Connecticut Politics and Elections: Coverage, Analysis, Maps and Commentary
Friday, March 18, 2005
Weekend Open Forum
Might as well start it now. Rowland sentencing today... should be interesting. I'll be back by Sunday. Speak your minds.
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hey - I just stumbled onto this blog.
Anyone out there participate in these open forum threads?
I just read the news on Rowland's sentencing... so sad. He deserved so much more than he got. I was certain the judge would be lenient, but when I read the last minute push to get him a heavier sentence (after it became public that he didn't fully disclose his assets to the probation board), I actually started to believe that we might see some sort of justice.
I was talking to my girlfriend about the sentencing today. She has that, "well, all politicians do it, so it isn't so bad" mindset. The point, I told her, is to send a message to politicians. If you do this... whether your a Republican like Rowland, or a Dem like Gannim(spelling?), you will be punished. At some point, it has to stop mattering how much "good" you did for your community.
I'm really just so sad about his lack of sentence... but I guess even a year in prison does send a message.
With the midterm elections getting closer by the day, what's the consensus about candidates running against Shays and Simmons?
Shays only won with 52%, so he's clearly vulnerable. I, for one, would like to see Farrell run again.
Simmons, on the other hand had his way with the dem candidate, Sullivan, in '04. In an district that is overwhelmingly democratic, Sullivan proved to be a wholly underwhelming candidate. I'm sorry, but his couple of terms on the Norwich City Council aren't going to be any sexier in 2006. Bottom line: this is a seat the dems should be able to take; it's just a matter of running a decent candidate. Any ideas?
tdk27, I, too, was disappointed by Rowland's sentence, but I suppose I'm not surprised. I'm not sure what message this is sending, exactly: possess a dime bag of pot, get the book thrown at you; illegaly give the public's money to your friends, get a slap on the wrist...? He will be out in ten months, with time off for good behavior. Lovely.
Peter, Agreed about Sullivan. I have to admit, since I live in the second district (Simmons), I know very little about Farrell.
I would love to see an Enfield candidate run against Simmons in 2006, but I know it isn't likely. Other than that...? I've heard some rumors that Joe Courtney wants to try again, but nothing else.
As to Shays, I just read a post over on Daily Kos that says the RNC thinks he's their most vulnerable House member in the mid-term election. Kos also reports that, even though he's seen as an outsider, he votes with Delay 86% of the time (if not 86, something close to that number... I think 86%, though).
I don't know much about the 2nd district, but everything I've heard is just that Sulivan was a crappy candidate. It seems to me that Simmons is vulnerable, especially with the Republicans shielding Delay from the ethics problems. It's this exact behavior that swept Republicans into the house, and I think we might be able to take it back in '06. Ethics plus Social Security... could be a winning combo for us :)
I actually liked Shaun McNally - Sullivan's primary opponent. While McNally wasn't without his flaws, I stand by his superior ability to pose a more serious challenge to Simmons. He had both the experience (state legislature) and the "gravitas" that Sullivan did not. McNally's endorsement in the New London Day said as much, while salivating at the potential match-up between a former Peace Corps guy (McNally) and a former CIA guy (Simmons). Even the Norwich Bulletin, which endorsed Sullivan, agreed. While McNally had the ability to "go toe to toe" with Simmons on a wide array of policy issues, Sullivan is a guy they'd rather have a beer with. Sound familiar?
Once again, not that McNally was ideal, but had he been a more serious fundraiser - and had Sullivan not secured the backroom endorsement of the state party - the contest in November may have been more competitive.
I, too, would like to see an Enfield candidate run against Simmons. A labor, economic-populist guy, ideally. Simmons is sweating the his party's hack-job on Social Security. In part because he is, of course, up for re-election in 2006. But I also wouldn't be surprised to see him looking at a Senate run...
McNally was horrid.I know because I worked on his campaign early on.On paper he was fine but in front of an audience all he did was apoligize for his past positions on issues. Courtney already has the nomination for 06 wrapped up.Even Sullivan is on board and all the big donors are in too. If BRAC kills the sub base its a pretty easy pick-up for the Dems if not whomever gets the Dem nod better have the balls to bring up Simmons part in the Phoenix Project because Simmons isn't shy about getting down hard in the mud and thats where this race will be won.
7 comments:
Hey - I just stumbled onto this blog.
Anyone out there participate in these open forum threads?
I just read the news on Rowland's sentencing... so sad. He deserved so much more than he got. I was certain the judge would be lenient, but when I read the last minute push to get him a heavier sentence (after it became public that he didn't fully disclose his assets to the probation board), I actually started to believe that we might see some sort of justice.
I was talking to my girlfriend about the sentencing today. She has that, "well, all politicians do it, so it isn't so bad" mindset. The point, I told her, is to send a message to politicians. If you do this... whether your a Republican like Rowland, or a Dem like Gannim(spelling?), you will be punished. At some point, it has to stop mattering how much "good" you did for your community.
I'm really just so sad about his lack of sentence... but I guess even a year in prison does send a message.
Thoughts?
With the midterm elections getting closer by the day, what's the consensus about candidates running against Shays and Simmons?
Shays only won with 52%, so he's clearly vulnerable. I, for one, would like to see Farrell run again.
Simmons, on the other hand had his way with the dem candidate, Sullivan, in '04. In an district that is overwhelmingly democratic, Sullivan proved to be a wholly underwhelming candidate. I'm sorry, but his couple of terms on the Norwich City Council aren't going to be any sexier in 2006. Bottom line: this is a seat the dems should be able to take; it's just a matter of running a decent candidate. Any ideas?
tdk27,
I, too, was disappointed by Rowland's sentence, but I suppose I'm not surprised. I'm not sure what message this is sending, exactly: possess a dime bag of pot, get the book thrown at you; illegaly give the public's money to your friends, get a slap on the wrist...? He will be out in ten months, with time off for good behavior. Lovely.
Peter,
Agreed about Sullivan. I have to admit, since I live in the second district (Simmons), I know very little about Farrell.
I would love to see an Enfield candidate run against Simmons in 2006, but I know it isn't likely. Other than that...? I've heard some rumors that Joe Courtney wants to try again, but nothing else.
As to Shays, I just read a post over on Daily Kos that says the RNC thinks he's their most vulnerable House member in the mid-term election. Kos also reports that, even though he's seen as an outsider, he votes with Delay 86% of the time (if not 86, something close to that number... I think 86%, though).
I don't know much about the 2nd district, but everything I've heard is just that Sulivan was a crappy candidate. It seems to me that Simmons is vulnerable, especially with the Republicans shielding Delay from the ethics problems. It's this exact behavior that swept Republicans into the house, and I think we might be able to take it back in '06. Ethics plus Social Security... could be a winning combo for us :)
I actually liked Shaun McNally - Sullivan's primary opponent. While McNally wasn't without his flaws, I stand by his superior ability to pose a more serious challenge to Simmons. He had both the experience (state legislature) and the "gravitas" that Sullivan did not. McNally's endorsement in the New London Day said as much, while salivating at the potential match-up between a former Peace Corps guy (McNally) and a former CIA guy (Simmons). Even the Norwich Bulletin, which endorsed Sullivan, agreed. While McNally had the ability to "go toe to toe" with Simmons on a wide array of policy issues, Sullivan is a guy they'd rather have a beer with. Sound familiar?
Once again, not that McNally was ideal, but had he been a more serious fundraiser - and had Sullivan not secured the backroom endorsement of the state party - the contest in November may have been more competitive.
I, too, would like to see an Enfield candidate run against Simmons. A labor, economic-populist guy, ideally. Simmons is sweating the his party's hack-job on Social Security. In part because he is, of course, up for re-election in 2006. But I also wouldn't be surprised to see him looking at a Senate run...
McNally was horrid.I know because I worked on his campaign early on.On paper he was fine but in front of an audience all he did was apoligize for his past positions on issues.
Courtney already has the nomination for 06 wrapped up.Even Sullivan is on board and all the big donors are in too.
If BRAC kills the sub base its a pretty easy pick-up for the Dems if not whomever gets the Dem nod better have the balls to bring up Simmons part in the Phoenix Project because Simmons isn't shy about getting down hard in the mud and thats where this race will be won.
Post a Comment