Also, there was an article by Fred Lucas in the Danbury News-Times today about the governor's race. Basically, the article is saying that the Democrats don't have a prayer without Blumenthal:
"The people with the most political notoriety and visibility have withdrawn from the race," said Gary Rose, political science professor at Sacred Heart University. "I don't want to use the term sacrificial lamb, but I do think the Democrats are starting to concede."
The party's gubernatorial prospects are "grim," said Rep. Robert Godfrey, D-Danbury. He said Blumenthal is the only candidate who could beat Rell.
"Those of us who have been in this business for a while are befuddled by the current circumstances," Godfrey said. "We have not won a governor's race in 20 years, and there is a general lack of enthusiasm to run for governor against Rell."
Still, Godfrey thinks Blumenthal could enter the race, even though he is moving slowly.
"He's been telling leadership very quietly he was (running)," Godfrey said. "But he seems in no hurry before the local elections. If he's not running, I wish he'd do us all a favor and let us know."
Blumenthal said he had "no idea" what conversations with legislative leaders Godfrey was referring to. (Lucas)
Sheesh. For the last time, waiting for Blumenthal to descend from his perch and save the Democrats is about as productive as waiting for Godot. I also disagree that it's over. Rell may be strong, but situations can change.
Lucas, Fred. "Democrats wary of challenge to Rell." Danbury News-Times 14 September, 2005.
What else is happening? This is an open forum, too.
44 comments:
Fixed.
The Danbury newspaper's analysis is exactly right. No big city Mayor has won the Governor's office in 50 years, and Rell sure does look strong. Circumstances can of course change, but it isn't looking so good for DeStefano or Malloy right now.
Blumenthal won't run....but if he did could win. His problem is he is VERY risk averse...he won't run unless he knows he can win. And it's 50/50 him versus Rell.
I think the only way DeStefano or Malloy win is if Rell self-destructs. Which could happen, so it's always good to have a credible opposition candidate running.
Joe Lieberman will be on Imus tomorrow. Given the fact that he chaired the Committee on Governmental Affairs in 2002 which was responsible for the Michael Brown hearings (the former head of FEMA), should Imus ask Lieberman why he supported Brown's nomination and why Brown's hearing only lasted 42 minutes?
Did Lieberman not take a good look at Brown's background or check out his resume (strange how quickly TIME magazine took in finding out Brown's lies on his resume).
Take a read and tell me what you think
BTW: I think it's too early to count the Democrats out of the governor's race. November 2006 is a lietime in the political world and alot can happen between now and then...
The conventional wisdom about Rell’s political strength are based on recent polls that show wide approval of the job she has been doing. I question if this is the most useful metric in determining her actual appeal. Even more confusing, Rell’s present popularity is itself taken as a sign of the Democratic field’s weakness. I think this way of evaluating the race, as Lucas does, is incorrect.
First, Rell’s popularity is statistically broad – but maybe a little too broad to. We don’t know the intensity of support. It could be very soft numbers for those independents and self-described Democrats that approve of her, but might not end up voting for her. Evidence of this can be found in how there is a difference between the percent of respondents that approve of her and the percent that will end up voting for her.
Second, we don’t fully understand the frame under which poll respondents are expressing approval for Rell. It is possible that they are comparing her to Rowland, which would tend to make it incredibly easy to do well. While not fully analogous, California’s Gov. Schwarzenegger was remarkably popular within the frame of comparison to Gray Davis. We all know what happened when people started running TV ads against Arnold’s policies and Davis faded into memory – his ratings plummeted. Obviously, Rell hasn’t had someone spend $2 million on TV ads pointing out that our job growth is the worst I the nation and that she has not pushed for any real changes to solve the problem. Once that happens, we have no way of knowing how well her numbers will hold. Her lack of engage
Which gets to my final point: instead of seeing Rell’s public opinion polls as a sign of Democratic weakness, we should instead rely on different metrics to ascertain the strength of the candidates in the field. Money is one clear indicator that Democrats are much better organized this time around as all three formal candidates – DeStefano in particular – had been raising funds aggressively. When else in recent history have Democrats had this much success marshalling resources this early? Further, the amount of early organizing, both on the internet and at the grassroots level is also higher. Earned media focus, again with the DeStefano camp leading the way, has been more aggressive. And obviously the two remaining candidates have ramped up their staff hiring to be in the best competitive position.
As a DeStefano supporter I fully appreciate the difficulty of the task ahead. But I worry that way too many are accepting a statistical snapshot that has significant fluidity behind it as unshakeable truth.
Anyone who argues that Rell has deep support of 80% of the electorate is wrong.
What she does have is a broad, warm feeling. What do most supporters thing of her. She is "nice", she is a "reformer", and she is "competent". Not exactly passionate words.
But not nothing either. Most people will vote for Rell unless given a reason not two. Only two people can give that reason: Rell and her challenger. I doubt Rell is going to screw up in the next twelve months...she has proved herself very politically astute.
Therefore, it is up to DeStefano and Malloy to make the case. Neither has really done it yet, but then again it is early.
My analysis: Rell's race to lose, but she is no shoo-win
Ctblogger, I think you have completely distorted the facts and reasonable assumptions that can be made about the Brown confirmations. Firstly, Lieberman was not interviewing someone "who would be in charge of FEMA have some experience in handling disasters or emergencies," he was interviewing him for the post of Deputy Director of FEMA, a pitiful post that certainly did not require the days of questioning that say, Supreme Justice requires. If you disagree, then I am sure you can offer evidence that at the time you strongly protested such a short confirmation. Then and only then will I be assured that you are not just making use of that miraculous thing, hindsight, to make narrow political attacks on a US Senator.
Furthermore, Time discovered no "lies" in Mr Brown's resume. They described what even they, who would love nothing more than to obliterate the Bush Administration, could term "discrepencies." Specifically, the discrepencies were semantics about the title of a position at the local level more than twenty years ago. Even if the "true nature" of the post had been discovered at the time of his confirmation hearing, I doubt very much that it would have done anything to bar Brown from being confirmed.
This is typical liberal mud-throwing. By 'typical,' I mean that no actual substantive charge or wrongdoing has been leveled. But the worst part is that it is political opportunism of the lowest kind, taking advantage of terrible tragedy to make politcal captial.
Whoa there big guy.
Lets take a quick peek at the so-called "discrepencies" straight from TIME mag.
1. The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. " Department heads did not report to him." Brown did do a good job at his humble position, however, according to his boss. "Yes. Mike Brown worked for me. He was my administrative assistant.
An administrative assistant is alot different than someone who overseeing the emergency services division.
Here's another one of Brown's little discrepencies
Again, from the TIME article...
2. Under the "honors and awards" section of his profile at FindLaw.com — which is information on the legal website provided by lawyers or their offices—he lists "Outstanding Political Science Professor, Central State University". However, Brown "wasn't a professor here, he was only a student here," says Charles Johnson, News Bureau Director in the University Relations office at the University of Central Oklahoma (formerly named Central State University). "He may have been an adjunct instructor," says Johnson, but that title is very different from that of "professor." Carl Reherman, a former political science professor at the University through the '70s and '80s, says that Brown "was not on the faculty." As for the honor of "Outstanding Political Science Professor," Johnson says, "I spoke with the department chair yesterday and he's not aware of it." Johnson could not confirm that Brown made the Dean's list or was an "Outstanding Political Science Senior," as is stated on his online profile.
Hmmm. Not on the faculty? not on the Dean's list? Not even on a so-called Outstanding Political Science Senior?
3. Under the heading of "Professional Associations and Memberships" on FindLaw, Brown states that from 1983 to the present he has been director of the Oklahoma Christian Home, a nursing home in Edmond. But an administrator with the Home told TIME that Brown is "not a person that anyone here is familiar with." She says there was a board of directors until a couple of years ago, but she couldn't find anyone who recalled him being on it. According to FEMA's Andrews, Brown said "he's never claimed to be the director of the home. He was on the board of directors, or governors of the nursing home." However, a veteran employee at the center since 1981 says Brown "was never director here, was never on the board of directors, was never executive director. He was never here in any capacity. I never heard his name mentioned here."
I think those are just 3 little discrepencies that I'd like to call lies and should of been a red flag to anyone who was in charged of looking into his background.
These are not little discrepencies, these are LIES Brown made to pad his resume and I'm sure if this person who nominated under Clinton's watch, you'd have a different opinion.
As for Lieberman, I'll finish by quoting from Mark Schmitt:
The important point is this: Even if every single thing on Brown's resume was true, it was still an obviously pathetic set of qualifications to run a major federal agency, or even to supervise the 30 lawyers in a federal agency's general counsel's office.
It is a little shocking that none of the Senators who participated in the 42-minute confirmation hearing that Laura Rozen linked to yesterday made any note that even Brown's padded resume was empty of any actual disaster management, or any management at all at any level above that of a very small city a quarter century ago!
And the liability now should rest entirely with the White House. They were not tricked into hiring someone who lied about his qualifications. They made the appointment with a total lack of interest in any qualification other than loyalty...
Quinn,
If you disagree, then I am sure you can offer evidence that at the time you strongly protested such a short confirmation. Then and only then will I be assured that you are not just making use of that miraculous thing, hindsight, to make narrow political attacks on a US Senator.
Um, yeah, so it is the job of a Connecticut blogger to follow every confirmation hearing and do Joe Lieberman's job for him?
Q: Who is the biggest winner in yesterday's Waterbury Primary?
A: Board of Alderman President J. Paul Vance, Jr.
Vance was the highest vote getter amongst Aldermanic candidates on last night's ballot. Meanwhile, the current majority leader, the only individual prior to last night who had a shot at challenging Vance for his position, came in below third.
Vance is looking like a formidable political competitor, and in a few short years has become a force in Waterbury. No mean feat.
Anybody watching the Roberts confirmation hearing? Pretty interesting, at least to watch Ted Kennedy and Arlen Spector examine him.
Dunno about anybody else, but I think this guy is the soul of discretion, a genuine judicial moderate.
I'll be surprised if he has any trouble being confirmed and I doubt he'll do anything drastic on the bench.
Maybe the President will get one right for a change here.
I generally agree about Roberts...but make no mistake that this guy is a conservative. There are two types of conservatives on the Supreme Court-- those who are "strict constructionalists" who interpret the consitution literally (Scalia and Thomas), and those who are "precedent and stability loving" who believe in judicial precedent (Renquist).
Roberts is definitely like Renquist. Will he vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Probably. But will he vote to overturn the right to privacy it is based on? Probably not. A fine distinction-- but it is the type of distinctive this type of conservative makes. Where Scalia would say "If the Constitution doesn't say it explicitly, it is against the COnstitution", Roberts will probably say "the courts and society have come to accept this as true". Thus in Roberts mind, virtually every American would agree there is a right to privacy-- so it is constitutional. However, we as a nation are obviously divided on the issue of abortion-- thus he will probably side with the textualists.
Even though I am pro-choice, I like the guy. I'd probably vote for confirmation.
I don't see him overturing Roe without legal cause. The formulation you put forth is politically based, and according to his testimony, would not be a consideration.
The issue you raise hinges on stare decisis, that is "the doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice with departure from precedent permitted for compelling reasons (as to prevent the perpetuation of injustice)" (ref. dictionary dot com), not public opinion.
He specifically said that politics cannot enter into his method of evaluating a case. It isn't a matter of whether the public has or has not accepted something to be true, only whether or not under the law as codified and applied it is so.
The speculative question is, what would constitute a compelling legal reason for departing from established law and precident?
I think that while the man himself may be conservative, categorizing him with Scalia is a misnomer. His self-description was a "modest judge". Probably not an accident it has the same root as "moderate".
Scalia isn't a conservative judge, his judicial philosophy is radical. He'd throw Roe out because of root problems with the decision vis a vis the constitution, as you point out. He is, if I understand his judicial philosophy, a literalist - very different from a conservative or a moderate or even a constructionist, I believe.
Interesting about Vance. Neither he nor Murphy have websites up, yet, but I imagine they will, soon.
ctblogger, then lay the blame where blame is due- not at the Senate for confirmation, but upon the Administration who chose the candidate.
mikect, actually no, I don't expect that. But if a blogger now believes the position of Deputy Director of FEMA to be so important that would require a very thourough confirmation, then I would simply point out that at the time, neither he nor anyone else took any issue with the short confirmation. It was, in short, a non-issue, and we should not have expected or now expect Lieberman to have examined Brown more intensely.
Regarding Roberts, I would first note that I see very little difference between a strict constructionalist and a literalist, I beleive they are synonumous terms.
I would also note that once you get to the Supreme Court level, stare decisis is a mere formality. The Supreme Court overturns precedent on a regular basis. Surely, it respects precedent, but the Supreme Court need not be bound by established precedent if it sees the situation differently from past judges.
Sen. Newton is giving a press conference later this morning, according to WTIC. They're speculating he'll resign.
So, perhaps we will have a State Senator resign on the day that the Campaign Finance Reform Working Group has its final meeting.
Or maybe Sen. Newton is simply going to announce his support for campaign finance reform.
As to the Fred Lucas story, I would like to encourage all Republicans to feel confident that Rell will easily get re-elected. Since she is a shoe-in, you won't need to raise any money, develop any sort of field organization, or for that matter have any sort of vision for a better Connecticut.
Let those silly Democrats waste their time raising money for a Democratic candidate that will raise more money than any other Connecticut Democratic Gubernatorial candidate ever has.
Let those silly Democrats waste their time building a strong field organization and a broadbased coalition os supporters.
Let those silly Democrats put out a message about how Connecticut is last in job growth and the Rowland and Rell administrations have done nothing proactive to address that. As long as you have your jobs, there is nothing to worry about.
No, my Republican friends, you are much better off playing golf.
Quinn-
Everyone is to blame, the administration for putting a loyal person over a qualified individual in charge of FEMA, and the senate for not looking carefully at the candidite's credenitals (but that's right, you don't feel theirs much need to do this since it wa a so-called "petty position"). I guess in your opinion, there was no need for a hearing for Brown in the first place but I beg to differ. After the events of 9-11, the last thing we needed was a cronkie placed in a position of importance in any administrative department.
Also, the position Brown was seeking was NOT a small position as you claim. One look at the history of FEMA and how it was later fell under the control of the Homeland Security department very soon after Brown was confirmed would show you that the administration had bigger plans for Brown when they nominiated Brown in the first place.
You're entitled to your opinion but I think your in the small minority.
On Newton-I hear that is almost a sure bet that he's resigning today but he is alittle unpredictable so you never know. I'll be watching his announcement at 11 am.
Aldon-- your post made me laugh out loud-- that is the sign of a talented blogger!
As for the Waterbury primary, here is my take (and mind you, the wounds are still fresh from a tought battle.)- Mayor Michael Jarjura was exactly what this City needed after the moral and financial embarassment that was the prior administration- He was a man whose integrity and honesty is unquestioned and I am proud to call him both a mentor and a friend.
Although I was fortunate (along with almost all of the 'underticket', incumbent aldermen, Town Clerk, City Clerk (subject to a recount) and Board of Education candidates) to survive the primary, it is bittersweet. I do not feel like the 'biggest winner' because my friend and an excellent Mayor was unseated. As for WtbyGuy, I do not know why the voters selected almost all of Team Jarjura and not the Mayor. I would like to think that it reflects on the general satisfaction of the City's direction and as the Mayor said on the night of his primary loss, "Waterbury's Renaissance MUST continue"
I think that I speak for the Waterbury Democratic Aldermen when I assure the readers of this blog, that we are committed to working hard on behalf of the Democrats and all Waterbury residents. We have seen too often in Waterbury and throughout the state what happens when elected officials do not remain DILIGENT AND COMMITTED.
I wouldn't want to harp too much on job growth if I were you... people might realize that Democrats have controlled the legislature for 40 years... and, if they're way smarter than I give them credit for, they might realize that that legislature has been raising business taxes...
I don't have time to respond to that in detail, Quinn, but you have it wrong. Corporate taxes were cut in the '90's. Connecticut is quite competitive regionally on that score - the report on that is around somewhere, I'll find it when I can unless somebody else can put it out there for us.
The problem that Connecticut (manufacturing in particular) faces is the rapid change in the competitive environment, pushed into overdrive by the entrance of China into the WTO and the non-existent enforcement of US rights by the Bush administration.
In the presence of proper advocacy by the federal government and in the absence of the 30% to 40% subsidy that the remimbi/yuan (sp?) peg to the dollar provides mainland Chinese business, the picture would look very different.
But more to our discussion, Rowland/Rell policies have failed utterly to address the deep structural issues that constrain Connecticut's ability to compete in the globalizing economy in general.
The tax-cutting mantra you are echoing is a threadbare orthodoxy that is gutting our human capital nationwide, and Connecticut is particularly disadvantaged because our competitive ability resides entirely in our human capital.
From top to bottom, the Republican party's bankrupt philosophy is hurting this country today and passing the tab to our children and grandchildren.
Governor Rell, while apparently a nice, well-meaning person, has demonstrated that she is singularly unprepared and utterly lacking in the experience that would equip her to meet this challenge.
Malloy is the clear choice for our future, because he has the track record, skills, and credibility to compete on the global stage.
Chris,
For statistics on tax burden, I would suggest checking the Miliken Report. They list Connecticut as having a Tax Burden Index value of 105.4, meaning that Connecticut is 5.4% above the national average, and way behind states like Hawii, Vermont, New Mexico, West Virginia and Arkansas in terms of tax burden.
What makes Connecticut one of the most expensive states to do business is the wage cost index, people in Connecticut earn 27.2% more than the national average, and the Electricity Cost index, Electricity in Connecticut costs 36.6% more than the national average.
All in all, your analysis of the problem very good, even though I disagree with you about what the best solution is.
Well here is a big win for Connecticut, Malloy and Rell in landing RBS.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-rbs2sep15,0,776055.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines
An index score of 100 means that the state is equal to the U.S. average in that particular categoryIf a state's business cost index is 120, it means that the state's cost of doing business is 20% above than the national average.Similarly, if a state's business cost index is 80, it means that the state's cost of doing business is 20% less than the national average.
Aldon, et al -
Quinn's remark was specifically about taxes on business.
The high wage numbers are, in my view, irrelevant outside of directly competitive economies, mostly northern NJ and the Boston Metro area. This is because our wage rates reflect the type of high-earning occupations that you will find in Metro NYC and Boston, and not in, say, Mississippi, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Note also that every NE state, including the economically isolated VT, plus NY, NJ, and even PA (and you can be sure that this reflects the heavy influence of Philadelphia and rapidly developing eastern PA), are above 100.
That is why we need a proven executive like Malloy, one who has successfully competed for high-wage-paying, globally successful businesses to move into our state, despite the high costs that the report you posted summarizes, and the stiff competition from the larger, better situated - and most importantly for this discussion - more effectively led state of New Jersey.
It's interesting to me that the Malloy campaign attracts outsiders like ChrisMcC and Rubenstein. Rubenstein and Marcus have been politcally close a long time - I wonder if Marcus will "help" the Malloy campaign?
Chris,
Quinn and you may have been speaking about business taxes, however, the Miliken report, which I pointed to calculates the cost of doing business on several components, and from their prespective, it is the tax burden ( the annual state and local tax revenue as a share of personal income ), which they consider to be the influencing tax variable on the cost of doing business.
More importantly, the wage cost is considered two and a half times more significant in calculating the cost of doing business. This is directed more towards Quinn than towards you.
Now, if we want to play the partisan, place an ad at the end of every post, I can do the same and point out that this is why we need a proven executive, like Mayor DeStefano, who can look at the whole picture and not just the pieces that are most convenient.
For the record, I am a supporter, not part of the Malloy campaign. Nor am I, strictly speaking, an outsider. I've been involved in Dem politics for thirty years. Just not part of the power structure.
I'll let Bruce speak for himself, but I'll be astounded if Ed Marcus - who is from New Haven, and as former state party chair, hardly an outsider - and Rubenstein, who works closely with him, have suddenly become allies of the moderates and reformers in the Democratic party.
Aldon's a +bit+ disengenuous, knowing as he does that his co-workers in the DeStefano campaign, including Shonu herself, have until recently been freeping this blog under various psuedonyms.
But the substantive point here, all that nonsense dispensed with (I hope), is that Aldon is making a mistake when he bundles arguments together. Like too much of what passes for "progressive" "thinking" on the subject of economics, this report you have is a high level summary, and has any number of assumptions built into it that may or may not serve to help us understand the situation in a way that permits us to act effectively.
It is important to drill down a bit and see what the components of those figures are, and to consider them in the context of the region, and relative to the track records of the individuals in the race. Moderates understand that a basic understanding of what kind of business you want to attract, and who your real competitors are, is important.
So, Malloy's success (as today's Stamford Advocate reports) in doing for Stamford what needs to be done statewide is quite relevant, because this isn't a matter of political orthodoxy, as my posts in earlier threads emphasized.
I like freeping nonsense. Marcus is certainly an outsider. Just look at the freeping effect he had on the last party elections. Chris, I think Malloy should freeping hire you.
I think it is great that the financial services cluster in Stamford-Fairfield will get another boost with RBS. This is even more important given our worst in the nation job creation.
However, I do worry about the $100 million subsidy.
Sometimes subsidies can be worthwile. Usually, as the Stamford Advocate article suggests, the return on investment of the public subsidy are the tax revenues generated by the deal. Perhaps this is the best way to get the ROI. But I wonder what the opportunity cost is.
Overall, I definitely dislike the idea that our main competitive advantage against other states and regions is our willingness to shower public dollars. It seems that this inherent problem deserves sustainved focus from the state's executive. So far, Gov. Rell has shown no indication of feeeling any urgency to make Connecticut more competitive in the global economy.
Chris,
I am very disappointed at you in making unfounded and false allegations. I have not 'freeped' here. I strongly oppose such practices and have repeatedly critisized those that freep. I have encouraged Genghis to change this blog to not allow anonymous posts.
I would think that any supporter of Mayor Malloy would want to avoid unfounded and false allegations, especially after the problems that such allegations have caused Mayor Malloy.
Aldon
Julio is being kind. Rell can feel whatever she wants, but she is a neophyte without any background and experience to prepare her for what needs to be done.
That said, the incentive structure, as described in the Stamford Advocate article, appears to be very intelligently constructed. It is based on performance. So, if they don't deliver for the community, the community doesn't have to subsidize their failure.
And it is important to understand the structural, strategic value of attracting another top-ten global player in financial services to the area. Like any other industry, like attracts like. The reasons have alot to do with the key to our competitive advantage in a globalized economy - human capital.
When considering a move to Stamford versus, say, Oklahoma City, the fact that there is a pool of skilled and experienced talent already in place, working for your competitors, is an important influence in favor of also locating there. The concentration of financial might on Wall Street isn't thanks to the low housing prices.
A case study in how it's done. Not mentioning any names, Aldon. ;-)
Aldon -
As I have said elsewhere, you are not the individual doing the freeping. You do set an example in posting using your real name all the time, far as I have ever seen.
Your coworkers have freeped this blog. I stand by what I said.
That was me, accidentally freeped mysef...
Chris, how do you know that DeStefano staffers have posted here anonymously? (I hate that freeping word, too.) What proof do you have? It sounds like you're just sour grapes at anon posters who like DeStefano better than your candidate.
I would hope that people would be more forthcoming, and that no one is using more than one concrete identity.
I would actually prefer it if Anonymous commenters who post here on a regular basis chose some sort of consistent username. A Blogger username is best. If you don't have one, go to Blogger.com and start the process of creating a blog. However, if you don't actually want a blog of your own, then exit the process directly after setting up a username and password.
I don't want to force everyone to go through a registration process for this blog, which is the other option. That's one more barrier to access that I simply don't want to throw up at this time. If people choose to remain anonymous, that is their choice. If people choose to come here under more than one name, that is also their choice. For now, we'll live with it.
I may repost this at a later date on the main page.
GC, I understand your comments, but as a regular anonymous poster here, let me assure you that if you change the rules of the game, a lot fewer people will post, thus making this great site less relevant. Also, don't you think that if you make people choose a blogger name, people who really want to remain anonymous will just do as you've said and set up multiple blogger names? Sure, it will take more time, but so what? The great thing about this site is that you do have the ability to post anonymously - maybe that's why the DeStefano site has fewer posts than would be expected.
Anonymous,
That's why I'm only encouraging people to use some sort of identifier, just as a courtesy. I'm not requiring anything.
It would be nice to be able to tell people apart from time to time.
But don't worry, anonymous posting isn't going away any time soon.
Quick comment for the most recent anonymous poster: The DeStefano blog does allow anonymous comments. However, like Genghis we try to encourage people to identify themselves.
In terms of the number of comments we get, it is actually pretty good compared to most Gubernatorial campaign blogs around the country.
As to Chris 'case study', it appears that he is conveniently glossing over many details. For example, a substantial part of the RBS is of their Greenwich Capital operations from Greenwich to Stamford.
Such moves are predicated on many variables and it is unfortunate that Chris oversimplifies the equation.
I'll just refer Aldon to the Stamford Advocate piece on the RBS move
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-rbs2sep15,0,776055.story?page=1&coll=stam-news-local-headlines
which, if you read it, will provide you with the facts you lack. Or refute your spin. Take your pick.
Chris,
Actually, to quote from the article you point to:
"700 employees of the RBS subsidiary Greenwich Capital would move from neighboring Greenwich"
Insufferable is too kind a word, especially for someone who says they're too busy to respond to Quinn's post, then pontificates for hours afterward. I guess we really are too stupid to understand, Chris.
Ah, the personal invective. You guys ain't gonna change. Anybody who dares to disagree with your dull-witted and self-righteous patter is a bad person, huh? Oh well.
As we've said, INSUFFERABLE.
Post a Comment