We have our first official Democratic challenger in the 4th! Local Democrat Jim Himes has filed papers with the Federal Election Commission, and launched a campaign website.
Excerpt from Himes’ first campaign press release:
For too long, Chris Shays has been single-mindedly focused on promoting President Bushs failed policy on the war in Iraq and has grown out of touch with the hardworking families in our community, said Himes. I am running for Congress to righthis wrongs and take our community and our country in a new direction.
Its time we start to bring our troops home from Iraq, promote strong national security, responsibly reform our healthcare system and ensure that our children have access to a first rate education, continued Himes. We deserve a leader in Washington who will fight for our values all of the time, not just during the campaign season.
Shays is one of only eight Republicans across the country representing a district that John Kerry won in the 2004 Presidential election, and Democrats plan to defeat Shays this cycle.
Last month Himes blogged a guest post here at CTLP. Tomorrow he’ll venture onto the blogosphere again with an afternoon live blogging session at My Left Nutmeg. The live blog will begin at 1:30 PM.
56 responses so far ↓
Good luck, he’ll need it.
Boy these guys sound like a broken record, democrats and republicans. They all say the same exact thing, it’s as if they’re all given one press release, just slightly modified…
âFor too long, [insert name of Republican incumbent here] has been single-mindedly focused on promoting President Bushâs failed policy on the war in Iraq and has grown out of touch with the hardworking families in our community,â said [insert your name]. âI am running for Congress to righthis wrongs and take our community and our country in a new direction.
âItâs time we start to bring our troops home from Iraq, promote strong national security, responsibly reform our healthcare system and ensure that our children have access to a first rate education,â continued [insert your name]. âWe deserve a leader in Washington who will fight for our values all of the time, not just during the campaign season.â
Great. Thanks for the help.
Chris Shays is toast.
Who will you be running against Rep. Nita Lowey, LenS?
I don’t know. Maybe Murphy can move again and primary her.
Lowey has way more class than Murphy ever will.
I think any Republican who survied a 2006 squeeker will survive in 2008 – by a wider margin.
Tony and Len,
Maybe Shays can run on the Success we’re having in Iraq.
Who knows ,Maybe even General Patraeus can come and campaign for him since the General seems to like attended Republican caucuses.
He better do it quick though because if you google Iraq you’ll see the escalation is a complete failure and the good General will more than likely get the Medal of freedom, a promotion to boost his pay(hush money) and be retired by mid summer.
I support Himes and wish him the best of luck. Having another Dem representing the state of CT wouderful.
Unfortunately, being a realist I have to agree with Tony- this is going to be a tough, tough battle. I have heard many say that after Shays won the last battle he is pretty much unbeatable given climate with Iraq (if he can weather this, he’ll weather anything). The only change I can consider is that voter turnout in Norwich and Bport will be higher due to the presidential election, otherwise this will be a very tough battle for Himes.
General Petraeus is a professional military man. He won’t campaign for anyone while he still proudly wears the uniform of the United States Military. And he has made it clear the politics belongs to the politicians while he executes his orders in Iraq. And his boss in the region, Admiral Fallon, has made it clear that Iraq is tough and he’s concerned about the future. Railing against the professional military commander will not bring anyone home soon, ctkeith, nor will it keep a single American alive. Fortunately, Gen Petraues sees keeping his command alive as priority number one. You might wish to direct your complaints to the political command, ctk.
Norwich isn’t in the fourth, Dude. and Himes is a dud, too.
If Himes (or Shapiro, whoever the eventual nominee is) can run a better campaign than Diane Farrell did he could win. If nothing else voters will probably like him better. Diane often just rubbed people the wrong way.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates slipped into Iraq Thursday to warn Iraqi leaders that the U.S. commitment to a military buildup there is not open-ended.
Gates said the political tumult in Washington over financing the military presence in Iraq shows that both the American public and the Bush administration are running out of patience with the war. He was speaking to reporters in Israel just before his quick flight to Baghdad.
just a half hour ago
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GATES_IRAQ?SITE=WDUN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
From his website:
our country needs new priorities and new leadership…
I thought we got that last election? Maybe one of you guys could let him know that.
Together, as President Lincoln said, we can “think anew, and act anew.”
Hmmm, wasn’t Lincoln a Republican? Jim sounds a little bit confused.
our country needs new priorities and new leadershipâŚ
I thought we got that last election?
Nope, we still have Shays in the 4th not that I think Himes would be any improvement.
I thought we got that last election? Maybe one of you guys could let him know that.
Sadly we didn’t get that in the 4th. We got more of the same.
Hmmm, wasnât Lincoln a Republican? Jim sounds a little bit confused.
He’s just being bipartisan! Sadly he had to go back to the 1860’s to find an actual likable Republican. < /snark>
Heâs just being bipartisan! Sadly he had to go back to the 1860âs to find an actual likable Republican ::::::: just to show cgg and I aren’t sock puppets, I disagree, there are many likeable Republicans especially in Westport and Fairfield. It’s unfortunate that the editor of the Fairfield Minuteman owes her soul to Ken Flatto and keeps silencing them.
http://whatweveheard.blogspot.com/
Bi partisan my foot. I was just poking fun.
I do however think he should change the wording to new leadership in the district or something because we do in fact have new leadership in DC.
I also loved the “I’m not a career politician” line. Not yet, but none of them are until they are if you know what I mean. Is he going to give a term limit pledge? Doubt it.
I was just kidding around with D_R, who is a Republican I like very much.
And did someone accuse us of being the same person? That’s funny.
No cgg, but our posts 15 and 16 were at the same time and we agreed that we didn’t get new leadership in the 4th. I dare say we most often don’t agree, cgg, on the answers beyond the social issues of mandated Plan B and civil marriage for two people of adult age and distant family relations.
Last year Chris Shays told the voters that he supported a timeline for withdrawal and that he believed that most of our troops could be withdrawn from Iraq within 2007. Then he told us that he supported the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations, the centerpiece of which was the withdrawal of most American combat troops by the first quarter of 2008. Yet when given the opportunity to vote for that timeline for withdrawal, he voted no. He did a blatant flip-flop, and the voters won’t forgive him for it.
He tries to cover up that flip-flop by saying that he still favors a timeline for withdrawal; he just wants George Bush to establish it- the guy who has adamantly stated that he never will. Does anyone believe that voters in the 4th district are so stupid that they won’t see through that dodge? Although Republicans remain hard-core supporters of this miserable war, independents are overwhelmingly against it, and they won’t give Shays a pass again.
And now that the Supreme Court has opened an enormous hole in the protection of women’s right to choose by affirming the legality of the late-term abortion act, pro-choice voters in this district are going to be plenty angry at Chris Shays, who was the only member of the Connecticut delegation to vote for it. Republicans Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons both voted against it, as did DeLauro and Larson. But there was “Both Ways” Shays once again sticking with his conservative buddies.
Voters won’t forgive him this time. No way.
non issues, Hooker, for the voters that will decide the election.
The War in Iraq is a non-issue? Please tell me from which planet you are writing?
And if you think that abortion won’t be an issue from now on- well, just wait. The storm will build, and Shays’ vote will be front and center. Pro-choice voters have been lulled by the seemingly inpenetrable protection of Roe v Wade for many years. Yet now pro-choice voters, who constitute the large majority in this state, will see that the Supreme Court has breached that wall. Voters are going to become plenty mad. And Shays- again, the only one to vote for the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act” of 2003, will have a great deal of explaining to do between now and November 2008.
Hey Tom, the majority in Connecticut, like every other state in the nation, oppose partial birth abortion.
Cite it, UT.
No “professioal Military Man” who would present and executes a plan he himself thinks has only “a 1 in 4 chance of success” to the Commander and cheif should keep his stars.
The military brass has embarassed itself every bit as much as the executive and the legislative branch of Government in their incompetennce over the last 6 yrs.
You ,Toucan,Should stop acting like criticizing the Military is out of bounds because it’s not.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012771.php
PS-Patraeus attended a Republican Caucus which was AGAINST miliyary rules.
http://tailrank.com/1654342/NBC-s-Mitchell-says-Republicans-will-pull-the-plug-on-the-war-in-August
âAnd 80 percent of voters say late term or “partial birth” abortions should be illegal except to save the life of the mother,â Quinnipiac College Poll, 1999.
â76 – 15 percent against late-term or partial birth abortion except to save the life of the mother,â Quinnipiac College Poll, 2005.
And check out this UConn 2000/Roper Center Exit Poll, which showâs Connecticut solidly pro-choice, but with reservations.
23.0 Legal in all cases
31.3 Legal in most cases
25.9 Illegal in most cases
12.2 Illegal in all cases
7.5 No answer
It doesnât take a whole lot of deductive reasoning to conclude that those 31% who think abortion should be legal in most cases (like me) are against partial-birth abortion.
All those polls have an exception to save the life of the mother. The SC ruling DOESN’T! Can’t you see the difference?
If your point is that the majority opposes partial-birth abortion EXCEPT to save the mother’s life, that’s fine. But the law as written and upheld will cause women to lose their lives. No question about that.
Read the decision, Bob.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Congress provided an exception only to save a pregnant womanâs life.
This is the problem with liberals and the issue of abortion.
The decision makes absolute sense, is in line with the vast majority of the public, and makes an exemption when the life of the mother is at risk.
Iâm pro-choice, but I strongly support limits, like the majority of Americans. Liberals have this hysterical knee-jerk reaction to this very moderate, common sense ruling.
Shoot, I gotta go to work; I’d like to continue this dialogue later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. It wouldn’t be the first time!
Here is the flaw with the “common sense”:
The law allows a doctor to perform the procedure if it is necesasry to save the life of the woman, but criminalizes it for any other reason (including protecting teh health of the woman). Since these procedures are only performed late in a pregnancy, the procedure is very often chosen because it is the safest method of abortion in the third trimester.
With an exception for the life of the woman, but not for her health, every time a doctor is performing a late term abortion for reasons of the mother’s health (which includes her life), he has to make a legal decision on whether the risk to her is great enough that the procedure is necessary to save the life of the woman. Given that these are terms of art, lawyers would have trouble making that determination, much less people who haven’t been to law school.
So the lawyer is faced with a decision where, if he is wrong, he could be facing prison time. I think its fairly safe to say that doctors are going to be extremely conservative regarding this decision and are going to opt for another, less safe, procedure to avoid exposure to criminal penalties except in the most clear-cut cases of threat to the women’s life (and overly cautious doctoers will opt for another procedure even then).
There are two tragic results that can flow from this choice:
1) Because doctors opt for another method that puts the woman’s health (but not life) at risk, one possible outcome is negative health effects for women seeking late-term abortions. And its important to note that the negative health effects we are talking about aren’t a high fever or a cold; a possibility is that women will lose the ability to conceive in the future in a way that is entirely preventable.
2) The second tragic result is that doctors will be conservatve, end up being wrong, and the woman will die due to the more risky procedure – exactly the outcome that a complete exception for the life and health of the woman is designed to protect. Also, since, if the women dies, there is a prima facie assumption that her procedure would have fit into the exception to protect the life of the woman, the doctor is opened up to civil liability. In effect, doctors are being offered a choice, risk exposure to either criminal or civil penalties.
Also, on a completely seperate note from what I just wrote, this case is the first ever restriction on abortion approved by the SCOTUS that did not provide for an exception to protect the life and health of the woman.
Just one man’s opinion.
Gabe, I understand your concerns, but would you agree to a more narrow definition of “health of the mother”? As it is interpretted now, “health of the mother” which can include the ambiguous “mental health” is really no limitation at all.
I’ve never really given it much thought to be honest.
At first blush though, mental health doesn’t seem to be as large a concern as the fact that the D+E procedure involves one non-surgical invasion while the alternatives involve either multiple non-surgical invasions or full-blown surgery. Of course, I’m not a doctor, I don’t pretend to be one, and I couldn’t be one if I wanted to, so I’ll leave the argument of what should and should not be classified as “health” to people more qualified…
Agreed. Just from my understanding, almost anything could have been explained away under the loose definition of “health.”
Good post.
Obviously, Justice Kennedy (who isnât a lock-step conservative) acknowledged the medical uncertainty that partial birth abortion was EVER necessary for a womanâs health. There doesnât appear to be any undisputed evidence that suggests that this particular procedure is necessary for a womanâs health.
No, not undisputed. But if my doctoer is telling me that one method (of whatever) is safer than another, I usually trust my doctor to make that decision. Here, we are criminalizing a wrong decision if a U.S. Attorney (most likely not a doctor) and 12 jurors (also, most likely not doctors) disagree. Or, putting someone at risk for death. The real (and really strong) incentive here is for doctors to get out of the business of late term abortions; And I suspect that was the point of theis legislative exercise to being with. Unfortunately, many late term abortions are conducted for medical reasons (i.e. the baby has a condition that is not survivable).
And while Justice Kennedy is not a lock-step conservative (I’m not sure what descriptive words you would use for him really), he is on this issue (D+E procedures, not abortion in general). Remember, this is not a case where he was with Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer when the same law came up without an exception for the life or health of the woman. He dissented in that case, arguing that the law should be upheld (with Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist) even though there were no exceptions at all. That case would have come out a different way entirely, and we would have had a similiar law (except for one state, I know) but without an exception for the life of the woman, had Justice O’Connor not been on the court. The only thing that has changed between the two cases is Alito for O’Connor…
Not in a criminal context, but don’t we allow lawyers (most likely not doctors) and jurors (again most likely not doctors) to second guess the decision of doctors all the time?
Those first 5 words are pretty important to the point I am making.
Fair enough.
Just to be clearer (and because I apparently love the sound of my own e-voice today), when lawyers and jurors second guess the decisions of doctors in a non-criminal context (med-mal), the suits are to protect the patient. Patients want doctors to worry about making a mistake, so they will make the right decisions and carry them through well.
In this context, docters are not worried about doing the (medically) right thing (in their opinion), they are worried about doing the legally right thing – which could conflict with their opinion of the medically right thing. Since doctors carry med-mal insurance, but would have to actually serve a prison term if they are legally wrong, my fear is that women’s lives will be put at risk by doctors who are scared to go to prison.
One other thing to think about: given that this is a federal law and prosecutions would be done by US Attorneys, there is the real possibility of geographical differences in enforcement. There will be very different pressures on a USA deciding whether or not to press criminal charges against a doctor in say Mississippi than there will be on a USA in say Connecticut.
Gabe, thanks much to the plaintiffs bar, doctors don’t necessarily always do the “right” thing in all cases but rather the “thing” that opens them up to the least liability. Take C-sections for instance. I don’t know enough about the specifics, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understand, this a far, far more common delivery method these days, in large part due to the massive liability a doctor faces for an accident or mishap during standard child birth.
So, decisions that may protect or compensate one plaintiff might have negative and chilling effects for doctors treating other patients.
This is not really relavant to the issue at hand, but I think there are certainly chilling legal ramifications on both sides that impact the way a doctor approaches a situation.
A couple of things–
Kennedy’s decision virtually begs for a challenge due to the health of the momma.
Secondly, I am dubious that any doctor or patient will be prosecuted for performing a pba if the patients life is in danger.
Not in a criminal context, but donât we allow lawyers (most likely not doctors) and jurors (again most likely not doctors) to second guess the decision of doctors all the time? No, not in CT anyway. We allow them – plaintiff’s attys and jurors – to review expert testimony and make deicsions about what’s right and wrong. A lot of lawyers who have spent their careers doing corporate litigation don’t have any clue what the issue is here, LenS. And the plaintiff’s bar gets blamed for doctors doing the most expensive thing but it’s just the doctors doing what they do. Unlike in NY, no doctor in CT has been sued unless negligence was first demonstrated in the last 20 years. You really should get to know CT, LenS. New York is amuch different ballgame – so is defending hedge funds.
My understanding of C-sections, and this based soley on anecdotes and conversations with one Ob-Gyn, is that they are so much more prevalent recently because they have become much safer than they used to be.
And, and keep in mind that tort law was not the best I’ve ever done in a class in my life, my understanding is that the method (of anything) that opens doctors up to the least liability is the generally accepted method – only where there is a new method for something that doesn’t have a scientific basis to back it up could a doctor face liability for doing the medically right thing. Not sure if that is a good or bad rule of thumb….
Also, this is far OT.
gabe; negligence is the only thing that opens a doctor up for a lawsuit on CT LenS’s NY is another situation. Medmal is a state by state issue and we have very strict laws to protect the doctors in CT. We also have very high income consumers so awards tend to be high here in CT. And we also have doctor owned medmal insurance companies so the insurance rates are high too.
Rightyright – You say your second point as if its always clear whether the woman’s life or “just” her health is in danger. These cases, for the most part, are not going to turn on whether the procedure was actually performed, but whether it was necessary to save the life of the woman. Almost every one of these cases will be litigating the question of whether the woman’s life is in danger; likewise, when the prosecutorial decisions are made, the prosecuter will be deciding whether he thinks he can prove to a jury that the procedure was not medically necessary…
Interestingly enough (and this is something I had no idea about before I went to law school), you don’t actually learn the law of a particular state in law school – you get most of that when you prepare for the bar. You tend to learn general rules for the majority of the states in your actual classes! So, I defer to those with more specific knowledge of CT’s tort laws…
Ah, you’re right Toucan. Hearing expert testimony is just like 4 years of med school and however many years of residency and practice. Clearly jurors are all qualified to make medical judgments. Toucan, get up to speed, we’re talking about the difference between a jury being able to assess the difference in testimony in a criminal versus civil context in light of the supreme court’s decisions.
I suggest most of the commentators here spend some time on other blogs reading about this decision, its likely effects, and what this is really about. They should also actually read the majority opinion and the dissent. I would particularly recommend the stories of women who have had to go through late-term abortions for wanted pregnancies and then perhaps then, they should come back to revise their comments. This “partial-birth abortion” law is a right-wing tactic in their cease-less quest to control women’s sexuality by banning all abortions, and ultimately birth control, not a legitmate discussion of fetal life and the appropriate balancing of personal and societal interests. As a start, I would recommend “Lawyers Guns & Money” http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/ for the policy discussions, and these links for the personal http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/?page=full and http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/18/consequences-2/
Joe–Please. Stop the talking points. The horse has left the barn, abortion will never be banned in the US. Nor does the right care to ban birth control or whatever other hoo-haa you are dreaming of. But good links though, always nice to get fair and balanced facts.
“legitmate discussion of fetal life and the appropriate balancing of personal and societal interests”
I would argue that society has an overriding interest in seeing all of it’s member born. And Democrats should be interested in seeing all of their babies born as well, the Democrat rolls are missing millions due to abortion.
But that’s just my opinion, nothing personal.
The funny part is that the same people who cry bloody murder at this inconsequential (numbers wise) ban on a gruesome abortion procedure are the same people who want to ban guns step-by-step in the name of “common sense gun control,” only they keep banning more and more with each successive legislative proposal.
So why is there a slippery slope with abortion but not with guns?
Yes, I was mistaken about the abortion act. It does allow a narrow exception for the life, not health, of the pregnant woman. There are still plenty of problems with this act, not the least of which is the simple fact that it removes the right of choice from the woman and gives it to the federal government.
Judging from how well the gov’t has been running this land for the last six years, I will worry for womanhood.
Righyright
They’re not talking points. I suggest you follow up your reading by looking at the constitutional law arguments here, not anyone’s talking points on the right or left. If you accept the arguments of Bork, Scalia and Thomas (and soon enough Alito and Roberts), Roe should be overturned because the Constitution gives no right to privacy. That right was found in our very own Griswold v. Connecticut (1964), which overturned our state law prohibiting birth control by married women. Bork explicitly stated that Griswold was wrongly decided; the conservative nominees who followed were smarter and hide their beliefs. If you look at the arguments of many of the anti-abortion advocates, they also wish to limit access to contraceptive information and contraceptive methods. Given the track record of the prior Republican Congress, I don’t doubt for a second the potential for some future Congress to pass similar bans, have the Roberts Court uphold them, and then filibuster repeal when the country comes to its senses and throws the bums out. We’re seeing it right now.
Jurors hear expert testimony from medical experts – medical doctors with four years of med school among others, LenS. Glad to see you have little faith in our jury system. Not surprising.
You must log in to post a comment.