As The KickingDonkey informed us on the other day, George Bush traveled to Connecticut on Friday to raise money for David Cappiello, GOP challenger to CT-05 freshman Dem Chris Murphy. The event cost donors $1,000 a head and was held at the Kent, CT home of...wait for it...Henry Kissinger. Classic.

In good blogger style, the CT netroots made sure no one forgot that the exceptionally unpopular Mr. Bush was coming to town and so held a march against the war to protest his arrival. My Left Nutmeg covered it HERE with more pics HERE. Looks like a great turnout.

As for the fundraiser itself, helpfully, the CT Republican Party has provided its own documentary evidence of the event, although a few pictures seem to be missing. In a great catch by MattW, take a look at the CT GOP's Flickr photo stream, and you'll see there's a conspicuous gap of about 7 missing photos between the last shot of David Cappiello and the first picture of George Bush up on the stage with Kissinger. Hmm, why the scrubbing I wonder? Bizarrely, CT-04's Chris Shays, who co-chaired the event, doesn't seem to have the same compunction about appearing with Bush in public.

So to help make Shays, and Cappiello for that matter, regret embracing Mr. 28%, send them a message by supporting Murphy as well as Shays's excellent challenger, Jim Himes, over at Act Blue.

Here are two more cases of entitled Republican syndrome.  Chris Shays, who has a little problem with disclosure and luxury trips paid for by strange political groups in violation of House Ethics rules, will probably lash out in a few hours after his opponent presses him on this.

And then there's Nancy Johnson.  Check out her ad against Chris Murphy.

This ad has the advantage of being stupid, crass, and memorable all at once, the perfect vehicle for an entited and bratty Nancy Johnson.  Her opponent, Chris Murphy, is pretty awesome.  You should volunteer for his campaign.  GOTV against tacky ads!

Ah, Connecticut.  The land of steady habits.  It's fall, with leaves changing color and four vicious competitive elections flooding mailboxes, TV, radio, and conversation with invective and negativity. I've spent some time documenting Lieberman's campaign and pscychology, and dropped some of the focus on the state of Connecticut.  That's something I'd like to correct with this post. The most important point to realize about this state is how sullen voters are at being bombarded by television ads. They aren't used to it, they don't like it, and they are talking about it constantly.

This is an important point. I've been trying to figure out why this race is as confusing as it is, and how Connecticut fits in and differs from the national political scene. Why is a pro-war extremist leading against an antiwar Democrat? What happened to the voter pool? Is there a national wave here? I think, yes. So why isn't it showing up in the polls? Well, it did, on August 8. Voters here went for change, and they are now tired. Connecticut is a state that's not used to rough campaigning, and all of a sudden four nationally important elections are here using New Jersey style bare knuckles tactics.  The voters here are confused and upset by it all, and are rejecting these political tactics by sulking their way to change.

The environment has been intense for months. Back in April, Movon started running its caught red-handed ads here, and that sparked mudslinging from Republicans.  And then, through July and August, Lamont hit Connecticut, a revulsion towards the war and the Bush administration, and this geared up the rest of the nation for an antiwar election.  Ironically, the high intensity here early set the state up for a lull in energy, as voters have tired of the relentless robocalls, mailers, phone banks, commercials, radio ads, and media focus on elections.  The Lamont-Lieberman primary sparked bitter and personal hatred within the party, and that split has gotten worse.  Republicans face their own problem, as Schlesinger has split the GOP voting base with his refusal to back down.  Republican base voters don't trust Joe any more than we do, and they aren't happy with their candidates backing a guy who votes with Ted Kennedy 90% of the time by his own admission. It's an emotional season, and everyone's tired of the contests.

Furthermore, Connecticut is a small rural and commuter state that is not used to the spotlight.  It's not a swing state.  It has a tradition of moderate Republicans, from Lowell Weicker to Chris Shays to Jodi Rell.  The legislature often operates via consensus.  Voters are somewhat traumatized by their experience with Governor Rowland, who went to jail for corruption, and love the placid grandmotherly Jodi Rell as his replacement even though she was his Lieutenient Governor for years.  They love her because as far as I can tell she's a calming influence.  Voters here arn't really used to partisan aggressive competitive campaigns, and they are certainly not used to primaries and Senate races that are bellweathers for the nation.  So the combination of the national environment, the primary in August, the general disgust towards incumbents, and the negative vibe has a peculiar effect here.  I spent some time at a Stop N' Shop talking to voters, and the most frequent commentary was on how much they hated the advertising.  Several said, 'I want my TV back'.  Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, and Rob Simmons are all endangered Republicans, and they are all on the attack in aggressive and sometimes cartoonish ways, and Jodi Rell is a popular Republican Governor who is nonetheless getting a barrage of attack ads.  It's safe to say that the clutter is pretty high, and pretty nasty.  

The Lieberman ads, which often look ridiculous on their, make sense in the context of this environment.  The sunset ad, and the lightbulb ad, give people a break from the relentless barrage.  It's so bad that it's hard to believe that voters are taking in much new information, since the press mostly reports on process stories about negative ads.  Even the politicians (like Lieberman) are whining about the environment, so getting voters to learn something means pounding it in there.

Another thing about Connecticut is that Republicans here are perceived as 'nice'.  Rell and Johnson are both grandmotherly types, and Simmons and Shays are well-liked and considered 'good guys'.  And Lieberman, well, he's just a mensch.  These right-wing incumbents are running very negative against their opponents, which makes an argument for change difficult.  It's hard to make the argument that these wonderfully nice people are corrupt, but the macro GOP trends are being connected and put up explicitly against the pork these people bring home.  Voters want change, but they are now finding ugly scenes everywhere they turn, and don't know who to trust.  The Democratic base is energized to come out and vote, the Republicans are mostly depressed, and if I had to guess, so are the unaffiliated voters.  There's so much information pushed at voters that those without strong party affiliations just want to turn if off.

So that's my sense of the state.  I spent some time with Chris Murphy, who's running in the fifth district.  The other two competitive races are actually rematches, which means that Murphy's race is the only Congressional race that has a new candidate in the fray.  Johnson hasn't had to run a competitive race in her newly drawn district, and she is incredibly angry that someone is challenging her.  She's been in Congress for 24 years, with her soul consumed by the DC.  She likes being in Congress, she likes her life, and in her core she doesn't see why being a Republican and supporting Bush should be a problem for voters.  It's very similar to Shays and Lieberman - her campaign slogan should be 'how DARE they!'

Her opponent is quite a contrast.  Chris Murphy is 33, a grassroots-y style politician who has served in the state legislature for eight years, with a focus on health care.  He's also funny, and I value that in a politician.  A major problem for a lot of Democrats in DC is that they don't sound particularly human.  They are human, of course, they are just people who have designed their personalities around the needs of local news, which is both tacky and uninteresting. If you live in Connecticut's 5th district, you should help out his campaign. It's hard to get through the mass media sludge, and volunteering is the best cudgel we have.

All in all, despite the disgust, voters realize this election is important. In the final two weeks, the war is coming front and center back to Connecticut. Yes, there's a negative political environment, and yes there's pointless bickering and corruption, and yes, the Democratic Party has not unified behind Lamont, but at the end of the day the war looms as a large reality that cannot be denied. I think there's going to be a shift in the next few weeks as voters begin to focus on the election, yet again, and the war. This is the one state in the country that has already had their election, and now they are having their do-over. In other words, the national wave crashed here already, and voters are now sulking their way to change.

I'm going to be spending some time with Chris Murphy today, and I'm wondering if you know anything about him.  He's running in the Connecticut fifth district against Nancy Johnson.  It's a competitive race and a real national battleground this year, which is unusual for Connecticut.

So tell me about Chris.

    Saturday afternoon in New Britain, Connecticut, Republican incumbent Nancy Johnson and Democratic challenger Chris Murphy squared off in the first of three scheduled debates for Connecticut's 5th congressional district.  There couldn't have been a starker contrast between the candidates in this crucial race.  In a way, their differing message and demeanor represented the fundamental distinction between the Democratic and Republican parties.  Murphy, poised and knowledgeable, articulated a clear vision for the future of America. Conversely, Johnson--appearing scattered and ornery--rambled non sequiturs intended to obfuscate her conservative voting record.

    Despite her lack of substance and unwillingness to answer the specific questions posed, there were some Johnson highlights worth recounting.  Asked about the priority level of education, Johnson claimed the Republican Congress has fully funded No Child Left Behind--a factually inaccurate statement.  Johnson proceeded to contradict herself by saying we need to give more money to No Child Left Behind, since Congress has only funded the testing portion of the legislation.  Additionally, even though prescription drug costs are skyrocketing, Johnson voiced her opposition to allowing the government to negotiate prices with drug companies because "competition drives prices down."

    Whereas Johnson's performance was somewhat laughable (audience members laughed at a few of Johnson's false assertions), Murphy was impassioned and inspiring.  Murphy highlighted the need to enhance and expand our education system in order to remain competitive in the global economy.  He also addressed healthcare and energy costs. Countering Johnson's veneration of the free market's benevolence, Murphy stated that Congress needs to support the American people by standing up to oil companies and insurance providers.  And despite Johnson's fear mongering on the issues of terrorism and wiretapping, Murphy didn't abandon his principles.  He cogently expressed the need to simultaneously protect America and preserve constitutionally prescribed civil liberties.

    Connecticut's 5th congressional district has repeatedly been indentified as a "must win" for Democrats to reclaim the House. And the race is close.  Internal polling has shown the race to be a dead heat, and just this week, both the Washington Post and Cook Political Report listed the CT-05 as a "toss up."  Murphy's performance in the first debate will only elevate his stock among Connecticut's voters.  This race seems to be turning blue!  If elected to Congress, Chris Murphy will be a strong Democrat who champions progressive causes for years to come.

Lynn Allen at Evergreen Politics had a must-read essay this week called Transformational Candidates.  In that essay, Lynn lays out the five qualities that epitomize what makes a great netroots candidate:

They work for a progressive agenda.

They are incorruptible.

They are willing to kick ass.

They are leaders.

They are supported by the netroots.

Well, Lynn's term transformational candidates itself kicks ass and certainly whups the "node races" term I floated here last week.  Given that, I'd like to take her concept and try to weave it back into a parallel theme that I've been working on: building a netroots wave.

We want Democrats to win. And we want to stop genocide in Darfur.

Can we do both at the same time?

The Progressive Patriots Fund, with Russ Feingold, honorary chair, has just announced round III of its "Pick a Progressive Patriot" contest. The Fund has selected 12 Democratic candidates for US Congress, and will let YOU select which one of them will receive its next $5,000 donation.

The list of candidates can be found here:
http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/ pickapatriot/meet-the-candidates-house3.html

• Tim Barnwell (TX-26)
• Phyllis Busansky (FL-09)
• David Gill (IL-15)
• Jim Hansen (ID-02)
• Larry Kissell (NC-08)
• Chris Murphy (CT-05)
• Patrick Murphy (PA-08)
• Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
• Joe Sestak (PA-07)
• Nancy Skinner(MI-09)
• Carol Voison (OR-02)
• Patty Wetterling (MN-06)

You can vote for your favorite here:
http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/ pickapatriot/vote.html