Saturday, November 11, 2006

Open Forum

Recovered from the election yet?

What's on your mind this weekend?

And what's going on?


Top-n-Center said...

I was an observer in Enfield's 2nd CD canvaass yesterday-- long, tedious, thorough, and well adminstered. Simmons & Courtney officials cordial, respectful, and cooperative. 12.5 hours later the center of the universe spit out one net-new vote for Team Simmons. The day was a success!

Anonymous said...

I guess you could say I've recovered from the election, but I think a lot of the campaign workers know how I feel.

Finally getting some rest (Unless of course you were working for a candidate for Congress in the 2nd District), but now out of a job. It's delightful.

MikeCT said...

Caffeinated Geek Girl was interviewed by Colin McEnroe (mp3) on Friday about Farrell, other races, and her plans to recharge at a yoga workshop.

The Courant had a front page profile today on Chris Murphy, as did the Associated Press. He will also be on Fox 61's Beyond the Headlines (video download at 54 MB). Other topics will be the Lieberman-Lamont race and state legislative changes.

The Love Makes a Family PAC did pretty well in the election.

Anonymous said...

Opinion piece in the NYT about the CT GOP is right on the money-- Rell needs to lay out a vision of fiscal conservatism with social moderation. Some good ol' fashion Rockefeller Republicanism.

But I think the OpEd piece underestimates the bench strength of CT GOP. Shays is still strong (as obvious from the election), and Simmons is not done yet. The legislature also has some very strong players (e.g., McKinney, Capiello, Cafero) and some promising freshmen (e.g., Caliguiri, Debicella).

Nevertheless, the CT GOP is in the wilderness right now, and only Rell can lead them out.

Anonymous said...

Above all else the local races (state house and state senate) have yet again proven one thing--->that it is very hard to take out an incumbent. Even the D's who did very well this year did not take out all that many R incumbents in the General Assembly...I guess the old saying is true--"people hate politicians in general, but love their own politician"

Anonymous said...

Anon 12.41am,

I agree that the Republicans have some quality candididates (but notice that all of them with the exception of Simmons come from safe R seats and not a single one of them is a state-wide office holder). But I think you miss the point of the editorial.

It's not about horses, it's about message. Parties organize around two kinds of things: jobs for the party faithful and message. You can't offer jobs without winning elections. And one necessary element for winning elections with coattails is message.

The NYT editorial suggests rightly that Rell didn't need to have a message to win. (On that score she isn't much different than Rowland, who never really had coattails either.) But she needs a message to build a party. A message that can speak across the party and other lines that define the body politic.

In the end, she avoided the national trend by having a shtick (grandma, not-Rowland, whatever). But she offered no protection or help to her party because she had no message.

Fuzzy Turtle said...

the CT GOP is in the wilderness right now, and only Rell can lead them out.

it's gonna take her about 40 years.. .she's not going to do anything for anyone. Status quo all the way with this one baby!

Fuzzy Turtle said...

the xenophobic Danbury News Times has a big front page article, a love letter to Joe... done by their crack news team of Fred Lucas and Fred Lucas.

but thats not really news I suppose. I'm still not sure why I check that site every morning. They dont even publish the food service violations anymore

Anonymous said...

John McCain is making a total ass out of himself on MTP.

I considered McCain a Decent person in 2000 during his Straight talk Express days.

Today on MTP he proved that was all an act.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry about the views and bias of the DNT. Once the Alabama chain takes over, they'll purge the leftists and we'll get some balanced reporting.

bluecoat said...

The New York Times is right on about what needs to be done with the CT GOP but the notion Rell can somehow lead and build a party ignores what she's done, or didn't do, the last two years. She's Rowland lite in philosophy and experience. Real leaders lead by example but we sure didn't see that with MoodyGate where Rell now says she wants a law that would make what Moody did illegal - and she does it with a straight face.
Any party building will have to come at the local level.

And some good ol' fashion Rockefeller Republicanism isn't right for CT. Have you ever seen the EGG in Albany or the rest of the edifices Rocky built badly? And do you really think the Rockefeller drug laws are just? Try Teddy Roosevelt if you are looking for a New York Republican with a philosophy that would help CT today..

Anonymous said...


I agree with you on Rell, but let me get your reaction on the following.

1. Elected officials can only help build a party with a message that sweeps others into office. "Governing" hardly ever is a basis for party-building, "campaigning" is and that requires a party organization that matters. So what do you mean by building the party at the local level. I mean, I hear this all the time, but what specifically would you do?

2. I am pretty serious student of political philosophy and it appears to me that the Rocky Repubs grew directly out of the progressive message of Teddy. I agree with you that traditional RRism won't work, because it was mostly a Wall Street/Nixon thing. But the current appeal of Teddy is that he wasn't a politically correct ninny (like all modern politicians). His message is equally untenable as a basis for capturing a majority of voters in CT today.

3. I am a Republican that wants the message and the majority, but what about this: what if the moderate dems and republicans in Lieberman's coalition is the basis for our party. How do we get those voters as long as Joe's around? Do we really have any hope at all when we abandon our own like we abandoned Alan because "he couldn't win"...because you know as well as I do that if Alan could have won, we would have forgiven him his sins (which of course pale in comparison to the sins of many other current officeholders in CT and within our region).

Anonymous said...

Two things:

1) I agree with Anon 9:22AM..... the CT GOP does not have a message, and this is largely Rell's fault. They actually have some quality candidates (but most are from Republican safe or leaning districts).

I think that the party is not quite decimated yet (like in Rhode Island, where there is like 10% of the legislature which is Republican)....but it will be in 10 years if it doesn't right itself.

2) How can it right itself? I think "Rockefller Republicanism" is a good vision for them-- if by that you mean they are for fiscal responsibility, limited government, and social liberties.

Rell should be calling for CT to reduce its debt and stop runaway spending. Forget cutting taxes-- she shoudl talk about getting CT's fiscal house in order. Fund the teacher's pension and other unfunded liabilities. Get our per capita debt down from the highest in the nation. Stop the legislature from spending like there is no tomorrow. THAT'S Rockefeller Republicanism. (Contrast to Reagan Republicanism, which would call for tax cuts and spending cuts above all else).

She should lay out a vision of how to get CT jobs going again by reducing regulation and ending union control of the legislature. And she should take the lead (as she has done) on social issues like stem cell research to continue to promote them.

Can Rell do this? I have my doubts. But it would give a coherent alternative to the Democratic message of universal health care and higher taxes.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4.38,

Anon 9.22 here: I agree with you about the vision, although I don't think that it's Rockerfellar Republicanism you are describing. The RRs enacted wage and price controls during the Nixon Administration. That's hardly limited government. And I suspect that the RRs would be against partial birth abortion as what's that make them on social issues. While I think that's moderate, the pro-abortion nuts would say that's conservative!

Anyway, my point is that you have it exactly right on the substance of the message (especially the fiscal stuff), I just think we should steer clear of the labels.

Shadow said...

You mean labels like "pro-abortion nuts?"

I have never EVER met anyone who described themselves as "pro-abortion"; have you met any pro-life candidates who described themselves as "anti-choice"?

Words like pro-choice and pro-life aren't just inoffensive packaging, but speak to the heart of the matter; all Americans believe that the values of life and choice are BOTH intrinsical to our society, and do not wish to see them conflict.

Abortion is a divisive issue, but NOT in the binary sense as it is often perceived; we're really talking about exactly where to place a chronological line in the sand, not a situation of one option or the other.

The question is at what point does mere potential become sentient human life? If you perceive the line too late, the ramifications are abhorrent. If you perceive that line too early, you're mourning every wasted sperm or egg that would have manifested a unique individual, a child who will now never exist, despite the fact that you would have loved them and found them irreplacable and impossible to imagine life without; they go from that to nothingness, and it happens every day.

I think the best thing we can do is pursue scientific research to explore the question of human sentience, and where that line really is. It will be no easy task, but our soul as a people depends on it.

In the meantime, we should talk to teenagers about the emotional and spiritual costs of having abortions; that it's legality is not absolution for regret.

We should also be providing them protection and safe sex education, AS WELL as abstinence education. If you say don't jump off the cliff, and neglect them a parachute, they will be more likely to jump and defy you. If just you say here's a parachute, jumping off the cliff seems all the less dangerous. So our best bet is to say don't jump off the cliff, but if you do, here's a parachute. A mixed message, to be sure, but the best of the three options without question.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:38--

This is Anon 4:38. I stand corrected! I won't use Rockefeller Republican any more just to describe what I mean as "moderate Republican".

Anonymous said...

4:07 and 4:38: what you describe as Rockefeller Republicanism is not Rockefeller Republicanism that actually went into practice - just the illusion as far as I am concerned anyway. So forgetting about labels, I'd like to see what you suggest happen generally but don't see it coming from Rell EVER - if you follow this blog, you will know that I think Rell is incompetnet and that she has surrounded herself with the incompetenat complacent hacks left over from Rowland - not to mention Lisa Moody..The election season is over and she'll at best joust with ammann and Williams for the next four years, which brings me to the local party building - in the 4th CD in particula r where I see things pretty close up.

Moccia is doing well in Norwlak by most accounts. The Republicans have handed the top jobs to Democrats in Darien, Westport and Fairfield because they are stupid in their approach. I have said on another thread that McKinney should run in Fairfield for the top job - not only because it would be good for the GOP but it would be good for him - he's DeLuca's Deputy now - big whoop, he was shunned by Rell for LG and everybody knows it, and Shays isn't getting out of his way anytime soon. And in Westport, they have to get rid of Judi Freedman (who lost Westport but won the race) next time around because she and Wolgast aren't making things better - even John Izzo called for Wolgast to step down. And Orchulli needs to go as the Darien RTC Chair too. And I guess you all saw that Dolly Powers won by less than 200 votes in Greenwich.

bluecoat said...

blogger is pissing me off today - that was me at 12:56.

and on stem cell research that can now be handled by the NIH once the Democrats get in gear down in DC. Our DPH, which needs a new commisioner, needs to focus on saving the lives and livelihoods of the consumers that the greedy medical doctors are killing and injuring far too often.

bluecoat said...

...and let me suggest on the "emotional and spirutual problems" folks have someitmes with abortions - maybe if society didn't shame these people it wouldn't be such a problem - followers of Islam beleive that a soul is breathed into a fetus on the 100th day...

OK, that's fixed and I am done.

Shadow said...

Hey bluecoat, I am pro-choice, and I agree that many women are shamed needlessly in certain religiously conservative households.

However, guilt issues with abortion are perfectly natural, and a sign of conscience and reflection not bound by restrictions of law, religion, or politics. Sometimes in life you have to make one of two tough choices, and you're bound to feel regret either way.

I think the worst thing to do as a pro-choice culture is to continue advancing the implicit myth that abortion has no emotional consequences; after all, the pro-choice movement only succeeded becoming the majority view in the first place due to realism (the concession by most Americans that abortions are going to happen whether legal or not, and the best way to keep them safe and rare does not involve excluding modern medical care from the process).