Wilton Obstructs: Fairfield County Suffers

Traffic, Taxes and Affordable Housing. These are the basic issues that rile residents of Connecticut most often. Taxes, by virtue of exponential increases in property values are taking a bigger bite out of income, people can't afford to move into cheaper housing elsewhere because traffic makes it onerous to get to where the jobs are. And the jobs, in Fairfield County are in the Greenwich to Norwalk, southwestern Connecticut coastal corridor. So individual towns grapple with the balance of housing versus infrastructure and commercial development versus residential all while the master plan for Super 7 remain unimplemented.

Super 7 is the 50 year old DOT plan to link the highway portion of route 7 that ends in Norwalk to the highway portion of route 7 that ends in Danbury. This plan has been dormant for decades because some, dare say, a minority of Wilton residents, don't want it. Their reason defy logic, since the big objection was that it would increase the amount of traffic in Wilton. Well, that is exactly what happened without Super 7, since today over 30,000 cars a day meander up route 7, a one lane road that has numerous construction projects already in progress. Things like underground powerlines being installed under the road as an example.

According to an article in Sunday's Norwalk Advocate, State Rep Toni Boucher-R Wilton, is overjoyed that the DOT will begin widening the one lane route 7 to accommodate the increased traffic.

The Super 7 highway, which would be a four- to six-lane road between Norwalk and Danbury, has been stalled for decades because of protests from Wilton residents and environmentalists.

Some transportation agencies say the highway is needed, but now the project lacks political traction and state funding.

State Rep. Antoinetta "Toni" Boucher, R-Wilton, an opponent of the Super 7, said the DOT's widening plan is the best way to improve traffic flow.
. . .
"Once it gets done, motorists should feel some relief," Boucher said. "We've been pushing for this for quite some time."

The DOT worked with the town while designing the project, she said.

"It's been well-handled and we met on so many occasions," Boucher said. "They've kept the town in the loop."

Wilton officials were concerned about businesses, schools, police and fire department headquarters on Route 7, she said.

While the contractor is widening the road, a lane always will be open in either direction, Mercure said.

If necessary, traffic will be blocked off only late at night, he said.

Apparently Brian Mecure, Supervising Engineer for the DOT project has never experienced the traffic jams caused by the other DOT one lane open, only closed at night, "let's back up cars for miles while someone wants to make a left turn into a business" northern part of the route 7 widening project.

A trip to Danbury form Norwalk, depending on where you depart, is approximately 15 miles. It currently takes 45 minutes on average. Most days it exceeds an hour. A comparable trip from Norwalk to Bridgeport along I-95, also 15 miles takes about 15 minutes.

By building the Super 7 expressway, traffic congestion on I-95 and route 7 will lessen because of the the ability of people who work in the economic super corridor of southwester Connecticut to choose housing options north of Fairfield County. Anyone who commutes in from Milford, Stratford, Trumbull and Shelton would take a hard look at moving to a location that promises a-less-time-in-car commute.

Corporations would be more comfortable relocating to the corridor because there would be an increased pool of workforce that is a reasonable commuting distance. Office developments would diversify towns tax rolls, so that the pressure on increasing infrastructure is mitigated. A diversified tax base helps keep residential property taxes down.

It seems somewhat misguided to have our federal tax dollars used to construct bridges to nowhere in Alaska, and roads to be bombed in Iraq, while the DOT claims that they lack funds for the project. 80% of the construction costs for Super7 are federal dollars, the ones we keep sending to Washington DC but keep getting .69 cents back on. It's time we get our elected officials to start thinking about what's best for Fairfield County as a region.

Commitee to Extend Route 7.
Norwalk Advocate, Route 7 work to begin soon in Wilton, Mark Ginocchio, 9/04/06.

A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Away ...

Ok, it was not a Galaxy that was a Ford car, but it was Detroit and this story is about GM cars, steel and workers. In the in days shortly after WWII, labor was in tight supply. Businesses actually had to compete for workers and started offering incentives that would go beyond simply paying more in wages. And so begins Malcom Gladwell's fascinating article on the economics of employer based pensions and healthcare.

The president of General Motors at the time was Charles E. Wilson, known as Engine Charlie. Wilson was one of the highest-paid corporate executives in America, earning $586,100 (and paying, incidentally, $430,350 in taxes). He was in contract talks with Walter Reuther, the national president of the U.A.W. The two men had already agreed on a cost-of-living allowance. Now Wilson went one step further, and, for the first time, offered every G.M. employee health-care benefits and a pension.

Flash forward to today, and GM and Ford and for that matter just about every company that was around then, is unable to fund its pensions and certainly has stripped the healthcare benefits it once promised to its retired workforce.

America’s private pension system is now in crisis. Over the past few years, American taxpayers have been put at risk of assuming tens of billions of dollars of pension liabilities from once profitable companies. Hundreds of thousands of retired steelworkers and airline employees have seen health-care benefits that were promised to them by their employers vanish. General Motors, the country’s largest automaker, is between forty and fifty billion dollars behind in the money it needs to fulfill its health-care and pension promises. This crisis is sometimes portrayed as the result of corporate America’s excessive generosity in making promises to its workers. But when it comes to retirement, health, disability, and unemployment benefits there is nothing exceptional about the United States: it is average among industrialized countries—more generous than Australia, Canada, Ireland, and Italy, just behind Finland and the United Kingdom, and on a par with the Netherlands and Denmark. The difference is that in most countries the government, or large groups of companies, provides pensions and health insurance. The United States, by contrast, has over the past fifty years followed the lead of Charlie Wilson and the bosses of Toledo and made individual companies responsible for the care of their retirees. It is this fact, as much as any other, that explains the current crisis. In 1950, Charlie Wilson was wrong, and Walter Reuther was right.

American businesses can't compete with the huge financial obligations incurred by the shortsighted business leaders of the past. In macro, this is the problem with the Bush administration policies of spend now/pay later policies that will saddle future workers with outrageous debt to repay (and its bad even now 40% of your tax dollars go to the interest payments on debt incurred by just 3 presidents; Reagan, Bush and Bush)

Innovation mustn't stop with technology. We need smarter solutions to basic problems of how to keep our economy running with the mix of old industries and new industries able to compete globally. Gladwell sums up the problem;

Here, surely, is the absurdity of a system in which individual employers are responsible for providing their own employee benefits. It penalizes companies for doing what they ought to do. General Motors, by American standards, has an old workforce: its average worker is much older than, say, the average worker at Google. That has an immediate effect: health-care costs are a linear function of age. The average cost of health insurance for an employee between the ages of thirty-five and thirty-nine is $3,759 a year, and for someone between the ages of sixty and sixty-four it is $7,622. This goes a long way toward explaining why G.M. has an estimated sixty-two billion dollars in health-care liabilities. The current arrangement discourages employers from hiring or retaining older workers. But don’t we want companies to retain older workers—to hire on the basis of ability and not age? In fact, a system in which companies shoulder their own benefits is ultimately a system that penalizes companies for offering any benefits at all. Many employers have simply decided to let their workers fend for themselves. Given what has so publicly and disastrously happened to companies like General Motors, can you blame them?

The issue of universal healthcare goes beyond what is good for the worker. Its good for business. Short term thinking is what gets companies in trouble. Gladwell's article is long, but worth the entire read, especially on this Labor Day.


New Yorker THE RISK POOL
What’s behind Ireland’s economic miracle—and G.M.’s financial crisis?, MALCOLM GLADWELL, Issue of 2006-08-28.

Coastal Connecticut and Storm Shutters

Saturday's sweeping storm toppled many a tree and flooded low lying areas during high tide, but the one thing the gusting 50 MPH storm didn't do was create damage that would necessitate the need for the type of storm shutters once finds in Hurricane alley beach-front bungalows. Yet, that's the requirement that homes within 3/4 miles of the Long Island Sound or portions of major rivers near the sound

Andover has about 2,000 customers in Connecticut who must add the shutters to keep their homeowner policies. The regulation applies to homes three-quarters of a mile or closer to a major river or Long Island Sound

State Rep Chris Perone, D-Norwalk, demanded an investigation "Shame on Andover, and shame on other companies petitioning to place such a financial burden on our shoreline residents, specifically those residents living in East Norwalk in close proximity to Long Island Sound. The financial burden of installing these storm shutters places economic hardship on shoreline residents battling the high cost of energy and those living on fixed incomes. This is unfair to the residents of Connecticut.”

House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called for the Insurance Commissioner Susan Cogswell to reverse the changes to coastal guidelines approved for Andover. Along with state Sen. Cathy Cook, R-Mystic, and state Rep. Ed Jutila, D-East Lyme.

Last Thursday, Blumenthal issued subpoenas to nine insurers. The subpoena requested each company to document their reasons for requiring the shutters. While Andover is the only company requiring the shutters, other companies indicate premiums will increase if the shutters are not installed. The companies subpoenaed Thursday are: Andover Companies; Main Street America Group Holdings; Met Property & Casualty Co., Vermont Mutual Insurance Group; New London Mutual Insurance Group Co.; Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.; The Allstate Corporation; Unitrin, Inc.; and Lumbermen's Casualty Company.

AP, Blumenthal questions insurers' mandate for shutters Friday September 01, 2006

The CourantStorm Over Hurricane Risks? August 25, 2006, By MARK PETERS

Updated: How this affects Norwalk, a map that shows half of Norwalk would have to install these storm shutters.

Rell Campaign Getting Underway

First Commercial to be Released on Monday

Jodi Rell's re-election campaign has been pretty low-key this summer. Most of what she's done is have young campaign workers go to events and hand out swag and balloons. That's about to change. Her website has received a much-needed facelift, and, according to the Courant, she's about to release her first ad:

Her first commercial is a 60-second tribute characterizing her two-year tenure as a fresh start for a state stunned by Rowland's departure in the face of an impeachment inquiry and his eventual conviction on federal corruption charges.

With a deftly edited and elegantly scored ad, Rell exploits the advantages of incumbency and her unique place in Connecticut history, which has helped make the Republican one of the state's most popular governors as she seeks a first full term. (Pazniokas)

DeStefano, of course, has been airing ads since last October, many of them either aimed at Rell or positive ads about DeStefano and New Haven. However, since most of his money was spent winning the primary, it's uncertain when he will be able to put any more of his ads on the air.

DeStefano's spokesman, Derek Slap, said the commercial shows the race is tightening, a claim undermined by the Rell campaign's long-held plan to launch its ad campaign on Labor Day, traditionally the first day of the fall election season. In a Quinnipiac University poll released two weeks ago, Rell led DeStefano, 64 percent to 32 percent, among likely voters.

Slap declined to say when DeStefano, who has been busily raising money since winning the Aug. 8 primary, will be able to go on the air. He dismissed Rell's opening salvo as a "feel-good" effort that diverts attention from the state's inability under Rell to confront major issues. (Pazniokas)

And yet this sort of ad is going to help Rell, because people like her. This is a reminder of why they like her. The ad goes from taking over for Rowland to campaign finance reform to saving the sub base. Positive. Happy. Squishy. Also effective as hell. She doesn't have to mention DeStefano at all. Frankly, attacking him only raises his name recognition.

DeStefano, on the other hand, may find that the only way to get anyone to notice him is to go negative--which could backfire seriously. It's not a great position to be in. He's like Bob Dole in 1996, or perhaps more aptly, Walter Mondale in 1984. Is there a way to victory for him from here?

Source
Pazniokas, Mark. "Rell Starting On Upbeat Note." Hartford Courant 2 September, 2006.

Special Session Not Likely Before Election Day

The Journal-Inquirer is reporting that a special session on energy prices is still a remote possibility, although Speaker of the House James Amann is reluctant to call one before Election Day.

Democratic and Republican leaders in the state House of Representatives both said this week they still hope to see a special session this fall to ease painfully high gasoline prices.

But House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, now says he's reluctant to back any session before Election Day on Nov. 7, saying he fears Republicans would use an earlier one to promote their campaign agenda.
...
The speaker, whose Democrats control 99 out of 151 seats in the state House, said he'd like lawmakers to consider shaving a penny or two off of the state's gasoline excise tax, which stands at 25 cents per gallon.
...
The problem now, Amann says, is that if a session is called before Nov. 7, there is no guarantee Republicans won't offer amendments to any gasoline-related bills to try to force Democrats to vote on other subjects. (Phaneuf)

Yes, shave off that penny or two. That way, prices will drop from $2.89 to $2.88, and I can save an entire 15-30 cents per fill-up. If that is the extent of the Democratic plan, then they shouldn't bother holding a special session at all--before Election Day or otherwise.

Other possibilities include the elimination of the petroleum products gross receipts tax, which adds about 17 cents. This tax was originally supposed to help raise money for transportation projects, but the windfall the state took in from the price spike following Hurricane Katrina has raised much more than was required during the first year.

House and Senate members both voted unanimously in spring 2005 to raise the tax in four annual increments, between July 2005 and July 2008, ultimately boosting it from 5 percent to 7.5 percent.

Those increases were supposed to net the state an extra $80 million per year, which would be channeled into a multibillion-dollar highway and infrastructure overhaul.

But after the first increase, from 5 percent to 5.8 percent, took effect in July 2005, the tax brought in an extra $95 million in one year alone, as Hurricane Katrina, instability in the Middle East, and other factors caused gasoline prices to spike.

When lawmakers returned to the Capitol in 2006, they increased the planned spending on transportation projects, and allowed the second of the four tax increases to take effect, boosting the rate to 6.3 percent in July 2006. (Phaneuf)

A combination of reductions in the petroleum products gross receipts tax and the excise tax would make for some substantial relief. However, don't expect anything to get done before Election Day, as Democrats don't want to hand Jodi Rell another issue she could theoretically club them with.

Source
Phaneuf, Keith. "House to address gas prices; speaker wary of special session before Election Day." Journal-Inquirer 1 September, 2006.

Three Connecticut Congressional Races Among Top Races To Watch

In today’s Washington Post political blog, The Fix, Chris Cillizza once again outlines the Top 20 U.S. House races to watch this November. Not surprisingly, Connecticut’s hot trend in politics continues as the races in the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Districts all make an appearance in the Top 20. Below are Mr. Cillizza’s rankings and comments on the Connecticut races.

17. Connecticut's 4th District: This race slides down the Line as we hear that Rep. Chris Shays' (R) favorable ratings are extremely healthy -- making it difficult for 2004 nominee Dianne Farrell to peel away the necessary votes to defeat the incumbent. Shays, who recently made his 14th trip to Iraq and proclaims that he understands the situation there better than any other member of Congress, is expected to lay out a plan for a withdrawal timeline next month. After years of support for the war, will voters see this as a flip flop on Shays' part? Or will the move win him support among war opponents who will give him credit for searching for solutions? (Previous ranking: 9)

15. Connecticut's 5th District: Given her demonstrated fundraising ability ($2.6 million on hand at the end of June) and her longevity in Congress (24 years), Nancy Johnson (R) isn't an obvious target. But, Republican insiders say that MoveOn.org's "red handed" commercials that ran earlier this cycle did damage to Johnson's image. Plus, state Sen. Chris Murphy (D) is running an extremely active campaign with $1 million in the bank. The district is extremely competitive (Kerry won it by 1,100 votes in 2004) and if voters are looking for a fresh face Johnson could be in trouble. (Previous ranking: N/A)

11. Connecticut's 2nd District: There are two ways of thinking about this race. If voters in this eastern Connecticut district see their vote as an expression of dissatisfaction with President Bush and the war in Iraq, then Rep. Rob Simmons (R) is in serious trouble. If, however, the main motivating factors for voters are more local in scope -- like Simmons' help in saving the Groton submarine base from closure -- then the incumbent could pull it out. Republicans note that Simmons already beat Democratic nominee Joe Courtney soundly in 2002, but the environment has changed drastically since then. (Previous ranking: 7)

What I find interesting is that while the races in the 2nd and 4th Districts both tumbled in this week’s ranking, the race in the 5th District made its debut. Personally, I think Representative Shays is the most vulnerable of the three incumbents, but I still believe that all three incumbents will win re-election (although, it should be very close).

Source
Cillizza, Chris. “The Friday Line: U.S. House Races.” Washington Post, The Fix (Political Blog) September 1, 2006.

Dodd Makes a List

In recent months, whenever a list of possible presidential candidates is compiled, Sen. Chris Dodd's name has been left off it. Not any more. National Journal's rankings put Dodd in "the rest" category instead of the top 5, but at least he's there. Here's what they say:

Every time Dodd is ready to make a national leap, a guy named Joe Lieberman tosses up a hurdle. In '96, Dodd was the one salvaging the DNC and helping President Clinton. Then Lieberman critiques Clinton and ends up the VP nominee. This year, Dodd's ready to try a WH bid -- and Lieberman leaves the party, causing Dodd local heartburn while he courts liberals.

I wonder if Dodd sees it that way?

Source
"White House 2008 Race Rankings." National Journal (online) 1 September, 2006.

Friday Open Forum

Rowland sells his place by the lake.

New London considers a strong-mayor form of government.

Joe Lieberman may receive a frosty reception when he returns to the Senate.

Lastly, a poll:

In local races for state representative, which are you more likely to vote for?
	The incumbent
	The challenger
	My district has no challenger
	My district has no incumbent
	Don't know/don't care
Free polls from Pollhost.com

What else is happening?

Lamont Attacks Bush Over Iraq Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gabe on Leave

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

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

Shays on Iraq

From Hotline on Call:

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

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

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

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

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

Races to Watch: State Senate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Races to Watch: State House of Representatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smart, Thin and Rich

What's this? Good news about Connecticut?

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

Best

CO 40.67
MN 40.00
UT 39.67
WI 39.33
CT 38.67

Worst

SC 7.33
TX 8.00
WV 10.00
GA 10.67
MS 11.67

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

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

Open Forum

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

What else is happening today?

Gubernatorial Poll

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

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

Rell, DeStefano Spar over Head Start

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update 8:27pm

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

Sources

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

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

DeStefano Catching Up?

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

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

The Rell campaign questioned the poll's methodology:

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

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

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

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

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

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

RTCs Start Dropping Schlesinger

Not a huge surprise:

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

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

Senate Poll

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

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

Dodd to Visit Iowa, New Hampshire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shays Comments on Iraq: 2002-Present

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Forum

Quote of the day:

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

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

What else is happening?

DeStefano Criticizes Rell over CMT Scores

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

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

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

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

Question: What makes a failing school?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Lieberman, Simmons, and Rell in Groton Today

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


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

5th Congressional District: Democracy Corps Poll

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

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

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

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

And about the recent ad wars in the district:

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

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

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

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

Lieberman Decries "Purge"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pennsylvania Local Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But now?

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

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

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

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

And that's nice.

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

Being Dan Gerstein

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

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

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

And this:

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

And this:

But then Gerstein posed "a question" for Lamont.

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

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

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

UPDATE: From Newsday:

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

From The Amherst Times (western NY):

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

Lamont and Edwards Event

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

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

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

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

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

Friday Open Forum

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

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

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

What else is happening?

Lieberman Campaign Encouraged, Cautious Re: QU Poll

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

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

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

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

NRSC "Favors" Lieberman Win

Joe Lieberman is favored by the National Republican Senatorial Committee:

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

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

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

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

Lamont and Edwards Event

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

Google Map

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

Lieberman, Rell with Large Leads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source
Quinnipiac Poll. 17 August, 2006.

Investigator: Garfield Clear

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

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

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

See what happened here.

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

Source

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

Hunting, Fishing, and Camping For All

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

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

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

UPDATE/CORRECTION

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

Source

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