Sunday, April 16, 2006

Is fundraising the only gubernatorial issue?

In April 16th's Stamford Advocate we find a dust up over, what else, a fundraiser. This time its Malloy and he's being attacked by a longtime critic.

A campaign fundraiser held for Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy's gubernatorial race by the city's chief labor negotiator poses a conflict of interest, Malloy's chief critic in local government has charged.

Republican Board of Finance member Joseph Tarzia said Dennis Murphy, who held the March 10 fundraiser at his home in Bridgeport, should be treated the same as the 13 state commissioners and three deputies paid $500 each in fines for soliciting campaign contributions from subordinates to benefit Gov. M. Jodi Rell, which is prohibited by state law.

As we draw closer to the election, these stories will no doubt multiply. But its not the public driving the issue, but rival party hacks spinning furiously almost as if there are no other issues worthy of the publics attention. Somehow I think this is not a good sign of the health of our democracy. When the story ceases to be about the real problems affecting our state, and focuses on the process of a campaign, the public loses.

Coleman, Tobin, Malloy critic calls campaign fundraiser conflict of interest Stamford Advocate April 16, 2006


ctkeith said...

It's easy and god knows our press today LOVES easy.I Expect horserace stories to dominate because CT newspapers News divisions have been slashed to the bone.

At least the 2 Democrats running for Governor have Joint appearences and engage each other.Lieberman just turned down another oppoptunity to debate and is flat out hiding from the people of CT.

Patricia Rice said...

Why would Lieberman want to debate LaMont? Who is he? Lieberman is an institution and Lamont is a nobody. The extreme left anti-Bush crowd should just get over it and support Joe who is going to win with or without their support.

Every major Democrat in the state supports Joe from the Chairwoman down to the local state house Rep. What does that tell you? Are they all ruining the party? No, the far left whether they realize it or not is hurting the party. End result,Joe wins maybe as a Independent or maybe even as a Republican!!! Will that make you happy?

If you don't like Bush thats fine bt don't take it out on Joe who has the integrity to make the tough decisions. nuff said.

ctkeith said...

I don't know about you Patricia Rice but I don't OWE a thing to Liebermam and could care Less what hacks like you have to say because you've not made one issue argument for voting for Lieberman.Lieberman himself doesn't and "all the important people are doing it" is not a serious argument although it may be your best and only one.

Poor Kenny boy was left with the argument that Lieberman Agreed with "almost everything Mr. Lamont says'when he was "pinch hitting" for his boss in Guilford.Unfortunately for your side the DTC members were listening and almost laughed poor Kenny boy out of the meeting.

As to who Mr. Lamont is,He's the Democratic Senate candidate WITHOUT the blood of over 2300 American kids, 18 who were from this state,dripping from his hands.

Patricia Rice said...


You sir are a one issue person. The majoity of Democrats in this state have accepted that Joe's position on the war is different than theirs but and are open minded enough to look at Joe's entire record and not just a single issue. Again, every credible Democrat in higher office State Rep or higher supports Joe.

You apparently disagree with your entire party so why don't you move just a little more to the left and join the Green party?

DeanFan84 said...


Can you be so dense? The Lieberman problem isn't a left-right issue. And just b/c Party officials have "endorsed" Lieberman doesn't mean much. Fact is no one wants to be seen next to him, (Lieberman pictures were quickly removed from the websites of Farrell and Malloy), and no one except the extreme sell-outs, (Perez, Maloney), will support him.

But as you are a Republican, I understand why you like and support the likes of Joe. The wolf in sheep's clothing is so useful to your side, as opposed to someone like Lowell Weicker.

Wolcottboy said...

ooo... debate!

To answer Turfrrl's question, I was actually pondering something similar this morning.

Why is Rell's popularity so high? Is it simply because she's not Rowland? Is it because no one's really paying attention or cares what's going on at the state level? More important, or at least visible news (war, immigration, Bush's advising woes)? Lack of knowledge of what goes on in Hartford?

I'm willing to bet that while Quinnipiac can do a poll and find out that Rell still has a 150% approval rating, very few would be able to pinpoint or give any reason on why.... except perhaps the lack of news. To the average Joe, any news story that takes place at the Capitol lasts about a day - and always imbedded about 10 minutes into the newscast with little to no followup. Similarly, newspapers have state news on page 3 or deeper.


ctkeith said...

we'll se if "The majoity of Democrats in this state have accepted that Joe's position on the war is different than theirs but and are open minded enough to look at Joe's entire record and not just a single issue." WON"T WE!

Thats what the process is all about.It's a shame you don't believe in democracy even as much as YOUR AND JOE'S President,W,does.

cgg said...

Wolcottboy, I think you're right about Rell's popularity. She's not Rowland. Considering how low the standard was at the time of Rowland's resignation, I'm not surprised.

Have any of you looked at Rell's campaign website? I was looking at on Friday for research and taken aback by it's complete lack of content. She has no issue statements, and none of her posted press releases are about issues. The slogan is "doing what's right for CT" but beyond that, nada.

Wolcottboy said...

That sounds like the answers you'd get in the poll... "Doing what's right"... whatever that is...

Patricia Rice said...

ctkeith You have made my point. You say that I am a Republican but I don't believe that I have ever revealed my party affiliation. This seems to be your M.O. just jump to conclusions without all the facts.

If you really care about the Democratic party, you would be supporting someone who would bring the "team" a whole bunch of votes rather than just trying to rock the boat because of you hatred for George Bush and anybody the remotely agrees with him on any issue.

Thankfully, the Majority of the party is smart enough to recognize Joe's value and he will get the party’s endorsement. I don't believe the local town committee's have enough crazy delegates to support Ned just to watch Joe turn Republican or Independent and give Ned a political beating. Of course, I know you believe in democracy so much that you would be willing to see Murphy, Farrell and Courtney lose to their Republican opponents because you and a bunch of extremist kooks stood up for democracy. Again, the Green party would love to have you!

DeanFan84 said...

Pathetic Pat--

First, there will be a Dem Primary. The anti-Bush, anti-idiotic war sentiment is too high within the Dem Party for the Bush-kisser to get a pass.

Joe's jumping ship isn't a matter of delegates, nor the Dem endorsement. It is about Lamont's climbing poll numbers, and the fact that our side is super-motivated for August.

Joe doesn't bring us any votes. If anything he costs Dems credibility on the biggest issues of the day. And if he retreats to November out of fear, he will bear the blame for screwing up Farrell, Murphy and Courtney's fall campaigns.

Kooks? You calling hundreds of thousands of CT voters Kooks? For the record, the anti-Bush, anti-idiotic war crowd is in the majority. Could it be that you are the crazy in the room?
Finally, can you explain Lieberman's vote in favor of the Bush Energy Bill? Dodd voted against it, as did:
Both NY Senators-against.
Both RI Senators-against.
Both NJ Senators-against.
Both MA Senators-against.
Both NH Senators-against.
Both VT Senators-against.

Why did Joe support the Republican bill, which sadly gave all control over the Broadwater LNG project to the FERC?

I'd ask him myself, only Joe Lieberman is too scared to come out in public.

RedRidden said...

i too believe in democracy, but i almost feel like people are overlooking a lot of the trade-offs of our political system...

that's fine if the Dems want to prop up Ned against Joe -- really, that's all well and good, i believe that through deliberation people (or at least a majority of them) come to agree on what is best for them -- but it comes at a price, and i truly feel that this is lost on a lot of people.

our system favors incumbents, not just financially and through greater name recognition, but with power and influence. that power and influence then gets transferred back to the people being represented by those incumbents. you unseat an incumbent, you lose all the political capital that candidate accumulated over their tenure as an elected official. it simply the nature of the beast.

that being said, it's OKAY to not agree with the status quo...but it's IMPORTANT to understand that shaking it up has its negative side effects.

as a Repub, i know that the Ned/Joe/Schlesinger senate seat won't affect me all that much. if Joe stays, we've got support for the administration on the other side of the aisle. if Ned takes him out, then it's still a Dem seat - and a more liberal one at that, but he just goes right back to the bottom of the totem pole and all of Joe's influence goes down the tube. and if Schlessy wins, well, that's one more Repub seat that we didn't hold before, isn't it?

CT of all states should understand this notion of cost-benefit analysis and compromise because we are such a moderate state. a lot of Repubs don't like our officials because they're not conservative enough. a lot of Dems wouldn't feel so upset at Joe if he would just move back to the left. but the fact remains that we've found our oftentimes-not-so- nice little balance, our "equilibrium" so to speak. we've found a way to bite the bullet on some issues so that we can have our cake on others.

CT voters on both sides have a choice to make: they can unseat as many of it incumbents as it wants in an effort to "take back Congress," and that's fine if their only concern is advancing the national party's agenda...but you can also kiss CT's influence in shaping that agenda goodbye, because i assure you Harry Reid won't be giving Lamont the time of day anytime soon, nor Nancy Pelosi to Farrell, Courtney, or Murphy.

MikeCT said...


So Joe is a good Democrat who may go Republican if the voters of his own party decide they don't want him? And Democrats should vote for him out of that fear? And the growing number of Democrats (including the many vocal town committee members in the news latery) who are fed up with him should leave the party, but Joe, who, as you think, would fit in among Republicans, should be entitled to office indefinitely and without challenge? This is the same Joe who polls higher among Republicans than Democrats? Who enforces your cited perfunctory loyalty among the leadership and state central by openly threatening to withdraw his financial support? (You can look up the Sean Smith quote.) I can't believe your arguments even make sense to you. Are you so threatened by the democratic process that you can't tolerate a primary election? If Joe and his agenda are so well-loved, he'll do fine. But as is abundantly evident to every observer but you, he's very worried, because his support is paper-thin and enforced by your brand of fear-mongering.

ctkeith said...

No Patricia I didn't make your point and I'm not going to let Lieberman Or You get away with disrespecing and dishonoring the 2300+ kids Killed by declaring the war "JUST ONE ISSUE".

The Iraq War is the first 2300+ issues to me and the majority of Americans and Nutmeggers and every time you try to minimize its impact I'm going to post this list.

1) Hoyt, Robert W. Specialist 11-Dec-2004
2) Brennan, William I. Chief Warrant Officer 16-Oct-2004
3) Felder, Tyanna S. Specialist 07-Apr-2004
4) Schmidt III, John T. Lance Corporal 11-May-2005
5) Hoskins, Christopher L. Specialist 21-Jun-2005
6) Paliwoda, Eric Thomas Captain 02-Jan-2004
7) Coullard, David J. Sergeant 01-Aug-2005
8) Eaton Jr., Richard S. Staff Sergeant 12-Aug-2003
9) Philippon, Lawrence R. Lance Corporal 08-May-2005
10) Dempsey, Kevin J. Corporal 13-Nov-2004
11) Vitagliano, Thomas E. Staff Sergeant 17-Jan-2005
12) Perez Jr., Wilfredo Specialist 26-Jul-2003
13) Martir, Jacob D. Specialist 18-Aug-2004
14) Delgreco, Felix M. Sergeant 09-Apr-2004
15) Braun, Jeffrey F. Private 1st Class 12-Dec-2003
16) Heald, Barbara Civilian 29-Jan-2005
17) D'Agostino, Anthony D. Private 1st Class 02-Nov-2003
18) Chanawongse, Kemaphoom, Corporal 23-Mar-2003

You'll notice there are no relitives of Joe Lieberman on this list or any other list of war casualties of any war this country ever fought.Can you say CHICENHAWK?

Patricia Rice said...

It is idiotic to blame Senator Lieberman for the 2,300 who have died. Do you think he was the only Democrat to vote in favor of the war? A lot of Democrats supported the war so if you are going to blame Joe you had better blame a whole bunch of Democrats.

Your just upset that he won't join in with all the Bush bashers and for that reason you and the extreme left are waging this war. You can disagree with Joe's position but he is a man of integrity.

That is why not a single Democratic State Senator or Rep will come out and support dead Lamont. So let's figure this out....Lieberman supports the Bush war and Edith Prague supports Joe Lieberman.... who supports the Bush war.

Should we primary Democratic State Senator Edith Prague for supporting the man who is responsible for 2,300 deaths? I guess if you really believe in "democracy" you should be ready to primary a whole bunch of Democrats? You extremist need to join the Green party

DeanFan84 said...

Pathetic Pat--
Did Lieberman help get you your state job? Is that why you so ardently defend him.

And check out this 10-29-01 Wall Street Journal op-ed that Lieberman published. Target No. 2: Saddam!

How many Democratic Senators had a WSJ editorial page column saying things like this: Did Saddam have a direct hand in the attacks on America that began on Sept. 11? The evidence at our disposal is circumstantial but suggestive. We do know that he has not just the motive and malevolence, but the means. And we also know that Iraqi intelligence officials have met at critical times with members of the al Qaeda network.

So there you have it, just seven weeks after 9/11 Lieberman is actively pushing a linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Too bad it was never true.

Here is a little more for you, although I encourage you to read the whole mind-numbing piece: Whether or not Saddam is implicated directly in the anthrax attacks or the horrors of Sept. 11, he is, by any common definition, a terrorist who must be removed. A serious effort to end Saddam's rule over Iraq should begin now with a declaration by the administration that it is America's policy to change the Iraqi regime, and with greater financial and tactical support of the broad-based Iraqi opposition. In time, military support will follow.

BDRubenstein said...

dear ms rice...i dont think you are a republican..i think you are either Ken or a paid lieberman staffer.

Frankly Ms.Rice your analysis is very shakey.Not all the democratic office holders are for Joe...only the scared and the republican light are for Joementum ...when its all said and done i predict you will see a substantial amount of delegates and party office holders to be for Lamont.

My analysis is if Lamont gets 15% of the convention,in the forumn most friendly to Liebemnan, then Liberman and he will be in tough contest and if Lamont gets 25% or more..Joe is gone in August or bolts sooner.

RumorHasIt! said...

Most of the suburban towns are splitting their delegates 50/50, as the DTC chairs don't want to go down with Joe. The battle is in the cities, and it will be interesting to see what the machine Dems will do. Perez is obviously in Lieberman's pocket, and supposedly Bridgeport delegates have been told to vote for Joe. What will happen in New Haven and Stamford and Waterbury and Danbury? Have these cities also lost their souls?

Patricia Rice said...


I have no intention of letting your comments go unchallenged.

Your claim is "only the scared and the republican light are for Joementum"

Here is a list of some of the good respected Democrats in your local area that will not support Dead Ned. Can you even claim that a single one of these Senators is scared or Republican light? I challenge you to give me one name.
Are you right and they are all wrong? I can't wait to hear the rationalization. Please don't allow your fondness and support for Weicker to cloud your usually good judgment for Joe.

•Biagio “Billy” Ciotto, 9th
•Eric D. Coleman, 2nd
•Donald DeFronzo, 6th
•John Fonfara, 1st
•Thomas P. Gaffey, 13th
•Mary Ann Handley, 4th
•Jonathan Harris, 5th
•Gary LeBeau, 3rd

ctkeith said...

Is there any doubt now that Pathetic Pat is really a Lieberman Campaign Staffer.You clons are just TOO obvious.

I'm gonna guess it's not Kenny Boy only because it's Easter after all.

DeanFan84 said...

She's not a staffer. She's just a typical LieberCrat, who probably got her job as a reward for being a Joe booster.

Obviously, Pat is scared of a post-Lieberman world. And there are plenty of others out there like her. The gravy train is part of the game, and we can't really expect people to suddenly hop off of it.

Frankly, I don't really blame Pat for worrying more about her livelihood -- than the Iraq War, and Joe's support of the GOP. On the other hand, she shouldn't expect us to share her fears.

turfgrrl said...

So here we are on a thread about the gubernatorial race, and its all about Lieberman. Normally I'd add that its also about Lamot too, but if you read back, it's not, since what does Lamont have to say about anything? Too many shades of Orchulli here, and we saw what that campaign was like in 2004. Meanwhile does Rell have a vision for Connecticut? Will we become a state of high end real estate and low end service jobs, kinda like Florida?

DeanFan84 said...

You are missing the bigger picture, which is that the dialogue isn't just ideas and policy, it's also very much about who is in bed with whom.

In CT, Rowland was very good about "bedding" Democrats. Lieberman is hoping his relationships will over-ride his out-of-touch ideology.

And don't worry, the Governor's race will become an issue and leadership battle. But not until Labor Day.

turfgrrl said...



BDRubenstein said...

dear ms rice...the fact you post senators " in my area" indicates you know me...since i know of no patricia rice ..your name is a are someone working for Joementum for money...

By the way...there are no senators in joe's webpage that endorsed him so i am sure your list is as much of a fake as you are..

Let us all know who you really you know this is my real name.

Have a lovely evening !!!!!!!!

BDRubenstein said...

turfgrrl....joe's former chief of staff in dc was a huge rowland fundraiser....and we know that Joe "did" and "does" business with Rell and other talking about one race leads you to the other..

Patricia Rice said...


I have to admit, I'm not at all surprised to see you completely avoided my question.

Have a sparkling day!!!!

goodbye said...

In a letter to the editor a few days ago, Bridgeport's Caruso slammed John McKinney, who is now defending Rell even better than he used to defend Rowland, in the CT Post for challenging his oversight of the negotiated deal done by Deneen on behalf of Garfinkle. This challeng to Malloy's campaign is just a weak amteur attempt at a payback. Other than the car tax rell still has no campaign platform.

BRubenstein said...

Dear Patricia RIce:

I gave you my answer...there are no endorsements on Joementums webpage and therefore your list of senator's endorsing him is a fake.

now anser my question,.