Saturday, November 04, 2006

Team Turfgrrl

Each week I set a lineup in Fantasy Football based on stats, projections, matchups, weather, the moon and other ephemeral criteria. If only politics were more like fantasy football. Instead, we get ads, accusations and admonishments flung in every direction without any baseline scorecard on gameday. We’re expecting some sense of where candidates stand based on voting records, but the bills they pass are filled with amendments and appropriations that have little if anything to do with the original bill.

For me at least, voting is a strategic plan to counter whatever the match-ups of the prevailing climate in government. I have some huge philosophical differences with some of my picks, but that's not the sole criteria. Competence, experience and integrity matter too. So here are my political picks for 2006.


I see the Governor as the QB of team Connecticut. The knocks on Rell is that she might not have a great arm, and isn’t very mobile. DeStefano can throw the deep ball, but lacks judgement. I’ll take the dink and dunk game of Rell, she’s moved the chains up to now and looks like she can deliver a win-win game. Rell is my pick.

The Underticket

Often out of the spotlight, they are the defensive line of team Connecticut. They work well together so I pick Blumenthal, Nappier, and Wyman. With the Secretary of State though, I have other thoughts. It’s 2006 and we still have levers. We are not heading down the path of investigating new voting technologies and practices like other states. While it may shift the chemistry a bit, I’m picking Abbatte.

Congress: House

Here in the 4th CD division, we’ve been long served by Shays. Our congressional representation is like having a good TE, able to block and run with the ball. In any other year except the last 2, he’d be my pick. But Shays isn’t playing the oversight game like I think he should be. He’s lost some of that maverick mojo and doesn’t look past the beltway and to the big picture. And he seems to care more about roads in Iraq than the federal highway that disrupts everything in Fairfield County. Congress is more of the raucous caucus then the deliberating branch of government, and that means we need someone not afraid to rock the boat. Farrell will bring new energy to Congress and maybe raise the urgency of our transportation infrastructure needs. If the Democrats go on to win a majority in Congress, than she’ll be part of that oversight that is so incredibly lacking right now. Farrell is my pick.

Congress: Senate

They’ve got big egos, but in the end their performance is always dependent on someone else throwing them the ball. There are 100 WRs in the Senate and they all like to talk. Sometimes this gets them in trouble. Trash talking does that to you. In the end though, this is the position that can turn the game around with a quick score. We’ve got another couple of years of the Bush administration quarterbacking America. It’ll be up to the Senate to keep the Executive branch from turning over the ball so much. We’ve got our military spinning wheels in the sand in Iraq, resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, North Korea playing with physics and Iran threatening something, Our executive team needs to be benched, but since that’s not going to happen we need some experience to get things back on track. Sending two rookies into DC to both look out for us internationally and keep an eye on legislation affecting Connecticut is not my idea of a sending up a good team. Farrell in the House makes sense because Shays shouldn’t get a pass on supporting Republican leadership. Preserving Republican leadership in the Senate doesn’t mitigate the executive branch, so no Schlesinger. Then there’s Lamont. He’s been adopted, in a reverse Mr. Drummond situation, by the liberal fightn’ keyboarders. They come streaming to his side, not because he’s the pied piper of progressives, but simply because he’s adopted their talk and vision of the world and repeats it with powerpoint imprecision. He is the embodiment of the echo chamber that prefers trash talk to touchdowns. Without them, who is Ned Lamont? With Lieberman, you get what you see. Sure, he’s got ego and arrogance. But you know he knows how to play the game. The touchdowns of the Senate are getting legislation voted on. With Bill Frist throwing tantrums instead of being senatorial, having a steady cautious game is not such a bad idea. So Lieberman gets the nod.

State Senate 25th District

Rell makes a very good argument when she campaigns that she wants more Republicans in the legislature. One party rule is never a good thing. This seat was held by a Republican during the Rowland years, and for the last two by a Democrat. Bob Duff campaigns that he will “stand up for you”. I’d prefer that he’d stand up to Hartford. Fred Wilms, his Republican challenger promises to do just that. But wait, he’d be Hartford too. It’s tempting to give Rell someone to throw the ball to, but in the end I come back to super 7. Bob Duff says it’s time to make Super 7 happen. I say, stand up in Hartford and make some things happen, Bub Duff is my pick.

State Rep 137th District

Chris Perone is a good friend. I think he’s a pretty decent legislator too. The one party rule applies here too, so I weigh the tactical field. Chris is more of a thinking person’s idea of a legislator than your typical legislator. He brings a real-world in-the-trenches view point to policy. Smart people should be encouraged to be in public service. No contest here, Chris Perone is my pick.

So that’s it, team turfgrrl.


Ted Swanson said...

As usual the comments relating to Lieberman here are about as lackluster as Joe's false claims to strength of character.

Anonymous said...

I don't know why some people don't seem to care that Lieberman has flagrantly broken campaign finance laws.

This matters. Whether Lieberman "goes to jail" is an open question, but it is evident from the clear and damning case against Slush Fund Joe that he will not be in the Senate much longer, even if re-elected.

I would suggest to the remaining Lieberman supporters that you should pick a candidate who's not a "dead man walking". Both Schlesinger and Lamont are excellent candidates who aren't felons.

Anonymous said...

Interesting criteria there turfgirl. Mostly incumbents.

Sue123 said...

Turf - you just reminded me why I do my posting over at MyLeftNutmeg.

Anonymous said...

Sadaam sentenced to hang. Violence in IRaq. Bring our troops home, vote Lamont.

Shadow said...

Only in an analogy with football players could Rell or Lieberman be considered intelligent or competent. I can see why you went with the football theme.

You're right on Farrell, though.

Anonymous said...

well I guess Shadow has added jocks to soldiers among groups the liberals deem dullards

I'll send the message to Bill Bradley

Anonymous said...

We are not heading down the path of investigating new voting technologies and practices like other states.

Huh? We aren't testing optical scan machines on Tuesday for roll out in 2007 (in compliance with HAVA)? And there aren't new IVR machines in each polling place this election for the visually impaired?

Anonymous said...

Using Football analogies for Politics is such an original Idea I can't figure out why nobody ever did that before.

Saddam has more experience ruling Iraq than anyone Turfy.Should we reinstall him along with Lieberman?

Shadow said...

You mean the ex-basketball player Bill Bradley? You're bringing up a basketball player to defend the intellect of football players?

I never said all football players are "dullards", that was your term, I simply suggested they're no model for the qualities necessary for sound policy decisions by elected officials; on the flip side, elected officials are no model for the physical shape and training required to be a professional football player. If I were to say: "Only in an analogy with politicians could crappy football player x be considered athletic and vibrant", does that mean I just said ALL politicians are out of shape couch potatoes? With your logic it does, despite the fact that we both know that the politician you mentioned, Bill Bradley, was quite the basketball player in his day.

Or what if someone who has lived an underpriviledged life says that "only in an analogy with a house can an apartment seem small"; does that mean no apartment is bigger than any house? That's the kind of reasoning you're trying to sell, and no one is buying it.

Don't worry, though, little GOP talking point lemming, you'll learn logic yet.

Anonymous said...

Fred Wilms has yet to come up with an original idea in any campaign that he's run.

turfgrrl said...

Shadow: There's a simpler reason, I post as turfgrrl and not hoopsgrrl.

Anonymous said...

Turfgirl has picked a lot of winners.

Anonymous said...

Is that a Different Strokes reference in there? Channeling Maureen Dowd again turfy?

Anonymous said...

I could have used rather erudite gridder Jack Kemp, but he was a Republican

Shadow, before you continue to deride athletes might you try absorbing an NFL playbook and try calling audibles when a defense suddenly shifts from a 46 look to a Cover 2 at the line of scrimmage before the snap.

If you don't understand what I am saying obviously you aren't bright enough to play football

Shadow said...

Why would anyone paying the least bit attention to Maureen Dowd ever vote for Lieberman?

Anonymous said...

Bobby McGee said...

There is fantasy politics.

Anonymous said...

Even Fredrich's choice of color pallette for his website was copying Webster Bank, his employer.

He copies the positive aspects of Senator Duff's campaign: Duff has long said "Public Service is my passion..." and Frederich copies that with "Community Service is my passion..."

If it were not so pathetic, it would be funny.

Silly marathon ties and his goofy look wrap up the lack of real image.

Anonymous said...

Will we see the town plaster with his signs? It worked when he was in high school:

From the Wilms website:"about"
"“I have always been interested in politics. My parents always exposed my brother Mike and I to world and national events as we were growing up. In the 7th grade I decided to run for Student Council Vice President. I ran against one of the most popular boys in the school. But I campaigned hard. I will never forget the announcement over the PA system: Brian and I were tied 120 – 120! Well, I was determined to win the run-off election the next day. That night, my friends and I plastered the school walls with my campaign signs – and I ended up winning! (I also got in trouble with the principal later that day!)”.

Some people have character and are proud of it. Some people do not have character and brag about it!

The "Break the rules, and apologize later" school of campaigning.

Shadow said...

> If you don't understand what I am saying obviously you aren't bright enough to play football

No, it means I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic. Knowledgeable and bright are two different things; my point is that the knowledge that applies to politics and the knowledge that applies to football are two different areas, and not everyone who is an expert in one is automatically an expert in the other; that's not an insult, it's just statement of fact.

Now, for whatever reason, there is a stereotype out there about football players being dumb, and a stereotype out there about politicians being eggheads who aren't athletic. The crime isn't to make or reference a generalization, but to assume that generalization applies to EVERYONE. I, for one, have the common sense to realize that just because those stereotypes exist, it doesn't mean there aren't smart football players or athletic politicians, and that every individual is different and has each skill in varying degrees. You on the other hand, apparantely think that every stereotype is true without exception, and want to superimpose that view on me. No thanks.

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 8:06: Polling places are so 20th century. Where's the move to early voting, vote by mail etc.

turfgrrl said...

bobby mcgee: I saw that, plus there's the usual trading platforms out there too. Just not easy way to score politicians. My point was more about the way bills get created and passed though.

Anonymous said...

Fred Wilms has run an honorable campaign, to say otherwise is just sour grapes, a little early for them, the election's tues.

Anonymous said...

everything is relative- compared to all the vitrolic campaigning his negativity and lies were mild and easily found out by the average voter- hence he was ignored.