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?


TrueBlueCT said...

From My Left Nutmeg.

Malloy holds a bloggers' breakfast. Says he is the "Anti-War candidate". Implies DeStefano is more of a Joe Booster than he is. Says he deserves to wear the mantle of the true progressive in the race.

Dan then gets nailed on his DLC membership. Repeatedly.

In the comments Malloy is accused of pandering.

To crown it all Malloy fan and blogger "Yogi" calls Dan a "Republican/Democrat hybrid with the ability to get it done."

Any bets as to when the next breakfast meeting will be?

TrueBlueCT said...

sorry for the double posting. I didn't see that GC had put up a seperate thread about the breakfast.

ctkeith said...

Can you ever imagine that there would be a time when the NYT thought the name My Left Nutmeg was to racy for it's readers.

The old Grey Lady is now totally senile and so out of touch with the Average New Yorker it should be forced to move to Utah.

Chris MC said...

The fixation on the DLC membership is really peculiar - unless one is concerned about the DLC status of a certain junior Senator facing a primary challenge over the war in Iraq.

Otherwise, you have Malloy's record and his answers to a number of issues, only a couple of which have been addressed here and on MLN. The main issue discussed so far is ... the war. (Surprise!) Which, when responding clearly and fully to a direct question on the subject, earns Malloy ridicule for "pandering".

None of the "progressives" that are so overwrought about the DLC connection is too young to remember how badly we were getting our asses kicked in the eighties are they? These individuals are apparently less concerned with the facts of Malloy's record, including his personal activism and executive leadership on both gay marriage and health care, than with the fact that he has long been a part of a network of politicians founded in part by Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and without which we would have had eight years of Bush I, instead of four, an even more rapidly declining position in Congress and in Governorships and statehouses.

Let's not forget that Howard Dean was a "centrist" Governor!
Here's a blast from the past:
Incumbent centrist Democratic Governors Howard Dean of Vermont, Jim Hunt of North Carolina, Tom Carper of Delaware, and Mel Carnahan of Missouri, are all popular and heavily favored for re-election. In open governorships, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Gary Locke of Washington State are likely to win thanks to a sharp contrast between their centrist messages and the far-right agendas of their opponents.

Here are a coupla more references for you to consider:

Perception is reality in politics. That explains why the Republicans are hammering Howard Dean so much and claiming he’s some sort of radical leftist wack-job.

The truth, as is almost always the case with GOP rhetoric and spin, is almost completely the opposite.

What “radical leftist” positions does Dean actually hold anyway? The only two that are generally cited are his support for Civil Unions (not Gay marriage) and his opposition to the war in Iraq.
While it is helpful to point out that Howard Dean is well within the mainstream (or even in the majority) on these two issues, it is also necessary to explain that until he decided to run for President, Howard Dean was mostly known for creating a state health insurance program in Vermont, and being a fiscally conservative, pro-business, low tax DLC governor.

Yes. That’s correct. Howard Dean, until he started telling people the emperor had no clothes, was actually considered kind of a conservative Democrat. Just ask the liberal Democrats in Vermont who butted heads with him on various issues.

I wonder if there is a "vtkeith" in a bedroom community outside of Burlington who just hates HBD's guts? ;-)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you wanted to fling an accusation at Malloy, you might accuse him of being the next Howard Dean!

Yogi's choice of words is less than ideal. The national GOP is pursuing a radical agenda, no doubt. Yogi tried to clarify I think that he meant Connecticut Republicans, but it is confusing.

The fact of the matter is that Malloy's record is one that anybody this side of Dennis Kucinich can wholeheartedly cheer. And his courage in pursuing a conversation with a group of individuals that include some as openly hostile to Malloy as ctkeith and bartletispresident demonstrates both the commitment and the stones to provide the leadership we need in the Party and to reach almost everybody from "progressives" to traditional Connecticut Republicans.

That is the opposite of pandering.

MikeCT said...

Colin & Bruce talked to Sen. Don Williams about former Chief Justice William Sullivan (follows an earlier conversation with Rep. Mike Lawlor).

Also had an interview with columnist Kevin Rennie, who thinks Lamont will win.

On the strength of the Lamont & Lieberman organizations:
Joe Lieberman is going to have to hire a lot of people. He has no organization left in CT. In the last six years, he just hasn't been here, and it shows. And in a primary, that makes a difference.

On the impact of Lieberman's claim that he saved Groton sub base:
At the Democratic convention, they repeated over and over again that he had helped save 30,000 jobs at the sub base. And then he proceeded to lose New London's vote when the roll call came around. So I thought he's not getting much leverage out of that.

Rell is going down said...


If you are checking this thread, you might be able to answer this because you know more about Hartford politics than me. Isn't Droney from Levy and Droney a big time Malloy supporter up in Hartford? And isn't he the same guy who was so pro-jomentum last week? I might be wrong about this, but that seems a little hypocritical, don't you think? If Dan wants to position himself as the anti-war candidate, shouldn't he break his ties with Droney?

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

rell is going are correct..its one and the same guy... i am for JDS. and gave and raised him money too...

I can only say this about Malloy in his favor...his town gave Lamont more delegates then JDS did..

I think if JDS gets the AFl endorsement next week..and they work hard...then JDS will win the primary based on my prior numbers.

BRubenstein said...

rell is going down...Malloy wont break his ties with Droney...

Droney was party chair when Malloy was getting into politics and droney is very tight with Malloy's chief guru ellen camhi...droney,peter kelly and jim wade are having a fundraiser in hartford for Malloy soon...and trust me..those 3 are worth alot to him...Malloy would rather lose RoyO or another strategist then those 3.

Weicker Liker said...

To change the subject, has anyone heard anything from Miriam Masullo and Scott MacLean?

They are running in a Republican Congressional Primary.

Chris MC said...

Note that Bruce is quite careful never to take a poke at Droney, despite the fact that Droney has publicly urged Lieberman to run as an independent. In fact, despite the fact that Droney is an unapologetic "conservative" Democrat, Bruce took pains to say rather respectful things about him.

Should speak volumes to the uninitiated. An important lesson, cheaply had, gang.

Genghis Conn said...

Masullo and MacLean are quiet, as far as I know.

BRubenstein said...

Chris...i am respectful of him because unlike you...he has done something in politics...he basically ran Lieberman 88..and other races also...the pro's know eachother..

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Genghis Conn said... "
Masullo and MacLean are quiet, as far as I know.

Not really, I'm just not interested in sharing anything with anyone on the other side.

Chris MC said...

Heck Bruce, you didn't have to emphasize my point that clearly, but thanks!

Weicker Liker said...


I wonder if Miriam Masullo ever moved into the district?

I also hear that a number of Republican Registrars of Voters asked her to drop her primary bid

LitchfieldAngelina said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patricia Rice said...

Massulo or whatever his name is will only earn the right to get trounced by John Larson who is very well liked and has done an excellent job. There is nobody who thinks this is a race and the topic is not worth any futher discussion in this forum.

Patricia Rice said...

Massulo or whatever his name is will only earn the right to get trounced by John Larson who is very well liked and has done an excellent job. There is nobody who thinks this is a race and the topic is not worth any futher discussion in this forum.

Weicker Liker said...

Gee, Patricia Rice, how wonderful for YOU to decide what political race is important or worthy of discussion.

Aldon Hynes said...

As an unrepentent Jeffersonian democrat, I think all races are worthy of discussion. I know nothing about Masullo and MacLean. My guess is that whomever wins won't have much of a chance against Larson, but that doesn't make the race unworthy of discussion.

Likewise, I wish there was a lot more discussion about various State Legislative races, whether or not people believe they are going to be close. I like the wiki because it provides information that wouldn't be found otherwise.

As a final point on this, yesterday, Audrey Blondin had a gathering of Democratic leaders in the 8th and 30th State Senate district. I went there to encourage better reaching out to people who haven't been more involved in politics.

I put a few clips of the event up on YouTube. Stop by to see videos of Lt. Gov. candidate Mary Glassman, State Rep Candidate Paul Cavagnero, State Senate candidates Steve Berry and Matthew Brennan and Chris Murphy's campaign manager Sarah Merriam.

MikeCT said...

The News-Times on Lieberman's & Johnson's travel junkets:

Imagine all-expense-paid trips to the Bahamas, Ecuador, Europe, China, Las Vegas, even Alaska. They might sound like game show prizes, but they're a perk for some members of Congress, their spouses and staff.

In Connecticut, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat, and U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-5th Dist., lead the way in jetting on someone else's dime.

Johnson has also recently had to defend the use of $700,000 in taxpayer money on jet trips by a Bush official for PR visits, including what was basically a campaign stop for her.

BRubenstein said...

chris chris chris....droney chose to put his personal and political relationship ahead of the party he once lead...he isnt the first to do that and wont be the last...

Rell...i suspect DM is taking any support where he find it...if it means getting support from conservative pro- war dems like droney...or anti-war dems like Representative McCluskey, then he will do that...does it look hypocritical? you bet..but other candidates do it too..

Rell is going down said...

So he's the anti-war candidate, unless you want to write him a check or throw him a fundraiser. Then he's whoever you want him to be.

BRubenstein said... not supporting DM...never have and never will..i am supporting JDS...and gave him money and support...

I dont think DM is the anti-war candidate..i understand JDS to be against the war also...

what i do know is this....anti-war folks are supporting both candidates...

Patricia Rice said...

To Bruce & CT Keith: I have a question for both of you. We can all see how Anti-Lieberman you both are but should Senator Lieberman win the primary, will you both support him? And please, do not answer a question with a question.

Chris MC said...

You agree that Lieberman must ante-up and support the nominee, even if it is Lamont. But you give Droney a pass.

You are vehemently anti-war, unless JD doesn't want to talk about it. And when Malloy comes down four-square on that side of your issue, it suddenly makes no difference.


Anonymous said...

weicker Liker says:To change the subject, has anyone heard anything from Miriam Masullo and Scott MacLean?

They are running in a Republican Congressional Primary.
because I guess he hasn't looked to the right where GC has links to both candidates websites, which i admit i have never looked at and probably never will,,

MikeCT said...

Masullo wants to oust UCC church members

Masullo is rather pathetically criticizing her Republican rival Scott MacLean for being a former minister in the Congregational Church, which part of the United Church of Christ. Her news page summarizes one article on MacLean as "UCC MINISTER in Republican political race." Another link, entitled "About the UCC - fighting certain value" (sp), is to an article completely unrelated to the race that calls the United Church of Christ "liberal-controlled." MacLean is hardly a religious zealot, campaigning on a faith-based platform. His religious affiliation is irrelevant.

Perhaps the GOP should list acceptable church affiliations for their candidates in order to screen them. And, to be consistent, Masullo should advocate the ejection of Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, a Unitarian. Masullo is a wretched and gutter-level pol, and Republicans should disown her.

BRubenstein said...

chris chris chris...i didnt give Droney a pass...he chose to place his personal relationship ahead of the party he once headed..( ive said that twice now)

Chris..i am anti-war regardless of whom wants to or doesnt want to talk about the me both candidates ( dm and jds) havent talked about it enough and frankly both have said they are anti iraq war.

What DM will have in his favor with the anti war crowd is that Stamford gave Lamont more delegates then DeStefano's New Haven did, which i think was a stupid tactical blunder on JDS's part...but he appears to have the dumber staff and strategists, as ive posted before...who blew the convention. When you appoint Tony Avalone ( who has many many conflicts and no experience) to lead the convention are bound to have trouble.

Another thing DM will have in his favor that he didnt have before the convention is Audrey and the folks around her in the 5th CD.

Having said that...DM has way to many liabilites for me to believe he will win the primary, let alone the convention. Additionally, ive already run the scientific numbers showing that labor ( if they work hard) will be crucial to a win in the primary for JDS.

Genghis Conn said...

I grew up in the UCC (in a 1st District town, no less). I'm not what you'd call religious. But Masullo's smear of my old church (filled with outstanding people, by the way) REALLY pisses me off. I'm not pissed off easily, either.

Anonymous said...

Senator Russ Feingold said he will support Lamont in the primary but not campaign for him, and he will support whomever wins the Democratic primary and campaign in CT if asked this morning on the Sunday shows and Dick Durbin said he is upporting Lieberman in the primary and he would not answer beyond that....

BRubenstein said...

bluecoat...actually he said he would support the winner of the primary..he didnt say he supported Lamont in the primary, but did say that Lamont's issues are closest to his own...

Anonymous said...

OK, I stand corrected but I was close enough for govenment work...that said, I would suggest lamont talk to Feingold to refine his message and not that I agree with Feingold either on the Iraq thing but Feingold can't be accused of flip-flopping and Lamont does muddle things sometimes due to his inexperience...anf then the dabeate ends up about that instead of the need for an exit strategy because there is none...

BRubenstein said... always are close enough for government work...

Anonymous said...

LOL there BR

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

What the UCC has been up to that you missed:

As a 17th generation practicing Congregationalist, I just couldn’t take the UCC anymore and had to change churches.
I wish I would’ve been able to get my church out of the UCC as so many others have.

The UCC is hardly what you might think; there’s all sorts of problems the largest of which is this:


Meanwhile “former” UCC minister Scott MacLean lives right now in a parsonage owned by the UCC church in Hartland, CT

He has yet to disavow the actions of the UCC as they regard Israel.

While the UCC and MacLean hold their ground, the

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

While the UCC and MacLean hold their ground, the Presbyterians vote 483-28 to cancel divestment from Israel

Why won't MacLean disavow the actions of the UCC?

I would think that the SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER would be a good enough source; if they think your group is out of bounds then chances are your group is that.

Anonymous said...

I can only imagine what the turnout for the 1st CD GOP Primary will be: 10%? Or is that too optimistic?

BRubenstein said...

Architect...what difference does either candidate make for your Rerpublicans...the 1st CD is the safest CD seat in the state for us Dems..

DavidCT said...

Democracy is dead in Connecticut, killed by democrats who prefer not to have free elections and not to have issues raised. This is one issue that you will have to live with. You are defending a person that you are not going to vote for and you care nothing about - because you want that person to bring what he teaches to a political race - not while there are Holocaust survivors still living in Connecticut. No wonder you want to get rid of Joe Lieberman too. The time has come to take sides and you side with the enemy. Take a look at and see what they have to say about our enemies, and see what they think of our allies, and make a decision on where you stand, for human rights or for suicide bombers. Don't tell me this has nothing to do with the race, when the UCC puts one of their own in the race, don't tell me this has nothing to do with the race. Go ahead call people names for telling the truth, go ahead try to make people afraid of exposing the truth, that's exactly how it all started in Germany.

BRubenstein said...

davidct...what exactly do you mean that dems killed democracy in ct?

BTW my mother in law is a holocaust survivor and my wife and i ARE we dont take kindly to antisemitism...BTW..mark me down for Lamont while you are at it...he supports Isreal and his plan for getting us out of Iraq will be better for the middle east and stability and peace there.

Genghis Conn said...

From the divestment resolution:

Summary 11

This resolution calls the church and the U.S. government to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a just manner and requires the United Church of Christ’s Corporate Social Responsibility Ministry to begin the process of divestment from companies involved with Israel’s illegal (by UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338) occupations of the West Bank and Gaza, the building of the “security fence,” and the Israeli settlements within Palestinian Territory. Theological Rationale: We believe that God in love seeks blessing and not destruction for all peoples, and lays the same pursuit upon Jews, Christians and Muslims (Genesis 12:1-3, 17:15-20, 21:14-19; Joshua 5:13-15; Isaiah 42:5-7, 49:6; Jonah; Micah 4:2-4; Matthew 5:14-16, 5:23-24; Mark 3:35; Luke 6:27-36, 9:51-55, 10:25-37; John 3:16-17, 21:15-17; Revelation 22:1-2)


Over the past decades, the United Church of Christ, through General Synod and through other UCC instrumentalities have used formal resolutions and statements to urge a just settlement to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. These words have not succeeded in solving the conflict. During the era of apartheid in South Africa, the United Church of Christ, along with other denominations and organizations, successfully used divestment as a tool to bring justice to South Africa. Mindful that divestment has been a successful tool in the past, we urge the use of selective divestment in bringing justice to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


WHEREAS the United Church of Christ has repeatedly affirmed that the State of Israel has a right to exist, and that the Palestinian people also have a right to their own state, whether it is through a one-state or two-state solution, and

WHEREAS the United Church of Christ has called for an end to anti-Semitism in the United States and around the world, and has passed a resolution to this effect as recently as GS 2002, and

WHEREAS ... that this resolution is based on both a pro-Israeli and a pro-Palestinian peoples perspective; that it is not anti-Semitic to criticize the Palestinian policy of Israeli governments; and

WHEREAS, we condemn the violence on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also believe that the roots of terrorism begin in the unjust and inequitable situation in Israel/Palestine...

Long comment. Seems like they tried their best not to be anti-Semitic. I really don't buy the idea that the UCC is somehow anti-Jewish. We can debate whether they're doing the right thing or not, but anti-Semitic? No.

Weicker Liker said...

Authentic Connecticut Republican never addressed whether Miriam Masullo moved into the 1st CD. She promised she would when she filed her intent to Primary in late May.

MikeCT said...

ACR & DavidCT,

Are there any tactics that are beneath you? Have you no shame at all?

Go - you and Masullo can go on the record as running against the UCC Church, and you can run your party further into the ground.

Here's another take on DavidCT's argument, with some minor word substitution:
Take a look at [the Catholics] and see what they have to say about our enemies, and see what they think of our allies, and make a decision on where you stand, for human rights or for suicide bombers. Don't tell me this has nothing to do with the race, when the [Catholic Church] puts one of their own in the race, don't tell me this has nothing to do with the race.

The article about the UCC that Masullo links to has nothing to do with Israel. It is about an ad the UCC ran that celebrates the tolerance and inclusiveness of the church. That's what she objects to. Her message is loud and clear.

You and Masullo are caricatures that represent the worst of your party.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Genghis Conn said... " but anti-Semitic? No."

Denial - period.

I think most people would tend to take the Wiesenthal Center's perspective especially now that the Presbyterians have reversed themselves from an almost identicle resolution.

Certainly most Congregationalists are oblivious to the goings on at the UCC; I was for ages until I noticed that some Kim H kept donating the legal max to whoever ran against my friend and then state rep. Angleo Fusco. I found out who she was (the UCC lobbiest) and who her employer was and started church shopping. I saw no reason the money I put in the plate should be used to attack my friend.

I later learned the UCC/CT paid Sara Brady a 50K speaking honorarium. How many winter coats for poor children would that have been? How many people could be taught to read for that kind of money?

It is simply not the church of our forebearers any longer.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

MikeCT said... The article about the UCC that Masullo links to has nothing to do with Israel.

No it simply illustrates the church's membership decline and was written by a Methodist in fact.

You miss the point entirely.

The UCC has a political agenda, plain & simple.

Most churches don't and tread pretty carefully in that arena.

I dragged Mirium into the race soley because I'd seen what the likes of MacLean did ruining my most of my denomination and I'm well aware that the direction of the UCC is contrary to the intent of it's founding in the late 1950's as it's founder (Blake) was well known to my mother as both her minister and next door neighbor as well.

It appears you're unfamiliar with the issues.

I'd strongly recommend a visit to

MikeCT said...

OK, apparently you have no shame.

Even if you want to run a campaign against a church, rather than a candidate, he's not even working as a minister any more. So the Masullo team will have to argue that UCC members should be exiled from the party. You'll also have to take out Nancy Johnson and her Unitarian friends.

Good luck with the holy war.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

MikeCT said... "
OK, apparently you have no shame."

You apparently have no trouble with the fact that MacLean has not disavowed the anti-semite stance of the UCC as even their own sister denomination did this week.

Were it not a problem the Presbyterians would not have felt the need to reverse themselves.

Further, you confuse the church proper (religious) with the UCC (political) and no one in their right mind would do that. There's nothing "wrong" with the Congregationalists; it's entirely the UCC that's gone over the edge and they've done so without consulting with their members. Which in itself seeing as the whole point of being Congregationalist is self governing; is contrary to their very structure.

I'd venture you're not a church goer, probably not a member of one and certainly thus not affected one bit.

Had your church, that you enjoyed, been ruined by the likes of MacLean I suspect it would be different.

No one save for you I guess cares one whit about anyone's sexual orientation, aside from the same fruitcakes that attack the Masons (etc. & et al) I know of no church that rejects anyone. The UCC TV commercials were a fraud.

MacLean does in fact live in a parsonage owned by the church so just how out of it do you think he is?

Why is the UCC is attacking the Black GOP candidate for Gov. in Ohio?

Why do they employ a full time lobbiest and arm her with a war chest full of cash? No other denomination behaives like that.

They have an agenda and MacLean was quietly moved to CT a short time ago as part of it.

He's not voted in CT ever in his life nor has lived here for any meaningfull period, yet he's all set to run for congress?

The whole thing is bogus and it stinks to, well to coin a phrase, high heaven!

Give me a break.


Weicker Liker said...


That's quite a scenario.

How many times has Miriam Masullo voted in elections in the 1st cd?

Is she going to move into the district?

MikeCT said...


Keep digging your hole larger and wider. The more Republicans that fall in, the better.

When will you and Masullo be picketing Nancy Johnson, asking her to leave for the Unitarians and account for their political views? I look forward to the Redneck League's press release.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

MikeCT said... " asking her to leave for the Unitarians "

The Unitarians have been sending money to Hamas?

I don't think so.

MikeCT said...

Go for it. Write lots of letters to the editor about this. Call up reporters on behalf of the Masullo campaign. Better yet, become her official spokesperson. This could be the big break that puts her over the top.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

It's interesting that MikeCT & Weicker Liker both find the killing of women and children by UCC supported Hamas bombers so amusing.

I doubt most voters will.

Anonymous said...

Rubenstein, your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

Then again, being someone who takes everything so freakin seriously as you do, you might not have one.