I think it’s important for us to have a Democrat take over at the end of Gov. Rell’s term. As it stands, our options are Ned Lamont and Dan Malloy. It’s no secret who I support in the primary, but even so, I think that the outcome of the November election is vastly more important than the outcome in the August 10 primary. So much so that I posted a post-primary unity pledge at MLN:
I will support the Democratic nominee for Governor, regardless of the outcome.
Many people who support both candidates joined me in that pledge. You can still take it, and I still plan to abide by it. The only thing that will change is perhaps how I choose to define support. At a minimum, it means casting a vote for the Democratic nominee in November.
The primary has gotten heated but I think, based on anecdotal evidence from the unity pledge and just talking to people, that most Democrats believe that the most important thing we can do this year is elect a Democrat as Governor. Some people think that means that the campaigns should never criticize each other, because if they do that we may as well forfeit the general election. I think that’s hogwash. In my opinion, it’s good for the candidates to have a back and forth where they critically examine each other’s claims. It’s fair for the Lamont campaign to point out that Malloy’s jobs claim is less than truthful. It’s also fair for the Malloy campaign to put pressure on Lamont to participate in debates. The important difference is how each campaign chooses to go about this.
Here is an excerpt from the Lamont press release about Malloy’s jobs claim:
In light of today’s front-page Hartford Courant story revealing that Dan Malloy misrepresented his record of job creation as mayor of Stamford, Ned Lamont’s campaign called on him to take down his new television ad that highlights Dan’s claim that he created 5,000 jobs. Dan’s claim ignores the fact that Stamford lost 13,000 jobs and unemployment increased by 58.7 percent during his tenure as mayor.
Essentially, the Lamont campaign is promoting a front-page article in the Hartford Courant that sheds some light on Malloy’s jobs claim. If you want to call this an attack you can, but it’s a fair one. If Malloy wants to say that his leadership was a key influence on the number of jobs in Stamford, then he must take blame for losing the 13,000 jobs if he wants to take credit for creating 5,000. They also ask that Malloy take down his misleading ad (probably knowing that he wouldn’t).
Here is an excerpt from a recent Malloy campaign press release addressing Lamont’s decision not to participate in a couple of debates:
Sadly, Ned Lamont still refuses to meet Dan Malloy in a debate. Instead of defending his record of reducing his workforce by 70 percent — much of it through layoffs – while paying himself half a million dollars a years, he’s chosen to continue making excuses.
Sentence 1 – “Sadly, Ned Lamont still refuses to…” Actually, Ned Lamont and Dan Malloy are scheduled to debate in Windham this week. Plus all the debates and forums they’ve already had, including two that were televised.
Sentence 2 – “Instead of defending his record…”This was debunked back in 2006 when Joe Lieberman made the same claims. Most of the reduction in Lamont’s workforce was through selling off of subsidiaries — the employees that used to work for Lamont kept their jobs with the new company owners.
Primary campaigns should be a little rough, and the candidates should spar on the issues. When one campaign crosses the line — as the Malloy campaign has done repeatedly — they need to be called out on it. It’s clear that the Malloy campaign intends to go negative in a big way. From now until August 10th, their strategy is to try and tear Lamont down, rather than to build Malloy up. The Malloy campaign is undoubtedly staffed by very smart people, and they seem to have concluded that their best path to victory is to rile up their supporters and engage them in a scorched earth campaign against Ned Lamont. They just don’t give a shit about what happens if they lose, because it’s all about Dan.
The kind of crap that the Malloy campaign is pulling is short-sighted, juvenile, and out of line, but I’m not the only one calling it what it is. BranfordBoy has a post at MLN about Derogatory Dan, and Kirby has a new one up at CT Bob about Dan’s apparent willingness to say anything to win.
Yesterday, Ned Lamont released his plan to get Connecticut moving again. To mark the occasion, he took a ride on Metro North from Stamford to New Haven, accompanied by his running mate Mary Glassman and State Rep. Brendan Sharkey. Together, they walked through the train, stopping to chat with commuters and also taking time to discuss Lamont’s transportation plan with reporters (and blogger) in attendance. The New Haven Independent, New Haven Register, and the Stamford Advocate all published good articles about yesterday’s train ride.
I had a chance to read through the plan myself, and it is full of ideas that are hard to disagree with. Increase the frequency of rail service from Hartford to Springfield, prioritize transportation infrastructure (like bridges!) repairs and maintenance, and to boost the number of flights to and from Bradley Airport. Dan Malloy touches on a lot of these themes in the transportation section of his own website. Ned and Dan are not the first gubernatorial candidates to talk about the importance of improving transportation in Connecticut, making it next to impossible for either candidate to reinvent the transportation wheel. And in my opinion, it’s the regional perspective that he would bring to solving our transportation problems as governor that makes the Lamont plan shine. Here’s an excerpt:
We can’t address transportation in pieces. We have to look at the big picture: people and products move around the entire region, not just within our borders. Yes, Ms. Johnson works in New York, but how does she get to New Brunswick for those Friday morning meetings? Does she have to switch from Grand Central to Penn Station? Yes, those manufacturing parts rode on trains from Upstate New York, but didn’t they come off ships in Newark? Why did they have to loop upstate and then down to Waterbury?
* I will work with other governors to create a Northeast Transportation Authority, stretching from Washington to Maine, with responsibility for road, rail, ports, and airports.
The Authority will improve existing routes, streamline transfers, and clear chokepoints. In the shorter term, it will help make our network seamless-why can’t CT Transit, MTA, PATH, NJ Transit, and others share a single “smart card”? In the longer term, the Authority will be a magnet for federal funds and allow states to pool resources, so we can achieve great things-why can’t the train go New York to New Haven in an hour?
In speaking with Rep. Sharkey on the train, I learned that when many people think and talk about transportation in our small state, they carve it up into chunks. Folks in Fairfield County want to see less congestion on 95, people in Waterbury and Danbury want more transportation options, and those of us in the I-91 corridor want to high speed rail to connect New Haven, Hartford and Springfield. Those regions of the state (and their transportation concerns) are interrelated, and addressing any of them would have a positive impact on the others. Taking a wide view on the transportation problems that the state faces as a whole would go a long way toward alleviating them. Lamont’s plan does one better, and not only looks at what can and should be done within Connecticut’s borders, but proposes thinking of our state in its regional context. What if we could work with neighboring states on streamlining travel between Washington, D.C. and Portland, ME? It would probably mean more federal funding for transportation infrastructure improvements in Connecticut.
Ned Lamont talks about the regional aspect of his transportation plan
Transportation is a tough nut to crack, but I think that the regional approach is the best way to crack it. Connecticut is a small state, but it sure doesn’t feel like if when you need to get from Hartford to New Haven or Bridgeport.
“I want to see people using their iPads or PDAs to check train times, able to access every single rail line with an electronic pass they’ll be able to electronically bill,” [Lamont] said of the scene to come in New Haven’s Union Station lobby.
“And it’ll be busier, and you’ll be able to bring your bike,” added Mary Glassman, his running mate for lieutenant governor. Glassman, who’s been campaigning on two wheels this year, joined Lamont on the train ride Tuesday.
State [Rep.] Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, joined Lamont and Glassman for the ride and said he is backing the team because of its transportation plan. He is a big supporter of upgrading the state’s ports by connecting them to rail lines to move goods.
“People don’t want to move to this part of the state because it’s too hard to get around,” Sharkey said, but taking traffic off the roads will change that.
All in all, Lamont’s transportation plan is a good one, that dovetails nicely with his business plan for Connecticut. Check out the transportation plan here, and the business plan here.
I feel like I have to start a lot of posts with “back in 2006…” so here goes another one…
Back in 2006, Ned Lamont challenged Senator Joe Lieberman in that year’s senate election. Ned got 33% of the delegates at the state convention, and was able to force a primary. At the time, Joe Lieberman rarely made public appearances where voters could come out and ask him questions. In fact, Joe’s unwillingness to spend meaningful time in Connecticut (except at diners) was just one more on a long list of reasons why Connecticut voters (Democrats especially) were fed up with him.
So when Ned made this statement to CT Bob’s camera on June 10, 2006…
…voters hadn’t had a chance to see Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman side by side anywhere. The one chance where they would have was at an NAACP candidates forum at CCSU on May 11, 2006. Lieberman flaked out, and sent his campaign manager Sean Smith instead.
Ned Lamont challenged Joe Lieberman to debate for two reasons:
He was the underdog. It’s what underdogs do when they’re challenging someone whose race it is to lose. (See also: Alpert, Merrick)
Lieberman and Lamont had yet to both appear before the same crowd of voters. One thing I remember from the summer of ‘06 was that the more people saw of Ned, the more they liked Ned, and the more they saw of Joe, the less they liked Joe. It would be in Ned’s best interest to appear next to Joe at any debate or forum he could.
But that was 2006. And I feel that I had to go through all that to show the context in which Ned issued his debate challenge to Joe in the above video, because it was used by the Malloy campaign today in an attempt to get some more mileage out of last week’s press release:
Dan Malloy, the Democratic Party’s endorsed candidate for Governor, today invited fellow Democrat and gubernatorial candidate Ned Lamont to a series of public debates on the major issues facing Connecticut. Malloy asked that Lamont join him in debates that would be sponsored by local media outlets in every community across Connecticut that’s home to a daily newspaper; most of these communities also have local radio stations.
[...]
Malloy said he planned to call Lamont this afternoon, and to invite him to work cooperatively to put this series of debates together.
Here are two serious (and one smart-ass*) reasons why I think Dan is inviting Ned Lamont to debate:
He is the underdog. It’s what underdogs do when they’re challenging someone whose race it is to lose. (See above.)
He likes Ned’s company. After all, they’ve already been to about 20 forums/debates/whatever together so far this year. *This is the smart-ass reason.
He wants the publicity. This is probably the real reason, and even though it kind of folds in with being an underdog, I think it’s worth noting separately.
It’s pretty clear that this is about getting the Malloy campaign some free press. If he were serious about these debates, he would have at least mentioned them to the Lamont campaign before issuing a press release. The line about Dan planning to call Ned later to “invite him to work cooperatively to put this series of debates together” reveals that this isn’t really about informing voters about anything — it’s about getting some free publicity. Hence why Malloy’s proposal would be to have debates in the 17 towns with local media outlets.
Since the Lamont campaign hasn’t gotten back to the Malloy campaign yet about the debates, Malloy issued a new press release today with a link to CT Bob’s video of Ned calling for “old-fashioned kitchen table debates” with Joe Lieberman. The Malloy campaign wants you to think that Dan is doing in 2010 what Ned did in 2006, but it just doesn’t add up. The Malloy campaign doesn’t want kitchen table debates — they want media coverage. That’s why they issued a press release about it instead of giving a 30-second statement to a blogger at the Greek Festival.
The one parallel between 2006 and 2010 that does seem to hold is that where Ned Lamont goes, news cameras follow. In 2010, it’s because he’s the front runner, and in 2006 it was because he was challenging an entrenched incumbent–and gaining ground on him. The traditional media would have to be really stupid to miss that story. And they were really stupid (or had tunnel vision), because they failed to cover the Governor’s race.
To illustrate the frustrating lack of coverage of the 2006 gubernatorial campaigns, here’s a clip of Dan Malloy from a CCSU forum back in July ‘06:
As someone who went to a lot of political forums/events in 2006, I can back Malloy up on this one. As soon as Ned finished speaking, the news cameras would follow him out of the room to ask him about the latest poll or get his response to something crazy or stupid that Lieberman said that day. It must have been maddening for both Dan Malloy and John DeStefano.
But that’s no reason to have 17 debates in the next 10 to 11 weeks. I think there should be debates, but I think 17 is overkill. The Malloy campaign needs these debates because it’s the best/most cost effective way for them to reach a ton of voters. On the other hand, Ned Lamont doesn’t need to share a stage with anybody in order to get his message out, although I am sure that he will debate Dan at some point before the primary. The bottom line is that the Malloy campaign’s call for 17 debates is not about touring the state to inform voters, it’s about getting Dan Malloy some free press. There’s no harm in trying, I guess, but no one should expect that Ned Lamont has any obligation to help the Malloy campaign get their message out.
A lot of great things from 2006 are making a comeback in 2010. Ned Lamont is running. Dan Malloy is running too. I’m even blogging semi-regularly again.
But it’s not all good. Joe Lieberman’s failed strategies are making a comeback as well.
You see, in 2006 Joe Lieberman’s strategist was Roy Occhiogrosso. Roy drove the message of the Lieberman campaign all the way to defeat in the hotly contested Democratic primary. His two key strategies were…
“Ned Lamont has decided that his only chance of defeating me is to try to buy this election with millions of dollars in negative ads full of distortions and deceits about me,” Lieberman said at a news conference. “A lot of it is going to be nonsense and lies, so beware.”
Facing his first serious challenge in 18 years as a senator, Mr. Lieberman has sought to brand Mr. Lamont as a wealthy dilettante who is trying to buy his way into office, and who is out of touch with ordinary Americans. One of Mr. Lieberman’s first advertisements began: “Meet Ned Lamont. He’s a Greenwich millionaire.”
Occhiogrosso is now working for Malloy, and he’s using the same strategies against Lamont in 2010 that didn’t work in the 2006 primary. Take a look:
Accuse Ned Lamont of trying to buy the election? Check.
“Ned’s strategy is clear: he’s trying to buy the Convention with TV ads. Dan’s trying to win the Convention the old-fashioned way: talking with delegates about his values and his experience. In the end, all the ads in the world can’t hide the difference in this race: Dan Malloy has the values and experience that money can’t buy.” [Dan Malloy for Governor Press Release - 4/8/2010]
“Ned seems to think his millions of dollars and his background as a cable executive are why Democrats should choose him over me.” – Dan Malloy
These strategies didn’t work in 2006, and they won’t work in 2010. Democrats have their best chance in decades to win the Governor’s office, and we can’t do it if our candidates are doing Chris Healy’s job for him. What we need is a campaign about ideas, not a bloody primary.
This is the kind of thing I’d like to see more of, but instead, we’re getting a replay of 2006.
Today Lamont announced the start of a television ad campaign, and the Malloy campaign responded by having staffer Matt Gianquinto send an under-the-radar e-mail to supporters using the ol’ Lieberman ‘06 strategies that Occhiogrosso sold ‘em. An excerpt:
Hey Team,
[...]
I heard a supporter once say they are supporting Dan because he has the values and experience that money can’t buy.
[...]
We have the best candidate, the best team, and the best supporters. Ned can buy a lot of ads, but no amount of money can buy the candidate, the team, and the supporters that we have.
[...]
PS – Feel free to forward this message as a heads up to any of our supporters, donors, and friends.
The only good reason to keep using Lieberman’s old strategies for the primary is if you plan to use his post-primary-loss strategy of forming a vanity party. Dan Malloy is not Joe Lieberman, and we will not see a Connecticut for Malloy Party forming this summer. But by using Lieberman’s failed strategies, Malloy is very likely to meet the same fate in the primary.
It doesn’t matter where I’m shopping, I hate to line hop. Even if I am sure that I picked the slowest cashier in the store, I stay put, because line hopping has never paid off for me. Besides, why second-guess myself on something so trivial as the checkout lane I chose?
It’s so annoying. If you want an example of why I don’t line-hop, picture this:
You’re at the supermarket, you’ve got your cart loaded up, and you’re in the checkout line. You’re in a hurry, because you’ve got places to go and people to see, so you’ve got your eyes on every other checkout line in the store in case one opens up. After all, you can’t stand this crowded line, and if someone would just ring up your purchases you’d be on your way.
Just when you’re about to the head of the line, you see an opening two lanes over. There’s not a moment to lose, so without thinking, you grab your cart and rush over there. YES – you are first in line! But the cashier and the customers around you are giving you dirty looks. This is an express lane and you’ve got way more than 10 items. The cashier starts ringing you up anyway. Then the register runs out of receipt paper, or the credit card machine won’t work, or the manager comes by to ask if you’re going to pay for the grapes you were eating while you waited in the other line.
Ugh. No matter what you do, people won’t stop giving you a death stare for holding them up, and when you look back at the other lane, everyone who was in line behind you is gone. You made the wrong call, and it’s too late to go back. In fact, everything you do only makes it worse, and you feel like kind of an idiot.
Last night I attended an Open Health Care Forum organized by my friends (and fellow Cardinals) Emily Langner and Deb Hall. The esteemed panelists–Katie Robbins from Healthcare-Now!, Donna Smith from the California Nurses Association (also featured in Sicko!), and U.S. Congressman John Conyers, author of HR 676–spoke for the majority of the program before it was opened up to questions.
U.S. Congressman John Conyers and Katie Robbins at the Open Health Care Forum at Wesleyan University, May 28, 2009
All of the panelists spoke about the need for a national single-payer health care system. I can’t recall ever having been to a health care event specifically geared toward the single-payer argument, though it is an end that I believe we should strive for myself. However, I also believe that there is more than one path between what we have now (which can hardly be called a health care system) and a single-payer health care system, and it was my impression that the panelists have chosen the direct path.
Wherever you stand, if you want to learn more about single-payer or HR 676, you can’t do much better than to hear about it straight from Congressman John Conyers, who authored the bill. You can see his remarks and those of others in the videos from the panel are below, which are arranged in chronological order. I ran out of tape after about 93 minutes, so the second part of the Q&A video was recorded to my digital still camera in two video clips, with a dramatic difference in quality.
Full Disclosure:I am the Online Organizer for the Connecticut Citizen Action Group. However, this being my personal blog, it is maintained on my own time using my own resources. The content of this blog post should be attributed to me, and not my employer. All that said, take my opinions on health care reform with as much salt as you like.
You are currently browsing the spazeboy weblog archives for the CT category.
