Connecticut Politics and Elections: Coverage, Analysis, Maps and Commentary
Something is wrong with the state senate roundup thread...can't read comments.
maybe the Southington Dems are up to their old tricks
It's been like that since yesterday afternoon. Perhaps things got too heated and the comments were shut off?GC, what's the scoop?
GC,I want to comment on how disgusting the Zoni mailer was. What happened to the comments in the state senate round up?
Blumenthal is taking on Lieberman - kinda anywayk
Perhaps we should just take up the subject in the new thread started by turffgrl on Negative Campaigning.
I read the article on the Zoni direct mailing. Is the Republican complaint that it makes Zoni look like he committed the offense? Voting against impeaching Giordano, and allowing him to receive $ is a real issue.
Working on it...
Anon10:53, I don't understand what you mean?
I may have the candidates' names mixed up. Is the GOP complaint that the Dems are making the GOP candidate look like a child molester himself? The issue that the Dems were raising was that Giordano was not impeached, which ultimately is a moral and financial issue. Really, it sounds like it was a generally fair mailing, in an environment with so many unfair attacks (see N. Johnson - FISA ad) going on.
Hopefully GC can get the other feed up and running. Right now though, two things. First, the mailing was a disturbing. If the dems/zoni want to attack Caligiuri, go for it. A real debate over issues would be great in this campaign, especially since Caligiuri has stayed positive. But don't use images of what was supposed to be a previously molested child in your mailers. Child molestation is not political. It is a horrible, disgusting crime that every political party and every civilized person in the world is against. Second, the deal struck by Caligiuri removed Giordano from office. Caligiuri did not vote to give money the child molesting mayor. He voted to cut his salary in half and save the city of Waterbury from a lawsuit. Just being arrested does not remove you from office. While Giordano was later convicted, he did not have to leave office until he was convicted months later. If Caligiuri did not cut this deal, Giordano could have sued the city if they "fired" him without the deal. If not for Caligiuri, the City of Waterbury would have been dragged through even deeper mud than what the awful human being Giordano had already brought it through. If not for Caligiuri's compromise, Waterbury would have had a Child Molester in office for even longer. Zoni should be ashamed that he tried to make child molesting political. Stick to the issues, not making flyers with horrible images of molested children in his mailings.
No, it was unfair and innaccurate on several fronts:The "deal" in question was "taxpayer neutral" to the city. The "deal" that the piece speaks of was the move that the Board of Alderman made to get rid of Phil Giordano in 2001. Under the charter, unless impeached, Mayor Giordano would have received his full salary and benefits through 12/31/01. An impeachment proceeding/trial, held by the Board of Alderman, would have been a costly and lengthy spectacle that Waterbury couldn't afford to go through at the time. The focus was to get rid of Giordano without costing the taxpayers money. Initially, Giordano actually phoned the Mayor's Office from prison to tell Caligiuri that he would "be back at his desk in a week" to resume his duties! Initially, Phil Giordano had no intentions of walking away without a spectacle. Caligiuri and the rest of the majority caucus of the Board of Alderman voted to allow Phil to keep his benefits (he was the married father of three young boys) and 1/2 of his salary through the end of the term-- a period of approximately 6 months. Sam was aware of the fact that the taxpayers of Waterbury shouldn't be penalized in the pocketbook because of the depravity of Phil Giordano. Caligiuri insisted that he receive no medical benefits of any kind from the city of Waterbury while he served as acting mayor. He received the other ½ of the mayor’s salary while he served. He took a leave from his law practice (and a significant pay cut) to serve as acting mayor in a manner which would cost the taxpayers nothing.The bottom line is this “deal” was made in the best interests of the city at the time. It did not cost the taxpayers one penny and basically rid the city of Phil Giordano once and for all. It avoided a costly spectacle, allowed the government to move forward and continue its efforts to dig itself out of the financial mess it was in (the oversight board had just recently taken over) and, perhaps just as importantly, allowed the two young victims of that reprehensible crime to avoid testifying in any Aldermanic impeachment proceeding.The mailer says none of this and simply makes it seem like Caligiuri gave his "buddy" Giordano a sweetheart deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Post a Comment