Friday, June 30, 2006

Fort Trumbull Fight Over

The last two holdouts are leaving:
The last two holdouts in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood agreed Friday to give up their land to make way for private development, ending an eight-year battle that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the case, agreed to have her pink cottage moved elsewhere in New London.
...
Pasquale Cristofaro, the other holdout, has agreed to give up his home but is entitled to purchase a new one in the neighborhood at a fixed price if new homes are built. He also has the option to build on the Fort Trumbull peninsula, as long as whatever he builds complies with a plan of development.
...
Cristofaro credited Gov. M. Jodi Rell and state Department of Economic and Community Development Deputy Commissioner Ron Angelo with getting involved in the negotiations, treating the homeowners with compassion and understanding that small concessions were important.(AP)

This fight started when I was a college student in New London. That was back when people really believed the NLDC, headed by my college president, could save the city.

I hope that whatever New London puts up there is worth it.

And I also hope that the General Assembly pushes for changes in our eminent domain laws during the 2007 session. The governor did well in these negotiations, and I hope she'll address eminent domain during the campaign.

Source

"Final two holdouts in eminent domain case reach agreement." Associated Press 20 June, 2006.

DeStefano: "Gov. Rell Offers Mississippi-Style Plan" for Urban Violence

Gov. Rell today outlined her plan for combating urban violence, which was met with an almost instant denunciation by New Haven Mayor John DeStefano:
"This is a plan I would expect to see from the Gov. of Mississippi – in the 1950’s. Rell has done nothing to support the African-American community of Hartford. Now she wants to lock up thousands more urban teenagers. She has continually cut funding to give kids positive choices, not one dime for after school programs, mentoring or summer jobs."

Re-read the first sentence. John DeStefano is accusing Jodi Rell of having the mindset of a repressive, racist Southern governor from the 1950s. The subtext is pretty clear: Jodi Rell doesn't care about blacks, she just wants to lock them up.

Really? This from a February AP article (boldface mine):
Rell's proposed budget for next year would pay for more state prosecutors and investigators, and includes $4.25 million in grants for cities and towns to provide alternative activities for young people in cities. (Rubinsky)

Huh. From the little I've seen of Rell's plan, it does seem that she wants to focus more on enforcement right now than on prevention. John DeStefano disagrees. Fine. But insinuating that Rell is somehow a racist is beyond the pale, and reflects some of the worst impulses of Democratic politics.

Sources

"Rell offers Mississippi style plan." DeStefano for Connecticut. Press Release, 30 June, 2006.

Rubinsky, Cara. "Rell, rivals offer plans to fight crime." Associated Press 14 February, 2006.

Open Forum

Some business... don't forget, we're still looking for a second conservative poster. Thanks to those who have already sent me an email about it! If you're interested, email me today by 5pm. I'll announce a decision sometime tonight.

Also, please don't forget about CT Election 2006, the Connecticut campaign wiki. Most races have at least minimal data about them by this point, but there's a lot of information that isn't there yet. Please consider going there and adding what you know!

What's happening around the state today?

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Primary Turnout

There has been much said about the moving of the primary from September, which is a bad time to have a primary, to August, which is presumably worse. The reason for the change was to give candidates more time to gather funds and support for the general election in November. Critics have blasted the change, saying that an August primary will draw significantly smaller turnout than a September one, and make life easier for incumbents.

Unfortunately, the historical record doesn't back this up.

In 1970, Connecticut held its first statewide primary. Both Democrats and Republicans held primaries that year, for Senator and Govenor respectively. Interestingly, it was held in August. In 1978, Gov. Ella Grasso faced a bitter primary challenger from her Lt. Gov., Robert Killian. That primary was held in September.

Other September gubernatorial primaries occurred in 1986 and 1990. In 1986, Julie Belaga won the Republican nomination (only to be crushed by William O’Neill); in 1990 Bruce Morrison defeated William Cibes for the Democratic nomination; and in 1994 both parties held primaries, which ended up in John Rowland and Bill Curry facing one another for the first time.

Here are the turnout figures for various statewide races, gathered from newspaper reports:

1970 GOP Governor (August): 33%
1970 Dem Senate (August): 38%

1978 Dem Governor (September): 32% (approx.)

1986 GOP Governor (September): 22%

1990 Dem Governor (September): 20%

1994 Dem Governor (September): 24%
1994 GOP Governor (September): 25%

These figures reflect the percentage of voters registered in the party holding the primary who actually voted in the election. As you can see, the shift from August (1970) to September (1978) didn't really affect turnout for the gubernatorial primary. From 1978 to 1994, there was a significant drop in turnout.

The data here suggests that voters who are willing to turn out for a primary probably don’t care what month it’s being held in. In the 1970s, the percentage of primary voters was in the mid 30s. In the 1990s, that number dropped into the 20s.

It also suggests, although nowhere near as conclusively, that there may be slightly more interest in a U.S. Senate race than in a governor’s race, especially when big issues are at stake. The 1970 primary, like the 2006 primary, was largely about huge issues of war and peace, and attracted a large turnout. Turnout may also be affected by the belief that the party in question can actually win the November election. Turnout for Belaga was low because no one gave the Republicans much of a chance in 1986. In 1994, it seemed like anyone could win.

Given this, it’s possible to guess at what turnout will be on August 8th. Somewhere around 28% of registered Democrats seems reasonable. The race will generate more interest for Democrats than Curry-Larson, and certainly more interest than Morrison-Cibes, which was a foregone conclusion. It’s also probable that the turnout for the upcoming primary will be increased by at least 5%, maybe more, because of the Senate battle. If it were just Malloy and DeStefano, turnout would be in the low 20s. If that.

The conclusion here is that a lot of factors influence primary votes. But a shift from September to August probably isn’t one of them.

Sources

Noel, Don. “Politics: A New National Pastime?” Hartford Courant 19 September, 1994. p. A11.

Treaster, Joseph. “Weicker, Meskill Win in Primaries.” New York Times 13 August, 1970. p.1.

Merry, George. “How Primary Votes Went in New England.” Christian Science Monitor. 14 September, 1978. p.6

Quick History Poll

Just for fun. Which governor of Connecticut has been the best for the state over the past sixty years or so? Who's your favorite? Who was the worst governor? Why?
Who was the best governor of Connecticut in recent times?
Jodi Rell (2004- )
John Rowland (1995-2004)
Lowell Weicker (1991-1995)
William O'Neill (1981-1991)
Ella Grasso (1975-1981)
Thomas Meskill (1971-1975)
John Dempsey (1961-1971)
Abe Ribicoff (1955-1961)
John Davis Lodge (1951-1955)
Chester Bowles (1949-1951)
Free polls from Pollhost.com


Who was the worst governor of Connecticut in recent times?
Jodi Rell (2004- )
John Rowland (1995-2004)
Lowell Weicker (1991-1995)
William O'Neill (1981-1991)
Ella Grasso (1975-1981)
Thomas Meskill (1971-1975)
John Dempsey (1961-1971)
Abe Ribicoff (1955-1961)
John Davis Lodge (1951-1955)
Chester Bowles (1949-1951)
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Good Joe, Bad Joe

The schizophrenic nature of the Lieberman campaign, summed up in a single picture. How do you reconcile the statesman-like Lieberman on the left with the man who issued the less-than-truthful ad on the right?

It's as if his campaign isn't sure which is more effective: Statesman Joe is a Great Senator or Ned Lamont is an Evil, Blog-Loving Communist Republican. So why not try both? Who's going to notice?

Open Forum

The Sullivan/Zarella hearings have stalled while the judiciary committee decides what to do.

Jeffrey Garfied caught in another 'mistake': this time about emails that he said weren't there, but actually were. Can we fire him yet?

What else is happening?

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

An Opening

Calling all Conservatives

Are you a Republican and/or a conservative? Do you have lots of opinions, good writing skills, time to burn and no interest in getting paid?

If so, you may be perfect for the CTLP team. Since Quinn has gone and vanished into the ether, we've been down a conservative. If you feel like helping us restore balance to the blog, send me an email (click on "about" at the top for my address) with your name, location and why you want to blog for us. I'll accept applications through Friday.

AFL-CIO Endorses Lieberman

Another labor organization has endorsed Lieberman: this time the mammoth AFL-CIO:
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, facing his first Democratic primary challenge as a senator, received the political backing of the state's largest labor organization on Tuesday.

But the AFL-CIO voted only to endorse the three-term senator for the Aug. 8 primary.

That means if Lieberman loses to businessman Ned Lamont, he won't have the guarantee of the labor group's backing should he run as an unaffiliated candidate for the November election...

Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager, praised the delegates to the AFL-CIO convention for deciding to make an endorsement only for the primary.

"That's a very, very big deal," he said, adding how it could be a potentially fatal blow to Lieberman in the general election. (AP)

John DeStefano was also endorsed by the AFL-CIO. An interesting sidenote to his endorsment was this release by the Malloy campaign:
Today the AFL-CIO voted to endorse Dan's opponent in the primary. Considering that John DeStefano had this wrapped up six weeks ago and publicly announced it back in May, there was no suspense heading into today, nor was any news made. We expected it, and we have planned for it. But here's what happened that wasn't predicted: the response Dan Malloy received. He was received warmly when he entered, he was interrupted by applause many times while he was speaking, and when he was done half the people in the room gave him a standing ovation, and the other half looked like they wanted to.

Why? It's the same thing that happened as Dan won the Democratic State Convention: Dan makes a great impression on the people in the room due to his energy, his passion, his charisma, his record, and most of all, his ideas.(Malloy AFL-CIO)


This makes me wonder how much the endorsement of a big labor union means. Union membership has fallen from a high of about 20% of the workforce down to about 12%, and it seems like the clout of the unions isn't what it used to be.

Oh, it's still a big deal. A union endorsement means added organization and a bigger get out the vote push. But how much more? How much bigger? How much is a union endorsement actually worth? Can it win the primary for DeStefano and/or Lieberman? How many union members will vote against the endorsed candidate? It'll be interesting to see.

Sources

"News and notes from the campaign trail." Associated Press 27 June, 2006.

"AFL-CIO Convention Statement." Dan Malloy for Governor. Press Release. 27 June, 2006.

Sullivan Doesn't Have to Testify

Decision May Lead to Impeachment

From the formation of our earliest constitution, the Fundamental Orders, until the very end of the 19th Century, the legislature had supreme power in Connecticut. Both the executive and the judicial were de facto subordinates to the General Assembly, although the flawed 1818 constitution technically had separated and equalized them. Only an 1897 court case finally banished that notion for good.

I couldn't blame Sens. Andrew McDonald and Michael Lawlor if they were a little nostalgic, right about now.
Former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan does not have to honor a subpoena to appear before a legislative hearing to answer questions about his decision to withhold release of a controversial ruling to benefit a colleague.

Such an appearance would have violated the constitutional separation of powers doctrine, a Superior Court judge ruled Monday. (Tuohy)

Yes, John Rowland was compelled by the Supreme Court to obey a legislative subpoena in 2004 (his resignation short-circuited that), but that was related to an impeachment investigation. This is not. Yet.
After the hearing, Rep. Michael Lawlor, co-chairman of the judiciary committee, was asked about the prospects of an impeachment inquiry. "It didn't seem like something we were considering yesterday," Lawlor said. "We have to talk to our colleagues about what is the right approach."

Sen. Andrew McDonald, Lawlor's co-chairman, added: "This decision seems to push the legislature toward something we wouldn't do otherwise. ... The whole investigation centers around Justice Sullivan's conduct and state of mind." (Tuohy)

It isn't a constitutional crisis yet, I don't think. But this would have been much better had Sullivan simply agreed to testify voluntarily, like other members of the judiciary had.

Source

Tuohy, Lynne. "Jurist Need Not Testify." Hartford Courant 27 June, 2006.

Mr. Peabody and the Senate Vote Wayback Machine

Now here's something you'll really like, The Washington Post provides a nifty database of votes by Senators along with what the "official" GOP and Democratic Position was. This makes looking at the voting record of a particular Senator crystal clear. Click on the vote itself and see the actual vote totals. Pretty simple.

So what would have happened if the killer bees had Ned Lamont voting in place of Lieberman? The answer is that the vote outcomes would not have changed. Which means that every outrage the killer bees feel would still be an issue. The killer bees would have you think that the actual votes don't matter much, "it's the rhetoric" that matters.

Except that the Democrats as a party have a long history of governing better, a tradition Senator Lieberman is a part of. Governing means actually doing things, instead of just talking about it. The work of a senator includes sponsoring legislation, and amending bills. The committees who control what gets sent on are all are chaired by the members whose party holds the majority, the Republicans. As it turns out, being able to compromise and make deals is a good thing. A senator can't be effective he's not willing to work with his colleagues, just look at Bill Frist as an example.

The killer bees would have you think that this primary vote is about the soul of the Democratic party. It's not, it's about the soap box of the Democratic party.

Monday, June 26, 2006

24-7 Lamont Afternoon Open Forum

Just kidding...

Two pieces of Lamont news:

1. Lamont has a new ad comparing Lieberman to Bush

2. Move On went national in its fundraising appeal for Lamont (and Farrell and Patrick Murphy)

One piece of World Cup news - Australia loses to Italy in the 93rd minute on a penalty kick (the actual flop, I mean, foul, was of the questionable variety) after being up a man for more than 40 minutes. Is it me or are the refs deciding more games than in previous Cups?

Discuss...

On Killer Bees and Lamont

In an imaginary conversation with a rational Lamont supporter, I asked them what will happen if the war ended. Well that's not going to happen until Ned Lamont gets to the Senate, they retorted. And of course that's when Newsweek broke the story that a plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked for a time table for US troop withdrawal. Then on Sunday the NY Times touts the leaked plans by General Casey Jr. to reduce combat brigades from the current 14 to 5 or 6 by the end of 2007. This means that the Bush administration is looking for a way out with a quick declaration of victory. Just in time to bolster all those GOP congresscritters who desperately, when not seeking housewives, seek some positive war on terror news or conversely scary news in America to energize some sort of voter pulse.

Meanwhile deep inside the Honeycomb Hideout, the nucifera-roots were busily engaged in typical hive activity. With google as my intrepid guide, I entered "killer bees" as my search term and discovered:

Though their venom is no more potent than native honey bees, Africanized bees attack in far greater numbers and pursue perceived enemies for greater distances. Once disturbed, colonies may remain agitated for 24 hours, attacking people and animals within a range of a quarter mile from the hive.--Attack of the "Killer Bees"

Which brings us to the strange phenomena of what happens when a critical post of Ned Lamont appears. Instead of unique and diverse debate, a chorus of similar posts flood the comments. I suppose this obsession with guarding the hive is important when a candidate can't really differentiate what he would vote on differently than the candidate he's challenging. In a blind vote test, for example, a rational Lamont supporter would not be able to tell the difference between Senator Lieberman's and Senator Dodd's voting records. The difference is that negligible. The only fuel that is driving the Lamont candidacy is Lieberman and his steadfast conviction that for National Security reasons, we must continue our occupation of Iraq and continue the war on terror. Lieberman helps this along by writing and talking about this convictions, not realizing that he's trapped in the no win position of walking into a swarm of angry bees fueled by head hive Daily Kos.

So what happens if Bush out manuoevers Kos, and starts that troop pull out? What will the Lamont candidacy look like? Well, it'll look a lot like Lieberman's. Lamont has yet to define what he would vote on differently than Lieberman. Sure, maybe Lamont would spend more time saying the daily kos talking points, but is that really a good reason to vote for someone? Is that the fundamental rational of a Lamont supporter; that Lamont will echo the daily rants on daily kos? Let the buzz begin.

Bass: "Lieberman Lies"

Paul Bass doesn't like Joe Lieberman. We know that already. But today his ire towards the senator was made much worse by the feeling that the Lieberman campaign had used something he had written as a source for a nasty, inaccurate attack on Ned Lamont.
Ask Ned Lamont Why..." the back page begins.

One of the "ask whys" read as follows: "... He Hired The Former Republican Party Chairman To Run His Senate Campaign."

Not true. Connecticut's leading left-leaning Democratic Party activist, Tom Swan, runs the Ned Lamont campaign.

The flyer is referring to someone else, Tom D'Amore. D'Amore ran the state Republican Party in the 1980s. He quit in 1990 to help Lowell Weicker defeat the Republicans and win the governor's office as an independent. D'Amore is a registered independent.
He in no way "runs" the Lamont campaign. The Lamont campaign did hire his firm, Doyle, D'Amore & Balducci (the third named partner being the former Democratic speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives), to do consulting work.
The Lieberman flyer cites me as a source for this lie: "Source: Paul Bass column, Hartford Courant, 3/26/06."

Actually, my column in the Courant that day made no mention of D'Amore working for Lieberman. I did mention in a March 5 Courant column that D'Amore might do consulting work for Lamont.(Update: Bass made a correction on his site--the corrected sentence follows) Actually, my column in the Courant reported that D'Amore had signed on as a consultant, not that he would "run" or "manage" or in any way direct the campaign. (Apologies: Those particular columns are no longer available on the Courant's web site.) On March 13, the Independent did report the fact that D'Amore agreed to sign on as a consultant.

The relevant point is that nowhere was it ever reported that D'Amore would run the campaign. That's a crucial distinction.
...
"For the record," [Lamont campaign manager Tom] Swan said Monday, "I have never been chairman of the state Republican Party." (Bass)

I really hate to break it to Lieberman, but primary voters just aren't going to accept the idea that Lamont is somehow a tool of the Republican Party. Anyone who actually goes to the polls on a beautiful, hot August day to cast his or her vote for the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate is more politically aware than this.

Try something else. But do it quick, you're running out of time. And for heaven's sake, don't make Paul Bass any angrier.

Source

Bass, Paul. "Lieberman Lies, Leaps Into Gutter." New Haven Independent 26 June, 2006.

Meta-Malloy and Malloy on Education

Meta-Malloy

I first saw Malloy at the Young Dems' RFK dinner in Rocky Hill in October and the circumstances couldn't have been worse. It was a Friday night, it was pouring, Billy Joel (or was it the Boss?) was playing in Hartford, the UCONN Football team had a home game on national TV, and the candidate was driving up from Stamford. What does that equal (I'm looking at you TurfGrrl, Bluecoat, and CGG)? Two hours late. Which was fine, everyone understood, and it could have been a good time to make a few cracks about CT's overburdened transportation system and then work the room. Instead, Malloy launched into his standard stump speech and the remaining 20 or so people came away with the impression that this was an inexperienced gubenatorial candidate.

I had a similar impression a few months later when Malloy came to speak to the UCONN Law School Democrats. Slightly bigger crowd, so it was slightly less odd to launch into the stump speech, but it made for a marked contrast to DeStefano who sat on the edge of a table and had a conversation with us (in fairness, Malloy's event was much better attended because food was served - next year, free food for all events - but we are checking law school IDs, freeloader).

A few weeks ago, my very kind Legislative Councilperson invited me to a Malloy fundraiser in Hamden and I was very impressed. Not an event for the wonkish, Malloy spoke passionately about his background and his vision for CT. Most importantly, coupled with my experience at our meeting on Saturday, it was clear that he had learned something as a candidate: How to connect with his audience.

I am not going to ignite a flame war by declaring Malloy a better candidate to beat Rell (the very definition of an uphill battle right now), especially in advance of a similar meeting with DeStefano, but I will say that my meta-impression of him as a candidate has turned 180 degrees since the first time I saw him last October.

Education

Branford Boy over at My Left Nutmeg has done as all the very great service of transcribing the event; rather than recreate the wheel, I have linked to his transcript of the education portion of the event. Click the link, show BB some love, and hurry back.

Since the fourth wall simply doesn't exist on a blog, you need to know a little about me in regards to education to understand where I m coming from. If you threw a tennis ball into a room filled with my family, you would hit a teacher. And two more on the ricochet. I myself am the product of the NYC public school system, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (a land-grant public university), Southern Connecticut State University, and now the University of Connecticut School of Law. The last private "school" I went to was in a neighbor's house on Paulding Avenue in the Bronx when I was 5. I believe deeply in the commitment of government to provide quality public education, to all, for free. Public schools are, quite literally, mining our most precious natural resource.

That said, it was very exciting for me to have the opportunity to ask a potential next Governor of Connecticut how he would help the struggling towns and cities to pay for public schooling. His full answer is linked, but I would like to pull out what, for me, is the money quote:

The big step is to create a new system for paying for public education, one that is far less dependent, if at all, on property taxes. Property taxes make sense in a farming community, because the property produces income. And that's what Connecticut was when this system was devised.
...
So we've got to change that system. And that means a more progressive way of paying for education. Certainly a shift to probably the fairest system, which is an income tax based system, but also identifying other sources to help out both education and general government.
...
Suffice it to say, we've got to change the system, it's gotta be more income based, it's gotta be more progressive in its nature and I think increasingly property taxes have to be looked at as how you pay for your local services, NOT education -- or substantially less to education.

It's a mindset. Other states have done it. I can give you the statistics. We're more dependent than any other state. It's not as if we get it right and 49 states get it wrong. Forty-nine states get it right and we get it wrong. It's time to change.


Here are the specifics (as I understand them, I feel confident that Malloy staffers (actual ones, not the everyone-who-doesn't-agree-with-you-kind) will correct any errors I make - I also have put in a request for the wonkiest details I can get - I will write another post when and if I receive them):

-Collect the state's portion of the casino money as agreed and commit it to the development of state's educational system - He pointed out that, unlike property taxes, this revenue source is almost sure to grow (and grow quickly) going forward

-Leave a portion of sales taxes and utility taxes in the community where they are generated and send a portion to a pool for towns that do not generate a large amount of funds via these taxes

-Direct allocation of a portion of the income tax to support localities

-Scrap the ECS funding system and replace it with one that allocates money based on need rather than to make per student funds equal across the state (i.e. acknowledge that it costs more to educate students for whom English is a second language, students with special educational needs, students on free or reduced lunch, and, and this is my own editorializing, transient students who switch school systems mid-year).


Obviously there are some details that need to be fleshed out here (most importantly, I don't see a new revenue source but I see increased funding for schools - how is the difference made up?), but untying educational spending from property taxes (a system of funding that does not adequately fund schools in poorer districts) and reforming the ECS system are ideas that progressives should be able to discuss, refine, and ultimately support.

And that does not even take Malloy's proposal for universal pre-k into account. Ask any teacher (especially in elementary school) what their biggest frustrations are and I guarantee that, somewhere on that list, they will say "kids that aren't prepared for what I am tasked with teaching them". Fixing that begins with universal pre-k.

Luckily for Democrats, there is alot to like about both of our candidates when it comes to educational issues. I am looking forward to asking the same question to DeStefano, but, based on his website, there is more the two of them agree on than not. Which is one reason that I hope this thread wonks-out on educational policy rather than on attacks on the candidates and each other.

Edited for a typo.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Dan Malloy: The CEO Governor

On a rainy Saturday Dan Malloy came to middle of main street in Middletown to chat with some of the political junkies that blog for this site and MyLeftNutmeg at Java Palooza, one of the coffee houses that tap into the free municipal WIFI. Fresh from an earlier “Meet the Mayor” meeting in Stamford, Malloy greeted the small group to talk about his campaign, Connecticut and of course the issues.

In the past six years, Main Street in Middletown has changed from empty store-fronts to a more pedestrian inviting look of small businesses like Java Palooza. It’s the kind of small scale growth that has been a small bright spot for the Connecticut economy recently. In this setting it seemed natural that chatting with Malloy would turn to themes of the Connecticut economy.

“I think Connecticut has some surprising opportunities” said Malloy. “We have the capacity to compete in more areas than people think.”

To Malloy, Connecticut is a land of opportunity, but he admits that he worries more about what happens if Connecticut doesn’t change course.

Connecticut Not Competeting

“Connecticut,” he says softly, “is currently headed in the wrong direction.”

It’s clear that the despite the soft spoken tone, Malloy believes deeply that Connecticut is suffering from years of poor management.

New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts are much more competitive than they were in the past, he explained. New Jersey for example made large investments in their transportation infrastructure and now reap the expansion fueled by rail, water and road investments by the state.

“For the past 20 years, New Jersey has made an investment in transportation, Malloy added, “it’s a sin that Connecticut hasn’t.”

New Jersey’s model isn’t without problems. Legislators in New Jersey are currently grappling with issues concerning over development, cost over runs, and budget shortfalls. But the overall result is hard to argue with. According to James W. Hughes, Dean of the School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers “Every period of economic progression in New Jersey was built upon earlier advances in transportation infrastructure investment. These were increments of new transportation capacity that preceded and facilitated subsequent economic growth.”

Connecticut by most measures has not fared as well. A FDIC report from 2005 said Connecticut lagged near the bottom in job creation. Even our farms are closing and moving to Pennsylvania, Malloy pointed out, referring to the recent announcement that Franklin Farms, a grower or organic mushrooms and vegetables is leaving Connecticut.

To Malloy, the list of reasons for the dire outlook of Connecticut’s future is long. “There is no transportation policy. There is no energy policy. There is no job retention, no job growth policy. There's certainly no housing policy.”

Better Government That Costs Less

Malloy points to his record as Mayor of Stamford, not only as a good fiscal model, but also as a model for good governance that communicates better, cuts costs and offers better service.

“This is a good story, a true story,” he begins “In 1995 I went down to Washington D.C. I was trying to get federal funds to improve my city, Stamford. We wanted to add parking, improve the rail stations.”

“They asked me, why doesn’t Connecticut ask for more Federal funds? I couldn’t answer that.” The next year he added a request for 8 rail cars so he wouldn’t be asked the question again. Malloy’s ability to identify problems and work diligently towards solutions is evident in reviewing his record. In 1999, Stamford received $992,500 in federally earmarked funs to start the Stamford Urban Transitway. By 2006, the federal earmarks for Stamford totaled $33,553,00 and the list of projects ranged from high speed ferry terminals, bridges, walking trails and the continued worked on roads and rail improvements.

But federal and state funds aren’t the only places Malloy has looked for ways to fund initiatives. Malloy doesn’t fit the tar brushed mold of what Republicans want people to believe. “We've got to combat this basic rubric of analysis that most citizens engage in, that Democrats are bad for the economy and bad for fiscal management, and that Republicans are good for the economy and good for fiscal management. Now, the reverse happens to be true, but someone's got to be saying this on an ongoing basis, and in my case at least proving it."

Mayors like to tout their city’s bond ratings, in Stamford’s case, still AAA, and then turn to the positives of the yearly budgets. Malloy is no different, he takes pride in his accomplishments, acknowledging that 4 of the past 6 years Stamford has had a budget surplus, but adding with conviction that its 8 surpluses out of nine year's worth of budgets under his watch.

The Future Vision

With the new parking garages and rail station improvements, Malloy turned to the businesses in Stamford to help shoulder part of the investment in making Stamford a better, more attractive place. The result was the downtown special services district contributes money towards the beautification and promotion of downtown Stamford.

“Government should be more proactive on how towns manage their money and their services.” Malloy points out, “Stamford shrunk the size of government but increased services.”

When looking at Connecticut’s rail system, Malloy tackled the outdated thinking that accepts the 100 year old system of fixed passenger schedules. Part of the solution, he says, is to think of it as a subway system with more frequent trains, shorter trains that operate with greater flexibility.

Partnership with business and entrepreneurial approaches do work he explained. “If we wrestled with competition, if government is a partner, there’s a brighter future for Connecticut even in niche manufacturing.”

Yet towns across Connecticut are busy turning industrial zones into residential housing. Malloy is concerned about that, pointing out that he fought to keep a manufacturer in Stamford despite the hard reality that doing business is Connecticut is expensive and often not competitive with other states. He identifies energy costs as one of the many factors that impact business operations using Michigan as an example of a state that offers energy costs about one sixth of what it costs in Connecticut.

Accountability Is Important

Despite Malloy’s enthusiasm for tackling the problems through policy, he came back to a recurring theme. “No one goes back five years later to review policy decisions,” he began, “we do in Stamford.” Malloy, it turns out, is deeply concerned with unintended consequences. It’s not enough for him to craft policy and let others execute it without accountability. That touchstone of accountability is one that resonates broadly, especially for Malloy, a former prosecutor. His view on Jodi Rell’s leadership starkly exhibits his passion for accountability. “She's shocked, she's saddened, she's disappointed in the corruption of people who are working for her.' I mean, we can use the terms, we all know them. This is totally reactive government.”

Malloy is clearly frustrated by the missed opportunities and failures to address Connecticut’s future. He’s hoping for that dynamic to change in November. But he first has to tackle the difficult task of winning the August 8th Democratic primary to get there. He’s itching for a debate with Jodi Rell, “I can’t wait to have a real debate with Jodi Rell,” he says confidently. But when pressed about the campaign for the primary, he admitted his frustrations with the Senate race dominating coverage, and the generally less engaged voter. After the first week of July he promised it’ll be a sprint to the finish. Looking at how he’s tackled each and every task thus far, you can be sure that’s he got a plan to win the race.

Dick Morris: Lieberman Will Lose

Political Wire has a quick quote from Dick Morris about Lieberman's chances:
"I think Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) will lose the primary and will be so crippled by the defeat and Ned Lamont (D) so empowered, that he will lose the general election as an independent. Sen. Jacob Javits (R-NY), in 1980, could have avoided defeat by not fighting the Republican Primary against Sen. Al D'Amato (R-NY) and running as an independent. But D'Amato was so empowered by the primary win and Javits so disempowered that he won the general election with Javits running a poor third.

"Lieberman's correct course of action is to withdraw from the primary and run as an independent. It is the only way he can get re-elected."

How similar are these two races? I'll have to look into it.

Source

Goddard, Taegan. "Morris Says Lieberman Will Lose." Political Wire (blog) 25 June, 2006.

Malloy on the Primary

Part One of a Series on Dan Malloy

Bloggers from Connecticut Local Politics and My Left Nutmeg met with Mayor Dan Malloy of Stamford, the endorsed Democratic candidate for governor, on Saturday for an informal question-and-answer session.

Each of the four bloggers from this site who was at the meeting will be providing their take on part or all of the experience. These will not be long articles, as they are intended to allow you to get a basic idea of who Malloy is and what he's about. Today I'll be focusing on some of the horse-race aspects of the meeting, and on my general impressions of Malloy.

The Primaries

Malloy was quick to point to the fact that the Senate primary "is sucking all the air out" of the gubernatorial race. He believes that people are just now starting to pay attention to these races. He's basically looking to July as the real start of the gubernatorial primary: "July through August 8th will be a sprint," he said. Right now "we're in a bit of a lull."

Perhaps the most interesting part of the primary discussion was Malloy's defense of his progressive credentials. When asked about which way Lamont supporters might break, he said, "My hope is that they’ll take the progressive candidate. That’s me."

When civil unions first came up in 2003, he stated, municipal officials were invited to testify in favor of the idea. "Only one showed up. Me." He also said that he "would sign a marriage bill," is "against the death penalty" and, perhaps most importantly to many primary voters, is against the war.

"Where’s John [DeStefano]'s voice on the war?" he asked of his opponent. "I’ve had numerous debates with John. ... I don’t know what his position on the war is. Do you?" (Malloy also defended his membership in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council or DLC--see his remarks here.)

When asked why people ought to vote for him instead of DeStefano, Malloy said "The real difference is that I have a far better record than John [DeStefano] does." He pointed to Stamford's record on crime, ("...one of the 5 safest cities in America"), affordable housing and the economy as points in his favor. He also mentioned that his plan for universal health required the federal government "to pay its fair share" of the cost.

The Convention

"We knew that he didn't have 804 [votes], despite what John [DeStefano] was saying," said Malloy, when asked about his convention victory. He went on to state that the DeStefano campaign "was trying to decieve people," and that "they didn't understand that we had solidified our support."

Malloy said that delegates began changing their votes after the 1st Congressional District was called, "because we won that district" and because they didn't like being decieved. He accused the DeStefano campaign of "typical politics," in which everyone is kept guessing. He referred to the fact that the DeStefano campaign waited until after the votes were done to announce Scott Slifka as their LG choice, and made allusions to the fact that "people in Litchfield" (presumably a reference to Audrey Blondin) were kept guessing. By contrast, the Malloy campaign announced Mary Glassman's selection before the convention began.

Jodi Rell

Malloy, when asked about the remarkably high popularity of Jodi Rell, said, "Everybody in the country thinks that public education needs to be reformed, but they think the public school they send their kids to is great. Think about it.

"I think people in Connecticut have suppressed their true feelings about the failure of government and have decided not to associate that with Jodi Rell because ...she's not John [Rowland] ...and she's a nice person. Therefore, we should like her. And I think that dynamic changes come September."

He repeated several times that the Rell administration has been "a failure."

"I spend more time worrying about what will happen if we don't change directions," said Malloy when asked what he thought a Connecticut following his governorship would be like.

"I can't wait to have a real debate with Jodi Rell," he said.

Commentary

Malloy is a knowledgeable man with a knack for framing the debate. He's also a little more defensive and sharp than I expected, but that may just have been a certain intensity. This is a man who is desperate to wake Connecticut out of what he sees as a bout of self-pity and depression. He believes, strongly, that we can be better than what we are.

The proposal of his that I'm interested in the most has to do with the separation of education funding from municipal property taxes. I'll let someone else talk about this in more detail, but Malloy does at least recognize what may be one of our most serious problems.

Of the two, DeStefano seems like slightly more of a policy wonk than Malloy, but DeStefano has never really played to this strength. His proposals seem less detailed, less concrete and more vague than Malloy's--at least on the surface. There may be more to the DeStefano proposals that we don't see. Actually, there's a lot that we don't see about that campaign. Maybe that's the clearest distinction between the two.

Malloy also may be correct that people have somehow suppressed their feelings about the failure of Connecticut's government--simply because we don't expect much out of government to begin with. This is especially true following the Rowland scandals. I'm not quite convinced that Rell's popularity is due only to mass delusion or to her grandmotherly persona, but that's a discussion for September, not June.

More reactions, reporting and commentary on the Malloy meeting will appear over the next couple of days. Thanks to Dan Malloy and Brian Durand for proposing, setting up and attending this meeting.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Weekend Open Forum

Hey, we made the New York Times! Neat. A note to Gov. Rell: you are welcome on this site at any time.

Local bloggers, including four from CTLP, met with Dan Malloy in Middletown today. Of immediate interest is Malloy's position on the war, which he is steadfastly against. Malloy challenged John DeStefano to make his own position clear. More to come on this interesting meeting.

What else is happening?

Malloy Blogger Forum

These are a couple of pictures from an informal forum for Bloggers held by Dan Malloy. Four of the bloggers from this site showed up, as did Branford Boy from My Left Nutmeg. Gabe, CGG, Turfgrrl and I will be posting our impressions of the meeting over the next few days.


Friday, June 23, 2006

Lamont on Iraq

Colin McEnroe has an interesting take on what the Lieberman campaign is calling a Lamont flip-flop on the issue of the war.
So Joe has a rock solid position, and I don't. That doesn't make Lieberman right and me wrong. The fact that he has an unwavering position about the biggest military and diplomatic mess in American history since Vietnam -- a mess he helped make and has consistently helped sustain -- does not make him better than those of us who didn't want to this to begin with and now cannot figure out what to do.

He is steadfastly wrong. Lamont is kind of meanderingly right.

Democrats in general are shaky on the war. Who can blame them? They didn't really want it, and now they have no idea what to do with it. The only Democrat who seems very, very sure of his position on Iraq is... Joe Lieberman. About the only thing a lot of Democrats can agree on is that Lieberman and the Republicans he was lauded by yesterday are, in fact, wrong. It gets complicated from there.

The "flip-flop" angle is getting some press, and may be the most useful argument Lieberman has come up with against Lamont so far. Not surprising, considering what a story it was in 2004. But whether it'll play with Democratic primary voters--many of whom are similarly conflicted over Iraq and remember the sting of John Kerry being tarred as a flip-flopper by George W. Bush--is an important question.

It could backfire. Deja vu to 2004--with Lieberman in Bush's role. Democrats may end up concluding that Lieberman is just a Republican who can get union endorsements, and turn away from him.

Then again, maybe it'll help him stop his slide. But I have my doubts.

Source

McEnroe, Colin. "The Big Sandy." Colin McEnroe: To Wit (blog) 23 June, 2006.

Dodd Picks Up $1 Million

Chris Dodd's 2008 presidential campaign raised $1 million at a recent fundraiser.
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd's presidential campaign raised about $1 million in its first major fundraiser this week.
...
Dodd's greatest need is to come up with a campaign kitty that will be considered viable. In the insular world of early presidential politics, activists look to the money figures as evidence of credibility and support.

Dodd had about $2 million on hand last month, a number which will clearly grow because of the fundraiser. But he still lags well behind others, notably New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has an estimated $20 million on hand, and 2004 Democratic nominee John F. Kerry, who has about $17 million. (Lightman)

I think that sounds a lot more impressive than it actually is. Still, this could mean he's at least gaining a little credibility.

And why not? Democrats could do worse than Dodd.

Source

Lightman, David. "Dodd Fundraiser Nets $1 Million." Hartford Courant 23 June, 2006.

Once Again, Civility

Forcing commenters to register with Blogger hasn't really helped cut down on the personal invective around here. This is sad. I know it's hot out, I know we all disagree (that, in fact, is the point of this blog), but there's no need to heap abuse on others.

So once again let me ask that you leave your political opinions unrestrained, but please check yourselves when heaping personal abuse on another poster. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

Please don't:

--Call someone an idiot, or another name
--Insult someone else's intelligence, loyalties or beliefs in a personal way (it's okay to disagree, not to insult)
--Make disparaging comments about someone's life outside of blogging
--Make fun of another poster
--Accuse someone of being a staffer for a rival campaign
--Be a jerk

This last rule is the most important.

Now, this post is not aimed at the majority of you, but at a small minority of folks who abuse others constantly. You know who you are. Shape up.

Lamont: Joining the Ranks of the Flip Flop


By urging the senator to support the less aggressive of the two withdrawal plans - one with no firm deadline - Lamont appeared to back away from comments in recent weeks supporting an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from combat.

"I support the Levin-Reed Amendment on U.S. Policy in Iraq, and I urge Senator Lieberman to do the same," Lamont said in a statement posted Wednesday on his website. "It represents the minimum needed, but will build a Democratic coalition to establish and stick to a plan to end the war." Lamont was referring to a proposal by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island for a phased withdrawal from Iraq beginning sometime this year.


And there you have it, the Lamont who campaigns to the anti-war fringe but actually believes something else.

The Courant Lamont Wavers, Rival Camp Says, June 23, 2006, MARK PAZNIOKAS

Thursday, June 22, 2006

With Friends Like These...

Ann Coulter:
CAVUTO: So you would admire more at least the politician that says a timetable to get out than going back and forth?

COULTER: No. I would admire a politician, not as much as basically your run of the mill garden-variety Republican, but as far as Democrats go like Lieberman, who apparently does want to defend America and fight the war on terrorism. He is the one facing a primary fight.

CAVUTO: You know, there is talk about him maybe bolting to a third party. The seeds are there for a third party movement. Do you buy that?

COULTER: I think he should come all the way and become a Republican. He wouldn’t be our best Republican but at left he’d fit in with the party that wants to defend the country.

Yeesh.

Source

" Coulter Derides Call For New Iraq Strategy, Endorses Lieberman Approach." Think Progress. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/22/coulter-lieberman/. 22 June, 2006.

Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Former Chief Justice Sullivan

The General Assembly's judiciary committee is holding hearings on the scandal surrounding the nomination of Peter Zarella for chief justice. Former Chief Justice William "Tocco" Sullivan, who is very much at the heart of the matter, has refused to voluntarily appear, forcing the committee's leaders to issue a subpoena.
Judiciary Committee co-chairmen Sen. Andrew McDonald and Rep. Michael Lawlor, said they worked behind the scenes for weeks through intermediaries to convince Sullivan to testify voluntarily, before resorting to their extraordinary power to subpoena such a high-ranking judge.

"Speaking as an attorney, this is a very sad decision we had to make," McDonald said today. "As a legislator, it was an absolutely required decision…Justice Sullivan is at the center of this storm and we cannot dispel the storm without having an opportunity to question him about it." (AP)

Justice Sullivan's refusal apparently stems from the belief that he cannot be compelled to appear by the legislature. But Sullivan's court decided in 2004 that John Rowland was not exempt from a legislative subpoena (Sullivan dissented).

It will be interesting to see what he'll say, if he shows up.

Source

"Lawmakers Subpoena Former State Supreme Court Chief Justice." Associated Press 22 June 2006.

DeStefano Campaign Claims Fake Endorsement

The DeStefano campaign is claiming that the Malloy campaign faked an endorsement by a New Haven union.

From the Malloy press release, earlier today:
Endorsed Democratic candidate for Governor Dan Malloy, Stamford's Mayor, today received the endorsement of AFSCME Local 1303-393, representing workers at New Haven's Water Pollution Control Authority, in this year's campaign for Governor.

"Dan Malloy understands working men and women, he's the strongest Democratic candidate, and we're proud to endorse him," 1303-393 President Arthur Sandella said. Former 1303-393 Treasurer and current member, Ray Bradley, echoed Sandella's remarks: "Malloy is the clear choice. In my opinion, if you really look at it, his record is better with labor. DeStefano has pushed privatization, and it's hurt a lot of our guys. Malloy's also just a stronger candidate."

And from the DeStefano release a few hours later:
This afternoon Dan Malloy - Democratic candidate for governor – announced that New Haven AFSCME Local 1303-393 endorsed his candidacy for governor. Incredibly, the news release was inaccurate and the Local has not endorsed Malloy. What’s more, Malloy’s release fabricates comments from Local President Arthur Sandella.

Malloy’s news release quotes Sandella as saying, “Dan Malloy understands working men and women, he’s the strongest Democratic candidate, and we’re proud to endorse him.”

Sandella tells the DeStefano campaign today, “I never said that. There was no vote among members or the executive board. There was no endorsement.” As for having the Malloy campaign fabricate comments and attribute them to him, “that’s disrespectful.”

“We understand why the Malloy campaign would be so desperate for support from hard working men and women,” said Derek Slap – Communications Director for the DeStefano campaign – “but this is unfortunate.”

What is going on, here? I find it hard to believe that a campaign would just make an endorsement up.

Update

Brian Durand from the Malloy campaign said the following in the comments to this post:
To be clear...

The union approached the Malloy campaign 2 weeks ago (not the other way around), saying they wanted to endorse Mayor Malloy and hold an event to do so. They wanted to do it at noon today orginally, but then said they were worried because that was on the clock. So, they authorized a press release with the quotes from Mr. Sandella and Mr. Bradley. Our campaign sent out the release.

Some time after we sent out the release our campaign manager recieved a call from a reporter regarding Mayor DeStefano's release.

I think it's obvious what happened today. The union supported Dan Malloy, and once their intentions were public they came under enormous pressure from Mayor DeStefano and his campaign. Frankly it is a shame they had to endure that. However, those kind of tactics did not work for their campaign leading up to the Convention, and I don't think they will work to win this primary.

Someone is not telling the whole truth, here. I have my suspicions about who.

Double Standards

By this point, you probably know that Mayor John Fabrizi of Bridgeport used cocaine while in office.

You may also know that absolutely nothing is likely to happen to him because of it. So far he's indicated that he won't resign, and to this point he hasn't been prosecuted.

There's the interesting part.

Cocaine use is illegal. If I were to snort cocaine and then announce it during a press conference, I'd probably find myself spending time with a few thousand of my closest, meanest friends in the Enfield prison.

The Journal-Inquirer ran an editorial on the subject that's worth a read.
Say a 10th-grade history teacher gets busted for drugs.

Does he get to keep his job?

Even if he has done a great job at what he does?
...
How about a single mother?

Let's says she lives in a tough neighborhood in Bridgeport and is poor and unemployed. She gets swept up in one of those big busts the authorities like to conduct to show they are fighting the drug war. (Mayors always applaud them.) And she gets arrested. Does she get another chance?

No. She loses her kid and goes to jail.
...
If we don't think drug use is criminal for some people, why is it for others?

And if we don't really think recreational drug use is like theft or arson, why don't we decriminalize it and stop jailing people for it? ("The Case of the Cokehead Mayor")

Why, indeed? Green Party gubernatorial candidate Cliff Thornton makes a more direct case:
“It should be obvious that the mayor is being treated differently from average folk,” Thornton said. “It reminds me of George Orwell’s Animal Farm,” Thornton said, “where some animals are more equal than others. This hypocrisy must stop.”
...

Thornton’s campaign stresses the need for more treatment options for those seeking to kick the drug habit and showing how the root cause of violence in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport are centered on the failed “drug war” and the high profits associated with dealing drugs. “These Illegal drugs need to be brought inside of the law to ensure equal justice” Thornton stressed. ("Thornton")

There are two questions here, one small and one large. The first has to do with why some people can get away with crimes just because of the position they hold. Fabrizi broke the law. Why shouldn't he resign? Why shouldn't he go to jail? Yes, decent people can screw up. Fabrizi's been good for Bridgeport. But that doesn't put him above the law.

The second question, which Thornton is indirectly addressing in his release, is about whether decriminalizing drugs would lead to a less violent society. If we remove what he's calling "the root cause of violence," i.e., illegal drugs being dealt on the street, would our cities become less violent? If we focused on treatment rather than punishment, would we be better able to manage our serious national drug problem?

We won't know the answer to the second question for a long time. We may never know. But the first... maybe John Fabrizi can answer that question himself.

Source

"The case of the cokehead mayor: Why not one law for all?." Journal-Inquirer 21 June, 2006.

"Thornton: Cocaine Use has Double Standard as seen in Bridgeport's Mayor Case." Press Release. Thornton for Governor. 22 June, 2006.

Open Forum

The Courant is getting a new publisher.

Sen. Lieberman to start running "I Saved the Sub Base" ads.

A former Middletown mayor is expected to plead guilty to misusing clients' money today.

And we may not have NHL hockey, but we have a river, and now boats are coming to sail on it. Excitement city.

What else is happening today?

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Keep Digging

To be fair, there's very little that Joe Lieberman could do about either of the Democratic resolutions to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq that would help him in any way. If he voted for the resolutions, he'd be a flip-flopper. If he voted for them, he'd be continuing to bury his head in the sand where Iraq is concerned.

He's going the head-in-the-sand route--sort of:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., plans to vote against both Democratic amendments calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq.
...
Votes are expected Thursday. One resolution would call on the White House to begin phased redeployment of troops from Iraq this year, and to submit a plan to Congress by the end of the year for "continued phased redeployment."

The other measure, which is expected to gain little support even among Democrats, would have President Bush pull all troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Lieberman is expected to say he believes the U. S. cannot stay indefinitely in Iraq, and cannot write a blank check for its support. But, he plans to say, withdrawal of troops must be based on conditions on the ground, not fixed dates. (Lightman)

Much as I hate to admit it, he's actually right. As plans go, these are lousy ones. We could endlessly debate the pros and cons of a fixed date for withdrawal, but that sort of timeline won't help Iraq or, in the long run, the United States. The best the Democrats could come up with, I suppose.

Lieberman is sticking to his guns, sort of, despite the obvious backpedaling away from the Bush Administration and his earlier stances. If he really wanted to be the independent-minded statesman he so desperately desires to be, he could take a leadership role on the whole Iraq debate, and come up with some bold new directions besides just "stay the course" or "get us out of here now!"

Like, for example, doubling the number of troops, investing heavily in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and economy (a Marshall Plan for Iraq), and re-assuming some of the functions of Iraq's obviously inept central government until they can get back on their feet.

These ideas may not work. But they're a better direction than the two major parties are offering us. Positive action--any positive action--is better than either changing nothing or pulling up stakes and leaving a broken country to its fate.

Senator, they're yours for free. Take them and build on them. Lead, if you're capable of it. Put all that bipartisan capital you've supposedly been building up to work, for once! Get the moderate Gang of 14 who can still control the Senate behind you, and accomplish something history will remember you for. Show us why you ran for President.

Unless you can't. Maybe you're too wrapped up in saving your own butt here at home to risk the shreds of power you have left on helping to resolve a nasty overseas mess that you helped to create. Maybe you've been in Washington too long to act in anything but your own self-interest. Or maybe you really do think that things are going fine in Iraq. I don't know.

All just a fantasy, of course. No one is going to propose a better plan for Iraq. We won't pull out, the Democrats will get smeared as cut-and-run wussies, and in the end nothing will actually change. Maybe someday we'll have real leaders again. I can dream.

Source

Lightman, David. "Lieberman To Vote Vs. Troop Withdrawal." Hartford Courant 21 June, 2006.

Garfield Deletions May Reopen Fundraiser Hearings

State elections enforcement director Jeffrey Garfield deleted relevant sections of the report his agency submitted to the General Assembly, according to the Hartford Courant. Apparently the unedited version was slipped in with a bunch of "supplemental documents," and was not among the documents originally given to the legislature.

Here are a few of the deletions:
Investigators told Rell that Moody solicited the wife of a lobbyist (George is married to a lobbyist). Rell has proclaimed that her campaign will not accept lobbyists' contributions.

When Moody handed out invitations for the Dec. 7 fundraiser to subordinates in the governor's office, she allegedly said: "I am not giving you the strong arm, but I am."

Former gubernatorial ethics counsel Rachel Rubin said she warned Moody that it was wrong to hand out invitations at the Capitol. Moody said Rubin merely told her to "be careful" about giving an invitation to a staff member she had reduced to tears moments earlier. Garfield cut Rubin's version and left Moody's in. (Lender)

This may force the Marco Polo hearings back open, especially since there's evidence in the article that Moody may have seen the unedited version of the report.

In fact, the hearings should reconvene. Then Jeffrey Garfield and Lisa Moody should both be put out to pasture.

Source

Lender, Jon. "Deleted Scenes Add To Drama." Hartford Courant 21 June, 2006.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Open Forum

Alan Schlesinger says he wants to pull half of the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. Maybe that's just what he actually, honestly wants to see happen, but I don't think it'll help him politically.

Dan Malloy points to manufacturing job losses in Enfield and Groton as a sign of Gov. Rell's weakness on jobs. I don't think we at the state level can do anything about jobs going to Mexico... and at least more R&D is coming to Groton.

Lewis the Cat is spared, striking fear into the hearts of Avon ladies everywhere.

What else is happening?

SurveyUSA: Lieberman Approval Below 50% Among Dems

SurveyUSA released its monthly tracking poll of U.S. Senators, today. Joe Lieberman isn't doing so well.

Among all adults, Lieberman's approval stands at 55% (41% disapprove). This isn't the trouble.

Among Democrats, Lieberman has slipped below 50% approval. Ony 46% approve of him, while 50% disapprove.

Among liberals, many of whom are likely primary voters, Lieberman is at 40% approval (56% disapprove).

So what does this say? It seems to suggest that if the election were held today, Lieberman would probably lose.

Source

"CT Jr Sen Approval." Poll. SurveyUSA. 20 June, 2006.

Lego Production Leaving Enfield

Lego is going to be moving production done in Enfield to Mexico, and is scaling back the distribution center in town.
Danish toy maker Lego Group said Tuesday it will end its production in Enfield, Conn., and lay off 300 people there in early 2007, while some 900 employees in Denmark will also be sacked over the next three years.

The production in Enfield is to be moved to Mexico, the group said in a statement. Along with the 300 production layoffs, the distribution facility in Enfield will also be affected, Lego said, without providing details. (AP)

This is going to hurt. Lego is a big part of life in Enfield.

Source

"Lego to lay off 1,200 in Denmark, U.S.; move production." Associated Press 20 June, 2006.

Lieberman Plays to his Strengths

Joe Lieberman is trying to salvage his swiftly sinking campaign as the primary, which he has stated he will remain in, approaches. He's doing so by playing to his stregth: his image as a principled, bipartisan Senator who is above the fray:
Lieberman, speaking to reporters after an address at the Middlesex County Chamber of Commerce, said he is fed up with what he sees as "rigid partisanship" on multiple issues facing the country, not just the war in Iraq.

"Washington has become much too partisan and that partisanship gets in the way of doing the job that you send us to do," Lieberman said. "I feel Mr. Lamont, in Washington, would add to the polarization."

He dismissed a question about whether he is taking a political risk by touting his bipartisanship less than two months before the Aug. 8 primary, as critics claim he is too cozy with President Bush and too supportive of the war.

"I'm telling the truth," he said. "Whether it's risky or not, I don't know." (AP)

Of course it's risky, especially when he's been attacking Lamont for not being partisan enough:
Lamont, a Greenwich businessman who has put more than $1.5 million of his own money into his primary campaign, said he's confused about why Lieberman accuses him of being too partisan, but is running television ads attacking Lamont for being too supportive of Republicans. (AP)

Of all of the accusations Lieberman has made against Lamont, this is the one with the most potential to do damage. Many voters are sick of partisanship.

Of course, one breed of voter who isn't sick of that partisanship is the likely Democratic primary voter. Many hard-core Democrats wish that Lieberman had been more partisan on the issues that matter to them. What he sees as compromise, they see as capitulation.

Still, it's the first smart attack Lieberman has made in this campaign. At least it isn't petulant, vicious or an unbelievable exaggeration or distortion. Lamont will be more partisan than Lieberman. But that's also his strength.

Source

"Lieberman touts bipartisanship, says Lamont would be polarizing." Associated Press 20 June, 2006.

Fabrizi Admits Cocaine Use

Oh, dear.
Bridgeport Mayor John M. Fabrizi has admitted he has used cocaine since taking office, but told the Connecticut Post he is both ashamed and humiliated.
...
The mayor said he quit using the illegal drug well over a year ago.

"I'm ashamed. I'm humiliated for myself. I never meant to let the world know. I didn't want my family to know," Fabrizi told the newspaper. (AP)


So far, there's no word of Fabrizi resigning.

Source

"Bridgeport Mayor Address Drug Allegations." Associated Press 20 June, 2006.

Monday, June 19, 2006

All Three Rell Vetoes Stand

Gov. Rell has vetoed three bills this year, all of which were allowed to stand by the legislature today.
The governor nixed legislation that would have set in state statute a new contracting standards board and created rules for privatized contracts. She also vetoed bills that would have allowed state prosecutors to bargain for additional pension benefits and allowed adopted children to obtain their birth certificates when they turn 21. (AP)

Click here to see list of Gov. Rell's vetoes from last year, none of which were overridden.

Of the three, the contracting reform bill is the one that most desperately needs to be passed. Maybe next year.

"Lawmakers opt not to try and override three Rell vetoes." Associated Press 19 June, 2006.

Hurricanes Win Stanley Cup

I can't stand it.

Oh, well. Who needs NHL hockey, arena football, ABL basketball, CBA basketball or the occasional Celtics game anyway?

Maybe we can get a curling tournament in or something.

Governor's Race: Rell Still in Lead

I was in Boston all day. It was hot there. Sounds like things were exciting back here! Figures.

According to a Rasmussen Poll released today, Gov. Rell is still in fine shape, although her lead has shrunk. Her lead is less than reported in the last Quinnipiac Poll, and because it measures likely voters and not just Connecticut residents it can be said to be a bit more accurate.
She outdoes her prospective opponents by a little more than twenty-five points—a decline from her 40 point advantage, but not a terribly worrisome one. Rell now leads Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy 58% to 31% and leads New Haven Mayor John DeStefano 59% to 31%.

In other words, the only bad news for Rell in today’s poll is that the election is still five months away.

Despite the chipping away at her lead, Rell remains very popular, including among Democrats, at least 40% of whom support her reelection bid in each match-up. She is viewed favorably by 75% of all voters, 86% of GOP voters, 70% of Democrats. (Rasmussen)

As the election approaches, the Democratic party faithful, which is about 30-35% of the vote, will rally behind any candidate who is a Democrat. What this poll shows is that Malloy and DeStefano can count on the base, but not much else. If the eventual nominee can get Rell's lead down to 15% by Labor Day, this race will be worth watching.

In other gubernatorial news, the Rell campaign is opening a campaign office in Stamford this Saturday. Michele Fedele, Lt. Gov. candidate and Stamford resident, will be there to open it. I notice that they aren't opening a New Haven office. Hm.

Also, John DeStefano has a new TV ad about universal healthcare. I have yet to check this out.

Sources

"Connecticut Governor: Rell (R) Leading by 25%+." Poll. Rasmussen Reports. 19 June, 2006.

Guilty Plea on DOT theft and Obstruction of Justice


Raymond Cox, 52, of Plymouth pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz in New Haven to theft and obstructing justice, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.

Cox was the assistant DOT rail administrator who oversaw the renovation of DOT's offices at Union Station in New Haven.


The details are not pretty. Cox apparently arranged for a unnamed individual to prepare fake bids so that a renovation project had been bid competitively. No mention on whether this is part of the culture of DOT or not, but considering the pace of work on our roads, one has to wonder.

The Hartford Courant, Former State Employee Pleads Guilty To Theft, June 19, 2006 Associated Press

Trouble in Bridgeport

An FBI report surfaced in Bridgeport with an alleged drug dealer claiming there is a videotape of John Fabrizi using cocaine. The alleged drug dealer, Shawn Fardy, has plead not guilty. Records show that at least 13 phone calls were placed from Frabrizi's phone to Shaw Fardy between October and December 2004. Fardy is however, a member of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee.


Fabrizi could not be reached for comment. His spokeswoman, Caryn Kaufman, did not return telephone calls Monday.

Fabrizi, who took office after Joseph Ganim was convicted of corruption in 2003, said last week he has no plans to resign.

U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor said Friday that Fabrizi was not a target of the drug investigation. He said FBI reports, which summarize statements made by witnesses but are not always corroborated, are typically filed under seal. He apologized to Fabrizi after the document was released.


The Hartford Courant, Mayor urged to address drug allegations, June 19, 2006, AP.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

N.H. Register: Senate Primary Could "Hurt All Democrats"

The New Haven Register posted this editorial today (tip of the hat to CommonSenseDem--as a rule, I don't read the papers that make me jump through annoying hoops like the Register does) defending Joe Lieberman on the premise that a primary threat jeopardizes a "safe" Senate seat. The salient points:
The insurgent strategy suffers from two major flaws. First, in potentially putting a safe Democratic seat in play for Republicans, it is extraordinarily short-sighted. Second, it rests on a faulty premise about Lieberman’s record in adhering to core Democratic principles in his voting and his advocacy.

The strategy contrasts sharply with how Pennsylvania Democrats are treating a similar situation. There, Democrats rallied around state Treasurer Bob Casey in his quest to unseat Republican Rick Santorum, the incumbent U.S. Senator — even though Casey’s pro-life position on abortion puts him on the wrong side of a core Democratic issue. (Haas)

The Pennsylvania situation is very different, however, in that Pennsylvania Democrats have chosen the best candidate to defeat an entrenched incumbent. In this case, there is no strong Republican alternative. Alan Schlesinger has yet to catch fire, although he may be waiting for the outcome of the Lieberman-Lamont fight. Most observers don't think that there is much of a chance of the seat swictching from one party to the next, especially if Republican voters stay home.

Then again, it may be worth asking what the consequences of a Lamont victory would actually be. Would the party unify behind him? Or break apart?

Source

Haas, Lawrence J. "Challenge to Lieberman could hurt all Democrats." New Haven Register 18 June, 2006.

Some Days the Bear Gets You

It's been a lousy week for Joe Lieberman.

It started off with a Lamont ad calling for him to support the eventual primary winner, and then got worse when Lieberman's friends tried to help by saying wild, dimwitted things. Lamont got endorsements from two big teachers' unions, then, even worse, a Rasmussen poll showed Lamont only six points behind among likely primary voters.

It was then that the strategic geniuses at the Lieberman campaign decided to unleash their secret weapon: Son of Bear Ad, which turned out to be a miserable, unwatchable flop. Lieberman ended the week with an acerbic interview with David Broder, in which he compares the Lamont campaign and its supporters to a "crusade or jihad." Nice.

The one bright spot in the week, in which the Lieberman campaign agreed to a debate, seemed like a bitter concession, especially given the venom of the Lieberman press release.

Now, newspapers which saw Lamont as something of a novelty (and Lieberman as a foregone conclusion) a month ago are now taking a hard look at the Joe Lieberman who has been revealed by this week's events, and asking tough questions about his character and motivations. Connecticut voters who were paying attention might be starting to ask those questions, too.

So it can't get worse, right? This has to be rock bottom for Joe Lieberman. The image he's spent years honing, that of a prudent, intelligent, thoughtful compromiser with a ton of integrity, has been tarnished, perhaps irrevocably so. His campaign is wasting time and money on ads and statements that hurt more than they help, and the media honeymoon Lamont is enjoying just keeps getting longer.

Lieberman is a smart guy with a ton of campaign experience. He'll find a way to pull out of the nose dive somehow. We may see some campaign shakeups, a couple of firings here and there, and maybe some better-made ads and a stronger defense of his record. The debate will give Lieberman a chance to gain back a lot of ground, if he can manage to show up as Joe the Statesman, and not as the bitter, arrogant candidate we've seen over the past week.

He'll come out of it. But by then, it may be too late. There is one way things could get worse for Lieberman, of course, and that's being Joe Unemployed next January.

Rowland! the Musical

In honor of the fact that both John Rowland and Bill Curry are back in the news lately, here is the song list for "Rowland! the Musical" (first conceived of in this post a long time ago).

Act the First: The 2002 Election

1. (Curry) The Corruption Song/Overture
2. (Rowland) It's Nice to Have Friends
3. (The Tomassos) Contractin'
4. (The Rowlands) Hot Tub of Love
5. (Barbara Kennelly) That Wascally Wolland
6. (Curry) Governor Me? ...Maybe.
7. (The Democrats) Oh, Great. It's Curry Again.
8. (Nancy Johnson & Jim Maloney) Incumbency Blues
9. (Curry) Mumbling is a Strategy
10. (Rowland) There's an Election?
11. (Jodi Rell) John Never Comes to Visit Anymore
12. (Rowland) Waterbury!
13. (Curry) Hey! Running for Governor Over Here!
14. (George Jepsen) Oops.
15. (The Democrats) We Really Need A New Candidate Next Time
15. (Curry) You Haven't Seen the Last of Me! Or Maybe You Have.

Act the Second: The Fall (2003 and 2004)

1. (Curry) See, Didn't I Say?
2. (Rowland) Bring me the Heads of the Journal-Inquirer Editorial Staff!
3. (Richard Blumenthal) The Lawsuit Rumba
4. (The General Assembly) Shh! We're Taking a Nap
5. (Jodi Rell) People Are Watching My Cable Show!
6. (Curry) Hot Tubs and Indiscretions
7. (Rowland) I'm Really (Kind Of) Sorry
8. (Patty Rowland) Patricia's Yuletide Lament
9. (Rowland) I Said I Was Sorry!
10. (Curry) See, I Told You So
11. (The Democrats) We Are Very Pure (Someone Hide Newton)
12. (Rowland) This is Everyone's Fault But Mine
13. (Curry) Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!
14. (The Media) We Finally Found an Interesting Story
15. (Rowland) The Resignation Blues
16. (Jodi Rell) I Was Knitting the Whole Time
17. (Curry) See? See? See?
18. (Full Cast) The Campaign Finance Dance
19. (Curry) The Corruption Song/Finale

I know. It's sad when I start going into reruns.

Courant: Bingham Succeeding in Torrington

This is an interesting article on Ryan Bingham, who last year was elected mayor of Torrington at the tender age of 22.
Since his election, Bingham has gone at the mayor's job studiously, as he did pursuing his political science degree at Marist. He's spent long hours talking to everyone from former city officials to department heads to citizens about what he needed to do and what he needed to know. He spent his first 100 days in office on a "listening tour"; and he has breakfast each Wednesday at Lamonica's, a city luncheonette where anyone can stop by to talk to him. He also makes it a point to personally respond to calls, letters and visits to his office at city hall.
...
At city hall, department heads say Bingham's work ethic and his willingness to ask questions and listen to answers have impressed them. Age simply isn't an issue, one said.

"He's wise beyond his years," Roraback said. (Owens)

I think a lot of us were expecting Bingham to be a one-term wonder, or a inexperienced mayor in over his head. Instead, it seems like Bingham has not only taken charge, but that he's actually good for Torrington. I'd say, given this article, that his chances of re-election next year are pretty good. Who knew?

When I was 22 and 23, I was busy graduating college, getting married, doing cruddy temp jobs and moving into a one-room apartment in Enfield. I had no idea what I was doing. That Bingham has somehow managed not only to figure things out but apparently make a difference is impressive. Republicans need to keep an eye on him.

Source

Owen, David. "Torrington's Young Turk." Hartford Courant: Northeast Magazine 18 June, 2006.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Weekend Open Forum

What non Senate race things are happening this weekend?

The Two Liebermans

Joe Lieberman drags out the ghost of John Bailey in an interview with David Broder to talk about the evils of primaries:
"John Bailey genuinely believed that primaries were not only divisive but often didn't pass the ultimate test of finding the candidate who could win," he said. If Bailey were alive, his attitude would be, "We have an incumbent senator who is quite popular in the state; we have an opportunity to elect three Democratic congressional challengers; we have a very tough race for governor. Why would we want to challenge an incumbent senator who could lead the other candidates to victory?" (Broder)

Bailey was a smart, strong chairman whose specialty was getting Democrats elected, and keeping them in power once they got there. He and other party bosses weren't especially good for democracy. The current system, which allows much easier access to primaries than was ever the case in Connecticut, devolves power away from the parties and puts it in the hands of the voters. Which is where it belongs.

Lieberman also made this troubling statement:
"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that." (Broder)

Well, first off, the Republicans have done that. The nearly-successful primary challenge to Arlen Specter is a good example of that trend within the GOP--and they're a moderately successful bunch.

Secondly--jihad? You're kidding. Please tell us you didn't mean that. Please?

The interview is a good example of the Two Liebermans. There's Noble Joe, who is principled and unafraid to put party aside and take a stand for what he believes in. This is admirable and all-too-rare in a politician. I like Noble Joe, even though I sometimes disagree with him. Then there's Baron Joe, who believes he deserves his seat for life, that his opponent has no right to challenge him, and that he is entitled to go to any and all lengths to retain his spot in the peerage. Baron Joe is the one who released that dumb bear ad yesterday. He's the one spouting nonsense about jihad, invoking kingmaker John Bailey's ghost and issuing vicious statements, press releases and advertisements. He's paranoid, angry and unafraid to put party, people and common decency aside in order to win. I don't like Baron Joe. He has no place in a democracy.

This split personality seems to happen to good men who spend too much time in Washington. It's sad. I have to think that if John Bailey were alive today, he'd be quietly taking Lieberman aside and saying:

"Joe. Too much. Back off. You're losing us. You're better than this. Right?"

But Lieberman has no one to do that for him. I wonder if he's even listening anymore.

Source

Broder, David. "Antiwar Crucible in Connecticut." Washington Post 17 June, 2006.