HELENA, Mont. - A Montana state senator has officially changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, breaking a tie to give his new party a 26-24 advantage.
snip
Democrats have a 50-49 edge in the Montana House. One Democrat, Sheila Hogan, lost by just 24 votes and party officials said this past week that she will ask for a recount; if she were to win, the Democrats' lead would change to 51-48.
You can bet there will be more of this in the future. Moderate Republicans have to be wondering how they let radicals take over the GOP. heh
In its supposed efforts to push for bipartisan ideas to be discussed the media needs to become more honest in its reporting efforts if truely bipatrtisan political efforts are to ever succeed.
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the U.S. commander in the Middle East, warned against any radical change, telling the committee that any decrease would lead to increased violence and instability and an increase would impose too great a strain on U.S. force levels. Sen. John McCain thinks the immediate situation calls for more troops, not fewer.
I've already discussed the problems with McCain's unrealistic suggestion of adding more troops. It just can't be done:
Even The Military Question The GOP's Failed Tactics
The Iraqi government's refusal to take certain measures to reduce sectarian tensions between Sunni Arabs and the nation's Shiite Muslim majority has led these officers to conclude that Iraqis will not make difficult decisions unless they are pushed.
Therefore, they say, the advantages of deadlines may outweigh the drawbacks.
"Deadlines could help ensure that the Iraqi leaders recognize the imperative of coming to grips with the tough decisions they've got to make for there to be progress in the political arena," said a senior Army officer who has served in Iraq.
...snip...
Former Pentagon official Kurt Campbell said more officers are calling for deadlines after concluding that the indefinite presence of U.S. forces enables the Shiite-run Iraqi government to avoid making compromises.
"How can we expect ordinary Iraqis to trust the police when we don't even trust them not to kill our own men?" asked Capt. Alexander Shaw, head of the police transition team of the 372nd Military Police Battalion, a Washington-based unit charged with overseeing training of all Iraqi police in western Baghdad. "To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure we're ever going to have police here that are free of the militia influence."
The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., predicted last week that Iraqi security forces would be able to take control of the country in 12 to 18 months. But several days spent with American units training the Iraqi police illustrated why those soldiers on the ground believe it may take decades longer than Casey's assessment.
Seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by militias,
The soldiers keep getting told that as the Iraqis stand up, the American military will stand down. But this is a failing policy. The soldiers on the ground know that it will be decades before Iraqis will be able to protect themselves. Something that Bush administration has shown no signs of understanding. As long as we are there the Iraqis have no incentive to stand up and, to make matters worse, we are further aggravating the situations between the different groups fighting for control within Iraq. And in doing that we are forcing our soldiers to work alongside many Iraqis that are part of the problem.
American soldiers said that although they gather evidence of police ties to the militias and present it to Iraqi officials, no one has ever been criminally charged or even lost their jobs.
The soldiers are doing the best they can in a worst case scenario, but the reality is that the Iraqi government is just as effective as the Bush administration has repeatedly shown itself to be when it is faced with complicated problems.
They do nothing.
Some of the idiots in the right-wing-cheerleader-camp of the GOP are echoing a simplistic answer that is too little, too late, when they advocate that we should just send more troops to quell the CHAOS in Iraq but where are these soldiers going to come from anyways?
The U.S. military suffers from a glaring manpower deficiency. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that in operations such as counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, stabilization, and peacekeeping, even the United States' impressive technology cannot substitute for soldiers.
...snip...
The Bush administration, however, does not share this assessment, as evidenced by its handling of the invasion of Iraq. Before the war, Rumsfeld was dismissive, even contemptuous, of warnings from senior U.S. military officials, such as former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, that securing Iraq would require a vast number of boots on the ground.
...snip...
Despite this obvious manpower shortage, the Bush administration remains committed to Rumsfeld's military-transformation agenda. Neither the president's budget for 2007 nor the Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review calls for expanding the number of U.S. troops.
In other words:
The Bush administration does nothing.
They "Stay the course!" that Rumsfeld's failing plan has laid out for them and try to ignore the real problems.
Unless McCain and the rest of the GOP that back his plan are advocating reinstating the draft when McCain calls for "another 20,000 troops in Iraq" then they really offer no real solution at all.
The soldiers aren't there to do it without a draft. The fact that it can't be done without a draft does not address the question of whether or not it should be done.
This is where the Connecticut Post is guilty of ignoring the facts in their biased editorial. They take a small part of General Abizaid's statement to refute the Democratic parties election platform to redeploy, but ignore where General Abizaid smacksdown McCains proposal:
Today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he “met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said ‘no.’” Watch it:
McCain has repeatedlysaid that he would like to see another 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. As General Abizaid explained, McCain’s plan runs counter towards our goal in Iraq — specifically, the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own country. Abizaid said, “It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”
McCain makes a good point with his "whackamole" comment, but clearly the only other thing that McCain is correct in when he talks about sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq is at the end of the video where he says, "I don't know where the troops are going to come from."
He hasn't a clue that it would take a draft to get enough troops. Firstly, because we already don't have the troops to spare. And, secondly, because you need to be looking at the several hundred thousand pairs of boots on the ground deemed neccessary by General Shinseki, before he was chased out of the military by the neocons for being honest, if you really want to secure Iraq and you get the idea of how wrong McCain is.
“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.” [Sen. Armed Services Committee testimony, 2/25/03]
McCain’s misguided call for more troops would only make things worse in Iraq, is unrealistic given the fact that we don't have the 20,000 troops to spare, and would not be enough soldiers to be effective anyways.
And this is what the Connecticut Post suggests?
The new situation has forced the Democrats to take a more realistic view of the problem, and many have moved away from the view of Rep. John Murtha to pull out troops quickly.
I believe that the Connecticut Post needs to review its opinion on whom is really in need of taking a more relistic view:
Phased withdrawal is gaining consensus as the last best option for Iraq. A growing group of experts — including the Iraq Study Group and host of conservative senators — are consolidating behind a redeployment. 63 percent of Americans believe Congress should set a timetable.
I also think that with bipartisan efforts being talked about so much in the political arena, and even being exhibited by some at almost every level on Capitol Hill (except from the White House), maybe the media should start taking a hard look at its own partisan reporting and agendas.
Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and asked Ellison if he could "have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table." After Ellison agreed, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
Glen Beck, can I have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table? I am not nervous to say this to you, because what I feel like saying is, "Shitbag, prove to me that you are not a racist xenophobe."
And I know I've just implied that you are even if I didn't actually say it. I'm not accusing you of being a racist xenophobe, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Beck previously warned that if "Muslims and Arabs" don't "act now" by "step[ping] to the plate" to condemn terrorism, they "will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West" and declared that "Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time" rather than "lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head" will face dire consequences.
Nevermind Glen. You don't need to prove anything to me. I guess I'll just let your own words speak about your character. Though I do find it interesting that many people that advocate hate tend to advocate violence as a solution to their hate.
A whole mixed bag of stuff in here that might be of interest to everyone:
Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.
“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”
The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:
Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants
Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable
Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight
Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions
“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.
About the only thing that doesn't make some sense is the review of the MCA... Better to just repeal it and start over making laws that might be Constitutional and not such a tyranical slap in the face of the freedoms this country was built upon.
Fred Lucas of the Danbury News Times is trying to rope readers into believeing that there is a "sore-loser law" on the way. Apparently it just isn't true:
Considering the Abrahmoff scandal and the documented evidence of free meals he was giving to Republican power brokers at his "Signatures" restaurant, don't you think your GOP talking point is beyond being a bit hypocritical?
Serious and honest reporters offer pieces that are objective, balanced and factchecked. Not talking points tailored to their own personal political views.
I think the News Times Live is practicing irresponsible Journalism ethics in allowing your continued dissembling of GOP talking points under the banner of "Connecticut Politics." If they wanted to be honest they would call your Blog "The GOP Failed POV". And I am not the only one that is noticing your one sided reporting.
This sore-loser proposal is a no-brainer and makes sense. Why have a primary if you can just ignore the results of your party and run as a independent? The primary battle between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman ultimately was a great waste of money and time for the party as a whole as Lieberman used a loophole to his advantage. If Lierberman would have just ran as an independent in the first place, the Democratic Party could have saved a great deal of money but instead, Lieberman used the party to his advantage (money, GOTV), only to dismiss the results of the primary and run as an independent.
ctblogger is correct. Money wasted and time wasted were keys to Lieberman's election win. If Lieberman had dropped his already failing primary bid earlier on it would have allowed the entire Connecticut wing of the Democratic party to concentrate more fully on the election races for the Senate , the House, and for Governor. The entire point of the Lieberman plan was to bog down the Democratic party for his and other Republicans benefit.
"During the campaign, Bysiewicz argued that if Lieberman and Lamont faced off in the general election, then there was no point in having a primary because it was a waste of taxpayers' money to fund two elections with the same candidates."
Just as you Bush flacks claim that voters put Lieberman in... They also voted Bysiewicz in, and she was up front about her agenda. You "joe whiners" can claim ignorance in this, but that does not change the fact that she promised to change the "weasel loophole" and she is delivering on her campaign promise.
I bet we won't see Joe deliver on his campaign promise to "bring the troops home" as soon as possible. Bush is already floating the "add 20,000 troops in Iraq" trial baloon that McCain floated a week ago. You know Joe will bend over on Bush's newest "Stay the course!" rhetoric.
Joe should have been a man and joined the walk of RED SHAME before the primaries. Instead he used a wussy loophole for the benfit of his Republican benefactors.
You wanted to keep this wimp-protector law in place? You should not have voted for Bysiewicz.
And they wonder why we don't like or trust these drug corporations?
New Haven Register - Drug company to pay state $2.8M for overcharging: "Omnicare Inc., one of the nation’s largest providers of pharmaceuticals for the elderly, will pay Connecticut $2.8 million as part of a national settlement of charges the company overcharged for Medicaid drugs.
...snip...
State investigations found Omnicare officials would switch less expensive prescribed tablets for a more costly capsules of the same drug, or reverse the process if the tablet form was more expensive for a particular prescription.
The company also would change prescribed doses to increase profits, according to investigators. For example, Omnicare employees would replace a prescription for a singe 15 milligram pill to twice as many 7.5 milligram pills, which would be more expensive.
Blumenthal said the overcharging was 'certainly the result of deliberate and purposeful switching.'
According to Blumenthal, the switching by Omnicare resulted in about $1.4 million in overcharges for Connecticut’s Medicaid program from 2000-05."
It's bad enough that that Canadians can buy the same prescription drugs cheaper than we can... But they want to double up on overcharging us now?
I am seriously surprised that they won't be doing jail time for this fraud against Connecticut's senior citizens.
Why, of course, it must be the 'centrists' affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council's 'New Democrat Coalition.' Yes, that's got to be the case because all the commentators at the Wall Street Journal keep saying that centrists were the big winners on Tuesday.
Er, no.
Well, then, it must be the more conservative Democrats who identify themselves as 'Blue Dogs.' Surely, that's the answer because all the folks on Fox News keeping talking about them.
Nope.
The largest ideological caucus in the new House Democratic majority will be the Congressional Progressive Caucus, with a membership that includes New York's Charles Rangel, Michigan's John Conyers, Massachusetts' Barney Frank and at least half the incoming chairs of House standing committees."
The MSM better break out their newest GOP talking points because their old ones are wearing pretty thin.
How about the Senate?
The caucus will need an infusion of new members -- not because those associated with it lost elections Tuesday but because they won. CPC members Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sherrod Brown of Ohio will be leaving the House to become U.S. Senators. Interestingly, the two members of the "Blue Dog" caucus who ran for the Senate, Hawaii's Ed Case and Tennessee's Harold Ford, both lost.
Whoops! Those Progressives stomping all over the MSM's crazy GOP talking points everywhere you turn...
Welcome to a the real world. A world where facts will be used LIBERALLY...
Unless Republicans want to be fitted for political body bags, they need to rediscover the conservative principles that once made them such an appealing and real alternative.
A Little reality check. Where the GOP went wrong was in becoming a party that is so corrupt, divisive, inept, incompetent, deceitful, and most certainly PARTISAN that the average American voter can no longer relate to them as a reasonable voting option.
The closest GOP candidate to being a REAL conservative was Chafee in Rhode Island and he became just another GOP casualty simply for being associated with the lunatics in the GOP fringe.
It appears that the last collosal failure (Iraq) by the neocon set wasn't enough humiliation for them... THEY WAN'T MORE! The only difference is that Iran is the next country they want to be welcomed as liberators in this time...
Reid told The Associated Press that a top priority for the remainder of the lame-duck session will be confirming Robert Gates as defense secretary, succeeding Donald H. Rumsfeld. "The sooner we can move it forward the sooner we can get rid of Rumsfeld," he said.
Gates certainly would have to work very hard at failure to fill Rumsfeld's shoes... It just can't get any worse in Iraq, so Reid is correct in trying to move this along.
As you know, the last election cycle has left many of you looking for employment.
We are hiring.
We know many of you are patriotic Americans who long to serve their country, and take great pride in the country and it's ideals.
I'll be honest, we need more Marines.
We need the kind of men and women who want to serve this country, and often face danger.
Having served the Congress, you know the peril we face. Without your help, all of our work and effort in the war on terror may come to naught.
We need you to join the fight. Anyone between 17-35 can enlist in the Marines, although we prefer enlistees by 27 or 28. We will consider older candidates.
Those interested can get more information at www.marines.com
We have information on becoming a commissioned officer for college graduates. The Marines need new, dedicated officers like you.
We hope you consider joining the Marine Corps as your next career option.
Lieberman said on Meet the Press Sunday he would not rule out caucusing with Republicans under certain circumstances. True, the statement came from some high pressure questioning from Tim Russert, but Lieberman nonetheless left the potential open.
The Economist magazine called him the nation’s most influential senator. Most political analyst say the slim 51-49 Democratic majority, makes Lieberman ultra powerful.
If the Dems irk him and he caucuses with the Republicans, it creates a 50-50 Senate. That would put Vice President Dick Cheney in charge of casting tie breaking votes.
Joe knows how powerful he is, and he’s letting Democrats know he knows how powerful he is.
The only reason The Economist calls him influential is because they know his vote can be bought. Lieberman can bloviate all he wants about crossing the aisle.
Does anyone think the "Lieberman For Lieberman" party is going to let its only candidate slip into the abyss of 4 years of irrelavence in the Senate that is in store for any GOP members left after 2008?
And ALSO consider the cold hard reality that Lieberman has been salivating over becoming relevant in a committee for ages. He has that job on the Dem side of the aisle. Do you think the GOP would bump its senior members to make room for Liberman? They are already battling a completely fractured base and don't need Joe to become another HUGE wedge in their already feuding base.
Show a little common sense Fred. Joe can talk until his face turns red BUT he will stay on the blue side of the aisle unless the Democratic party kicks his lobbyist bought'n'paid-for-ass to the curb AGAIN!
And don't be too surprised if the Democratic party does kick him to the curb if wahbaby Joe tries to hold the voter approved Democratic agenda hostage...
Losing the Senate for 2 years ain't no big deal considering it will just make Joe and Republicans the bad guys for maneuvering against the American voters' wishes to take Congress away from the Republican children that broke it.
No matter how you look at it... If Joe goes to the red side he kills his gravytrain and any Republican chances of fixing the right-wing-nuttyness that has broken their party...
Yep... In fact, I triple-dog-dare you Joe... Be a man and walk the fuckin' walk of RED SHAME into obscurity.
"I'm worried about bloggers," she said. "(A post) starts as a rumor and within 24 hours it's repeated as fact."
While she advocates a federal shield law to protect mainstream journalists from divulging their sources, she doesn't favor extending that to bloggers who don't follow the standards and ethnics of the journalism industry.
Still, she wouldn't restrict a blogger's right to publish online. She said some bloggers have been invaluable in uncovering government flaws.
"I'm glad to welcome them as long as they agree to the standards," she said.
Bear in mind that this is the same Judy Miller that helped lie America into the Iraq war with her neocon propaganda pieces on WMD in the NY Times.
Considering her past digressions, and the integrity of her writings and sources, she should seriously consider using her keyboard as a paperweight for the sake of honest Americans AND Bloggers everywhere.
"The New York Times published an article about Wal-Mart and bloggers. In it they mention Marshall Manson quite frequently. It's an interesting read.
Marshall Manson asked me if I would post an update to my original post about Wal-Mart and the Nazi shirts. Something about how quickly they responded to the problem once they realized they were selling Nazi swag. I would have no problem doing that. If I felt they had indeed acted upon the information that they were selling Nazi clothing. The problem is that they haven't done anything about the Nazi shirts. Yesterday afternoon I stopped at a Wal-Mart on my way home for work and found a stack of the same shirts still for sale in the men's department. My wife also stopped at a different Wal-Mart on her way home from work yesterday. She too found a stack of these Nazi shirts still for sale.
In my opinion, quickly taking care of a problem involves actually taking care of the problem.
Instead of having someone from a PR firm contact bloggers, Wal-Mart should have concentrated on simply removing the shirts from their stores. They could have worried about contacting bloggers after their stores were free of Nazi clothing."
As if I didn't need one more reason not to shop at Wal-Mart... This is just creepy.
Usually we are talking about the right-wingnut-crack that freepers are smoking. Crooks & Liars reports on the white powder that one Freeper was desperate to share with anyone that held oposing viewpoints to the failed Republican agenda.
C&L reported earlier on the guy who sent the fake anthrax around. Who would have thought that a right wing conservative would be involved in terrorist activities?
HMMM? Who would have thought that the wingnutty Free Republic was guilty of supporting terrorists other than Mr. Bush?
Media Matters points to the hypocrisy of TIME magazine's covers:
"A tale of two covers: Time's '94 postelection cover touted 'G.O.P. Stampede,' '06 cover asserts 'the center is the new place to be'"
If the center is somewhere in the middle of the vast majority of Americans that voted for the LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE candidates that were elected... Then yes.
Norwich Bulletin: "LEBANON — The town clerk announced that “human error” provided 100 extra votes to Democratic challenger Joe Courtney in the 2nd Congressional District, narrowing the margin of his lead to 65 votes over U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons."
These results are from among the 35 towns left to finish their recount efforts today...
The Connecticut Post gets it half right when they say that "The classic New England Republican - fiscally conservative, socially liberal - is nearly extinct"
But with the GOP's effort to appeal to its base in the South, it has moved away from building the party in New England, and that could spell more trouble down the road.
"Even though people like Chris Shays survived this time, what happens when he leaves the scene?" asked White. "When these folks leave the scene, they tend to get replaced by Democrats."
Even with the gloomy predictions, Tuesday's election might not be all bad for New England Republicans and could even mean new prominence for moderates such as Snowe and Collins, said Randall Miller, a professor of history at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia.
In a sharply divided Senate, Miller said, "those that survive likely will be the ones that will be courted most by the Democrats."
The move of the party to the faaar-right-wingnut POV to satisfy a small part of the GOP base may be part of the cause. But the answer for survival of the GOP is not going to be contingent on the Democratic party courting the leftovers from the fractured Republican party.
The supposed moderates of the GOP better be ready to give way to the Democratic parties initiatives because THAT IS WHAT AMERICA VOTED FOR!
Get with the American voters' approved LIBERAL program or STFU... That goes for the rejected GOP and the MSM that has backed these past catastrophic failures of GOP proportions.*
*GOP proportions = Too little, too late... And grossly incompetent overall. (As per usual)
So much for the supposed bipartisan and moderate Republican myths, as Chris Shays says that the Republicans couldn't even reach across to the supposed moderates in their own party...
"Nothing changes for me," the 4th District Republican said. "In fact, it may be easier to get my bills passed."
After all, he figured, "there will be a number of issues Democrats favor that the Republican majority was not willing to take up."
You must mean more moderate issues? And in a real bipartisan forum too? Wow! Thanks for clearing that up Chrissy boy.
I say "supposed moderates" in the Republican party because there is nothing moderate about a Republican that labels the sickly Bush administrations' sanctioned TORTURE as a "sex ring" and only an isolated incident despite the overwhelming evidence that he is wrong on both counts.
Anything else about Republicans that are supposedly bipartisan?
Top candidates are current Majority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, conservative leader Mike Pence, R-Ind., and current Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas. Shays opposed Boehner for majority leader earlier this year.
"I'm not thrilled with any of them," he said.
"Boehner is someone who's more willing to reach out to Democrats, but my problem with him is he's one of the guys who didn't want to deal with the ethical challenges facing our Congress."
Golly Chrissy? Why didn't you talk more about this when Republicans were in charge of Congress and could have done something about the lack of a bipartisan effort by Republicans?
Too little, too late you GOP quack. Enjoy your pork barrel lame-duck session. But remember that Pelosi will be cutting much of the corporate fat from your future when she enacts her Congressional reforms.
I wonder if Chrissy and the rest of his ilk will show real bipartisan support in helping Speaker Pelosi to clean up Congress?
While Norwalk would like to see improvements that would ensure their viability, it is obvious that many commuters north of Danbury would be well served by a Danbury connection going west to New York.
Pease said people always bring up the idea of using the Maybrook railroad line, which runs east and west through Danbury, to reach Brewster or Southeast in New York. That way they can bypass the Danbury/Norwalk line entirely, and just shoot over to New York for the direct run into Grand Central.
The Housatonic Railroad uses the Maybrook line east of Danbury to deliver lumber to the lumberyard at Exit 9 in Hawleyville, and to carry stone from Derby into Danbury.
"The question the state is asking is how do you offer the most competitive service into New York City by spending money on the Danbury line? That's a valid question," Pease said.
Using the Maybrook line from Danbury to Southeast or Brewster would not help the people south of Danbury, Pease said.
"What makes the Danbury/Norwalk line usable is the number of riders," Pease said.
If the Maybrook line was opened to Southeast, it would draw riders away from the Danbury/Norwalk line.
The reality is that all communities would be better served if they enhanced/created both connections. An expensive option, but one that would serve to better the quality of life and viability of the overall service for everyone long into the future.
The suggestion that this needs to be integrated into the NY system with Grand Central Station is realistic, but it must also be integrated into the local Hart bus system which could use system wide improvements of its own, IMHO, (IE: Longer hours of operation and more frequency) to increase the usefullness of the entire system overall.
Without the proper infrastucture short sighted solutions will just end up having to be revamped sooner than need be or will prove a fruitless effort from lack of usability. A real focus on the LONG TERM future of public transportation is neccessary if you want the people to consider it as a realistic option to flooding the highways with their cars.
