Saturday, November 04, 2006

Authentic Connecticut Republican's Choices

To I hope no one's surprise I'm voting a straight Republican ticket with the following exceptions, and for one Republican (Alan Schlesinger) over a Dem I've voted for three times in the past. I've liked Joe more than what we were offering until now, but Alan Schlesinger's actions in New London finished me off. I like the guy and have told him that win or lose his quick wit, and unbelievable level of tenacity have made me a fan of his probably for life. Never mind that of the 3 only Alan seems to have any ideas of his own.

John Larson is less liberal than our offering this year and from what friends that know Larson well having served in the CT senate with him, a nicer and more honorable man than the mistake we wound up with on the ballot in the 1st CD.

Nancy Burton. I haven't any idea if she's even half the anti-smoking zealot as the current AG but I know Bob Farr and he certainly is. (As far as I'm concerned the incidence of anti-smoking activists falling down open elevator shafts has yet to rise to acceptable levels.)

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm surpised ACR didn;t comment on the local election.

of late on cable we've been treated to seeing degreeless Dave Zoni posing in front of a law library in his TV ad

Can you say cheap scam ?

Southington Attorney said...

Don't legislators write the laws?

Disgusting how low R's will go (i.e. that public servants must have a degree from Warton or a prestigious law school) to try and disgrace someone who clearly wants to give back to a community he loves and appreciates.

The argument doesn’t work with Rell and it doesn’t work with Zoni, who built a business and knows and understands the struggles of life. Not that his opponent doesn’t (his father was a great man in the Waterbury community), but it’s shameless to slam Zoni for not having an advanced degree.

Shadow said...

ACR - I commend you on your pick for Nancy Burton(G) as Attorney General, I will be voting for her as well; in fact I will also be voting for Mike DeRosa(G) for Secretary of State and David Bue(G) for Treasurer in addition to Cliff Thornton(G) for Governor. As far as I'm concerned, just because I'm a progressive moderate, that certainly doesn't mean I'm required to rubber stamp the current Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Treasurer just because they're Democrats. We can do better in this state, and I intend to send that message, instead of wasting my vote to add to the winning margin of a Democrat who is going to win anyway. After all, in fairness, that would be just as dumb as people unsure about DeSefano going out to vote for Rell when she's already won the race by double digits; just a rubber stamp for the status quo, a wasted vote adding to the winning margin of someone who Governorship is guaranteed to continue nonetheless.

By the way, I'm totally with you on people going overboard with the anti-smoking stuff; things have gone way too far. I can agree with taking smoking out of restaurants, because people eat there, but ALL bars? That's just stupid, and far too authoritarian for my tastes. There should at least be one bar every x amount of miles, even if it's just one out of ten bars, picked at random by the state, where smokers can legally to go to smoke and drink. If you don't want to be around cigarette smoke, DON'T GO.

I say all this as someone who was only a very light smoker from 16-22 (I'm 27 now), and in the years since I quit I actually hate having the smell of cigarettes around me with a passion. But that's not the point; I have no right to impose that view on the rest of the population in a free society.

However, ACR, I strongly disagree with your mischaracterization that only Schlesinger has original ideas. Although he has plenty of great ideas, and Lieberman has none, your statement is an unfair shot against Ned Lamont. I don't see how anyone who saw the last debate on Thursday between Lamont and Schlesinger could dispute that BOTH men have plenty of good and original ideas. I like a lot of Schlesinger's innovations, but just because the talking point he had prepared coming into the debate was "Only I of the three have ideas and solutions", doesn't mean it's true regardless of what happened during the debate, which clearly proved otherwise. I think if you asked Alan now, after that substantive and respective debate, he wouldn't say Lamont has no ideas of his own, just that his own ideas are better; I think you saying the same thing here would have made your own argument for Schlesinger much more credible and convincing.

Anonymous said...

Southington attorney...I worked damm hard for three years to become a lawyer and I have no use for poseurs like Zoni trying to engage in digital resume fraud...I also have no use for partisan hacks who choose to loathe the very profession they ostensibly deem honorable

As for Rell, the reason the argument doesn't work is she is authetic and doesn;t pretend she is something she is not...not that I mind Democrats pouring dirt on DeStefano's grave four days before the election is even held

Anonymous said...

The GOP underticket ran miserable campaigns. None deserve to win. As for Congress, I support any candidate who pledges to; 1) eliminate one out-dated law for each new law enacted; and 2) Oppose any new unfunded mandate.

cgg said...

So ultimately, you're endorsing the idea of the anti-smoking crowd dying horrific and yet accidental deaths.

Anonymous said...

I think the Cheshire Herald had the best spin on whether Zoni is qualified for the state senate

"The state Senate's 16th District has no incumbent in the race and [Sam] Caligiuri is unquestionably the best candidate to fill the spot. He gained considerable experience on the local level through his experience in Waterbury. More than that, however, he is sure to bring enthusiasm and energy to the job. He has run a strong campaign based on issues and stayed well above the negative fray that has entered the campaign."

Anonymous said...

Did anybody see the interviews with Rell and DesTefano on CPTV lat night? Rell was throen some softballs by the host and DeStefano just gets too angry instead of just being himself.

And glad to see the Authentic CT Republican doesn't buy into science. It's not just Dubya anymore. And Larson voted against Dubya's war in Iraq to boot.

Anonymous said...

Nancy Burton wants to shut down Millstone and Indian Point for health reasons so I would think she would want to do something about preventing asthma and other ailments that are brought on by smoking whether first or second hand. Weird picks but then...

Shadow said...

Well it's a weird time in politics; somehow, the Green Party has become a better alternative to libertarian/traditional conservatives than the Republicans or the Democrats in these statewide races. The Green candidates are fiscally smart, believe in decriminalization and regulation, and they're against eminent domain laws grabbing private property. Meanwhile you have Republicans like Farr who are hardline anti-smoking, and Rell, who is as competent in policy and ethics reform as her counterparts in Washington. Conservatives and moderates looking for fiscal responsibility, ethical governance, and pragmatic solutions now have the Green Party as an alternative to look to in these state elections.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Anonymous said...
Nancy Burton wants to shut down Millstone and Indian Point for health reasons so I would think she would want to do something about preventing asthma


I have asthma and lost a sister to it too. (FDA foot dragging regarding inhalors 30 years ago actually)

However it's cat dander that gives me much bigger problem and I've seen no pending legislation to address that.

Why small local breakfast diner operators should be dictated to(indeed, many were driven out of business altogether) by anyone is beyond me.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

cgg said...
So ultimately, you're endorsing the idea of the anti-smoking crowd dying horrific and yet accidental deaths.


A tyrant is a tyrant.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Anonymous said...
I'm surpised ACR didn;t comment on the local election.


I've done so on my blog; I believe Eddie Pocock will knock off the one term union thug in the 30th.

Zoni's actions of late in the 16th have destroyed his own reputation. I liked Dave and had even voted for him once; I won't be making that mistake again.

I've known Sam Caligiuri for over 20 years and have respected him the whole time; I'd bet the farm on his chances this year if I could only find a bookie dumb enough to take the bet.

Sam Zotto's run a better race than anyone even in his own party expected and seeing as the 80th house seat has been in GOP hands for 28 of the past 32 years, there's a better than even chance that Zotto will be successful as well.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Shadow said...
your statement is an unfair shot against Ned Lamont.



From my Libertarian/Republican-Hawk standpoint; there are no unfair shots at Lamont, he simply scares the living daylights out of me.

Besides, he strikes me as Cindy Sheehan in drag, or maybe she strikes me as Ned Lamont in drag.......

Anonymous said...

ACR,
Wouldn't Libertarian/Republican- ChickenHawk standpoint be a much more appropriate discription?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't Libertarian/Republican- ChickenHawk standpoint be a much more appropriate discription?


I dunno, want to try that line to my face and see what happens?

Shadow said...

Lamont is the one of the three leading candidates who has really come out strong against the recent bill signed into law, which says that a group of people chosen by the president can declare any U.S. Citizen an enemy combatant, deny them due process, and interpret the Geneva Convention at the president's discretion; all with no oversight.

Lieberman voted for that law, and Schlesinger (to his credit) said that it goes to far in the direction of security, but only Lamont stood up and said future generations are going to look back and ask us, where were you when the President overturned over two hundred years of Constitutional protections? How can HE of all people be the one that scares you? When did conserving our Constitution become liberal?

The truth is that anyone who believes in that law and doesn't see the potential for gross abuse at some point in the future is not a libertarian by definition. It is undisputedly the most pro-authoritarian, anti-libertarian law signed in this history of these United States.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

How can HE of all people be the one that scares you?


Iran's reserves are not what you might think; with us out of Iraq, Iraq would look attractive to Iran. With gas at 9.00 a gallon what do you think would happen not only here but in Europe and Asia?

We need to stay in Iraq and develope a massive base there that will by it's presence alone have a stabilizing effect on the entire region.

We should also be drilling anyplace that a decent oil strike is likely to occur; building new refineries and go for broke coming up with something besides oil as a energy source.

Further; why the safety of Israel has made it to the bottom of liberals list of things to do is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the Twighlight Zone.

Shadow said...

> We need to stay in Iraq and develope a massive base there that will by it's
> presence alone have a stabilizing effect on the entire region.

Based on what? Our bases in Saudia Arabia, which inspired a Saudi named Osama Bin Laden to recruit nineteen Saudi suicide bombers to murder over 3000 Americans on 9/11? Is that the stabilizing effect you're looking for?

The Islamoterrorist movement is all originally rooted in resentment over the Israeli occupation of Palestinians. Our going in and occupying countries like Saudia Arabia only amplified that feeling into a mass attack on our civilian poplulation on September 11. And yet you expect a permanent base in Iraq have a "stabilizing effect".

With that kind of logic, if the safety of Israel is at the bottom of anyone's list, it's yours. Despite three years of evidence and a new National Intelligence Estimate that says our occupation of Iraq has become the key recruitment cause for terrorists, you want to continue on a path where Israel and America's safety have become less secure due to the vast increase in the number of our enemies.

Anonymous said...

RE: the Republican underticket

I saw three of them today at the Cheshire RTC rally. Roberts, Cook and Abbate all seemed fairly well versed on the mechanics of the office they are seeking.

The good news is the GOP nominated qualified folks. The bad news is everyone knows that barring one of the incumbents suffering health or legal mishaps they had no shot. But shoudn't a party get credit for not just filling the vacancy with a warm body?

Anonymous said...

Nancy Burton is a mentally unstable goof. Seriously! And not for nuthin', she's also a disbarred attorney. Are you sure you want to vote for someone for AG who cannot even properly refer to theselves as an attorney?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Anonymous said...
Nancy Burton is a mentally unstable goof.


Judging from both the current occupant of the office and the Republican challanger, she fits right in!

Anonymous said...

What about your buddy Pocock? Do you think he has a shot?

Anonymous said...

But shoudn't a party get credit for not just filling the vacancy with a warm body? I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Giving the voters a choice means just that. The GOP (or any) underticket needs to be more than nice guys. They have to articulate a position and differentiate themselves from their opponents. And work to get their views across to voters. This was not done.

way2moderate said...

Ummm... I gotta tell you. No one who blogs under the title Authentic Republican should remark that he has even the slightest inclination to vote for Nancy Burton for Attorney General if he also hopes to be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9.33... and given the track record of underticket candidates in the past---of which only two (Burnham and Kezer) defeated weak incumbents (Suggs and Tashian) isn't qualified and underfunded as well as a party could hope for to challenge very entrenchred incumbents ?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>What about your buddy Pocock? Do you think he has a shot?

Not only that, but Eddie's a a great shot!

(Also - see comment #13)

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

way2moderate said...
No one who blogs under the title Authentic Republican should remark that he has even the slightest inclination to vote for Nancy Burton for Attorney General if he also hopes to be taken seriously.



Depends how serious one is about one's income doesn't it?

Here's a clue - I hold the Tobacco Institute's highest award, The Golden Leaf.

Burton is only a protest vote as I'm not about to give it to either of the major party candidates due to both of their lousy attitudes towards my legal product.

The partisan moderate said...

http://holdthesenate.blogspot.com/

In Defense of Joe
Although I would prefer Connecticut to be represented by a moderate Republican like Governor Rell, I have a lot of respect for Senator Joe Lieberman. I believe he has been treated really unfairly by his own party and if I had any second thoughts about being a Republican (which I usually don't), his treatment would surely cure that. This was an e-mail I sent to a highly partisan Democrat who works for both Brian Schweitzer, the Governor of Montana and serves on Ned Lamont's campaign. To be fair, he was nice enough to respond but I have not sought his permission to post his response.

Hi (named deleted),

I find it quite inconsistent that you would adamantly oppose Senator Joe Lieberman, who is socially progressive and work for Brian Schweitzer who seems to be quite conservative on any number of issues. You have accused Senator Lieberman of being disloyal to the Democratic party yet it is Governor Schweitzer who supported a Republican Presidential candidate in 2000 and would consider doing so again in 2008. From the NY Times Magazine Section, "Schweitzer remains an iconoclast; he says he supported John McCain’s presidential bid in 2000, though he has since soured on McCain because of the way he has courted the religious right, and he says he is now intrigued by the possibility of a presidential run by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, in 2008. “If he gets the nomination, I might support him,” Schweitzer told me."

Both John McCain and Mitt Romney have claimed to be conservative Republicans yet Governor Schweitzer previously supported the former and would in the future consider supporting the latter. It is also slightly ironic that both of these men are quite hawkish while Schweitzer claims to be against the Iraq war. So my hunch is that Governor Schweitzer is either more liberal in private than his stated public positions or alternatively that you in essence are a two issue voter (free trade and Iraq) or alternatively perhaps you don't like Senator Lieberman for reasons other than his voting record.

Please clear up how you in good conscience can oppose Joe Lieberman for not being a sufficiently partisan Democrat while you support and work for Brian Schweitzer.

Shadow said...

John McCain did not run as a "conservative Republican" in 2000, he ran much more to the center. McCain in 2008 is a very different story, having hired many of the people who got Bush elected in 2000/2004, and in your own quote it suggests Schweitzer no longer supports McCain's current bid due to his lurch to the right.
Despite that lurch, McCain has still continued to stand up to the President on torture (for the most part), where Joe Lieberman has had not voiced a single reservation.

Mitt Romney has the accomplishment of leading the curve on universal health care, a key point of the progressive agenda. Lieberman wants to spend our money, promise us everything, and deliver nothing; he has a worse fiscal record than Romney or McCain, and nothing to show for it but Social Security IOU's and pork barrel earmarks that are never spent efficiently, or where they are needed most. Don't worry though, just remember Joe Lieberman's answer to everything: "We've worked hard on that, we've made a lot of progress, but there's still a lot of work left for us to do". Whether he's answering a policy question or taking a dump, these words of motivation inspire everyone around him to wait excitedly in anticipation for the next excuse.

Most importantly, though, Lieberman is a neo-con, which is a far more damning scarlet letter in this election than having an R next to your name. He believes in bankrupting our treasury and depleting our troops instead of focusing on terrorist cells, all in order to force regime change in nation states that doubles the amount of terrorists across the region.

McCain has embraced this kind of asinine thinking in recent years, so the hell with him in 2008 = but in 2000, the Republican party's platform was not to be the world's policeman. If Romney has made any statements supporting neo-conservative policies, I haven't read them.

So McCain in 2000 and Romney in 2008 are indeed different than Lieberman in 2008, for all the reasons stated above.

After all, as I have said, despite the fact that I am voting for Lamont, I would take Schlesinger over Lieberman any day if those were my only two choices, regardless of the fact I'd be picking a Republican over a Senator who spent three terms as a Democrat. Sometimes a letter next to a candidate's name isn't the end of the story, and individual candidates are better defined by their own records and positions on the issues.

In the Know said...

Ed Pocock!!!!!

Sorry ACR your buddy has let you down! E 3 as you call him is toast, had a statewide steering comittee meeting yesterday and the 30th race has been removed from the watch list and placed on the secure side. Rumor has it that Joe raised and spent over 40k in addition to in-kinds and doorknocked 6,000 voters. Current numbers have it at 58% to 42% So much for your lazy union thug theroy! (on your site)

Your perdiction on Zoni is correct, that was also confirmed. The numbers say it will be a 54% to 46% for Sam. That negative piece really kicked Dave's butt!

Johnson will lose!
Shays will lose!
Simmmons wins!

Thats what the numbers say!

Anonymous said...

In the know- how did you have a "statewide steering committee meeting" when the person that makes the decision was on a bus driving all over the state with the governor?

Anonymous said...

Lieberman a neocon? Ever take a look at PNAC? Liberman is more AIPAC.

Anonymous said...

I saw Nancy campaigning yesterday. Neither she nor her campaign exhibited any signs of impending defeat

Shadow said...

PNAC and AIPAC are BOTH two of the leading supporters of neo-conservative policies that believe in the very same religious entitlements of land the Islamoterrorists are fighting for, and have no reservations about shipping expendable non-upper class people like us to war to win that land for them.

All reasonable Americans who don't believe in religious extremism should rise up and take down these rogue organizations from their perches of political influence in our government; after all, if we, as a country with wealth, education, and two centuries of democratic tradition cannot prevent religious extremism from engulfing our political process, how can we expect poorer, less educated countries with no democratic tradition to prevent religious extremists from overwhelming their societies?

Shadow said...

ACR - One final note regarding your comments about your belief in further Middle Eastern occupation and the consequent safety of Israel:

"Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Shadow said...



Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer.


Ah yes the British press - more liberal and less contact with reality than even the famous NY Times.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

In the Know said...
Rumor has it that Joe raised and spent over 40k in addition to in-kinds and doorknocked 6,000 voters.


Interesting rumor seeing as Mr. Brylcreem has had a ton of people making phone calls for him but hasn't hit enough doors to fill a trick or treat bag.

When do his TV commericals start anyway, Wednesday?

Shadow said...

> Ah yes the British press - more liberal and less contact with reality
> than even the famous NY Times.

In case you haven't been paying attention, the entire country and the entire world have long turned against the Iraq war, and Bush is still praising Rumsfeld when leaders of all the major military publications are joining together tomorrow to call for his resignation; yet it's the "liberal press" who are out of touch with reality?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Shadow said...
In case you haven't been paying attention, the entire country and the entire world have long turned against the Iraq war,



Just the proletariat; what else is new? The same crowd protested the Civil War.

Shadow said...

Those damn proleteriat. Why can't they be more like the bourgeois? Oh right - that would be COMMUNISM.