Good grief!

It seems like it's the days of Richard Goodstein are happening all over again as the Liebergoons went after Ned earlier today at a SENIOR CENTER (man, those jerks are lucky I wasn't there).

TRex from FDL filed this report.

Day Two of the Big Bad Bus Tour isn't exactly off to a good start. This morning's first rally was to be outdoors at the Percival Smith Towers Senior Center. Before the event was even underway, a crowd of Lieberman supporters turned up. They have a fake voting booth set up in the bed of a Toyota 4¥4 and speakers that play that insipid jingle, ("When you're in the voting booth/Watch out for the LieberYouth...") over and over and OVER. It looks like a porta-potty on wheels and the music coming out of it is akin to the smell one would expect from such an enclosure.

They started out at the street, holding signs and chanting, a clot of 25 to 30 thick-necked Young Republican types. Then they moved up the driveway to the Senior Center and blocked the bus. They formed a noisy, chanting mob around the bus door and blocked anyone from getting out. Eventually Ned and some others managed to push out through the crowd, but the noise only increased and the LieberYouth pressed tighter, chanting so that the news cameras and microphones couldn't pick up a word Ned was saying.

It was an ugly and intense little scene. The few seniors who had come outside were rushed back in by the Percival Smith staff. I did manage to ask one bright-eyed little senior lady what she thought of all this, but she just pointed at her temple and twirled her finger in the universal sign for "crazy" and then she was whisked away by a staffer.

So this is what it has come down to, Mr. Lieberman? Sending your thugs out to physically intimidate old people? Nice. Classy.

Yes folks, you read this right. Joe Lieberman sent his goons to go and cause a HUGE scene at a SENIOR CENTER. Classic Lieberman tactic...why am I not surprised since I've seen these goons in action throughout the summer.

Remember, Joe Lieberman will do anything to get re-elected:

* Lieberman threw the Democratic Party under the bus by actively looking for Republican support therby placing the Congressioanl Democrats in trouble.

* Lieberman's campaign passed out race-baiting flyers throughout the African American community days before the primary, accusing Lamont of not caring about race-relations (although he taught at an inner city high school in Bridgeport and the quote Lieberman used in the flyer was TOTALLY taken out of context).




* During the primary, holy Joe sent his D.C. lobbyist buddy Richard Goodstein and his Liebergoons to disrupt several Lamont (FYI: this was teh same time Joe dished out 387,000 in petty cash). Two of the most memorable events was the disgusting incident at Ted's in Meriden and the blowup from Goodstein at a Lamont event in Greenwich days later.

First, Teds:

Ned walks into Ted's Steamed Cheeseburgers for the event, and the 3 or 4 booths inside are already packed, as are some of the counter seats, with about 15-20 teenagers and one older gentleman, many of whom had asked for and received Ned Lamont stickers from the Lamont staffers organizing the event. Ned says hi to the owner. As Ned starts talking, the teenagers reveal Lieberman T-shirts. The older gentleman starts yelling "Are You an Al Sharpton Democrat or a Bill Clinton Democrat?" and something along the lines of "because Bill Clinton has the support of everyone and Al Sharpton only has the support of..." trailing off. Ned decides to leave, with his staff fearing for his physical safety.

The entire scene moves outside, where about 6 reporters are there, witnessing the entire spectacle. A near melee ensues as at least 5 of the Lieberman kids continue to yell and scream at Ned and get physically abusive with Lamont staffers, even bloodying a photographer's nose.

A Lamont supporter at the scene noted the Lieberman staffers looked "red in the face" with anger.

Ned attempts to talk with a 90-year-old WWII veteran pilot from Virginia who wanted to discuss his opposition to the Iraq war. The Lieberman kids scream accusations about Ned's patriotism, spewing right-wing bile accusing him of not caring about our troops, and questioning whether he would (not verbatim) "let our citizens die again," assumedly a reference to 9/11.

One reporter goes up and tries to ask some of these kids whether they are volunteers or paid staffers for the Lieberman campaign. The kid screams in response, "Let me see your credentials!" The reporter produces said credentials. The kid replies "those are fake." None of the 15-20 Lieberman kids there would admit to being paid staffers. Nor would they tell the reporters their names, or any other personal information.

This event was even reported on in GQ magazine. For those who are new here, lets go back in time and revisit the scene.

The next stop is just a few miles away at Ted's, a famous cheeseburger shack in town. Ned greets some supporters on the patio outside, and then we file inside to get our steamed burgers. It's small and crowded in here, and though the drill is to stay as far out of the candidate's way as possible, I get pinned right up against Ned in the crowd. Then, all of a sudden, everyone in the restaurant, in the booths and at the counter, everywhere, simultaneously pulls on a white Lieberman T-shirt. It takes a second to process what's happening. "Oh, my God," Ned says. "It's the Lieber people." They start heckling Ned aggressively, using campaign attack lines about taxes and how for sixteen years, until right before this campaign, Ned belonged to a country club in Greenwich that has almost no black members. Most of Joe's supporters in Ted's are kids, but there's one big bald guy, the only adult among them, who starts a loud, frenzied inquisition right in Ned's face. "Are you a Bill Clinton Democrat or an Al Sharpton Democrat?"

"They're not mutually exclusive," Ned says.

"No, I'm asking. Answer me! Clinton or Sharpton?" Ned tries to answer, but the guy interrupts: "I worked for Abe Ribicoff. He couldn't play golf at your country club in Greenwich!" When Ned starts to turn away, the guy says, "Don't turn your back on me, Ned!

"Let's keep this civil for the last five days of the campaign," Ned says, and he starts making his way among the Lieber kids, shaking their hands again.

The big bald guy is right in my face now. I ask him where he's from, what his role is here, and he shouts and wags his finger and demands my credentials, yelling to the crowd that I'm not a legitimate reporter and I must be with Ned. Suddenly, I realize the goal here is to provoke Ned into overreacting on-camera. And if not him, then someone on his staff. And it's working; I want badly to take a swing at this lunatic, and I'm not even on the campaign. I flash back to yesterday and the Banana Man and the thug yelling at Tom Swan, "Hit me! Do it!"

...and again, here's a videocip of Goodstein and the goon's in action days after the Ted's incident (pay attention to the reporter who questions Goodstein about the Ted's incident).
Classic Lieberman playbook, whine about people attacking him while he send out his goons to do the dirty work going as far as making a scene AT A SENIOR CENTER.

Is this the type of person you want representing you in Washington?

UPDATE: I hearing reports from all over the place about the Liebergoons and more stuff is popping up on the blogs about what happened. Click here for David Sirota's report. I'll keep everyone updated if I hear more...

Oh, this is too much.

Seems like the NRCC, Nancy Johnson and The Today Show are attempting to do a hitjob on Chris Murphy.

Right now on MSNBC's website, an online poll is being conducted regarding campaign ads and the winner of the contest will featured on the show.

Under the title "Which one is the nastiest ad?" somehow Chris Murphy's "Cleft Palate" made the cut along side the disgusting Harold Ford ad (I guess they missed Nancy Johnson's wiretapping ad or the ad where she re-created a 9/11 funeral.

Anyway, the NRCC are flooding the site with votes for Murphy and it's up to all of us to set the record straight as the attack ad against Ford is by far the nastiest ad out there.

Please get over to the site and vote! Don't let the NRCC get away with this trick.

This story has legs (warning, this is a LONG but important post).

The New Haven Register came out today with an article regarding the 387,000 in petty cash Joe Lieberman dished out in the final days before the primary.

Matt Browner Hamlin over at MLN highlights three MAJOR problems that the paper dug up.

The Register article raises three serious potential violations of campaign finance laws. The one that most interests me is the possibility that the Lieberman campaign laundered money through their field consultants to convert it to street money.

Also, [Tom] Reyes and another man, Daryl Brooks of New Haven, who ran a consultant service, said they each got one check from the campaign for their services, but they are listed in the third quarter campaign finance report as getting two checks, for a total of twice what the men said they received.

The report lists Reyes as getting two checks for $8,250, one on Aug. 4 and one on Aug. 15. Brooks received $12,200 on Aug. 11 and another check for the same amount on Aug. 15, according to the Lieberman report. Both men said this was inaccurate.

Paying for services not delivered is a hallmark of street money. By writing checks that ostensibly look like they belong, campaigns can give their operatives cash to put on the street around election. Both of these men are saying they only received one check and their bank balances may well reflect that, but it I find it hard to believe that the Lieberman campaign's accountants accidentally cut an extra $20,450 in checks or accidentally added that much money to their records.

No, I think the most probable answer is Alan Schlesinger's hypothesis, that the Lieberman campaign was putting huge sums of cash into play as street money. Schlesinger was talking specifically about Joe's petty cash slush fund, but as I explained earlier this week, street money can be deployed in more ways than just giving cash to bad people to buy votes.

Lastly, street money is used to pay influential community members for services never provided. These people can then funnel the money into vote buying or using their connections to pull in more voters for the candidate who's throwing cash around.

Substitute campaign consultants for influential community members and the extra checks to Reyes and Brooks make sense. This money could well have been used as street money and it's coming from sources that we hadn't considered as legitimate possibilities before the Register article.

This is a serious problem. Again, we're talking about 387,000 dollars spend during the last 12 days before the primary. By comparison, the Lamont campaign reported only 500 dollars in petty cash.

387,000 dollars to 500 dollars...strange isn't it?

Back to Matt:

There are two other salient pieces of information in the Register article, though they apply more towards the Lieberman campaign's failures to keep proper clerical records of their expenditures than something necessarily as sinister as street money. That is not to say that these are not serious violations of campaign finance law that do real damage to the spirit of transparency that good government groups like Public Campaign Action Fund and Common Cause have fought for.

Several young men, who were paid $60 a day out of petty cash to canvass in Bridgeport, said they were paid in cash for aggregate earnings over $200.

Rob Dhanda, 18, or Stratford, said he earned $480 in cash over several weeks, while Walter Ruilova, 18, also of Stratford, said his total was an estimated $360 in cash. Ruilova estimated there were about 30 teenagers working out of the Bridgeport office, each earning $60 a day in cash, over a few weeks.

Michelle Ryan, a spokeswoman for the FEC, would not comment on specifics of the Lamont complaint, but said "in terms of itemization, it is required once the aggregate total to a recipient is in excess of $200."

The Lieberman campaign essentially paid campaign workers off the books. The article doesn't find people who were necessarily paid more than $100 in petty cash (which would be illegal), but these are all individuals who received over $200 and thus should be itemized on Lieberman's reports. Failure to provide full information about these people, including their names and addresses, is an avoidance of the law. At minimum this information continues to fill out our understanding of the extent to which the Lieberman campaign stopped obeying campaign finance requirements and regulations during the Democratic primary.

The Register also includes information that will surely bolster the Lamont campaign's formal complaint to the FEC about the Lieberman petty cash slush fund. Specifically, the Lamont campaign contended that Lieberman failed to keep adequate records in their petty cash journal as to what their disbursements paid for.

At least one man who was hired as a consultant, Tomas Reyes of Oxford, said he has yet to be asked by the campaign to turn over material for the journal, which would justify expenditures of $8,250.

The FEC requires the treasurer of the political committee to keep a written journal of all disbursements out of petty cash, including names, addresses, dates and purposes.

I'm not sure if Mary O'Leary, the NH Register reporter, is entirely clear in this passage as to whether or not Reyes $8,250 was a petty cash expenditure, which would require a record in the journal, or a reimbursable expense for his 8/4/06 check for "field consulting." It strikes me as odd for Reyes to claim that he had receipts for field consulting, a service he provided for the campaign. In any event, it is clear that Lieberman's books are not up to date and accurate, which is a violation of campaign finance laws.

O'Leary gave the Lieberman campaign multiple opportunities to speak on the record about these petty cash and field consulting expenditures and the failures to accurately keep the required records. As they have done since this scandal broke, the Lieberman campaign declined to speak about their petty cash problem.

The Lieberman campaign's continued silence only strengthens the need to ask questions like O'Leary has done in this article. She has brought out new information that demands answers from Joe; if she can't get them, I hope the FEC will. Every piece of evidence that comes out suggests malfeasance, albeit of varying degrees, by Joe's campaign. Lieberman's actions and Lieberman's silence do damage to the health of our elections. The need for truth has never been more clear than today.

I don't want to repeat myself here but if I must.

387,000 in COLD HARD CASH was dished out by the Lieberman campaign in a span of 12 days prior to the priamary and no one knows how the money was used.

Here's Lamontblog's timeline.

First, Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said she wasn't there when it happened:

Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said she wasn't with the campaign at the time of the primary, but her understanding is that there was a staffer in charge of keeping track of petty cash. (NH Register, 10/22)

Then she promised she'd produce the journal detailing petty cash expenditures - one that is required by FEC law:

She said the money was used to cover salaries, food, lodging and transportation for hundreds who were hired to do statewide canvassing. The daily rates ranged from $60 to $75 to $100 for the work, Sun said. She said she would attempt to find the petty cash report by Monday. (NH Register, 10/22)

Then she was "unable to say" why the young workers who assumedly got all this cash weren't listed by name and salary in the FEC report, while their lodging and transportation was:

Sun was unable to say Saturday why the workers, some of whom appeared to have stayed for days or weeks in dormitories at the expense of the Lieberman campaign, were not listed by name and salary. (Courant, 10/22)

Then she hid behind the campaign's lawyer:

"The fact is, our attorney has assured us that the petty cash expenditures and the rest of our FEC report is in full compliance with the law's disclosure requirements just as every campaign Joe Lieberman has run for the last 18 years has been." (AP, 10/23)

Then she reversed herself, said the cash was not used to pay workers, but to pay field coordinators who then threw the cash around to kids:

Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, said today the cash was paid to field coordinators who then distributed the money to workers who canvassed for the three-term incumbent, who's running as an independent candidate after his primary loss to Lamont in August. (Journal-Inquirer, 10/24)

Then she reversed herself, and told reporters they couldn't see the petty cash journal:

Sun declined Monday to allow reporters to examine the campaign's petty cash journal. (Courant, 10/24)

Now, despite promising reporters she would produce records of how almost $400,000 in cash was spent and then suddenly telling reporters they couldn't look at them, and despite still being "unable to say" why the slush fund even existed in the first place, she's calling the whole thing a "kooky conspiracy theory":

"We are in full compliance with the FEC's disclosure requirements, have done nothing wrong, and there's not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. We will not be going beyond the law to release the journal simply because Ned Lamont has some kooky conspiracy theory." (NH Register, 10/24)

Well, I think the New haven Registger just unearth a shred of evidence and raised some seriosu concerns about the petty cash.

Remember, Joe Lieberman will do anything to get re-elected:

* Lieberman threw the Democratic Party under the bus by actively looking for Republican support therby placing the Congressioanl Democrats in trouble.

* Lieberman's campaign passed out race-baiting flyers throughout the African American community days before the primary, accusing Lamont of not caring about race-relations (although he taught at an inner city high school in Bridgeport and the quote Lieberman used in the flyer was TOTALLY taken out of context).




* Lieberman paid a staggering $17,550 to Urban Voters and Associates ( a buisness which is run out of a house) for "field consulting."

17,550 dollars for field consulting?

Accoring to the Courant, Urban Voters and Associates "employee" Prenzina Holloway distrbuted absentee ballots throughout the African-American community in Hartford's North-End for Lieberman although she is barred from doing so.

Holloway acknowledges working for Urban Voters and Associates, a company paid $17,550 by the Lieberman campaign since September to do "field work." But she said she isn't involved in the company's absentee ballot operations.

"That is just a no-no," she said. "And I know it is a no-no."

But five people at a Vine Street housing complex for the elderly have told The Courant that Holloway and another person came to their doors to give them absentee ballot applications, and a security worker at another complex on Woodland Street said Holloway tried to get into the building to distribute applications there. Holloway was barred from the building after getting into a verbal altercation with the worker after he made supportive comments about Lieberman's main challenger, Ned Lamont.

Something just isn't right here and at this point, the mainstream media should quesiton Joe Lieberman and mroe forcefully go after this story.

Here's a chart and a list of Lieberman's petty cash spending compared to other politicians during the same eleciton cycle.

* Ben Cardin (MD) - $0.00
* Kweisi Mfume (MD) -$0.00
* Lincoln Chafee (RI) - $650.00
* Stephen Laffey (RI) - $0.00
* Hillary Clinton (NY) - $0.00
* Jonathan Tasini (NY) - $0.00
* George Allen (VA) - $0.00
* Jim Webb (VA) - $0.00
* Harris Miller (VA) - $0.00
* John Tester (MT) - $0.00
* Conrad Burns (MT) - $0.00
* Bob Corker (TN) - $0.00
* Harold Ford (TN) - $1500.00
* Sherrod Brown (OH) - $0.00
* Mike DeWine (OH) - $0.00
* Ed Case (HI) - $0.00
* Daniel Akaka (HI) - $0.00
* Alan Schlesinger (CT) - $0.00
* Ned Lamont (CT) - $500.00
* Joe Lieberman (CT) - $387,000.00

Lets go back and see what the candidates had to say about Joe's petty cash.

Lamont campaign:

Alan Schlesinger:

387,000 in COLD HARD CASH. Many questions, no answers.

A change in Iraq starts with a change in Connecticut and Washington.

Go to the Lamont campaign's Family, Friends, and Neighbors program and send someone you know a campaign postcard.

While you're at it, invite people you know to use the tool also and help spread the word.

To help John DeStefano click here

To help Chris Murphy click here

To help Diane Farrell click here

To help Joe Courtney click here

Oh man, what a treat! Seems like I'm not the only person who's bitchslapping "carpetbagging" Gregg Seabury around today.

From the News-Times

Democrat Lewis Wallace decided to retire this year after four terms serving this Danbury district that includes the Candlewood Lake area.

He will be a hard act to follow, and neither of the candidates seeking to succeed him measure up to Wallace's standard -- at least at the moment.

The Republican candidate is Gregg Seabury, a teacher at Danbury High School and a member of the Danbury Common Council. Until recently, Seabury lived in another part of Danbury and has previously run unsuccessfully for the legislature from the 110th Assembly District against state Rep. Bob Godfrey.

The Democratic candidate this year in the 109th is Joseph Taborsak. He grew up in the 109th District and is an attorney. His mother, Lynn, represented the 109th for many years.

Seabury makes a point of claiming he is more qualified for this legislative seat because he is older than Taborsak and has held elective office.

But Taborsak actually seems to know more about the district, given his long residency there. And Seabury has made several inaccurate claims about current laws pertaining to immigration and even what the Common Council is allowed to discuss, which shows a lack of preparation.

Joseph Taborsak is the better choice for the 109th District.

That's the News-Times way of saying that Seabury is a carpetbagging political lying hack. Mainsteam media is polite while People-Powered Media (PPM) gets right ot the point.

As a bonus, look at what the News-Times had this to say about Pauline Basso's ah...campaign.

Democrat Bob Godfrey has served this district in central Danbury since 1989.

Republican Pauline Basso, a member of the Danbury Common Council, is running against him this year.

Basso is known for her constituent service on the council. But, in running for the legislature, she has made little effort to learn the legislative process.

She has made no case for replacing Godfrey.

Godfrey is a valuable asset for Danbury and the region in the legislature.

He is one of the leaders of the Democratic majority in the House, and uses that influence in a bipartisan manner to benefit his district, his city and western Connecticut.

He is a lawyer and a former employee of the Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce, bringing those experiences to his work in Hartford.

Bob Godfrey has earned re-election.

Guess she should stick to grandstanding about her street signs and making silly comments on public access.

The News-Times knows the deal and hopefully so will the voters.

Gregg Seabury and Pauline Basso: if they're not doing anything in the Common Council, how can you trust them to do the right thing in Hartford?

Dishonest Greg Seabury is at it again.

The 107th 110th 109th State Rep Republican candidate and proud member of the do-nothing Common Council just released his most dishonest mailer yet. Seems like he and Pauline Basso are attempting to use the illegal immigration card at the 11th hour for political points and while I'll expose the silliness of Basso, I want to concentrate and pick apart Seabury's garbage for now.

Here the flyer from Seabury
(click to enlarge)
Fear, smear, insult, and lie is the only thing Seabury knows. Since he can't run on his record (because he HAS NONE), he uses a hot-button knee jerk issue for political gain. Again (and I can't stress this enough), this comes from a Common Council member who has done NOTHING in regards to addressing the immigration issue in Danbury.

NOTHING.

Now that I have that off my chest, lets take a quick look at Seabury's claims.

Seabury lie number 1: Joe Taborsak supports giving illegal immigrants our jobs through a guest worker program.

Since Seabury's source for this claim is Taborsak's website, lets take a look and see what he actually said:

Our present immigration system is clearly broken and in need of major reform. The present system of issuing visas needs to be streamlined to provide improved, faster security checks, rapid processing of applications, and reduction of the current seven year waiting period. The current waiting period encourages, not discourages illegal entry into the US. Once a visa is issued our system must be geared to monitor holders of those visas to the extent necessary to prevent abuses.

A guest worker program would satisfy the needs of business, provide a legal avenue of entry to those seeking employment, and assure that the appropriate taxes were being collected. We need to hold employers responsible for complying with the law to ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

Once you actually look at Taborsak's comment you can easily see how Seabury is misleading the public. Cherry-picking Taborsak's claim is an insult to voters as his only goal is to simply get a knee-jerk reaction from voters who might not be fully informed on Taborsak's position. Instead of countering Taborsak's proposal with...his OWN idea, Seabury takes the low road with lying. Is this the type of politician you want representing you in Hartford?

Seabury lie number 2: Joe Taborsak supports using our tax dollars to pay for social services programs for illegal aliens.

Notice the buzz word illegal "alien" instead of illegal "immigrant." Seabury shamelessly used buzz words such as "alien" go give the impression that he's on the side of those who oppose illegal immigration.

Again, lets take a look at Joe Taborsak's website and see what he actually stated:

On the issue of education, both federal and state laws currently require that every child have access to an education. I support these laws and the principle behind them. The alternative to providing an education is an increase in crime and poverty which, in the long run, will cost taxpayers far more than providing children with a sound education.

Do you see the pattern now? Is this the type of politician you want representing you in Hartford?

Lets keep going...

Seabury lie number 3: Taborsak refused whether he would support giving cities like Danbury more legal authority in dealing with illegal aliens living in Danbury housing.

Okay, this is clearly dishonest and probably just made up since Seabury didn't offer a source. Let's take a simple look at Taborsak's quote. under the title called "Protecting neighborhoods."

Establish state grants for cities like Danbury to help pay the cost of curbing overcrowded and unsafe housing, which endangers lives and threatens the qualityof our neighborhoods.

This is getting too easy. Again, I ask, is this the type of politician you want representing you in Hartford?

Seabury lie number 4: Joe has flip-flopped on whether he supports federal immigration officals arresting illegal aliens in Danbury or whether the state should stop illegal aliens from having a CT driver's license

Again, Seabury is just making stuff up and shows that he doesn't understand state law. For one, illegal immigrants CAN NOT GET A DRIVER'S LICENSE. The law clearly states only LEGAL residents can obtain a driver's license. The real problem is the loop-holes in the licensing requirements and Taborsak CLEARLY states this on his site under the title Close licensing loopholes

Stop the abuse of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles licensing requirements.

Typical Republican smear tactic...fear and smear. And this comes from a teacher.

Honestly, Seabury is probably one of the worst candidates I've seen in Danbury (and trust me, that's saying a lot). His history is filled with wonderful moments such as when he attempted to run in the 107th district although he didn't live in the 107th, getting destroyed by Bob Godfrey in two elections in the 110th, then in a move Republicans like to call "carpetbagging" trying his luck in the 109th.

Positioning himself as Mr. illegal immigration (although he NEVER talked about the tpoic until last month), Seabury is attempting to avoid talking about his lack of a record by smearing Taborsak as much as possible. It makes you wonder why he wouldn't just simply talk about his political record and leave it at that. What is he avoiding...the fact that he HAS no record?

It's simple, look beyond Seabury's rhetoric and examine his record. Take a look at the Common Council minutes and check how many times Seabury addressed immigration in a proposal. I'll spare you the trouble...the answer is ZERO.

Taborsak's mailer says it best.

DON'T BE FOOLED! Seabury is nothing more than a rubber-stamp Boughton Republican who hasn't a record to stand on. He has moved from district to district trying to get elected State Rep for years and his latest mailer is simply an attempt to throw anything at the wall and see what sticks. With less than a week till election day, Seabury gets desperate knowing that it doesn't matter whether or not his claims about Taborsak are true (I just exposed lie in the mailer). What matters is Seabury giving the impression that Taborsak doesn't care about illegal immigration while ignoring his inaction in addressing the issue while a member of the Common Council.

This reminds me of something Connecticut AFL-CIO John Olsen said recently in Danbury:


Seabury is nothing more than a political oppurtunist and is doing everything to avoid his own political record such as when he voted to give the BRT corporation free sewer hook-ups for their 500+ massive condo development and the residents of the complex a seven-year tax abatement.

Taking a quote from the GOP playbook, "never trust a carpetbagger."

UPDATE make sure you check out my original post on regarding Seabury's desperate political tactics.

The video speaks for itself.



Joe Lieberman: part of the problem in Washington.

When a 20+ year incumbent looks towards a popular governor for help, you know someone's desperate.

Lagging in two polls, U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-5th District, made a sweep through Danbury on Monday to rally support in the countdown to Election Day.

Johnson was exuberant as she stood in front of City Hall to accept the support of Gov. M. Jodi Rell and other Republicans.

I wonder if other Republicans include Alan Schlesinger.

Seriously, Johnson is down in all the polls and like Joe Lieberman showed his desperation when begging Bill Clinton for help, Johnson shows her cards when begging Jodi Rell to stand by her side.

What even more laughable was Nancy Johnson not uttering the word Republican once during her stump speech.

Johnson spoke frequently Monday about her similarities with the popular Rell, and never uttered the word Republican.

"We're both street ladies," Johnson said of herself and Rell. "Street ladies aren't governed by parties. I never ran a problem by a political party to find a solution."

Memo to Johnson: people are not going to buy your garbage which is why your losing to Murphy in all the polls.

Jodi Rell didn't vote in favor of the Iraq War.

Jodi Rell didn't vote in favor of illegally wiretapping Americans.

Jodi Rell didn't vote in favor of the god-awful Medicare Part D bill.

Jodi Rell didn't accept campaign contributi...well maybe that's where Rell and Johnson are alike in that way.

This can't be good news for Johnson...I bet she's regretting her decision to only debate three times.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson's vulnerability as an incumbent - a subject of intense speculation all year in her central Connecticut district - appears to be confirmed by the latest Hartford Courant/University of Connecticut poll, which shows her trailing Democratic state Sen. Chris Murphy by 4 percentage points among likely voters.

UConn's pollsters found that among likely voters, Murphy was leading Johnson by 46 percent to 42 percent with 9 percent of voters still undecided. Murphy's lead is just outside the poll's margin of error of 3.6 percentage points. The poll of 762 likely voters in the 5th Congressional District was conducted by UConn's Center for Survey Research and Analysis between Oct. 24 and Oct. 28, just after Johnson and Murphy completed their debates.

[...]

"These results paint a picture of a very vulnerable incumbent," said Monika McDermott, the UConn poll's research director. "Likely voters aren't happy with Johnson's performance, and they say they're ready for a change."

Nancy Johnson: part of the problem in Washington.