Spazeboy asks John Edwards about Katrina

Sadly, tonight I had to miss tonight's John Edwards/Ned Lamont rally in New Haven to support my wife Joyce's sailboat race.

I know this sounds a little self-indulgent; especially when you consider we have a NATION we're all working to RESCUE from the clutches of evil men!

But keep in mind that I used to be a Republican; old habits like yacht racing and eating beluga cavier while underpaying my illegal immigrant servants tend to die hard!

(OK, to be completely honest, I've never had servants; I hate cavier; and I own a 26 year-old sailboat; and I drive a shitbox Dodge Aires K-car that was built while Reagan was President...so don't talk to me about indulgences!)

Anyway, the visit of former Vice-Presidental candidate (and possible 2008 Presidental candidate) John Edwards was substantially covered by Spazeboy and CT Blogger, so I'd imagine I wasn't missed.

Here's Spazeboy's account:

I was super excited to meet John Edwards today in New Haven. He’s the first big-name Democrat to come to Connecticut in support of Ned Lamont. I’ll have much more on the rally, and much more video as well (keep your eyes open for CTBlogger’s pictures…the few I saw were amazing!). I just wanted to post this clip of John Edwards answering two questions–one from me about (post-Katrina-) poverty, and one from a reporter about his 2008 intentions.

Latest Q-poll is promising

My analysis of the latest Q-Poll on the Senate race:

Ned Lamont has made a significant gain in a three-way race if the election was held today, but still trails Joe Lieberman by 11 points. This is a big improvement over previous polls, and with about 11 weeks to go before the election, there's plenty of time for Ned to overcome that gap.

The deeper numbers in the poll are what interests me.

For instance, the favorability ratings look most promising.

Lieberman rates 43% favorable, 28% unfavorable, with 4% "haven't heard enough". People have a strong opinion on Joe.

Ned Lamont gets roughly the same unfavorable rating (27%), and a HUGE "haven't heard enough" percentage, 32%.

This can translate into a significant favorable rating if Ned's message gets more play. Fully a third of likely voters haven't heard enough about Ned to form an opinion yet! The campaign still need to get the word out with a large percentage of likely voters.

This may be what Sean Smith (fired Lieberman Campaign director) was referring to when he talked about "low-information voters".

"The less they know, the better for Joe."

www.jamesamann.com

There's a new website that explores State House Speaker James Amman's (D?-CT) reluctance to endorse the rightful winner of the State Democratic Senate Primary, Ned Lamont. Smarten up, James!

Visit http://www.jamesamann.com/

From Tom Tomorrow's "This Modern World"

I think this is funny, but I can't be sure...I was awake much too early this morning; and while skimming around the Intertoobz, I came across this entry from Tom Tomorrow: The view from here (August 7, 2006):

Lieberman had a brief event at a neighborhood grocery store. At least one nearby resident was not impressed with the behavior of Joe’s supporters:

Spazeboy's Primary night video

This is a fun one. I know it's been over a week, and we've all moved on...but it's worth the eight minutes to watch this; especially if you weren't in the blogger's war room or the main ballroom for the big announcement.

Network TV will NEVER capture the excitement of that night; and especially the annoying antics of yours truly as well as Spazeboy's video presentation does.

I really like the ending, where Spazeboy is talking into the camera I'm holding for a good 30 seconds, which is about 25 seconds longer than I thought was needed! You can't see me doing it, but I'm giving him the "speed it up" signal, and finally he yells at me for it. Good times!

Oh, and somewhere in the middle, I think I say a naughty word. (I'm such a potty mouth!)

Enjoy!

How Scary are We?

I think I am going to end up seeing my chiropractor a lot between now and November with the head shaking I am doing already. Here's a great piece from Editor and Publisher about an editorial in the Waterbury Republican-American -- making up more stuff and suggesting Ned's family are communists.

This on top of the 527s heading this way. We must be more powerful and frightening than we ever imagined, we "insurgents" here in CT who didn't subscribe to the "protect the incumbent" meme.

Update Thanks to Gary in the comments, here's Ned's op-ed in today's WSJ

Our Service to the Traveling Public

Since the TSA’s new rules (Bill Maher, are you listening?) are a bit complex, we thought that as a service to the traveling public we would provide you with the inside scoop. In this case, it means translating an interview CNN’s Miles O’Brien (a pilot himself) did with Kip Hawley, Assistant TSA Secretary. And remember, Joe Lieberman is taking full credit for creating the Department of Homeland Security.

M. O'BRIEN: This whole notion of liquids…goes back to 1995 to blow up airliners, originating out of Asia, coming into the United States…This is not new. This is -- this is pre-2001, pre-9/11 stuff. And yet, suddenly, a knee jerk response to a foiled plot in Great Britain. We're saying now we should take liquids off. Why?
HAWLEY: No, the threat is very real of any kind of explosives. And there are many kinds, and certainly we know about liquid explosives. [CTB: we found the memo after the Brits moved in last week] We have, in fact, the technology to detect it. The issue for the bottle scanners, so to speak, is that it's not efficient in that you have to scan one bottle at a time. [CTB: and keeping the airlines from bankruptcy and blowing threats off for convenience’s sake to keep people flying is our main goal] So, it will not be the immediate fix to get a piece of technology.

M. O'BRIEN: Well, why -- why have -- why weren't the liquids banned after 1995 until such time as technology became evident that would protect people?
HAWLEY: It was a risk-based approach. [CTB: we couldn’t figure out a really good political hook for this until Lieberman lost in the primary] And the liquids in this form is a novel approach. [CTB: somebody must have read it in a spy thriller] It is different from before. And we do have, in fact, training for detecting liquid explosives [CTB: on Friday afternoon during screener training, for a half-hour], and it is part of the package that we have had in place for a long time. [CTB: we just don’t do it] The -- there is a novel application of this that we wanted to assure the traveling public of their safety. So, in focusing just on the safety piece, we decided, let's not take any chances and for right now ban liquids. [CTB: so that we can raise the level of hysteria and own the news cycle for a while when cable news could be talking about Lamont’s victory and the anti-war sentiment in America]

M. O'BRIEN: All right. But as a member of the public, as someone who flies, I look at the way -- and it's not just the U.S. -- the way we collectively respond to these threats, and it seems like a knee jerk reaction after the fact. [CTB: I’m trying to do my best here not to laugh]
HAWLEY: Well, in this case it was an immediate aggressive reaction to ensure the safety of the public. [CTB: and jack up the hysteria factor] And that was the only consideration. [CTB: and if you buy that, I have some swampland to sell you] And while there is a good likelihood that we could pick up someone who is on that kind of a mission, this is not a matter where we want to deal with likelihood. We want to be absolutely sure of the safety of the traveling public, and that's why we took this strong action. [CTB: But we will still let you carry on a 4-inch blade in a pair of scissors, but deadly mascara is off limits]

(…)

M. O'BRIEN: All right. A final thought here. The amount of money spent per passenger on airline safety is tremendous compared to other modes of transportation … Can you say right now, do you feel confident the distribution of money, time and effort is appropriate, or is our mass transit system really vulnerable right now?
HAWLEY: Our mass transit system is a very high priority for us. The disproportion in the budget relates to the fact that we -- we provide the salaries for all of the screeners around the country. And if we were to do that in the transit system from the federal government, it would be something like 688,000 people [CTB: let’s see, at a $40K/year package for each employee….that would be $27 billion a year… or less than three months of spending to support the mess in Iraq]
O'BRIEN: Wow.

Yeah, Wow.

Full transcript

Will Lieberman hurt Democrats House chances?

Joe won't give it up, no matter WHO he hurts. He seems to be suffering a pathological need to hang on to his Senate seat, regardless of the consequences.

In addition to the hotly contested Senate race, where Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman so soundly that Joe scurried away from the Democratic party like a wounded opossum, there are three Republican House seats that are up for grabs this November.

Joe Courtney is running for the second time against Republican U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons in the 2nd District; in the 4th District, Democrat Diane Farrell is waging a rematch of her close 2004 battle against U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, a Republican. In the 5th District, Democrat Chris Murphy is challenging 12-term Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson. These races are critical in the Democrat's efforts to win back the House of Representatives.

And we all know that Joe Lieberman's selfish grasping at the vestiges of his Senate career will hurt the chances of these Democrats.

Joe was quoted in the Hartford Courant when asked who might dissuade him [from running], Lieberman smiled and said, "There is no earthly messenger."

To him, this isn't about politics anymore.

I'm starting to wonder if Lieberman is showing signs of an undiagnosed mental illness. He certainly seems to have lost any sense of proportion regarding this race. Now it's a matter for the Gods to decide, apparently.

Why should that worry anyone?

Bill Clinton slams Joe Lieberman

From RAW STORY, Published: Tuesday August 15, 2006

Former President Bill Clinton spoke publicly for the first time on Senator Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) loss to Ned Lamont in last week's primary, ABC News has reported.

Clinton said that, contrary to Lieberman's claims, the lawmaker's position on the Iraq war was one not shared by many of his fellow Democrats. The former president described Lieberman's stand on the war as, "I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction."

"His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position," Clinton continued, "which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. ... This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"

"Well," he told reporters, "if I were Joe and I was running as an independent, that's what I'd say, too... But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position."

Clinton indicated that most Democrats who voted to give President Bush authority to use force did so to persuade Saddam to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors, and were not advocating an invasion.

Clinton also maintained that, despite statements by Lieberman and Vice President Dick Cheney to the contrary, a vote for Ned Lamont was not made at the sacrifice of national security.

Ned visits Naugatuck

Tonight was a perfect night for a concert on a small town green. A band playing oldies performed in front of a mellow crowd sitting in lawn chairs, and Ned Lamont took some time to meet the voters in the small town of Naugatuck.

Even though the voters in this valley town were mostly Lieberman supporters in the Primary, many people were receptive of Lamont, and quite a few sought him out to shake his hand and express their support for his message. The reception indicated that a lot of them were Democrats first, and Lieberman supporters second. They will be there for the Party when it counts.

Ned talks with some local voters.

A longtime Democrat discusses his support for Ned in the Primary.

Abby is nine stickers tall already!

Here's Ned's big secret revealed once and for all! He wears running shoes when he's out among the voters! Stop the presses!

Ned doing what he does best - LISTENING to the voters.