Speaker of the House James Amann whines to WTIC about his "I'll crush them" comment

Jimmy Soprano Amann (0.00 / 0)

..and repeating the one-issue bullshit mantra that it was all about the war.

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 15:30:16 PM CST

Ray Dunaway doing his best Don Imus (4.00 / 1)

"I'd have done the same thing."

I suppose if Fast Jimmie had say "I will break your kneecaps!", Ray would still be chortling away. Diane Smith came off somewhat better, comparing it to George Allen's "Macaca" moment.

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 15:37:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ray is a wing nut .... (0.00 / 0)

and nothing proved that more than his twisting every single news item and poll during the campaign in LIEberman's favor. On primary night, did anyone catch him absolutely losing it on the radio and hanging up on the one guy? Funny, how he took a trip to Alaska right after that.
I caught Ray's nonsense this morning. Yesterday, he was on a rage about there being no global warning. Diane is an Independent, displays some common sense sometimes but is really just an enabler for Ray to spew. Speaking of spew ...... that's exactly what Amann is.

---

by: Missy's Brother @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 16:07:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hah! (0.00 / 0)

I remember that. Dunaway was freaking out as the returns came back. What a wanker.

---

by: joejoejoe @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 05:57:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How many loved ones has Amann sacrified for Bush's & Lieberman's war? (4.00 / 1)

The war is a giant moral issue, but to craven power hungry jerks like Amann and Lieberman, the war is fine as long as someone else suffers the consequences of war.

---

by: Larkspur @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 15:38:19 PM CST

Dem party needs to be called on carpet somehow (4.00 / 1)

What can be done to hold the state Dem party accountable for the freelancing and blatant nonsupport of the official candidate  by some party leaders after the primary? 

What are the party rules, what are the state statutes, and how does the Democratic party account for itself?  What do party leaders promise we can expect of them in the future? 

I think people who register for party membership expect that party's support of its own candidates to be unwavering (or am I wrong?), the primary to have some meaning (or am I misled?), and that the party will work wholeheartedly for all of its candidates - and absolutely NOT work for its candidates that have not passed muster in the primary. 

If that is not the case, then I think saying so openly and directly to party members is in order.  We need to understand how the state party plans to regard the primary results going forward, and understand how this regard matches up with rules/statutes that may relate to their stance.

To the extent that leadership figures in the party actively undermine with words and actions, they undermine not just the candidate - they undermine the Democratic party franchise and give Indies one more reason not to bother signing up to participate in a party.  They have created a situation in which potential candidats who might choose to run and even spend their own money to do so must think twice about what they're getting involved in.

I think Jim Amann, certain legislators and DTC chairs (Milford comes to mind) and the state party officials have owe Democratic voters an explanation.

If the party wishes to leave individual leaders open to not support official candidates, then I want a press statement to that effect.  The GOP will provide the laugh track.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 15:57:57 PM CST

We need a petition or Joint letter........ (0.00 / 0)

to Nancy DiNardo  (ndinardo@ctdems.org), saying exactly what you outlined, greenpeas.

We are Democrats, too.  We are the ones who donated more than we were able to.  Who knocked on doors, who passed out literature. Who phone banked.  Who worked in candidates offices.  Who wrote LTEs.  Who showed up at rallies and other gatherings. 

The head of the Democratic party in the state should have to answer to us! 

I watched town Dem leaders in my own town of E.Hartford vote for Lieberman!  Wouldn't put up any yard signs.  Saying he was a Democrat, too!

Please, somebody, keep track of when Aman comes up for reelection, and let us know how and where to help wipe him out!

---

by: PamB @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 16:58:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who gets called out? (0.00 / 0)

I think CTBlogger has a list of legislators who didn't support Lamont.  We may not have a list of DTC chairs who would not support the party candidate.

I am not being vindictive or seeking blame.  I am simply saying there needs to be a real straightforward call to accountability and meeting of the minds as to what we may (legally/rulewise) and can expect from our party leadership.

If there are leaders who are not willing to stand up for the party candidate, then we all need to know who they are and decide if this is how we want *our* party to be run.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 17:07:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bylaws project (0.00 / 0)

There's been a lot of chatter here and in person about wanting to know more about our party's rules and bylaws.  When I lived in VA, our state committee and local committee both had printed bylaws that any Democrat could get a copy of.

Anyone know about this here in CT?  Have you ever tried to get your local committee's bylaws?

As I've typed before, I'm still STUNNED that it is permissable under any local committee's bylaws for a member of the committee to openly support a candidate who OPPOSES a Democrat and still retain member status.  Even worse, there are DTC CHAIRS who openly supported a candidate who opposed the party's candidate.

This is not just about Lamont/Lieberman.  It's about the very definition of a party and the very purpose of party organizations, party leadership, and primaries.  If party leaders are ALLOWED to retain leadership positions while openly ignoring the results of a primary, the whole party becomes meaningless.

In Virginia, we don't even have registration by party.  Everyone's unaffiliated.  But when you become a member of a committee and when you run in a party's primary or caucus, you MUST abide by the party's bylaws.  I don't see how it could be otherwise here in CT. 

Is it because we don't actually HAVE bylaws, because everyone just ignores them, or because they're so lax that they allow a DTC CHAIR to openly support the opponent of our party's candidate?

---

by: Maura @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 17:06:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Available at every town clerk, and through state central (0.00 / 0)

On it for the 4th :) Love to see other CDs get this info.

–7.25 / –7.28

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 17:18:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what I know about the rules and statutes so far (0.00 / 0)

I totally agree that it is about the very definition and purpose of party organizations.

I will count on the longterm activists to fill in the blanks - I can only offer what I can learn on line about the situation as it exists on paper.

The state central rules are at this link:
http://dems.info/Con...
The rules above include generic rules for towns that have not voted upon their own particular DTC rules.

I have read these rules and although they make rather general and vague statements about working to support candidates, a great deal is left open to interpretation.  It might be worthwhile to compare CT Democratic  State Central rules to other states to see if some tightening up or clarification would be in order.

Many of the bylaws adopted for particular DTCs are on line in website for that town's DTC.  For example, here is a link to the Windsor Locks DTC, stating that if members of that DTC do not support the endorsed candidates, they may be voted off the DTC (see section 7).  http://windsorlocks....

We had this discussion earlier and I think it was Jon Kantrowitz who said he thought that rules such as #7 above were most likely unconstitutional.  I don't know if anyone has ever challenged them or put this to a legal test.

There are statutes, rather than party rules, that Sharon Ferrucci, New Haven registrar, consulted in her decision not to pursue expulsion of Lieberman as a registered Democrat in spite of his active campaign against the official Democratic candidate and use of GOP talking points. The statute says that in such situations the person *may* be expelled, but doesn't have to be. Here's a link to the NH Independent article on the attempt to remove him, which also contains a link to the relevant statute.  http://www.newhaveni...

Because these statutes are not a small task to go through and try to understand, it helps to tap into others' experience.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 17:41:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Unconstitutional (0.00 / 0)

Just not legal - it's an elected office - you can't deprive someone of an elected office w/o statutory authority to do so.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:04:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

try this on (0.00 / 0)

So are you saying that the state party's granting the local parties the right to make their own rules does not constitute statutory authority, it constitutes only the rules of the party?

I'd like to understand this better because the elections in which these DTC members, e.g.,  are selected are primaries held for the purpose of electing party officials, not general elections in which the party is somehow interfering with these rules. 

There is a specific method by which the local DTCs are allowed to adopt their rules, and if they've followed it, and these rules are official and part of how the party is constituted within the state.

And none of that counts?  It is in fact the state rules, for example, that say that how the DTC members are selected is by holding a primary.  That's not a statute - it's a state party rule.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:41:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's Not a Primary Exactly (0.00 / 0)

It's a caucus - but you  are right - if the local party rules provide a method for removing a member that's approved or within the state party rules, I guess you could do so - the method would have to be fair and with the right of a hearing, however.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:56:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

take a look at windsor locks' provision # 7 (0.00 / 0)

As an example of one DTC which states that if you' aren't going to support the candidates, you can be voted off the DTC.  Who wants to be that ugly?  Maybe there needs to be added in an upfront, clear, vigorous definition of the reason one joins a DTC and the purpose of it??

The other problematic thing is that in looking at examples of other states' or counties' rules, often the rule says, "cannot support an opposition party candidate".  But Lieberman didn't actually join his own party -- giving wind to the sails of those who said they were not supporting an opposition party candidate.  It also leaves room to fail to support your own party's candidate as long as you do not actively support another party's candidate.

A lot of rope there to play with.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 10:01:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ummm, yes... (4.00 / 1)

...I'll just be leaving the country now.

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 16:57:37 PM CST

Bob, this was on Ray and Diane, earlier than Vicevich, (0.00 / 0)

Vicevich also did a segment on this, and paid particular attention to you and your videos.

Anybody else here listen to Vicevich??

---

by: PamB @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 17:02:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't get me started on Vicevich (4.00 / 1)

I generally don't listen to Vicevich because he is on from 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 when I have to WORK for a living unlike his army of retired or unemployed listeners.  However I occasionally used to listen during the summer (I'm  a teacher) or on days off like this past Friday.  I've come to several conclusions about "Buddy" as Colin McEnroe calls him. 

1. He is a Rush mini-me who copies Rush's format down to the sound-bites of the most extreme people taking the opposing opinion on issues, who he then holds up as a "wacko liberals".

2. I'm beginning to suspect Buddy has a substance abuse problem like his hero Rush since he constantly slurs his speech when on the air.

3. Its been reported in several sources that this divorced father almost exclusively dates women young enough to be his daughters. A real paragon of moral virtue. I'm sure its for their stimulating intellectual reparte - "Gee Mr. Vicevich, does your voice really go out over the air to millions of people?"

4. Buddy is a former financial reporter for Channel 3 who went on to a career as a financial adviser.  It's my personal opinion based on armchair psychoanalysis that he was one of the "Masters of the Universe" from the 80's who woke up on 9/11 to the realization that the terrorists were trying to kill him and his buddies.  He then was willing to forfeit all his civil liberties to Bush and Cheney just as long as they'd save him from the evil dooers.

I happened to listen to a bit of his show on Friday.  I was hoping he'd have his staff "security expert" and general wacko Tom Marzullo on. He's always good for a laugh. Marzullo opined shortly after 9/11 that suicide bombers and jihadists always shave off their body hair before an attack so that would be a good way to identify them.  Who needs metal detectors I guess. Instead Buddy had some guy who was actually making a bit of sense.  He said that the situation in Iraq was hopeless and that Bush should just declare victory and bring the troops home.  Buddy agreed, whining that the American people just didn't have the heart and stomach to do what was necessary. I couldn't resist so I called in and berated Buddy for being a "cut and Runner".  I told him that we were in World War III according to Newt Gingrich and that we should be invading Syria and Iran since the Iraq invasion had gone so well.  I then laughed in his face and hung up.

As you can see old Buddy sure does get me riled up.

---

by: amarko55 @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 20:34:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nah (0.00 / 0)

We gotcher back.  And we come ARMED with cameras.

---

by: Maura @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 17:07:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nah (0.00 / 0)

Put up the Entire 25 minutes of  film to show everyone Jimmy Boy is nothing but a lying little sissy.

PUT THE ENTIRE THING UP!!

---

by: ctkeith @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 18:22:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Speaking of Lieberman, (0.00 / 0)

Quinniapiac did a "thermometer poll" of 20 top politicians to get feelings on them.

Lieberman was # 6 !!  In the Nation, of supposedly various people.  Oh, Lord, please let his ego have him decide to run for Pres again!  I want to see him humiliated out again this time ! 

Guiliani #1.  a man who has been married 3 times!  Divorced his last wife when she was having Cancer treatment!  Really nice, family value type of guy. 

---

by: PamB @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 17:10:36 PM CST

Thermometer (0.00 / 0)

Did you notice Lieberman had a 52 on his thermometer reading yet only got 49.8 percent of the vote in his own state? George Allen gets 49.3 percent of the vote in a large state like Virginia and his career is in shambles and Joe Lieberman gets 49.8 percent of the vote in Connecticut and he's the most powerful man in the Senate. I'll never understand Quinnipiac polls. The guy who published it (name?) also wrote editorial pieces on right leaning Real Clear Politics telling us all why Joe Lieberman is the cat's pajamas.

I only hope the national pundits talk up Lieberman so much that McCain picks him for his ticket. Let Lieberman ruin two national tickets. The man is a pox on government.

---

by: joejoejoe @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:04:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yikes! (0.00 / 0)

Just watched the YouTube video. I've never heard of Amann until this past election cycle when he came up above the radar screen for his support of Mr. It's-all-about-me Lieberman.

As much as Lieberman is Mr. Hubris, Amann deserves the moniker of Mr. Arrogance. Save this video. You guys can play it during the victory party of whoever beats this guy.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 17:31:01 PM CST

Yikes exactly. (0.00 / 0)

My response precisely when I saw it.  I had heard people ranting about him, but when I saw him in action I just got sick.  THIS is the Democrats' idea of a good leader in CT?  Heaven help us! 

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 17:43:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rennie on Amann & CTBob (0.00 / 0)

The Ray & Diane interview was apparently prompted by Kevin Rennie's column in the Courant:

If you would like to see the veil slip on Williams' counterpart in the House of Representatives, go to YouTube and type in the name "James Amann" in the search box.

Thanks to videographer CTBob, you'll see that tribune of the people, Amann, announce to a local interlocutor that he would "crush" anyone who would dare to run against him in his Milford district. Amann has essentially become a bully of the most pompous sort. And there it is for all to see in two minutes.

We don't need fewer opportunities for candidates to reveal themselves, we need more. These moments of candor always tell us more about our leaders than they intend. And for that we are grateful.

---

by: mikect @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 19:13:33 PM CST

The rumor I've heard a few times now is that (0.00 / 0)

A certain female co-chair of a powerful committee is planning on challenging him next time around.  She is quietly gaining support, including from some retired-but-influential representatives who plan on backing her.  Stay tuned for developments?

---

by: lonelily @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 23:41:02 PM CST

One strategy (0.00 / 0)

is to demand that Amann step down as Speaker or we run someone against him.  THe video/audio being played over and over again during a campaign would be embarassing both to Amann and to the Dems as a whole.  Perhaps other influential Dems could convince Amann that it would be better for him to step down than having to hear how he intends to "crush" the "idiot" that dares run against him for 3 or 4 months.  His arrogance will make all elected Democrats look bad.  Just a thought.

I have vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals -- Butch Cassidy
Check out www.ctsmartgrowth.com

---

by: commonweal @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 08:30:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The speakership is only held for 4 yrs (0.00 / 0)

by one person.This is not a law but a tradition that house members demand be upheld.A few have tried to break this tradition but none successfully and Amann won't try.

Jin Amann is not atypical of what a CT state house member looks like. As long as we pay our "parttime" legislators $28,000 a year and allow them to have obvious conflicts of interests in order to "make a living" we'll have substandard people running our legislature and representing us.

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:25:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressive coup attempt (0.00 / 0)

I heard from reliable sources that a plan was floated by certain progressive legislators to offer the Speakership to Repub leader Larry Cafero rather than back Amann for another term as speaker.  Cafero didn't go for it.

---

by: amarko55 @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:29:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]