UPDATE: Now this is how you write a story. Unlike the News-Times piece which was WAY to general, the Hartford Courant does the right thing and focuses on the most important part of the debate: the medicare bill and how it effects seniors.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., believes her co-authorship of the Medicare prescription drug legislation is a plus with senior voters.
But her opponent, state Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Southington, sees it as a political liability for Johnson and an advantage for him this election year.
With some seniors frustrated by the complexity of the new Medicare drug program and worried about uncovered expenses, Murphy and his supporters claim older voters are flocking to his candidacy and could make the difference in this closely watched 5th congressional district battle.
"They vote at 80 percent clips, whereas people my age are voting at 20 percent clips," said Murphy, 33. "I don't think it's inaccurate to say that seniors, in their level of dissatisfaction, could be pivotal."
About 13.8 percent of the 5th District is aged 65 years or older, according to 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data.
At the Courant article states (and the News-Tiems missed), seniors make up a HUGE portion of the voting population in the fifth district and if Nancy Johnson loses, it will be primairly because of the senior's outrage over the new Medicare prescription drug legislation she sponsored.
Grr...I sooo wanna get dig into the debate, break everything down, and fully explain why the Courant piece is better than the News-Times article but I just can't right now.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
