Thursday, June 23, 2005

Open Forum

Lots to talk about today...

Gov. Rell leaning towards running, says the Courant. Enough flattering articles like these and she won't need to raise a dime! The most interesting tidbit is that she's ready for Blumenthal, should he run--and she already has good arguments against him, such as the fact that he sues all his problems and is cautious to a fault.

The New Haven Advocate has a long article profiling the DeStefano campaign.

Dan Malloy, meanwhile, is busy attacking Rell for her comments that she has "no big disappointments" after her first year in office, citing what he feels are her failures in office.

What else is happening?

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let's talk about fundraising, I hear that mayor DeStefano has just hit the 2 million dollar mark. Did he not say he hit 2 million back in May? Does anyone know whats going on with this?

Anonymous said...

Let's talk about fundraising, I hear that mayor DeStefano has just hit the 2 million dollar mark. Did he not say he hit 2 million back in May? Does anyone know whats going on with this?

FrankS said...

Rell is clearly focusing on Blumenthal, as her 2006 opponent, but seeking out Rennie to write this is a mistake and petty politics. Though the part about saving Rowland's ass, the new poster boy for crooked politicians, questions her awe-shucks demeanor. I'll have to ready the whole article.

chris said...

Yesterday Dan Malloy issued a statement about Governor Rell’s self-assessed first year in office as, in her words, “no big disappointment.” Dan suggested that the Governor might have set her expectations too low, listing a floundering economy, the Groton Sub Base closure, lack of serious property tax relief initiatives, the 330,000 uninsured in our state, the failed transportation initiative (too little too late) and crippled campaign finance reform.

Today a New York Times article about Rell’s self-assessment reported that the Governor is being targeted by Dan. And the Stamford Advocate quoted Rell directly addressing Dan’s comments, offering a strange quote about the only thing she disagrees with is Dan’s comment on the Sub Base, saying that she’s worked really hard on that front (seeming to say that she agrees with Dan’s other comments about her first-year shortcomings).

As Democrats, we all have a responsibility to challenge Governor Rell on the issues, and when she goes for puff vs. substance, as she did during her soft-core interviews on her own self-assessment, we need to call her on it. Even as we square off to win the hearts and minds of dedicated Democrats for our party’s nomination next year, I hope we’ll also not lose sight of our responsibility to challenge the state’s top republican now and throughout the election cycle. We have to keep the debate fresh, force Governor Rell into accountability, and not be afraid to take a stand.

chris said...

Yesterday Dan Malloy issued a statement about Governor Rell’s self-assessed first year in office as, in her words, “no big disappointment.” Dan suggested that the Governor might have set her expectations too low, listing a floundering economy, the Groton Sub Base closure, lack of serious property tax relief initiatives, the 330,000 uninsured in our state, the failed transportation initiative (too little too late) and crippled campaign finance reform.

Today a New York Times article about Rell’s self-assessment reported that the Governor is being targeted by Dan. And the Stamford Advocate quoted Rell directly addressing Dan’s comments, offering a strange quote about the only thing she disagrees with is Dan’s comment on the Sub Base, saying that she’s worked really hard on that front (seeming to say that she agrees with Dan’s other comments about her first-year shortcomings).

As Democrats, we all have a responsibility to challenge Governor Rell on the issues, and when she goes for puff vs. substance, as she did during her soft-core interviews on her own self-assessment, we need to call her on it. Even as we square off to win the hearts and minds of dedicated Democrats for our party’s nomination next year, I hope we’ll also not lose sight of our responsibility to challenge the state’s top republican now and throughout the election cycle. We have to keep the debate fresh, force Governor Rell into accountability, and not be afraid to take a stand.

Ebpie said...

I'm tired of all this speculating. Finally there is some movement by Rell and Sullivan. Hopefully Blumenthal will let us know soon that he's decided to sit this one out. I think Rell was targeting him in the interview because she wanted to seem like she is up to the challenge and try scare him off not because she wants to go head-to-head.

MikeCT said...

Don't forget today's hopeful news - legislative leaders and the Governor have finally been pushed back to the negotating table to draft a compromise bill on campaign finance reform, as reported by the Courant and AP.

Kudos to groups like CCAG and Common Cause for their relentless pressure on this issue.

A new survey shows that 80% of CT residents were disappointed that no campaign finance or ethics reforms have passed into law.

chris said...

there's a narrow window of hope that something meaningful could pass. On the Democratic gubernatorial front, two of the three candidates (Dan Malloy and Susan Bysiewicz) agreed that they would live by the new laws for the 2006 race, whereas the third, John DeStefano said he would not because he worked too hard to raise his money. It's time for Democrats to unite behind an unified message of reform.

Genghis Conn said...

anonymous,

You're right that DeStefano made $2 million in May. However, a New Haven Advocate reporter has been following them around for a while and just reported today on the Mayor's birthday back in May, when the number was announced.

FrankS,

I'm looking forward to the full article. Northeast isn't the worst place to have a lengthy, flattering piece published.

Chris,

Dan Malloy may have an issue here. I'm actually surprised that Rell responded to it, though. Transportation and campaign finance may yet get done in the special session. Agreed about a unified front on reform, if only on the part of the legislative Democrats.

ebpie,

I agree, the speculation is getting a little wearisome. And we have yet another round of Blumenthal Watching ahead of us...

Although what makes Sullivan think playing coy is a good idea is beyond me.

MikeCT,

Here's hoping! Amann seems hesitant, though. He could really make things difficult.

Anonymous said...

Although it's true that as Democrats we should present a united front, stooping to attacks and negative campaigning isn't neccessarily warranted. Our unity should come from our vision for a better state, not from our dislike for anyone else. Keep the gloves up, Dan; you're negative campaigning reflects poorly on all Democrats!

democratsin06 said...

I disagree with the last anonymous comment. I am a DeStefano supporter, but I was very happy to see Malloy say what he said. Rell continues to be the media darling simply because she has distinguished herself and the anti-Rowland. But she hasn't accomplished anything, or shown any vision. I think it's cute that she's 'working really hard' to save the sub base, but why wasn't she proactive in lobbying for it in the months leading up to the announcement of its closure? Her first session seemed to be nothing but this reactionary style of governing, a style that sounds good in the papers but doesn't accomplish anything. It reminds me of a saying my grandpa used to say to me: "you can't squeeze your cheeks after you fart." That's all she's doing, reacting to the state's problems after it's too late. So if you want to argue that Mayor Malloy's remarks reflect poorly on the Democratic party, I disagree. People need to read about her failure, especially undecided voters, and I hope all of the democratic candidates unite in at least this one issue: Rell's failure to move CT in the right direction.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, democratsin06, but I profoundly disagree with you. Why would we want to run based on someone else's failure? To do such a thing doesn't indicate that WE are going to be any better. Isn't that one of the things we hated so much about the Bush campaign against Kerry? People should vote for a Democrat, be it DeStefano, Malloy, Bysiewicz, or Sullivan, because they agree with that candidate's vision to make CT better than Rell, Rowland, and the Republicans have. Rather than detailing every point of failure on their part and saying "that's why they suck" we should outline our solutions for a better, brighter future and say "that's how we are going to help the state."

Aldon Hynes said...

I must say, running the risk of upsetting friends of mine in both the DeStefano campaign and the Malloy campaign, that I really like what Malloy has said about Rell and I disagree with anonymous.

The Stamford Advocate quotes Malloy as saying: "To have been governor for a full year, and to not have experienced any 'big disappointments' indicates the governor may well have expectations that are too low,"

Dan is absolutely right. We should "Expect More". As a matter of fact, that would make a great campaign slogan. Mayor DeStefano has been urging all of us to expect more for quite a while. Unfortunately, someone already grabbed the domain.

As to Anonymous' comments, they are half right. Anyone who runs on only a platform of 'the incumbent isn't good' is unlikely to get elected. We must have vision, but that vision must be coupled with pointing out the lack of vision or the misguided vision of the incumbent.

Both Malloy and DeStefano have vision and records to show that they can deliver on these visions. Rell isn't demonstrating great vision or a record of achiving the vision.

As to whether Malloy or DeStefano has a stronger vision and a stronger vision, I encourage you to stop by the DeStefano blog and find out why I am supporting Mayor DeStefano.

Indian2Nighthawk said...

I've always heard that running against an incumbant successfully requires two things:

1) Convince the public that they should fire the person already in office

2) Convince them to hire you.

If either scenario fails the incumbant wins. I like the idea of pushing a message forward but you can't. Win on your message alone. We have to help the public realize that Rell isn't as strong a leader as this state needs.

Anonymous said...

In the real world, some drunk steals a plane, flys around for hours and lands in New York. How is this possible, when were're spending millions on homeland security and planes are a hugh threat. What planet has Rell been on?

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-pilot2jun23,0,3564355.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines

Anonymous said...

Democrats have not won the Governor's office since 1986...why? Because they have not offered a coherent vision for Connecticut. I still have not heard one from any of the current candidates. Without a compelling vision from the out-of-power party, people will see no reason to get rid of a sitting Governor.

Republicans, on the other hand, have not been able to translate their gubenatorial dominance into legislative gains (in fact they have continuously lost ground). The problem here is that the Republican Governors (Rowland and Rell) have continuously ignored their legislative Republicans-- treating them like necessary evil.

The result has been the stalemate of Republican Governors/Democratic Assemblies for the past 11 years. One could argue that this results in a nice moderation of policy-- but then my guess is most people visiting this website would want it one way or the other!

Genghis Conn said...

anonymous,

Your analysis of the situation is a good one. It's possible to compare the situation to the Nixon years on this front (as well as the resignation front). The national Republican party did a poor job of electing representatives to Congress, but the Democrats of the time put up awful candidates for president, allowing Nixon, a shrewd and dirty political opportunist, to win twice. That's a drastic oversimplification, of course, and ignores interesting trends like the Southern Strategy, which began to work at the presidential level after the Civil Rights Act but didn't really take effect for Congress until the round of Democratic incumbents that were there in the 1960s cleared out... but you get the idea.

The same sort of thing has happened here. There is little support for Republican representatives in the General Assembly outside of the conservative western end of the state, but Rowland, also a masterful political opportunist (and crook) managed to appeal to people more than Curry or Kennelly, both of whom were atrocious candidates.

So... now what? I've seen comparisons made between Jodi Rell and Gerald Ford, and a connection can be made on a surface level. Ford and Rell came into office with two years left in each of their predecessors' terms, and both set about the task of healing the wounds brought about by scandal and resignation. But just how far do the parallels go? Ford lost a very close race to Carter (himself not a stellar candidate) in 1976 partly because of Ford's pardon of Nixon and partly because of continuing economic troubles. Connecticut's economy, while not great, is not in the kind of trouble America's was in back in the 1970s, and Rell has been quite content to let Rowland hang for his crimes.

As for a divided government--I have the feeling that even a government controlled entirely by Democrats would be just as divided (if not more so) than what we have now, and quarrel just as constantly.

democratsin06 said...

I still disagree with anonymous. I'm not saying that the whole campaign should be based on Rell's failures. But it's a year and a half until the election, so I think it is important for Democrats to start conveying a sense of urgency to show that change is neccesary. I don't think any of the candidates are saying 'vote for me, I'm not Jodi Rell'. But if people aren't aware of the poor job she is doing, and most people that don't follow politics don't, then they're gonna go to the polls next November with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Part of the job now, is to show people Rell's failures to get them motivated to make a change.

Anonymous said...

Democrats have tried this for years: "Rowland sucks" themes basically lost them three elections in a row. Democrats needs a vision for CT....it's the same thing that is hurting them nationally. Rationale people can disagree with Bush's vision, but he is the only one with one right now.

Anonymous said...

A follow-up on my earlier post, Sen. Clinton & Schumer are seeking federal inquiry into security at Danbury Airport.

http://news.newstimeslive.com/story.php?id=72504&category=Local