Thursday, January 26, 2006

Open Forum

Dan Malloy is set to announce some sort of "major policy proposal" today, according to a release from the campaign.

Democratic Congressional candidates look to tie Washington corruption scandals to incumbent Republicans in Connecticut.

Still no word on whether Sen. Lieberman will vote for Alito. Dodd has already said he'll vote no.

For those of you using Firefox, the blog may look a little... odd. Blogger is doing something, and it's apparently messing with Firefox.

What else is happening today?


Anonymous said...

I'm using Firefox 1.5 and it looks okay to me GC. Malloy doesn't have anything on his site about the policy thing - the release didn't mention a topic? Sorta curious.

Genghis Conn said...

Yes, things seem to be back to normal. The blog title was showing up as this hideous pink for a while... yuck.

The release didn't mention a topic at all. Here's what the release said:


Democratic candidate for Governor Dan Malloy will hold a press conference on Thursday, January 26th from 12:00 to 12:30 pm in the Old Judiciary Room (3rd floor) in the Capitol.

This is a campaign that likes to build suspense, apparently.

Independent1 said...

I don't know if it's me, or media coverage, but it seems that DeStefano is out doing a lot more public events while Molloy seems to be doing press releases, policy positions, endorsement events. Molloy may be spending more time raising $$s, and if he outraises DeStefano by a significant sum again, it will really knock the convention wide-open. I don't think Amann's line about 'electability' was accidental. I bet that's the line we'll hear constantly from Molloy's folks, and the main argument they'll put to the delegates.

Genghis Conn said...

I agree, Independent1, that the "electability" line will be a centerpiece of Malloy's argument. Seeing as Democrats haven't won the governor's mansion since 1986, it's bound to have an effect.

Malloy is painting himself as the sober, realistic, "credible" candidate, while DeStefano is trying to appeal to labor and the grassroots. Sort of a Kerry/Dean dynamic going on, here.

Captain Obvious said...


I don't know about that. Wasn't it Malloy walking in a parade in New Haven a couple weeks ago when DeStefano was nowhere to be found? They both seem to be getting out there.

This policy thing could be interesting, because I'd like one of them to establish themselves as an "idea candidate". We all know CT needs some changes, but whichever guy can convince me he has some hard and fast plans, will get my vote.

CT05 Admin said...

Unfortunately, Lucas' piece for the News-Times is another example of reporters simply repeating what candidates and their spokespeople say, not research based journalism.

Johnson is very close to the leadership team of DeLay and Blunt. That "petition" was nothing but a publicity stunt, and everbody who is paying attention knew it. They were trying to spin the thing, when all that is really happening is a turnover to a top lieutenant, forced upon them by legal proceedings in Texas and the Democrats' increasingly effective campaign to raise the issue nationally.

You'd think the News-Times and Lucas would have enough professional pride to either do real journalism on what is going on Washington, or stick to local news.

Anonymous said...

Question for the board.

Okay this has to do with unions. I understand that union leaders in this counrty and CT are going all out against Wal-Mart for their anti-worker policies. Of course I think this has to do with the fact that Wal-Mart does not allow unionized workers.

Recent layoffs by Ford and GM have me thinking...why are pro-union workers not picketing and boycotting Toyota and Honda plants here in America. It can be argued that these two Japanese companies are taking thousands of jobs away from unioned auto workers here in the US.

I find it hard to believe that if Toyota was an American co, and they hired non union empolyees, union members throughout this country would be going crazy. And shouldn't pro-union people buy American cars for that reason? Just wondering.

Brass Anon said...


I agree with you that there is a Kerry/Dean dynamic working here. I hope Malloy is more successful than Kerry was when it comes time to get elected.

Regarding the union support that DeStefano is picking up, I'll say this. I am a member of the UAW. Just because Phil Wheeler endorses DeStefano does not mean that he'll get my vote.

I think that is true for a lot of union members, especially as we see the decline in union membership. More and more, union members - the few who are out there - are making up their own minds, and are frequently voting Republican.

So while I think union endorsements can be used to show the strength of a campaign, I don't think it translates into votes. You seek endorsements to put the other candidate away before the vote. But if he is still standing on primary or election day, the union support isn't really going to matter a great deal.

Which is why I believe that Malloy will overtake DeStefano, if not at the convention, then on primary day.

And with his momentum, his moderate views, his money, and his clout in Fairfield County and the 5th C.D. cities, I think he'll take the general. After all, he is certainly electable.

Genghis Conn said...

A good point about union members, Brass Anon. I know that I actually resented it when the NEA would send me lists of candidates they thought I should vote for--just in case I couldn't make up my own mind. Unions used to be part of the Democratic Party's huge GOTV machine, which has at this point largely fallen apart.

Malloy has been running a very safe, more conservative campaign, focused on fundraising and the quiet courting of the party bigwigs, whereas DeStefano has been much more aggressive in getting his face in front of the cameras and in the news, perhaps needlessly so. Here's something Malloy said on this site last July:

First, by primary day everyone going to the voting booth is going to know who the candidates are.

He's right. They will.

Aldon Hynes said...

Does anyone have any details about unions and Toyota? I’ve started to hear some discussion about it on the blogs, but I’m not finding the links. I did find this article about Hyundai and unions, with comments like:

“Toyota's union members have not gone on strike since the early 1950s.” and

“After what management often refer to as a "traumatic experience" half a century ago when workers downed tools and demonstrated for months to protest job cuts, relations between union and management at Toyota have been amicable.

Despite a jump in profits last year, Toyota's union members this spring did not ask for a base salary hike and sought a smaller annual bonus than the year before. Management agreed in full to the requests.”

Yet all is not necessarily well with Toyota’s union relations. The Economic Times of India writes, “Conciliatory talks between Toyota Kirloskar management and the union on Thursday failed to reach any conclusive stage as the former sought time till January 16 to contemplate the suggestions of the Labour Department.”

When you come closer to home, you can read this article about the efforts to unionize the Toyota plant in Kentucky. It says, “The United Auto Workers have tried to crack the Toyota plant since before it opened. Last spring, they opened their own organizing office just down the road.

But Brown says that Toyota's wages are so close to the union's, she doesn't see the advantage.”

From what I can see, Toyota does have non-union workers in the United States. However, they are treated well enough so that efforts to unionize the plant are not being successful and with non-union workers at the Kentucky plant. Since workers there make “more than twice the average manufacturing wage in the area.”

One of the roles of Unions, whether or not they actually have unionized a plant and represent workers at a plant, is to keep pressure on companies to make sure that the working conditions are as good as possible. From all I read about Walmart, a lot of pressure is needed there. From what I read about Toyota, I’m not sure the pressure is as strongly needed, with the possible exception of in India.

Genghis Conn said...


Toyota pays its American workers pretty well, even by union standards, and they offer better job security When was the last time a Toyota plant shut down U.S. operations to move to Mexico or somewhere else? "Domestic" automakers do this all the time, even those with strong unions. There is very little a union can do to prevent outsourcing or plant shutdown. All the benefits in the world won't save GM's workers when that company goes belly-up.

Then again, I'm a big Toyota fan. Who can argue with reliable cars made in the United States by workers who are paid above-average wages?

Aldon Hynes said...

(Yes, I’m still working for the DeStefano campaign, so feel free to dismiss my spin as spin, however, as one person noted, I am a ‘true believer’ and I do believe the spin I’m about to spin).

I just don’t think the ‘electability’ line is going to sell. Maybe I’m wrong. It worked in the primary for Kerry, but in the end he wasn’t elected. I know a lot of people are bitter and cynical about that. Will this bitterness and cynicism negatively affect candidates running on ‘electability’ in 2006? I think it will. I think people are looking for candidates that stand up for what they believe, and not just stand on electability. I think people will look for idea leaders and not just polished political speeches.

I applaud Mayor Malloy for planning a ‘Major Policy Proposal’. It indicates that he is going to run on more than just ‘electability’. I look forward to a good give and take on policy issues and believe that when you get down to good policy debates, Mayor DeStefano’s great strengths in the area will shine through.

Genghis Conn said...


A policy debate would be great (although all this horse race stuff is fun, too).

Speaking of debates, I'd very much like to see at least one or two between DeStefano and Malloy, preferably in late April or early May, just before the convention. Do you know if anything is in the works?

the wandererrrr said...

I've yet to hear Ford or GM blame their woes on the unions. The people who run both companies no no damn well that their predecessors made promises to the unions that they could never keep. And if you look particularly at GM you'll see thaat the unions are trying to work woth them. But the fact is these two former giants have more capacity in both plant an people nneded to meet the demand for their product. It's a failure of management pure and simpela nd they know it. Will the unions take part of the hit? Yes, but so will others.

Proud Moderate Dem said...


found this on malloy web page

Debate with John DeStefano
2/12/2006 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM

Hosted by the Westport Democratic Town Committee
Westport Women's Club
1460 Post Rd East
Westport, CT 06880

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

Perhaps it's, er, impolitic of me to mention it, but isn't electability a relative thing? Bear in mind that both DeStefano and Malloy would be running against someone with a 79 percent approval rating, who is polling better among Democrats than either of the Democrats?

Granted, November is a long time away, but ...

Dave Mooney said...

I can understand why Aldon is excited to get the policy debate started. I saw a head-to-head debate between DM and JD hosted by the Bridgeport DTC last summer. DTC members asked tough questions to each candidate in alternating order. Our SoTS was not in attendance.

JD clearly had a better grasp of the subject matter and more compelling solutions. There was no contest. I even felt compelled to send JD a $50 check for his good showing.

Since then I've warmed to DM a bit. I've met him a few times over the last several months. He's clearly accomplished a lot in Stamford, a city where I've spent a lot of time. I'm still leaning towards JD based on his very strong performance in that challenging debate situation. However, I think we Democrats are very fortunate to have these two very accomplished candidates to choose from.

CGG said...

I'm using Firefox, and this site looks fine.

I think if the Unions can crack Wal-Mart it would go a long way towards revitalizing organized labor in this country. If only I had some good ideas on how to accomplish that goal.

Aldon, my great aunt though retired is still involed with the UAW in Kentucky. I'll have to call and ask her about this. They've hated Toyota as far back as I can remember though. When I was a kid my family bought a Toyota, and she stopped speaking to us for at least a year.

Anonymous said...

Malloy has his proposal up on his website its regarding health care for children.

JM said...

Notwithstanding that I have no idea what "electabilty" actually means, is Aldon suggesting that a majority of the Democrats would nominate a candidate that they feel can't win the election instead of a candidate that they feel can win?

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

AP says Lieberman will oppose Alito.

DeanFan84 said...

Lieberman has finally made up his mind and will oppose the Alito nomination. Good for you, Joe. Good for you.

However neither of our Senators have decided whether they would support a filibuster of Alito. I guess a woman's control over her own body isn't worth fighting for. sigh.

Proud Moderate Dem said...

DeanFan, unfortunately a filibuster wasnt going to work. numbers just not there. thats why we need to take back the Senate. Hopefully for the sake of roe v wade justice kennedy continues to me on our side or we are in trouble.

Wolcottboy said...

Lieberman cites Roe vs. Wade as one of the primary reasons why he will oppose Judge Alito. Clearly, a campaign tactic I find surprising and I believe shows that he feels threatened this year. In the past, I've had greater respect for Lieberman for standing his ground and finding his support in more factual matters.
Today he does cite "Alito's narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause" as other grounds for opposing him. While Lieberman could be correct, this is a very Congress-like response. Congress frequently uses the Commerce Clause to expand its scope and rational for laws that belong to the states.
Very interesting statements Joe. NARAL's check is in the mail.

DeanFan84 said...


The numbers for a filibuster weren't there only because of wussies like Joe. With 44 "Democratic" Senators, our side ought to easily be able to filibuster whenever the Republican Party goes too far, as they have with this nomination.

What really burns me up is that they are letting Chafee and Snowe off the hook. Both of those "R" senators are up for election this year, and I can't believe they won't be forced to choose sides on this vote.

Maybe Reid has a card up his sleeve, and will suprise us all come Monday. Can you imagine what it would be like if a filibuster eclipsed W's SOTU address next Tuesday? And it's not like we have BushCo on the ropes, what with approval ratings at 36%.

Anyway, I feel like I did during the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. Utterly disgusted at my own Party and their ability to roll-over.

Proud Moderate dem said...

Chris, Joe's vote against Alito is consistent with the strong pro-choice record he has accumulated throught his tenure in the United States Senate, and Alito did refuse to rule out the overturning of roe v wade.
DeanFan, i too am upset with the lack of filibuster but you cant honestly blame that on joe who said he would think about supporting one. it was pretty much decided when feinstein said on national tv that the dems should not partake in one.

DeanFan84 said...


I am mad at the whole sorry lot of them, not just Joe. I mean how hard is it to make the case that America should be bi-partisan when it comes to the Supreme Court, that Roberts was to the right, but OK, and that Alito is far to extreme for the good of the country.

Instead they wasted the confirmation hearings in egotistical attack mode, hoping for a "gotcha" moment and looking like a bunch of jerks.

I agree that Feinstein's comments really hurt the chances of a filibuster. I heard on Kos she got 72,000 phone calls in the next two days. (ftr, I was one of the 72K).

Anonymous said...

Deanfan, Daschle lost basically because he was an obstructionist in a red state.

I encourage Reid to follow his lead, and considering the D’s will lose Minn, NJ, Maryland, and maybe Nebraska, there may not be 40 Democrats to mount the next potential filibuster.

Proud Moderate Dem said...

So after it is clear that there isn't enough support for a filibuster, John Kerry, from Switzerland, calls for one? give me a break.

Aldon Hynes said...

JM, I think you hit some of the problem. No one knows what ‘electability’ really means. Mayor Malloy is quoted as saying in the Hartford Courant, “I think the biggest issue is I am electable in November.”

If that is the biggest issue, I think we’ve got problems. We need to focus on issues and not make the perceived possibility of winning in November the biggest issue. I am glad to hear him calling for "Universal Access" to Health Care for Children. That is something people can get excited about. I wonder if he thinks it is a bigger issue than his electability.

CGG, I look forward to hearing what your great aunt in Kentucky has to say about the efforts to unionize Toyota there.

As to a filibuster, unfortunately, that is a loaded term these days and the numbers may not be there to sustain a filibuster. So, I’ll return to my standard talking point. The Senate should extensively debate the issue of Alito’s nomination, especially as it relates to the balance of powers that are so essential to our government. In particular, issues of the Unitary Executive Theory need to be addressed, issues of warrantless spying on U.S. Citizens needs to be addressed. Issues of whether portions of the Patriot Act should be made permanent need to be addressed. Issues of the relationship between the Federal Government and State and Local Governments need to be addressed.

Will this change the outcome of the nomination? Probably not. Will we be better off as a country for having a long well thought out debate? Absolutely. Too often in the past few years, the Congress has failed to serious do its job debating the issues. It is time that the Senate starts having serious debates about the issues and not simply rubber stamping requests from the Executive Branch.

Anonymous said...

Aldon, we all know you work for DeStefano, but seriously, GIVE IT A REST.

Every time I read one of your posts I feel like I'm in a super leftist 'no spin zone'.

DeanFan84 said...

I haven't called any one a troll around here in quite sometime, but... This nasty new anonymous pretty much qualifies.

It's amazing how many Republicans can't muster a better arguement than "Shut up! Shut Up! Shut Up!". And then there are those who can't respond substantively but instead think they score points by using the "L" label....

Aldon Hynes said...

Anon(6:14) I am glad you know that I work for Mayor DeStefano. I am glad to proudly proclaim what I believe, to fight for what I think will make Connecticut and our country better. I wish more people would do that instead of making snide comments lacking content or a name to stand behind.

In the story of our Declaration of Independence it is said that John Hancock signed his name largely and clearly so that King George III would be able to read it without his glasses. I, too, am proud to boldly state what I believe so that President George and Governor Jodi will know that there are at least some people who will stand up for what they believe.

No, my anonymous friend, it are people like you that would discourage political discourse, that would discourage people from standing up for what they believe that are doing the real damage to democracy and to our country and should GIVE IT A REST.

Plato said...

Well stated Aldon.
To quote myself, "The penalty for not participating in politics is to be governed by your inferiors".
Senatorial debate as well as citizenry debate is vital to the progression of any nation. The restriction of opinion is certain death for liberty.

Chris said...

(raises his right hand)

I, a registered Republican (and one time candidate... well at least as a Republican), vow never to say "shut up..." etc. and isntead shall always partake in spirited debate and discourse with conservatives and liberals alike only engaging in the facts (or silly things I've cut and pasted from Garfield, Blondie, and Bettle Bailey cartoons) in the pursuit of common ground... or not...

... and while I may not remember my name from one post to the next, I will NEVER sign as anonymous. :)

(anyone have some extra nametags? ..seems my log-in isn't working)

Chris said...

Proud Moderate Dem -

Yes, I'm aware of his record. It was refreshing for him to come straight out and say it very notably. It'll become a key part of his campaign later this year to hold his base in the primary.

I was actually thinking he would vote for Alito based on Alito's knowledge, jurisprudence and whatever other hodgepodge most senators used to vote for Court nominees.

Instead, Liberman in his statements rested his decision on one thing alone: his likely stand on Roe vs. Wade. Lieberman decided that because he doesn't agree with Alito on one single case- (he downplayed everything else and offered them to show a pittance variety) - he's voting against him.

This despite even liberal lawyers who have called Roe vs. Wade as 'shakey' precedent in terms of Constitutional Law.

Anonymous said...

Roe has a pretty clear lineage of Constitutional Law cases that back it up going well back beyond Griswold v. CT to many of the privacy cases early this century. Roe makes a leap from previous precedent...but there is still precedent and a litany of legal cases that define it. I'm also not defending Roe, just pointing out what a couple of semesters of Con law in law school will tell you

For "shakey" cases see Bush v. Gore or perhaps US v. Nixon both of which were devoid of precedent.

You may also want to look at US v. Lopez or US v. Morrison (the crown jewels of Rhenquist Federalism) which reversed about 200 years of Commerce Clause Precedent, because in sum "previous Supreme Courts got it wrong".

I bring up the last point because they'll be a serious challenge to Roe before the next presidential...

the wandererrrrr said...

The need for a legal abortion to protect health and safety will always be protected by the Constituion but probably not by the torturous Solominic reasoning of Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure 24 out of 100 pregnacies ending in abortion are safe, legal and rare. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure my numbers are correct.