Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Where I Stand: Election 2006

We’ve decided not to go with endorsements this time around. Instead, each of us has the option of posting who he or she is voting for, and why. This gives us the opportunity to talk about candidates we like, without going the extra (and probably pointless) step of making a formal endorsement.

The following is my list.

For U.S. Senator: Alan Schlesinger (R) I know where he's polling--and I don't care. I’m also well aware of the fact that I supported Ned Lamont over Sen. Lieberman in the primary. I actually have nothing against Mr. Lamont. I think he’s a good candidate with good intentions; I just think Mr. Schlesinger is better informed and more committed. There are several reasons for this:

  1. Iraq: Schlesinger supports examining a three-state solution, which I think is a sensible and realistic way of dealing with the problem. I have long thought that the end result of our Iraq adventure would be three semi-autonomous states. In the case of Kurdistan, it’s already essentially true. No other candidates are thinking this way, and it’s refreshing. There are problems with this solution, of course (Turkey being a big one), but they are mostly diplomatic/political in nature.
  2. Fiscal discipline: Schlesinger is knowledgeable about fiscal matters and shows a serious interest in getting our nation’s fiscal house in order. His plan for fixing social security is especially compelling.
  3. Character: We all have flaws. Gambling and ego may very well be his. However, a moment that impressed me was when he stood up to yell at hecklers at the recent debate. He was livid that they would disrupt a decent democratic proceeding—and that was absolutely the right response.

I disagree with him on some issues. He would rather we err on the side of safety, while I would rather see us err on the side of liberty. He would have supported the recent detainee bill if it had contained a sunset clause, for example. His position on immigration is a little too hard-nosed, as well. But in most cases, I agree with him. I also think sending him to Washington would be like throwing a live grenade into the Senate. That’s a good thing. Schlesinger is that rare creature in 2006: a Republican whose presence in Congress could spark change.

Choosing between Schlesinger and Lamont was not easy. I do like Mr. Lamont, as I’ve said. I wouldn’t be sad to see him win at all--and if the race narrows to the point where every vote is needed for him to defeat Lieberman, I may reconsider. As for Sen. Lieberman himself, I simply can't support him. He seems neither to be a bridge builder nor a crafter of compromise, but instead just someone who is willing to attack his own party for political gain. That really isn't bipartisanship or moderation. I am disappointed in his conduct, especially during this race, and I believe he is the least likely candidate in the race to effect any sort of change in Washington. He certainly doesn't seem to have any viable solutions for resolving the conflict in Iraq, which he has so enthusiastically championed in the past. Mr. Schlesinger would make the best senator of the three.

For Governor: Jodi Rell (R) We have had reasonable, pragmatic and steady governance under Gov. Rell, and I would like to see her continue on. Her very active support for campaign finance reform is a major part of why I’m voting for her. Also, she could give Sen. Lieberman lessons in what it’s like to actually work across party lines. Her presence has helped to moderate the Democratic-held General Assembly (the civil unions compromise is a good example of this), which I believe is positive for Connecticut.

John DeStefano is a good man with bright ideas. But I don’t relish the idea of him as governor, and I worry about his tendency to make enemies instead of allies in the legislative bodies he works with. Above all else, Gov. Rell is right when she says that his numbers simply don’t add up. I don’t think there is a way for us to pay for all of DeStefano’s ideas. Therefore, I support the continuation of the pragmatic and thoughtful, if sometimes too slow and reactive, government of the incumbent.

For U.S. Representative: Joe Courtney (D) We do need change in Washington, which is one of the major reasons why I’m not supporting Sen. Lieberman. Rob Simmons has been a capable legislator, and I voted for him last time. However, he has sided with the GOP leadership too often for my taste, and his position on the recent detainee bill was, despite the fact that it was a compromise for Simmons, wrong. Simmons has done too much to exacerbate the current state of affairs and, unlike Schlesinger, probably won’t act to change much of anything should he be returned to Washington. Mr. Courtney, on the other hand, impressed me with his knowledge of the issues, and his record as a legislator shows him capable of getting things done without alienating either members of the opposition or his own party.

For Attorney General: Richard Blumenthal (D) Although he has been in office for what seems like forever, I see no good reason not to re-elect him. Robert Farr certainly doesn't make a compelling case.

For Secretary of the State: Susan Bysiewicz (D) Although her tenure has been a bit rocky, her office made the right choice by supporting optical-scan voting machines (eventually).

For State Treasurer: Denise Nappier (D) - Although Linda Roberts is a good candidate, Ms. Nappier has mostly done well as treasurer.

For Comptroller: Nancy Wyman (D) - Cathy Cook does not make a good case for replacing Ms. Wyman. The Republican underticket has been very disappointing in general this year.

For State Senator: John Kissel (R) I like his positions on campaign finance reform, and he has been a pragmatic and intelligent legislator. My one major issue with him is his vote against civil unions in 2005, so my vote for Kissel will be cast with some serious reservations. It is my hope that Sen. Kissel, who was very public in his opposition to the bill, will see that there is nothing unreasonable about extending the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. It has not caused the widespread social discord that so many predicted in either Massachusetts or Connecticut.

As for Democrat Bill Kiner, I have been less than thrilled with the negative tone of his campaign.

For State Representative: Karen Jarmoc (D) I have nothing against Republican Charles Woods. However, Ms. Jarmoc has a good command of the issues and seems very familiar with the workings of state and local government through the many organizations she is a part of. She will hopefully be more involved than her husband, retiring State Rep. Steven Jarmoc (D), who was a casual legislator at best.

Again, these are just my own votes and opinions, and are not meant to represent the opinions of the site as a whole. So how about you? Where do you stand?


ken krayeske said...


Jodi Rell for Governor?

Where was she for 10 years of Rowland's administration? If she knew about it, and didn't say anything, she is complicit; if she didn't know, then she is incompetent - either way she is unfit to govern.

Additionally, she has shown no inclination to hold herself accountable. Two debates? Please.

Four more years of Rell will produce no solid progress for Connecticut.

If you don't think Cliff Thornton is capable of governing (as you obviously don't, because you didn't even mention him in your analysis) - say no one is fit for governor and declare that we should have a binding "none of the above" option, which would force a new election.

The civil union bill is not an example of a good compromise to me, because they slipped DOMA language in there. And the scariest part of Rell is Fedele. To imagine that he is a heartbeat away from the governor's seat - yikes.

I expected more than a stay the course endorsement for CT, Genghis.

Jodi Rell is trouble for CT.

ken krayeske said...

and DeStefano is no better.

Vote Thornton to shake up the whole rotten system.

Red Raider said...

Sounds like you want one-party rule. Voting for Alan Gold just helps the Lamonster win. Rell ends up a nice figure head if there is a veto-proof Legislature. But no real balance.

Genghis Conn said...


I like some of Thornton's ideas. They merit more discussion. But I have more faith in Jodi Rell to govern pragmatically and moderately--which is what I want.

I wish she'd be a little bolder on some issues. But she is the best candidate in the field.

Blue Loser said...

Bad choices. The most conservative Republican I know (a Jewish lawyer, if you can believe it) wants the all Dems to win everywher because he is so fed up with Bush pandering to the Evangelicans and abandoning fiscal restraint. Once the Dems gain power, he's sure taxes and spending will explode and the conservatives will regain in 2008. He's take a short term loss for a long-temr gain. I don't want to give the elephants anything, but I am afraid Ghengis is overreaching here.

Anonymous said...

By what means does one measure the positive effectiveness of AG Blumenthal to actually deserve re election??

If one puts aside the fact he, like all the others mentioned in the state offices have only token Republican opposition with almost no name recognition, what exactly is his track record?

Is there any non partisan way to measure his effectiveness beyond the endless law suits that we seldom hear the results of? I am asking a serious question because I honestly don't know the answer. He very well could be the best AG in the country.

To somewhat a lesser degree the same can be said for the three other's mentioned SB, DN, and NW.... Are they really deserving of re election, or is it more that they are only the best choice given that the Republicans seem unable to give us any real choice??

We have the highest per capita debt in the country. Hugely (many, many billions) under funded teacher and state worker pensions. We do not use GAAP accounting methods. We have hugely under financed state worker benefit obligations, and a huge bond debt.... Let alone all the other problems our elected officials actually do talk about.

We have mortgaged our children's future.....Worse yet, we don't seem to either know, or care.

I do not understand that if we really feel it's time for a change at the national level, why so many in this state are content to stay this course and not demand change at the state level as well.

We desperately need the Republican party in this state to get it's act together so that we do have real choices in two years. Al

Anonymous said...

If you think that Jarmoc is better studied for the job over Woods, then you have to conclude that Hozempa is the 58th is much better qualified then Tallarita.

The same logic must apply.

cgg said...

I was wondering if you'd endorse Schlesinger.

disgruntled_republican said...

OK, I remember someone saying that Schlesinger wasn't getting any Lamont supporters...care to take that back?

cgg said...

Well that's one. :)

Anonymous said...

Schlesinger's gambling is like GC's blogging: it's a hobby and by GC's logic also a character flaw. Don't think so.

DeStefano's numbers absolutley do add up but granted he's done a lousy job explaining it.

And here's one for the record books. The Family Institute has endorsed the incumbent pro-choice state rep Cathy Tymniak (R-133)over the Democratic challenger Kim Fawcett who folks say opposes abortion.

Hobson's Choice said...

It's too bad voters have to choose between one party that has screwed up, and one party that hasn't screwed up yet, or lately.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Cook has not made a case against Wyman although I am at a loss to understand why.
Wyman has been completely ineffective in getting the State to convert to GAAP Accounting despite her claiming to have made it a high priority during her tenure.
The unfunded employee benefit liabilties are massive and GASB is requiring the state release its its unfunded liabilties for Retirement Health Care next year. At least raise the issue and force Wyman to address it.
Unfortunately Cook strikes me as a candidate going through the motions to be rewarded with a position in the new Rell Administration where she can enhance her own claim against an underfunded pension fund.

Pessimist said...

Experience vs. change. Both are pretty empty. I don't think anyone is proud of Congress. But I don't think anyone is capable of initiating any meaningful change, either. We are in gridlock and headed for a fiscal train wreck, both here in CT and in DC. We can't raise taxes enough to cover the ballooning debt and we can't cut services enough to reign in costs. The only question is who will be in charge when the wreck occurs.

Keen Observer said...

I find it ironic that the Election follows Halloween. The two are really the same. All these candidates running around in 'costume' pretending to be something they are not, and playing 'tricks' on us via sound bites and slogans. All so they can get the free candy. And we are left holding an empty bag.

Anonymous said...

Schlesinger's postion on immigration is too radical for me but it is based on among other things the fact that his parents immigrated to this country legally. I expect he might moderate his position with time.

Anonymous said...

Have you heard about or listened to Mike Fedele's message? You should try to educate yourself before making a comment like that. Some might think you're pretty frightening too based on some of your previous actions...

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:52, what message are you speaking of?

Anonymous said...

I'm voting for Charles Woods over Mrs. Jarmoc. I am not in favor of state-mandated pre-school and all-day kindergarten as she has published as her priorities. What kids need most are parents at home nurturing them - not expensive localized institutional socialism.

While aware of issues, and on the rolls of numerous committees, I think Jarmoc has not been plugged into Enfield-gov't as much as Woods. He's been a watch-dog, a critic, a contributor, and an advocate for several years. Politically speaking, joining the GOP last year and brining along some of the planks from his taxpayers platform demonstrates (to me anyways) that he's capable of working toward concensus and action.

Thanks for sharing.

Anonymous said...

Mike Fedele message is that Plan B in hospitals is a "moot" point since rape victims can pick it up at the pharmacy or just accry it like pepper spray I suppose. Fedele did his part for woman when he voted against drive by deliveries and births so he's done his part. Let's not forget that Fedele hails from italy just like the Pope who runs the RC Hospitals. Fedele even looks a little like a young Pope.

Anonymous said...

It is frustrating to think that some of those running for Congress this year while telling us it's time for a change, have been part of the fiscal mess this state is really in.

I really less concerned about raising taxes, but more concerned with what's done with all that money. Leaving these pensions so underfunded and up to our kids to deal with is irresponsible at best. These guys should be held accountable but obviously won't be.

Talk about an iceberg dead ahead!!! There's a huge one here in Connecticut, as well as in Washington....

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 1033 -

Glad to see you have such great intelligence that you can debate issues.

ken krayeske said...

If I am considered a radical, so be it. There is no mystery about where I stand politically. Say what you will about me, as long as you respect my rights to free speech.

disgruntled_republican said...


That's a 2 way street you know.

Anonymous said...

It says "Leave your comment" Mr. high and mighty disgruntled_republican. And 10:33 makes his point quite well.

disgruntled_republican said...

Thanks Anon, you told me.

Shadow said...

Genghis - Schlesinger makes many good points, is much better than Lieberman, and would be a great kick in the butt to the national Republican establishment. However, when he talks about Middle Eastern countries like Iran, he takes this fearful angry tone that makes one worry, despite the fact that he is not a neo-con, whether he might support reactionary positions towards the Middle East when in power. These sorts of reactionary hardline emotion-driven policies have always backfired for us, particularly in recent years, so in the interest of national security and Middle East policy, we need to send up someone whose understanding is based on reason, not fear; sending up someone with Schlesinger's mentality would show we haven't reality learned that much about fighting terrorism in the last five years. Lamont on the other hand is clear, cool, practical on these issues, and most imporantly, knows his history. That's the kind of leadership that will actually reduce the number of terrorists instead of increasing them.

Lamont was also the only one in the debate to get it right about health care: that Democrats are right about universal health care, Republicans like Schlesinger are right about reducing the costs, but universal health care has to be the first of the two necessary steps, because uninsured people wait to be treated and that exponentiates health care costs and demand on health services, which are absolute counterforces to any attempt at price reduction. With Schlesinger's way, prices will *never* go down, despite his good intentions to do so.

I am surprised at the Rell endorsement more. Ken is right, Jodi Rell has the Denny Hastert problem; if she knew about Rowland, she should be fired, if she didn't know for all those years, she's incompetent and should be fired. What - do we HAVE to settle for either corruption or incompetence? And beyond just settling for it, do we actually have to VOTE for it, too? Let's face it, both Rell and DeStefano have ethics issues; the only clean candidate out of these three leading the governor's race is Cliff Thornton. I want to see campaign finance reform as well; all Rell and DeStefano will ever do is talk about it. Anyone doubt Thornton means what he says?

I think the main point about Rell, though, is she's already going to win in a landslide. So to be contemplating voting for her at this point does not affect her office, but only serves to put a bigger rubber stamp on her, as if to say: it's not enough for you to win by twenty points, you deserve a thirty point margin for being so wonderful! Is your support for Rell really that strong? Is anyone's? I think both Republicans and Democrats gave us lousy candidates for governor this year, which will never improve unless we send a message by not voting for either of their candidates; then we actually have a shot at better candidates next time.

But what concerns me is not the Rell endorsement as much as the complete omission of Cliff Thornton from your original analysis. The guy was excluded from the debates already, in a move I thought most of us here disagreed with; does he deserve to be ignored in an analysis for CTLP readers, 10% of whom voted Thornton for Governor who in a poll you posted yesterday? Even a sentence in the original analysis would have been sufficient, although I do realize you added it later, and I'm sure the original omission was not intentional.

All that aside,, I will end on a more agreeable tone here; you're absolutely right on Joe Courtney for the reasons you listed. The guy is nice, intelligent, and is more substance than flash; that's the kind of attentive Congressman we need writing legislation and public policy on behalf of our state.

Anonymous said...

Her very active support for CFR is why I am voting for her says the blogmaster. Huh? DeStefano supports it to; the law is in place; Rell has repeatedly violated her own self-imposed rules on campaign financing more than once and the only reason she pushed for the law in the first place when she did was to negate the impact of Rowland jail sentence that was just meeted out.

Anonymous said...

Actually Anon 10:33, the Pope is from Germany, not Italy (if you must make ridiculous points, then get your facts straight)

Conservative Democrat said...

Fedele hails from italy just like the Pope who runs the RC Hospitals. Fedele even looks a little like a young Pope.

Funny...I thought the Pope was German. And the one immediately prior was Polish...and they reside in Vatican City, not Rome (or even Italy)...so where does the Italian remark come from? Fedele was 3 years old when he left Italy.

Anonymous said...

Terribly racist comments regarding Fedele... god forbid it was a Lieberman/Jew comment or a Thornton/black comment.

Can't believe this is even being discussed on this site.

You guys should be glad for ANYONE who made something out of nothing. Italian, polish, German, whatever. It's the American Dream. You guys are a disgrace.

Max Sklar said...

"if she didn't know for all those years, she's incompetent and should be fired..."

This is where I disagree. I don't think that she has to be incompetant for not knowing about this. How would she know? It wasn't really her job to keep close tabs on the governor. The L. Gov. is elected independently, and is a separate office.

ken krayeske said...

Rell allowed Rowland hacks to store Rowland's "Birthday Gift" - the Mustang - in her garage.

She didn't know about the quid pro quos that put Rowland's chief of staff in jail? Out of the loop?

Gee, what does it take to ask yourself: is it right to give the sitting governor a car? Aren't there kids five blocks from the capitol building who will go to sleep hungry? There are schools within spitting distance of the capital that lack sufficient books, hospitals without space to care for people, and I could go on and on about our societal schortcomings.

But as long as we allow leaders to act poorly, we will have a morally bankrupt government.

ken krayeske said...


They are not elected independently. It's a ticket - you press one button or pull one lever for both people, same as President/VP.

Max Sklar said...

Oh - you're right about that - my mistake! I was thinking about the primaries.

Anyway, my point still remains. The L-gov doesn't have to the power to "clean-up Hartford." As governor, she's done a pretty good job. Even the Destefano campaign admits that she handled the transition of power well.

However, the main reason I support Rell is based purely on policy issues, so I might even be willing to overlook some of these things. I've lived in New Haven for the past 4 years, and I just can't imagine JDS as governor.

We've had crime problems that weren't properly dealt with. Transportation issues in New Haven weren't dealt with. He allowed the unions to sabotage the Cancer Center project for a whole year, and the New Haven colleseium demolition was completely mishandled. I'm not saying its all JDS's fault, or that he has to be perfect - its a very difficult city to run. But I just didn't see any positive progress taking place. I believe that a Democratic-Union dominated Hartford is going to be very harmful for the state's economy and future.

Anonymous said...

Richard Blumenthal is smart and persuasive. He also represents all that is wrong with the legal system in America.

Is there any good reason why the AG of Connecticut should insert us (CT taxpayers) into legal battles between Microsoft and its rivals?

Is there any good reason why a state AG should have any standing to sue the EPA for failing to regulate CO2 emissions?

Anonymous said...

Fedele was 3 years old when he left Italy. and he keeps reminding people about it. The Pope was once from Germany the same way Fedele was once from Italy but now the Pope is from the Vatican, which is on the Italian Peninsula. But rhe real problem is Fedele and Rell are wrong on Plan B.

bluecoat said...

you're all wrong about the Vatican City-State within Rome, Italy

Anonymous said...

Wyman is not qualified to be the Comptroller. CoreCT has been a complete disaster a $130 million boondoggle. That may not mean much to most people but it took Connecticut more than 15 months to close the books on Fiscal Year 2005. I think they gave up on FY 2004.

Anonymous said...

Does the AG actually report to anyone???

Is he free to just do as he sees fit???

How do we voters know what we are getting for our votes for him, and our money he seems so quick to spend on his endless investigations?

What is his track record?? Besides the fact he has no real competition, does he deserve to be re elected?

Anonymous said...

I'm voting for Rell also. I've driven through New Haven before, first thing I do is make sure my car doors are locked and that my windows are all fully rolled up and I try to avoid coming to full stops at stop signs when I'm in that city. New Haven is one of the most dangerous spots in Connecticut, does DeStefano think we should give him a promotion to Governor for his work of continuing to keep New Haven in the top 3 Connecticut municipalities for murders? He is in over his head in New Haven, and he now wants an even bigger responsibility?

If DeStefano wants to set up socialized healthcare, that is fine with me, I know he's a Democrat and democrats are all into equality so being that I don't smoke, drink, and do drugs and don't engage in dangerous activites such as motorcycle riding, if he can promise me that the other Connecticut resident will be equal with me in their avoidance of such substances and activities, I would then and only then buy into his socialized healthcare plan. The little media hacks such as the Courant sheep like Susan Campbell, Helen Ubinas, and Stan Simpson don't have the brainpower to ask him questions like that, I would love to see the old fool DeStefano backed into a corner with a question like that, you would see pretty fast he is not into equality. DeStefano wants the working people living a clean lifestyle to foot the medical bills for the druggies and welfare scum that line the streets of his New Haven ghetto that he panders to for votes. DeStefano needs to stay out of hospital emergency rooms, if DeStefano wants to pass out pills to women, let DeStefano open up his own hospital, he can pass out all the free medication he wants, instead of resorting to fascism and telling private hospitals how to run their emergency rooms.

Cliff Thornton is a failure, I don't know who he thinks he is fooling with his policies on drugs being that his mother died from a heroin overdose. If his policies didn't even work to save 1 person, his mother, how does the fool Thornton think those policies will be beneficial for 4 million people in the state? It's no shock he was left off the stage for the debates, they don't want his type on stage, you can tell he is slow in the head when he talks, who knows if his late heroin-junkie mom was high when she was pregnant with him... he's from the bottom of the barrel.

It's amazing how fast the Lamont guy fizzled out, the voters here learned fast he doesn't have much to say and they gave up on him, he can't seem to construct a sentence without using the word Bush or Cheney. He's another little puppet that keeps talking about the socialized healthcare, but he will never get into the specifics of it and the retards they get to moderate the debates can't seem to gather up the brainpower to ask him those questions either. He's lucky he comes from the JP Morgan family tree, there would be no other way he could ever amass a forture if it wasn't for that; he doesn't have the looks, charisma, or smarts to make his own fortune.

Blumenthal would sue someone for a penny, just to get his name printed in the newspaper. He likes to hop on the popularity trains of the day, ranging from Microsoft to MySpace to any other hot topic that comes along, even interjecting himself into the Big East sports issue a few years back. When Blumenthal's driver was disabled with a leg injury, Blumenthal had lawyers in his department ordered to chauffeur him around and justified that by saying he paid the lawyers less than his driver. He wouldn't last a minute in the private sector by pulling little stunts like that, the public sector is a handy haven for folks like him.

I would like to see a candidate run for office with a platform that all they would do in office is to repeal laws.

Wolcottboy said...


Very good and interesting choices. I must agree with much of your rational for Alan Schlesinger. His views on Iraq are new and refreshing whereas the other two (Lamont more than anyone) can't stop looking in their rear-view mirrors. I don't know if his plan will work, but its a good start and the beginings of a solution and PLAN are there. His was the FIRST plan I ever heard for a potential solution.

Secondly, the live grenade analogy is apt. He's fiery and amusing. If he wins, it would be a great change from our quiet and mundane toned senators.

Thirdly, he's a moderate. I strongly disagree with his views on civil unions and abortion. So I have no doubts he'll be able to work across party lines.

As for your other offices, the lack of boldness, creativity, and ability not to differ to AG Blumenthal forces me not to vote for Rell. The woman can't stand on her own two feet on controversial decisions! I'm voting for Zdoncyk.

Treasurer and Comptroller are so low-profile its hard to argue either way. I know that the Treasurer is breaking the law by investing in companies that do business with Iran, however. Beyond that, its difficult to gauge their performance.

Shadow said...

> If his policies didn't even work to save 1 person, his mother, how does the fool
> Thornton think those policies will be beneficial

That is incredibly tasteless, not to mention ignorant. Thornton's mom died under the CURRENT kinds of drug policies (what do you mean "his policies", was Thornton Governor already and I missed it?) Only after the existing system failed his mom did Thornton break away from it and recognize it as a failure. You know, ten seconds of reading the man's bio would have saved you from embarassing yourself.

> you can tell he is slow in the head when he talks

How can you tell that if HE'S NEVER BEEN IN A DEBATE? You are making an unjustified assertion that no one who reads it can challenge because they've never heard him speak; talk about kicking a guy when he's down.

> they don't want his type on stage

I cannot BELIEVE you chose those words to make your point in the context of terms like "bottom of the barrel" and "heroin-junkie mom", what are you going to do next? Call him Macaca?

I just can't believe some neo-con trolls are actually going out of their way to SMEAR a third party candidate with no media coverage and no way to defend himself. Anyone considering voting for Rell, this is the kind of person that makes up a good chunk of her base.

Anonymous said...

From the leftist playbook: When you lose - smear the voters.

Shadow said...

Smearing involves lies. I appreciate you trying to use the same word I just did, but you might want to look it up first.

FrankS said...

For U.S. Senator: Ned Lamont(D) Sen. Lieberman was wrong on Iraq. The lives lost there, the injuried, the wasted costs and Lieberman's inablity to admit this are the reasons I will not support him. The needed change in Washington requires people who will listen, learn from past mistakes and maintain their beliefs, Lieberman's Senate experience means little in making this change. Outside of Iraq, Lieberman's reschuffling to form the Department of Homeland Security did not excuse the failures at aircraft hijacking prevention, that would have supported my choice of Lamont

For U.S. Rep: Diane Farrell (D) For many of the same reasons I could not support Lieberman, I cannot support Shays.

For Governor: John DeStefano (D) Just as change should be made in Washington, change in Hartford is more important. Gov. Rell has done little. Legislative efforts are passed without her involvement or political support from Republicans on her behalf, lax oversight on utility rates appears to be exposed as a large increase come Jan 1 and lack of improvement in commuter transportation.

For Attorney General: Richard Blumenthal (D) The media isn't forced to use Blumenthal, so Farr's comments mean little and Farr's lack of experience outside of real estate law questions his selection.

For Secretary of the State: Susan Bysiewicz (D) The lack of a campaign by her opponent, when the failures of our campaign finance reporting system are evident, leave little choice.

For State Treasurer: Denise Nappier (D) - The State return on investment under Ms. Nappier has reflected well in her service as treasurer.

For Comptroller: Nancy Wyman (D) - Cathy Cook has not make a good case for replacing Ms. Wyman and her limited campaigning does a disservice to her party.

Anonymous said...

Uh, you did exactly what I said. You charged that Rell voters are "Neo-con Trolls". That makes no sense. Do you think that the NYT are neocon trolls?

Then, you tell everyone else that they should not vote for her because these mysterious "trolls" are voting for her and heavens forbid we follow the trolls. That argument also makes no sense.

I've got nothing against the third party candidate, but I'm not going to take it if you're going to question the motivations of the Rell voters.

mick said...

Rowland successfully hid his crimes until after his final election, thanks mostly to an inept media. That's how Rell got in and anyone looks good compared to Rowland. You have to wonder how she didn't know anything. As for Lieberman, very wrong on Iraq but I wonder if he's kept his corruption hidden long enough to get back in. Maybe he and W will both go the way of Rowland. You don't hear much about Joe's missing $400K or his wife's "employment" at Hill & Knowlton. The latter is very similar to one of Tom DeLay's money-laundering schemes documented in Bill Moyers' "Capitol Crimes". The corruption is so pervasive in DC because the media is blind and therefore the masses are too. The best strategy is to vote out ALL the incumbents. That's my plan.

Shadow said...

Anonymous 1:11 pm - I did not call all Rell supporters neo-con trolls, that's a ridiculous lie to assert seeing as every word I've typed is here for everyone to see, and the record shows I clearly did not say that.

I called that one neo-con troll a neo-con troll, because that's what he was, taking cheap shots at every Democrat in every race, and then inexplicably kicking the Green Party candidate around by misconstruing his platform and bordering on insulting his family and his race; all I did was point that out.

I'm surprised "you're not going to take it" with my criticism of people like him, but he gets a pass with you.

I also made the assertion that a good chunk of Rell's base is the cocky conservative/neo-con that thinks being assertive means acting like a jerk. Not all Rell voters, not a majority, not her whole base, not a majority of her base; just a good chunk of her base.

The fact that you're arguing with *me* and not the guy who said all that rotten stuff suggests you accept that kind of behavior, which proves my point that he's not the only Rell supporter who thinks these kinds of tactics are appropriate.

Anonymous said...

That guy doesn't need anyone to argue against him. His moronic comments are adequate enough to hang him.

And frankly, equating his comments to a "good chunk" of Rell supporters in a thinly veiled attempt to scare away potential Rell voters is just as offensive.

Shadow said...

You contradict yourself. If it were just as offensive as the other guy's comment, and the other guy's comment wasn't worth responding to, then why was my comment worth responding to?

The original assertion I made about a good chunk of Rell's base was correct, and whether or not it "scares" away Rell voters is their own decision to make; frankly though, I doubt most people vote based on who else is or is not voting with them. However, I'm not going to restrain myself from speaking the truth about Rell just because it might scare away some of her voters, either.

And the truth is this: despite the fact that Rell seems so much more moderate than Washington Republicans in comparison, and despite the fact that CT seems less susceptible to far right extremism than the country as a whole, we shouldn't be under the impression that the same rotten attitudes we see nationally don't exist here in CT among some members of the neo-con/reactionary far right. It's to a lesser degree, definitely, but it's here; we've just seen one Rell voter in this thread act that way, and another Rell voter taking issue with me for challenging the first person. They are in the minority of Rell voters, yes, but they are there, and a good chunk of Rell's base; that's all I've been saying.

Anonymous said...

I will be voting for Alan Schlesinger. I will not be bamboozled by the dems. I am a Republican. I will not vote for Rell. I will write in John Rolland. Am sick to death of living in a socialist state like Ct. What a shame people are led to believe they cannot do anything without the governments help. Just get out of my way. I will do fine.

Anonymous said...

For Governor - Jodi Rell. New Haven is a pit and has been mismanaged for years thanks in part to DeStefano, and now he wants to be entrusted with the entire state? Rell isn't perfect, but she's a hell of a lot better than DeStefano.

Senate - Ned Lamont. I hate all three of the guys in the race, but at the end of the day I don't have to worry about what Lamont thinks and who he'll caucus with.

House - John Larson. He is one of the best congressmen in the House. Always takes the time to send a letter about every issue from callers in the district, holds town hall meetings and just generally cares about the people of CT. He's also in line for the 4th highest spot in the leadership when the Dems take back the house.

Max Sklar said...

Anon 9:37 - I agree with you about problems with socialistic thinking in our state. I also believe we have too much paternalistic thinking - manifest in, for example, the bill last year which banned minors from drinking in **private** residences.

But why write in Rowland? I don't see what that proves - he was a moderate Rep just like Rell. The fact of the matter is that with Destefano as governor, and a near veto-proof democratic legislature, CT is in danger of becoming one of the most socilaistic, paternalistic, union-dominated, one-party state in the nation.

Fortunately, CT voters see the danger here, and Rell will win in a landslide.