For those not interested in reading about the history of Connecticut's congressional races.
What's happening around the state, today?
Quick Update
I'm feeling like a big library nerd today so I organized all of the posts I've made about history, and put links to them on one page. They're arranged by order, with some useful information about each included. There's also a menu item called "CT History," which links to that page.
I have this nagging feeling that I've forgotten a post or two. Hmm...
42 comments:
James Papillo's testimony supporting the Catholic Hospital's opposition to use of the morning after pill today will cause some political discomfort for Gov. Rell, who has said that while she would not support the measure, she would sign it into law.
Attempting to stay in the middle of an isues like this, will only burn her from both sides.
Brian: No disrespect intended but how do you convince people to give money to a candidate that has no chance of winning? Even if he gets by DeStefano, and I hope he does, I think everyone knows the general election will be a big win for Auntie Jodi.
It's certainly all right to post these sorts of invitations here, Brian.
Speaking of religion and politics coming together, I just saw an interesting article in CT News Junkie about the Family Institute meddling in Hartford politics. I like Mantilla: I hope she's successful.
Blogger Dave Mooney is running for state rep in Stratford and has the beginnings of a campaign site. Also Stamford/New Canaan state rep candidate William Tong has a new staffer.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
LIVE CALL IN SHOW AT NUTMEG TELEVISION
ON MARCH 22, 2006, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT will be the guest on Nutmeg’s LIVE MIC program. This is your chance Avon, Berlin, Bristol, Burlington, Canton, Farmington, New Britain and Plainville. Spend some time with the Attorney General Blumenthal. Do you have a question for the Attorney General? Did you always wish you had the chance to talk to him directly. Now is your chance, LIVE, uninterrupted with no commercials! Yes, you!!
The program will cable cast from 7-8PM on Comcast Channel 5. Anyone in the viewing audience of Avon, Berlin, Bristol, Burlington, Canton, Farmington, New Britain and Plainville subscribing to Comcast Cable will be able to call (860) 793-2180 with a question they may have for the Attorney General.
Richard Blumenthal was first elected in 1990 and is currently serving an unprecedented fourth term as the Attorney General. His aggressiveness for consumer protection, environmental issues, labor rights, and personal privacy for the taxpayers and consumers of the state of Connecticut has helped in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars.
He has become a big advocate for “No Child Left Behind”, health care coverage and lowering pharmaceutical drug prices.
Nutmeg TV is excited to have him with us for this very special hour! HOWEVER, we need YOU the VIEWERS to watch and call (860)793-2552 with your questions to make the hour a complete success. Plan on spending Wednesday night, March 22, 2006 in front of your television with your phone or cell phone on one side and a bowl of popcorn on the other. 7:00pm is the time, Comcast Channel 5 is the channel! Don’t miss the chance to participate!
The homophobic campaign that is being run in the Hartford Democratic Town Committee primary is a disgrace. The corrupt crowd of Minnie Gonzalez et al. have teamed up with these radical intolerant creeps because they resent that their dirty politics crowd -- like their old friend Eddie Garcia -- has been shut out of the Perez administration.
Kudos to Perez, Mantilla and others for standing strong against these lowest of the low. If anyone reading lives in Hartford and is a registered Democrat, please come out and vote in tomorrow's primary -- for Row B. Don't let these slimeballs get away with this smut.
I get those robocalls all the time: at least once a week. They're always from AFV, and usually done by the same woman. I'm constantly amazed at how poor in quality they are.
Teaming up with the FIC seems like the kiss of death. Have those people ever been successful at anything?
Brian Brown of the "Family Institute" of CT is a horse's ass of a Republican. Any chance we can send him back to California??
Malloy and DeStefano may be in the game to win the right to run in 2010. I don't see any shot of either one of them beating Rell. What Democrats really need to worry about is how many Republican's she may drag into the House and Senate with her? Democrats may be in for a big surprise this year especially if Rell spends some of her huge politcal capital and stumps for House or Senate candidates within striking distance.
Thats fine. People will vote for Jodi and immediatly after, jump lines and vote for Lieberman. Hopefully they will stay on that line.
When it comes to the Connecticut General assembly, people will be more sympathetic to Rell’s request of send me some members of my team than they will to Lieberman. Besides, I doubt Joe Lieberman will be asking to elect Democrats to the General assembly. It’s not his game. Just the same, Rell helps Connecticut Republicans running for district House or Senate seats. She will probably spend more time with Senate candidates because they only need 6 seats once they have a Republican Lt.Governor to break a tie vote. The last time the Republicans had someone as loved at the head of the ticket, they became the majority party. Maybe another big win at home for the gipper. And don't forget, unlike Roy O, the new Republican Chair knows how to win elections...That's why he is there!
Anonymous said...
Thats fine. People will vote for Jodi and immediatly after, jump lines and vote for Lieberman. Hopefully they will stay on that line.
That really isn't jumping lines.
/snark
Mr. President- the Republicans had the party lever in CT in 1984 when you ran for re-election, they don't anymore. And the last time the republicans held a majority was actually in 1994 in the state senate albeit for 2 years.
What, has Gallo got his wife bloggin on this site? I think it's him who has the "Roy O" fascination. To Anon 9:30am - stop swabbing Gallo's nuts...he has the state central committee for that.
Here is another example from today's Norwalk Advocateiof ConnDOT going off half cocked without following the rules. This one is getting blocked in federal court because of all the Greenwich money behind the Merritt Conservancy. The Fairfield people were smart shoving there mess where nobody had any money and experst to expose the truth about transportation.
In yet another indication that the Family Institute folks have WAY too much time on their hands, they've been reading the comments in this thread, and posting snippy comments about how evil and hate-filled we all are.
...that is what the pro same-sex "marriage" elites think of you if you exercise your right as a Hartford resident to vote in today's election.
They've got us again. My hypocrisy hath been exposed. And here I just thought that was what we thought of a tiny group of marginal nuts.
Alas, they don't enable comments. I wonder why?
and bluecoat:: like the opposition in Fairfield, the Merritt Conservancy offered up a number of batter alternatives that would accomplish tha mission and do it at less cost but in Fairfield money rolled over the opposition. and mark felt, there is no woodstein coverimg the fairfied beat.
GC: the Family Institute only preaches and pretends; they do not discuss so don't count on them joining your blog in any maeningful way.
Anonymous,
I harbor no such illusions about FIC.
I actually think that civil unions was an excellent compromise, although I'd be in favor of full marriage rights eventually (say, within the next 5-10 years). The lack of a strong reaction to the implementation of civil unions either proves I'm correct, or that couples and activist groups like FIC are waiting for full marriage before acting.
Did anyone see the article in today's Stamford Advocate about Lamont's HQ opening? It's online.
What was Lamont thinking with this line (in response to whether he might back out of the race)?!: "I'd be lynched and hung by my ankles," he said in an interview.
I know he's a relative newcomer to the political scene, but does he seriously not know what it means and how inflamatory it is to use the word "lynched"? I just can't believe he would be that irresponsible. I was considering backing him, but I'm not going to support a loose cannon that doesn't even have enough sense to avoid racially inflamatory statements.
G.C.: i have no interst in hooking up with somebody of the same sex but it is my position that those inclined that way are free to do so as long as they respect the rights of others just as I need to respect the rights of others. The only reason the government really needs to be in the business of marriage is that we need people to take care of minors. So same sex marriages are OK by me. The religions can go on to recognize or not recognize marriages as they always have. Growing up the couple across from me was a PROTESTANT woman and an RC man so they were not married in the 'eyes of the church' but I seem to remeber that their kids who were my friends had a chance to go to heaven but their parents would go to Limbo. Now we do the limbo but please have faith.
Anonymous,
Exactly so. The state can't force churches to marry people they don't want to marry, but if that's so then the churches shouldn't have a say in who the state can/can't marry.
Recognition of marriage by the state is also the government giving its backing to a particular legal arrangement--it isn't just about kids.
Yeah, I know about the contractual backing of a marriage but if you go way back to the roots of our government it really isn't necessary. It's become a tradition through probate, benefit plans and all that stuff and i don't see any turning back but it's only needed until the kids are of leagl age, which in CT it is 16, 18 or 21 depending on what you want to do as a kid.
To me, marriage happens in a church, not at city hall. I believe in separation of church and state. I am in a traditional, heterosexual marriage. I was married in a church. As far as I'm concerned, what I have registered at city hall is a "Civil Union", despite them calling it a Marriage License.
Frankly, I don't think government should recognize marriage at all. It should only recognize "Civil Unions" regardless of whether it is between a heterosexual or homosexual couple. And the benefits, responsibilities and consequences of those civil unions should be equal, regardless of sexual orientation, and should be recognized by the federal government and across state lines.
If a church wants to perform or recognize the marriage of a homosexual couple, that is up to the particular church.
Sanity,
What is a "church"? Establishing a religion or a church has in many respects been reduced to an IRS filing, the Sciencetology following is an example.
Wouldn't the State then have to recoginze all "church" marrage services equally?
franks-
My point is that the state shouldn't recognize any church marriage services. The state should only recognize civil unions legally filed at "city hall" and bestow the benefits, rights, responsibilities, obligations, accountabilities and consequences of that civil union onto the couple filing the civil union, irrespective of whether that couple follows the civil union up with a marriage in a church.
My marriage is a very loving and deeply personal bond that my wife and I share which, for me, transcends any government entity or government law. It is also a sacrament that my wife and I fulfilled in our church before God.
The piece of paper (the marriage license) filed at city hall is a legal commitment that my wife and I have made to each other and allows us to function efficiently as a committed couple in society from a legal and transactional standpoint.
Sanity,
I understood your point, however a "Church" can and does change over time.
Does Roy "O" stand for all his major election victories?
franks-
Right, churches can and do change over time. The government-recognized civil union would not be contingent upon a church-recognized marriage. And a church-recognized marriage would not be contingent upon a government-recognized civil union (unless, of course, the church chooses to make it contingent). Churches are free to choose and change how and if they recognize marriage all they want to. It has, or at least should have, no bearing on the government-recognized civil union.
Sanity,
I do understand your point, but I disagree. My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace in a civil ceremony, but I don't believe that I am any less married for it.
Marriage can be a lot of different things. For some, it's a religious sacrement--but for others, it's a secular social and legal bond. Marriage doesn't have to be religious at all, although, if you want, you can have that aspect.
To exclude the non-religious from what is not a fundamentally religious rite seems silly.
Therefore, excluding those whose unions religion may frown upon from marriage is also silly.
Genghis-
I don't mean to insinuate that just because you weren't married in a church that you are any less married. I focused on "church" because most of the arguments against government recognition of gay marriage tend to come from the churches and their congregations, and Franks' question/comment to me seemed to come from a church viewpoint. I used marriage to mean a church's traditional definition. I did not mean to exclude marriage as a union that two committed people recognize between each other.
Perhaps it is more appropriate to just say that marriage is a bond and committment between two people that exists beyond any government entity or law. My point is that I don't believe it is up to the government to dictate or legislate what constitutes a 'marriage' between two people.
My use of and distinction between the words 'civil union' and 'marriage' were meant to differentiate between what the government recognizes of two committed people and what churches recognize between those same two committed people.
I agree completely with what you are saying. I am arguing against the religious (I am religious) from using government to force their beliefs of marriage upon the non-religious.
Turffgrrl. the NY DOT did a very good job keeping the character of the Hutch together while bringing up to current standards
The hacket job CT DOT did with the Rt 25 interchange in Trumbull is probably why the RT 7 issue is still kicking
turrfgrrl: the Conservancy offered an alternative to the DOT LA Freeway flyover bridge that would facilitate even more building in the area. I'm no fan of John DeStafeno for governor but he does call for every municipality to have a build-out analysi so we can figure out what the hell our transportation infrastrucure should be. I continue to agree with what you said in the past about NY's system of highways, etc. but in this case the DOT rolled over everybody because the state has no real coordinated economic development and transportation plan.
and let me add the alternative that the conservancy offered wasn't by a bunch of blleding hearts but by some real innovative professionals. ConnDOT is a con job.
and I think the DOT should finish Super 7 but it should be a gentle highway and not like the Rte25/8 connector. I'd fire the entire Conn DOT and contract the job out to NY DOT.
Here is the link to the Conservancy. You sound like you understand this stuff, turffgrrrl, so you can decide for yourself.
Soory, for all the posts but i had only planned to read today as I'v got other stuff going on right now or at least a case of ADHD.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus will introduce a plan today, dubbed the Common Sense Budget Act, to divert $60 billion in defense spending to humanitarian assistance, social programs, energy conservation, homeland security and deficit reduction.
Forgot to mention that Rep. DeLauro is a member of the caucus.
Sanity,
Aren't you arguing against your own position here:
- "I focused on "church" because most of the arguments against government recognition of gay marriage tend to come from the churches and their congregations, and Franks' question/comment to me seemed to come from a church viewpoint."
- "I am arguing against the religious (I am religious) from using government to force their beliefs of marriage upon the non-religious."
If churchs and their congregations are opposing government marriage recognition policies aren't they exercising political involvement on individuals outside their own beliefs?
On another issue, Gov. Rell's rebuke of James Papillo's misuse of his public position, in support of Catholic Hospitals, affirms your point that religious beliefs and public policy should be seperate.
GC, Franks and Sanity all agree on the issue of gay straight civil union religious marriages. OK, I get it. it's a definition of terms and laws.
When a woman is raped it is simply God's will whether or not she will get pregnant and have a child.
Pleeeeezzz
Turfgrrl: Rell has no interest in looking outside. I've made the suggestion and she has full confidense in Commissioner Korta who not only can't get the VRE trains on the track but doesn't know a joule from a jewel.
Post a Comment