Diane Farrell served two terms as first selectwoman of Westport, CT and is running against Shays for the second time having garnered 48% of the vote in 2004, a pretty remarkable feat considering she was not well-funded and didn't enter the race until the Spring of '04.  

Bowers has the race in the toss-up category, which places it within the top 20 pick-up opportunities for Democrats. The release of the UConn poll today, which has Farrell now within 4 points of Shays, 44-40 with 16% undecided, should solidify that status.

The fact that someone with Shays's seniority (he was first elected in 1987) is as low as 44% should raise red flags at Shays headquarters. At this point, it's certainly not that people don't know Chris...in fact they like him quite a bit. But in this blue district (part of Fairfield County, a Lamont stronghold) in this blue state, voters get what's at stake; they get the bigger picture. From a Joe Klein piece in Time:

Many of these people know Chris Shays personally. "He's a good friend of our family," says John Moeling, a Norwalk Realtor. "He found a temporary congressional job for my son. But moderate Republicans have lost their influence over the Bush Administration. So the question is, What's the best way to create some political balance? By continuing to support Republican moderates or by voting Democratic in the hopes they'll win a house of Congress and provide a blocking force against the Bush Administration? A few weeks ago, I sent Chris an e-mail saying that much as I admired him, I couldn't vote for him this time."

To win, Farrell needs to seize on this palpable discontent with the Republican majority. To do that, she is taking a page out of Ned Lamont's playbook and relentlessly tying Shays to Bush, particularly his support of the war.  

Watch her latest ad in which she chronicles his various rah-rah statements upon returning from several of his 14 trips over to Iraq.

Trip 1: "The war plan has been nearly flawless." 4/03

Trip 6: "We're on the right track now." 8/04

Trip 8: "We've seen amazing progress." 6/05

Trip 14: "I totally support the war." 8/06

But she's also hitting him for being inconsistent with his statements on the war, a more recent strategy that's emerged since Shays made news after returning from Iraq for the 14th time and announced...sort of...that we need a timetable for withdrawal.

As Farrell said on Hardball recently:

I`ve got to say Chris Shays on the 3rd of August told NPR a time line is absolutely foolish.  On the 8th of August we had a primary, which you covered very ably.  Now suddenly he comes back after 14 trips and decides that a timetable is what has to happen, with the caveat that he still supports the war, still supports the president, and that the, quote, American people may not be that happy with the time frame once it's determined by Chris Shays.

This "Both Ways Shays" narrative (if I may borrow from ProgressNow's great Bob Beauprez website) , is showing signs of sticking. An editorial that appeared in the Stamford Advocate last week said the following:

Republican Christopher Shays of Bridgeport either is the most tortured congressman in the United States over the country's involvement in the Iraq war or he is speaking a language many constituents can't understand. Recent public appearances seem to generate more confusion about where the 19-year incumbent stands on the war's conduct and its future.

With a little more than six weeks to go before his election showdown against his chief rival, Democrat Diane Farrell, Mr. Shays needs to clarify his position. Ms. Farrell has opposed the war. That position, too, is open to challenge on a variety of fronts. But at least it has been consistent.

The editorial goes on to document several of Shays's more inconsistent statements and tells of a particularly bizarre breakfast with Shays that David Broder attended. As the editorial tells it:

Opined the columnist: "By the end of the hour, it was clear to everyone that the war has reduced this 60-year-old, nine-term veteran of the House to a complete head case -- consumed by the convoluted efforts to square the circle of his own conflicting impulses."

Ouch. They conclude:

If there has been no progress for months and the Bush administration has lost credibility with Americans about the war, as Mr. Shays has said, then he needs to say more about the changes in leadership he thinks are necessary. He has said that he "wishes" Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "wasn't there," but won't call for his resignation. He also appears to know a lot about what is going on in Iraq. Yet President Bush doesn't seem to be paying much attention to Mr. Shays' observations and expertise following 14 trips to Iraq -- a record for any legislator, or so Mr. Shays has said.

If he believes the United States is failing to force the necessary changes under its current course, then how can our country hope to leave Iraq when it "should?" It's time for Mr. Shays to speak out.

While the editorial stops short of endorsing Farrell, there's a clear subtext that not only does CT-04 have a Shays-Iraq war problem, but also that Farrell would be a fine alternative.

This is clearly Shays's Achilles heel and Farrell is right to hammer at it.

Let's help her in any way we can. Here's My Left Nutmeg's Act Blue Page.

As Diane said in this interview by Connecticut Bob:

Chris Shays is a Republican and the first vote he will cast when he goes back to Washington is for the same leadership that we've had over the last 6 years, and that means Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, and Tom DeLay's replacement, John Boehner.

If that's not an argument for the election of Diane Farrell to Congress, I don't know what is. Lucky for us, she happens to be a great candidate too.

I'll be posting with updates on this race as it progresses. I'm also going to be heading home to Fairfield in late October and hope to volunteer for Diane then, which, of course, I'll blog as well.