As the next Congressional fight over payroll tax extensions and unemployment benefits and pipelines gets set up in the next few weeks for either its final chapter or to be kicked down the road a bit farther, one or the other, you're going to hear a lot from our Republican friends about how much they value work and workers; most especially, they'll tell you, they value American jobs for American workers.
After all, they'll say, creating American jobs is the most important thing of all.
But if we were to look back over just the last few months, some would tell us, we could quickly find examples of how Republicans promote ideas that don't seem to value work or workers at all, much less American jobs.
Well as it turns out, "some" seem to be right; to illustrate one of those examples we'll look back a month or two or three to a time some Republicans might wish was long, long, ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
The November 2011 issue of Vanity fair has a great article about Massachusetts US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren but not so kind view of CT's former senator Chris Dodd and some other Democrats, including President Obama, who along with the Republicans prevented her from being nominated to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she championed.
They booted her out of Washington D.C., but they may regret it if she pulls the upset over Scott Brown, who is currently fumbling over snide male chauvinist attacks and being caught plagiarizing another Republican senator's personal story.
Lieberman undecided on supporting Obama in 2012 Independent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman said Wednesday that he was unsure if he would support Barack Obama for president in 2012. So, the hosts of Fox & Friends did their best to convince him that Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry was the right choice.
"Everybody remembers that in 2008, you supported the Republican in the race, John McCain, your dear friend," Fox News host Gretchen Carlson began. "But now will you support President Obama?"
"Well, I'm going to approach this 2012 election as the independent that I am," Lieberman explained. "Therefore, I don't know who I'm going to support at this point... I want to see who's got the plans, who the Republicans nominate... Bottom line, too early to say."
SNIP
Lieberman's endorsement will be the lamest from a Lame Duck Senator.
We gotta grow some jobs, and that's a fact, and we probably aren't going to be able to do it with big ol' jobs programs funded by the Federal Government, what with today's politics and all, and that means if this Administration wants to stay in the jobs game they're going to have to find some smaller and more creative ways to do it.
They are also going to have to come up with ideas that are pretty much "bulletproof", meaning that they are so hard to object to that even Allen West and Louie Gohmert will not want to be on record saying "no no no!"; alternatively, solutions that work around the legislative process entirely could represent the other form of "bulletproof-ery".
Well, I have one of those "maybe bulletproof" ideas for you today, and it has to do with how "Made in USA" the things are that our Government buys.
THE real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won't realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes - but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right.
SNIP
The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb - that "centrist" voters like "centrist" politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.
A somewhat less charitable explanation is that we are a nation that is being held hostage not just by an extremist Republican Party but also by a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election. Perhaps those of us who were so enthralled with the magnificent story he told in "Dreams From My Father" appended a chapter at the end that wasn't there - the chapter in which he resolves his identity and comes to know who he is and what he believes in.
Or perhaps, like so many politicians who come to Washington, he has already been consciously or unconsciously corrupted by a system that tests the souls even of people of tremendous integrity, by forcing them to dial for dollars - in the case of the modern presidency, for hundreds of millions of dollars...
SNIP
Just like Malloy, Obama and his staff don't like to be criticized for their poor leadership. But this critique is dead on.
Westen is right when he concludes that contrary to the Washington Beltway mentaility, "Centrist" voters actually want honest leaders who can solve their problems.
It was just a couple of nights ago that Keith Olbermann was challenging us, in one of his "Special Comments", to rise up in the streets and take back this country.
He pointed out that the only way those on the left were going to be able to fight against those who are looking to get all "Tea Party" is to be as angry and as organized and as aggressive as the Tea Party community, and if we're smart, we'll take him up on that challenge.
But if you really want to push "professional" Democrats to the left, most especially this President, and you want to do it in time to impact the '12 cycle, the only way to do it is to run a candidate in primary contests that either moves the conversation your way...or leaves you with a surprising new Candidate.
And right here, right now, we actually have a chance to do exactly that - and that's why, in today's discussion, I'm going to challenge Olbermann right back.
"I am glad that we passed an agreement in time to avoid default - the consequences of which would have been disastrous for middle class families. And while I did earlier support a more responsible version of the agreement raising the debt ceiling, I could not support this legislation as I believe it will have a harmful effect on job creation and further weaken the economic security of millions of American families.
"The spending cuts specified in this deal will slash critical investments in education, infrastructure and research, among other things-- public investments critical to job creation and economic growth. The majority's insistence that these priorities are to blame for our deficit problems is simply untrue. The primary reasons deficits have grown so large is because revenues are lower than they have been in sixty years, thanks to the recession and the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, and we initiated two wars on the nation's credit card. If this majority were at all serious about deficit reduction, they would at least allow for additional revenue by asking the wealthiest Americans and corporate special interests to share in the sacrifice rather than protecting them.
"Without assurances that Congress will pursue a balanced approach, the additional cuts called for in a few short months as part of the agreement will threaten the promises made to generations of hard-working Americans by ending Medicare as we know it, cutting Medicaid, and compromising the future of Social Security. I could not in good conscience support such an unbalanced approach that places the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of middle class families and our seniors while further weakening our shaky economy."
Murphy:
"From the beginning of this manufactured crisis, I have said that I would be willing to support a compromise deal that fairly shares the burden of deficit reduction. This bill isn't a compromise - it places almost the entire burden of deficit reduction on Medicare beneficiaries, middle class families, and the poor. Not one corporate tax loophole is closed. Not one billionaire will pay a cent more in taxes. But seniors will lose Medicare providers, and programs for the poor and disabled will be slashed. That's not what my constituents believe is a compromise.
This deficit was created by two trillion-dollar wars and tax cuts for the rich. But the wars are exempted from these cuts, and the Bush tax cuts aren't touched either. This bill, which we all had about 24 hours to read and dissect, does virtually nothing to address the root causes of our deficit and instead asks middle class America to pay the check for decades of fiscal mismanagement."
Interestingly, the words "middle class" do not appear in either Himes' or Courtney's statements (assuming the Courant provided the statements in full).
(This is very big news... - promoted by ctblogger)
I just saw in the news that the Federal Department of Justice will no longer defend DOMA (the Federal Defense of Marriage Act). This is a big development, especially for those of us who live in states that have equal marriage laws on the books (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, et al).
It will be interesting to see the implications of this decision unfold in the near future. Previously, AG Coakley's office in Massachusetts successfully challenged the law in Massachusetts federal district court (the credit also goes to another group of citizen activists who challenged the law in a similar suit).
In regards to what this decision will look like in the First Circuit (New England minus Vermont and Connecticut) is, at the very least to me unclear, although it does appear that the defense of the act will continue in that circuit (again, I'm not clear on this specific aspect, so if anyone can clear this up, feel free to do so in the comments). The Federal Government is prepared to defend portions of the statute there (see http://www.baywindows.com/inde... AG Coakley is expected to do a press event this afternoon about it (see Mass.gov/AGO). There are two suits against DOMA in the second circuit, our circuit which includes one suit in New York, and another here in Connecticut (here's a link: http://www.glad.org/doma/faq-p...
This is big news-- and if anyone has any thoughts about how this will (or won't) play out in the federal circuit courts, or what the political implications might be, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.
UPDATE ctblogger: Senator Richard Blumenthal issued the following statement regarding the Justice Department decision to decline DOMA appeals:
"I am pleased that President Obama has declined to appeal these lawsuits. This decision is not only legally correct, but will also add momentum to efforts in Congress to repeal this unfair and discriminatory law. The Department of Justice's conclusion that the law is unconstitutional offers compelling support in the fight to repeal DOMA, which I will continue to advocate for as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee."
Angry left to Obama: Stop caving on agenda Liberals furious with a White House they view as constantly telegraphing compromise with Republicans are pressuring President Obama to get tougher, arguing that is the only way he will win both progressives and independents in 2012.
Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and an outspoken critic of the White House, said liberal anger has less to do with fears of a Clintonian move to the middle by Obama and more with a misreading of the election results by the administration.
"It's less 'Oh no, they're triangulating,' and more 'Boy, their political instincts are really stupid,' " said Green, who along with other liberals has blasted the White House for suggesting it would compromise with Republicans on expiring tax cuts.
The White House "fundamentally" doesn't get that "the only way to get Republicans to deal in good faith is to fight them, crush them and teach a lesson that if Republicans are on the wrong side of an issue there will be consequences ... so it makes sense to negotiate," Green said.
SNIP
I'm getting sick and tired of Obama's cave-ins to RepubliCONS and am about ready to strip my Obama/Biden sticker off of my car.
Unpopular Obama Could Help Debicella, Caligiuri and Peckinpaugh Congressmen Jim Himes, Chris Murphy, and Joe Courtney are no doubt secretly hoping congressional business keeps them in Washington on Thursday. If their calendars on Capitol Hill are clear they might hope for thunderstorms to leave them stranded at Reagan National Airport, or a sudden case of something...anything to prevent them from being photographed with President Obama when he visits Connecticut.
The new Quinnipiac Poll shows the President's approval rating in the state in a tailspin: 45%, down from 50% in the last poll, and down from 71% in April of 2009. According to the mastermind behind the Quinnipiac University poll Doug Schwartz, the President's approval figure is even lower in the 2nd, 4th, and 5th districts.
SNIP
Only 38% of those polled in the 5th approve of the job President Obama is doing, and a whopping 60% disapprove. The 5th is also home to the highest unemployment in the state, 12.2% in the Waterbury area. On Face the State last week, Congressman Murphy said he would be proud to stand by the President on Thursday, but these new bleak numbers may have his advisors scrambling to find him another commitment, pronto.
Republican Sam Caligiuri is already tagging Murphy with a big "O" on his back. The only poll we have seen in the race so far is an internal one released by the Caligiuri campaign, showing the race a dead heat.
SNIP
The President's approval rating also tumbled in the 2nd district to 41% from 46%. Democrat Joe Courtney is going for a third team, and Republican challenger Janet Peckinpaugh is using part of the formula Courtney used to defeat Rob Simmons in '06: linking the incumbent to an unpopular president.
A look at the 2008 presidential primary suggests support for the President in Courtney's district may never have been that strong. When Barack Obama won the Connecticut primary he lost just one congressional district to Hillary Clinton: the 2nd.
SNIP
...Himes welcomes the President to his district this week, but will be in Washington for a vote. The President's approval rating in the 4th is now at 43%, down from 48% in the last QU Poll. Challenger Dan Debicella, like Caliguiri and Peckinpaugh have been calling their opponents rubber stamps for the President. In this anti-incumbent year, that could resonate with voters. President Obama's low approval ratings could also be a factor in the voting booth. A third of those polled in the QU survey said their vote for a senate candidate would be a vote against President Obama.
SNIP
Kaine's special announcement tomorrow better be a great one, else the Democrats, if these poll numbers remain the same or get worse, will flop again.
On may way to and from Hartford this evening, I saw many Linda McMahon signs and not a single Blumenthal one. I traveled on Routes 101, 44, 74 and I-84. Rtes 44 and 74 is where I saw the McMahon signs.
If the Republicans win these seats this year, the wimpy strategy of "bipartnership" that the Dems and Obama is to blame. Through their pro-Wall Street policies, they have deflated the enthusiasm of the base.
There is a lot of talk about the recent special election in Massachusetts being a referendum on health care reform. It was not. In fact, Massachusetts has already moved comprehensive reform and 98% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance as a result. It was a referendum on a particular candidate in a climate in which people, hard pressed and frustrated by the economy, are impatient for change.
And nothing has changed.
People still need quality, affordable health care. Our friends and loved ones are still being denied care for pre-existing conditions. We still need to address the health care crisis, and cannot continue to allow medical expenses to bankrupt our country's families and businesses.
It's time to finish reform right. There are two things you can do right now to help:
Below is the letter to the editor I submitted to Connecticut Post, a truncated sanitized version of which was printed today:
Earlier this month Hearst Newspapers' chief political correspondent for Connecticut Ken Dixon wrote on his blog: "Got A Bright Idea, like Hang the Lawmakers?" Really. He was referring to an upcoming meeting of the Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes (CEAO) chaired by Democratic State Senator Gayle Slossberg, which is looking for ideas to streamline government and cut spending. That was Mr. Dixon's notion of a bright idea: "Hang the Lawmakers". Later, attributing criticism to "a couple of the more sensitive, or possibly guilty, lawmakers", Dixon retracted his remarks. But referring to hanging lawmakers, then stating that those who complain are "guilty", actually makes his words more threatening.
Though Mr. Dixon might have thought he was being funny, he wasn't. And it is certainly not the sort of comment that should ever come from the chief political reporter for Hearst Newspapers, the largest newspaper company operating in Connecticut. Certainly not today, given the rise in violence and threats of violence across the country.
Right-wing provocateur Hal Turner is being prosecuted for threatening the lives of federal judges and elected Connecticut state legislators on his webcast. He stated, "Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," according to the June 24 indictment. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions." The FBI indicated that Turner threatened the lives of State Senator Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford) and State Representative Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven). As the late Capitol police chief Michael J. Fallon remarked,
"(Turner) is inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence and has created fear and alarm. He should be held accountable for his conduct."
In light of Chief Fallon's remarks, should Mr. Dixon be treated differently?
Let's also recall that Dr. George Tiller, a doctor in Kansas who provided abortion services, was murdered earlier this year. Far-right Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly had for years demonized Dr. Tiller, repeatedly labeling him "Tiller the baby killer" and once said,
"..if the state of Kansas doesn't stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands."
O'Reilly didn't actually tell people to murder Dr. Tiller, but he used inflammatory language that could be interpreted to support violence against him. The weak-minded can be egged on to violence by this sort of inflammatory speech in the media.
Mr. Dixon's "hang the lawmakers" remark was made in an atmosphere of rising threats of right-wing domestic terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis issued a report in April warning that, "Right wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for right wing radicalization and recruitment." Death threats against President Obama have surged, according to author Ronald Kessler, running 400% higher than against George Bush, and stretching the Secret Service to its limits.
Mr. Dixon's "hang the lawmakers" remark is especially troubling coming from a journalist, a profession whose practitioners are themselves particularly vulnerable to violence. The Committee to Protect Journalists lists 795 journalists as having been killed around the world since 1992, including 93 in 2009 alone, making this the deadliest year ever. And journalists are far more likely to be killed investigating political and economic corruption than to be killed in war zones. So for Mr. Dixon to display such blindness to the violence perpetrated against fellow journalists, while hinting that violence against politicians is a "bright idea," is shameful and irresponsible.
Mr. Dixon might try to suggest that he was only joking. But no one should find it funny, not his readers, and certainly not Hearst management. In these times, no one should be making jokes about killing anyone, least of all journalists suggesting violence against government officials.
Sunday debate: America in Afghanistan Good can mitigate horror
Published: 09:22 p.m., Friday, December 4, 2009
Comments (0)
Larger | Smaller
Let me begin this opinion piece by advising you the reader of my personal perspective.
I was born into a Republican family in 1953, and to this day I consider Dwight Eisenhower a fine president. As a retired General, he had an unique perspective on the subject of war and peace. Like other Generals who preceded him, Robert E. Lee comes to mind as a good example, Eisenhower knew what it was like to send American children into battle to slaughter and be slaughtered. He understood the true cost of war, and understood that nations should use war only as a last resort.
Additionally, I consider myself to be a pacifist -- at least as much as a person can attempt to be. Many Christians like myself, many Jews, many Muslims, many Buddhists, many Atheists and many agnostics also share this spiritual goal.
Along with many other Americans who respect Republican Presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln and even Gerald Ford, I watched in horror as the National Republican Party went from being the party of the aforementioned three presidents to being the party of Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and George W. Bush.
I mention George W. Bush in particular, because he reacted in a very measured way immediately after September 11th, 2001, setting out what appeared to be a careful strategy to attack those who attacked us.
As we all know, that strategy was thrown by the wayside when America was lied into an invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration.
Regardless of individual Americans' political persuasion, it is nearly universally agreed that Afghanistan was the war we should have waged, and Iraq became a misadventure which has caused the death of over 4,000 of America's children, fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers.
It also caused debilitating physical and mental injuries to tens of thousands American heroes. A president who avoided military service during Vietnam could never know the horrors of war the way that Generals Eisenhower and Lee knew them.
It also has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens through the bunker-buster bombs dropped during "Shock and Awe" and six years of occupation and a civil war that followed the end of the Saddam Hussein's regime.
It also emboldened the government of Iran, which no longer has its long-standing enemy Saddam Hussein counter-balancing them.
It has added what will likely be well over a trillion dollars to our national debt, as the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress never factored the cost of the war into the annual budget.
Back to the question of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan had been a wound festering for seven long years when President Barack Obama replaced George W. Bush as commander in chief.
What had been an opportunity for both America and for Afghanistan -- had become a country without strong leadership, a country without other strong international allies, a country without hope.
President Obama, as he pledged during his campaign for President, had shifted America's focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. As troop levels have been reduced in Iraq, troop levels in Afghanistan have been increased.
Progress has been slow. The cost has been high.
Americans like myself have been saddened by the deaths of both American service people and Afghan civilians. And my personal feelings -- all the while knowing that Jesus Christ would not agree with me on this matter -- is that the good which can come out of this effort to help the people of Afghanistan may mitigate even the horror of war.
I stand with good and dear friends of mine at Rogers Park on Saturday mornings from 10:30 until noon, led by the heroic group Veterans for Peace.
There is some obvious disagreement on President Obama's decision, but I personally believe that if America's allies do their part to help America and Afghanistan, Afghanistan can be the country it has never been in its thousands of years of history.
As I've said to both those who agree with me and those who disagree with me -- if they (our allies) don't, we can't win.
The Soviet Union fell partly because of its misadventure in Afghanistan, and I don't want my country to suffer the same fate.
Until we know how those other nations will react, I believe this is worth the effort.
David A. Stevenson is a Bethel resident and a participant in weekly anti-war protests at the War Memorial in Danbury.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) who embarrassed himself last night by shouting out "You lie" during President Obama's health care address to the nation turns out to be a major recipient of campaign money from the health care industry. What a coincidence!
Raw Story reported today that Wilson's largest donors are from the health care industry. Over his congressional career, Wilson collected:
$244,196 from health professionals
$86,150 from pharmaceutical companies
$73,050 from insurance companies
$68,000 from hospitals and nursing homes.
Embarrassing yourself before the nation, your congressional colleagues, and your president while carrying water for the health care industry - PRICELESS!
I guess that would be fine except these are the clowns that haunt little children's nightmares. Like them we think to laugh at their funny antics until they spin and reveal that they are not the funny big shoe clown but rather the crazy bug-eyed razor teethed nightmare clown.
Too many of us have acted as if the clowns we see in the media questioning the presidents citizenship, simultaneously calling him a fascist and a socialist (say what?!?), and just all around being disrespectful are harmless.
Newly installed Greenwich Public Schools superintendent Dr. Sidney Freund has decided to cave in to exactly ten right-wing crazies and to refuse to air President Obama's live broadcast to Greenwich students on Tuesday. Dr. Freund stated that students will not view the broadcast live as scheduled, but "at a date to be determined". According to Superintendent Freund, he decided to postpone viewing the president's address "primarily (because the) school district needs time to ensure that technical capacity is in place." Yet that assertion appears to be false, since a Greenwich Time article quotes Freund as stating that he spent 30% to 40% of his time last week dealing with this issue. Clearly he had time to deal with the technical issues surrounding the viewing, especially given that the school system was able to arrange for live viewing of President Obama's inauguration in January. He also put forth the excuse that he needed to have an "instructional team" develop "age-appropriate activities to accompany viewing of the president's address."
What a crock! The president didn't ask school systems to come up with activities to accompany the address, but merely to permit American students to view the address on Tuesday.
According to Greenwich Time, Dr. Freund received exactly ten- yes, ten- emails protesting permitting students to hear their president address them, and five in favor of preparing the schools to permit students to view the address. Those few communications spurred Dr. Freund to engage in "careful consideration of all perspectives", after which he decided to pull the plug on the president of the United States.
In essence, it only takes a tiny handful of crazies to make new superintendent Freund act like the head of a school system in Alabama, or the Texas panhandle, or some other place full of uneducated, right-wing extremists. There is little excuse for Dr. Freund's cop-out, because he served for years in nearby Dobbs Ferry, New York.
And Congressman Jim Himes thinks Superintendent Freund is full of crap also. Congressman Himes issued the following statement on Sunday night:
"As a Congressman and as a father to two young girls (who attend Greenwich public schools), I urge all local schools to provide their students the chance to listen to the President's address to school children on Tuesday. Denying children the rare opportunity to hear directly from their President is a disservice to them as students and as young citizens. The President will encourage students to do what we all know is right: to work hard to prepare themselves to be successful citizens in the greatest democracy in the world.
"Whether we agree or disagree with everything the President says, this is a rare chance for classes and families to discuss and debate the President's speech and to develop the thoughtfulness and critical faculties necessary for success in an increasingly complex and challenging world."
It is all the more shameful, because Dr. Freund couched his language announcing that students would not be permitted to view the Tuesday address in language suggesting that they would: "District to View President's Address to Students", was the title of his press release. He also states, "this is a teachable moment", but just not on the scheduled day of Tuesday, apparently. Yet the truth was precisely the opposite.
And, according to the Greenwich Time article, Connecticut's State Commissioner of Education Mark K. McQuillan:
sent a memo to school superintendents Friday calling the controversy over the president's speech 'truly unfortunate,' 'inaccurate' and 'beyond the definition of responsible civil discourse'"
When the state superintendent of schools refers to postponing viewing of the president's address "beyond the definition of responsible discourse", and our United States congressman calls it a "disservice" to our young people, you know that Dr. Freund has come to a lousy decision.
Will Greenwich students be shown the president's address "at a date to be determined"? Frankly, I doubt it. A couple more right-wing nutjobs will send him emails, and he'll determine that it has to be put off yet again for another to be conjured up reason.
It is a very bad beginning for the new Greenwich Public Schools superintendent. Too bad, because he's the seventh superintendent in just over ten years.
There has been a lot of talk this week about the surprising move by Walmart to publically support President Obama’s health care reform plan, supposedly positioning themselves as a
leader in the fight to bring health care to all Americans. As we mentioned in a post on our blog
yesterday, this might be easier to swallow if Walmart had any history of leading by example. Instead, they usually do just the opposite.
Given
Walmart’s long record of trying to build a positive
reputation on ineffective work-arounds to health care coverage
for employee, the recent revelations about sacrificing quality for cheap perescription drugs, and their deceptive PR campaign that severely overstated their workers’ health
care coverage, it’s not hard to understand our skepticism. [get the details in the extended entry]
What a difference an election can make. Do you remember what Chris Shays said in 2006 when asked about torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?
"Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture," Shays said at a debate Wednesday.
Then when the feces hit the fan, Shays wiggled a little:
"It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked," added Shays. "And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture."
Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd understood the truth. He was quoted at a press conference with Farrell as saying:
"It's not because it was some pornography ring. I'm surprised anyone would make that suggestion," Dodd said. "The suggestion that somehow this was something less than that is, again, almost bordering on the bizarre."
In contrast to ole Both Ways, new 4th district congressman Jim Himes appeared before the Westport DTC recently and showed that not only does he understand what torture is, but also that it's wrong to do nothing about the torturers of the Bush administration. This from WestportNow:
Congressman Jim Himes told the Westport Democratic Town Committee at Town Hall tonight that he supports a more thorough investigation into harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects under the Bush administration. Saying it was one area where he disagrees with President Barack Obama, Himes said: "I will support efforts in Congress to put together a commission of inquiry" into CIA actions.
As the movement to prosecute the CIA torturers as well as the higher-up's who ordered it gains momentum, let's hope that Congressman Himes comes out strongly for prosecution as well.
(PS: Sorry for the lack of links. I'm having trouble copying them in to this posting from the computer I'm using.)
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd appears to have looked everywhere but his home state to fuel what pundits anticipate will be one of the most hotly contested races in the nation in 2010.
The five-term incumbent reported raising just $4,250 from five Connecticut residents during the first three months of the year while raking in $604,745 from nearly 400 individuals living outside the state.
While incumbents often turn to special interests for early campaign fundraising, Dodd's out-of-state total seems unusually high and comes at a time when he has been plagued by poor approval ratings among state voters.
Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal campaign contributions, said Dodd's low percentage of in-state funding strikes him as unusual.
"Historically, there is no shortage of campaign money that comes out of Connecticut," he said. "In 2008, Connecticut ranked 14th, contributing $53 million to all federal candidates and parties." Ritsch also noted during his last re-election campaign Dodd, a Democrat, raised 30 percent from within Connecticut's borders.
The meager state fundraising effort also seems antithetical to a campaign strategy to rebuild confidence among Connecticut voters that he is on their side.
SNIP
But the Boston Globe reports that President Obama will help the embattled CT senator --
[cross posted at yourct.com] Stamford Mayor and Democratic Gubernatorial front-runner Dan Malloy was invited to the White House along with about 80 municipal executives from across the country to discuss with the President implementation of the stimulus moneys just passed and signed into law.
Excerpt:
"We have urban areas -- Stamford, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven -- that are job-producing centers," Malloy said. "We need to get the money quickly."
Malloy said Obama has delivered on his pledge to work with mayors by including them in the economic recovery bill. Money is available for weatherization, community policing, schools and road repairs. But much of it will have to pass through the state first -- and that worries Malloy. "A lot depends on whether Connecticut state government can do its job and get the money in our hands. My fear is they won't," he said. Malloy ... sees a potential conflict between the governor's office and state legislature over how to disburse the stimulus funds.
"The last eight years was roughly the equivalent of 40 years in the desert," Malloy said. "This is the first time I've been back to the White House since Clinton was president." Malloy said the Bush administration would turn to the governor to see their input, but Clinton and Obama see mayors as their allies.
The November 2011 issue of Vanity fair has a great article about Massachusetts US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren but not so kind view of CT's former senator Chris Dodd and some other Democrats, including President Obama, who along with the Republicans prevented her from being nominated to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that she championed.
What a difference an election can make. Do you remember what Chris Shays said in 2006 when asked about torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?
In contrast to ole Both Ways, new 4th district congressman Jim Himes appeared before the Westport DTC recently and showed that not only does he understand what torture is, but also that it's wrong to do nothing about the torturers of the Bush administration. This from WestportNow:
MLN is powered by