Sunday, October 15, 2006

Rell: Selling Out CT to Big Apple Buyers


It is bad enough when you see the list of companies that have contracts with the State of Connecticut that are also MAJOR donors to the Rell campaign, something Rell claims she has never done... But today we see that Rell was selling out Connecticut to Big Apple buyers intent on gaining more influence on our States business than she will ever give to regular Nutmeggers.

About 75 people attended the $1,000-per-person reception Thursday evening, said Rell's campaign spokesman, Rich Harris.

Like many of Rell's other fundraising breakfasts, luncheons and receptions, the event was closed to the press. The reception was also not mentioned on Rell's campaign website.


Republican Rell influence peddling? Oh no! Never!

What do you have to hide, Jodi, that you can't let the press into these buyouts of our State?

For a full understanding of influence peddling see Republican criminal/super-lobbyist Jack Abrahmoff, criminal Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham, criminal Republican Bob Ney, or likely criminal Republican Curt Weldon.

OR, of course, you could just look at Rell's mentor, disgraced Republican and former Governor Rowland to know how that scam works:

Her showing at the Garde Arts Center in New London won't hurt her with voters relieved that this steady-as-she-goes matron is not John G. Rowland, her glib predecessor and former political teammate whose greediness landed him in jail.

But a few gaffes in an otherwise OK performance are what viewers are talking about.

Late in the debate, Mrs. Rell pulled a George W. Bush when considering whether she made any mistakes in office. She didn't name any - though surely she could have wished, for just one thing, that the state Department of Transportation had kept an eye on the contractor who installed hundreds of faulty drains on I-84.


"I'm Jodi Rell, and I am perfect BUT please ignore the skeletons in my closet!"

Good lord!

Rell = GOP + Bush + Rowland + $$$ wasted + incompetent

That is basic math for republican politics...

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Info on the CT Senate Race:

So you can be an informed voter:

Info on Ned Lamont:

Ned Lamont - Official Campaign Website

Ned Lamont - Ned Lamont, the Political Entrepreneur

Ned Lamont - "Democrats Back Lamont; Lieberman Files Independent Run" (F0x)

Ned Lamont - Unofficial Ned Lamont Resource

Ned Lamont - Unofficial Lamont Blog

Ned Lamont - "The Democrats Mean Business" (WSJ)

Ned Lamont - "Ned Lamont vs. Joe Lieberman" (The Nation)

Ned Lamont - "Lieberman Loses Debate With Challenger Ned Lamont"

Ned Lamont - "Lamont: Lieberman Sounded Like Cheney"

Ned Lamont - "Lamont Fires Up Naples" (New Haven Independent)

Info on Joe Lieberman:

Joe Lieberman - "Seasonal Memory Lapses" by Paul Bass (Hartford Courant)

Joe Lieberman - "Truth About Joe"

Joe Lieberman - "Lieberman Wins Republican Friends, Democratic Enemies..." (WaPo)

Joe Lieberman - "Joe Lieberman is a Big Oil Republican" (LamontBlog)

Joe Lieberman - "Kerry Calls Lieberman the New Cheney" (ABC)

Joe Lieberman - "Joe Lieberman Doesn't Care About Handicapped People" (Wonkette)

Joe Lieberman - "Joe Lieberman is Running With a Bad Crowd" (Firedoglake)

Joe Lieberman - "116 Reasons Not to Vote for Joe Lieberman"

Joe Lieberman - "How Joe Lieberman Tried to Kill Rock 'N Roll" (Huffington Post)

Info on Alan who?
Nevermind... heh

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

12 Days of Justice - Day 5

So far in the 12 Days of Justice daily series you have learned that:



Todays diary for Day 5 will be a short and to the point explanation of Judge Alito's views concerning women and abortion rights. It will deal with his radical and demeaning views from the perspective of his positions revealed in certain abortion cases, memos, applications, and discussions of Roe v Wade.


[Updated]: to reflect many edits! Please check the bottom to cross-post easily.


Join me in the back alley to get a clear view of Alito.

In 1985 Alito made crystal clear his position concerning Roe v Wade.


Alito's name does not appear on any briefs the Reagan Solicitor General's office filed in abortion-related cases. However, just a few months before Alito wrote his DOJ application letter touting his contribution to cases in which the government argued that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," the Solicitor General's office had filed a brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on that very subject. The brief urged that "this Court should overrule" Roe v. Wade. The Court rejected the Solicitor General's arguments, with only two justices agreeing that Roe should be overturned.


T. R. Goldman at law.com Offers this opinion of the upcoming battle:


If Alito's jurisprudential views match those on the Thornburgh brief -- and at least in 1985, Alito indicated that they do -- then the job application provides the Judiciary Committee with the type of window into a future justice's thinking that, since the failed nomination of Robert Bork, has become almost nonexistent.


This is a nomination demanding to be "Borked" into nonexistence. But this still does not give a clear picture of his views on women's rights. Please consider taking and using any or all parts of the following letter and using it to contact your Senators concerning this nomination. Feel free to adapt and edit this letter, or you can just say how you feel about this in your own words. All we ask is that you take action before it is too late.





What does Samuel Alito think about women and abortion rights?


In Judge Alito's 1992 dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that a law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her spouse before seeking an abortion did not pose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Alito asserted that if parental notification requirements were constitutional, as the Supreme Court had previously held, then spousal notification requirements must be permissible as well. (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).)


Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit and a 5-4 Supreme Court majority disagreed. Writing for that Supreme Court majority, Sandra Day O'Connor firmly rejected Alito's troubling logic:


"A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children."

(Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) at 898.)


Sandra Day O'Connor was correct in rejecting Alito's view of women as subservient to men and less than equal in the eyes of the law.


In a 1985 memo Alito had advised the Reagan Administration that it should attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. Alito urged the administration to file a friend-of-the-court brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and argued that this brief could promote "the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects."


Alito wanted the administration to "make clear" that it "disagree[d] with Roe v. Wade," but argued that the most effective long-term strategy of persuading the Supreme Court to overturn this groundbreaking precedent was to chip away at it slowly through extremely restrictive state laws. Overturning Roe v Wade would most certainly result in a return to the days of dangerous "illegal" abortions.


Is this the kind of nomination that sounds like a moderate? This candidate is not representative of my views, nor of mainstream America.


Alito clearly has no problem with forcing his radical ideals on women.


I strongly urge you to vote against this horrible nomination because no woman should be forced by anyone to have to resort to using a coat hanger to perform a back alley abortion. When you consider that Alito's warped views would be replacing the moderate voice of Sandra Day O'Connor there should be no doubt that Alito's nomination must be stopped.


Signed,





Some suggested contacts and petitions:


Your senators


The Judiciary Committee


Your representatives


Congress.org


Campus Progress "Stop Alito's America"


PFAW "Save the Court"


Planned Parenthood Anti-Alito Petition


Naral Anti-Alito Petition


Rolling Justice


Plan B Petition


Sending a FAX via the Web (For those of us that don't have a fax machine at home.)


Again, feel free to copy and paste any and all of the information or images you will see put up over the next couple of weeks by the Anti-Alito Brigade into Blogs and letters as we hold Alito's feet to the fire. Even if you only participate on a few of the days it can help make a difference. There are so many issues where Samuel Alito's views and allegiances are just flat out wrong for a SCOTUS nomination.


Note: Tommorrow's actions and reason's are still being worked on today. Feel free to check it out at Booman Tribune  (Just look for the "Justice" diaries) and any help or participation of any kind you can provide will be greatly appreciated. This is another action brought to you by the group that brought you "Operation Yellow Feather" which was a very successful cross blog protest. These actions are designed to help bring the "Left Blogosphere Think Tank" together on our many shared issues.



Watch for Alice's diaries on the "separation of church and state/religious freedom" for days 6 and 7... On two different days because we want to keep them twice as separated!



Actions for: Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

12 Days of Justice

There are many reasons to be wary of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.



Over the next 12 days the Anti-Alito Brigade will be bringing you many of those reasons, and also some actions that you might consider to help stop this horrible nomination.


The main intention of this nomination is to try and tip the balance of power away from the legislative branch and towards the President.


Alito is an activist judge that will legislate from the bench on many of the issues that all progressives hold dear to their heart.


Our intention is that everyone across the Left Blogosphere participates in this any way that they can. Write a few letters, send Emails, send Faxes, and make some phonecalls to your Senators and Reps. (I know Reps don't vote on this, BUT they can provide more pressure on this issue to those that do vote on Alito! Besides, it is fun to piss them off... lol)


Taken from Tampopo's BooTrib diary:


December 12, 2005


You should be very wary of Judge Samuel Alito. Perhaps afraid is more accurate.


Judge Samuel Alito does not respect the primary role of the Legislative branch of our government. Therefore, he should not be considered acceptable to any member of Congress, particularly true Conservatives, regardless of his opinions on other matters held dear.


Judge Alito is a threat to your role in the structure of our government. You practice the art of politicking, balancing constituents' concerns and needs with those of our society as a whole. Legislation is challenged in court, as it should be when the interpretation of a law is in question. Judge Alito's record suggests he is not a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution.


Norm Ornstein, of the prestigious American Enterprise Institute, has recognized the danger Judge Alito represents. In his article, "Judge Alito Doesn't Show Congress Enough Deference," Ornstein states:

  [Supreme Court Justice John] Roberts respects Congress and its constitutional primacy; Alito shows serious signs that he does not...

  ...Roberts is a very conservative guy, and a strict constructionist -- one who means it. He understands that Congress is the branch the framers set up in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. It is not coincidence that Article 1 is twice as long as Article II, which created the executive branch, and almost four times as long as Article III, which established the judiciary. Judges should bend over doubly and triply backward before overturning a Congressional statute, especially if it is clear that Congress acted carefully and deliberatively...


The court case that has Mr. Ornstein turning such a critical eye on Judge Alito is from 1996, "United States v Rybar." This case involved a challenge to Congress's right to regulate the possession or transfer of machine guns.


From Mr. Ornstein,

  Congress had passed the law in a reasonable and deliberate fashion. A genuine practitioner of judicial restraint would have allowed them a wide enough berth to do so. Alito's colleagues did just that. But Alito used his own logic to call for its overturn, arguing that the possession of machine guns by private individuals had no economic activity associated with it, and that no real evidence existed that private possession of guns increased crime in a way that affected commerce -- and thus Congress had no right to regulate it. That kind of judicial reasoning often is referred to as reflecting the "Constitution in Exile."

  Whatever it is, it's not judicial restraint.


In response to Alito's opinion, the majority said, "Nothing in Lopez (an earlier Supreme Court case) requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute."


Mr. Ornstein's final sentence is a caution to you,

  Whatever else it does with Judge Alito at the confirmation hearings, the Senate needs to hold his feet to the fire on this larger issue of deference to the legislative branch.


Don't let Judge Alito's opinions on single issues distract you from the danger he presents to our nation's Constitutional foundation. Reject his nomination and encourage your colleagues to do the same.


Three groups to contact:


Your senators


The Judiciary Committee


And your representatives


Feel free to lift the image here or any of the others over at Booman Tribune, and feel free to copy and paste any and all of the information you will see put up over the next couple of weeks into Blogs and letters as we hold Alito's feet to the fire.


Even if you only participate on a few of the days it can help make a difference. There are so many issues where Samuel Alito's views and allegiances are just flat out wrong for a SCOTUS nomination.


Note: Tommorrow's actions and reason's are still being worked on today. Feel free to check it out at Booman Tribune (Just look for the "Justice" diaries) and any help or participation of any kind you can provide will be greatly appreciated. This is another action brought to you by the group that brought you "Operation Yellow Feather" which was a very successful cross blog protest. These actions are designed to help bring the "Left Blogosphere Think Tank" together on our many shared issues.


X-posted at My Left Wing, Booman Tribune , My Left Nutmeg, Political Cortex

And also Front Paged or posted by Cedwyn at: Dembloggers, ePluribus Media,   MyDD, and TPM Cafe reader Blogs as well as by shermanesqe at Street Prophets and C&J

Friday, December 09, 2005

Nancy Johnson's Junk in the Trunk

It seems that Nancy Johnson's political career has a lot of junk in the trunk...

Deroy Murdock on Medicare on National Review Online:

"This fiscal malpractice has not bought the White House even political dividends. An August 25-26, 2003 Gallup poll found 40 percent of adults approved of the president's handling of Medicare while 48 percent disapproved. After the benefit's adoption, a March 26-28, 2004 Gallup survey saw 35 percent approve of Bush on Medicare, while disapproval climbed to 55 percent. What a bargain: Each one-point drop in Bush's Medicare approval rating cost Americans $44.5 billion.

The GOP Congress should dump the drug benefit. They should spare taxpayers this absurdly expensive new project whose true costs were concealed by an administration that sacrificed integrity and fiscal responsibility on an altar of blind ambition.

Instead, Republicans should develop a modest plan for poor seniors who lack coverage, rather than any American over 65, including multimillionaires and those who already have drug insurance.

The Medicare drug benefit has metastasized from bad policy to bad politics and now to scandal and possible criminality. This law begs to be euthanized. The GOP should pulls its plug. As for the perpetrators of this colossal public fraud, the Justice Department should fit them for orange jumpsuits."


And this is the legislation she was was so proud of and pinning her 2006 re-election hopes on? Well now, If that ain't an elephant passing some serious gas on to the voters?

Careful now!

Never stand behind an elephant that is full of it... You never know when it is going to take its next dump on YOU!

Chris Murphy flushes Johnson's Crap

So... What does Democrat hopeful Chris Murphy have to say about all of this?

Drug Benefit will be a problem for Johnson in 2006

Nancy Johnson's biggest legislative effort in years - the drug benefit bill - seems to be falling drastically short of doing what it promised - helping seniors afford their perscriptions. The NY Times explains why this bill will be an albatross around the necks of Republicans in 2006, Johnson in particular.

Already, many Democratic strategists argue that the new program - because of its complicated structure and gaps in coverage - could be much more of a problem than an asset for Republicans next year. Some Democratic challengers are already using the issue on the campaign trail, like Christopher S. Murphy, who hopes to unseat Representative Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut, a senior Republican who played an important role in writing the law.

"Seniors, frustrated with the complexity of the drug benefit, are realizing that it was constructed to help the insurance industry and the drug industry," said Mr. Murphy, a state senator, in a common Democratic refrain. "It's more helpful to those industries than to a lot of seniors."

Read the rest of the story here.


Anyone that has tried to wade through Johnson's "signature legislation", either for themselves or a relative in need of medication, understands what a pile of hooey it is, and they are also begining to realize just how much more it is going to cost the people in need as well as all other taxpayers more than Johnson lied, err, said it would.

Johnson's rolling in it...
Dirty money that is!

Not only does she take drug industry money out the ying-yang in order to finance her campaign efforts, but Johnson also takes dirty money from Tom Delay.

You can feel free to stand behind Johnson if you want to... But don't say I didn't warn you.

She is full of it!