Outside of Hartford, her efforts have paid off. She's popular in lots of small towns where she makes a point to visit often. And even though she's a Democrat, she comes off on the conservative side and appeals to some Republicans and independents - something that could serve her well in a general election.
"I like her very much, I would vote for her personally," says Paul Coutu, a radio-host in North East corner of the state, adding that he does not make endorsements. "Support in this area is pretty good...people do not speak badly of her." Noting that she is less popular in Hartford, he added, "[Murphy] has the insiders' endorsements but I'm not sure why. I'm not an insider."
...
"It was a rough election season for her last year, she just pivoted multiple times on what she was running for," said state senator Beth Bye, who endorsed Murphy and stresses how impressive Murphy is as a candidate. "It was really hard for me not being with the woman candidate. I think we really need more women."
PPP has the race close if it's Shays against Murphy next year, far less so if it's McMahon.
The Senate race in Connecticut next year looks like it could be pretty competitive, especially if Republicans nominate Chris Shays.
Democratic front runner Chris Murphy leads Shays only 43-39 in a hypothetical match up. And Shays beats both Susan Bysiewicz (48-37) and William Tong (46-27). Shays' strength lies in his appeal to Democrats and independents. Democrats actually see him favorably by a 41/27 margin, and he wins anywhere from 13% of the Democatic vote (against Murphy) to 24% of it (against Bysiewicz.) He also leads with independents by margins ranging from 9 points against Murphy to 33% against Tong.
The problem for Shays is that the moderation that makes him popular across party lines doesn't do much for him with Republican voters. Only 34% of them see him him favorably to 30% with a negative opinion, pretty tepid numbers to have within your own party. Those numbers pale in comparison to Linda McMahon's- 63% of Republicans have a positive opinion of her to 25% with an unfavorable one and given that it's no surprise that primary numbers we'll release next week show McMahon with a large lead.
...
This race really is 2010 all over again for Republicans, not just in Connecticut but nationally. If Shays is the nominee this is really a winnable race for the GOP. But the party base is very skeptical of him and if Linda McMahon and her overall 39/49 favorability rating win the nomination again it's hard to see Republicans winning, especially if Democrats go with their more electable candidate in Murphy. GOP voters will just have to decide if they're willing to compromise on ideology for a big upgrade in electability. They weren't last year, but maybe they'll learn their lesson for 2012.
Some caveats do apply. Shays is well-known and Connecticut voters sort of like him. Chris Murphy is not well known yet, which is why the polling is close. McMahon does better with conservative voters than Shays but does horribly with everyone else. Rob Simmons doesn't do as well as Shays but has base issues as well.
QUESTION: Do you think what Thomas has done is as serious as what forced [disgraced former Supreme Court Justice Abe] Fortas off the bench?
MURPHY: I think our problem is we don't know the full extent of Justice Thomas' connections to [leading GOP donor] Harlan Crow, or, frankly, to a further network of right-wing funders. What he's done is incredibly serious. I think, at the very least, his actions should disqualify him from sitting on any cases in which Crow-affiliated organizations are parties to or have attempted to influence [the Court]. But this is starting to rise to the level where there should start to be some real investigations as to whether Clarence Thomas can continue to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Apologies if this has been already mentioned here.
The Supreme Court possesses the incredible power to interpret or even strike down laws they deem inconsistent with the Constitution. America trusts them with this power because justices must come to each case without a personal or financial stake in the outcome. Recent revelations about Justice Thomas accepting tens of thousands of dollars' worth of gifts from individuals and organizations who often have an interest in matters before the courts calls into question the Court's impartiality. Canon 4D of the Code of Conduct incorporates regulations providing that "[a] judicial officer or employee shall not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court." Yet Justice Thomas received a gift valued at $15,000 from an organization that had a brief pending before his Court at the very moment they gave him the gift. Incidents such as these undermine the integrity of the entire judiciary, and they should not be allowed to continue.
The Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act was introduced to shine a light on these issues. First, it would apply the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct, which applies to all other federal judges, to Supreme Court Justices. Currently, the justices only look to this standard as "guidance". Second, the bill would require Supreme Court justices to publicly disclose their reasoning behind a recusal when they withdraw from a case and when they refuse to recuse themselves after a motion is made for them to do so. Lastly, it would require the Judicial Conference to develop a process to review decisions by justices who have refused to step aside from a case.
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". It is time that we apply that same ideal to the Supreme Court. Again, we urge you to schedule a hearing on HR 862, to help restore the public's faith in our judicial system and to guarantee the integrity of our country's highest court.
A little color from outside tonight's Jefferson, Jackson, Bailey dinner. Team Murphy is out in full force. There's more, including some good video on the campaign's Flickr page and on the ChrisMurphy.com blog
(We posted this up on the campaign website, but wanted to share it with the My Left Nutmeg community as well.)
On Monday night, I returned from a congressional delegation trip to Afghanistan. I truly believe that in order to deeply understand a foreign conflict like those in Iraq or Afghanistan, you need to see it for yourself. Of course, with your military escort never more than a few feet away, you have to take what you're seeing with a pretty big grain of salt, but there still isn't anything to compare with talking to generals, soldiers, and local citizens in person.
So I want to give you a short, behind-the-scenes report from my recent trip to Afghanistan. For me, the trip reinforced my view that it is time to begin withdrawing American combat troops, and I'm interested whether my observations or the news of recent days has changed your perspective on the war. You can let me know here:
Connecticut Democratic Senate nominations have been the preserve of white men since 1976. Establishment Democrats like U.S. Representatives Larson, Courtney, DeLauro, and Himes want one of their own and do nothing to encourage a rigorous race for the nomination with their early endorsement.
Kevin, as John McEnroe would say: "You CANNOT BE SERIOUS!"
Let's look at the Republican Senators from CT. Whaddya know? A bunch of white guys! Not a woman among them or person of color among them. I bet you anything that if Linda McMahon hadn't been backed by her 50 million white men named George,she wouldn't have been the GOP candidate in 2010 either. What do you think?
Shall we look at the State Delegations for a hint at GOP diversity?
Let's have a look at CT's Senate Republicans. OMG! what a diverse bunch of white men! Oh, sorry, forget Toni Boucher. White men and woman.
Bysiewicz says in the race for the Democratic nomination, the polling shows her ahead of Kennedy, the Branford attorney and businessman who is the emotional favorite among many Democrats in the state. The poll also shows her ahead of Congressman Chris Murphy. Congressman Joe Courtney was not included in the polling because his interest in the race was not expressed until recently.
Bysiewicz says the poll also shows her winning in a three way race with Senator Lieberman and a Republican, either McMahon or 2010 GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley.
SNIIP
Not sure if I'd trust a candidate's internal polls. Lamont's internal polls had shown him leading Malloy by 30 pts at one point. It would be interesting to see what a non-candidate sponsored poll would show. Susan is banking on her name recognition at this point, but it will be interesting to see how people will respond when they are reminded about how she lost her bid for Attorney General. Those tapes of her at her deposition are pretty bad.
Responding to my question on WNPR's "Where We Live" program today, Congressman Chris Murphy stated that, "I am seriously thinking about (running for the United States Senate)." He said that he will make a decision early next month. He also stated that he did not think that Joe Lieberman will be the Democratic nominee, and that if he (Murphy) is not that nominee, that he "would expect" to support the Democratic nominee, not Lieberman.
So we have two Democratic congressmen seriously considering runs for Senate. That means that we Nutmeggers are sending the DSCC and Harry Reid a clear and unequivocal message: "Butt out! No more pandering to the despicable Joe Lieberman!"
Hi Guys and Gals! Nice to be back where I won't automatically be piled on @ "Hello" just because I'm a liberal. I think ;-)
So are you sufficiently panicked by the upcoming Snowmaggedon? I had to look up "Thunder Snow". Can you spell A-W-E-S-O-M-E? Surely another sign of the Snowpocalypse.
But back to politics.
1) For some reason that I find extremely curious, Stu Rothenberg's Political Report has put the 5th CD in play, although still in the Democratic favored category.
After meeting with state Sen. Sam Caligiuri (R) and former state director of military affairs Justin Bernier (R), it's clear that Cong. Chris Murphy (D) can't take his reelection for granted.
Clearly no one can take their reelection for granted, particularly in a mid term election when people's pocketbooks are hurting. But here's why I think he's wrong:
Caligiuri has made enemies within his own party. It's not like he's locked up the support of the RTC's in the 5th. Far from it.
Bernier's a solid candidate, but he's got a fight on his hands before he even gets to Murphy. Not just with Caligiuri but with the other GOP candidates, most of whom don't register, but one of whom, Mark Greenberg, is willing to dig into his deep pockets for the fight.
Meanwhile, Chris Murphy is has $942K cash on hand as of the 4th Q, and continue to fund raise while he waits to see who survives the GOP primary free for all. As a comparison, Bernier has $200K on hand, Caligiuri, $70K and Greenberg $256K of which $150K is a personal loan to his campaign.
I'm not a big gambler (the stock market was enough to take care of that urge) but I'll bet Stu Rothenberg a beer that Chris Murphy is still the Congressman in the 5th come November.
2) The shape of things to come? South Carolina Republicans are uniting with Tea Party activists to "share resources, coordinate messaging and push the GOP in a more conservative direction".
"This is not something the state party by edict pushed down," Floyd said. "This is something the grass-roots pushed up with an understanding that we are stronger together than apart."
Floyd said that working with the groups accomplishes her goals of "growing the Republican Party, electing conservative Republicans and growing the strength of the party," though she was careful in describing what the party intends to do in working with the tea parties to elect more conservative members.
"What we mean by that is being ideologically in step with our platform of creating a small government and advancing individual liberty," she said, insisting that partnering with the tea parties would not block support for more moderate candidates.
Yeah. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. But the CT Tea Partiers, at least one branch of them, are taking a different tack having registered the name with an eye to becoming a political party in the state, although not all the TP'ers agree with this strategy. Maybe we'll have a Tea Party Free for All!Oh Please...
Several people who attended Saturday's forum expressed skepticism at what they view as Simmons' fairly recent turn to the right.
"There's room for redemption, but he's got a ways to go to square his record with us," said Bob MacGuffie of Fairfield, founder of the conservative political action committee Right Principles.
MacGuffie doesn't buy Simmons' portrayal of himself as a fiscal conservative. "The whole Republican Party went off the deep end" during the Bush years, MacGuffie said, and Simmons "got swept up in that."
MacGuffie has even harsher words for one of Simmons' GOP rivals, Linda McMahon, saying that the former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO has "no record" to run on.
Guess they're not convinced by that Tea Bag Simmons has been carrying around.
One AndersonScooper posted this video of the recent townhall of Chris Murphy in Simsbury earlier this week. I saw it over at Connecticut Local Politics where you can read the comments of Genghis Conn about what he saw there.
Today, 57 Democratic members of Congress signed a letter to House leadership stating that the Blue Dog compromise on the public option in the Energy and Commerce Committee was "fundamentally unacceptable." Here is the full text of the letter, which includes a clear line in the sand:
Dear Madame Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:
We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of "keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down.
To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low- and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.
In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies.
We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.
Missing from the list of signatories? Any single Member of Congress from Connecticut, including Progressive Caucus member Rosa DeLauro.
August will be a long month of citizen lobbying, insurance industry spending, and message maneuvering on health care thanks in large part to the delay of the House floor vote that was also a key part of the Blue Dog compromise. There is still a long road ahead, but what happens in August will be key.
All of Connecticut's delegation - John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, Chris Murphy - will be in their districts next month. They will certainly be hearing from the insurance industry. They need to hear from their constituents too. Ask them to pledge to vote against any legislation that does not include a strong public option.
As the August recess looms, the state of health care reform in the House of Representatives is changing by the minute.
Today, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman appears to have possibly called the Blue Dogs' bluff and set the stage for passing the House health care legislation before the recess without the right-wing Dems in his committee getting to vote against it.
Also today, the ranks of progressives in the House who are standing tall and saying they refuse to vote for any legislation without a robust public option - on the floor, or after it comes back from conference - is growing.
Minutes ago, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who had previously refused to commit to voting against any reform-in-name only bill without a public option, changed her tune dramatically:
I have always been a strong supporter of the public option (including co-sponsoring single-payer) and pledged to you several weeks ago to fight like heck to make sure a public option will be included in any health care reform bill. But, having watched the debate evolve over the last week or so, I want to make sure all of you know that I have decided I will not vote for a health care bill in the House that doesn't include a real public option and I Pledge to uphold the public option principles agreed upon by the Progressive Caucus.
And here's Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), saying largely the same thing in a statement today:
"I'm not going to vote for any House bill that doesn't include a robust public option without any triggers or coops -- that's a must-have for me. I also believe that it's vital that there be a vote on the bill before the August recess. Delaying will only give entrenched special interests time to do everything they can to defeat it."
We specifically asked if "House bill" also meant conference report, and she indicated that it did.
Meanwhile, Connecticut's delegation - John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, and Chris Murphy - still have not stood up to declare that they will vote against meaningless reform-in-name only.
The Hill reports today on a letter to the Speaker signed by 22 members of the New Democrat and Blue Dog caucuses - including Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney, both New Dems - stating their support for a "robust" public option that competes on a level playing field with private health care plans.
The letter, unsurprisingly, doesn't address where these 22 members draw a line in the sand - the point at which they will refuse to vote for a health care reform bill that will surely be whittled away in the committee, floor, and conference fights to come in the coming weeks in both houses - or whether they are preemptively saying they will vote for any bill no matter how horrible it is.
It does, however, shed some light on what appears to be some real fracturing of the New Democrat Caucus on the health care fight:
Many New Dems criticized their leaders and said they have not liked being lumped in with opponents of the bill, particularly the public plan.
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a relatively new member of the group, said it should consider reviewing its practices....
"There is some concern that some decisions come only from talk among New Dem leadership rather than the broader leadership," said a New Democrat lawmaker. "A lot of decisions are made by New Dem leadership and not broadly discussed in membership meetings."
There's a very easy way for worried individual members interested in salvaging a real, workable public option - like 72% of Americans - to avoid being "lumped in" with those in their caucus who are pulling out all the stops to gut this bill even more and turn it into an insurance industry giveaway: by letting us know that you pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide (2) on day one and (3) accountable to Congress and voters.
While there continues to be much talk of "support" for a public option, neither John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, nor Chris Murphy have told us where their "line in the sand" is on this bill. If we want to have any chance of seeing a public option in the final bill, we need to know where they stand now.
As Rahm Emanuel unilaterally declares a public option not to be a necessity for the Obama administration (for the second time in two weeks), and President Obama himself finds himself walking back his chief of staff's comments from halfway across the globe, the need for a progressive bloc in the House of Representatives who will stand together and pledge to vote against reform-in-name only, making a real public option a necessity for any health care bill's passage this year, gets only clearer and clearer.
In CT, Joe Courtney is the latest Connecticut Representative to refuse to commit to voting against any health care plan without a workable, robust public option. Campaign Silo has the audio from his appearance last week on WNPR's "Where We Live":
This echoes Courtney's recent comments at a town hall meeting with constituents in DC, where he also refused to commit to vote against a health care bill without a public plan.
Our representatives need to know that at this point in the legislative process, voicing "support" for a public option means very little. What we need desperately are Democrats committed to real health care reform - like Jerry Nadler in New York - with the courage and the conviction to say loud and clear that a bill without a public option will be dead on arrival in the House.
Joe now joins Rosa DeLauro in refusing to be part of this effort. Apparently "Where We Live" will be hosting Rosa and the remainder of the Connecticut House delegation in the coming days and weeks (Chris Murphy was on yesterday), so constituents can continue to call in.
Here's how the citizen whip count of targeted progressive representatives (specifically, whether they will pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide (2) on day one and (3) accountable to Congress and voters) stands as of today. You can contact your representative using the info here and report their response using the whip count tool here.
Previous "Whipping the Public Option in CT" posts:
("The CT #healthcare09 delegation arrives in @jahimes office." by CCAG via TwitPic)
Today, Beau from CCAG is twittering the huge Health Care '09 rally and lobby day live from DC. You can follow CCAG's twitter feed all day here, photo updates here, and video updates here. This is by all accounts the largest national healthcare reform lobby day in history, and it comes at a crucial time. You can follow CCAG on twitter throughout the day for updates on meetings between Connecticut voters lobbying for meaningful health care reform - including a robust public option - and their representatives.
While most recent attention - and pressure - on healthcare legislation has been focused on the opaque workings of Senate committees and the huge egos and twisted priorities at work therein, this week Firedoglake and nyceve from Daily Kos launched a public whip count of progressive Representatives asking them for a firm commitment to vote against any health care "reform" legislation that does not include a public option that is "1. Available nationwide, 2. From day one," and "3. Answerable to Congress and the voters."
As Ben Smith from Politico points out, public whip counts like this are one of the most powerful tools available to online activists who want to influence legislation:
Legislative vote counts are one of those things that the Web can transform. They're typically closely held - counting is an insider's art - and deliberate ambiguity is a key negotiating tactic. Legislators who would prefer to vote no, for instance, might be willing to be the last vote, for a price. So while this has the effect of pushing members toward Obama's position, it also shines a spotlight on members who might prefer to stay uncommitted, or to wait for details and compromises.
Getting only 40 progressive Representatives to commit to voting against meaningless "reform" legislation without a public option may be the best way to force the Senate's - and White House's - hand on the public option. The Firedoglake whip count tool is here, but it only targets 100 progressive Representatives who they believe to be the lowest hanging fruit. Only one Rep from Connecticut - DeLauro - is on the list, and she has yet to respond. Yet Connecticut has 5 Democratic representatives who are all signatories to the Health Care for America Now "core principles" -- 3 of whom were elected to replace Republican incumbents in 2006 and 2008 based in large part on their support for real health care reform.
There's no reason not to ask CT's entire House delegation to commit to oppose meaningless reform-in-name-only that does not include a workable and robust public option. Contact your Rep at the phone number below and ask them to pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide, (2) on day one, and (3) accountable to Congress and the voters, and report any response to the FDL whip count tool here.
(Ironic that Republicans who called previous voters against supplementals traitors or defeatist now vote against it, and Democrats vote for it. - promoted by Jon Kantrowitz)
When it comes to a major opportunity to stop the wars, as Edwin Starr would sing, Absolutely nothing!
All the members of the Connecticut Congressional delegation--Rosa DeLauro, Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney, Jim Himes, John Larson--voted for the war supplemental. Several of these pols have presented themselves in their campaigns as being committed to a less warlike foreign policy. But when the chips were down and there was an opportunity to stand up and really cut the funding that fuels this bloody mayhem, they voted for war.
Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is the leading national grassroots campaign in America for health care reform, comprised of more than 850 organizations in 46 states representing 30 million people. President Obama and Vice President Biden; Members of Congress John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, Chris Murphy and over 190 of their colleagues signed onto the HCAN principles.
HCAN is dedicated to winning quality, affordable health care we all can count on in 2009. Everyone benefits from healthy communities, where we all have access to affordable, quality health care from a provider of our choice, at the time we need it, at a cost we can afford. Our mutual goal is affordable, quality health care for everyone in America and for our nation.
Connecticut Co-Chairs Tom Swan, Executive Director of CCAG and John Olsen, President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO invite you to one of three health care reform forums throughout Connecticut. Even if none of these are in your area, please be sure to forward this invitation to family and friends who do.
Special Guest Congressman Chris Murphy
10:00 AM to 12 Noon (Doors open at 9:30 AM)
Pulaski Club
89 Grove Street, New Britain 06053 [Google Map]
NOW is time to fix our health care system. Come and share your story about how and why our health care system needs to be reformed, and hear about the latest reform proposals before Congress. Learn how you can get involved in bringing health care reform to America now!
Congressman Chris Murphy, who represents Connecticut's 5th Congressional District, showed his support for the Health Care for America Now! campaign's principles at the Community Health Center in Meriden. Immediately below is a brief video from today's event:
Congressman Chris Murphy has recently been named to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is one of the two House Committees that will guide national health reform efforts. He was joined in Meriden by Richard Hirsch, who is the campaign manager for Health Care for America Now!
The full event today, including all guest speakers:
Disclosure: I am the Online Organizer for Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG)
(HCAN is doing important work to create awareness and widespread support for necessary health care reform. These signing events, promoted by CCAG, are terrific ways to show appreciation to Congressmen like Chris Murphy, Jim Himes, and the rest of the CT delegation who've signed on for health care reform. - promoted by CaptCT)
Below is an e-mail action alert that went out Sunday. If you want to be the first to hear about upcoming actions and events, sign up for CCAG Action Alerts here.
Congressman Chris Murphy has recently been named to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is one of the two House Committees that will guide national health reform efforts.
Richard Kirsch, Health Care for America Now (HCAN), Campaign Manager, will be joining us as Congressman Murphy publicly signs the HCAN pledge. Rep. Murphy has already been hard at work organizing his peers in Washington DC for health care reform.
Please join us to encourage Representative Murphy to continue this vital work in his new role!
As DavidNYC noted in his Orange-to-Blue endorsement post of Jim Himes yesterday, Chris Shays has a history of pretending to be a "moderate" while voting again and again for Bush's policies.
This morning, Shays joined many in both parties in Congress by standing with Bush again on the FISA "compromise".
(Here was Jim Himes's statement in opposition to the FISA "compromise" yesterday.)
Thankfully, Connecticut has four out of five Democrats in our House delegation, and all four - John Larson, Rosa DeLauro, Joe Courtney, and Chris Murphy - stood up and voted against both the war supplemental and against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies included in the FISA bill.
Let's show them that we have their backs. Send a thank you note to all four CT Dems for their vote today here:
MLN is powered by