Net Roots Movement

Lets Make Change.

Lieberman Smears Lamont

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is making primary challenger Ned Lamont’s (D) personal fortune a campaign issue, according to the Hartford Courant.

Said Lieberman: “Having between $90 million and $300 million, Ned Lamont can not only try to buy a seat from Connecticut in the U.S. Senate, he can probably buy a seat in a couple of other states if he wanted.”

An interesting argument coming from a man with over 4 million dollars in his “war chest” coming mostly from lobbyists and big business. Lamont, on the other hand, is raising money from individual and grass roots donations only and has barely breached the million dollar mark.

Advertisements

May 23, 2006 Posted by | Decision '06, The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment

DFA Supports Lamont

Lamont’s recent victory at the CT democratic nominating convention has resulted in an uproar of publicity to the CT senate race and the endorsement of Democracy For America, a group dedicated to social progress, fiscal responsibility and grassroots activism: all keystones of the Lamont campaign.

Today, Democracy For America enthusiastically endorsed Ned Lamont in his run for United States Senate against incumbent Joseph Lieberman. Lamont surprised the pundits and Senator Lieberman with a strong showing at the Connecticut Democratic Party Convention on Friday and earned a spot on the primary ballot. The primary will be August 8.
“Ned Lamont has been loud and clear about America’s position in Iraq and world affairs, one of the most important concerns for voters,” said Jim Dean, Chair for Democracy for America. “Senator Lieberman has been a broken record supporting broken policies.”

Democracy for America will help raise money, media, and volunteers for Lamont’s campaign from across the nation.

Help DFA meet goal today!

Read“Joe Lieberman: George Bush’s Favorite Democrat?”on Blog For America, the DFA blog.

May 23, 2006 Posted by | Decision '06, The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment

My Summer: Interning with Ned Lamont

I am going up for an interview with Ned Lamont’s campaign for a summer internship tomorrow. Wish me luck.

May 17, 2006 Posted by | The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment

Farrell for Congress

Diane Farrell was officially nominated today to run as a Democrat against Congressman Christopher Shays in the 4th district of CT. The Farrell race is one of, if not the, highest profile congressional race in the country and its gona be a hot one! I love Diane as a politician and personaly but I am not going to be interning with her this summer. Why? Because I believe Diane will have no problem kicking Shays out of Congress. She lost by a very small margin last election and since then the republican party has been exposed for the corrupt, greedy lot they are.

Instead I will be doing everything I can to help Ned Lamont kick Joe Lieberman out of the Senate.

In any case, this blog endorses Ms. Farrell and will continue to cover the campaign.

May 15, 2006 Posted by | The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment

Watergate The Sequal

Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

April 6, 2006 Posted by | The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment

You Know It’s an Election Year When…

Today’s Kos Diary

Have you ever read a tiny article in the back of some film magazine announcing the production of some movie and then three years later its the highest grossing movie phenomenon of the era? That’s how a progressive feels every day (just substitute the movie for a major public scandal).

It’s hard as a progressive not to get ‘i told you so’ syndrome. Below is a perfect example. How long have voices on the liberal “fringes” been talking about the billions and billions of dollars being squandered in no-bid contracts and poor allocation in Iraq? How many bloggers have “whined” about Halliburton bus drivers being paid more then U.S. military men who brave the battle field each day with inadequate armor and weaponry?

Well finally, years later, its coming into the public forum. Of course it takes an election year with a incredibly unpopular president for republicans to sign on to this but its better late then never.

WASHINGTON — Two House Republicans have agreed to cosponsor a landmark proposal to create a special House committee to investigate Iraq war spending, joining Democrats in demanding more accountability for billions of dollars that allegedly have been misspent, according to lawmakers and congressional aides.
The stalled proposal to create a modern-day ”Truman Committee” — modeled after the oversight board run by then-Senator Harry Truman to root out contracting abuses during World War II — has been blocked from consideration by GOP leaders for more than a year.

But after new reports about malfeasance involving reconstruction contracts in Iraq, the bill for the first time has begun to attract the support of rank-and-file Republicans.(Boston.com)

April 6, 2006 Posted by | The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment

Too Soon?

Open Thread.

April 6, 2006 Posted by | The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment

Myth: Immigration Hurts U.S. Workers

Reposted from Think Progress

The recent focus on immigration has provided an opportunity to knock down several prominent myths about the issue — that mass deportation of 12 million people is a feasible solution; that hardline “enforcement-only” proposals will actually reduce illegal immigration; or that undocumented workers don’t pay taxes.

Another common misperception is that increased immigration has had a negative impact on wages for lower-skilled U.S.-born workers. But as Princeton University professor Alan Krueger shows in a new American Progress memo, the actual impact of immigration on lower-skilled workers is negligible. Why?

One likely factor is that, in addition to increasing the supply of labor, immigrants increase the demand for goods and services produced in the U.S. This leads to higher wages and employment for all workers in the U.S. Immigration can also result in an increase in capital investment. And many immigrants become entrepreneurs, creating jobs for other immigrants and natives. (The latest U.S. Census data shows that “Hispanic-owned businesses now comprise one of the fastest-growing segments in the U.S. economy.”)

As Krueger writes, if we are serious about helping low-income workers, we need to act now on measures that can have a much larger impact, like “an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, an increase in the child tax credit, a boost in the minimum wage, and increased job training.”

April 5, 2006 Posted by | The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment

Christopher C. on Daily Kos

Look out for my Diaries on The Daily Kos under username “Christopher C.”

April 3, 2006 Posted by | The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment

Can the GOP replace DeLay?

The Law says NO:

145.035. WITHDRAWN, DECEASED, OR INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE’S
NAME OMITTED FROM BALLOT. A candidate’s name shall be omitted from
the ballot if the candidate withdraws, dies, or is declared
ineligible on or before the 74th day before election day.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1109, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

145.036. FILLING VACANCY IN NOMINATION. (a) Except as
provided by Subsection (b), if a candidate’s name is to be omitted
from the ballot under Section 145.035, the political party’s state,
district, county, or precinct executive committee, as appropriate
for the particular office, may nominate a replacement candidate to
fill the vacancy in the nomination.
(b) An executive committee may make a replacement
nomination following a withdrawal only if:
(1) the candidate:
(A) withdraws because of a catastrophic illness
that was diagnosed after the 62nd day before general primary
election day and the illness would permanently and continuously
incapacitate the candidate and prevent the candidate from
performing the duties of the office sought; and
(B) files with the withdrawal request a
certificate describing the illness and signed by at least two
licensed physicians;
(2) no political party that held primary elections has
a nominee for the office sought by the withdrawing candidate as of
the time of the withdrawal; or
(3) the candidate has been elected or appointed to
fill a vacancy in another elective office or has become the nominee
for another office.
(c) Under the circumstances described by Subsection (b)(2),
the appropriate executive committee of each political party making
nominations for the general election for state and county officers
may make a replacement nomination for the office sought by the
withdrawing candidate.
(d) For the purpose of filling a vacancy, a majority of the
committee’s membership constitutes a quorum. To be nominated, a
person must receive a favorable vote of a majority of the members
present.
(e) A vacancy in a nomination for a district, county, or
precinct office that was made by primary election may not be filled
before the beginning of the term of office of the county executive
committee members elected in the year in which the vacancy occurs.

Read the Law

UPDATE:The law is a bit more confusing for national elections. Follow the analysis on Swing State Project by blogger DavidNYC

April 3, 2006 Posted by | The Progressive Movement | Leave a comment