It's convention season! – the State Convention is Saturday in New Britain, with Congressional Conventions on Monday, and state legislative conventions on the 19th and 20th.
So far, there appear to be convention votes scheduled in Senate District 30 (Matthew Brennan and Michael Renzullo have filed to compete for Andrew Roraback's seat -- who hasn't filed for re-election himself, yet), Adam Gutcheon filed against Rep Peggy Sayers in the 60th AD, Lydia Martinez has filed against Andres Ayala in the 128th, and Auden Grogins against Bob Keeley in the 129th.
Two special mentions go to the race in the 94th AD -- Gary Winfield (who is a blogosphere contributor, circulating editorials and videos at the New Haven independent and elsewhere) will be up against Charles Blango -- and the 22nd SD, where Marilyn Moore (who has done local organizing for CT Opposes the War on top of working on Ed Gomes' staff) competing with Trumbull local official Anthony Musto for a shot against Rob Russo.
Oh, and there are Republican conventions, but I don't have the energy to write about them today.
Rep. John Ryan. Republican from Darien, retires. Also, read to the bottom to learn the real reason for GOP recruitment failures.
Various hard-right groups will assemble on June 7th to protest Griswold v. Connecticut – in other words, declare their opposition to the availability of birth control. Any takers for a counter-action?
I actually agree with the take a lot of bloggers writing about this have, namely, that it's at least a step towards honesty for the conservative movement. They've been against the availability of birth-control and divorces for ages, and if they take their messages to the street we can have an honest debate about it.
Every legislative session, the list of worthy bills that dies on the vine is much longer than the list of accomplishments, so I don't relish doing the obligatory "session wrap-up" post. At a certain point, after the basic housekeeping work, it appears that they're merely negotiating over the content of the fall's campaigns. Conservatives don't want to let progressives win bragging rights on paid sick days, Democrats don't want to let Republicans climb up on the cross over their absurd last-minute budget proposal, and Rell holds out a veto threat on the one really significant bill that passed – healthcare pooling – which, thanks to untimely retirements, she'll probably be able to make stick.
Sigh.
In any case, there are two ways that I can think of to correct this unfortunate situation:
Allow bills that have passed out of committee – all of which have been through the process of public hearings, legislative research, and open debate – to survive into the next session, regardless of whether or not it came up for a vote by midnight on May 7th.
Failing that, Speaker Donovan can indicate his willingness to change the traditional working day: as it stands, for the first half of the session, the House and Senate generally only convene one day a week. Then, in the final week, there are all-night rump sessions where Republicans laughingly kill bill after bill, knowing they have the Speaker by the balls with the clock ticking. This entirely predictable situation happens every goddamn time, and it's pathetic.
Instead, Speaker Donovan and Senator Williams can say – in February or March – "on Tuesday, we will have a vote on 'Paid Sick Days,' and we will stay as long as necessary." Let the Republicans go until 9pm, to midnight, to 3am. Don't adjourn until there's a vote. Even if every single Republican stayed (which doesn't seem likely from the poor GOP attendance at committee meetings that I've seen), 60% of the House Democratic caucus could be at home under the sheets at any given time, and we could still spank them when the eventual vote comes down.
Plus, this would have the additional benefit of dramatically curbing the number of times the GOP "goes to the mat" to try to demolish Democratic bills – if you're going to stay on the floor for 36 hours just to lose in the end anyway, you're not going to do it for every little thing like the Republicans do now.
Either way, this end-of-session slaughter has to stop. After all, we don't send Democratic supermajorities to Hartford to let Republicans steer the ship – it's time for our Charlie Brown legislature to stop getting the football pulled out from under them at the last second.
Bysiewicz Urges Passage of S.B. 444 - We Urge Amendment #6141
Many of the changes necessary to start Connecticut on the road to stronger, effective audits that were in H.B. 5888 have now been offered as an amendment #6141 by Reps Caruso and Urban to S.B.444:
An Independent Audit Board
A Stronger Chain-of-Custody for Memory Cards, Optical Scanners and Ballots
100% Independent Pre-Election Testing of Memory Cards
We urge the passage of the amendment with S.B. 444.
While the Secretary of the State has supported the Independent Audit Board and her Office has supported the other provisions of H.B. 5888, she wrote a letter to Rep Caruso yesterday asking for passage of S.B. 444, which primarily concerns "Voter Privacy". While we support "Voter Privacy" we also see it as superficial without "Vote Integrity". See the Stamford Advocate, Secretary of the State says voter privacy at stake<read>
In a letter to Rep. Caruso Sec. Bysiewicz wrote, "We are preparing for a record turnout in November and it is critical that we provide local election officials with concrete guidance about how best to safeguard voter privacy. Voters in our state have a right to expect that we will protect their most fundamental civil right and this bill provides a good framework to do just that."
NOW ITS UP TO YOU - WE CANNOT WAIT FOR VOTING INTEGRITY !!!
If not you can use this page to find your House and Senates Districts on a map and then click the map to get contract information: http://www.cga.ct.gov/maps/Townlist.asp
And I don't mean Obama's decisive win in North Carolina and Hillary's hanging on by her fingernails in Indiana - although that should translate into great news as well.
It's how well the Democrats are positioned for 2008 and the future.
Vote for Change Kickoff: Hartford Voter Registration Drive (Official Event))
With this election, we have the chance to ensure that more voters than ever take an active stake in our country's future. On May 10, Obama for America will launch Vote for Change, a national voter registration and mobilization drive with kickoffs in all 50 states. This event is the kickoff for our area. After a brief training, we'll hit the streets to register voters. Please join us!
Time: Saturday, May 10 at 2:00 PM
Duration: 1 hour
Host: Jeff Coleman
Location:
Pope Park Recreation Center (Hartford, CT)
Park Terrace at Pope Park Dr.
Hartford, CT 06106
Since
last
fall's review of the spending habits of Congressional
campaigns, the state's candidates
have continued to find thrifty, questionable and downright foolish
ways to spend their money between October and March, several months
before voters start paying attention to them.
Democrats
in ostensibly competitive districts (Courtney, Himes, and Murphy) have
spent much less of a percentage of their income on average than
their Republican counterparts.
Chris Murphy's campaign, a
disciplined machine, has raised and saved the most and, not
coincidentally, has the lowest and most consistent burn rate.
John
Larson is the only candidate spending more than he is
raising. He
was actually left with less cash on hand at the end of March
than
when he started this electoral
cycle.
Sean Sullivan is the worst GOP candidate of the
year. (Tony Nania would compete for the title if he were for
real.)
Jim
Himes nearly matched Chris Shays in cash on hand, in large
part
because of Shays' pattern of big spending and Himes' past thriftiness.
But Himes raised less and spent more than Shays early this
year, diminishing
his progress.
CD
Candidate
Cash on hand
Jan 1 07
Raised
Jan 07 -
Mar 08
Spent
Jan 07 -
Mar 08
Cash on hand
Mar 31, 08
Burn
rate
Jan 07-
Sep 07
Burn
rate
Oct 07-
Mar 08
Total
burn rate
1
Larson
236,969
652,432
682,850
179,552
87%
155%
109%
2
Courtney
47,599
1,465,808
318,722
1,194,685
20%
25%
22%
2
Sullivan
-
230,450
101,462
128,988
23%
72%
44%
3
DeLauro
16,124
624,773
473,024
167,873
83%
66%
76%
4
Shays
61,544
1,608,255
532,072
1,137,726
37%
29%
33%
4
Himes
-
1,379,992
274,781
1,105,212
11%
27%
20%
5
Murphy
50,703
1,791,612
297,675
1,544,639
16%
18%
17%
5
Cappiello
-
654,655
232,039
420,316
24%
43%
35%
5
Nania
-
31,989
21,943
10,046
-
77%
77%
Burn rate = (total spent + debt)/ total raised.
More on the spending
habits of each candidate, and an update on April spending below.
For this they needed an extra week? Perhaps one of their contributors made their donation via recyclable cans and bottles, requiring staff time to redeem and collect the nickels from the nearest grocery store?
If you'll recall, the Sullivan campaign lectured us uncivil bloggers thusly:
Our campaign has just moved into a new phase with a new team. As a result, the fundraising reflects numbers that do not truly show the whole picture. With a new team in place our support will continue to grow and we look forward to May 10th when Sean Sullivan is our nominee for Congress.
Let me say that I, for one, am rather enjoying the "whole picture" of the Sullivan campaign.
As a bonus, let's linger for a moment on the work of the campaign's new finance director, Diane Generous:
Diane has done political and non-profit fundraising, most recently coordinating the Capital Campaign for a new Jewish Community Center at UConn. She served as Finance Director for former Rep. Rob Simmons in his last congressional race, raising record amounts for a race in the 2nd District of Connecticut. Before joining the campaign Diane was the Marketing and Communications Specialist for the Eastern Connecticut Realtors Association, and previously was Executive Director of the Connecticut Recreation and Parks Association. Diane served as Finance Director for the Connecticut Republicans in 94-95.
Diane was paid $10,000 to raise the $3,000 in this report.
Wow. I'm going to become a Republican – because I think every professional fundraiser should get paid 3 times what they raise. God bless America, and God bless the ole G-O-P.
Sunday afternoon in Stamford, Fourth District Democrats presented a united front against Chris Shays in advance of the 4th CD nominating convention next Monday May 12th, as two-time Democratic candidate Diane Farrell officially endorsed Jim Himes in front of a crowd of supporters. Here's the Stamford Advocate's report:
Himes, a Greenwich resident who runs a New York City nonprofit housing agency, is attempting what Farrell failed to do in two bids - unseat longtime incumbent U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Bridgeport, in the 4th Congressional District, the only one in the state held by Republicans.
"It's a huge honor for me to get Diane's endorsement for this race," said Himes, who was joined by his wife, Mary, and two daughters, Emma, 8, and Linley, 5.
"By all rights, Diane should be our congresswoman," he said to applause....
Farrell said Himes will succeed because Shays' continued support for the war in Iraq and Bush's fiscal policies "will give voters pause."
"I think the story of this campaign is Jim's qualifications," she said, "and the closeness of the last two races indicate that voters have looked closely at Shays' record."
UPDATE: A friend from Wilton called and told me that Ms. DiNardo announced at the Wilton DTC breakfast that she will not endorse either candidate until after the voting is finished. (which hopefully means she'll choose in early June.)
Our State Chair then went on to express concern that ties to Obama are hurting Dems in the South in this year's special elections, and that SuperD's are watching to see if the media's attacks on Obama will affect downticket races.
Does this sound like Clinton talking points? Geez, more or less. I just hope that if down-ticket races are Ms. DiNardo's concern, she'll read this New York Times Article"A Backlash?", which shows that Obama's favorability ratings with whites has remained solid, whereas Clinton's support among blacks is undergoing a precipitous decline. I pray that she won't join Senator Clinton in taking this Party to the brink via a convention battle.
(original post below) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggesting that we can't drag this out to the late-August Convention, two weeks ago Howard Dean insisted that it's time for super-delegates to declare their preferences. Video.
"We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time," the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We've got to know who our nominee is."
Here in Connecticut we have but two undecided super-delegates. One is Joe Courtney, who has suggested he's waiting to see who the delegate leader is after the voting is completed. (i.e. he's on board as part of the "Pelosi plan") The other undeclared super-delegate is respected State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.
My understanding is that Ms. DiNardo has suggested it is inappropriate for a State chair to take sides in this contest. Yet CT Democrats should note that in fact, in the Northeast, six out of eight State chairs have endorsed a candidate, --with the vast majority of those endorsements going for the winner of the State primary.
Here is a quick breakdown:
ME- Chair John Knutson for Obama
VT- Chair Ian Carleton for Obama
NH- Chair Raymond Buckley- Undecided
RI- Chair Bill Lynch for Clinton
NY- Chair June O'Neill for Clinton
NJ- Chair Joseph Cryan for Clinton
PA- Chair T.J. Rooney for Clinton
Is it time for Ms. DiNardo to weigh in? Yes, I think so.
The one thing Dems can't afford is the long, hot summer and subsequent "Fall-out" that will ensue were this election to drag out to the August 25-28th convention.
Word has it that as an ex-teacher Ms. DiNardo is conflicted, as the teachers' union has endorsed Clinton. Personally, I hope she'll put her loyalty to CT Dems first and follow the lead of our Congressional delegation, but in any case isn't it time for her to weigh in? (such that one candidate or the other can attain the 2,025 delegates necessary to end this thing.)
I know how ardent us grassroots Dems can be, so I'm not going to put Chairwoman DiNardo's contact info in this diary, but I do hope that wherever us activists go, we remind our Party leaders why it's necessary for Ms. DiNardo to speak up!
(Too important of a topic to have on the sidelines. - promoted by ctblogger)
In the Hartford Courant editorial this morning, Not an Undue Burden, agreement is expressed with the state senators who want to require photo ID to vote in Connecticut. The Secretary of hte State estimates that 500,000 voters do not have the means to acquire a photo ID. Further, there has not been an incidence of fraud in CT having to do with identification within at least ten years, and perhaps ever.
Do we in Connecticut really need to disenfranchise half a million voters because of fears of fraud that doesn't exist?
While the voter ID amendment was not called in the Senate yesterday, Senator Minority Leader McKinney has vowed to call a debate on voter photo ID before the legislative session ends.
Please take action on this and continue to call your legislators to say that disenfranchising half a million voters in Connecticut is unacceptable. Please write letters to the editor at the Hartford Courant decrying this.
Since
MLN is powered by