Why is this all goofy looking? Probably because your browser doesn't support stylesheets or you have an old stylesheet. Try hitting reload or upgrade your browser today.
fatmixx iconFatMixx Logo
Check out Coolspotters!
Advertising
Latest Featured Video

The funny thing is that they used a bunch of lines straight from Palin’s Couric interview.

11:00 pm | 1 comment
Donate

Goal Thermometer

ad for kiva.org which facilitates microloans to small businesses around the world
Support CC - 2007
join EFF!
Advertisement

This post at CTLP basically captures my thoughts on the optical scan machines. For those of you outside CT, this was the first election where we went from the old lever machines to the new optical scan machines. As the CTLP post points out, I also hated the fact that the poll worker could see my ballot, and I hate that it takes longer to vote. This election was one where I was voting party line anyway, and the old lever system that would’ve been one switch and done. Here I had to fill in the bubbles for each and every candidate. No big deal, but does make it more tedious.

The privacy thing bugged me more. If a ballot ever needs both sides, turning it over won’t be enough to hide your votes. The bold, black circles make it easy to read from a distance so there really isn’t any privacy. I think the principle of the issue bothers me more than any actual concern about my poll workers. I’ve seen them every year since I started living in West Hartford, and they’re uniformly helpful and knowledgeable.

10:14 am | 2 comments

This thing stinks, but I wonder if people are swayed by these sorts of visits. I know I wouldn’t be, but maybe that’s just because I recognize why trips like these are made…

10:11 pm | leave a comment

Heidi has posted her thoughts about the West Hartford referendum on her blog. She has a different take than I.

7:30 pm | leave a comment

Do we really have that many people who leave behind 2 million dollar estates in this state? While I agree that perhaps 2 million dollars is a bit low considering inflation, the estate tax fuels the creation of charitable foundations and organizations that fund a lot of the charitable work in this country. Avoiding creating a permanent overclass of Paris Hilton-like spoiled children is a nice side effect, too. The federal minimums for estate size, before an estate would have to pay a dollar of estate tax, btw, are $3.5 million and $7 million for single and joint couples respectively. Those numbers make more sense as limits, but I still don’t understand what the uproar about this tax is about… there’s nothing here that affects most people. I don’t understand how it’s a popular issue…

3:13 pm | 1 comment

Thanks, Joe. If you’re in CT and you voted for this misguided fool, I’m annoyed at you, too.

2:18 am | leave a comment

He can’t do anything right. I’m embarrassed that he represents me.

9:48 pm | leave a comment

That’s an amazing result. I read on one blog that Murphy won in every single polling machine in every precinct in Danbury, I think. I guess I wasn’t the only one offended by Johnson’s negative ads.

3:10 pm | leave a comment

So, I’ve got a couple of Lieberman predictions that I’d like to set down in print so that if I’m right, I can point out that I wasn’t just pulling a Lieberman and feeling which way the wind is blowing.

First, I think Ned Lamont will pull out a surprising, but very narrow victory on November 7th. I base this on two things. First, my drive to work goes through a very, very Republican section of Bristol. I’ve NEVER in 3 years of working there seen a Democratic candidate on a lawn sign. There are now 2 Ned Lamont lawn signs in Bristol on my way to ESPN which is shocking to me.

Second, every single person I’ve talked to, including some 2004 Bush voters are annoyed by Joe Lieberman. They’re voting for Lamont and that can’t hurt. So, even though Lamont is down 12% in the last ARG poll, I still think there’s a decent chance that this will turn around.

Based on the poll, it’s obviously a long shot. So, let’s say that Lieberman wins, which brings me to the next prediction. If Lieberman wins, he will caucus with whatever party holds the majority in the Senate. If the Republicans hold a majority, he will caucus with them. If the Democrats win a majority, he will caucus with them. I also believe that if the final tally sits at 50-49 Democrats, he will caucus with the Republicans (thus tossing the Senate to the Republicans).

I again realize how wacky this is based on the conventional wisdom, but my suspicion is that he will caucus with whoever gives him the best shot at taking a committee chair. We’ll get some speech about how he’s bringing the parties together. On top of that, I’m guessing Joe’s new donors will want something back for their troubles and cash, and giving the Senate back to Republicans would sure make a nice present.

So, there it is. I really believe that he’s going to flip, and that the only way he’ll caucus with the Dems is if they have the majority without him. Seven seats are tossups according to Cook, so there’s a chance that they can do it without Lieberman.

9:47 pm | leave a comment

This election is about improving the state of Iraq, improving the war on terrorism, and basically returning some semblance of debate and discussion to Washington. It’s time to end one party rule, and then work to fix so many things.

Joe Lieberman has indicated that he’s going to caucus with the Democrats if he wins, and a lot of people believe that voting for Joe is in the end the same as voting for a real Democrat. This is a mistake and Joe Lieberman has given yet another example of how he’s more concerned about aligning with the President than he is for a new infusion of ideas and debate. From today’s Hartford Courant:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat and student of politics, blanked when asked if America would be better off with his party regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Uh, I haven’t thought about that enough to give an answer,” Lieberman said, as though Democrats’ strong prospects for recapturing the House hadn’t been the fall’s top political story.

Yeah, he’s planning on staying with the Democratic caucus after the election. Right.

Look, it’s really simple. Yes, Joe Lieberman seems like a nice guy, but he’s completely rudderless right now. He’s a loose cannon and more likely to join with Republicans on all of the major issues of the day. We’ve royally screwed up another country and have had little oversight over basic issues like how contracts are being executed in Iraq. All we need to make a substantial improvements in Iraq is a Congress (even one house) that is committed to real oversight and real investigation.

Joe Lieberman isn’t committed to that plan, and he’s not committed to oversight. It might just be that he’s afraid because on most of the issues that require investigation and oversight, Joe Lieberman has sided with the administration. He’s more interested in just staying in Congress than actually doing his job when he’s there. Add to that the sheer dishonesty with which Lieberman and his spokesman Gerstein have run his campaign and the choice is clear.

The only choice this fall for Senator is Ned Lamont. Vote Ned in 2006!

12:38 pm | leave a comment

If you haven’t read up on the story of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen mistakenly incarcerated and tortured by American proxies around the world, you should read up on this story. It’s horrible that this country, our country not only has tortured innocents but has done so without remorse and with full knowledge that the people we capture are innocent. There are bills now in Congress that would legalize this preemption of the Bill of Rights (which I hope will get struck down by the courts if they pass).

The debate around these topics remain surreal as we slowly alter the very fundamental parts of our country that used to be a source of pride. We now torture, openly acknowledge a network of secret prisons where innocents get taken to secretly without representation and without recourse to prove their innocence. I feel so powerless to stop these changes that I’m not sure what to do. It’s hard not to feel despair.

Anger is the only other emotional response, especially when I see ads like the inaccurate scare ad from CT Rep Nancy Johnson. There is no other word to describe her ad aside from “lie.” Chris Murphy and other Democrats simply want the President to obey the law, in this case FISA, which allows federal agencies to eavesdrop on communications for up to 72 hours before filing for a warrant. The scenario described in her mendacious commercial doesn’t change when the President follows the law.

But wait, she’s a Republican. They don’t need to tell the truth, they just need to scare their votes out of all of us. Hopefully, we’re tired of being scared.

11:19 pm | leave a comment

Olbermann might be the most courageous broadcaster on television after Stephen Colbert, as his criticism of the administration has always been fact based and unflinching. I just watched his editorial commentary about 9/11, the lack of a memorial on Ground Zero, and the administration in general and was floored. It is, by far, the most eloquent commentary I’ve seen from Olbermann.

I’ve excerpted a part below. Olbermann’s overall metaphor doesn’t necessarily work for me, but this section, the meat of this editorial, summarizes the pain and futility of this administration. I’ve written before that I also will never forgive or forget how this president destroyed that moment of unity after 9/11. It wasn’t just our nation but the world that was united, an improbable opportunity to change the world in the ashes of tragedy. It was the first time NATO invoked Article 5 of the treaty declaring our nation under attack. Le Monde ran the headline “We are all Americans now” and nearly every leader of every country expressed their support and sympathy.

In the years since, we have gone from neighbor to pariah, from “Nous sommes tous Américains” to Freedom Fries, and from chasing bin Ladin to chasing phantom WMD. As Olbermann eloquently points out, the President chose to use 9/11 as a wedge issue. It simply became a political tool that was used to badger Democrats into submission and to bolster numbers at the polls. Every time he invokes the memory of those that perished to pursue a domestic political agenda, every photo op, every claim that critics have “forgotten the lessons of 9/11″ cheapens their memory. It reduces them to props in a political game, and it’s despicable.

This is why, when the President speaks of bipartisanship, we should reflect upon the past five years and examine our “bipartisanship” moments on the most important issue of our time. Bipartisanship brought us the war in Iraq because of several deftly timed votes. Bipartisanship brought us zero accountability in government. When the President speaks of bipartisanship, he speaks only of bipartisanship that furthers his political agenda.

As he did today, the President will invoke bipartisanship in the weeks and months to come to stave off electoral losses. I hope all of us, Republicans, Democrats and Independents recognize that for what it is. Many incumbents, including our own Senator here in Connecticut, are joining the President’s chorus, hoping that claims of bipartisanship also absolve them of accountability. We owe it to ourselves and to our nation to vote for accountability. Hopefully, then, we can get the job done, both at Ground Zero and in the hills of Pakistan, wherever bin Ladin might be.

Here’s the section I mentioned. Watch the whole editorial. You won’t be sorry.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President — and those around him — did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”

They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”

The impolite phrase, is “impeachable offense.”

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death… after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections… how dare you or those around you… ever “spin” 9/11.

1:03 am | 2 comments

Anyone who feels strongly that the Bush administration has been a bad presidency has no business supporting Lieberman. Excerpt:

A “close Lieberman adviser” told George Stephanopoulos that Karl Rove “reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: ‘The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.’”

1:32 pm | leave a comment

Just a reminder, today is primary day in CT. Whoever you vote for, get out there and vote!

If you’re a Democrat, consider voting for Ned Lamont. We need a better Senator than have-it-both-ways Joe Lieberman.

10:44 am | 1 comment

Only 2 days before the primary election and finally, finally Sen. Lieberman addresses the quote:

I know that statement has been widely misconstrued, so let me address it head on. I did not suggest that the President or anyone else — including me — should be immune from criticism. The best proof of that is I myself have challenged the President’s policies on many occasions.

The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree. My concern was, and remains, that if opponents or supporters of the war go beyond disagreeing to exploiting the war for partisan political purposes, much like Republicans did to Max Cleland on homeland security, we could lose more than an election. We could put our mission in Iraq, the lives of thousands of American soldiers carrying it out, and our national security at risk. That is what I care about.

It’s too bad for the Senator that this statement is one of many he’s made along the same lines. It’s simply the most concise expression of his views on dissent and the role of the minority party. Lieberman seems to be unable to connect the fact that disagreeing without actually winning elections results in a lot of hot air and no action. In his world, exploiting for political purposes is anything that allows a party to campaign and win.

The Republicans don’t care about what the Democrats have to say. They simply don’t give a jot. Without actual debate and effective compromise on the part of Republicans, Democrats have no choice but to get elected to change policy. That means talking about the war in a partisan way, with a political context. You can’t get elected if you can’t tie your election to results.

That’s what Lieberman doesn’t understand. He’s very proud taking bipartisan action. Unfortunately, those bipartisan agreements are shams. Too often, Lieberman values bipartisanship over actual leadership.

Even all of that is less important than the final reality. He’s moved far away from what his constituents, especially in the Democratic party, want. A lot of people (we’ll find out how many come Tuesday) simply don’t agree with the Senator on many of the major issues of the day. We feel like he is more interested in talking about his so-called convictions and talking to Sean Hannity and getting on Fox News than actually representing his constituency.

He’s a great Senator when it comes to showpiece votes that don’t matter. When faced with an opportunity to exercise leadership, he does nothing. That is the real Joe Lieberman, and that’s why we’re even talking about Ned Lamont.

6:00 pm | leave a comment

Apparently, Lieberman has no ground organization and truly doesn’t realize how deep Democratic opposition to his candidacy is. This is an interesting read.

(via Atrios)

2:40 pm | leave a comment