Disappointed in the mindless endorsement given to Chris Shays by The New York Times, I have sent the following letter to Clark Hoyt -- the paper's Public Editor:
Dear Clark Hoyt,
In A Congressional Endorsement two years ago [October 25, 2006], The New York Times supported Diane Farrell for the seat in Connecticut's 4th District saying: "Mr. Shays may be a beacon of integrity, but if he is re-elected he will vote to continue House control by a party that has repeatedly sold out the country to special interest lobbyists. . . .[and] if he is re-elected he will support a Republican leadership that has refused to question even the most ruinous decisions . . . about the conduct of American foreign policy."
Disappointed in the mindless endorsement given to Chris Shays by The New York Times, I have sent the following letter to Clark Hoyt -- the paper's Public Editor:
Dear Clark Hoyt,
In A Congressional Endorsement two years ago [October 25, 2006], The New York Times supported Diane Farrell for the seat in Connecticut's 4th District saying: "Mr. Shays may be a beacon of integrity, but if he is re-elected he will vote to continue House control by a party that has repeatedly sold out the country to special interest lobbyists. . . .[and] if he is re-elected he will support a Republican leadership that has refused to question even the most ruinous decisions . . . about the conduct of American foreign policy."
Sunday afternoon in Stamford, Fourth District Democrats presented a united front against Chris Shays in advance of the 4th CD nominating convention next Monday May 12th, as two-time Democratic candidate Diane Farrell officially endorsed Jim Himes in front of a crowd of supporters. Here's the Stamford Advocate's report:
Himes, a Greenwich resident who runs a New York City nonprofit housing agency, is attempting what Farrell failed to do in two bids - unseat longtime incumbent U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Bridgeport, in the 4th Congressional District, the only one in the state held by Republicans.
"It's a huge honor for me to get Diane's endorsement for this race," said Himes, who was joined by his wife, Mary, and two daughters, Emma, 8, and Linley, 5.
"By all rights, Diane should be our congresswoman," he said to applause....
Farrell said Himes will succeed because Shays' continued support for the war in Iraq and Bush's fiscal policies "will give voters pause."
"I think the story of this campaign is Jim's qualifications," she said, "and the closeness of the last two races indicate that voters have looked closely at Shays' record."
Sunday afternoon in Stamford, Fourth District Democrats presented a united front against Chris Shays in advance of the 4th CD nominating convention next Monday May 12th, as two-time Democratic candidate Diane Farrell officially endorsed Jim Himes in front of a crowd of supporters. Here's the Stamford Advocate's report:
Himes, a Greenwich resident who runs a New York City nonprofit housing agency, is attempting what Farrell failed to do in two bids - unseat longtime incumbent U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Bridgeport, in the 4th Congressional District, the only one in the state held by Republicans.
"It's a huge honor for me to get Diane's endorsement for this race," said Himes, who was joined by his wife, Mary, and two daughters, Emma, 8, and Linley, 5.
"By all rights, Diane should be our congresswoman," he said to applause....
Farrell said Himes will succeed because Shays' continued support for the war in Iraq and Bush's fiscal policies "will give voters pause."
"I think the story of this campaign is Jim's qualifications," she said, "and the closeness of the last two races indicate that voters have looked closely at Shays' record."
Jim Himes has both a formidable challenge and a marvelous opportunity ahead of him in November.
Jim is the Democratic Party candidate for Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District. His opponent - Christopher Shays - has been the district's representative for 18 years.
The contention of those who want to provide Shays a "one-way ticket back to Crawford, Connecticut" is that Shays's voting record has moved toward the Neo-Con wing of the Republican Party since George W. Bush has been president. That contention is clearly true, although Shays has mounted a town hall meeting blitz of "That just isn't so . . . . I really am still the same old independent Chris Shays . . . . . Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, Dorothy !"
Jim Himes has been handed a golden opportunity by Chris Shays' voting record, one George W. Bush ( with plenty of documented kissy-kissy moments with Shays ) and an electorate who is sick of Bush and anyone who has enabled his illegal invasion and occupation, his spying on Americans, etc., etc.,etc., etc. Just as Shays was a target with a giant bullseye on him two years ago - he is even more so this time.
So, how can Jim close the deal on Shays ?
Pretty easily, in my estimation.
Jim has a Green Party "opponent" who agrees with him on nearly every issue - except impeachment.
A simple, heartfelt admission that Jim agrees with the rest of us - Dems, Greens, just about everyone in Connecticut - that Bush is worthy of impeachment hearings. Impeachment hearings now, after he's left office, whenever . . . . to send a message to future Presidents that the behavior of GWB is unacceptable, and that they will be held accountable - is a reasonable step for him to take.
Jim could and should also take a stand on the current Democratic primary - not a black-and-white ( no pun intended ) "I'm with Obama" or "I'm with Clinton" . . . . but a well thought out discussion with his supporters would show them his depth and breadth of thought on the issue. In the media, it would generate much discussion and show the electorate how reasoned and thoughtful Jim really is. There is no doubt that every Himes supporter is more than a little curious where he stands on this matter - and perhaps wondering whether they should support him more energetically.
I - for one - would stand behind him more strongly is he were bold enough to speak to these two matters.
This is the oped I authored that appeared last week in Greenwich Citizen:
"Lord, I want a timeline!", Congressman Chris Shays blurted out toward the end of a rambling speech on the floor of the House early this month. But does Mr. Shays really want to establish a firm timeline for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq? If one looks closely at his pronouncements on the Iraq War, the answer is "doubtful."
Mr. Shays has served as one of the Bush administration's most ardent and outspoken supporters for war from the beginning. For years following the invasion, Shays had been a consistent and determined foe of setting a timeline for withdrawal, declaring in January 2005, "We should not put out a timetable." Again in June of that year he told Larry King that, "The only people who need an exit plan, in my judgment, are the Syrians, Saudi Arabians and the Iranians. They're the ones who need to find a way to get out of the mess they're getting themselves into." In April of 2006 he stated, "I'm having every expert on terror that I talk to say that the last thing you do to terrorists is give them a timetable." Then in June of that year he blurted, "Thank goodness George Washington didn't have a timetable. Thank goodness George Washington didn't have Congress telling him he had to have a timetable to beat the Brits." On August 3, he was even more forceful in denouncing timelines, remarking on WNPR's "Where We Live" that, "To have a timeline would be absolutely foolish."
Diane Farrell's nomination to the board of the Export-Import Bank of the United States is proceeding nicely. The Ex-Im Bank, for those who aren't familiar with it, provides loan guarantees and other assistance to help U.S. companies engage in foreign trade. As mattw noted at the time, her nomination was announced in late May. Last Wednesday, she had her hearing before the Senate Banking Committee.
Video is available on the committee website here, but it was a pretty quiet hearing. I actually was expecting a little push back given that Diane spent the last four years running vigorous congressional campaigns in which she consistently attacked President Bush, but during the hearing, the lone Republican present (Wayne Allard) only asked her a softball about how she felt about the recent appointment of an inspector general for the Bank (she's for it, naturally).
The Connecticut Post's Peter Urban reported on the hearing:
Former Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell appears headed for easy Senate confirmation as a member of the Export-Import Bank's board of directors.
At her confirmation hearing Wednesday, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., warmly greeted Farrell, whom he counts among his friends.
"I have known Diane for many years and I am impressed obviously with her intelligence and tenacity," he said.
[...]
Dodd said that he hoped to move Farrell's confirmation through the Senate before the August recess.
The full committee markup on Diane's nomination is scheduled for July 19.
I'm very proud of Diane. I still spend too much time wishing she was in Congress right now, but if she can't make us proud there, it's good to know that she has found another way to serve the public and the district.
As always, my comments are my own, without the knowledge or approval of Diane Farrell, Adam Wood, Nancy DiNardo, Mike Richter, Joe Lieberman, or anyone else you care to name.
Ginoccio gets a new player on the record about his interest in testing the waters (or ice -- I can't let go of the hockey analogies!):
State Democrats have received several inquiries from people who want to run against Shays. Shays beat former Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell last year and is the only Republican congressman in New England.
State Rep. James Shapiro, D-Stamford, and Jim Himes, Greenwich Democratic Town Committee chairman, have shown interest in running for the congressional seat.
"I am considering it, and I have had conversations with a number of people within the party, but I have made no decision," Shapiro said. "It's still very early in the process."
Jim Shapiro is a talented and energetic state rep from Stamford. Prior to his election in 2004, Jim served for seven years on the Stamford Board of Representatives. A Stamford native, Jim attended Stamford Public Schools from K-12, Yale University, and Vanderbilt School of Law.
Jim Shapiro hung out with a small group of bloggers on Wednesday night up at the Capitol, where we were treated to a tour and enjoyed some great conversations in the Democratic caucus room and later at a local pub. Jim and I spoke at length about the race in the 4th, and while I know he is still in the decisionmaking process, I'm enthusiastic about the depth of talent here in the 4th. I can forgive Shapiro from having Westhill rather than Stamford High as an alma mater (thought Black Knights still rule, my friend) and I am really impressed with Shapiro's commitment to affordable housing and civil liberties issues. Like Jim Himes, Jim Shapiro also has an appreciation for the potential for blogs to invigorate "small d" democracy and bring more people into the democratic process.
Overall, this was a great article, but I was once again stunned by the shallow hackery of people who are considered political "experts" here in Connecticut:
One political observer said Richter's exit from the race could be a major blow for Democrats.
"He had some star power," said Gary Rose, professor of politics at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield. "With some of these other names, it's almost like we've been there before. People come up through the ranks, but they lack the sparkle you need to unseat a congressman."
Seriously. Sparkle? Would Gary "Glitter" Rose like it better if Jim Himes wore a feather boa and Jim Shapiro sported sequins? (Assignment for Photoshoppers out there: an illustration of our own Gary Glitter.)
It would make Rose's life more interesting if a B List celebrity was coaxed into a flashbulb matchup against Shays, but voters aren't that shallow. Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney were hardly glamorous, but they impressed voters with their competence and commitment to good governance. Both Jim Himes and Jim Shapiro have strong resumes and a decency, integrity, and commitment to the common good that is more valuable in politics than celebrity. And as we saw with Ned Lamont, a great candidate with grassroots credibility creates his own "star power".
Jim Himes also got some good press here:
Himes has criticized Shays' support of the Iraq war and his lack of oversight of the Bush administration, and he said the problems do not end there.
"We haven't had a discussion about things that really matter in this district, like health care and transportation," Himes said.
No date has been set for Himes to enter the race, but "it has to be soon so we can begin the process of raising money," he said.
He hopes his candidacy could help mend the split in the party since Ned Lamont defeated U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Lieberman then ran as an independent and kept his seat.
This is the second time Himes has been quoted in the media recognizing the real need for Democratic unity after last year's primaries. And while I sense that there is no strong appetite for another primary here in the fourth, I'm proud that yet another strong potential candidate is emerging. Previous newsreports implied that we were scraping the barrel for B-list celebs here in the 4th because no other great candidates were available, but the emergence of Himes and Shapiro demonstrates otherwise.
Ken Borsuk at the Greenwich Post got both Ned Lamont and Jim Himes on the record about Himes' potential run for Congress. Titled "Mr Himes Goes to Washington?", it's an interesting piece, largely because Borsuk gives both Jim and Ned the room to talk a bit:
Mr. Himes, a married father of two daughters, said he's "more disturbed than ever" by the tack Mr. Shays has taken after being re-elected last year. Mr. Shays was the sole survivor of Republican congressional defeats in the state and is now the party's only New England representative.
"I'm upset about three things, two things Shays has done and one thing he hasn't," Mr. Himes said. "For the last four years he has done two things. He's promoted the war in Iraq and done `oversight' as a senior member of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. The Iraq War is a disaster. It was a strategic catastrophe and the notion that any oversight has occurred is answered by what's happened at Walter Reed and Abu Ghraib and any number of negligent missteps the government has taken in the national security area."
Borsuk noted Jim Himes' staunch support for both Diane Farrell and Ned Lamont in the last election cycle. As Greenwich DTC chair, Himes has set the tone for a renewed fighting spirit among Greenwich Democrats, as evidenced not only by the Herculean organizational feat that launched Lamont from Greenwich obscurity to worldwide fame but also the "audacity" of Democrats like Kim Hynes challenging Livvy Floren, Frank Farricker challenging Bill Nickerson, and most impressively Ed Krumeich challenging Dolly Powers, an amazing race Krumeich lost by just a hair's breadth of 132 votes.
For those who don't know, the Hilltop Brigade was is a group of Democratic activists in the 3rd CD who, realizing that Rosa's seat was secure, banded together to generate volunteers for races in nearby competitive districts. They got a lot done.
(From a Hilltop Brigade email)
More than 400 of us spent 1,600 person days working for one of the campaigns on the October and November Saturdays, contacting an estimated 62,500 households!
In addition, Hilltop Brigade volunteers made 7,700 phone calls for Diane Farrell in phone banks organized by Susan Davidson, Linda Barone and David Pollack. Our Maine contingent canvassed two weekends for Joe Courtney. Joe McDonagh played a role in getting a busload of students from Tufts to canvas for Joe Courtney on two Sundays. We even had a volunteer from California who worked for Diane Farrell the final weekend. Dozens of Hilltop Brigade volunteers worked on Election Day.
I only caught fragments of Chris Shays' bizarre, rambling, disjointed concession-cum-victory-cum-mea-culpa last night. I hope someone Tivo-ed it and it will appear on YouTube. (Paging Scarce!) No one in the room knew what to make of it, but the consensus was that Shays must have had access to better numbers than were being put up on the screen and that he must have lost.
Now it appears he won.
Not too surprising, really. Diane Farrell spent almost as much time running away from Ned Lamont as she did running against Shays. I heard that when she was phone banked by Lamont volunteers she declared herself undecided in both the Senate and gubernatorial races!
This was Farrell's race to lose and lose it she did. Alas, she deserved to.
Why is it that when I brush up against Chris Shays’ brand of honesty and integrity it always leaves me wanting a shower?
Shays was all over a recent Farrell commercial calling it “dishonest”. He whined to the local newspapers. It was front and center on his website for days. But the distinctive air of hypocrisy lingers amidst his protestations.
As if the slime being spewed daily to 4th District voters by the RNCC wasn’t enough, delve into Shays own latest mailer. Four Westport “registered democrats” tell all. Well not all. As Paul Harvey says, “And now, the rest of the story…”
“Registered dem” #1 – Mark Argosh. Registered in 2003. Between 2003 and 2006 he and his wife gave $22,900 to the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and Chris Shays. No democratic contributions. And Mark is employed by Ameriquest, whose owner Roland Arnall was appointed to an Ambassadorship by Bush after reputedly raising $12.25 million for him since 2002. Actions speak louder than registrations.
When my neighbor and his French wife met Shays for the first time, Shay's comment to them was, "If I have sex with a French woman, will it improve my love life?"
Support for Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., is declining as concerns over the Iraq war increase -- placing him in a dead heat with Democratic challenger Diane Farrell, according to a Hartford Courant poll released yesterday.
The poll, conducted by the University of Connecticut's Center for Survey Research and Analysis, shows Shays and Farrell each pulling 43 percent of the vote with 9 percent undecided two weeks before Election Day.
Call your friends and family in the fourth. Get out there and help Diane.
Chris Shays has been caught in a blatant lie making misleading phone calls to voters. (Paragraphs added to make it more readable.)
Recently, I have received two very misleading recorded messages from U.S. Rep. Chris Shays' campaign. The messages said that his opponent in the race for Congress in the 4th Congressional District, Diane Farrell, can't be trusted to handle the federal budget because "non-education spending" in Westport went up by 40 percent during the eight years that Farrell was first selectman.
With compounding, that is an average of less than 5 percent per year. During every one of those years, Farrell balanced the budget. The town never spent more than they collected in revenue. Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson and their Republican colleagues in Congress, on the other hand, have never managed to balance a single federal budget since Clinton left the White House.
Moreover, according to Republican commentator Joe Scarborough, federal spending growth during that time has averaged 10.4 percent per year. That's more than twice the rate of spending growth that Farrell achieved. During that same period, when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, spending in the Justice Department shot up 131 percent, while spending in four departments that Republicans once proposed to eliminate (Commerce, Energy, Education and Housing and Urban Development) rose by an average of 85 percent overall.
The facts show that Republicans like Shays and Johnson are really the ones who cannot be trusted to manage the federal budget and keep spending under control.
On Nov. 7, vote to bring back fiscal responsibility. Vote for Democrats Diane Farrell in the 4th Congressional District and Chris Murphy in the 5th Congressional District.
Sounds like Chris Shays is rehearsing his concession speech. At last Sunday's debate he said this:
“It [Abu Ghraib] is abuse and it was a mistake to say it wasn’t,’ he said. He added, “Did I make a mistake? Yes, I did. You got me, Diane. You did.”
Now Paul Bass captures him on video saying that his election doesn't really matter, what's important is re-electing "national treasure" (I'm not making this up) Joe Lieberman!
"This is one more illustration of what has been happening with the existing Republican leadership," Farrell said of the Foley scandal, alleging House leadership knew the former congressman sent sexually explicit e-mails to a teenage page but did not take action to stop it.
"It has been one mistake or one scandal after another, and the one that is the most substantive right now is, of course, where we are in the war in Iraq," she said.
But the real surprise came after the forum when Shays, seconding a position taken by Farrell months ago and, more recently, by U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"I think it's time for him to step down," Shays said, speaking to reporters.
"I can't work with the Department of Defense anymore," he declared, accusing Rumsfeld and subordinates of stonewallingcongressional committees charged with oversight of Iraq war policies.
Shays said Rumsfeld's resistance seemed to start after he returned from his 14th trip to Iraq in August and called for the United States to set a withdrawal timetable.
At a later campaign stop in Bridgeport, Farrell said Shays' call for Rumsfeld to step down is an example of the
congressman trying to have it both ways on a controversial issue.
"He has followed me on so many issues," Farrell said. "I am certain the voters can see the real things. It's an election year conversion."
Rep. Chris Shays, who is facing a tough challenge from an anti-war Democrat, on Wednesday called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign - a rare demand from a longtime Republican.
Lieberman, too, has made (muffled) noises about replacing Rumsfeld.
The thing to remember, however, is that both Shays and Lieberman know full well that this is never going to happen. So they get to have their cake and eat it too: They can posture that they are "being tough on Bush," thus giving themselves a rebuttal for charges that they are Bush's lapdogs, all the while secure in the knowledge that the "stay the course" position they have embraced won't be modified in the slightest.
Jim Himes also got some good press here:
MLN is powered by