First off, an update on
the first diary in this series. Rasmussen has released a
new poll that shows Rell still leading by an insane 22 point margin. Admittedly much better than the 47 point lead she held prior to the primary, and hopefully the trend of aggressive movement towards normalcy continues, but Rell is still the frontrunner (DeStefano could really
use your support. Now, in the last of my diaries covering potential Democratic pickups in CT (already covering the
2nd and
4th districts) follow me below the fold for the toughest of the three, CT-5.
Connecticut's
fifth district is currently represented by moderate Republican
Nancy Johnson. You might have noticed throughout this series that all of the potential D pickups in CT are off the backs of incumbant moderate Republicans. Why replace moderate Republicans with only slightly more liberal Democrats? To fix the geographic rebalancing started in
1994. The Republican Revolution largely brought about the end to southern, conservative, Democrats. I think we can all agree that (certainly nowadays) that the South is generally conservative territory while the North (especially the Northeast) is much more heavily Democratic. '94 gave the Republicans a shot in the arm by swinging those conservative Democrats into their column, allowing Republicans to win party-line votes and run committees/the House in general. 2006 needs to be run on a similar principle, taking back seats from Shays, Simmons, and Johnson as Republicans representing what should by all logic and data be Democratic seats.
Johnson's district holds Litchfield County, the only county to vote
for Bush in 2004. However, Gore narrowly won the county (and every county in the state) in 2000. While Bush rose the rising tide of a wartime presidency against a somewhat "eh" nominee in 2000 picking up a slight margin, you can bet your bottom dollar that support has dropped away as Iraq drags on.
As opposed to Shays whose general voting record at least looks liberal,
Johnson's record is much more obviously conservative. And her
"key vote" record? Stem cells and McCain anti-torture amendment, fine but pointless, as explained yesterday (plus the McCain thing was pretty bipartisan); and a
temporary bill to stop some of the more heinous bits of the PATRIOT Act. The issue? She continues to support Iraq and yet... You know how people talk about Republicans this cycle trying to distance themselves from Iraq and Bush as the two start to lose traction?
Johnson literally does not display a "record" on her site for her history on Iraq, National Security, Foreign Policy, Domestic Security, ANYTHING that might by reasonably connected to Security policies. Despite not listing anything securitywise under her "record" section, her entire
"Issues" section for National Security is comprised of her voting more money for the war. Not only that, the last piece listed there is from 2003. Johnson has made a big deal out of her work on Medicare Part D, but Murphy has pointed out some
issues with the way it's being branded, not to mention the issues with the policy itself.
Murphy, on the other hand,
shows an example of him actually LEADING on National Security (writing a CT Bio-terrorism bill that was hugely popular and powerful after 9/11) versus Johnson's issues and record comprised entirely of "Medicare Part D and voting to give the war money." Even on Johnson's staple issue of Part D,
Murphy proposes a logical solution to the woes of the program in contrast to Johnson making a big deal out of working on it (without doing much follow up). Murphy lists an
impressive list of endorsing Democrats versus not being able to even find a list of endorsements on Johnson's site.
This race has turned a little bit nasty. Johnson launched some false attack ads on Murphy about votes to raise taxes (Murphy
points out in this ad that he actually voted to reduce taxes by $300 million) and has now started whining about Murphy's negative campaign. My favorite piece? The banner on the bottom of Johnson's site.
Yes, that's right, 38233 days. 38233/365 = 104.75. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Nancy Johnson is so old, disconnected, and unable to maintain her website she is claiming Murphy has been running a negative ad campaign against her for
104 and 3/4 years. In an era of rising technology, with Ted Stevens rambling about his "tubes" getting messy, I don't trust a representative who can't even manage a single variable in a banner on her own campaign site.
While the other two races in CT are listed as Republican toss-ups, Johnson has managed to hang onto the label (in the most recent
Cook Political report)
Leans Republican, though the seat is also listed as D+4. Definetly a Democratic target, and with Bush's approval low in general plus even lower in the Northeast, leaving him at
32% in CT the seat could easily move to the younger, progressive Murphy.
These tight races are where a money can really make a difference, and a strong financial push could really help Murphy out. Johnson's campaign has managed to hold onto the "leans" tag, but please donate some cash and really help change things. People already pickup when seats move from "Favors" to "Leans" to "Tossup" to "Leans" the other way, help Murphy knock Johnson into "Tossup" with the other "moderate" rubberstamp Republicans with liberal veils.