'06 Postscript: Lamont Still A Voice To Challenge Conventional Wisdom

Ned Lamont, returning to New Britain for the first time since his U.S. Senate campaign last year, addressed a packed room of students and faculty at CCSU’s Marcus White Hall on April 26th.

Invited by History and Philosophy faculty to speak on “Challenging the Conventional Wisdom”, Lamont recounted how he decided to run against incumbent Joe Lieberman after failing to persuade more seasoned politicians to take on an 18-year incumbent who had become increasingly aloof from rank and file CT Democrats. The turning point, Lamont said as he did often on the campaign trail, was Lieberman’s late 2005 admonition: “It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander in chief for three more years. We undermine the president’s credibility at our own peril.” When he heard those words, Ned Lamont knew he could not abide “George Bush’s favorite Democrat” any more. Having held just a town office in Greenwich, the upstart Lamont decided he would have to give the Democratic Party the much needed debate over the U.S. course in Iraq it yearned for. As the campaign moved from winter to spring in 2006, Lamont found that Lieberman’s increasing estrangement from the people who put him in the Senate back in 1988 was real and growing.

Appearing at ease and reflective during his CCSU appearance, Lamont said his overtures about a Lieberman challenge were dismissed out of hand by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Lamont’s assertions that Lieberman was undermining other Democrats and walking lockstep with the GOP fell on deaf ears within the party hierarchy at the state and national level.

The Greenwich Democrat, who is a visiting fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government this semester with former Cong. Nancy Johnson (R-New Britain), credited the internet bloggers for fueling what became a grassroots movement that led to his improbable victory in the August 8th Democratic Primary.

Lamont’s primary win, many have since contended, gave Democrats a spine and the gumption to forcefully take on the Bush administration over Iraq. It certainly spawned an unprecedented upsurge in voter registrations in favor of the Democrats. Arguably, the Lamont general election campaign gave Joe Courtney his razor-thin win in the 2nd Congressional District and helped propel Chris Murphy’s overwhelming win in the 5th Congressional District. With Lieberman as the Democratic nominee the Democratic message and the important contrasts to be made between Democrats and Republicans would have been blurred considerably.

In the general election Lamont conceded he may have been hurt by Lieberman’s emphasis on “experience”, and the incumbent’s hammering home the message of “bringing home the bacon.” Lamont said his campaign sought to counter Lieberman with his own experiences in building a business and challenging the go-along and get-along atmosphere of Washington, which was not being particularly responsive to the state’s problems in transportation, job dislocation and health coverage.

The decisive factor in the General Election, Lamont reminded an appreciative audience at CCSU, was the failure of the Republican nominee, Alan Schlesinger, to break over single digits as a percentage of the final vote. From July onward last year the Republican Party abandoned its nominee to line up behind “George Bush’s favorite Democrat”, a development that gave Lieberman the barely 50% he needed to win another term.

Last November a New Britain Democrat commentary assessed the impact of Lamont’s candidacy immediately after the votes were counted:

“Ned Lamont lost the electoral battle last Tuesday but his upstart candidacy and winning of the Democratic nomination helped start a movement within the Democratic Party that may win the peace in Iraq sooner rather than later and helped define the 2006 election in favor of Democrats. The ouster of Donald Rumsfeld last Wednesday was a sign that policy change is coming fast. The entry of grown ups (the Baker/Hamilton Iraq study group) into the Oval office are the beginning of the end of the Cheney/Lieberman policy of neoconservatism and intransigence. In Connecticut, Lamont, calling out Lieberman on his many accommodations with the GOP Administration, has inspired thousands of people to become involved, including newcomers to the New Britain Democratic Town Committee, who will stay involved for future elections.”

Ned Lamont, speaking as if he yearned to be on the stump campaigning again, ended his 30-minute talk by challenging his mostly young audience to take on conventional wisdom themselves. He let it be known that there will be no “woulda, coulda or shoulda” for him when he looks back on 2006. By choosing to challenge an incumbent U.S. Senator who thought he could ignore his base, Lamont used his own considerable resources to lead a grassroots movement that contributed to a change of power in Congress and inspired thousands of people to become involved in the political process. And his talk at the CCSU campus showed that he's not done rocking the boat nor being a prominent voice in the Democratic Party.

Murphy Reports On War Without End At First New Britain Forum

Cong. Chris Murphy (D-CT 5), just returned from a visit to Iraq and Afghanistan with a six-member Congressional Delegation (CODEL) led by Cong. Steve Lynch (D-MA 9), provided a sobering assessment of U.S.. intervention in both countries at a Slade Middle School forum on Saturday, April 21st.

Standing beside posters showing the growing costs of the war and an escalating insurgency, Murphy said the “life changing” trip reinforced his position in favor of a clear Iraq exit strategy now contained in legislation adopted by both the House and Senate.

Bush and the Congress are now at odds over the "Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act" that sets a July 1 deadline for meeting benchmarks. If benchmarks are not met, redeployment of U.S. troops would begin within 180 days. Bush vows a veto over the timetable and falsely accuses Democrats of not supporting the troops.

Murphy confessed to a rookie congressman's awe about being part of the congressional fact-finding trip. But his command of the facts and analysis made for a compelling case against Bush and Cheney's intransigence.

Iraq and Afghanistan pose two very different challenges, according to Murphy. The fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan is difficult. Unlike Iraq, sectarian violence is not rampant and the country possesses a greater sense of nationalism. Murphy, however, worries that the U.S. may be "under-committed" in Afghanistan where post 9/11 efforts to thwart terrorism began.

In Iraq, Murphy and his colleagues held a meeting with General David Petraeus at which the U.S. military leader candidly told lawmakers that he could not say whether the latest “troop surge” was working or would work at all. Murphy said President Bush, who met with him and CODEL members in the Oval Office following the trip, remains “unreformed” and as obstinate as ever about his war without end.

Murphy pointedly added that those who think the U.S. can now easily extract itself from the quagmire are only fooling themselves.

There was an unspoken frustration at this first Congressional forum held by Murphy in New Britain. One woman, who jeopardized her nursing education to protest the Vietnam War, said the protests a generation ago had more of an impact than the protests of today. Others pointed to the Draft and Selective Service in the 1960s that made the war toll more of a shared sacrifice and led to a more potent anti-war effort. Cong. Murphy noted that this war involves sacrifice only among the soldiers and families who are facing multiple tours of duty. He put the number of troops who have been back more than once at 170,000. Those tours are stretching Guard forces and regular troops to the limit, but are necessary to patrol the streets of Baghdad and do for the Iraqis what they are unable to do for themselves.

Much on the minds of the New Britain audience was the neglect in the delivery of services for returning veterans. Murphy, noting the well publicized deficiencies in outpatient care at military hospitals, said that it takes a minimum of 18 months for returning soldiers to obtain veteran’s benefits and services. It shouldn't take that long, he said, pointing out that Congress' reauthorizing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan (HR 1591) includes an additional $1.5 billion for veterans.

The Bush Administration may be penny pinchers for veterans but they have been most generous to some of their friends. Among Murphy's "costs of the war" is $10 billion which is "the amount of Iraq reconstruction funds currently unaccounted for." Among the companies receiving war profits has been Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Halliburton's engineering subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, was awarded $7 billion in no-bid contracts early in the "Iraqi Freedom" campaign, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Murphy, a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated that Congress is uncovering "layers of contracting upon contracting" wherein no-bid contractors are skimming funds and sub-contracting actual work for Iraq projects to others.

House-approved legislation (HR 1362)known as the "Accountability In Contracting Act" would change federal acquisition law to end these "abuse-prone" contracts that have proliferated in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is opposed by the Bush administration but has gained new momentum with the takeover of Congress by the Democrats. Ironically, the measure has now gone to the Homeland Security Committee chaired by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut for further action in the Senate.

Having gained firsthand knowledge of the Iraqi situation, Cong Murphy goes back to Capitol Hill to press for enactment of an Iraq policy that does not depend on an unending presence of U.S. troops. It is doubtful, however, that he and Democrats in Washington can succeed in the short term so long as Bush has enough allies in the Congress to maintain a status quo that fuels the insurgency, drains our resources and makes us no safer. Murphy and the Democratic majority now need Republicans to stand up to Bush and Cheney to change direction in Iraq before the President's term ends.

39 Years Ago Today

I remember exactly where I was on April 4, 1968. Thirty nine years ago today the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis.

That week day, like many others in my senior year in high school, I drove to Bradlee’s Department store on the Lynnway in Lynn, MA to punch in for the evening shift earning some money before entering Boston University in the fall.

The news spread quickly that Thursday evening that King was dead. It didn’t take long to realize that my shift as a retail clerk would be different from all the others. The store quickly emptied out. Not a customer in sight all night. No need for Mr. Silverman, the shaken and somber store manager, to send me out on outside carriage control. The bullets in Memphis were enough to bring a normal business day to a halt in Lynn and most of the nation. Just five short years before I had come home from junior high on a late summer day to watch King deliver his “I Have A Dream” speech – an event that would inspire so many of us to become active in politics and protest.

There are many good remembrances of what King said and stood for on his national holiday In January every year, but not so much is being said on this anniversary of the day he died. It's worth remembering on April 4th and throughout the year why King was in Memphis on a day I will never forget.

By 1968, Rev. King was widening the concerns of his movement. In Where Do We Go From Here? King opposed a Vietnam policy that had begun to break the nation further apart. The lunchroom sit-ins and battles over accommodations and voting rights were giving way to a broader agenda. He was planning a new march on Washington – “the Poor People’s Campaign” -- when he decided to take up the cause of 1,300 Black sanitation workers in Memphis, a city of southern segregation, where the white power structure opposed the right to unionize and the Mayor vowed never to bargain in good faith in a way that would give the sanitation workers their dignity. The strike and a citywide economic boycott were a cause King knew he could not ignore.

King’s prophetic “I’ve Been to the Mountain Top” speech on the eve of the assassination is his best known from Memphis. But two weeks earlier, on March 18th, King galvanized support for strikers by saying: “So often we overlook the worth and significance of those who are not in professional jobs, or those who are not in the so-called big jobs…..One day our society will come to respect the sanitation worker if it is to survive.” Following King’s assassination, the Memphis power structure gave up its intransigence – recognizing the union, awarding pay raises and instituting merit promotions.

King’s campaign for striking sanitation workers reaffirmed his greatness at the hour of his death and resonates today in the cause of social and economic justice. That is worth remembering most from the day he died.

Adapted from New Britain Democrat e-letter 15 January 2006

Taking A Step Toward Medicare-For-All

A plan being pushed by State Senate leaders calls for immediate action that would provide health insurance coverage to 140,000 state residents, 40% of the 350,000 individuals in the state who are uninsured.

State Senate President Donald Williams (D-Brooklyn) presented his proposal to reform the health insurance system at a crowded meeting room of the Community Health Center on Thursday, March 22nd. Speaking next to a wall-size sign “Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege…” at the 35-year-old community-based clinic, Williams put the price of health care in Connecticut at $22 billion. He described the system as rife with inefficiencies as it denies more than 10% of residents access and under insures many others, especially the working poor.

Williams, who has represented his eastern Connecticut district since 1993 and is serving a third term as Senate President, offered a sober assessment of the challenges reformers face in moving toward universal coverage. He observed that federal action won’t come any time soon despite current legislation in the Congress and the tilting of the U.S. House to a Democratic majority.

Through the “Healthfirst Connecticut” initiative the Senate Democrats seek to move incrementally toward a single-payer “Medicare for All” plan modeled after the federal Medicare law adopted in 1965 that has brought a measure of health security to senior citizens ever since.

Governor Rell has introduced a counter proposal that promises universal coverage but does not involve any significant state investment. The Charter Oak Plan would be fee-based and would involve private insurers selling low-cost coverage to the uninsured. Critics, including Williams, say reducing Connecticut’s uninsured will require more money and a more comprehensive approach to reforming the system. The Rell “universal” health plan would reduce the number of uninsured, but by much less than the immediate actions proposed by Senator Williams.

Introduced by State Senator Don DeFronzo (D-New Britain, Williams called for the passage of 2007 legislation that will reduce the coverage gap. The forum included personal testimony on a video brought by Williams and by audience members on the difficulties of navigating the current system and being denied treatment.

The Healthfirst initiative would use existing federal and state insurance programs to provide health insurance to 140,000 persons. The proposal would expand the Connecticut HUSKY insurance program and increase income limits for eligibility under the public Medicaid and SAGA (public assistance) programs. A key component would raise the age of coverage for dependent children from 19 to 26. This would extend coverage to young adults starting out in a first job. More than 40% of Connecticut’s uninsured are between 19 and 34 years old. The plan would increase the income limit for a family of two from $19,800 to $24,420 as a means of extending HUSKY-A coverage. A combination of raising income limits and increasing Medicaid rates for providers would create more access immediately, according to Williams who put the cost of the program at $450 million, 50% of which would be funded by federal reimbursements.

"Right now, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on direct care for the uninsured who, under the current system, end up treated in the emergency room when the problem is the most chronic and the solution is the most expensive. That has to change," Sen. Williams said. "Making an investment to keep the population--and the workforce--healthy is good for the economy. And it is the right thing for society to do."

To attain Medicare-for-all, Williams wants the state to “convene a health care panel to examine and evaluate policy alternatives that would consider “a statewide single-payer health care system.” These long-term strategies, said the Senate President, would be the basis for a universal health care program in Connecticut.

Juan Figueroa, President of the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, has praised the plan Williams shared with his New Britain audience last week, saying “the goal to create a ‘Medicare-for-all type’ health care system in Connecticut recognizes the need for aggressive reform measure that address the many pressing and complex issues facing the beleaguered health care system.” Figueroa similarly thanked the Rell administration for joining the debate but was much less enthusiastic about the GOP's fee for service initiative.

The nonprofit foundation advocates that any new health care policy be measured against five principles established by the national Institute of Medicine. According to the Institute, universal health coverage must: include everyone; is continuous and portable; is affordable to individuals especially those with limited incomes; is affordable and sustainable to society, and; enhances health and well-being.

Figueroa, whose organization puts the number of Connecticut uninsured at more than 400,000 persons has urged Williams to “move forward with all deliberate speed” by convening the panel on new strategies and reporting findings and recommendations by May prior to adjournment of the Legislature this year.

The Little Team That Could: CCSU's Blue Devils

Over the holiday semester break (December 28) I walked over to Central Connecticut State University's Detrick gymnasium from my Belvidere home to watch the Central men play Vermont in a non-conference game. The team had a sub .500 record at the time and I was amazed to count only seven players in uniform. I wondered how a basketball team so depleted would survive the season in the Northeast Conference.

The undermanned Blue Devils showed promise early in the game against their America East opponent. They pushed the ball hard off missed shots; their team play, sure-handed passing and constant team motion evoking my memories of the old and great Celtics of another era. But they were shorthanded even more than usual that night and fell to Vermont and its 15-man roster, 55-48. Little did I know that the flashes of good play I saw in a loss, dropping Central to 3-9, would be a harbinger of things to come.

On March 7, the Central men gained their third trip to the NCAA tournament since 2000. Overcoming a second half deficit of 10 points, the Blue Devils defeated Sacred Heart University in dramatic fashion. Guard Xavier Mojica (Auburn, MA, Auburn HS),the league MVP, confidently drilled a a three pointer and Forward Jemino Sobers (Scarborough, Ontario, Mother Teresa) delivered a baseline jumper to catch and pass Sacred Heart as the clock wound down for victory.

CCSU's journey toward March Madness is an improbable story of determination by a team frequently undermanned and often smaller in size than many of their opponents; a team that played through injuries and pain. From that 3-9 start in December, they finished the regular season 22-11 overall and 16-2 in their conference.

In many ways this relentless squad is a reflection of their coach, Howie Dickenman. Dickenman's basketball resume begins as a standout player for CCSU, coming to the New Britain School from Norwich Free Academy where he was coached by his father. In workmanlike fashion, he was a New Britain High assistant and gradually earned his way up the coaching ladder. There was two years as coach of Greater Hartford Community College (now Capital Community College). Assistant's jobs would follow at CCSU under longtime coach Bill Detrick and Canisius College. For 10 years Dickenman was an assistant and top recruiter at the University of Connecticut helping to build the Huskies to national prominence with Jim Calhoun.

Eleven years ago Dickenman returned to his basketball home where he has led his team to a third trip to the Division I "dance". Dickenman's passion can't be missed at any game. He relentlessly paces the sideline and his shouts can be heard across the gym. His raspy voice shows that the season takes a heavy toll on his vocal chords. The yells rarely if ever are directed at referees over a bad call. He probably couldn't stand being thrown out of a game and miss a minute of the action. Instead, his court side manner exhorts his players to excel and they usually respond to their tough but caring coach.

The Blue Devils have earned their spot in the NCAA tournament through perseverance and hard work and what one commentator called their "old school coach."

They have gained the admiration of the community and state where they play. Now, it's on to face a Division I elite team in the first round in the familiar role of the out sized and undermanned upstart. Whoever they play, however, had better be ready for this hardscrabble and unselfish group from New Britain, Connecticut.

Lieberman Is Right: Iraq Bringing On Constitutional Fight Over War Powers

New Britain area citizens will have an opportunity to express their views on U.S.-Iraq policy on Saturday, February 24th from 2 to 3:30 p.m. at South Church, 90 Main Street, New Britain, as part of a statewide network of meetings organized by Connecticut Opposes the War. In the following post, NB Politicus says it's time for Congress to go beyond nonbinding resolutions and to invoke all the provisions of the War Powers Act of 1973.

To most of his constituents Senator Joe Lieberman was wrong to join 34 other senators in blocking debate on a U.S. Senate resolution opposing the Bush Administration's troop surge in Iraq. Lieberman, John McCain and slightly more than one-third of the 100-member senate succeeded in cutting off debate on a nonbinding action that, if allowed, would have been a bipartisan vote of no confidence in Bush.

Lieberman, however, was probably right about one thing during the rare weekend Senate session. The Iraq quagmire could trigger a constitutional crisis between the executive and legislative branches that was raised 34 years ago when Congress enacted the War Powers Act of 1973.

"Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct," Lieberman said during the floor debate, "it is in no one's interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation's interests over the long term, this is it."

Lieberman's view that Iraq may cause a fight over separation of powers not seen since Vietnam may be true. But his call for "nonpartisan cooperation" is another subterfuge for everyone to fall in lock step behind an administration whose actions now require maximum Congressional oversight. In acting as the "nonpartisan" cheerleader for new military escalation Lieberman said the Senate and House should not be "micro-managing" military interventions that are better left to the executive.

Lieberman's effort to head off Congressional oversight notwithstanding, the 2002 joint resolution by Congress authorizing U.S. military action in Iraq has lost its relevance, having been predicated on "weapons of mass destruction" and intelligence proven to be false or "cooked" to suit the whims of the administration. This authorization to invade Iraq and described by the White House as "consistent" with the War Powers Act led to the beginning of hostilities in March 2003 and the continuing occupation by U.S. forces amid sectarian violence and civil war.

The War Powers Act (P.L. 93-148), enacted over a presidential veto by Richard M. Nixon in 1973, provides a statutory basis for the Democratic majorities in Congress to change course in Iraq. The nonbinding resolutions just considered in the Senate and House were the beginning, not the end of the debate. While Bush,Cheney and Lieberman will argue that presidential power trumps the law, lawmakers will be able to cite Section 3 of the War Powers Act which requires that the "President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing" U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities.

The "constitutional crisis" cited by Lieberman won't stem from the "congressional interventions" that he fears, but by the recalcitrance and unilateral behavior of a White House resistant to change and indifferent to the will of the people.

The War Powers Act, crafted by Senator Frank Church of Idaho and other Vietnam era senators to curb unchecked presidential power over Vietnam, has been sustained through the years and its provisions need to be enforced to reverse the current Iraq policy. In a 2004 Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the War Powers Act, Richard F.Grimmett, described the War Powers Act and its relevance to the Iraq situation:

According to the legislation, "the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities" was recognized on the condition of (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The executive branch has contended that the President has much broader authority to use forces, including for such purposes as to rescue American citizens abroad, rescue foreign nationals where such action facilitates the rescue of U.S. citizens, protect U.S. Embassies and legations, suppress civil insurrection, implement the terms of an armistice or cease-fire involving the United States, and carry out the terms of security commitments contained in treaties. The central element of P.L. 107-243 [Iraq authorization] is the authorization for the President to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

More than four years after the Congress authorized military action against Iraq, "the continuing threat posed by Iraq" rings hollow.

Congress must now assert its role under the War Powers Act to change course and end a quagmire that has been one of the most costly in lives and public dollars in American history.

Saving Local Journalism: One of New Britain's Last Journalists Returns -- Sort Of

Pat Thibodeau, a former editor and reporter at The Herald of New Britain, is the creator of a new blog about his former beat -- NB Blogs -- Thibodeau's current work and pursuits are now in Washington, D.C. where he is an editor and writer and authors a blog about D.C.

His New Britain blog is a reminder of what community journalism should be about -- asking the right questions in a nonpartisan way and focusing on topics that fulfill the ultimate task of journalism -- the public's right to know. In his recent posts about the decades-long decline of downtown's retailing (impact of Westfarms Mall) and the track record of a new developer for the Andrews Building near Arch Street, Thibodeau shows what an informed observer can bring to public and community issues.

Thibodeau's blog, bloggers in 2006's state and national political campaigns (Example: spazeboy) and sites as such New Britain Community News are a cause for optimism that the internet can bring New Britain and other localities thorough coverage and commentary that each deserves in a democracy.

Local journalism via mainsteam, corporate-owned daily newspapers has been in rapid decline for some time. The Herald of New Britain and The Hartford Courant, notwithstanding quality efforts by individual editors and reporters, do not deliver the news product they used to. That is no fault of the editorial staffs. Their budgets and the demands of absentee owners severely restrict the scope and content of the "news hole" for any one community. Corporate-owned print publications also struggle with selling the commodity of "news" via the internet. That's why the knowledge and perspective of a Pat Thibodeau are rarely found in daily coverage anymore. And why the tradition of the free press is in jeopardy at all levels, particularly locally.


Thibodeau's reporter's eye and analysis are what New Britain needs not just occasionally, but on a daily and weekly basis. But that is something even the best and most well-informed bloggers cannot provide. A town's newspaper --in the traditional sense of being the "fourth estate" -- is akin to a public utility. It comes out daily or weekly and, in the age of internet and blogging, should provide a regular filter for balanced information. You didn't make a zoning board hearing about a new development in your neighborhood? You should be able to read about what happened to know the impact it will have on you and your neighbors and what you should be doing about it.

An outstanding example of how the internet can bring community journalism back is found at the nonprofit New Haven Independent. This five-day a week online publication led by Editor Paul Bass demonstrates that the role of a local free press can succeed thanks to an accessible internet and sufficient funding. The Independent, "rooted in and devoted to the city," believes "that democracy starts at home, with smart, thorough, in-depth local news reporting and broad citizen debate about local issues. Thanks to the Internet, journalists and news-deprived citizens need no longer be hostages to out-of-state media conglomerates. We can reclaim our communities. Power of the press now belongs not to those who own one, but to those who own a modem. We own a modem."
As long as the internet remains accessible and affordable on the bandwidths of the nation, online publications like the New Haven Independent can blossom in many places, including New Britain.