Monday, May 22, 2006

The Lamont Effect

By this point, there's enough out there on the web and in the news about the remarkable showing of Ned Lamont at Friday's convention that I don't have to retell the story. It's enough to say that it was a shock to the Lieberman campaign and the Democratic Party's leadership, and a huge boost for the committed, passionate supporters of Ned Lamont.

How much of a victory was it?

When was the last time a guy who just lost the endorsement by 33% of the vote walked out of the hall to be mobbed by an intense group of supporters, all chanting "Ned! Ned! Ned!" as if they'd just buried Joe Lieberman in a landslide? When was the last time a double-digit margin of victory left supporters feeling deflated and worried?

The Lieberman campaign sent out a triumphant email on Saturday proclaiming a huge win, but most people who watch politics know better. Lieberman may still win the primary and the election, but his standing among many Democrats has been cut off at the knees. It really wasn't supposed to happen this way. Lamont was expected to claw his way to 15%, and not get much more than that. Lieberman supporters were expecting their man to crush him.

It didn't happen.

Big labor showed up in force for Lieberman (and for DeStefano), heavy-hitters like Chris Dodd lionized him in speeches and the leadership seemed to be giving the incumbent senator their support. Normally, that would work.

But this year, organized labor didn't have much of an impact for either Lieberman or DeStefano. People talked through Chris Dodd's speech (I couldn't hear a lot of it, people were talking so loudly) and when Dodd exhorted his fellow Democrats to "Stand up for Joe Lieberman," urging them to get out of their seats, only about half did. At the end of the speech, Dodd received tepid, polite applause from those who were listening.

When the vote was taken, it seemed like Lamont's votes were coming from all over the place. A wide majority of towns had at least one Lamont voter in them: only 34, by my count, cast all of their votes for Lieberman.

The message seemed to be that a lot of the Democratic delegates had lost faith in their leaders. Instead of being told what to do by the leadership, and then doing it, they were acting on their own. This is not the way party politics is supposed to work!

One of the effects of the Lamont campaign may be that the Democratic Party becomes more, well, democratic. The old machine structure of the party has long been in decline--maybe this will be the final nail in its coffin. This election year is shaping up to be about change. Voters desperately want something to change in this country, and they don't trust their leaders to make it happen. Maybe we saw a little of that desire, and where it could lead us, Friday night.

110 comments:

CTObserver said...

One interesting aspect of Lamont's numbers will be in turnout. I'd be willing to bet that 75% of the folks represented by that 1/3rd show up to vote in the primary, while probably no more than 20% or so of those voters aligned with Lieberman's thinking show up. If that's true, this thing really is neck and neck.

Chris MC said...

Nice post GC. Your consistent work through the weekend and your thoughtful comments continue to contribute a unique piece to the conversation you are writing about.

You really hit the nail on the head. The days of machine politics as a winning way to do things are gone. Malloy's victory, as you point out, was taken by virtue of grassroots supporters that Malloy earned one at a time.

Talking with some of those people today, many of whom are friends from the Howard Dean days, there is a real consensus about taking the reins of the party going forward.

I sincerely feel that we witnessed (and you recorded) a historic moment on Saturday, both politically and in terms of "citizen journalism" as you called it in an earlier thread.

Back to work.

ctblogger said...

What an amazing weekend. I didn't think anything could match Lamont's preformance Friday but the Malloy/DeStefano drama was intense to say the least.

I felt like I was in the middle of a mosh pit on the floor Saturday and Malloy jumping on the chair firing up his supporters was priceless.

The numerous challenges to the vote added to the suspense and I was exhausted by the time we learned who actually won the nomination.

Don't forget everything that was happening outside the convention with the anti-war protestors almost being arrested and large amount of union members protesting in the parking lot.

I really can't wait to get all my video posted.

Two words I'll never forget: Media pass!!!

bluecoat said...

On the issue of change - or just on an issue: As I have pointed out in the past, the state cop union abuses the privilege of having personal cars purchased, fueled and maintained courtesy of the state taxpayer - no car tax either. With pressure from a Republican in Stamford, the city tried to roll back the abuses of govt. vehicles there but from this in the Advocate it looks like they went about it the wrong way according to the Labor Board. Doesn't one of these Donkeys running for guv run Stamford town govt.?

Genghis Conn said...

The state central people really came through with the media pass, I have to say. It made a HUGE difference.

bluecoat said...

Susan Haigh's take on the Donkey guv hopefuls here and more traffic in the wrong place because the state gave away the old Norwich Hospital in Preston. Amman supports this so that means malloy likely does too but how about JDS?

bluecoat said...

I think this was expected but now it's happened Former Ethics Board Director Plofsky Files Fed Suit

Derby Conservative said...

Has anyone heard from disgruntledrepublican? Based on the lack of suspense, he may have been bored to death at the GOP convention...

BRubenstein said...

i agree that the party is fading for a number of reasons..one of which is the lack of grassroots involvement.ANother is that the state party chair seems to be far more conservative then the registered dems she represents.She was and remains a " pro-war" person and was a huge backer of Lieberman for President.

The Party chair,Nancy DiNardo will and should take the responsibility if we lose most of the congressional,senate,and constitutional officer campaigns..or if things stay the same and all the incumbants win.

..The next party chair hopefully will be more net and grass roots minded then she has been. A Senator Ned Lamont can be very helpful in getting a new party chair. The main person though in making a change to a more net and grass roots state party is a Governor.I wouldn't place my house up on the chances of that so far.

bluecoat said...

And the 'pro-war' party chair, DiNardo, was the campaign manager last time around for 'anti-war' Diane Farrell who endorsed 'pro-war' Joe Lieberman' as well this time around.

bluecoat said...

I hope DG hasn't sold out and bought into this BULLSHIT:
To those on the other side who seek to tear down our state in order to build themselves up, I say this: Open your eyes and close your mouths," Rell said, prompting a standing ovation from the delegates in the gymnasium at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain. "The people of Connecticut are tired - so very tired - of the shrill ranting of partisan politicians," Rell continued. "They're tired of `gotcha' politics. They're tired of politicians who say one thing and do another. I can tell you right now I am tired of it, and, in fact, I am embarrassed by it. Enough."

IfThere'sGrassOnTheField... said...

Y'know, lost in all this hoopla is the fact that the unions screwed two big Dems on Saturday--JDS and Hillary Clinton, who was supposed to give the keynote speech for CAUSA at the Civic Center. The union bickering and 200 protestors at the event (why weren't they out beating the bushes for DeStef????) caused not only Clinton to bail at the last minute, but Chris Dodd and John Larson (in town for the convention) also skipped out wihout warning. At least Rell sent a representative on her behalf. The Dems stock isn't too high with the Hispanic/Latino community leaders right now--and the corporate bigwigs who shelled out mucho denaro to meet Clinton are apparently pretty steamed as well.

TrueBlueCT said...

Rell really meant to say, "close your eyes and close your mouths."

She has her fingers crossed hoping that the Connecticut public won't wake up to the fact that she isn't the best person to lead CT forward.

In fact, where has Jodi led us? The only thing I can remember her being for was the Schwarznegger-inspired elimination of the car tax. Can someone please tell me what Governor Rell plans to do, were we to re-elect her??

TrueBlueCT said...

One of my highlights at the State Convention on Friday was when Lieberman's minions tried to have the peace protestors arrested.

The head of security for the Expo Center was insisting that the cops arrest the protestors, and the policemen were on the verge of doing so.

Up walks Kevin Sullivan, who asks the 'roided out security guy, "What are you doing?"

The security guy says, "This is private property. I'm having them arrested for trespassing."

Kevin Sullivan says, "No. You're not."

Security guy responds, "Who are you?"

Kevin Sullivan, "I'm the Lieutenant Governor."

End of story. I wish to god I owned a camcorder.

Genghis Conn said...

I heard that story! Bravo for Kevin Sullivan.

BRubenstein said...

bluecoat..Dianne was pro war until she found it expediant to be anti war...she took the lead in westport to kill a anti-war resolution when the war broke out...

bluecoat said...

BR: I was pointing out the too often ironic positions of Diane. But on her killing the proposal by the Westport RTM to oppose the war I agreed because that is not the function of town govt.

Paul Krugman on Joe and looks like there isanother corrupt Democrat in the US Congress.

bluecoat said...

TBCT: Jodi has signed off on bills passed by the Democrats to spend billions on transportation with no guarantee of success.

BRubenstein said...

bluecoat..there were and are hundreds of towns that passed anti war resolutions...westport has the authority to do so and it is part of a town's responsibility because the war effected the town's budget,finances,population and quality of life.

ctkeith said...

GC,

You totally misread Labors role in the convention.Labor will always have a big role in Democratic Politics and will be one of the Determining factors in the Aug. 8th primary and the General.

Go read the code in Chris McC's posts.He talks about Malloys win being a win for "the middle class (thats code for white suburbanites like him and DLC Dan).

The Democratic Party of FDR isn't represented by line A in the Primary it's represented By Line B.

Nancy Dinardo and Co.(that includes DLC Lieberman) got the endorsements to the exact people they were paid to.They had to cheat to make it happen for Malloy but that never bothered them and Lieberman left in much worse shape than anyone expected.

DiNardo ain't dead yet but she down a few pints and still bleeding pretty badly.

bluecoat said...

BR: I understand your point but I don't agree.

TrueBlueCT said...

Diane Farrell--
Great politician, but oh, so hollow on the things that count.

This picture is for you Diane. Young American men and women are over there getting killed. Maimed. Blinded. Ten thousand plus families that will never be the same. Innocent Iraqi men, women and children blown to bits. And for what?

But still Diane cowardly falls in line behind Lieberman, DiNardo and Bush.

Ms. Farrell has no right to speak against the war. She should simply never mention it. Not when she supports Joe Lieberman --who did everything he could to pimp this stupid, elective, and probably unwinnable, fiasco of a war.

BRubenstein said...

SLIFKA IS A DLC MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING TOO.

MightyMouse1 said...

Keith, Maybe it is because our conventions over the last several (LOSING) years have been boring and uneventful, but I do not understand your charge that Malloy cheated. Arm twisting and deal making at the convention are a part of the process. If you don't believe me read the book on John Bailey, but be warned it was written by Joe Lieberman.

MightyMouse1 said...

Trueblue, does that mean that you have no respect for Courtney or Murphy? They supported Senator Lieberman.

A Real Democrat said...

ctkeith, how do you look yourself in the mirror?

Saying that someone "cheated" at the convention is a pretty bold claim, especially when there is not one shred of evidence to back up that ridiculous claim. You're no better than the Republicans who smeared Kerry in 04. Actually you're worse, because you're trying to do it to a fellow party member. Fact is, you aren't half the man Dan Malloy is.

So, keep it up... keep ignoring the fact that John DeStefano has endorsed Joe Lieberman. Or that his Lt. Gov is a DLC member. Keep ignoring that Dan Malloy has a strong progressive history: the first candidate to take a stance on gay marriage rights, and on universal healthcare. Keep lying -- I trust that everyone will see through it.

BRubenstein said...

Mighty Mouse...the custom is to be neutral by party offials and elected officials,in the event of a primary of this magnitude.

The constitutional and congressional folks violated that custom and supported Joementum like bunny rabbitts..I for one will not give them a dime...and im a guy who gave JDS $2500. ( before he came out for Joe)

BRubenstein said...

Nor will i give state central money for the same reason

ctkeith said...

Mightymouse,
I was a delegate but had no dog in the fight for Gov( But I always Though JDS was a better Dem).I voted PRESENT and called both Gov Candidates COWARDS in a Diary over at my left nutmeg because they both agreed to take the war off the table for Liebermans Benefit.

The First vote had JDS up by 3.Malloy goons went to work and started threatening people.I watched as women ran out crying because they didn't want to change their votes but were being bullied and thats when I changed my vote to JDS.

Go watch the video of the Republicans in Fla. that stopped the counting of ballots in 2000 and thats exactly what Malloy people looked like as they bullied people.

I'm happy with the results of our convention.


Line A Represents Lieberman/Malloy/Dinardo and the Pro War.Pro Corperate,anti Union all white and totally incompetent same old people who've made the Dem Party the Minority party in this country.

Line B Represents Lamont/DeStefano and the Anti war,anti Walmart,Pro Union,Pro diversity future Majority Party of this country.

Line A no doubt means all three Republican House seats stay in the incumbents hands because the Iraq war,as an issue,is off the table and Line B puts the Iraq War and these Republican Seats in Play.

Lets get at it.

superD said...

Ctkeith,
You are really unbelievable.
1) Malloy won the convention through hard work, smart and persistent floor operation and never giving up. Unlike DeStefano, who prematurely retreated to his ops room to work on his acceptance speech (he sure counted his chickens before they hatched, as my children would say)Malloy worked the floor hard to earn votes for himself.

2) DeStefano went into the convention extremely confident, and clearly had a lot of misinformation. What does it say about his field organization (which his campaign boasts about continously) that they thought they were up to 900 votes -- and then lose in a squeaker?

3) DeStefano strung several people along on the LG position, purposely, just to gain votes. He lied to Audrey Blondin, as he had already cut a deal with Sullivan to make Slifka his man. What does that say about his character and integrity?

4) DeStefano ENDORSED LIEBERMAN.

Finally, after ALL OF THE HARASSMENT BY THE DESTEFANO SUPPORTERS AND CAMPAIGN about Malloy's membership in the DLC DeStefano choses a running mate who is A MEMBER OF THE DLC. What hipocrisy!

You just can't make this stuff up!

Whatever you have to say about Malloy, he never claimed he was going to win the convention, both in delegate mailings (and as a delegate, I have them as proof) or in the press. He never gave up the fight, and he never strung people along re: LG.

After Saturday, I bet the DeStefano team is still wiping egg of their collective faces, as they should be. If they were smart, they'd see they've been whipped and bail now.

MightyMouse1 said...

Slifka reminds me of Guy Smiley from Sesame Street.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Smiley

MightyMouse1 said...

I find it ironic that many who supported JDS talked about how he had the organization, yet at the convention watched as Malloy worked the floor.

Genghis Conn said...

keith,

A lot of labor leaders backed Lieberman, but who is to say that their membership feels the same? They may back Lamont, or even Schlesinger. Indeed, Republicans have been poaching union votes for a long time--it's one of their strategies.

Organized labor will still be a big player in the Democratic Party, but their ability to deliver huge blocks of votes and ground troops to candidates is diminished. Many members are voting the way they want to, and supporting who they want, instead of doing what the union leaders say.

turfgrrl said...

I can't believe that while the Rep[ublican lead congress are busy chipping away the the fourth amendment, sanctioning torture, passing tax cuts for the richest 1% and people here are more excited about democrats bashing democrats.

The Iraq war is not the most important issue facing our country. The Republican lead congress is bankrupting this country.

Here is some more sobering news that underscores why Democrats should be supporting Democrats of all stripes.

The 2006 federal deficit along with the $200 billion or so we’re borrowing from the Social Security surplus is now projected at $600 billion or so, nearly a quarter of the federal budget.

Which means, for every four dollars Uncle Sam is spending, three come from taxes and one is borrowed.

By January, 2009, the National Debt will be close to $10 trillion, nearly $8 trillion of it racked up under just three Presidents: Reagan, Bush and Bush.

The yearly interest on that debt, represents close to 40% of the $893 billion paid in personal income tax in 2005. And our Republican congress says, more tax cuts are needed!

Remember when Republicans were demanding a Balanced Budget Amendment? (Now that they control the government, the only Constitutional Amendment being pushed is one to discriminate against non english speakers.)

Shays, Simmons and Johnson must go.

TrueBlueCT said...

SuperD--

First, let's be clear. The DeStefano campaign never made a big deal about Malloy's DLC membership.

Second, the DeStefano team didn't go in on Saturday talking about 900 votes. That just isn't true. No one was claiming they had the necessary votes in hand.

Third, the Blondin thing is Malloy/Ochiogrosso spin. My hunch is that DeStefano was going to go with Blondin, but in the end he had to go with Slifka, who will be a much better fundraiser for the ticket.

Fourth, you misspelled hypocrisy. And I agree his choice of Slifka is bothersome.

Finally, I have to agree with you that Malloy won with a better organization, and real aggressiveness. But what would have happened if DeStefano had joined in trying to "flip" delegates. We might have been there all night, and it would have been highly destructive to everyone's chances of winning.

What I want to know is if people think there will be fall-out from Malloy's ultra-agressiveness?

Wrath of Conn said...

"Second, the DeStefano team didn't go in on Saturday talking about 900 votes. That just isn't true. No one was claiming they had the necessary votes in hand."

Actually DeStefano did a mailer posing with the delegate he claimed had put him over the top, and guaranteed his victory. It's also been reported that Derek Slap claimed they had 900+ on Saturday morning.

A Real Democrat said...

trueblue,

Fallout from his ultra-agressiveness? Haven't we been saying for years that what our party needs is some backbone, some resilience? Malloy didn't do anything except out-hustle and out-work the opposition. I can't believe we finally have a candidate who is willing to bust his ass to win, and we're wondering if he might want to tone it down a notch. I'm thinking Malloy is exactly the kind of candidate who can actually beat Rell.

BRubenstein said...

GC...

Tell that to Bill Curry and he would laugh at such a un-reasearched and with no authority or evidence in the suggestion by you to Keith. As recently as 1994 the unions supported curry over the endorsed larson for governor. Apparently you didnt read my answer in a previous posting, so i will repeat it again.

There are almost 700,000 registered democratic votes.There are about 350,000 union members in Ct. about 40% are republicans ( 140,000) leaving about 210,000 union registered democrats, which represents almost 30% of all registered democratic voters.

If as many believe the august turnout is 40-50% ( this is the 1st primary in august, so there is no history) it will mean that roughly there will be 280,000 votes in total, meaning 140,001 wins.If labor splits 2/1 for JDS like they did for curry in 1994 that would mean a total union vote of 84,000 ( 40% of 210,000) in which 2/3, or a total of 56,000 votes for JDS and a total of 28,000 for DM.The total left who voted would be 280,000 less the 84,000 who voted and are union members leaves reported but non-union members 196,000 votes. Of those 196,000 reported non-union votes that are left,DM would need to carry almost 58% of them to win, which i believe is a tall, but not impossible order.

TrueBlueCT said...

wrath--
Does such a mailer really exist? If so, someone needs to put it up on the internets for all to see.

I don't know what Derek Slap said. I talked to both Henry Fernandez and Susie Voigt on Friday, and when asked, neither of them claimed to have things in hand. In fact, they said the exact opposite. "We don't know. I don't think anybody knows."


RealDem--
Arm-twisiting to change votes isn't backbone. (instead, it's kind of sleazy.) Certainly there is some attractiveness towards a candidate who will do anything to win. What did Waterbury get in exchange for selling DeStefano out?

cgg said...

I wish that I'd been there on Saturday. Friday night had some tension, but I found that people were mostly polite to one another. It sounds like Saturday ended with more hurt feelings and perhaps more damage to the party at large.

I think what's happening in CT needs to be happening all over the country. Democrats keep losing races and this Democrat is sick of it. This debate within our party is about ten years overdue.

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl...you must be asleep or covering your eyes; in every poll and in every polling result the war is the top issue in the country.

Had we not gone off to this foolish war there would have been 600-800 billion dollars for social programs,social security,payment of debt or infrastructure repair.

Please direct your blame for our financial situation where it belongs...to Lieberman and other democrats who go along with the Bush agenda and stop proclaiming a " pox on both your houses"

Thomas Craven said...

^

BDR and turfgrrrl,

I think what the two of you are talking about are two issues that are really one and the same, and by my estimation cant be seperated.



TRUE BLUE CT,

As a 4th CD delegate(who voted for Lamont!) I wanted to say that yes, in fact that mailer from Mayor DeStefano.

In the mailer(which i recieved about 3-5 days from to convention weekend)Mayor DeStefano is standing next to a women named Ms. Sour(i think that was her name). The mailer made the claim that Ms. Sour was the final delegate that put him over the 50% + 1 formula needed for the endorsment nod.

On top of this show of unbelievable bravado and ego, there was another piece of literature from the DeStefano campaign waiting for me on my chair when I sat down with my delegation Friday night for Lamont v. Lieberman.

In this piece, Mayor DeStefano asked me the "join with the majority of delegates" and support his campaign.

"Hello - mouth, this is the foot. Im coming in for a crash landing."

Im gonna look through my trash to see if I can find these pieces, if i can find them I will scan and post.

wish me luck.

TrueBlueCT said...

I think what's happening in CT needs to be happening all over the country. Democrats keep losing races and this Democrat is sick of it. This debate within our party is about ten years overdue. --wrote GeekGirl.

Amen! Exceedingly well put!

MightyMouse1 said...

A friend of mine was a Waterbury delegate, the delegation was split and a few of the proxy people did not want to be forced to vote for someone that the original delegate asked them to vote for. Most of the Waterbury elected officials had endorsed Malloy weeks ago.

MightyMouse1 said...

what I want to know is what did West Hartford get for playing both sides?

superD said...

Not only did I receive the same mailer as TrueBlue (announcing Claire Sauer from Lyme/East Lyme CT as being the delegate that put DeStefano over the top) when I returned from the convention (yes, it arrived on Saturday) there was YET ANOTHER DeStefano mailer waiting for me -- heralding yet again that DeStefano would be the Convention winner. This one had two horses on the front racing to the finish line -- the horse in the lead being DeStefano and the Malloy horse second. How unfortunate, as that was the day that DeStefano was probably feeling like a certain part of the horse's anatomy, given his convention loss. Talk about bravado.

And yes, I also remember reading a quote by Derek Slap or perhaps it was DeStefano himself saying that they had 900 votes. It might have been in the Advocate (I am a 4th CDer who also voted for Lamont). I'll look and see if I can find it. They certainly said plenty of times leading up to the convention that they had the votes they needed to win.

Like I said before, you just can't make this stuff up.

And CTkeith -- no comment on my 4th point -- DeStefano endorsement of Lieberman?

demwithdough said...

TrueBlue,
you agreed with this quote:
"I think what's happening in CT needs to be happening all over the country. Democrats keep losing races and this Democrat is sick of it. This debate within our party is about ten years overdue. --wrote GeekGirl.

Fact is, CT's Democrats are buckign the national trend and winning consistently (with the exception of Curry and Co.) and the Congressional candidates who listen to the national Dems

Tony Anchillo said...

The woman who DeStefano Claimed to have put him over the top is Claire Sauer from Lyme, CT. Ask the DeStefano people for a copy of that mailer, I'm sure they don't want it sitting in their office anymore.

What amazes me here is how no one is discussing all the armtwisting and pressure JDS did even before the convention. Threatening people's jobs and making people feel scared to not vote for him because it is an open ballot process. At the convention, he had all his surrogates doing the work for him out on the floor and dragging people out of the expo center to do it-- typical.

Why is DeStefano's ticket pro-diversity when it consists of 2 white males? At least Malloy has a woman on his ticket-- that's a little bit more diverse in my opinion. And Keith, perhaps you have a reading disability because about 3 times now, people have typed to remind you that DESTEFANO ENDORSED LIEBERMAN. FURTHER, NEW HAVEN ACTUALLY DELIVERED LESS VOTES TO LAMONT.

Mmmm Jodi Rell said...

At some point in this post, A Real Dem claimed that DM was the first candidate to stand up for universal health care.

That is absurd and it destroys your credibility about saying anything else. Put down the Kool Aid.

DeStefano had a universal health care policy back in April. A real policy with some substance to it. And the day that he announced it, Dan Malloy said that universal health care was "not necessary." He later went to say that implementing universal health care would be "too tough."

Problem was for DM, Democrats seem to care about that issue. And so he took DeStefano's idea. I saw him at a few forums in East Hampton and Waterford - and he claimed to support universal health care. This weekend, he was on television talking about a buying pool to lower prices - basically stealing DeStefano's plan and passing it off as his own.

I wasn't there this weekend so I won't pretend to comment on Malloy's behavior (or that of his staff.) But everyone I talked to said the Malloy camp was a little over the top and bullying delegates.

Hopefully the primary voters will ignore the bully candidate and focus on the ideas of the campaign.

turfgrrl said...

BRubenstein,

The polls (cbs, abc, nbc, gallup etc) are all over the place, as in the electorate. Next time why don't you fact check before you once again trip over you ego on the way to mindlessly focusing on some rehash of the summer of '68.

We are occupying Iraq, ineptly I'll emphatically agree, but occupation is quite a bit different from engaging in a war. The reason, every Democratic Senator except Feingold supports the occupation is because of our economic need for oil.

We have broken Iraq, and this inept administration seems intent on breaking the rest of the middle east too. Rallying around the idea that Democratic candidates who don't meet your anti-war platform should be bashed, is just about the stupidest strategy to retake control of the House and Senate in 2006. Any Democrat is better than the continued raping of this country by the Republicans. No oversight, accountability or ethics are capable by this Republican led congress.

Goon Squad said...

MMMM JODI RELL,

the problem you are having is what I like to call "anti-truthyness"

its what happens when you try to prove a point by simply creating a quote out of thin air.

I like the truth, so here it is -

The claim that you make that Mayor Malloy said that "implementing universal health care would be "too tough" is, in fact, a lie.

the quote you meant to post, the one that was twisted and perverted by you, actually comes from a Record Journal article from 4/20/06. The article is called "Gubernatorial hopeful says Connecticut can afford to insure every resident" and it was written by Bill Yelenak.

here is the actual quote -

“The proposal I have is one that could be implemented immediately. It’s a low-cost proposal that would allow every child” to have insurance, Malloy said. “John’s plan seeks to insure everybody. You’re talking about children to people of age 95. It’s going to be harder to do, tougher to do.”

sincerity should never be confused with giving up.

Truth Be Told............

TrueBlueCT said...

Tony-- HEY THEY ALL ENDORSED SENATOR FUDDY DUDDY.

I've always preferred DeStefano to DLC Dan. Here in New Haven, John has dealt with the problems of working folks, up close and personal, for over a dozen years.

Malloy on the other hand puts himself forward as a fighter for the poor, but in his rich, half-Republican city, (with an enviable tax base), I just don't think Dan has the same commitment forged from experience.

That's not to say Dan is a bad Democrat. Most of the gubernatorial debate I engage in is for entertainment. I'm committed to my hometown Mayor who has done a heck of a job. I've given him $$$ and will probably give him more. But my enthusiasm for both these candidates is dampened by their support of Sean Hannity's good friend Joe Lieberman, and by their relative long-shot chances against Rell. However, if Malloy wins, I will gladly support him. Dan is like 10 times better than that lightweight Rell.

And oh yeah, the DLC is the mortal enemy of real Democrats everywhere. The DC cabal is going to enable Hillary to make a nightmare out of our 2008, (and that might be their entire reason d'etre), and they are going to continue to sell us out to corporate lobbyist and sap us of our natural strength via their Republican-lite messaging.

TrueBlueCT said...

Turfgirl--
Why can't you see that occupying one of their countries is making America less safe?

They had no real justification for 9-11. Now, after the fact, we are providing them with one.

And what's this crap about being there for the oil? We should all be riding bikes before engaging in such callous realpolitik!

superD said...

Okay, I found the article in the Stamford Advocate, it ran on 5/20. Here's the comment from the DeStefano campaign re: 900 votes at the convention.



DeStefano's campaign said it has 900 delegates, the first time it has released a number.

"We're feeling good about (Saturday) but not taking any of it for granted," said campaign spokesman Derek Slap.

cgg said...

Turfgrrrl said:
Any Democrat is better than the continued raping of this country by the Republicans.

Not in my mind. Many of the Democrats currently in office aren't much better. I don't want a party with nothing but Republican-lite. I want some non-DLC, progressive, liberal Democrats.

It goes beyond the war. IMO Iraq is just the tip of a very large iceburg. Bush didn't screw things up by himself. He had help, and much of that help came from Democrats.

There is a place for moderates and Centrists. I've said before that I think it would be great if this country had a Centrist party. But every Democrat shouldn't be a Centrist. It's time to rebuild the left wing of our party. It's not about rehashing the past, but investing in the future.

BRubenstein said...

turfgrrl...go vote for Joe and dont forget to send a check to the DLC...and you wonder why the national dems lose.

your facts are wrong..there is no bigger issue then the war...and your friend Joe is helping bankrupt this country

MikeCT said...

On Friday at the convention: Again and again, in listening to the public comments of delegates who spoke to the press, it seems that there were only two kinds - those who agreed with Lamont but supported Lieberman anyway, and those who agreed with Lamont and supported Lamont. Lamont supporters do have the advantage of integrity.

bluecoat said...

You nitwits make healthcare access about insurance coverage when you should be addressing the fact that per person CT spends more than anybody else in the country and this country spends twice as much per person than any other G8 country.

turfgrrl said...

TrueBlueCT ,

I totally agree that occupying Iraq makes us less safe. I just also understand that there is no easy way to un-occupy Iraq. The absolute worse thing we could do is pull out and leave Iraqi's with the 2 hours of electricity a day, 1/2 the oil production they had in 2003 and un-depleted uranium fragments embedded throughout their country.

We have to rebuild Iraq, and not by continuing to let the Republican cronies at Haliburton get no-bid contracts. Refighting the arguments of 2003 in 2006 does not accomplish anything but framing the Democratic party as clueless about foreign policy and national security when the historic reality is that it is the Democratic party whose leaders have executed nation building and rebuilding successfully.

bluecoat said...

And as for the "occupation" of Iraq, or the war on terror as some like to coin it says Bush: Iraq slowly reaching turning point and you all he's always right.

bluecoat said...

And turffy, there is lots wrong with the way halliburton has doen its job - mostly not hiring local contractors to do the work - but that has more to do with the fact that DoD instead of State was running the show than how the contract was awarded to Halliburton - and other big management companies.

turfgrrl said...

cgg,

Sorry but the left wing of the Democratic party is what drove good democrats over to become Reagan Democrats.

MikeCT said...

My Left Nutmeg has a Lamont-Lieberman delegate map.

Bluecoat,
The major reason our costs are so high is because we do not have a single payer system, which would reduce the enormous administrative waste of our enormously and unnecessarily complex system. The single payer can also negotiate costs in an efficient manner. (In contrast to Nancy Johnson's Medicare bill, a gift to her pharmaceutical donors that banned Medicare from negotiating drug prices.) In addition, leaving people uninsured increases health problems and shifts these costs to public and private payers.

A very long string of independent state studies have come to ths same conclusion over and over and over. We don't have a health care crisis - we have a political crisis. Unfortunately, Lamont does not yet have the courage to openly embrace single payer, but we need to build a movement to push him and others to do so.

turfgrrl,
The occupation is a failure, the Iraqis want the invaders out, we never had a valid or legal reason to be there, it is wildly unpopular at home, and it is bankrupting our country (and along with tax cuts ballooning the deficit that you seem to think is the real issue). Clearly, the Democrats should carry your new slogan to victory in November: "Long live the occupation!"

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat,

Well much more lays at the feet of Rumsfeld's DoD too, like the entire execution of the build up, war and occuaption. But I digress, in the end, the operation watchdogs GAO, are being muzzled by political flunkies who got rubber stamped through a friendly GOP dominated congress. Our role in CT is to contribute to a Democratic majority in the house by voting out Shays, Simmons and Johnson.

bluecoat said...

MikeCT: you - and the PHYSICIAN group with no business savvy you cut and paste from - assume that all the waste is in the way health services are paid for; you're all wrong but we've had this conversation before.

bluecoat said...

Turffy, only people who live in Bridgeport can vote in two or three different Congressional Districts. Shays is wrong to continue to support Bush's early, and probably unnecessary, invasion of Iraq in 2003 but he has kicked the watchdogs in the butt since then. Watching Farrell in recent months - and in the campaign - has made me wonder if she would be independent or just go with the Pelosi flow.

turfgrrl said...

MikeCt,

Go ahead and explain how our national intertests would be served with radical a theocratic government in Iraq. Explain how our national interests would be served with Iraq fostering Al Zarqawi and Sunni Baathists terrorist camps? Explain how it is in our national interest to allow China to move into a position to secure oil reserves in the middle east. Explain how it is in our national interests to allow this inept and corrupt Bush administration to ruin our international reputation as the beacon for democracy?

ctblogger said...

TrueBlueCT (1:44)

I heard about that also and I think CTBob has all of it on video.

Sullivan is the man.

bluecoat said...

Jeremiah D. Schuur M.D.
who heads your favorite group here in CT ain't even wet behind the ears as an MD either.

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat,

vote early and vote often in Bridgeport eh? Chuckle, couldn't resist after reading your first line. Seriously I feel obligated to mention all three Republican congressional candidates whenever I restate my position that the most important thing we can do as CT voters is to send Democrats to the House.

I disagree with you on Shays acting a watchdog. Shays supported extended the Patriot Act, supports the NSA domestic data mining, voted for every funding measure about the WOT and Iraq without looking at the amendments that his cohorts tacked on to these.

Shays has a dismal record in working regionally to obtain federal funds for the 4th CD. Even his Energy For Our Future Act is toothless as he promotes an increase to fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks without addressing the loopholes in heavy trucks. Or he claims that he wants to end tax breaks for the oil companies, but then asks for tax breaks for alternate fuels, when he knows that oil companies are synonymous with energy companies after so much consolidation.

Shays is no Teddy Roosevelt. In the absence of a TR, I'll take a check & balance by flipping the majority in the House to the Democrats.

bluecoat said...

Shays is no Teddy Roosevelt for sure BUT on getting funds for the 4th CD, he has obtained everything that has been asked for. Farrell touts the work of the SWRPA that she led - and it's great work - but if you look at what she did in Westport she ignored their suggestions in allowing development along the Post Rd to go the waht it is gong. It's a tough choice because I am not thrilled with either candidiate - and wasn't last time around either.

bluecoat said...

On the watchdog comment I was talking about the oversight on how the reconstruction money is being spent - not his votes on other stuff.

turfgrrl said...

The problems with development in Westport started long before Diane Farrell. Late 80's springs to my mind was when things really started going downhill.

Chris MC said...

Keith, you are wrong about me, as usual. You said:
"the middle class" (thats code for white suburbanites like him and DLC Dan).

For the record, and I have said this in public introductions (that I have videotapes of) of no less a labor and party figure than John Olsen, the union movement built the middle class, in my opinion. I don't have time nor the interest to tutor you about this. Please go read something, talk to somebody who was actually around during the post-war period. You have a lot to learn.

What has happened to the Democratic party in this state is it has failed to move forward and effectively represent the changing face of the middle class people who today are not machinists and teamsters, but white collar professionals in service positions.

That doesn't exclude labor, it claims labor's legacy and brings those All-American values of equality of opportunity into the twenty-first century.

I've given up hope that you will get a clue, but you could at least stop misrepresenting what I and others say.

For the record, my town chair and close friend and political ally is a longtime leader in the retired teachers' union, with a lifetime of labor activism. And that is just the beginning of the relationships I have and cherish in our labor organizations in this state.

MikeCT said...

turfgrrl,
Go ahead and explain how our national intertests would be served ....

Our national interest? The idea that the U.S. can unilaterally decide to occupy any country based on whether or not it benefits from the occupation, regardless of the legality of the invasion or occupation, is morally primitive and frankly racist. Fewer people have any trouble seeing that the U.S. invasion an occupation has made Iraq a new and friendly home for terrorists and extremists and will continue to exacerbate the problem. In any case, it's harder to find anyone who believes that our genuine national interest (and our federal budget) is served by this occupation.

Explain how it is in our national interests to allow this inept and corrupt Bush administration to ruin our international reputation as the beacon for democracy?

You're a funny gal. The people of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, East Timor, Iran, Haiti, Vietnam, and a few dozen other victims of U.S. foreign policy would get a big kick out of you.

turfgrrl said...

MikeCT,

Why am I not surprised that you whiffed on my simple request for you to explain how it is in our national interests to withdrawal from Iraq. It's not that hard to use google if you have no ideas.

You truly have a simplistic world view if you think you hold the moral high ground with a bleating about racism and legalities.

CTOctaneBlue said...

I think all this argument over who is "real" democrat is ridiculous! Sure, Malloy is part of the DLC, but so is Slifka! JDS endorsed Lieberman! At least Malloy picked a woman for his LG, adding diversity to the ticket. DeStefano really screwed up not picking Audrey Blondin for his LG- as I posted yesterday, Blondin could have swung the Harwinton delegation to JDS and brought him the victory. Instead, JDS went with Slifka because he would be a better fundraiser? Interesting, seeing as how it will now be almost impossible for JDS to raise the money he will need to pull off the primary victory, nevermind the general election. No one likes funding a loser- JDS should have realized that on Saturday. He's in for a big wake-up call over the next few weeks, as Malloy starts raking in cash and the funds for JDS begin to run dry.

Rell is going down said...

Octane,

Let me let you in on a secret. JDS has A LOT more money on hand than Dan, and will continue to have more money than he does. He had $600,000 more on hand at the end of last quarter than Dan did ($2 million to $1.4 million--over 60% more). That means John will be able to buy 60% more ad space. Granted, Dan will raise more money than DeStefano, but he also spends much more than he does. Last quarter, Malloy spent $430k, while DeStefano spent $295k. Do you think Malloy will raise $600k more than DeStefano between April 1 and August 8? To bring up fundraising in this case in ignorant. And who is Audrey Blondin going to raise from? The 5th CD hasn't given to either candidate so far, 2 years into the race. More importantly, what are Audrey's qualifications for being governor? Remember, the LG spot has to be filled by someone that is able to take over if something happens to the sitting Governor. Would she be someone you would feel comfortable with running Connecticut in the near future? I agree that DeStefano was wrong for dragging her along, and I admit that he obviously did so, but I do not think for one second that he made a mistake by not choosing her. Slifka is the most popular mayor in a predominately Democratic town.

superD said...

Did anyone read the Kevin Rennie column on Sunday? He wrote a lengthier piece on Lieberman's troubles, and one on the shady past of Lisa Moody and Rell. Thought you all might find it interesting.

Moody's Crossed Shady Line Before
May 21, 2006


M. Lisa Moody's testimony last week at the legislature's Barnum & Bailey hearings on campaign fundraising in the governor's office left observers with furrowed brows. The political pro, who is chief of the governor's staff, testified that she did not realize one ought not to engage in politics on the job. In public office, the line between what is political and what is your job can be a little hard to locate at times, but usually it's not.

During the decade that Moody worked for the House Republicans before M. Jodi Rell became lieutenant governor, she provided services at the Legislative Office Building for many candidates. I know. I was one of the many, so I come to you with guilty knowledge.

Moody's subordinates would design brochures and other campaign essentials for candidates on computers owned by political committees but kept in locked offices at the Capitol. It was a practice all the political caucuses engaged in at the time. Moody's team worked in a secluded office because a visit from the state auditor's office was always a worry. Exposure would have meant embarrassment and maybe some sanctions.

Connecticut's favorite just-the-lady-next-door, M. Jodi Rell, was a leader of the House Republican caucus at the time and had to be aware of it. Rell and Moody, through a spokesman, declined to say whether they recalled those campaign activities and the efforts to conceal them. Rell also declined to comment on whether she believed Moody's testimony. Rell is a pro at averting her gaze from the obvious. She's doing it again because it's easier than facing the truth.

- Kevin Rennie

MikeCT said...

turfgrrl,
I answered, but you didn't listen. No moral actor worried over whether it was in the "national interest" of the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan. The imperialist doesn't get to decide the timetable or conditions for withdrawal. It is our responsibility to remove the invading troops.

Chris MC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris MC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris MC said...

This came today from the Malloy campaign's daily schedule for the next Governor of the State of Connecticut.
Excerpt:
12:30PM -- 1:15PM
West Hartford Retail Walk with David McCluskey, State Representative, and others West Hartford Center

You can find David's blog here
http://ctprogressivedemocrat.blogspot.com/
"Connecticut Progressive Democrat"

(html isn't working on this one, sorry)

BRubenstein said...

turfgrrl....you sound like a republican..everyone knows that id iraq slides into theocratic radicalism that its the stupidity of Bush and his lap dog Joe who made it possible by invading a country that wasnt part of 9/11 and had no WMD, and of course they lied and misrepresented the facts to us.

Furthermore, your hero Joementum and Bush have made radicalism very popular in South AMerican by yet once again stupid polices.Joe is one of the hardliners against Cuba ( Bush too) that is against even dialogueing with them.No wonder the rest of those countries hate us....for almost 50 years we have been backing a failed policy against Cuba that never worked.Your pals Lieberman and Bush decrie Venezulala yet both are on their knees to that country for oil...they are hypocrites of the 1st order and nothing will please me more then when Lieberman loses.

Secondly, your hero Lieberman has cannabalized the 3 congressional races by forcing them to support him, not funding the co-ordinated campaign and by indicating that he may go Independant at any time.

turfgrrl said...

BRubenstein,

There you go again ... linking failed Republican policies to Democrats. Ken Mehlman is so proud of you.

So let me understand this, are you purposely lying about Lieberman's support of the CT Dems or have you been purposely lying about your "insider Dem" credentials?

CTOctaneBlue said...

Rell is going down-

Do you honestly believe that JDS is going to continue to have more cash than DM following Malloy's win at the convention? I would venture to say that DM is going to have at least as much cash as JDS at the end of this quarter, and will be able to out-raise JDS this summer. Following the convention, it is apparent that the campaign staff for JDS is incompetent- they are just a bunch of kids! DM spends more, because he knows that's what you have to do to win. My point with Blondin is this- if JDS had chosen her as LG, he would have easily won the convention (she could have swung about 30 votes). He would have appeared as a winner, which would have ensured that the cash continued to flow for him. Instead, JDS now has an uphill battle to win the nomination, nevermind the general election.

Blondin has about 30 years of political experience in CT, just 2 years less than the age of Slifka! Blondin was a selectman in Litchfield for 10 years (obviously I think she would be a fine governor). Blondin is a state political insider, and I believe she would have been an effective fundraiser. I agree that the 5th CD has historically been a poor area to raise money, but Blondin has contacts throughout the state, and would have made an impact for JDS. Will Malloy recruit Blondin to his campaign? That remains to be seen, but she could be a big addition to the Malloy/Glassman team.

Rell is going down said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MightyMouse1 said...

The West Hartford mayor is a part time job without any major power, especially since the town has a Town Manager. Lets not approach it like Slifka was running the show there. Blondin's years and depth of experience made her the right choice, even with her crazy hat.

Rell is going down said...

You're telling me you think malloy will raise $600,000 more than DeStefano over the last 5 months of the campaign, simply because he lost the convention by 4 votes? Assuming DeStefano only raises $400k from 4/1-8/8, Dan would have to raise $1 million, and they would have to spend the same amount. Now you're just sounding silly. And if Blondin was such a big DeStefano supporter, why didn't she swing those 30 votes at the convention. Was she just waiting to make sure she got something for herself first? Sounds like a real great leader.

David said...

Thanks Chris MC for the promo of my blog. Unfortunately, with the GAE investigation of Moodygate, trying to get my reelection campaign up and running and the state convention, I have not had the opportunity to freshen it. I would love to share my thoughts on the state convention - which is still a raw subject in West Hartford. For now, I will say that Malloy simply outorganized DeStefano at the convention. He didn't crow that he would win it going in. He lowered expectations and exceeding them - SOP. As far as strong arming/brow beating delegates - I am somewhat familiar with that subject - mostly on the receiving end and not the doing end
at this convention. In the end, so what? It is about winning - both Malloy and DeStefano engaged in it at the convention and before hand, but in the end Malloy was better at it.

David McCluskey

Chris MC said...

You're more than welcome David. It's a genuine pleasure to associate with an effective and professional progressive legislator like you.

Enjoy your walk with Dannel, it looks like you have a great day for it!

Mmmm Jodi Rell said...

CTOctane - what is your relationship with Audrey Blondin? Everytime I come onto this blog to read the comments, you're touting her as the solution to all of Connecticut's problems.

Fact is, if she was a better qualified candidate for LG, maybe JDS would have picked her. I tend to agree with Rell Is Going Down - if she was such a big JDS supporter, she would have stuck around and held her votes instead of having a fit and trashing him when it really counted. Not much of a leader in my book.

As for trashing JDS's staff - which seems to be this blog's favorite activity - I doubt anybody on this blog has worked a contentious convention like they had this weekend and by all accounts, it was chaos on the floor. Some of Malloy's staff had extensive convention experience and are a bunch of party insiders - the fact that they won by only 4 could be considered a failure. Both sides can spin this weekend. But don't trash campaign workers who worked their tails off all weekend, win or lose.

MightyMouse1 said...

MMM Jodi Rell, Come on! That last post was just silly, JDS had the support of Sullivan, Donovan & Williams and you are going to say that DM had the party insiders?

Chris MC said...

mmm jodi -

The machine politicians are DeStefano and his key supporters. The real arm twisting came from people who can back it up, not from field operatives and delegates working the floor. I've posted earlier about this.

For the record, Blondin and her supporters DID DELIVER AS PROMISED to DeStefano. He SCREWED THEM. Simple as that. If he had told her the truth - that she was not going to be his pick - when the decision was made, he would not have had the votes to be close on the ballot. Even if Audrey had simply released the people committed to her, we would have picked up enough votes to win on the ballot. I have the names, OK?

JDS held his ground in the Fifth in the weeks leading up to the convention because of promises that were made to Audrey and others - promises that, if they ever were sincere in the first place, were not kept.

I would have liked if those delegates who were loyal to Audrey had voted with us. But they still enjoy our friendship and respect for sticking to the deal they made.

Mmmm Jodi Rell said...

I'm not talking about Sullivan or Williams or anyone like that. I'm talking about DiNardo and the Secretary and George Jepsen - all Malloy supporters - who have been running the state party and losing elections for far too long. The state party was not neutral this weekend, don't confuse yourself about that.

Chris MC said...

mmm Jodi -

Obviously Jepson was a supporter. He is now an Attorney in Hartford, and controls no block of voters, and has only his own ability to persuade individuals to support Malloy.

Alleging that DiNardo was in any way tilting the table against DeStefano had better be based on facts. I neither saw nor heard one allegation until now that she was anything but perfect in her conduct of the convention. And I still haven't heard a credible one.

Try to recall if you will that the same people who have been keeping JD in the game are the same people who brokered the Curry / Jepson deal, and were pushing the same rubbish this year. That approach is what is losing elections.

This time, Malloy had the sack to actually run, to not play it safe, to put his own tail on the line and act like the leader he is. And he won. He ran right into the teeth of the bulwark of the old way of doing business, and broke through on sheer talent, hard work, and passion.

But don't take my word for it, read Rubenstein. We are on opposite sides of this, he might even try to refute me here, but nothing he is saying runs contrary to my assertions, while by the same token contradicting yours.

Rell is going down said...

So Chris MC and Octane are not in agreement? Octane said Blondin could have delivered another 30 delegates, Chris MC says she DID deliver the delegates she promised to. Which is it? And what did DeStefano promise her exactly? I saw reports that showed her on a short list, but where did he PROMISE her anything? Promise is a bold word and you better be sure he actually did so and better be able to back it up.

Chris MC said...

There were delegates who were already for DeStefano who told me personally that they were with him because Audrey was to be the LG nominee, and would switch to Malloy if not.

I have been told, and I believe it, that there were delegates (Harwinton has been mentioned) who were for Malloy but who were switching if Blondin got the LG.

That is why there is a disparity.

The decision to select Slifka was made, I am told and I believe it is credible, before the convention. It was confirmed, I can tell you with certainty, Friday night.

From that point on, Audrey and key supporters demanded to know the truth, and were, accordig to people who on this point are absolutely unimpeachable, strung along until after the ballots and changes were cast and announced.

My information was good on Friday night, and I certainly would not act on it the way I did and am if I were not sincerely confident of it. And the facts are now known.

bluecoat said...

Let's say I buy your statement turffgrrl that The problems with development in Westport started long before Diane Farrell. Late 80's springs to my mind was when things really started going downhill thane why after two terms didn't Farrell do anything to change the trend - and she didn't. She often wnet with the flow when she didn't see a political gain for herself. They all do it.

turfgrrl said...

Mmmm Jodi Rell,

DiNardo and the Secretary and George Jepsen - all Malloy supporters - who have been running the state party and losing elections for far too long.

Losing elections? Considering that the Democrats control all the constitutional offices, the state senate, the state house, both Senate seats, and 2 of the Congressional seats, their record looks like a winning one to me.

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat,

In short, it depends on who she inherited on her zoning commission, Joe Arcudi, (1993-1997) her predecessor was pretty pro-development. Once zoning regulations get adopted, like the greenlight on all these tear downs, it's hard to reverse course. The big mistake inmho, was the gutting of main street into its present national chain look. Even greenwich though, is facing the same disintegration of its main street, so maybe development is inevitable.

bluecoat said...

Westport's zoning commssion is elected and the town attorney who avises them and the lead planner were all under Farrell's reign - and the tear downs happened on Farrell's watch too - not before.

But my original comment was on recapturing the Post Road as a thoroughfare for vehicular and pedestrian traffic as recommended by SWRPA - Farrell talks well but doesn't walk it unless it plays out for a reasonable politicsl win in her mind.

Farrell's best chance was two years ago to beat Shays but in the last days of the campaign she started painting him as a DeLay guy - people didn't buy it and voted against her.

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat,

If the planning and zoning boards are all elected, then it's the voters who selected them, not Farrell. :)

Back to the post rd. though, all the stuff that happened between Imperial and Rosehill came before Farrell. The office stuff up the hill, I think was under Farrell's watch, and the area around Arnie's place (former) was likely redeveloped every 10 years from what I can tell.

But I'm not getting at what Post Rd. development, or lack of, that you are driving at ...

bluecoat said...

Farrell's staff advises the P&Z on what to do. Her town atty, Ira Bloom, never saw an overdevelopment proposal he didn't like unless the political winds said aotherwise.

bluecoat said...

turffy, you should also remember that Westport voters knew Farrell and voted overwhelmingly for he for First Selectman but when she ran against Shays it was neck and neck in her own hometown for the national slot where Kerry did quite well.

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat,

Yeah but Westport has a large Republican base, so Westport was going to be tough for her against Shays. I'll toss out too, that that Republican base is also fairly yankee republican too, hence the dissatisfaction with Bush in 2004, and support for Kerry.

bluecoat said...

turrfy, believe whatever you want. Farrell was replaced by another Democrat for Westport First Selectman; Westporters know who she is and she was good enough for First Selectman but not good enough for the 4th CD. That's reality.

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat,

Turnout in 2004 was high because it was a presidential election. I haven't looked at the results from that year recently, but I seem to remember that the westport results were expected, from the perspective of turnout amongst the varies party breakdowns.

This year, the turnout will be lower, so I think more interesting. (Westport aside). If Shays fails to get out his base and/or fails to appeal to the unaffiliated he is in trouble.

I don't think Shays is focused on the "big" issues facing the 4th CD. Part of getting the federal government working again is to vote out the enablers of incompetence. Shays has a reactive postion on most issues, and I think Farrell has more of a proactive agenda.

Besides, more women in congress is a good thing.

CTOctaneBlue said...

RIGD- Chris MC and I actually are in agreement, and I think Chris explained the situation well. Blondin was under the impression that she would get LG, and had many delegates in the 5th CD voting for JDS simply because it was a vote for her for LG. It's true that DeStefano never promised Blondin the LG, but through many interactions he made her feel like she was the choice- this is how he strung her along to get the votes. Some in the 5th CD (Harwinton for example) didn't buy it- they had a hunch that JDS was pulling a fast one on Audrey, and they went with Malloy. Blondin delivered delegates to JDS, but could have delivered even more (I propose about 30) had DeStefano chose her for LG.

Mr X said...

I personally think DeStefano is all done in Litchfield County If he gets 10 votes he will be lucky.

The delegates were robbed by DeStefano and his "big lie and deceive" tactic.

I heard the rumors about Slifka for a few weeks But he is just a kid and basically a ceremonial Mayor since West Hartford AKA New Haven North has a town manager.

West Hartford stole this one from Litchfield County But we are not down for the count.

As a Former DeStefano Supporter I am happy to say I am going to support Dan Malloy/Mary Glassman.

Malloy did the right thing and picked someone from 5th CD While DeStefano decided to pick Slifka rather than Blondin Because West Hartford has a better voter turnout record in Gubernatorial elections What a smokescreen and a big lie.