With the New York Times, Washington Post, and other media outlets now confirming that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) will announce his retirement tomorrow in 2012, NRSC Communications Director Brian Walsh said the following:
“With yet a second member of the Senate Democrat caucus preparing for retirement within a 24 hour period, all of us are left to wonder how many more Democrats may follow in their footsteps.
“While next year’s election is still a long way away, one thing is increasingly clear, which is that Connecticut Democrats are facing the prospect of a very contentious primary within their ranks. Even without a serious primary in the 2010 cycle, national Democrats were still forced to spend roughly $2 million to save a candidate who had initially enjoyed a 30 point lead in the polls. So we are confident that in the months ahead, several well-qualified Republicans will look closely at this race and this will again be a competitive battleground next year.”
Below please find accompanying background information on the Democrats’ leading potential candidates:
MEET THE LEADING DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES IN CONNECTICUT
MEET SUSAN BYSIEWICZ
BYSIEWICZ AT FAULT FOR FLAWED ELECTION
Bysiewicz Prematurely Declared Democrat Dan Malloy The Winner Of A Very Close 2010 Governor’s Race Despite The Fact That Votes Were Still Being Counted. “The bigger problem this week, Godfrey said, was what he called ‘melodrama,’ a reference to Bysiewicz’s controversial declaration that Malloy had won the governor’s race based on unofficial returns. Bysiewicz made the declaration even as officials in Bridgeport had yet to begin counting some of the photocopied hand ballots that had been pressed into service during the shortage.” (Ted Mann, “Calls For A New Law, A Reassuring Recount And More Registrar Training,” The Day, 11/7/10)
The Day Editorial: Bysiewicz’s Announcement Was “Inappropriate And Premature.” “Throughout election night, into Wednesday and then Thursday morning, unofficial town-by-town tabulations available to the public showed Mr. Foley with a narrow lead. Yet on Wednesday Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, a Democrat, announced her party’s candidate the winner. The announcement was inappropriate and premature. Making that apparent was the secretary’s refusal to release specific numbers.” (Editorial, “Tainted Election The Last Thing State Needed,” The Day, 11/5/10)
Bysiewicz Was Also Blamed For A Massive Shortage Of Ballots In Bridgeport. “Bysiewicz’s plea for patience was reasonable, given what had transpired since Tuesday. One of the longest, nastiest, hotly contested, closely watched and expensive elections ever in Connecticut broke down at the last possible minute in a place where Connecticut elections frequently break down: in Bridgeport. Inexplicably, the city printed about 21,000 ballots for nearly 70,000 registered voters. By comparison, Bridgeport ordered 28,000 ballots a year ago for a relatively low-turnout municipal election.” (Edmund Mahony, “As The Election Unraveled,” Hartford Courant, 11/7/10)
The Day Editorial: The Ballot Shortage Problem In Bridgeport Was “Scandalous.” “The failures in Bridgeport — ordering 21,000 printed ballots for about 70,000 registered voters, having to print ballots on copy machines, having to go to court to extend voting hours — are scandalous. Did no one expect a good turnout after the president campaigned in the city, urging voters to the polls? Reforms are necessary to require registrars to have enough ballots and mandating the secretary of the state to monitor that process.” (Editorial, “Tainted Election The Last Thing State Needed,” The Day, 11/5/10)
The Day Editorial: “Ms. Bysiewicz Is Too Quick To Disown Any Fault In This Disaster. Her Office Has Prime Responsibility For Carrying Out Clean Elections That The Public Can Have Confidence In. This Election Failed On Both Counts.” (Editorial, “Tainted Election The Last Thing State Needed,” The Day, 11/5/10)
BYSIEWICZ ETHICAL PROBLEMS
In 2010, Bysiewicz Was Investigated For Using A State Database For Political Purposes. “State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Thursday that the office of Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz maintained ‘inappropriate’ personal and political information in a taxpayer-funded office database . . . Blumenthal also said in his report that it was ‘not proper’ for his fellow Democrat, Bysiewicz, to use her 36,000-name database to identify the ‘religion, race and ethnicity’ of more than 2,400 citizens, or to keep ‘special notes,’ records of some citizens’ political leanings and personal characteristics. In a few cases, those notes included ‘descriptions of [citizens’] medical issues, choice of clothing, and favored political candidates,’ the report said.” (Jon Lender, “Name List ‘Not Proper,’” Hartford Courant, 8/6/10)
The Chief State Attorney Said He Wouldn’t Pursue A Criminal Investigation Of Bysiewicz After Attorney General Blumenthal Found Bysiewicz Kept “‘Inappropriate’ Personal And Political Information In The Taxpayer-Funded Office Database.” “Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane said Friday that he won’t pursue a criminal investigation into a 36,000-name constituent database maintained by Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz. The matter had been referred to Kane in early August by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal after an investigation in which Blumenthal concluded that Bysiewicz kept “inappropriate” personal and political information in the taxpayer-funded office database.” (Jon Lender, “No Criminal Investigation Of Bysiewicz,” Hartford Courant, 9/18/10)
The Day Editorial: “Secretary Of The State Susan Bysiewicz, A Democrat, Either Intentionally Misused The Resources Of Her Office For Political Election Purposes Or Was Blissfully Ignorant In Failing To Ensure An Office Database Served Only A State Function. Those are the only two conclusions that can be drawn from the findings of an investigation by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Either conclusion is troubling — malfeasance or incompetence.” (Editorial, “Secretary Of The State Office Violated Own Standards,” The Day, 8/7/10)
Bysiewicz Is Also The Subject Of An Ongoing Investigation Into Whether She Misused Campaign Funds After Her Failed Run For Attorney General. “Meanwhile, the State Elections Enforcement Commission has yet to release word on an investigation it began last month into whether Bysiewicz’s attorney general campaign committee violated any laws by continuing to spend thousands of dollars after the high court’s May ruling ended her candidacy.” (Jon Lender, “No Criminal Investigation Of Bysiewicz,” Hartford Courant, 9/18/10)
BYSIEWICZ EMBARRASSMENT
In 2010, The State Supreme Court Ruled Bysiewicz Was Not Qualified To Run For Attorney General Because She Was Not Actively Practicing The Law. “On Christmas Day, Democrat Susan Bysiewicz was the front-runner in the governor’s race. On President’s Day, she was the front-runner in the race for attorney general. By Memorial Day, she won’t be on the ballot – for the first time in18 years. After a shockingly quick ruling by the state Supreme Court that she is not qualified to run for attorney general, Bysiewicz announced Thursday that she will not run for any office this year. . . . Bysiewicz ran into controversy when questions were raised about whether she had the necessary 10 years of ‘active practice’ of the law – the minimum required to serve as the state’s attorney general. The high court ruled that she was not qualified.” (Christopher Keating, “Bysiewicz Won’t Run In 2010,” Hartford Courant, 5/21/10)
MEET CHRIS MURPHY
MURPHY IS A VERY LIBERAL DEMOCRAT
In The 111th Congress, Chris Murphy Voted With The Democrat Majority 98.1% Of The Time. (The Washington Post’s Votes Database, www.washingtonpost.com, Accessed 1/13/11)
In 2010, Murphy Voted With The Democrat Party 97% Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, http://www.cq.com, Accessed 1/13/11)
MURPHY STANDS WITH THE FAR LEFT OF HIS PARTY
Congressman Murphy Voted Against The Tax Cut Compromise To Extend The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. “Levin, D-Mich., motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill that would extend the 2001- and 2003-enacted tax cuts for all taxpayers for two years and revive the lapsed estate tax, setting the tax rate at 35 percent on estates worth more than $5 million for 2011 and 2012. It also would extend unemployment insurance benefits for 13 months and cut the employee portion of the Social Security tax by 2 percentage points.” (H.R. 4853, CQ Vote #647: Motion agreed to 277-148: D 139-112; R 138-36, 12/17/10, Murphy Voted Nay)
Murphy Said Of The Tax Cut Compromise: “Unprecedented Tax Cuts For Millionaires And Billionaires Don’t Create Jobs.” Congressman Murphy: “These unprecedented tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires don’t create jobs, they just create debt. And by borrowing money from Social Security in order to finance the payroll tax cut, we are setting up a massive shortfall in Social Security just at the time that we should be talking about ensuring the long term solvency of this program. This wasn’t an easy vote for me. Of course I support extending tax cuts for the middle class and benefits for the unemployed. But this bill reinforces a backwards economic policy where we borrow more and more money to finance policies that don’t create jobs, just more debt for our children.” (Congressman Chris Murphy Press Release, “Murphy Statement On Vote Against Extending Tax Cuts For The Wealthy,” 12/17/10) Murphy Stood To The Left Of President Obama
President Obama Said A Failure To Extend The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts, “Would Be A Chilling Prospect For The American People Whose Taxes Are Currently Scheduled To Go Up On Jan. 1″ President Obama: “This would be a chilling prospect for the American people whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on Jan. 1 because of arrangements that were made back in 2001 and 2003 under the Bush tax cuts. I am not willing to let that happen. I know there’s some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can’t reach a compromise. But I’m not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington.” (“President Obama: Tax Cut Compromise Is Right Thing To Do,” www.thehill.com, 12/7/10)
President Obama: “The American People Didn’t Send Us Here To Wage Symbolic Battles Or Win Symbolic Victories. They Would Much Rather Have The Comfort Of Knowing That When They Open Their First Paycheck On January Of 2011, It Won’t Be Smaller Than It Was Before, All Because Washington Decided They Preferred To Have A Fight And Failed To Act.” (“President Obama: Tax Cut Compromise Is Right Thing To Do,” www.thehill.com, 12/7/10)
President Obama Said That Failure To Pass A Tax Cut Compromise Would Cause Taxes To Go Up By $3,000 For A Typical Family. President Obama: “Make no mistake: Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family. And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.” (“President Obama: Tax Cut Compromise Is Right Thing To Do,” www.thehill.com, 12/7/10) Murphy Stood To The Left Of Both Connecticut Senators
Senators Dodd And Lieberman Voted For The Tax Cut Compromise. (H.R. 4853, CQ Vote # 276: Motion Agreed To 81-19: D 43-13; R 37-5; I 1-1, 12/15/10, Dodd And Lieberman Voted Yea)
