34 vote in my first election in 2000. And then running unopposed the second time and having my own party offer $10,000 to anyone who would primary me ( New London Day Op Ed By Morgan McGinley) and STILL running unopposed, which I am again in this election..Why??? I believe it is because I work for the people and the people of my district know that. I do not mince my words and worry about the next election. I am concerned about policy and what is best for the long term. I guess that is why I am known as a maverick...and people listen and then say “give me that petition, I want to sign” It is , as I mentioned , an awesome experience.
4. You're running for both the U.S. Senate and your 43rd House District seat at the same time. As you know, one of the complaints against Joe Lieberman is that he ran for both the Senate and Vice President in 2000. How do you justify doing something similar? Will you drop your 43rd House District bid if you qualify for the Senate ballot?
I have always wanted to serve more people, I have a vision based on 22 years of teaching economics, running my own small business, raising an incredible son and serving for 3 terms in the CT General assembly. Should I fail in my bid to get on the ballot, I still want to be able to serve the people of my district. As I write this, I am working on two RFP’s as Co Chair of the Results Based Accountability Work Group of Appropriations, the Energy Bill, 4 Bills on Animal issues, the Earned Income Tax Credit, SB701 on Property Tax that we lost in the final 3 days of the last session, Getting together the Environmental caucus to decide what we will be doing to expand our work on global warming, talking to Nancy Wyman ( the Comptroller) about our continued efforts for affordable health insurance for small business and continuing with the Affordable Housing Task force with the Partnership for Strong Communities These and many other issues are so important to me. Ct law allows me to do what I am doing. Were I to get on the ballot, I would get my volunteers together and assess the situation and make a decision about continuing to run for both offices at that time.
5. What would your priorities be as a U.S. Senator, should you be elected in November?
First and foremost, a re evaluation of A US foreign policy that has lead us in the wrong direction. A combination of a fossil fuel based policy that ignores what Portland Oregon has accomplished ( building a vibrant economic web while cutting GreenHouse Gases to their ‘92 levels) and an administration that seems oblivious to the dangers of unilaterally pushing this policy. We have as a nation made errors , but the magnitude is in this administration dwarfs what I have seen before. I have a policy paper on Iraq and the Middle East that I can make available to you.
On the domestic front, we have people losing their jobs to outsourcing and off shoring but no concerted effort to back and fill the economy with small business and microenterprise ( I have national awards in this area)And we are not helping our kids that need the help to finance a college education that would enable the US to be productive in the global economy. Global Warming is real and we need to start to talk about SUSTAINABILITY..the planet has 6 billion people and carrying capacity is around 11 billion. The impacts of Global Warming will hasten resource wars, famines. We ignore this at our own peril. The debate needs to be framed in a way that people can understand. Al Gore’s film is a huge step in that direction. Universal health Care: The System we have now is economic lunacy. People use the emergency room for their health care, without treatment things spiral out of control costing much more to treat, prevention ( the demand side of the equation..see Paul Krugman’s essay) is ignored. Energy Policy that favors the multi national oil companies rather than subsidizing de centralized alternative energy and promoting efficiency and conservation ( the biggest bang for the buck in the short run)Animal Abuse and the cycle of violence..80% of rap sheets for juveniles show some form of animal abuse.. programs directed an anger management, counseling could help, Affordable Housing: we can’t expect people to succeed without a safe and decent place to live. The list goes on and on and I believe that most politians are so concerned about being re elected that they are afraid to face these issues head on. I am not and have proven that over and over.
6. Do you believe that you can win? Why or why not?
You don’t do this unless you believe that you can win. People get it and they are hungry for a voice to articulate the concerns of “Everyman” I started late but it truly was an evolving process. The response has been more than even I ever expected and galvanized me and my volunteers to work even harder. Want to join us??? Email Chris at DianaUrban2006(at)softhome.net. She is my volunteer Campaign Manager and would be happy to try to answer your questions.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
"I used to be against Joe"
The Nation has a good article on CT-Sen (D) in this week's magazine and online (I warn my conservative friends that the article has a progressive slant). Go check it out.
The paragraph that spells trouble for Senator Lieberman on August 8th:
(emphasis added)
Source:
John Nichols, A Fight for the Party's Soul, The Nation, August 14, 2006.
The paragraph that spells trouble for Senator Lieberman on August 8th:
Lamont's confidence about his ability to win more than just antiwar protest votes is well founded. It's common on the Connecticut campaign trail to run into Democratic voters like Harriet Scureman. "I used to be against Joe, because of the war and a bunch of other issues," says Scureman, a retired Xerox employee from Norwalk. "But as the campaign's gone on, I've realized I'm for Ned Lamont. You can't meet him, listen to him, and not come to the conclusion that he would be a great senator." If a majority of Connecticut voters reach the same conclusion in August and again in November, it will not merely be a defeat for a single centrist senator who supports the war. It will also be a win for a new Democratic mindset, one that displays the energy, enthusiasm and vision that the party will need if it intends to lead the country out of the wilderness of the Bush years.
(emphasis added)
Source:
John Nichols, A Fight for the Party's Soul, The Nation, August 14, 2006.
Lieberman in Enfield
Joe Lieberman made a stop at Figaro's in Enfield tonight to meet with diners and Democrats. The stop was not on his published schedule. No bus, unfortunately.
He waved gamely to us (my wife and I, armed with camera) before ducking inside.
He waved gamely to us (my wife and I, armed with camera) before ducking inside.
Open Forum
If anyone is taking pictures of the last week of the primary campaign, and wants to see them published on this site, send them in! You'll get as much or as little credit as you want. Click on "about" for my email address.
What else is happening today?
What else is happening today?
Hartford Candidate in Legal Trouble Over Petitions
Frank DeJesus, a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 3rd House District, has been arrested and charged with forgery and fraud in connection with his effort to petition his way on to the ballot:
DeJesus is an ally of Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, a Gonzalez foe. Perez is now calling for him to drop out of the race.
Source
"State House candidate charged with forgery." Associated Press 29 July, 2006.
Frank DeJesus was charged Friday with six counts of second-degree forgery, five counts of second-degree false statement and one count of falsely certifying the administration of an oath. The forgery charges are felonies, each punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
DeJesus, 58, was investigated by the chief state's attorney's office over allegations made by his opponent, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, that he committed fraud and intimidated illiterate, disabled and elderly voters to get his name on the ballot.
The warrants for his arrest allege that DeJesus signed the back of five petitions, though he did not gather the signatures. He also is charged with falsely certifying signatures on six petitions in his post as a justice of the peace. (AP)
DeJesus is an ally of Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, a Gonzalez foe. Perez is now calling for him to drop out of the race.
Source
"State House candidate charged with forgery." Associated Press 29 July, 2006.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Courant Endorses Lieberman, Malloy
The Hartford COurant has made up its mind about which candidates it would like to see win the Democratic primaries, Joe Lieberman and Dan Malloy:
For Lieberman:
For Malloy:
Both articles are well worth reading in full. I won't comment on them now--I'll have plenty to say on both races when CTLP endorses candidates later this week.
Sources
"For Experience, Mr. Lieberman." Hartford Courant 30 July, 2006.
"Choose Mayor Dan Malloy." Hartford Courant 30 July, 2006.
For Lieberman:
In an era of exceptionally corrosive politics, Connecticut has the antacid.
We endorse U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary for his skill in bridging the partisan abyss in Washington -- a valuable asset.
...
Mr. Lieberman's rectitude, though it strikes some as self-righteous, is principled. He led the charge to tone down sex and violence in video games for more than a decade. His denunciation of President Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct helped make him Al Gore's choice as running mate in 2000.
As a champion of conservation and a protector of Long Island Sound and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he disappointed many when he alone among Northeast Senate Democrats voted for the 2005 energy bill that did nothing to curb the nation's oil addiction or protect the environment.
But he voted with Democrats 90 percent of the time last year on key votes. It's the 10 percent, though, that could cost him the Democratic primary.
...
Mr. Lieberman's history of enthusiasm for military interventions overseas is an anomaly in a man famous for mediating among warring factions in Washington. But to dismiss this moderate -- a vanishing breed in a Congress sundered by extremism on both sides -- for dissenting on a single issue would be a terrible waste. And a mistake.
It would show an intolerance unworthy of any political party. ("For Experience")
For Malloy:
Although this is a tough call, Mr. Malloy, the party's convention-endorsed candidate, appears to us to be the best man to challenge Mrs. Rell. We base our recommendation on Mr. Malloy's innovative thinking, charismatic style and his record of getting things done in Stamford.
...
The Courant has challenged all the gubernatorial candidates to package their ideas into a visionary framework for stopping sprawl development, which empties cities, clogs highways, degrades Connecticut's quality of life and has contributed to the state's dismal performance in job growth. Both Mr. DeStefano and Mr. Malloy have made elements of anti-sprawl strategy a priority, such as improving transportation options, encouraging affordable housing, and speaking out against Connecticut's oppressive property tax system, which forces municipalities to compete for businesses and education funding and crushes homeowners.
But we believe Mr. Malloy would make the more business-friendly leader.
He has a compelling sense of urgency about the need to address looming obstacles to the state's growth. He has a deep understanding, born of paying attention to what works in other states, about what it will take for Connecticut to remain competitive and to grow smartly. He thinks and acts creatively.
Mr. Malloy has demonstrated consistently that he has the drive and know-how to go after his goals, whatever the obstacles. For the primary, he is the better choice. ("Choose Malloy")
Both articles are well worth reading in full. I won't comment on them now--I'll have plenty to say on both races when CTLP endorses candidates later this week.
Sources
"For Experience, Mr. Lieberman." Hartford Courant 30 July, 2006.
"Choose Mayor Dan Malloy." Hartford Courant 30 July, 2006.
The Hug
I have no words for how silly this is. Hat tip to tparty at LamontBlog.
I also noticed that Lieberman is traveling aboard a Peter Pan bus. Which is very nice, except that Peter Pan is based in Springfield, MA. Why not a Connecticut bus company, like Dattco (of New Britain)?
Friday, July 28, 2006
More Mail from Democrats
With a little over a week and a half left to go, the mailers have slowed to a surprising trickle. My address hasn't rated a Lieberman mailer in weeks! Which means I only have one of his to share with you. The Lamont campaign, on the other hand, has been sending out a lot of mail.
The Mule
Let's start with Lieberman, like last time. Here's one from Sen. Lieberman attacking Ned Lamont for being a chameleon. You can, in fact, see the chameleon on most pages, as Lieberman accuses Lamont of changing his views. This line of attack has been a mainstay of the Lieberman campaign.
Lieberman attacks Lamont over his votes with Greenwich Republicans, his reluctance to release his tax returns, his contributions to Lieberman, and so on.
That is also one ugly chameleon.
Lieberman, on the other hand, is no chameleon. He is, and I'm not making this up, a stubborn mule. See? "Joe Lieberman is As Tough And Steady as a Mule," reads the caption. "Voters Always Know Where He Stands." There's also a picture of a mule, which is somewhat more attractive than the chameleon, at least.
One of Lieberman's biggest problems has been his refusal to move move away from his disastrous position on Iraq, and his support for the Administration. Consistency is nice, but mulish stubbornness really isn't.
Also, a mule is only half a donkey.
Any Women Out There?
Among the many Lamont mailers we've received were several directed at women. It attacks Lieberman's support for Catholic
hospitals that didn't want to provide Plan B to rape victims. The first side features a woman sitting in a hospital gown (a rape victim, we presume) , and, weirdly, has a tiny George Bush and Joe Lieberman menacing her from the corner. The flip side is mostly a picture of a serious-looking female doctor--you know she's serious and smart because she is holding glasses, and resting them thoughtfully against her chin.
John DeStefano also sent out a mailer supporting women. Here a woman is working at her job, which apparently involves taking a rag to a whole bunch of tubes. Glad that ain't me.
DeStefano is using this ad to highlight his plan of establishing pay equity in Connecticut. The back features a list of women and family-friendly policies touted by DeStefano. There's also the black-and-white file photo of Rosa DeLauro. Couldn't she have provided a better picture?
Return of the Hallmark Mailer
The Lamont campaign put out this mailer, similar to the one that featured Lamont's mother.
Yeesh. The inside shows pictures of Lamont and his family. These sorts of character pieces seem to be getting more common.
Regional Interest
Finally, a mailer from the Malloy campaign! Here Malloy informs us that "Eastern Connecticut has been ignored for too long..." which is true. That's also why Eastern Connecticut leaders sent a letter to both Democratic candidates before the convention, practically begging them to put someone from east of the river on the ticket as their running mates. Both candidates picked people from affluent towns just to the west of Hartford, instead (Simsbury, West Hartford).
Malloy promises on the flip side to end this sort of practice when he's governor. Frankly, it'll be a miracle if anyone can get Route 11 or Route 6 finished, but at least he seems willing to try.
He also lists many prominent Democrats from Eastern Connecticut (including Richard Balducci, who was originally from Newington but is now apparently in Deep River) who support his candidacy.
Expect more of these to be posted (and mailed) as the primary day approaches.
The Mule
Let's start with Lieberman, like last time. Here's one from Sen. Lieberman attacking Ned Lamont for being a chameleon. You can, in fact, see the chameleon on most pages, as Lieberman accuses Lamont of changing his views. This line of attack has been a mainstay of the Lieberman campaign.Lieberman attacks Lamont over his votes with Greenwich Republicans, his reluctance to release his tax returns, his contributions to Lieberman, and so on.
That is also one ugly chameleon.
Lieberman, on the other hand, is no chameleon. He is, and I'm not making this up, a stubborn mule. See? "Joe Lieberman is As Tough And Steady as a Mule," reads the caption. "Voters Always Know Where He Stands." There's also a picture of a mule, which is somewhat more attractive than the chameleon, at least.One of Lieberman's biggest problems has been his refusal to move move away from his disastrous position on Iraq, and his support for the Administration. Consistency is nice, but mulish stubbornness really isn't.
Also, a mule is only half a donkey.
Any Women Out There?
Among the many Lamont mailers we've received were several directed at women. It attacks Lieberman's support for Catholic
hospitals that didn't want to provide Plan B to rape victims. The first side features a woman sitting in a hospital gown (a rape victim, we presume) , and, weirdly, has a tiny George Bush and Joe Lieberman menacing her from the corner. The flip side is mostly a picture of a serious-looking female doctor--you know she's serious and smart because she is holding glasses, and resting them thoughtfully against her chin.
John DeStefano also sent out a mailer supporting women. Here a woman is working at her job, which apparently involves taking a rag to a whole bunch of tubes. Glad that ain't me.
DeStefano is using this ad to highlight his plan of establishing pay equity in Connecticut. The back features a list of women and family-friendly policies touted by DeStefano. There's also the black-and-white file photo of Rosa DeLauro. Couldn't she have provided a better picture?Return of the Hallmark Mailer
The Lamont campaign put out this mailer, similar to the one that featured Lamont's mother.Yeesh. The inside shows pictures of Lamont and his family. These sorts of character pieces seem to be getting more common.
Regional Interest
Finally, a mailer from the Malloy campaign! Here Malloy informs us that "Eastern Connecticut has been ignored for too long..." which is true. That's also why Eastern Connecticut leaders sent a letter to both Democratic candidates before the convention, practically begging them to put someone from east of the river on the ticket as their running mates. Both candidates picked people from affluent towns just to the west of Hartford, instead (Simsbury, West Hartford).
Malloy promises on the flip side to end this sort of practice when he's governor. Frankly, it'll be a miracle if anyone can get Route 11 or Route 6 finished, but at least he seems willing to try.He also lists many prominent Democrats from Eastern Connecticut (including Richard Balducci, who was originally from Newington but is now apparently in Deep River) who support his candidacy.
Expect more of these to be posted (and mailed) as the primary day approaches.
Ned Lamont Comes to Suffield
My wife the registered Democrat and I decided, since a political event was actually taking place near us, to go to Suffield High School and see Ned Lamont speak tonight.
The high school is only a few years old. I actually taught as a substitute in the old Suffield High School, and this building was an incredible, stunning improvement. The parking lot was a lot fuller than I had expected it to be. Suffield isn't known for being a hotbed of liberalism.
In fact, people had come from Suffield and from all over the region to see Lamont, if only because, as one woman bitterly remarked, we don't see as many candidates around here as people in other parts of the state. The auditorium wasn't full, but a crowd of probably 100-150 had gathered to hear Lamont. Many of them were either middle-aged or older people, although a few younger faces dotted the crowd here and there.
Lamont arrived a bit late, but was greeted with a standing ovation when he finally showed. He shook a few hands, then launched into his stump speech. The speech focused on the idea that "stay the course" was no longer an acceptable strategy. He started off a little slowly. He hesitated over a few lines, and his energy seemed a little low in the beginning. However, as in the debate, Lamont became much more dynamic and effective as he warmed up.
Perhaps deliberately (considering the audience), he started off by talking about the need for universal health care, not getting to Iraq until about midway through the speech. It was by and large pretty positive and focused on progressive policies, but he did have a few attacks to send Joe Lieberman's way. When talking about the energy bill and the influence of lobbyists, he said:
This line drew huge applause.
But the most interesting part of the night was when Lamont wrapped up his stump speech and took questions from the audience. This is where Lamont seemed to be at his best. Perhaps it was the friendly crowd. These were Democrats who were concerned with a huge range of issues, from Iraq, Bush, what they felt was the miserable state of the country, to paying for health care and property taxes. He seemed at ease, and was able to express unqualified support for rolling back the Bush tax cuts (even though, as the questioner noted, this would mean Lamont himself would pay more in taxes), stem cell research and public financing of campaigns (!), although he wasn't sure if he favored term limits. He also responded to the idea of his supporters being a bunch of fringe lunatics by suggesting that, in fact, his campaign was helping to drag the country's politics back into the mainstream. When a woman in the crowd was complaining that candidates like Lieberman rarely come to northern
Connecticut, Lamont pointed out that Lieberman was, in fact, there--in the form of a Lieberman staffer who was videotaping the event. Lamont waved to the staffer, to much laughter. The staffer sheepishly waved back.
The audience seemed smitten by Lamont. He is a good public speaker, although this didn't come across as well on television during the debate, and he has a kind of intense, personable charisma that people seem to like. He still doesn't quite seem like the kind of man who could possibly bring down one of the most prominent Democrats in America. Which maybe is why he's been so successful.
The high school is only a few years old. I actually taught as a substitute in the old Suffield High School, and this building was an incredible, stunning improvement. The parking lot was a lot fuller than I had expected it to be. Suffield isn't known for being a hotbed of liberalism.
In fact, people had come from Suffield and from all over the region to see Lamont, if only because, as one woman bitterly remarked, we don't see as many candidates around here as people in other parts of the state. The auditorium wasn't full, but a crowd of probably 100-150 had gathered to hear Lamont. Many of them were either middle-aged or older people, although a few younger faces dotted the crowd here and there.Lamont arrived a bit late, but was greeted with a standing ovation when he finally showed. He shook a few hands, then launched into his stump speech. The speech focused on the idea that "stay the course" was no longer an acceptable strategy. He started off a little slowly. He hesitated over a few lines, and his energy seemed a little low in the beginning. However, as in the debate, Lamont became much more dynamic and effective as he warmed up.
Perhaps deliberately (considering the audience), he started off by talking about the need for universal health care, not getting to Iraq until about midway through the speech. It was by and large pretty positive and focused on progressive policies, but he did have a few attacks to send Joe Lieberman's way. When talking about the energy bill and the influence of lobbyists, he said:
I know Senator Lieberman is often talking about reaching out, finding common ground: with Dick Cheney on the energy bill, or President Bush on Social Security, and I appreciate the thought about common ground, but I think it's so important that we send Democrats to Washington D.C. and start talking about common good.
This line drew huge applause.
But the most interesting part of the night was when Lamont wrapped up his stump speech and took questions from the audience. This is where Lamont seemed to be at his best. Perhaps it was the friendly crowd. These were Democrats who were concerned with a huge range of issues, from Iraq, Bush, what they felt was the miserable state of the country, to paying for health care and property taxes. He seemed at ease, and was able to express unqualified support for rolling back the Bush tax cuts (even though, as the questioner noted, this would mean Lamont himself would pay more in taxes), stem cell research and public financing of campaigns (!), although he wasn't sure if he favored term limits. He also responded to the idea of his supporters being a bunch of fringe lunatics by suggesting that, in fact, his campaign was helping to drag the country's politics back into the mainstream. When a woman in the crowd was complaining that candidates like Lieberman rarely come to northern
Connecticut, Lamont pointed out that Lieberman was, in fact, there--in the form of a Lieberman staffer who was videotaping the event. Lamont waved to the staffer, to much laughter. The staffer sheepishly waved back.The audience seemed smitten by Lamont. He is a good public speaker, although this didn't come across as well on television during the debate, and he has a kind of intense, personable charisma that people seem to like. He still doesn't quite seem like the kind of man who could possibly bring down one of the most prominent Democrats in America. Which maybe is why he's been so successful.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
The Millionaires' Amendment
Two recent articles have speculated that Ned Lamont's self-financing of his campaign to the tune of $3,000,000 have opened the door to Joe Lieberman's campaign going back to their donors who have already contributed the maximum allowed and legally receiving more money.
From the AP (via CTConservative):
From the Courant:
While the Courant should be commended for picking up what the AP missed, that just because the Lamont campaign has crossed the Millionaires' Amendment CT threshold the Lieberman campaign cannot automatically return to maxed-out donors for more money because of the amount that Lieberman has raised, both articles fail to point out the reasons why the Lieberman campaign will not take advantage of this provision:
1. While the formula for determining the Opposition Personal Funds Amount (AKA the amount that Lieberman is allowed to raise up to 110% of with additional contributions of maxed-out donors) is complicated, its not impossible to calculate. So I took a shot at it (anyone can try - its found in 11 CFR 400.10 and 11 CFR 400.31; I have included the formula and my calculations below the sources at the end of this post) and the number I came up with is negative, which means that Lieberman cannot take advantage of the Millionaires' Amendment at the present time. By my calculations, Lamont would have to kick in another roughly $585,000 before the Amendment would become applicable.
2. Funds raised under the Millionaires' Amendment can only be used for the election in which the opponent crosses the threshold and primary and general elections are treated separately (11 CFR 400.2). In other words, even if Lamont had triggered Lieberman's ability to recontact maxed-out donors, he would only have about 12 days to raise and spend that money. After the primary election, he would have to return the excess donations and would only be able to use the Millionaires' Amendment in the general if Lamont self-financed his general election campaign to an extent that crossed the threshold. Given that Lieberman has plenty of cash on hand, given the constant monitoring necessary, and given what is about to be point 3 below, it simply isn't worth it to invoke this provision, even if possible.
3. The FEC is not in the business of helping out campaigns. In evaluating whether they can raise additional funds from maxed-out contributors, the Lieberman campaign would have to decide that they were eligible, risk a complaint being filed immediately and publicly, and then await a decision that would not come for two or three years. It simply isn't worth it.
Interestingly, since Lamont, by self-financing $3,000,000, has exceeded 10x the threshold for Connecticut ($2,575,000), if Lamont had triggered the Millionaires' Amendment, Lieberman would be able to raise $12,600 from each contributor (total or an additional $10,500 from each donor) and take coordinated expenditures from the state and national parties, not just the $6,300 (total or an additional $4,200 from each donor) reported by the AP and the Courant.
Finally, it is unlikely that the Millionaires' Amendment would be triggered in the general because, either a) Lieberman wins the primary and Lamont isn't in the general or b) Lamont wins the primary and the scorecard starts from scratch, only now Lamont has better resources to raise money that do not involve dipping into his own funds.
Sources:
News and notes from the campaign trail, Associated Press, July 25, 2006.
MARK PAZNIOKAS And JON LENDER, Important As All Get-Out, Hartford Courant, July 27, 2006.
Federal Election Commission, Millionaires' Amendment Brochure, 2006.
Federal Election Commission, VAP and Thresholds for Senate Candidates, 2006.
Title 11 Code of Federal Regulations Volume I Part 400 INCREASED LIMITS FOR CANDIDATES OPPOSING SELF-FINANCED CANDIDATES, 2006.
Opposition Personal Funds Amount Calculation:
Since Lieberman's Gross Receipts - Lieberman's Self-finance Amount ($8,464,769) is greater than Lamont's Gross Receipts - Lamont's Self-finance Amount ($4,292,683 - $3,000,000 = $1,292683), the formula is:
Lamont's Self-finance Amount - ((Lieberman's Gross Receipts - Lieberman's Self-finance Amount - Lamont's Gross Receipts - Lamont's Self-finance Amount)/2) or
$3,000,000 - (($8,464,769-$1,292,683)/2) = -$586,043
From the AP (via CTConservative):
With U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont contributing a total of $3 million to his Democratic primary campaign, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman can now return to his contributors and ask for more money.
From the Courant:
Meanwhile, the Lieberman campaign declined to comment on whether Lamont's use of $3 million in personal funds has made Lieberman eligible for extra donations - up to an additional $4,200 - from each of the campaign donors who already have given him the maximum $2,100 allowed by law for the primary.
...
The amount of money Lieberman has raised makes it unclear whether Lamont's self-financing will trigger the higher contribution limits that would benefit the incumbent's campaign.
While the Courant should be commended for picking up what the AP missed, that just because the Lamont campaign has crossed the Millionaires' Amendment CT threshold the Lieberman campaign cannot automatically return to maxed-out donors for more money because of the amount that Lieberman has raised, both articles fail to point out the reasons why the Lieberman campaign will not take advantage of this provision:
1. While the formula for determining the Opposition Personal Funds Amount (AKA the amount that Lieberman is allowed to raise up to 110% of with additional contributions of maxed-out donors) is complicated, its not impossible to calculate. So I took a shot at it (anyone can try - its found in 11 CFR 400.10 and 11 CFR 400.31; I have included the formula and my calculations below the sources at the end of this post) and the number I came up with is negative, which means that Lieberman cannot take advantage of the Millionaires' Amendment at the present time. By my calculations, Lamont would have to kick in another roughly $585,000 before the Amendment would become applicable.
2. Funds raised under the Millionaires' Amendment can only be used for the election in which the opponent crosses the threshold and primary and general elections are treated separately (11 CFR 400.2). In other words, even if Lamont had triggered Lieberman's ability to recontact maxed-out donors, he would only have about 12 days to raise and spend that money. After the primary election, he would have to return the excess donations and would only be able to use the Millionaires' Amendment in the general if Lamont self-financed his general election campaign to an extent that crossed the threshold. Given that Lieberman has plenty of cash on hand, given the constant monitoring necessary, and given what is about to be point 3 below, it simply isn't worth it to invoke this provision, even if possible.
3. The FEC is not in the business of helping out campaigns. In evaluating whether they can raise additional funds from maxed-out contributors, the Lieberman campaign would have to decide that they were eligible, risk a complaint being filed immediately and publicly, and then await a decision that would not come for two or three years. It simply isn't worth it.
Interestingly, since Lamont, by self-financing $3,000,000, has exceeded 10x the threshold for Connecticut ($2,575,000), if Lamont had triggered the Millionaires' Amendment, Lieberman would be able to raise $12,600 from each contributor (total or an additional $10,500 from each donor) and take coordinated expenditures from the state and national parties, not just the $6,300 (total or an additional $4,200 from each donor) reported by the AP and the Courant.
Finally, it is unlikely that the Millionaires' Amendment would be triggered in the general because, either a) Lieberman wins the primary and Lamont isn't in the general or b) Lamont wins the primary and the scorecard starts from scratch, only now Lamont has better resources to raise money that do not involve dipping into his own funds.
Sources:
News and notes from the campaign trail, Associated Press, July 25, 2006.
MARK PAZNIOKAS And JON LENDER, Important As All Get-Out, Hartford Courant, July 27, 2006.
Federal Election Commission, Millionaires' Amendment Brochure, 2006.
Federal Election Commission, VAP and Thresholds for Senate Candidates, 2006.
Title 11 Code of Federal Regulations Volume I Part 400 INCREASED LIMITS FOR CANDIDATES OPPOSING SELF-FINANCED CANDIDATES, 2006.
Opposition Personal Funds Amount Calculation:
Since Lieberman's Gross Receipts - Lieberman's Self-finance Amount ($8,464,769) is greater than Lamont's Gross Receipts - Lamont's Self-finance Amount ($4,292,683 - $3,000,000 = $1,292683), the formula is:
Lamont's Self-finance Amount - ((Lieberman's Gross Receipts - Lieberman's Self-finance Amount - Lamont's Gross Receipts - Lamont's Self-finance Amount)/2) or
$3,000,000 - (($8,464,769-$1,292,683)/2) = -$586,043
Blumenthal, Nappier and Wyman Endorse Malloy
Earlier today three of the top Democrats in the state endorsed Dan Malloy:
Susan Bysiewicz, who dropped out of the governor's race last year, apparently had nothing to say on the matter.
Source
"Constitutional Officers Restate Their Support of Malloy for CT's Next Governor." Dan Malloy for Governor. Press Release. 27 July, 2006.
"After every convention, I have supported the party's nominees and this year I do the same, beginning at the top with Dan Malloy for Governor," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "I am proud to have been Dan Malloy's constituent and friend. He is a great family man with rock-solid principles and commitment to public service."
"As Stamford's mayor, Dan Malloy has a record of accomplishment in two vital areas of citizens' lives that I care very deeply about -- the economy and health care," Comptroller Nancy Wyman said. "I believe his vision and leadership are worthy of electing him to the highest office in the state of Connecticut."
"Dan Malloy has demonstrated tenacity, perseverance, and determination throughout his life -- admirable attributes that have brought personal and professional accomplishments," State Treasurer Denise Nappier said. "His substantial record of innovative policy success and effective leadership was instrumental in his Democratic convention victory, and with that he has earned my endorsement."
Susan Bysiewicz, who dropped out of the governor's race last year, apparently had nothing to say on the matter.
Source
"Constitutional Officers Restate Their Support of Malloy for CT's Next Governor." Dan Malloy for Governor. Press Release. 27 July, 2006.
Is Lieberman Behind on Collecting Petitions?
Yesterday, Sen. Lieberman's campaign manager made this interesting assertion:
Today Ken Krayeske of the Green Party was at the Secretary of the State's office, and reported that he found only 65 certified signatures, out of 70 total, for the Connecticut for Lieberman party. This is compared to 414 for the Concerned Citizens' statewide ticket, 67 for the Independent Party statewide ticket, and 3296 certified out of 4550 submitted for the Green Party.
Which means that either the CT for Lieberman folks are sitting on a big stack of petitions, or they simply aren't collecting all that many of them. The deadline for filing petitions is August 9th--Lieberman needs about 7,500 to get on the ballot. Unless he's planning a big push over the next two weeks... he may not make it.
If Lieberman loses the primary and doesn't turn in enough signatures, he's finished. Literally.
Update: Concorde at My Left Nutmeg has an account of Lieberman's petition-gathering, so it looks like it is happening. How much has been gathered is uncertain.
“As far as I know there’s no one in any of the offices doing that [petition gathering],” Steinfels said.
Today Ken Krayeske of the Green Party was at the Secretary of the State's office, and reported that he found only 65 certified signatures, out of 70 total, for the Connecticut for Lieberman party. This is compared to 414 for the Concerned Citizens' statewide ticket, 67 for the Independent Party statewide ticket, and 3296 certified out of 4550 submitted for the Green Party.
Which means that either the CT for Lieberman folks are sitting on a big stack of petitions, or they simply aren't collecting all that many of them. The deadline for filing petitions is August 9th--Lieberman needs about 7,500 to get on the ballot. Unless he's planning a big push over the next two weeks... he may not make it.
If Lieberman loses the primary and doesn't turn in enough signatures, he's finished. Literally.
Update: Concorde at My Left Nutmeg has an account of Lieberman's petition-gathering, so it looks like it is happening. How much has been gathered is uncertain.
Johnson Releases Attack Ad: Murphy Responds
Rep. Nancy Johnson recently released an ad attacking rival Chris Murphy (click for ad--.wmv format), in which she accuses him of being "a tax-hiking politician Connecticut can't afford." Yesterday, Murphy released his own ad (not yet on web), the transcript of which is as follows:
Murphy also disputed the charges made in the Johnson ad. For example, the Johnson ad claims that Murphy raised taxes $3 billion, but the Murphy campaign said that, according to the Office of Fiscal Analysis, the overall tax burden has decreased by $300 million since Murphy took office eight years ago.
The Murphy campaign also says that "the federal tax burden on Connecticut families has increased from 21.6% when Johnson took office in 1983 to 24.6% in 2006."
However, this information (and other rebuttals to Johnson's attacks) were not included in Murphy's ad--but only in a press release.
Johnson's ad is pretty vicious, is an obvious attempt to define Murphy before the campaign really gets started--and is probably a response to some recent (albeit biased) polls showing Murphy in the lead. Murphy's response, while a nice effort to change the tone, is rather weak by comparison because it addresses none of the charges leveled against him. Dave Boomer, Nancy Johnson's campaign manager pointed this out in the Hartford Courant this morning:
However, the fact that the ad wars are beginning already in the 5th District is just one more indication that this is going to be a close, tough race.
Source
Cohen, Jeffrey. "Sparks Fly In Race To Sway." Hartford Courant 27 July, 2006.
[Shot of Johnson ad on a television--Murphy turns off ad with remote]
I’m Chris Murphy, and I approved this message because attack ads like this are why I’m running for Congress.
Nancy Johnson’s misleading ad against me proves she’s been in Washington too long.
I’m running not only to change Congress, but to change what people expect from politics.
That’s why I’m doing things differently, going door to door, listening to people.
You’ll be hearing more from me soon.
Until then, you might just want to keep this handy. [Holds up remote]
Murphy also disputed the charges made in the Johnson ad. For example, the Johnson ad claims that Murphy raised taxes $3 billion, but the Murphy campaign said that, according to the Office of Fiscal Analysis, the overall tax burden has decreased by $300 million since Murphy took office eight years ago.
The Murphy campaign also says that "the federal tax burden on Connecticut families has increased from 21.6% when Johnson took office in 1983 to 24.6% in 2006."
However, this information (and other rebuttals to Johnson's attacks) were not included in Murphy's ad--but only in a press release.
Johnson's ad is pretty vicious, is an obvious attempt to define Murphy before the campaign really gets started--and is probably a response to some recent (albeit biased) polls showing Murphy in the lead. Murphy's response, while a nice effort to change the tone, is rather weak by comparison because it addresses none of the charges leveled against him. Dave Boomer, Nancy Johnson's campaign manager pointed this out in the Hartford Courant this morning:
About Murphy's "little fluff ad," Boomer said that the Democrat "is trying to answer [our ad] by avoiding answering it."
"If I had his record on taxes, I wouldn't want to talk about it either," Boomer said. (Cohen)
However, the fact that the ad wars are beginning already in the 5th District is just one more indication that this is going to be a close, tough race.
Source
Cohen, Jeffrey. "Sparks Fly In Race To Sway." Hartford Courant 27 July, 2006.
Senate 16: Caligiuri Accuses Zoni of Push Polling
The race for state senator in the 16th District is heating up, as Republican candidate Sam Caligiuri is accusing his Democratic opponent, David Zoni, of using a push poll again him:
A push poll in a state senate race? In July? Wow.
Good reporting by Southington Live.
Source
Southington Live Staff. " Caligiuri slams Zoni for “shameful” polling." Southington Live 26 July, 2006.
According to the Caligiuri campaign, they were alerted to push polling allegedly directed by the Zoni staff after a complaint by Southington attorney and fellow Republican John Nugent.
Nugent claims he received a phone call last night (Tuesday) from a man who identified himself as an employee of a polling firm based in North Dakota. The questions began normally, according to the Caligiuri staff, but when Nugent revealed he intended to support Caligiuri in the November election, “the questions took a different turn.”
“He started asking questions that I knew were a distortion of [Caligiuri’s] record,” said Nugent. “One question was, ‘Did you know Sam sent the city into bankruptcy?’ That is so far from the truth it’s a joke…The questions got worse from there.” (Southington Live)
A push poll in a state senate race? In July? Wow.
Good reporting by Southington Live.
Source
Southington Live Staff. " Caligiuri slams Zoni for “shameful” polling." Southington Live 26 July, 2006.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Willington DTC to Lieberman: Drop Independent Bid
CT News Junkie is reporting that the Willington DTC has passed a resolution asking Sen. Lieberman to forget about a possible independent bid:
The text of the resolution is posted there. Willington, as the article points out, isn't exactly a hotbed of liberal activity:
Interestingly, according to Marion Steinfels, the Lieberman campaign's spokeswoman, petition gathering isn't even serious at this point. Which is odd, considering that 7,500 signatures or so are due on August 9th.
So what's going on? I haven't heard of anyone being approached by Connecticut for Lieberman people. Has Lieberman collected a single signature?
What if, as the Willington DTC suggests he ought to, Lieberman does decide to forget about the independent bid altogether? The latest polls have been devestating. His support among Democrats is at a low ebb. Maybe burying the Connecticut for Lieberman party and throwing all his chips into the primary, combined with an all-out offensive featuring Bill Clinton, could turn that around.
But then again, it might be far, far too late.
Source
Stuart, Christine. "Willington DTC Asks Joe to Drop Independent Bid." CT News Junkie 26 July, 2006.
The day following former President Bill Clinton’s visit to Connecticut in support of U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic Town Committee in Willington called a special meeting to pass a resolution asking Lieberman to support the winner of the Democratic primary and withdraw his petition to run as an independent candidate should he lose the Aug. 8 primary to his challenger, Ned Lamont.
Mark Palmer, co-chair of the Willington DTC said Wednesday that if Lieberman wants the support of Democratic voters in the primary he should withdraw his bid to run as an independent. He said, as long as Lieberman petitions to run as an independent, “Then he’s not focused on the primary.”
Willington is the fifth town committee to denounce Lieberman’s independent bid for re-election. Palmer said Greenwich, New Britain, Norwalk, and Hamden have passed similar resolutions. (Stuart)
The text of the resolution is posted there. Willington, as the article points out, isn't exactly a hotbed of liberal activity:
Palmer said even the Republicans in town want to know more about Lamont, so “Joe must have overstepped some invisible boundary,” that the polls just won’t pick up. (Stuart)
Interestingly, according to Marion Steinfels, the Lieberman campaign's spokeswoman, petition gathering isn't even serious at this point. Which is odd, considering that 7,500 signatures or so are due on August 9th.
“As far as I know there’s no one in any of the offices doing that [petition gathering],” Steinfels said. (Stuart)
So what's going on? I haven't heard of anyone being approached by Connecticut for Lieberman people. Has Lieberman collected a single signature?
What if, as the Willington DTC suggests he ought to, Lieberman does decide to forget about the independent bid altogether? The latest polls have been devestating. His support among Democrats is at a low ebb. Maybe burying the Connecticut for Lieberman party and throwing all his chips into the primary, combined with an all-out offensive featuring Bill Clinton, could turn that around.
But then again, it might be far, far too late.
Source
Stuart, Christine. "Willington DTC Asks Joe to Drop Independent Bid." CT News Junkie 26 July, 2006.
Air National Guard to Remain at Bradley
My house will no longer be buzzed by A-10s, but the Air National Guard mission at Bradley Airport will continue:
This is great news. I really wasn't expecting them to get anywhere with the Air National Guard. Rell and Blumenthal deserve a lot of credit--and Rell, at least, is taking it. Her campaign put out a jubilant release today, trumpeting the fact that "Team Connecticut is 2-0 against Defense Department recommendations to close major facilities in our state."
Source
"Conn. loses fighter jets, but gains cargo planes at Bradley base." Associated Press 26 July, 2006.
The Air National Guard will comprise C-21 cargo aircraft, which are to begin arriving in September, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced Wednesday. The agreement between Connecticut and the National Guard Bureau and U.S. Air Force also calls for a command and control headquarters and a regional aircraft engine repair facility.
More than 400 jobs will be protected, though the presence of fighter planes in Connecticut has ended.
"Washington heard my message loud and clear," Rell said. "This is a significant success." (AP)
This is great news. I really wasn't expecting them to get anywhere with the Air National Guard. Rell and Blumenthal deserve a lot of credit--and Rell, at least, is taking it. Her campaign put out a jubilant release today, trumpeting the fact that "Team Connecticut is 2-0 against Defense Department recommendations to close major facilities in our state."
Source
"Conn. loses fighter jets, but gains cargo planes at Bradley base." Associated Press 26 July, 2006.
Open Forum
Diana Urban in CT News Junkie. I heard her yesterday on Bruce and Colin (WTIC 1080-AM), and she's pretty interesting.
MikeCT examines the voting patterns of minority-party selectmen, and finds that Lamont voted with the majority Republicans an awful lot less than most do.
DeStefano has a plan for "supporting and protecting our children."
Also, some funny stuff from LamontBlog.
What else is happening?
MikeCT examines the voting patterns of minority-party selectmen, and finds that Lamont voted with the majority Republicans an awful lot less than most do.
DeStefano has a plan for "supporting and protecting our children."
Also, some funny stuff from LamontBlog.
What else is happening?
Malloy Push Poll?
The gubernatorial primary is getting nasty:
The Malloy campaign denies involvement, but they're coming under pressure from the DeStefano campaign:
I would hope they'd not be dumb enough to push poll Sam Gejdenson, but I guess you never know. What's interesting, but not all that surprising, is that both sides, or people supporting both sides, are engaging in this kind of behavior. It's a strange race when both sides seem desperate.
Source
KEating, Christopher. "Guess Who's On The Line?." Hartford Courant 26 July, 2006.
A Branford man picked up his telephone Monday night to find a political pollster on the other end.
The conversation started innocently as the caller asked whether the state was going in the right direction and how he felt about the races for governor and the U.S. Senate. But as soon as the Branford man said he was voting for New Haven Mayor John DeStefano instead of Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, the conversation abruptly turned to a series of anti-DeStefano questions.
...
What the pollster did not know was that the Branford man was Sam Gejdenson, the former U.S. House member who has publicly endorsed DeStefano.(Keating)
The Malloy campaign denies involvement, but they're coming under pressure from the DeStefano campaign:
[Malloy campaign manager Chris] Cooney said Malloy supporters have received anti-Malloy telephone calls recently, but he said he was not making the assumption that the calls were generated by the DeStefano campaign. DeStefano's spokesman, Derek Slap, denied that the campaign had made any anti-Malloy calls.
"They need to come clean," Slap said. "We'd expect this from Karl Rove, but not from Dan Malloy. Are they calling Sam Gejdenson a liar?" (Keating)
I would hope they'd not be dumb enough to push poll Sam Gejdenson, but I guess you never know. What's interesting, but not all that surprising, is that both sides, or people supporting both sides, are engaging in this kind of behavior. It's a strange race when both sides seem desperate.
Source
KEating, Christopher. "Guess Who's On The Line?." Hartford Courant 26 July, 2006.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
SurveyUSA: Lieberman Holds Steady
This new poll from SurveyUSA shows Lieberman's approval ratings holding steady at Kind of Lousy. 50% of Democrats approve of him, as do 55% of moderates.
Republicans, however, like him better than anyone. 65% of Republicans approved of the job Lieberman is doing. 65% of self-identifying conservatives approved, as well.
That's his highest approval rating among any group polled. Fifteen percentage points separate GOP approval from that of his own party.
Compare that with Chris Dodd's, directly above.
Source
Results of SurveyUSA News Poll #9742. Approval Ratings for all 50 U.S. Senators. Poll. SurveyUSA. 25 July, 2006.
Republicans, however, like him better than anyone. 65% of Republicans approved of the job Lieberman is doing. 65% of self-identifying conservatives approved, as well.
That's his highest approval rating among any group polled. Fifteen percentage points separate GOP approval from that of his own party.
Compare that with Chris Dodd's, directly above.
Source
Results of SurveyUSA News Poll #9742. Approval Ratings for all 50 U.S. Senators. Poll. SurveyUSA. 25 July, 2006.
Known Protestors
This account from Spazeboy is very disturbing.
This is just the kind of turnaround Joe Lieberman needs. Talking Points Memo spoke with Lieberman spokeswoman Marion Steinfels about the issue:
If this is true (and I suspect that it is), then that was not a smart thing of the Lieberman campaign to do if they want to prove to Democrats that they are not, in fact, the Bush campaign from 2004. I wonder if free speech zones are next.
Update: In fact, there was a free-speech zone at the event. Sigh.
I was about 10 yards behind Jane [Hamsher], and had just gotten to the door when I was told that no backpacks were allowed in the theater. I could see Jane showing her ticket and presumed that she’d save me a seat, so I bolted to my car to drop off my bag. When I came back but a minute later, a familiar face was waiting for me. It was the Lieberman staffer who exuded so much confidence about Lieberman’s ability to change minds in New Britain when speaking at the DTC meeting in June who reached out and ripped the ticket from my hand.
...
It was someone a little higher up on the Lieberman food-chain (I can tell this because he didn’t steal anything from me) who came over with a police officer and said this about me:
“Officer, he’s a known protester”
...
I bristled at the charge that I was a “known protester”. Am I not also a Democrat? How about a constituent of Senator Lieberman? How about a fan of Bill Clinton?
Nope. Because I am a pretty visible supporter of Ned Lamont, and because I’ve made appearances at a couple of Lieberman campaign stops to see what he has to say (and to ask him to commit to the Primary), I was not allowed in to see Bill Clinton.
This is just the kind of turnaround Joe Lieberman needs. Talking Points Memo spoke with Lieberman spokeswoman Marion Steinfels about the issue:
She tells us that although Spazeboy had a ticket (which was apparently given to him by someone else), his name wasn't on the list, and no one whose name wasn't on the list was admitted -- ticket or no ticket. "You had to have your name on the list, for security reasons," she told us. "Every ticket had a number and the name corresponded." It appears that the person at the door recognized Spazeboy and knew his name wasn't on the list, and thus barred him.Spazeboy says that no list was checked, and that in fact no lists were present.
If this is true (and I suspect that it is), then that was not a smart thing of the Lieberman campaign to do if they want to prove to Democrats that they are not, in fact, the Bush campaign from 2004. I wonder if free speech zones are next.
Update: In fact, there was a free-speech zone at the event. Sigh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)