"He has lost his brand as a maverick," Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican and co-chairman of the McCain campaign in that state, told the Yale Daily News in the latest criticism. "He did not live up to his pledge to fight a clean campaign."

Shays is just one of many GOP candidates trying to win by outperforming Sen. John McCain's underwhelming performance in congressional districts nationwide.

McCain, R-Arizona, trailed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama by 21 points in Connecticut's 4th District, according to an October 13-14 SurveyUSA poll for Roll Call newspaper. A just-released University of Connecticut poll and a mid-September survey by the Democratic Feldman Group also had Obama winning by at least 20 points. By comparison, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry won the district by just 6 points four years ago.

Recent public and private polling shows Shays either tied with or trailing his Democratic opponent Jim Himes. In 2004, Shays got 6 more points than President Bush, but the congressman will need a significantly larger number of Obama voters to cross over this year.

Shelly in Utah wrote to Barack Obama to tell him about the discrimination she faced in the corporate world. Ten years ago, because of stories like hers, I introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. Every year, the Republican Congress blocked our bill. But after 10 long years and a new Democratic Congress, we were successful. That doesn’t mean our work is done.

The Supreme Court ended a woman’s right to challenge discrimination, and when Congress tried to change it, John McCain didn’t even bother to show up to vote. Barack Obama was there. He voted yes. As president, he will continue saying yes to equality for women because he knows that women can’t afford more of the same falling wages and income.

Here's a shocker: Gov. Mike Huckabee won his home state of Arkansas.

Gov. Mitt Romney was able to hold on to the state he, apparently, despised for the twenty-plus years he lived, raised his kids and governed there.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain won in Illinois, New Jersey, and Connecticut.]]> http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/02/more_polls_clos.php http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/02/more_polls_clos.php Blog Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:44:18 -0500 Earlier this month, there was a new effort to allow 17-year-olds to vote in Connecticut primaries if they will be of voting age once the general election approaches. Ultimately, the vote fell short of the three-quarters required to pass a constitutional amendment, but what ensued during the vote was nothing short of comical.

We're talking Dean-on-Colbert-Report funny, and it has been YouTubed by the CT Young Democrats:

Six Republican members of the Connecticut House of Representatives kept switching their votes from yes to no, as WTNH reports:

"What I think we want to do is show the intent of these Republican members who, clearly, when there was a dispute as to exactly how many votes were needed to pass this amendment, they saw an opportunity to kill it and we believe they did it," SAID Lon Seidman, Connecticut Young Democrats.

Watch the video and decide for yourself. This is the kind of fun, clever work that makes me excited about the first DNC sanctioned debate, where CNN will be teaming up with YouTube.

To listen to her remarks, click here.

Good morning, this is Diane Farrell of Connecticut.

This week, things got so bad in Iraq that George Bush compared it to the Tet Offensive - the battle that helped turn U.S. public opinion firmly against the Vietnam War.

In 1968, with the Vietnam War at its height, I was a teenager in Westport, Connecticut. We all remember the horrors of Vietnam. I also remember that because of failed policies in Vietnam, Americans rallied to change the leadership that took us down that wrong path.

October of 2006 could go down as the deadliest month yet in Iraq. On one day this week, nearly a dozen Americans died in combat and just like that, a dozen families had their lives changed forever. And just in the last two days, generals on the ground say it's getting worse.

Like you, I am proud of the brave men and women, serving our country in Iraq. They are performing honorably in the worst of circumstances.

It's been the performance of our leaders in Washington that troubles me.

The leaders in Washington trouble me because they fail to admit their mistakes. Instead of looking at the situation on the ground and making choices, they bury their heads in the sand and hope for the best.

First President Bush chose to ignore the top generals in Iraq. Then he and the Republican Congress chose to dismiss our own government's intelligence experts who said that our presence in Iraq is actually spreading terror throughout the world, spawning new generations of Islamic radicals and making us less safe at home.

They hoped for the best, but the situation has worsened. We will be dishonoring the service men and women on the frontlines as well as their families here at home if we simply stay the course. We need a new direction in Iraq.

To be blunt, the president and the Republican Congress have been wrong on Iraq and wrong to keep their failed strategy. Even leading Republicans like James Baker and Colin Powell say it's time for a new policy.

My opponent has made 14 trips to Iraq and yet he too stubbornly supports the president's stay the course approach.

Unfortunately for our troops, "stay the course" is a slogan, not a strategy.

My opponent recently made some comments about torture that disturbed many here in Connecticut.

He said that the tragedies at Abu Ghraib were "not torture" and then, this week, he suggested that if he were in charge, he would have had us in Iraq even earlier, and for no specific reason.

Our troops deserve from their leaders in Washington, nothing short of a commitment equal to the dedication the troops bring to their duty every day. Instead they get a flat denial of the horrible reality. That is why we need a new direction in Iraq.

Democrats will change the course in Iraq and we will focus our efforts on defeating the terrorists with policies that are both tough and strategic.

Democrats will do what Congress has failed to do - hold the president accountable. We will ask the tough questions and demand solutions that do right by our troops.

I have laid out a plan for Iraq. First, fire Donald Rumsfeld - he implemented a flawed policy, failed our troops and he must be replaced.

Second, Congress must finally do its duty of oversight so that we can provide our troops a strategy that reduces our role in Iraq and begins to bring service men and women home.

Next we must turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis. My plan calls for benchmarks of success as Iraqis work to take care of their own country.

An arbitrary departure date could be dangerous but real goals for the new Iraqi government and its army are necessary. Iraqis need a system that reflects the vast cultural and religious differences among them.

We also must make sure our troops have the equipment, the health care and the strategy necessary to succeed and we will accept nothing less for our brave men and women.

We also need to be smart about how we fund this war and we need to account for the hundreds of billions spent in Iraq, some of which has been lost as a result of incompetence and corruption.

When families here in Connecticut ask me about the billion dollars we spend every week in Iraq, I can't help but share their dismay. In fact, when my cousin was deployed to Iraq, I wrote him a check so he could buy better body armor. Families are doing everything they can to protect their loved ones because our government isn't.

We need to get the international community back on our side because going it alone has not worked and will continue to fail. We need to restore trust in American leadership.

This won't happen in an instant, but we must be committed to success.

Iraq has always been a war of choice fought on false pretenses.

Now American families face a choice. In two weeks, voters have a chance to send a message about the need for change and the stakes couldn't be higher.

If we re-elect stay-the-course Republicans, the message we will be sending will be one of support for our current policies in Iraq.

If we replace them with Democrats who use realism to get results, the message we will be sending will be loud and clear: it is time for a new direction in Iraq.

On November 7, you can send a message that it is time for accountability. On Nov 7 you can send a message that it is time for a congress that asks the tough questions, demands the honest answers. On Nov 7, you can send a message that it is time to honor our troops.

Changing direction in Iraq starts with changing the people we send to Washington.

This is Diane Farrell of Connecticut, thanks very much for listening.

Thanks, Spazeboy, for the video!

I wouldn't say that the CT race has lacked "colorful" coverage, but this is real inside-the-bubble reporting and it's good (I teared up around page 9).

Read it here.

To listen to his remarks, click here.

Good morning, this is State Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

For those of you who are paying more than ever for prescription drugs, or find the new Medicare program confusing and expensive, I have bad news for you.

For President Bush, it wasn't enough of a gift to the drug industry to block Medicare from negotiating for the lowest and best prices and it wasn't enough to give that industry billions in subsidies through the prescription drug bill.

The Bush administration announced this week that Medicare premiums will be going up again, and could even carry a new, expensive monthly fee. This new tax on seniors will affect millions of Americans, and thousands of people in Connecticut.

Even though many seniors and disabled Americans have seen their premiums double since 2000, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress' latest scheme is forcing many to pay even higher premiums.

Over the past decade, seniors in this country have been hit with more and more bad news. They face confusing rules, added fees and now, higher premiums. What's worse, Republicans in Congress have done nothing to ease the burden on American seniors.

It's time for new leadership in Congress, to take on President Bush's bad plan and take the Medicare drug program in a new direction.

My opponent, Nancy Johnson, deserves part of the blame. She wrote the confusing Medicare law in 2003. She is also one of many Republicans who opposes allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices - a Democratic idea, and more importantly, a good idea. Simply put, she refuses to make Medicare better, and works tirelessly to stop reform.

But she didn't write this bad legislation alone. Congressional Republicans let lobbyists for big drug companies have a big hand in writing the Medicare bill. The result: a prescription drug program that benefits the drug companies and HMOs instead of seniors.

Today, some seniors here in Connecticut are hitting what is called the "doughnut hole" - when the Medicare program they pay for stops covering the medicines they need.

It's time to change the leadership in Washington so we can fill that doughnut hole and go in a new direction on Medicare.

Over the course of my career in the Connecticut House and State Senate, I've led the fight to ensure lower drug prices for seniors, especially those with lower incomes.

I fought to allow the safe re-importation of prescription drugs in Connecticut and I was the lead sponsor of a bill that imposed a maximum price on essential prescription drugs - something that the U.S. Congress still won't do.

I now serve as chair of the Public Health Committee and worked as part of a prescription drug task force that passed an unprecedented expansion to ConnPACE, Connecticut's own drug program for low-income seniors.

I know what it takes to make prescription drugs more affordable and I'll bring that expertise with me to Congress.

Since 1994, when the GOP took control of Congress, they've raked in $78 million from big drug companies. And my opponent's $730,000 ranks 2nd among members of the House of Representatives who have served since 1990.

My opponent has been in Washington for nearly 24 years, and this Republican Congress has held a majority for 12. It's time for a new direction because 537,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Connecticut and 43 million Medicare beneficiaries in America deserve a Congress who fights for them, not the big drug companies and HMOs.

We need to reform Medicare for seniors here in Connecticut and those across the country. And we can do it by empowering seniors, and creating a program that everyone can understand and prescription drugs that they can afford.

Being healthy should be a right - not a privilege available only to those that can afford it. That is why I am running for Congress. We need a new direction in Washington and as a member of Congress, I'll work tirelessly to finally make this simple principle a reality.

This is State Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Thank you very much for listening.

The two leaders [first] met in the 1990s when Glassman served as Simsbury first selectman for eight years and DeStefano was serving in his current post as New Haven mayor.

Although they are listed jointly on the general election ballot, both candidates still had to run separate primaries according to state law. But after each defeated his opponent in the primary elections, both are ready to hit the campaign trail together to defeat their opponents in the general election in November.

In the battle for control of the House of Representatives, Democrats are concentrating their efforts on defeating a particularly resilient set of opponents, Northeast Republicans who have held their seats despite the region's tendency to vote Democratic.

Independent analysts say there are at least a dozen competitive races in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Connecticut, many involving districts where voters have supported Democrats for president in recent elections while electing Republicans to Congress.

After failing in a three-year effort to hand over Amtrak's Washington-to-Boston tracks, and their costs, to a new federal-state consortium, the Bush administration is seeking tens of millions of dollars in extra fees from states for use of the tracks by commuter railroads.

But the states are saying they already have contracts with Amtrak that specify what they should pay, and that Washington has not explained its demand for more money.

In a Feb. 9 letter, three governors — Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware, and Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, all Democrats — told Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, that he had not been "open and transparent" in explaining the added charges.

As a result of their concerns and other complaints, representatives of 10 agencies, including three from the New York area, will meet with federal transportation officials here next week to discuss the charges and how they should be calculated. "The states feel their pocket is being picked," said Peter A. Peyser Jr., an aide to Mr. Rendell.

Snow's visit comes at a time when Connecticut's working families are paying record home heating costs and skyrocketing gasoline prices. But the Bush Administration's PR campaign is offering no relief.

"It comes as no surprise that a President who let the oil and gas industry write the country's energy policy has done so little to help Connecticut's working families cope with the skyrocketing costs of gasoline and home heating oils," said Democratic National Committee Spokesman Damien LaVera. "When Secretary Snow brings President Bush's Empty Rhetoric on Energy Express to Connecticut, he should explain why Republicans in Washington have ignored their energy needs.

"Together, America can do better. President Bush and Connecticut Republicans should join Democrats in working to promote true energy independence by restoring funding for research into renewable sources of energy that will create jobs, enhance our national security, and keep our economy strong."

REPUBLICANS IGNORED CONNECTICUT ENERGY NEEDS FOR FIVE YEARS. . .

Connecticut's Working Families Paying More for Home Heating and Gasoline. . . As of January of this year, home heating costs were expected to increase by 68 percent in Connecticut's region of the country, and gas prices had increased by 63 cents in Connecticut since May of 2004, an increase of approximately 30 percent. [EIA, 1/06; AAA Fuel Gauge Report, 1/06 and 5/05] Republicans have failed to address high energy costs, passing an energy bill with billions of dollars in subsidies for big oil and gas companies.

. . . But Republicans In Washington Refuse to Provide Assistance. The Bush Administration is refusing to call for extra funds for low-income home energy assistance (LIHEAP) this winter, even though the number of applicants for assistance has increased by 23, 000 inConnecticut. [National Energy Assistance Directors Association, 12/05]

. . .NOW ANSWER WITH EMPTY PR CAMPAIGN

Bush's Pledged Renewable Energy Initiative After Gutting National Renewable Energy Lab. The day after President Bush pledged to end America's reliance on foreign oil by funding renewable energy initiatives, the Department of Energy announced that 40 researchers at the prestigious National Renewable Energy Laboratory were being laid off because Republican budget cuts had slashed $28 million from the lab's budget. "The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget. A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports." [New York Times, 2/2/06]

PR Stunt Restores Jobs, But Not Research Funds. Facing a major political embarrassment, the Energy Department redirected $5 million to rehire laid off researchers days ahead of President Bush's visit to the lab. "Then, over the weekend, just before Bush's planned visit to the lab on Tuesday, the government restored the jobs... Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said the decision restores only $5 million of the $28 million budget shortfall at the lab that forced the layoffs...'it doesn't provide the money for the (renewable energy) programs,' Clapp said." [Associated Press, 2/21/06]

Of course, Energy Secretary Said Bush Oil Pledge Not A Pledge - Merely An "Example." "The President's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that 'America is addicted to oil' and his call to 'break this addiction.' Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing 'more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.' He pledged to 'move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.' Not exactly, though, it turns out. 'This was purely an example,' Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. ... Asked why the president used the words 'the Middle East' when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that 'every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.' The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble." [Knight-Ridder, 2/1/06]