Monday, March 20, 2006

Malloy Campaign: DeStefano "Lashing Out"

The Malloy campaign is starting to get aggressive in their pursuit of delegates. For example, read the following release:

"It's unfortunate that John DeStefano chose to 'formally kick off' his campaign by intentionally misrepresenting Dan Malloy's position on the estate tax. Dan is not for repealing the estate tax -- and he's never made that proposal. Worse, John DeStefano knows that," [said Chris Cooney, Malloy's campaign manager].

"I assume John is doing this because he's having a bad day: between Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez's endorsement of Dan Malloy, and the strong, public support we've announced today in Meriden, perhaps John's feeling the heat. I understand that. But intentionally misstating Dan's position isn't the answer.

"We also know that John has been lashing out -- the misinformation in his press conference today is a perfect example -- because many hardworking men and women who are members of unions have been learning that when John Rowland tried to gut binding arbitration in 1995, John DeStefano testified in favor of that proposal at a public hearing at the Legislature. That's factual and inescapable. The misstatements by the DeStefano campaign today should be seen for what they are -- a political smoke screen." (Statement)

Expect an equally scathing rebuttal from the DeStefano campaign as the two contenders try desperately to appear legitimate during a critical week.

Source
Malloy for Governor. "Statement from Malloy Campaign Manager on John DeStefano's Press Conference." Press Release, 20 March, 2006.

Update

The DeStefano campaign's response:

New Haven: John DeStefano stands behind his record and public comments and feels Dan Malloy should do the same in regards to the estate tax. In a recent article in the NewHavenIndependent.org, Malloy said that he agrees with the idea of cutting the estate tax and rolling back a law that raised taxes on estates of some of the richest people who die in Connecticut. Now he appears to be backtracking.

“Philosophically, he agreed with the concept of estate tax cuts as an economic development tool. Given that other states have eliminated the estate tax, "we need to price ourselves competitively for a jobs program," he said.”
Paul Bass – Newhavenindependent.org (Feb. 13, 2006)


DeStefano disagrees with Malloy’s position and believes it’s time to stop giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. (Response)

Take that.

Source
DeStefano for Connecticut. "Response to Dan Malloy's Statement: DeStefano Stands by his Record, Malloy Should Do the Same." Press Release, 20 March 2006.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Y A W N

Anonymous said...

Here's the New Haven Independent article in which Malloy said he supports "part" of Rell's proposal to eliminate the estate tax. (It's not clear which part.) He would "roll back a law passed last year that raised taxes on the estates of the richest 2.2 percent of the people who die in Connecticut" and that he is open to "looking" at the idea of phasing out the tax. He said it is "proven" that lowering or wiping out estate taxes convinces wealthy people to choose to live in a state -- and start businesses. Malloy's claim is totally bogus - there is zero evidence that estate taxes cause people to move. It's just a giveaway to the superwealthy, who have already benefitted from billions of tax giveaways from the Bush administration and who already pass much less of a percentage of their income in state and local taxes as the rest of us. More on the estate tax.

Anonymous said...

Now that the fundraising quarter is almost over, Dan is flip-flopping on the estate tax repeal that he pretended to support!

He doing the same thing that Lieberman did when he took the LNG money!

You gotta admire the good work of Roy O and company.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cooney, I believe your pants are on fire

Proud Moderate Dem said...

it seems that ever since aldon let the cat out of the bag that destefano had cooties malloy has been gaining ground

DeanFan84 said...

(Wow, and I thought Lamont-Lieberman was the hot and angry primary.)

The good news is that Joe is in CT this week. The bad news is that no one seems to know where.

Can it be that Lieberman is so chickensh*t scared that he won't share his schedule publicly with CT voters?

If anyone knows when and where Joe is appearing this week, please post it here. I have a few questions for the good Senator!

1). Will you die a Democrat?
2). How much is your wife getting paid to lobby for Big Pharma? (there is a rumor she left this job b/c of the coming primary.)
3). Iraq-- Will you swear to me the conflict is winnable, please? Are we building permanent bases? Two years from now, will we still have troops on the ground in Iraq?
4). Hamas. They won. In light of this, are we sure democracy is such a good thing for the Mid-East> And if so, why aren't we pressuring our friends the Saudis to move towards Democracy?
5). If the polling gets close, might BuckPAC be re-constituted? Has William Buckley offered you his help and support in the same way Sean Hannity has?

Finally, I ran across this Wall Street Journal opinion piece, entitled:
Target No. 2: Saddam
Destroying al Qaeda is only the first step in this war.


You, Senator Lieberman, wrote that op-ed in October of 2001, well before Bush & Co. started advocating for the Iraq Invasion. Anyway, my friend says that you wanted to invade Iraq, BEFORE 9/11. Is this true?

Anonymous said...

This is going to be like an old comedy movie

"Lefty and Leftier"

BTW, if DeStefano is so against "giveaways to the superwealthy" why did he reduce Bob Matthoews tax assessments in new haven 50%?

Bueller???? Bueller???

Anonymous said...

I saw the Malloy/DeStefano forum in Westport yesterday, and both candidates were asked about the estate tax. DeStefano clearly said he was against it. Malloy clearly danced around it. It the NH Independant article that was posted above, he says he needs to continue to look into it. He has been running for governor for 2 years, what is he waiting for? It sounded like the typical political response for me and really turned me off. Today's press release seemed very defensive, which is becoming a common theme with him in my mind. Earlier in the debate, someone in the crowd asked about what areas each candidate felt they were stronger in, ans DeStefano mentioned his lead in fundraising. It was a very small piece of his answer, but Malloy started his repsonse very defensively by saying that he has beaten DeStefano the past 2 quarters, and that every quarter they have both actively raised money, he has outraised him. But at the end of the day, DeStefano has more money to spend on advertising. So unless Malloy catches him, why does it matter when the money came in? Am I missing something here. I can care less about fundraising other than the fact that you need to do it in order to get your message out. So what was Malloy's point other than that he is embarrased that he is from the richest county in the country and he is being out-fundraised by a Mayor from New Haven? I was clearly leaning DeStefano before the debate, but I was utterly turned off by Malloy's harsh repsonse, and even more turned off by his staff's release today.

Anonymous said...

I think the previous poster makes a pretty good point. I was also at the forum in Westport this past Sunday - Destefano on at least 3 occasions pointed out that one of the deferences between him and Malloy was that they disagreed on the estate tax. At no point did Malloy stop Destefano or disagree with his assesment. Now I read this whinny press release from his campaign manager. Does this mean that Malloy didnt stand up at the forum and object because he didnt want to take what might have been an unpopular position with the people of Westport? If so, I think he is gutless. Does this mean that Malloy wasn't sure of his position and had to talk to Chris after the forum to find out? If this is true, he is clueless. I really dont know what to think of the Malloy camp.

Anonymous said...

Methinks the Destefano camp doth protest too much.

Worried about something?

route 34 said...

It is really laughable that you would think these last 2 posts are DeStefano staffers. Though I do not post too often, I look at this blog everyday, and it is so obvious that Malloy staffers post anonymously all of the time. Look back at any topic and you will see some "anonymous" post talking about some Malloy press release or interview, at a point in the thread in which nobody is even mentioning the gubernatorial campaign. I normally don't say anything because that is part of "blogging", but you cannot be serious about that last comment if you are a Malloy supporter.

Anonymous said...

Boy, the DeStefano campaign has a full court spin going on here. One of the issues missing thus far from the thread is DeStefano's position on binding arbitration. Hard to believe that Mr. Labor himself sided with labor's #1 enemy -- John Rowland on this issue. What an embarassment -- and how insulting to the average working man/woman.

Anonymous said...

Someone should Let JDS know he backed the wrong horse in Branford.Frank Cerano Defeated Ed Marcus's handed picked stooge,Jim Bruno, 41-39 at the Dem Town Committee meeting tonite to take the Chairmanship and the entire Marcus Slate was Defeated.
You got some apologizing to do for those phone calls JDS.

Anonymous said...

what difference does this all make when both are lousy candidates ( and im a Dem)...with lousy democratic consultants....if Malloy loses will ROy O promise to go back to being a singing waiter at Carbone's Restaurant?

Anonymous said...

If he does can we have him judged by Simon Cowell?

turfgrrl said...

Really, who cares about the estate tax? The real issue is property tax reform, and it would be nice if any of the gubernatorial candidates could focus on why Connecticut has a third world infrastructure and propose a vision, not a detailed plan, just a vision on how we Connecticut can get into the 21 st century. Adding more rail cars and bickering about state contracting issues is just so 19th century.

Brian Durand said...

Anonymous 9:29

I was also at the debate in Westport, and heard Dan's answer regarding the estate tax. I've also been at many town committee meetings with Dan where he has answered questions regarding the tax.

His answer in Westport was what it always has been in the almost two years that I've been on his campaign. He said that he is very much in favor of progressive taxation. At the same time, we need to understand that jobs should be our number one priority, so any tax should be "on the table" if a study determines it has a negative effect on creating or maintaining jobs in our State.

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, but to me that is not "dancing" around anything. It's giving an honest answer.

Just my 2 cents.

bluecoat said...

turffgrrl, Chris Shays has been spending a lot of time in Iraq looking at the reconstruction efforts and he should be able to now help CT do similar things.

On a serious matter it is still imperative that we now bring about political stability in that country because we did break it when we dropped the policy of containmanent and isolation. I'll once again refer my detractors on that to Cobra II, by Bernared Trainor (Lt. Gen USMC retired) and Mike Gordon of the New York Times just out a few weeks ago. and I should add that Lamont should really stop quoting general Casey because he has obviously never spoken to him and he is taking his words totally out of context. The military is determined to suceed in Iraq and they are pushing the hell out of the political process to make that happen. This will not be another Vietnam though it maight have been.

bluecoat said...

turffgrrl, Chris Shays has been spending a lot of time in Iraq looking at the reconstruction efforts and he should be able to now help CT do similar things.

On a serious matter it is still imperative that we now bring about political stability in that country because we did break it when we dropped the policy of containmanent and isolation. I'll once again refer my detractors on that to Cobra II, by Bernared Trainor (Lt. Gen USMC retired) and Mike Gordon of the New York Times just out a few weeks ago. and I should add that Lamont should really stop quoting general Casey because he has obviously never spoken to him and he is taking his words totally out of context. The military is determined to suceed in Iraq and they are pushing the hell out of the political process to make that happen. This will not be another Vietnam though it maight have been.

Anonymous said...

Brian,

Face it Dan was playing to his base,The EXTREMELY wealthy. His inability to take the Estate tax repeal off the Table Shows the DLC,Republican lite tag he's stuck with is well deserved.

Anonymous said...

Brian-

The Mayor's position on the estate tax was simple.. he favored repealing it while he sucked Greenwich and the rest of Fairfield County dry with campaign contributions and now that he's done he's back to the democrat position of favoring a "progressive tax structure". Anon 7:03, Mar. 20 is right atleast on this issue. Let's not turn this into some jobs thing, because its not. It's a money thing.