"Chris Shays - a self-described champion of full disclosure rules - appears to have been less than forthcoming about the funding for his trip to Qatar which preceded his first trip to Iraq in 2003 according to an article in The New Republic. The story says that funding for that trip can be traced to the government of Qatar, something that is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

"This certainly appears to be a violation of House ethics rules and may put Congressman Shays in violation of our Constitution as well. Congressman Shays' actions appear make a mockery of his rhetoric. I call on Congressman Shays to explain his actions. I call on Congressman Shays to explain why he never included on his federal financial disclosure form, as required by House ethics rules, that the trip was funded by The Islamic Free Market Institute. According to the story, this is 'a nonprofit group founded by GOP ally Grover Norquist and run by a protege of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.'

"Congressman Shays owes this explanation to all his constituents in the 4th Congressional District. We should hold our elected representatives to the highest ethical standards. Congressman Shays has not met them."

U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, a national champion of campaign finance reform, admitted he failed to fully disclose who paid for a trip that enabled him to become the first congressman to travel to Iraq after its invasion by U.S. troops.

Shays, a Connecticut Republican in a tight race with an anti-war challenger, said he did file a detailed travel disclosure form with the clerk of the House as required.

Cornwall residents responded to a posting on the town's Web bulletin board seeking comments on Johnson’s new ad. All of the residents disapporved of the ad, and only one said Murphy's ads were equally bad.

Cornwall was one of the first towns in the Northwest Corner to endorse Murphy's bid to oust the 12-term congresswoman from the 5th Congressional District seat.

[...]

John Miller of Cornwall Bridge was clearly put off by the Murphy impersonator ad.

"Granny Nancy (Johnson) without question runs the dirtiest, most loathsome ads I've ever (EVER) seen on television. I sometimes wonder how all those people in Kent that have Nancy Johnson lawn signs would feel if they saw those ads," Miller said.

Like Miller, Jane Bean was unequivocal.

"Whenever I see political ads as heinous as the ones Nancy Johnson has been showing, and actually taking credit for, I automatically wonder what they are running from. I also, in most circumstances, would vote for the other candidate just to keep a person (Johnson) of that kind of immoral ilk from being in a political, powerful position in my Congress," Bean said.

Scoville Soule, a regular writer of letters to the editors of various newspapers, wasn't sure whether the ad was a spoof.

"I've just seen it once, but I thought it was some kind of a comic take-off. The lady smashing up a bouquet of flowers couldn't be serious?" Soule said.

"If it's not some sort of a put-on it shows a profound lack of class in Johnson circles and gives me another reason to vote for Murphy. Of course if Nancy's looking for a laugh here I might change my mind. I've never suspected her of a sense of humor before," Soule said.

Shadow said...

This is an example of the kind of negative ad that can really hurt the candidate who puts it on the air.

First, of all, it's offensive in the same way as the Corker ad in TN about Harold Ford was (well, minus the racism), because it trots out all these negative images that conservatives have had enough of seeing on TV PERIOD; whether it's mockery or not, social conservatives certainly don't want Republican candidates putting the concerns of the drug constituency on TV, or showing some hooker that says "Call me" to the camera (as in the TN example).

Having the candidate approval the message at the end is also a huge liability with these counterproductive kinds of negative ads. In the case of Johnson's end of ad approval, she appears to look up from having just been watching the drug skit on a TV, forms a huge grin on her face, and says she approves the message; it looks like she's reveling in the dirty ad and gushingly proud of it, and that Nurse Ratchet style of empathy just doesn't look good to moderates. Also, believe it or not, Johnson's mockery of pot smokers may actually hurt her among moderates in CT more than help her, considering the high percentage of state residents that smoke marijuana one or more times per month, particularly in the suburbs.

[...]

Anonymous said...

I couldn't believe this ad when I saw it on TV yesterday- it's utterly repulsive and dripping with desperation...I am embarassed for Nancy Johnson when her face shows up at the end saying how she approved this message. (Proudly I might add.)

[...]

Anonymous said...

I cannot believe Nancy Johnson ran this ad - it's a true measure of her character, or lack thereof. How could she possibly believe that her smarmy "And I approve this message" at the end isn't going to turn off voters. She will definitely win the limbo contest this year because no one else could possibly go this low. It's unbelievable to me that having served in Congress for as long as she has that she has to resort to this type of ad. Apparently, she has no accomplishments to highlight - except the convoluted Medicare Plan she foisted on us. Time for Nancy to retire...

[...]

Anonymous said...

Some people think fart jokes are funny too - but that doesn't mean they are appropriate for a political ad. This ad demonstrates to me that Nancy Johnson has absolutely no integrity.

[...]

Anonymous said...

It's rather sad that a 71 year old woman can't articulate her position on issues, so instead approves ads that deliberatley falsify her opponents positions.

Maybe Chris Murphy is right, and being in Washington too long does change people.....

[...]

Anonymous said...

This ad by Nancy Johnson is the sleaziest I have ever seen and the people of the 5th CD should vote her out of office.This must of been another David Boomer and Brian Schubert Production Two typical GOP Sleazebags and Im sure that punk a** State Rep from Watertown Sean Williams had a hand in this ad too Because he wants to succeed Nancy one day in Congress.

The Johnson Campaign makes the Lamont Campaign look like a bunch of choir boys.

This shows how desperate and sleazy Nancy Johnson is and can be I think a lot of people who know Chris Murphy know this is a GOP Propaganda Ministry Manuever and I am very turned off by Johnson and her GOP Sleazeoids.

Chris Murphy will win on November 7th and those jacka**es like Boomer, Schubert and Williams can take a hike. I think to use an imposter Chris Murphy in one of her ads is reason enough to send this desperate, frail old lady into retirement and back to New Britain.

It is time for a CHANGE!!!!!!!

The smallness of this slur on Murphy's moral fiber is so low that it merits no mention other than as a representation on how scared Republicans are of their Democratic challengers this election cycle. No insult is too false, no attack too uncouth.

[...]

Boomer and Johnson's brand of lying is of that special type that knows fully well what the truth is and isn't concerned by the disconnect. There are books that have been written about this. Johnson's ad reeks of fear and desperation and Boomer's loyalty to the fabrication that has become a planck of the Johnson campaign is truly startling. Caught in a lie and accepting it, Boomer continues to lie.

If Nancy Johnson wins reelection it will be on the back of her and her campaign managers dutiful willingness to lie, smear, and generally shit on the truth in their effort to scare voters away from Chris Murphy. Maybe they're comfortable with that, but I sure am not.

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.

"Registered dem" #2 Toni Rubin. Told me personally in 2004 that while she liked Diane Farrell she was supporting Shays. Also told me she registered as a democrat "last year" because the Westport republicans hadn't ran her husband as a candidate. Now she's a Westport "registered democrat" supporting Shays. Guilt trip on her sour grapes or politic maneuvering - you make the call.

"Registered dem" #3 Nancy Zorfas. Nancy's son Ethan was a sporadic volunteer in the Farrell '04 campaign. Less than two weeks before the '04 election he was paid by the Republican Party as a Voter Contact Consultant. He heads the Massachusetts Alliance of College Republicans at Clark University, which lists in its purpose: "To aid in the election of Republican candidates at all levels of government." In a letter to the editor today he admits that he voted for Shays in '04 and plans on doing so in '06. He works for the Shays campaign - his letter says as a volunteer - but he told the child of a friend of mine that he was only working for Shays because he could get paid. Indecisive? Political mercenary? Or something even more sinister? You judge.

"Registered dem" #4 Ben Joseloff. Let me quote the local paper, the Westport News, about Ben: "The Shays mailer neglects to mention that the younger Joseloff worked for Shays at one time. As of press time, Joseloff did not return calls seeking comment." I wonder why that could be?

In April 2003, shortly after the U.S. military took Baghdad, Connecticut Representative Christopher Shays disregarded Pentagon warnings and joined an aid convoy, organized by the Connecticut-based charity Save the Children, as it drove from Kuwait into Iraq. From the Iraqi border city of Umm Qasr, Shays was able to stake a claim to being the first American congressman to cross the border after the U.S. invasion. His brief day-trip won him a fawning interview on CNN upon his return and remains an important part of his biography. In an election season where polls show a Democratic wave building by the day, Shays is currently in a fight for his political life against Democrat and Westport Selectwoman Diane Farrell. As one of the most vulnerable House Republicans, the unapologetically hawkish Shays often returns to his 14 trips to Iraq. "It was the weirdest thing," he told The Hartford Courant's NE Magazine of his initial visit in June. "I felt like I was trying to break out of jail getting into Iraq."

But, while Shays may want his constituents to know about his first--and most daring--trip to Iraq, he apparently doesn't want them to know how he got there. Shays's moment of triumph in Iraq came about because he happened to already be in the Middle East--attending the third Qatar-American Conference on Free Markets and Democracy in the tiny oil-rich nation of Qatar. Shays's visit was paid for by The Islamic Free Market Institute, a nonprofit group founded by GOP ally Grover Norquist and run by a protégé of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff to help bring Muslims into the Republican fold. Days before he snuck across the border to cheer on Operation Iraqi Freedom, Shays was at the Doha Ritz Carlton, comparing Connecticut, a centuries-old, economically diverse democracy, to Qatar, a monarchy ruled by a single family since its independence in 1971. "This nation, like my small state, has always played a large role in advancing participatory democracy, civil discourse, and stable commerce," Shays told a well-heeled audience of Qatari politicians and businessmen over lunch.

Shays has been a strong advocate for public-disclosure rules over the years. "As public servants, we have a responsibility to uphold the ethics process, not weaken it," he told The Houston Chronicle in 2005, objecting to an effort to defang House ethics rules in the wake of revelations about Tom DeLay's overseas travels and ties to Abramoff. Those travel rules require members of Congress to file forms revealing all travel expenses paid by outside sources. But, despite his record of pushing for meticulous record-keeping, Shays's privately sponsored trip to Qatar was notably absent from his own annual federal financial disclosure form, filed in May 2004, in violation of House rules. Nor did he submit an amendment disclosing the sponsor of his Qatar trip until confronted in mid-October 2006 by The New Republic with internal Islamic Institute receipts for his plane tickets, which were provided by an Arab American source upset with Shays's foreign policy positions. Given his reputation and perennially contested district, it was a particularly foolhardy move.

And, despite the fact that Shays boasted to The Stamford Advocate in 2003, "Every expense of my office is a matter of public record," Shays never listed the Qatar trip on his personal financial disclosure form. A first inquiry from this reporter in early October 2006 prompted his chief of staff, Betsy Hawkings, to find "a subcommittee trip that needed to be disclosed." (Subcommittee trips are generally paid for by the federal government.) A quick letter of amendment for this trip, which had been partially funded by a Norwegian source, was drafted on October 13, 2006. Asked specifically about the Qatar conference, Hawkings said: "I was told that was a subcommittee trip." Pressed again, this time with the Islamic Institute's receipts, Hawkings admitted the truth: Shays had flown to Qatar and back to the United States on the Islamic Institute's dime, and his meals and hotel in Qatar had been paid for by the Islamic Institute. Shays returned the unused portion of his tickets and those booked for his wife. "It was authorized as official travel," said Hawkings. "Just so there's no question, I'm going to file another amendment."

The danger of nondisclosure is that the true source of funding for foreign travel becomes untraceable. In Shays's case, knowing who sponsors his travel is especially pertinent; Shays chairs a congressional subcommittee overseeing U.S. national security matters. Just as Abramoff's nonprofit front groups routinely acted as thinly veiled conduits for money from his lobbying clients, the Islamic Institute's outlays for the representative's travels were rapidly reimbursed by the trip's real sponsor: Qatar. (In fact, Khaled Saffuri, the chairman of the Islamic Institute, had close ties to Abramoff and some of his foreign clients and had set up a short-lived lobbying firm, the Lexington Group, with him in 2002.) A letter from Saffuri to His Excellency Badar Al Dafa, then the Qatari ambassador to the United States, and a reply from the foreign ministry of Qatar shows that the Islamic Institute sought and received $143,150.93 from the foreign ministry days before Shays boarded the plane to Doha--and that the money was requested by Saffuri as reimbursement for, among other things, the congressman's travel.

The television spot, which began its run on Hartford television stations Monday night, spoofs an earlier ad by Johnson's opponent, Democratic state Sen. Chris Murphy, which featured him making the door-to-door neighborhood tours.

"I'm Chris Murphy," the Johnson ad begins, featuring five seconds of footage from Murphy's ad. "And I'm running for Congress by knocking on doors."

But then the ad quickly shifts to a rear shot of Murphy, now played by an actor impersonating the state senator walking door-to-door. The next frames show a woman telling Murphy to "keep walking!" because he "raised our taxes 27 times," and then another woman slapping Murphy because he provided "housing for sex offenders." The ad closes when Murphy reaches another house, where he is warmly embraced by a garishly dressed drug dealer.

"Murphy!" the actor playing the drug dealer says. "You want to weaken penalties for drug dealers, man! That's so cool. Come on in."

The charge that Murphy supported "27 tax increases" started airing in TV and radio spots earlier this fall. However, 14 of the Murphy votes were for routine compromise budget bills each year.

These budget acts were supported and signed by Republican governors John Rowland and M. Jodi Rell. The Johnson campaign, therefore, is criticizing Murphy for votes that were actually supported by her fellow Republicans.

Seven of the "27 tax increases" came in bills passed during 2005 and 2006, when Rell was governor.

"If I raised taxes, then Jodi Rell raised taxes," Murphy said during an interview two weeks ago. "In fact, over the course of my eight years in the legislature, state taxes have actually decreased by $300 million."

Johnson campaign manager David Boomer said during an interview Wednesday that he is heavily involved in both researching and writing the congresswoman's ads. He acknowledged many questions about the tax claims.

[...]

When asked if more than a dozen of the increases mentioned in his ads were actually bipartisan budget bills, Boomer said:

"Correct. A number of these [bills referred to in the ads] were the budget and tax packages worked out in compromise between the governor and the legislature. ... Yes, Jodi Rell signed all of these bills. ... We're simply saying that Murphy is a tax raiser. He raised taxes in Hartford, and he'll raise them in Washington."

The Murphy campaign has also questioned the accuracy of the ad's claims that he provided "housing for sex offenders" and "weaken[ed] penalties for drug dealers."

The first reference is to a 1999 bill, "An Act Concerning Landlord and Tenant" that Murphy says he voted against because he thought it weakened eviction protection for low-income families. (The same bill contained provisions that allowed housing authorities to exclude sex offenders.)

In 2005, the Connecticut legislature wrestled with the issue of the disparity between penalties for possession of powder cocaine and crack cocaine.

In an initial vote, Murphy did support exempting drug dealers from a mandatory minimum sentence, if they were caught with less than 1 ounce of crack cocaine.

But Rell vetoed that bill, and less than a week later Murphy voted with a unanimous legislature to increase the penalties for possession of powder cocaine.

When asked about his ad's reference to the first bill, which was unfavorable to Murphy, but not the second, Boomer said:

"Well, I'm not going to get into that. Our ad only referred to the first vote, where Murphy voted to lessen penalties."

Bill Leukhardt of the Hartford Courant writes about the effort being made by the state senate and house to quickly pass the Republican compromise to the failed cocaine-crack prosession bill before the session ends.

The sponsors will seek quick House and Senate passage of a proposal setting 14 grams - half an ounce - as the trigger amount of either crack or powder cocaine a suspect must possess to be charged as a dealer.

The law now says anyone possessing half a gram of crack cocaine can be charged as a dealer, with a mandatory minimum jail term of five years if convicted. For powder cocaine, the threshold is 28 grams.

The bill Rell vetoed would have set 28 grams of either as the threshold. Rell said a 28-gram threshold for crack was too lenient for a highly addictive drug often sold in cities by violent gangs that battle rivals for turf.

She said she would sign a compromise setting 14 grams as the threshold for the dealing charge for both crack and powder - a compromise position House and Senate Republicans proposed last month without success.

Boomer concedes that as both Chris Murphy and Rinker Buck have noted, the majority of the tax increases (14 of 27) were part of budget bills, nullifying any culpability on Murphy for raising taxes. He admits that the Johnson claim is pure bunk. And then gets back on smear message "We're simply saying that Murphy is a tax raiser." Damn the facts, WE'RE SAYING SOMETHING!

Boomer and Johnson's brand of lying is of that special type that knows fully well what the truth is and isn't concerned by the disconnect. There are books that have been written about this. Johnson's ad reeks of fear and desperation and Boomer's loyalty to the fabrication that has become a planck of the Johnson campaign is truly startling. Caught in a lie and accepting it, Boomer continues to lie.

If Nancy Johnson wins reelection it will be on the back of her and her campaign managers dutiful willingness to lie, smear, and generally shit on the truth in their effort to scare voters away from Chris Murphy. Maybe they're comfortable with that, but I sure am not.

Stop F-ing whining and fight back (4.00 / 1)
Do an ad Showing Nancy Johnson showing up at her Drug Dealers house( a CEO of Big Pharma) and going around to the back door and getting a bag of money.

A major anti-immigration group is accusing the Bush Administration of creating a "shadow government," by "engaging in collaborative relations with Mexico and Canada outside the U.S. Constitution," RAW STORY has learned.

The Minuteman Project sent out a press release late Tuesday evening hyping their Web site, which is showcasing 1,000 documents allegedly obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) by World Net Daily columnist Jerome Corsi. Most widely known for his longtime attacks on Democratic Senator John Kerry's military record, Corsi also co-authored a book about the Minuteman "battle" to secure America's borders.

SPP was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort by the United States, Canada and Mexico to increase the security and improve the quality of life of North Americans through greater cooperation and information sharing. Many conservative critics view the trilateral initiative as a threat to U.S. sovereignty.

"The documents give clear evidence that the Bush administration has created a 'shadow government,'" Corsi said in the press release.

Corsi claims to have "hundreds of pages of e-mails from U.S. executive branch administrators who are copying the e-mail to somewhere between 25 to 100 people, a third of whom are in the U.S. bureaucracy, a third of whom are in the Mexican bureaucracy and a third of whom are in the Canadian bureaucracy."

"They are sharing their laws and regulations so we can 'harmonize' and 'integrate' our laws into a North American structure, not a USA structure," Corsi said.

The documents can be viewed on the Minuteman Project's Stop the Security and Prosperity Project page, but there's no mention of any particular "smoking gun" which could proves the contention that the White House has created a shadow government. The anti-immigration group appears to consider the mere existence of communications among bureaucrats from the three countries as proof of their assertions.

[...]

A RAW STORY examination of documents related to the "steel strategy" as presented at the Minuteman Web site did not turn up anything untoward.

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.

In 1994, voters rightly rebelled against unresponsive, entrenched Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and put Republicans in charge. Similar discontent inhabits the land today.

The nation is mired in an unpopular war. Congress exercises no spending restraint. Lobbyist influence is at high tide.

Little has been done to protect the long-term financial stability of Social Security and Medicare or to promote energy independence. There has been insufficient oversight of the Republican-controlled executive branch. Scandal taints Congress, with members being sent to prison, forced to resign or under indictment or investigation.

It's time for a change to Democratic control to see if they can do any better. Divided government has worked well in the past. Three Republican-held seats in Connecticut are key to whether there will be change or more of the same. Voters must ask themselves if these GOP incumbents can be part of the solution or are part of the problem. Here are The Courant's recommendations in the U.S. House races:

[...]

4th DISTRICT: FARRELL

Democrat Diane Farrell came within 4 percentage points of defeating incumbent Chris Shays in the Fairfield County district in 2004. She's The Courant's choice this year.

Ms. Farrell, 51, is a socially progressive, fiscally moderate former two-term first selectwoman of Westport -- no small feat in a Republican-dominated town. She knows how to build bipartisan coalitions to get things done.

Schooled and steeled by two grinding campaigns for the House, this articulate, personable, bright woman is knowledgeable about federal issues and would be an effective change agent to clean up Congress.

Opposing Mr. Shays' election to an 11th term is not easy for us to do. The Courant has long admired Mr. Shays for his independent streak, his good work on behalf of the environment and his passion for such causes as campaign finance reform and government ethics.

But the 61-year-old moderate from Bridgeport has been marginalized by his own party and has become increasingly ineffective. In 2002, he won a great victory in banning soft money from campaigns, and yet there is more special-interest money than ever influencing federal elections. He has long been a budget hawk, yet the Congress controlled by his party rolls up record budget deficits without flinching. Borrow and spend is its byword.

Worse, Mr. Shays has been one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush's aimless and costly Iraqi war policy. Despite recently calling for a timetable for ratcheting down U.S. involvement and advocating the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his entire team, Mr. Shays foresees ongoing U.S. military activity in Iraq for a number of years. He has also made inexplicable statements of late, such as saying that the extreme sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at the Abu Ghraib prison "was not torture."

5th DISTRICT: MURPHY

Chris Murphy, 33, a Democrat from Cheshire, is the strongest challenger that Rep. Nancy Johnson has faced in her 12-term career in the House.

Mrs. Johnson, 71, a Republican from New Britain, is an authority on health care. As chairman of the Ways and Means health subcommittee, she helped author the Medicare Part D prescription drug bill, which has proved a success.

Therein lies her problem. Mrs. Johnson has long struggled with a tendency to confuse and complicate. Democrats were able to frame her prescription drug bill as a muddle of a law too complex to work because she failed to present it clearly and coherently. The Democrats won the public relations battle, though the law is in fact cutting drug costs.

Mr. Murphy has a command of health care policy that rivals Mrs. Johnson's because of his service as the Senate chairman of the state legislature's Public Health Committee. He championed a workplace smoking ban and stem cell research. A strong environmentalist, he introduced legislation requiring that cars sold in Connecticut meet tougher emissions standards. Mrs. Johnson's record on the environment is mixed: Though she opposed oil drilling in the Arctic refuge, she supported an energy bill that provided giveaways to oil companies and lacked tougher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.

Mr. Murphy is a fluent, even inspiring speaker. He speaks eloquently, for example, of the state's struggle to deal with $40 billion in federal cuts in funding for the poor, elderly and students that Mrs. Johnson voted for in the Deficit Reduction Act. To her credit, Mrs. Johnson defied her party in supporting a ban on inhumane treatment of detainees and allowing the importation of drugs from Canada. And she voted to repeal restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research.

But she has failed to serve as a check on her party's worst instincts as it balloons the federal deficit, weakens House ethics rules, blindly backs U.S. occupation of Iraq and allows the president unprecedented executive powers. Mr. Murphy would provide just such a check.

Good Lord!

Is Nancy Johnson throwing in the towel or is she trying top imitate Katherine Harris when it comes to making STUPID statements.

I hope your sitting down for this one.

[Nancy] Johnson accused Murphy of distracting voters by bringing forward national issues such as the war in Iraq.

[...]

Johnson added that she wished to concentrate on issues more local to Connecticut that fall within the realm of her position's control.

This is the same Nancy Johnson who not only voted for the war, but also played the role of President Bush's Iraq war cheerleader along side Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Joe Lieberman. Now, with a staggering number of soliders dying in the middle of a civil war that has no end in sight, Johnson wants to jump ship and whine about Murphy's bringing up the war as a campaign issue.

When one takes a look at Johnson's voting record, you can understand why she doesn't want to talk about the war.

Johnson Opposed Setting Benchmarks for Success in Iraq. In 2005, Johnson, and nearly every Republican present, voted against an effort to require President Bush to submit a plan for success in Iraq, supply the military with adequate equipment and other resources to complete their mission, and provide veterans with adequate health care services. The proposal was debated during consideration of the State Department authorization bill. Had the plan passed, it would have required the president to outline benchmarks for success in Iraq - including the adoption of a constitution, free and fair elections, and a plan for economic development - that could be used to determine when Iraq is sufficiently stable to allow for the return home of American soldiers. The motion also noted that the lack of a clear strategy for success in Iraq could undermine the morale of U.S. troops. The proposal was rejected, 203-227. [Rep. Menendez Press Release, 7/20/05; HR2601 7/20/2005 Vote# 398]

[...]

The Same Vote Also Addressed Additional Job Assistance to Veterans Returning from Overseas. The vote opposed a motion to a job training reauthorization bill to provide extra assistance to veterans who are returning from conflicts overseas. Many veterans returning from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq may need skills and training to obtain or retain their jobs while Reservists who have spent a year or more overseas have put their careers on hold to serve our country. Four out of 10 members of the Guard and Reserve forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty. Many left for the war thinking they would be deployed for 6 months and have ended up staying for a year or even longer and may be shipped out again. Additionally, many Guard and Reservists are self-employed or run small businesses and face the daunting task of reestablishing their businesses after their release from active duties. The 2 years after they return from service are the most difficult. The motion failed, 197-228. [Statement by Reps. Kildee and DeLauro, 109th Congressional Record, pg. H915, 3/2/05; HR27 3/2/2005 Vote# 47]

[...]

Johnson Opposed $100 Million Increase for Military Personnel. In 2005, Johnson, and nearly every Republican present, voted against a proposal to the budget to increase funding for military health care by $100 million and transitional job training for military personnel by $50 million. The proposed increase failed, 200-229.[HR1268 3/16/2005 Vote# 76]

"Nancy Johnson calling this war a distraction is just as offensive as President Bush calling it a comma. I have knocked on the doors of families in this district who have children serving in Iraq , and they would be appalled to hear their Congresswoman dismissing this war as a distraction," said Murphy.

"It is simply bizarre for Nancy Johnson to say that she can't control this war because it is not 'within the realm of her position's control.' Nancy Johnson voted for the war. She voted against a $1500 pay bonus for combat troops. She voted for President Bush's stay-the-course resolution. Nancy Johnson is in the leadership of this Republican Congress, and Congress can control this war. Nancy Johnson and her colleagues simply refuse to do so," said Murphy.