Skip to content

New Sullivan team gets off to great start

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

More incompetence in the Sullivan campaign.

Sullivan’s new team issued a press release accusing Joe Courtney of having failing to take the lead on a recently passed amendment that speeds up funding for submarine construction. The full story is at the link, but Gabe at Connecticut Local Politics sums the release up this way:

The problem (aside from getting the date wrong, really, how hard is that)? None of the Sullivan release is accurate! And I actually mean none of it (date included, sorry, I couldn’t resist). The amendment is called the Hunter-Courtney amendment. And Courtney’s amendment bailed out a previous version that was sure to fail. Rep. Courtney is the best kind of politician – the kind that gets things done. Oh, and he can send out a press release that has a passing relation to reality

All the gory details at the link above. Sullivan’s only real hope for victory was that Joe would fail to deliver on new submarines. He could then have trumpeted his submarine credentials. Joe has cut off that line of attack, but maybe it’s still all they’ve got, so they are going to use it anyway. The problem with that kind of issue is that the people who care about it actually know the facts, independently of what candidates have to say. You can’t snooker them. And, as to the people who don’t know the facts: they don’t really care about the issue.

Filed in Joe Courtney, Local issues | | Comments (0)

Replay?

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

The Republicans have a playbook that has become all too familiar. For many of their tricks to work, they need a compliant, and sometimes, a cooperative press. Eight years ago they claimed that Al Gore said he had invented the internet. Gore never said that, but the press repeated the charge, accepted it as true, and to this day most people in this country probably believe he said it.

Given the success of that smear job, it’s no wonder the Republicans keep trying the same tactic. Recently, they totally misrepresented a remark that Obama made about the Middle East:

In an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talked a great deal about Israel. He was rather effusive in his support for the Jewish state.

Apparently given nothing of substance to criticize, House Republican leaders then took a statement Obama made and twisted it to act as if the Democrat had insulted the Jewish state. Which he had not.

…

Then he said: “But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that … I want to solve the problem…”

It seemed pretty clear to me that by “constant sore” Obama was referring to the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As he says in the next sentence: the “lack of a resolution to this problem.”

Nonetheless, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who knows better, accused Obama of calling Israel a “constant sore.”

“Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims,” Boehner said. “Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an ‘apartheid state.’”

Jeffrey Goldberg, the reporter that conducted the interview, has condemned Boehner’s remarks as “mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable.” (That’s a long winded way of calling Boehner a liar).

None of this pushback, however, means that this line of attack won’t have legs. It fits too neatly into the unfolding “Obama is a secret Muslim Hamas loving scary black man” narrative that McCain has been pushing. The fact that the guy who did the interview has rejected the charge means nothing; so far as I know, the reporter who did the interview of Gore never endorsed the charge. There is no reason to think that Fox won’t push this story, on one just like it. If we learned anything from 2000 and 2004 it is that attacks like this need a full scale counter-attack. I very much hope Obama knows that, or else we may find ourselves with a President McCain next year.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

The cross we must bear: the Blue Dog “Democrats”

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

If consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, then we have some extremely big minds in the Democratic party, all residing in the heads of the “Blue Dog Democrats”, who make a habit of stabbing their party in the back.

Senator Jim Webb has been trying to pass a bill guaranteeing reasonable benefits, including updated GI-Bill type benefits, to allow vets returning from the Iraq War to go to college. But the Blue Dogs have a problem, one that Senator Byron Dorgan:

Webb has steadily picked up support for his proposal and this week moved within two votes of the 60 needed to overcome procedural obstacles in the Senate. But the high costs — $52 billion over 10 years — remain an obstacle not only with the Blue Dogs but also with Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).

“I believe it should be paid for,” Conrad said. “I’ve said that to Sen. Webb. I’ve said that to the leadership. I completely agree with the Blue Dogs; I think it should be paid for.”

That works out to 5.2 billion dollars a year. Chump change so far as the overall budget is concerned. The highly principled Blue Dogs don’t believe in new government spending unless it is paid for by increased taxes or decreased spending elsewhere. How laudable. Of course, there are exceptions required. For instance, none of the Blue Dogs would consider requiring Bush to pay for his war the same way, nor would they consider ever casting a vote against using borrowed money to fund that war. Cost: $9 Billion a Month.

If my math is right that means Webb’s bill is equal to about 6 months of endless war funding. For that money we will get a more educated work force and the right to say we have treated our soldiers right. We will actually get a return on our investment, instead of just flushing great gobs of money down the toilet.

There is an additional back story here, by the way. John McCain is desperate to work a deal with Webb, because he’s put himself on the wrong side of this issue (along with the Blue Dogs, but not for the same reasons). He’s afraid we Yellow Dogs will hang his disregard for the people fighting his war around his neck, and he’s looking for an exit strategy.

Filed in Democrats, Iraq, Politics | | Comments (1)

Trouble brewing for the Republicans, or how will the Dems blow this?

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

According to Daily Kos, the AP has called the special election in Mississippi for the Democrats. This is a seat that was considered to be an ultra safe seat. According to the DCCC:

After losing the last two competitive special elections for Republican seats (IL-14 and LA-06), the NRCC and its conservative allies have gone all out to try to hold MS-01. Republicans have had to spend nearly 20 percent of their cash on hand on a reliably Republican district. Democrats have spent only 4 percent of our cash on hand. The conservative group Freedom’s Watch spent at least $460,000. In total, Republicans have spent at least $1.7 million on MS-01.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Governor Haley Barbour, former Governor Mike Huckabee, Senator Thad Cochran, former Senator Trent Lott, and Senator Roger Wicker have all campaigned on Republican Greg Davis’ behalf in what Politico calls, “one of the safest Republican areas in the nation.”

Additionally, President Bush, Laura Bush, and Senator McCain recorded automated calls that were sent to voters throughout the district.

This may not mean that Mississippi is in play on the presidential level, but it tells us that McCain will be playing defense in some states formerly considered safe for the Republicans. Pity the poor Republican taking on an incumbent Democrat in more Northern climes.

Has ever a political party crashed and burned in such a short period of time? Did ever political party deserve it more?

Nonetheless, we must not underestimate the ability of the Democrats to blow this election. It may seem impossible, but they are capable people, in their way.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (1)

Joe’s convention

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

A few pictures from Joe Courtney’s convention last night, which was, to say the very least, far better attended (and I suspect more enthusiastically) than its Republican counterpart. I wasn’t there, as I was doing my civic duty at the Charter Revision Commission meeting. These pictures were taken by Liz Duarte (Thanks Liz).

Joe Courtney at nominating convention (take 2)
Joe Courtney at nominating convention (take 2)
Joe Courtney at nominating convention (take 1)
Joe Courtney at nominating convention (take 1)

Okay, the above is a new feature in the latest version of WordPress. It’s called a gallery, and you can see the images larger if you click on them.

In case there’s any carpers out there: yes, these pictures are a trifle blurry, but they were taken with a cellphone, so they’re actually quite good, all things considered.

Joe said he would work like a dog during the election campaign, and I’m sure he will. It’s an odd thing that he had the closest victory of any Democrat two years ago, and now we run the risk of being complacent. Apparently that’s not a problem as far as Joe is concerned, and I don’t think it will be for the rest of us, if only because, besides re-electing Joe, we’ll be working so hard to put a Democrat in the White House. For Joe, an overwhelming victory margin might discourage top flight competition in 2010, when things might be a bit tougher for Democrats, assuming they win the White House this year.

Filed in Joe Courtney | | Comments (0)

Political science, Batman style

Monday, May 12, 2008

I saw this on This Modern World, and I just couldn’t resist passing it on. Who do you suppose wins this election:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgJ5AcsXp4M[/youtube]

That’s it for me today. I just returned from a Charter Revision Commission meeting and I’m bushed.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Please let this be true

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Via Atrios and the New York Post:

Defying disgusted constituents and angry Republican leaders, disgraced Rep. Vito Fossella has told pals he plans to seek re-election.

And, shockingly, the Staten Island pol is feeling “pretty good,” he confided to friends.

…

Fossella confessed last week to having a 3-year-old daughter with gal pal Laura Fay, a 45-year-old retired Air Force colonel who signed him out of the drunk tank the morning after a drunken-driving arrest in Alexandria, Va. The congressman and his wife, Mary Pat, have three children.

The revelations sparked outrage among many constituents and in Republican circles. Insiders whispered that Fossella’s career is over and that he should step down, while House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) pointedly called on Fossella to make a decision this weekend.

…

Those close to Fossella continue to support him, Molinari said. “Vito is surprised and emboldened by the support he’s been getting.”

“He’s gotten a lot of encouragement,” said Molinari. “I told him nobody is going to run a primary against him if you decide to run again.”

We’re all pulling for you Vito!

Filed in Hypocrisy, Politics | | Comments (0)

Take your daily dose

Sunday, May 11, 2008

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV5UTHRx0a4[/youtube]

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Half a cheer for Rell

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Wonders never cease. I find myself on the same side as Jodi Rell. Even weirder, I have to tip my hat to Lisa Moody.

The state owns shorefront property in Waterford, that was formerly used as a school for the developmentally disabled. It is no longer being used for that purpose, and a Farmington developer as eager to buy it to put up luxury condos (what else). Most of our local legislators were in favor of the sale

Rell put the kibosh on the sale, and today’s Day quotes some email correspondence among the governor’s staff, including this quote from Lisa Moody:

”… We have a parcel in our midst (on the shoreline I’m told) that we’re selling on the cheap,” M. Lisa Moody, the governor’s chief of staff, wrote in a Nov. 17 e-mail The Day obtained through a Freedom of Information request.“Here’s a silly idea – let’s keep it for future generations as a natural area – no paved parking lots, no buildings or facilities – just, God forbid, a pristine natural setting on the water. Want to talk about responsible growth (or responsible ungrowth, in this case). That’s a legacy item.”

As the saying goes, they’re not making shoreline property anymore (global warming excepted). The sale price was 7.1 million. The property has its problems. The buildings need substantial rehabilitation, and there are access problems. Still, I’m with the governor, and (Oh god, how can I be saying this?) Moody on this one.

But, as the headline says, so far Rell gets only half a cheer. As the article points out:

Rell hasn’t yet said what her vision is for the property, only that the state should keep it.

Not surprising, since she has lacked vision on a number of fronts. It makes no sense to mothball the buildings and shut the place down. If we’re going to keep it we should invest in making it a place that’s available and accessible to the public. It will cost in the millions to do it, but it would provide some sorely needed shoreline access in a state where, scandalously, most of the shore is off limits to the public.

Here’s betting that Rell will never articulate her vision for the property. The buildings will deteriorate, the public will not get access, and the folks in Waterford will grow even more frustrated with the situation.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Back to Basics-why Clinton lost

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Every once in a while, the conversation gets back to basics. Via Suburban Guerilla, I found myself at the American Prospect, where we find the following observation:

Admittedly, this is the kind of counterfactual that’s impossible to prove, but my guess is that if she had voted against the war Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. Given the closeness of the race, her inherent advantages going in, and that the war had to be a liability it’s hard to imagine that she wouldn’t have prevailed without the Iraq albatross. Whether or not Clinton’s support was sincere — I don’t think it really matters — sometimes getting big policies wrong really is politically damaging. (See also the 2006 midterms.) This is evidently a good thing.

As one commenter pointed out at the American Prospect, both Kerry and Clinton voted for the war because each thought that it was a necessary precondition for a successful presidential campaign. You can add John Edwards to that list. He, at least, has admitted both to the motivation and the error. Their votes were entirely cynical, in that each voted against a war that I, at least, refuse to believe they were stupid enough to believe was a good idea.

I think it’s true that, had Clinton not voted for the war, she would be the nominee right now. She would have won those early primaries. She would have had no need to go massively negative against Obama, who might never even have run. She would have the near solid support of the party right now.

What I think needs to be said here is that a person with good judgment-the type of judgment Clinton claims to have-could have and should have been able to see all this coming. Put aside that the war was massively immoral. It was doomed to failure from the start, because all of the incompetence, and all of the sectarian violence was entirely foreseeable. Indeed, it was practically inevitable.

The vote for the war was in October 2002. It made a certain amount of cynical sense to vote in favor if you were up for election in November, 2002. (Even that argument is weak. It is arguable that the Democrats cave-in on the issue cost them the Senate in 2002, see, e.g., Minnesota, so it never even helped them in the short term). But it was entirely predictable that the best bet for the long term was a vote against the war, which was doomed to become unpopular as we inevitably became bogged down. The fact that Clinton didn’t see that then is the most damning piece of evidence against her argument that she has either the judgment or the relevant experience to be a better president than Obama.

(Edited to insert missing word)

Filed in Iraq, Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)