Author: Matthew Gertz

Diane Farrell is one of our top challengers in the upcoming midterm elections. After losing a close election against nine-term incumbent Chris Shays in 2004, she’s back for a second run.

With over half a million in the bank so far ad the support of the DCCC, EMILY’s List, and labor, she’s got the guns to take the fight to the Republicans and come home a winner. In a swing district that  John Kerry carried, the political pundit class thinks that she’ll give Shays his toughest fight yet and represents one of our best pick-up opportunities in the country.

Diane has consistently run against Shays’ irrational, unwavering support for the disastrous war in Iraq. This morning, she challenged him to debate her on the issue this month. Below the fold is the letter she sent him this morning.

Dear Chris:

As you well know, recent developments in Iraq indicate it is a country teetering on the edge between civil unrest and the abyss that is civil war.  That explosive development, combined with the President’s recent request for another $70 plus billion dollars makes one thing more clear than ever before: Iraq is a quagmire, and seeing the light at the end of the tunnel becomes increasingly more difficult by the day.  To date, 2298 American lives have been lost, and $250 billion – by the most conservative estimate – has been spent — in some cases, misspent.

And for what?

Even those who agree with you that progress is being made are now being contradicted by the Pentagon, which less than a week ago indicated that the one Iraqi battalion that appeared to be independently battle-ready is no longer capable of operating on its own.

In short, we appear to be no closer to having a plan to win the peace that will allow us to bring our troops home than we were last year.

Since leaving office, I’ve spent a lot of time campaigning throughout the district; no matter where I go, the Iraq War is the issue I’m asked about most often.   I’m sure the same is true for you.

Our differences on the issue, and all its moving parts, couldn’t be clearer.

You believe we went to war for the right reasons; I don’t.  You strongly support the President and his Administration in their prosecution of this War; I don’t.  You believe we’re making sufficient progress in Iraq; I don’t.   You believe the money we’ve spent over there on “reconstruction” has been well-spent; I don’t.  And you believe there is a plan to win the peace; I don’t.

As we both know, campaigns too often follow a predictable path: in the early stages, the public doesn’t pay much attention, in part because the campaigns don’t get a lot of media coverage.   As the campaigns progress, much of the “news” revolves around fundraising, endorsements, and polls.  Then, as we approach Election Day, a blizzard of tv and radio commercials hits the airwaves.  Lost in all of this, too often at the very end of the campaigns, are a few debates that are overwhelmed by the “noise” on the airwaves.

What’s missing in this process is a substantive dialogue between the candidates that, free of typical campaign-related distractions, can better inform the people about where the candidates stand on important issues.    

Partly as a result of that “process,” we’ve watched voter turnout decline for years. I believe you and I can and should change that.

To that end, I ask you to join me in a debate some time within the next 30 days on the issue we both agree is the most important issue facing our district: the war in Iraq.

Rather than speaking to our constituents, or to each other, through the press, why don’t we set a time and place to meet and have a civil exchange of ideas on this incredibly important issue?   I’m sure we can find a suitable organization to host this event, and a venue in which it can be held.

Because we both have such busy schedules, I ask that you get back to me some time this week with a few dates that “work” for you.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Diane Farrell

Now, Chris Shays has been saying for months that he’s willing to lose the war over his position on Iraq. He claims that our incredible loss of lives and resources and the hollowing out of our military are that important. And he also says that he wants to see a vigorous, issue-based campaign this fall, and that he’s confident that he can win such a fight.

You’d think he’d jump at the chance to defend his position on Iraq, wouldn’t you? After all, he’s been there eleven times and chairs the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, while Diane is the former first selectman of Westport and has no military experience. If his position was so strong, you’d expect him to be pretty confident that he could win that debate and put Farrell’s run away early.

But you’d be wrong. This afternoon, Shays told Diane that he would not be accepting her challenge. I guess between attending fundraisers with Roy Blunt and voting to cut federal student loan funding, he doesn’t have much free time on his hands.

Here’s Diane’s reply:

“It is unfortunate that Chris is choosing to hide in Washington D.C. behind President Bush and behind Senator Lieberman here in Connecticut instead of meeting me for an honest discussion about our very deep differences on the Iraq War.  The people who lose out with Chris’ refusal to this debate are the people of the 4th District.”

Eventually, Chris Shays is going to be forced to take a stand and explain why he still thinks that we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely. When he does, I think he’ll get his wish and have the chance to lose over the issue.

It’s been a bad year for Chris Shays.

Last November, the Connecticut congressman from the 4th district barely staved off his Democratic challenger, Diane Farrell, winning 52-48 in the first competitive election of his 18-year career. She has since announced that she will be back for another run in 2006, and outraised him in the last quarter.

Now Shays needs to seriously go out and raise money and campaign for votes, a process he seems to hate with a passion. In the meantime, his party is crumbling around him, he’s been targetted by the DCCC, the right-wing still doesn’t like him or trust him, and the war that he has consistently and passionately supported isn’t going all that well. So you could understand why Shays might be a little tense.

So tense that he might announce that no one who hasn’t been to Iraq should express an opinion on it. Especially if they don’t agree with him.
So Congressman Shays, in his role as chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee on national security, had a closed meeting last week with Ahmed Chalabi.

You may remember Chalabi from the allegations last year that he had passed sensitive U.S. state secrets to Iran, and that he was in fact a paid agent of that regime. Or you may remember him as the source for a great deal of the now-discredited reports that Saddam Hussein’s government had weapons of mass destruction. Or from his contacts with Paul Wolfowitz and the Project for a New American Century. Or from his conviction in absentia for bank fraud in Jordan, which will result in a seventeen year sentence if he ever returns there.

However you remember him, Chalabi is clearly a shady character. When Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform committee, found out that Shays was meeting with Chalabi, he suggested that Shays should instead hold a public hearing where Chalabi would instead testify under oath. As this morning’s stories indicate, when Republicans refuse to put people under oath, its usually because they know the subject is going to lie.

Why does Shays claim he had his meeting in private?

Outstanding. We have lost over 2,000 American soldiers and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars to replace Saddam Hussein with a criminal agent of Iran who lied to our government to get us to invade.

As one might expect, Shays’ challenger, Diane Farrell, called him to account for this:

Seems like a perfectly rational thing to say. Lord knows, I sure feel queasy about the sum and substance of the meeting.

When Shays heard that Farrell had dared to state an opinion on the subject contrary to his own, he blew his stack.

I admit, I haven’t been to Iraq. I haven’t met with the Sunni, Shia, or Kurds. Neither have the vast majority of Shays’ other constituents. In all probability, neither have you. But I damn well still have an opinion on the war, and so do you, and I think we all have the right to state it.

It is utterly ludicrous to claim that only people who have been to Iraq should be able to have opinions about the war. It makes about as much sense to claim that Shays shouldn’t be allowed to talk about food stamps, because he’s never needed them, or that he shouldn’t be allowed to comment on race because he’s white.

Or, for that matter, that he shouldn’t be allowed to comment on war because he was a conscientious objector during Vietnam.

In fact, I would argue exactly the opposite. I would argue that if you’ve been to Iraq ten (!) times since the fall of Baghdad and you still support indefinite deployment with no timelines to get out, you have lost all credibility on the subject.

A lot of people, even here, seem to be under the impression that Shays is a moderate. Just remember next time you start to think that, he doesn’t think you have the right to disagree with his position on the war. That sounds pretty damn extreme to me.

Cross-posted to My Left Nutmeg

Chris Shays (R-04) might want to start cleaning out his office and packing up his bags.

His district voted 52%-46% for John Kerry in 2004, one of the most Democratic districts held by a Republican in the country. A 17-year incumbent, he was re-elected 52%-48%, a margin of just over 13,000 votes.

Now, with his back against the wall, his 2004 opponant, Diane Farrell, is coming after him again. And this time, she’s out-raising him.

Yes, this is mainly the low-lying fruit for Diane; she’s going back to her donors from the last cycle and pointing out that with a little more name recognition and the current election climate will put her over the top this time.

Still, she’s out-raised a ten-term incumbent by a 3 to 2 margin. And in a district that lies within the New York City media market, that kind of fund-raising success is crucial.

Shays has no natural national constituency, and his harsh words against DeLay (while rarely backed up with action) have cost him the support of the RNC and the RNCC. Diane, on the other hand, will have the full backing of the national party.

In the current climate, with a candidate like her, this seat is ours for the taking.

Last Sunday, the theoretically “moderate” Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT) appeared on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.

You may remember Shays from his brutal excoriation of failed former FEMA head Mike Brown:

While Shays collected accolades from the local media, those of us who had heard this faux-moderate song-and-dance before waited for the music to stop.
Apparently, it is now officially time to play the blame game.

That’s the official word from a member of the “bipartisan” committee investigating the Katrina response: yeah, Mike Brown and FEMA messed up, but the vast majority of blame for the failure goes to Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco (surprise, surprise: the Democrats).

This despite Blanco’s declaration of a state of emergency the Friday before the storm his.

This despite Blanco begging for federal assistance the Saturday before the storm hit.

This despite Bush declaring a state of emergency the same day that authorized the DHS and FEMA to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures.

This despite the fact that Brown waited five hours after the storm hit before bothering to dispatch Homeland Security employees to the region, and then gave them two days to arrive.

The most massive natural disaster in U.S. history.

A local and state government hopelessley undermanned, begging the federal government for help.

A truly pathetic federal effort headed by an inept crony while the President kept up his busy vacation schedule.

Thousands dead.

And Chris Shays thinks that 90% of the blame ought to go to the state and local officials.

Look, clearly the response of Nagin and Blanco was less effective than it could have been, but they were in way over their heads. When local and state governments need help, they have to be able to turn to the federal government.

If they ask for help, and the federal government, through massive incompetance, fails to provide it, that’s on the feds. To imply that the blame should be divided equally is disturbing; to claim that the vast majority isn’t reserved for the federal government borders on the criminal.

But it’s time to play the Blame Game, and the Blame Game is nothing if not partisan.

And as we’ve come to expect, when things get partisan, Shays hews to the party line.

Down in the halls of Washington, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT)is fighting a lonely battle:

According to the Matheson, given the high costs of the Iraq War, the rebuilding effort on the Gulf Coast, and the rising energy prices, Congress should  waive the 1.9 percent cost-of-living increase schedued to go into effect on January 1st.

More on the flip…
Connecticut’s congressional delegation is divided over whether delaying their own raise is a good idea, with most of the Democrats claiming that overturning the Bush tax cuts would be a far more meaningful and effective step to take to deal with our current fiscal crisis.

Unfortunately, it seems as though a few of the Repulican congressman have caught on to how well supporting a delay to congressional pay raises could play as a political issue. Chris Shays, of course, remains as politically tone-deaf as ever.

Chris Shays, of couse, also believes in fighting expensive, unnecessary wars, passing massive tax cuts that we can’t hope to afford, and, theoretically, balancing budgets. Occassionally, something has to give.

Symbols do have some value. The policy value of putting off this cost-of-living increase is minimal; about $5 million. But the political value of getting the Democrats together to come out as the party willing to make personal financial sacrifices for the good of the nation is much greater. It would  also provides them with more credibility when asking wealthy taxpayers to make their own sacrifices.

If the Democrats really want to be the party of responsible government and fiscal prudence, they may have to start at home.