Wednesday, February 15, 2006

It's All About Popular

Once again, Jodi Rell is the most popular governor in America, according to a SurveyUSA poll taken February 10-13. In fact, her popularity soared to its highest peak in more than a year.

Two reasons why: first, Rowland got out of jail. Whenever he's in the news, people remember how glad they are to be rid of him. Rell got a similar bounce last April when Rowland was sentenced.

Second, people may be reacting to her proposal to eliminate the car tax. It isn't a well-liked tax (if there is such a thing), and while Democrats and some municipal leaders fret and fume about it, the general public seems pretty happy with the idea.

As the election year progresses, it's looking more and more likely that Rell's numbers combined with her actions will translate into an overwhelming electoral victory. Not even a fundraising scandal has been able to bring down Rell's popularity.

Opposition for its own sake

This can lead Democrats to a difficult place, in which they acquire strange bedfellows. Witness House Speaker Jim Amman speaking about the proposed repeal of the car tax in Cromwell yesterday:

Noting his strong opposition as a young legislator to a similar proposal by Democratic state Sen. James Maloney of Danbury in 1994, Amann said his views have not changed. Maloney's plan was signed into law by then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., but was repealed the next year after John G. Rowland succeeded Weicker.

"This is Gov. Rell's resurrection of the Maloney baloney tax," Amann said, using a term popularized by Rowland when he pushed for repeal. (Keating)

Okay, then. "Maloney baloney tax?" Technically, it was more of a Maloney baloney tax ax, right? It's also unclear how a plan that would refund to towns 100% of the money that they should have received from the car tax would lose towns money. I'm not sure that even the towns know what will happen if the tax is repealed, at this point.

Worse, Democrats are starting to look like hypocrites, because they're the ones who have been pushing for property tax reform. A better plan--or even a mildly acceptable alternative--has not been forthcoming from the majority. Rell has been very good at co-opting the issues of her opposition and making them her own. Bill Clinton knew how to do this, also--and it drove Republicans just as crazy.

So all Democrats can do at this moment is oppose the plan on dozens of different, unsteady grounfs, and side with jittery municipal officals who are concerned about losing control over one of their revenue streams. This is a lousy position to reform property taxes from.

The sad fact of the matter is that property tax reform will necessarily be a painful thing. There is no way to alleviate property taxes--and municipalities' over-reliance on them--without infringing on local control. Whether that infringement comes in the form of Gov. Rell's modest tax reshuffling, regionalization of services or some sort of other state tax increase depends on how serious the legislature is about getting the job done.

Right now the Democratic leadership doesn't seem serious about property tax reform at all, while Gov. Rell does. It doesn't matter whether the tax is actually some sort of giveaway to the rich (it isn't) or that it doesn't really do anything to help out towns (it won't); what matters is that once again, she's managed to look like a bold, pragmatic reformer while the legislative leadership seems about as proactive as sand turtles.

Is it any wonder, then, why Rell is so popular?


Keating, Christopher. "Amann Takes Aim At Rell's Tax Plan." Hartford Courant 15 February, 2006.

Poll. SurveyUSA Approval Ratings for All 50 Governors as of 2/14/06. Conducted by SurveyUSA Feb. 10-13, 2006.


the wandererrr said...

G.C. When you say regarding eliminating the car tax that it doesn't really do anything to help out towns (it won't) you are wrong because all you are doing is looking at the revenue side of the equation and not the expense side or the citizen aggravation side. As for Rell's popularity, the honeymoon is what's doing that and Rowland's homecoming once again reminding folks that sleaze is gone and granny is in. This isn't even a horse race yet.

Anonymous said...

This won't become a horse race. Look at the latest polls--Dems have a serious problem with their base. Rell's drawing better from Democrats than ANY other Democrat. The factionalizing of the party is what is keeping Rell's numbers up. Now if the House and Senate R's could only catch up with this fact, maybe 2006 won't be such a banner D year after all.

Anonymous said...

There's no race here. Anyone who contests otherwise has been sipp'n too much Gin and Juice with Ernie Newton. Its gott'n way out of hand. Sadly, in a few more months there may be nothing left to blog about. :(

the wandererrr said...

From the Stamford Advocate today, the state's commuters still don't have their Virginia Railway Express cars on the rails and Commissioner Korta is apparently giving Senator Duff a rough time on when they will but at least according to the Hartford Courant Korta and his fellow Rell Commisssioners may be fined for raising money when they were supposed to be working for the taxpayers

disgruntled_republican said...

THis posting is sure to have senseless rambling, so apologize in advance. While reading remember, I am a Republican guys...

As a former Town Councilman in my hometown, I cringe at this idea. Yes, we pleaded for property tax reform and yes, the car tax is probably the worst tax ever, both from a citizen standpoint and a municipal standpoint but the money is there. She calls it "guarunteed money" which it will be in year one, probably year 2 but what about year 8 & 9. The fact is the legislature in this state has a LONG track record of underfunding. I can't help but wonder how long it will take to underfund this as well. Once that underfunding happens, what are the towns to do? Simple, raise the mil rate and in turn the tax the HOMEOWNER pays in real estate tax. Until real estate tax is looked at as well, this idea won't work. It needs to be done hand in hand.

The other problem I have is where she is funding it from. How many different places are we going to use Indian money? How long will it take to "change" where it goes?

While this idea sounds good, as was my first reaction, looking at it more closely shows it is for the birds. This, in my humble opinion, is not property tax reform.

Ansd guys, I have a confession to make...when I watched the news and Tom Monihan was talking to Johnny, as pi**ed off as I was at him, I reralize it is time to move on. I don't agree with the length he served but that wasn't my call. There is no sense in letting his betrayl haunt us anymore...lets all move on!

Genghis Conn said...

To really reform property taxes, services are going to have to be regionalized. Having 169 little counties won't do anymore--the old New England "town" system is broken.

Whether the state eventually starts underfunding the towns on this or not (and yes, disgruntled_republican, they do have a history of doing that, I won't deny), the elimination of the car tax is a start, and at least it's something. I have a suspicion that this tax repeal is meant more to lure people to CT from out of state than it is real property tax reform.

Maybe this can lead to a discussion in the legislature of how to really get the ball rolling on more substantial property tax reform.

Anonymous said...

Even if you have 'real' property tax reform, i.e., raising the marginal income tax rate, and passing the additional tax revenue to towns, there is no guarantee that the legislature would continue to do so. At any time, if the collective wisdom of the General Assembly decides they would rather spend the money themselves, they will short change the towns. This has happened repeatedly, and will happen again.

GC is absolutely right. Why does just about every town have a separate Superintendent of Schools? A separate Police Chief? Not to mention the duplication of services in Public Works, parks, etc. Just a transfer of additional funds from one group of taxpayers to another won't even begin to address the problem.

the wandererrr said...

let me try this one more time; raise the property tax on my house!!! but get rid of the car tax!!!!why does the simplest little thing have to become some big ass policy wonk discussion

Anonymous said...

Listen, I don't know about you but I'm not hot on the thought that eliminating the car tax is going to raise my other property taxes. Basically we are saying to renters and to everyone else who owns a car but doesn't own real property, "Sure, suckle at the teet of local social services. use the schools, the roads, the library, the snow clearing, the parks, FOR FREE." That's bullsh$t. More government welfare. That casino money better be demonstrably locked-in before they even flirt with this idea.

the wandererrrr said...

Renters do pay property taxes - how do you think landlords set the rent? Renters also pay income taxes for sure and they often skirt the car tax by register there car elsewhere - taxes ain't ever fair!!!

the wandererrr said...

It's called tax and insurance fraud; thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

You're right! Maybe we could get DeFronzo's portly aide (and ex-NB alderman) to explain to us the finer points of registering one's vehicle in a more tax-friendly town...even when you're an elected official in another.

the wandererrr said...

my 12:03 post was in answer to anon 12:04; don't ask me how that happened?

disgruntled_republican said...


Agreed...It may be a start and services do need to be regionalized. (Regionalization was one of my platform items in my latest election defeat). However, I look at a town like yours and see major problems. Granted they may not be unlike other towns but its irrelevant. Let's use Enfield as an example, shall we.

Enfield has 5 independant taxing agents in their fire departments. This repeal does not take that into account. Thus, in July, you will get a fire tax bill on your car. In Enfield, the town handles the FD taxes for them so this eliminates none of the work in town hall.

I still maintain that it is not a matter of "whether" they underfund it it is very truely when thety underfund it. I challenge anyone to cite one thing, aside from a grant, that the state has not underfunded within 5 years. It is not goiong to change. Will this lead to a discussion in the legislature? Not a chance. There is currently 2 bafoons running the show and they haven't grabbed ahold of anything in 2 years...suppose they haven't found their "comfort zones" yet.

To the wandererrr & Anon 11:46-

I agree in part with both of you. This one issue could be the most pressing reason aside from education that we need real property tax reform.

While renters do pay taxes in their rent, they most certainly are not paying their fair share. I am a firm beleiver that property taxes are for the good of the whole as I tell adults with no kids and seniors who complain about the schools they dont use. I don't use the senior center or the school and I dont whine. Anyway, I am willing to bet if you did a democraphic study, most users of social services in any given town are renters. This is not said to degrade them, it is just the way it is. A family with 2 kids in a 3BR apartment is certainly not even paying 1/2 as much as a family in a 3BR ranch. At least the car tax helps level the playing field. Here's an idea...why don't we increase the $350 to $500 or $600 for HOMEOWNERS. That would certainly level things out until some brave Speaker or President Pro-Temp has to gonads to finally debate this issue.

sanity said...

It is funny that GC and Anon 11:36 brought up the county system as that thought has been weighing heavily on my mind for some time.

I am all for a strong county system to help eliminate redundant and costly services and increase economies of scale in order to reduce our taxes and cost of living in Connecticut. I don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue in this state.

I'm looking at my job being outsourced in about 18 months and have been seriously considering a move to another state where the prospects for people in my profession are better. I am lucky in that I have plenty of time to study and weigh the benefits of staying in Connecticut versus moving out of state.

One of the many things I've been looking at in other states are the structure and culture of government. I have found that the states with the lower tax rates tend to be states with a strong county form of government that delivers more efficient services. It really is something we in high-cost Connecticut should seriously look into.

And I already hear many of you saying "don't let the door hit you on your way out. Good, another republican is looking to leave our state." And another taxpayer too. I grew up here, I'd like to stay here if possible, but I have to go to where the jobs are and where I can best provide for my family. If it's not Connecticut, it'll be someplace else.

Anonymous said...

Sullivan's personal endorsement of DeStefano just got blasted out on email.

Bad move on Kevin's part. This is his swan song in politics, and man is it way out of tune.

Franks said...

Reading all this speculation surrounding the exclusion of motor vehicle property taxes and it's claimed benefits to individuals and a town, you should be interested in the review and opinion of an informed official.

As Towns review these fiscal notes, a better understanding of the impacts of Rell's horse trade of the income tax credit will be understood.

Anonymous said...

The news could get much worse for the Democrats in November if they can't take Rell down a few pegs. Just think, when Republican House and Senate candidates run on the top line with an extremely popular Rell vs an un-popular Bush, you could be looking at a 15-20 point swing vs 2004.

Anonymous said...

Sullivan and DeStefano both refer to Sullivan "as Connecticut's highest-ranking state Democratic official." How is that, since he is second to the Governor, and the other constitutional officers are the heads of their respective functions? If I were any of the other constitutional officers, I think I'd endorse Molloy, just out of spite.

I guess he must be measuring his importance by his license plate number.

sanity said...

Hopefully someone more knowledgable on this stuff can answer this for me.

In passing CFR, the legislature claimed that public campaign financing would incur zero additional costs to taxpayers. They tagged escheats from unclaimed property to fund public campaign financing. These escheats existed before CFR. What were they being used for before CFR?

The car tax repeal is to be replaced, in part, by revenues generated from the casinos. The revenue generated from the casinos already exists. The casino revenues that will be used to find the repeal; where is that money going to right now?

Brass Anon said...

We can discuss policy all we want, but it is not going to matter in the election. Rell is a winner because she is doing something real for everyone who owns a car. She is a politician who cuts taxes. That alone gets her more than 60% of the vote.
For a long time I thought that Rell would come back to the pack, the democrats would get some traction after the primary, and we'd have a close race in November.
I don't see it happening now. It is going to be a blowout.

disgruntled_republican said...


That is my point exactly with the Funding to towns in leiu of car tax. We can only use that same pot of money for so many some point it has to end.


Thanks for the link. Just backs up what I have been saying.

Anonymous said...

The car tax appeal is a cheap gimmick. Malloy and DeStefano should counter with a call to cut the state sales tax in half.

The fact is you don't toss away an existing revenue source unless you are rolling in money. The State of CT isn't.

So I look at this as an election-year maneuver only. That Rell tried to sell it as a step towards "Tax Fairness" is ludicrous. All it will do is shift burdens away from the rich, and renters, towards the middle class and homeowners.

I hope the Dems will get their act together and come out with some proposals of their own. Jodi has opened the door for them to do what they want. She will be powerless to veto any "Tax Fairness" legislation that they might come up with.

PingPong said...

Where's the Dems property tax proposal? If this is a gimmick why don't Democrats simply propose something that is not a gimmick? Instead of only criticizing her why don't you guys shove it back in her face!!!

No plan = lost elections! When are you going to realize this?

Windsor Dem said...

I'm a suburban school board member, and I rent. Two years ago, revaluation caused the taxes on the house I live in to rise about 15%. With a smirk, my landlord raised the rent accordingly; it was poetic justice. So no one should be such a know-nothing as to claim that renters don't pay property tax. That said, I would happily, happily pay a municipal income tax, a raised state income tax, or any other mechanism to support our schools and local services that has some basis in ability to pay.

With respect to the structural impediments to real property tax reform, the parochialism of of municipal officials is truly astonishing. The thought of sharing duplicative services, such as human resources, purchasing, payroll, or transportation, between school districts immediately raises vocal, vituperative objections from many of my fellow low-level functionaries. I would love to form regional service compacts! I would welcome increased state oversight if that were accompanied by the resources we need to improve student achievement and take a bite out of the achievement gap! In my experience, though, municipal officials obsessed with preserving their prerogatives over their fiefdoms do as much to aggravate solutions to the property tax problem as our lip-service legislature and governor.

Ding Dong said...

"That has some basis in ability to pay."

Wow-you weren't kidding-you are quite a Dem. Those who can afford to pay more, pay more. And those who can't afford their taxes get a free ride. Pass the granola.

And if you're so willing to shell out the bucks for increased local and state taxes, why not pony-up and buy a house and pay 'em? Plus, you'd get to write-off your interest. Pretty sweet deal.

Anonymous said...

A "Suburban school board member," eh? Well, I'd elect you simply on the prodigious use of hifalutin verbiage in your post.

Anonymous said...

The answer is simple. Insitute a flat tax.

Then get rid of the car tax, the property tax, all business taxes, the sales tax, the income tax, excise taxes,-- Get rid of all taxes, except a per capita tax.

As a CT Republicans that's what I want, and why not. For most of us who work hard Tax Freedom Day would then fall in January. And if it takes some lazy minimum wage loafer until Labor Day to pay his taxes, so what? Everyone should have an equal stake in America!

Such a better idea than taxing people by their ability to pay. So much fairer and more democratic to tax everyone equally.

turfgrrl said...

Connecticut cannot be economically competitive with 169 variable taxes and services. Getting rid of the car tax is a step in the right direction. It is not only inequitable town to town, but also for the people who lease cars rather than buy cars. The state can always look increasing motor vehicle registration fees to accrue money related to transportation services. The regionalization of services has to happen for Connecticut's cities to thrive. The car tax is a small but important step in that direction.

Anonymous said...

turfgrrl-- huh?
you wrote: "The state can always look increasing motor vehicle registration fees to accrue money related to transportation services."

For the record, car taxes go directly into town budgets, not towards the DOT.

Democrats long ago proposed one statewide rate car taxes. Presto. Bango. Fairness enacted.

CT's real tax inequities come from the disparities between residential property taxes. A $300,000 house in one town might pay only $2500 in taxes. In another, it's bill could be $5,000, or twice that.

People are delusional to believe they will ever receive the money "saved" by getting rid of car taxes. State spending will remain the same, and the revenues will simply have to come from somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

you said, "There's no race here. Anyone who contests otherwise has been sipp'n too much Gin and Juice with Ernie Newton."

Let me reply, there might not be a race, but there sure is a racist. You sound like Fuzzy Zoeller when he made his "fried chicken" comment after Tiger won the Masters.

The amazing thing is no one called you out on your racist comment. It says a lot about Republican blogs and bloggers.

Anonymous said...

I saw the stupid comment as well, I just chose to ignore it-- and hoped that they just went away.

ctkeith said...

Looks like GC has made this the official Jodi Rell Booster Blog.

Never mind that all the Real analysis says that the Car tax and the rest of Rells proposal is very little different in it's give away to the top 2% of taxpayers than Ws.

GC,a renter,thinks he's going to save a couple of hundred on his tax bill.Who'd of thought an X Green could be bought so cheaply.

I guess old Greens don't die. They just wait until their daddys do and return to their roots in the Republican party.

sanity said...

Anon 5:48 - what if anon 10:55 had used the name 'John Rowland,' 'Philip Giordano' or 'Joe Ganim' instead of 'Ernie Newton'? How do you know Anon 10:55 isn't black? How do you know Anon 10:55 is a Republican blogger..., or even a Republican?

Not everything is racial. I hate racism as much as anyone. Let's not be hypersensitive about everything that is said. Are you saying that Anon 10:55's remark would have been more acceptable had he or she named a white person instead of a black person? Ernie Newton, whether he is white or black, happens to be the most recent state official to have been convicted of a crime and to have breached the public's trust.

I agree racism is ugly and is a problem, and we all should be sensitive to it. But not every derogatory statement made against a black person is racism. Sometimes it is just a derogatory statement against a person.

Anonymous said...


Gin n' Juice, like watermelon or fried chicken, is code language and a racial slap to the face.

What isn't surprising is that you don't recognize it as such. Very typical of Republican bloggers...

sanity said...

Are you calling me a racist because 1) I am a Republican and 2) because I am not familiar with that particular racial slur? You don't even know me. And to label all or even a majority of Republicans as racists! Given your "sensitivities" to racism, how does labeling an entire class of people that way any better than a racist?

I've heard the watermelon and fried chicken references, but never the gin 'n juice reference. If it is a common racial slur then
I was unaware of that term nor have I ever used the term myself. I make it a practice not to use racial slurs and it find it virtually effortless to adhere to that practice. I also try not to associate with people who tend to use racial slurs, which may have something to do with why I wasn't familiar with that particular racial slur. If that makes me a typical Republican Blogger, than I accept your compliment.

Anonymous said...

Could someone from each camp please explain why someone who lives in a a frugal town with low taxes and chooses to live frugally with older cars should be taxed more?

Seems like the only debate between the political parties is how to raise the taxes I pay. And yes, in the name of "fairness" my town will probably have its school funding slashed. So my house tax will go up, too

It's time the "good sons" got rewarded. But no, another fatted calf for all the prodigal sons out there

Independent1 said...

I haven't posted in a while, but I have noticed that as DeStefano/Molloy have failed to gain any traction, and the polls keep Rell out front, the tone of the posts have all gotten extremely personal. I've enjoyed this blog, and the civil disagreements and discussions that have been had here, immensely. I have had some good chuckles with some of the exchanges, but most have been done with a good sense of humor and lack of malice. If the best the Left or the Right can offer is personal attacks, it's no wonder we're all 'bowling alone.'

Proud Moderate Dem said...

i am not sold on the car tax idea being a good thing, what i do like about it is that its starts the debate on property tax reform. dems have been screaming about this for a long time and now that it is in the debate arena, all we have to say is why its a bad idea and not offer anything else tangible? i mean c'mon, amman's response is to take a line from jailbird rowland and say its maloney baloney? and why is no one attacking the real issue that property taxes should not be the sold funding source of education. lastly, how long are dems going to live in this denial that rell's numbers arent real and are inflated? let's deal with reality, find our common ground and offer real solutions to the people of CT and maybe our numbers will start to rise.

Anonymous said...

sure, the Dems message is , screw the suburbs. Good luck with that

Jim Amann is already playing loose cannon to protect his vulnerable meembers

ctkeith said...

OK ,I'm a Dem And heres my Idea.

Everyone in Ct Does there Federal Income tax using the Yr 2000 rules.

then you do your federal tax using 2006 rules.

The difference goes to the state.

This would result in the Ct. State government being awash in money and the rich paying there fair share.

Everyone who made over 200,000 a yr got a huge taxbreak under Bush (which is where that extra trillion on the deficit came from) and Rells plan will give them more while screwing a guy living in a small cape like me AGAIN.

Anonymous said...

CTK, the only part of the economy that would benefit from your scheme would be, for a short time, moving companies in Fairfield County

ctkeith said...


Thats Utter Horseshit.

I worked in Greenwich for 10 yrs remodeling the homes of some of the wealthiest families in this country and they aint going anywhere.A home in Greenwich Darien or Stamford is the safest and most rewarding investment in the world even if the tax burden of the owners were quadrupaled.

Get real.

sanity said...

ctkeith - what, exactly is your definition of "fair share"?

To me it means that if you consume x amount of services, you pay y amount of money. If you consume 2x amount of services, you pay 2y amount of money.

Don't get me wrong, I am not proposing that every taxpayer pay exactly the same amount of money relative to the government services they use. That just isn't realistic, I know that. But don't tell me that the rich don't pay their "fair share". Even with the Bush tax cuts that you reference, the wealthier still pay more money both in terms of raw dollars and percentage of income.

The wealthy do get some tax breaks that the poor don't get to take advantage of. The wealthy also pay taxes that the poor don't have to pay - i.e. - Estate Taxes.

I am not necessarily completely against a progressive tax system and I'm not sure that it would be realistic of me to say that the wealthy shouldn't kick in a larger portion of their income than the poor. No system of taxation is perfect. But I have trouble saying that the wealthy as a whole are not paying their "fair share".

So, ctkeith, what exactly is your definition of "fair share" and under what circumstances or at what point would you feel that the wealthy are paying their "fair share".

Footnote: I am not among the wealthy.

Anonymous said...

The Insanity defense--

City people use and need more services. As such, city people deserve to pay 2y taxes.

And the rich people in CT have such a crappy deal!

Anonymous said...

CTK, so the Sunday NY Times reporting on the exodus from Fairfield County is all horse dung?

The problem with ideologues is they never let reality get in the way of their theories.

BTW, why did Atlanta's Ted Turner buy a ranch in FL?

(Hello, GA had a state income tax)

Anonymous said...

If snowbirds reside in FL, it's because of the Income Tax, (FL has none). Not the estate tax.

Compare state by state taxes here.

Anonymous said...

well, I suppose the argument is since they we are running them out already we should just exacerbate the problem

"This is the Captain. The Titanic has hit an iceberg. We are lighting the ship on fire as well"

I suppose the Dem Gov of VA is so clueless he signed estate tax repeal....and where did a major Fairfield County HQ just move?


Anonymous said...

Bush gave tax break to the Rich? I must of slept through this one. Will somebody please explain. Did he say tax cut for only those who make more than 200K per year? That's what it sounds like and if so, how did he get re-elected?

Anonymous said...

He cheated. Seriously. I've spoken to people who witnessed it first hand.

Chris MC said...

proud mod dem hit it squarely on the head again. It is curious that Republicans, OK, nobody, wants to engage with the real debate.

Not that regionalizing services isn't a worthwhile endeavor. But get out the back of your nearest envelope and figure out in dollars what that really means. Not so much, certainly not a sea-change.

The elephant on the table (no pun) is education spending. Something like 70% of your local budget expenditures across the state. Nobody actually talks about it, because it is the third rail of municipal politics, which is to say State politics as well.

This blog would be a great place where people could anonymously discuss the nitty gritty of our method and system of education. And I don't mean the usual wizzing on the teachers, as if by treating them like unskilled labor expenses - that drop directly to the bottom line when you reduce them - we will achieve anything like competitiveness in the globalizing competition for high-margin businesses and so on.

But we have a school system that runs on an agrarian calendar using an industrial model that often resembles a process of institutionalization and commodity processing, funded by a system of evaluating wealth that lost its validity in Connecticut about what, twenty-five years ago?

Incidently, in lower Fairfield County towns like Darien and Greenwich they aren't calling for cutting local property taxes. That money goes to their local schools, and serves to make the exclusivity of those communities greater. Get it? Don't bother saying otherwise, I've lived there and witnessed it. It was a topic of conversation.

Genghis Conn said...

Interesting, Chris. You're right about education, and I did a bit of research since posting this piece only to discover that the difference in education budget between towns that were part of a regional school system and those that had their own systems was not as great as I thought. I'm not sure why that is, exactly, but the numbers are the numbers.

Go post this in the current open forum. I think people aren't reading this post anymore, and it's worth talking about.

ctkeith said...

This seems to be a pattern with you GC and it's why I get so pissed at you here.

The car tax was a perfect example.5 minutes after Rells speech you were touting it as a wonderful step without an ounce of research.Every paper that did the research showed it was indeed a boon for the wealthiest and nothing but a gimmick and yet your latest on it is says it's not.

Being first and wrong is NOT the purpose of this blog,is it?

Genghis Conn said...

Keith, the purpose of this blog is to piss you off.

And we're darn good at it, too.

ctkeith said...

are you purposely avoiding the content of my complaint or just admitting it's totally acurate with your snark?

Just asking.

Proud Moderate Dem said...

think the purpose of the blog ctkeith is to exhange opinions and ideas. and ron burgandy has this newsflash, not everyone who writes on this blog thinks just like you as opposed to the others that you post on.the math eqaution i liked best was when you said that lamonts 13% is a great number bc if you were able to get that 13% to vote in the primary you would be almost there bc only 25% come out and vote in the primary. i mean, c'mon. sounds like some fuzzy math to me man.

ctkeith said...

Does it really,

What % of registered Dems are you predicting come out for the August Primary?

This primary is, like all primaries about Motivated voters and Turnout in case you hadn't figured it out.Please explain Where your bosses base is and what major issue they are so passionate about that they are going to the polls when it's 95 in the shade.Joe Lieberman is SCREWED,BIG TIME.

Proud Moderate Dem said...

ctkeith, once again your lack of political knowledge shines through. as i have disclosed before, Lieberman is not my boss, and in looking at the numbers your kind of math is what they must have used when forming the prescription drug bill. the numbers further show that 6% know ned and out of that 6%, 3% like him 2% dont. if that trend continues, it doesnt bode well. i personally think he's a nice guy, just not the right guy to represent CT in the US Senate. in your assessment of the 61-13 defecit, you sound like a high school football coach whose team is losing 49-7 at halftime and telling them that you have them right where you want them, you were just letting them have a false sense fo security. be real man, these numbers werent good. they could of course get better, but these ones were not good.

ctkeith said...

answer the question!

Wheres Joes Base(besides Rs) and what % for Turnout.

Your Boss can't show his face in CT. publicly now.How the hell is he going to in a primary?

Proud Moderate Dem said...

answer what question? do the math buddy. 68-13. nuff said.

Scott Arthur Edwards said...

The fact is that the INTERNET is making people WEALTHY! Shouldn't YOU be one of them? Dear friend, I don't know about you, but I like to be free from a job and able to travel anywhere around the globe. Here is the key to doing just that...Click here on my rotation link and join me so you can be free as a bird and clear of financial worries: FIND OUT NOW!