However, the off-the-cliff drop in the number of votes cast for the Republican candidate this election when compared to previous elections is puzzling. ... Furthermore, it is a 32% plunge from the previous low of 6,094 votes in 2002 and an astounding 51% drop from the 8,366 votes in the last gubernatorial election in 2006.
This is nonsense. Looking at raw vote totals without any sort of context will lead you to this kind of absurd conclusion (Where are the votes for Republicans? FRAUD!).
In 2002 and 2006, there were popular incumbent Republican governors running for re-election - of course there were more votes for Republicans in Bridgeport - Democrats were voting for the Republican governors!
In 2006, popular incumbent Republican Governor Rell had the support of 38% of Democrats.
In 2010, not that popular non-incumbent Republican Tom Foley had the support of only 13% of Democrats.
(The article makes the case that the 2010 totals were below the ten-election average number of Republican votes in Bridgeport. Leaving aside the discussion of whether this is a measure that has any meaning, the ten elections include only four open seats: 2010, 1994, 1990, and 1974 and two of those (1994 and 1990) feature serious third-party challengers (actually 2 in 1994 for a 4 way race)).
In fact, the Democrat winning this election perfectly fits the historical trend. While Democrats haven't held the Gubernatorial office in 25 years, Republicans haven't won a 2 way race for Governor without running the sitting governor since 1970!
Ned Lamont made an appearance at yesterday's annual picnic put on by the Greenwich Democratic Town Committee, and quickly reminded everyone in attendance what a gracious, courageous, dedicated Democrat he truly is. Ned spoke up in support of all of the Democrats running this fall. But he prefaced that support by remarking that the low turnout in August was bad news for him, but that it is also bad news for Democrats in the general election this fall. He strenuously urged everyone there to work to get out the vote, to elect a Democratic governor, to keep Jim Himes in Congress, and also to elect Democrats to the General Assembly. No bitterness from Ned, no recriminations. He proved that he is a bigger man than that, and he also proved that he understands how important it is to elect Democrats, no matter how his personal campaign ended. Talk about a class act.
Also for those of you who don't know, Greenwich has not elected a representative to the Connecticut House of Representatives sinc 1912. This year two Democrats are running: Claude Johnson in the 151st district, and Howard Richman in the 149th district. We also haven't elected a Democrat to the state senate since 1930- Alan Barton. The granddaughter of that state senator is now running for state senate: Nancy Barton, who retired as chief counsel for GE Capital. Barton has served several years on Greenwich's BET. She is running against billionaire Scott Frantz, who took the dubious distinction of registering the worst environmental voting record in the State Senate this year. No surprise he's a Republican, right?
This viewer has to hand it to Ned Lamont, who seemed move lively, energetic and full of ideas than Dan Malloy, who appeared almost somnolent at times.
Our field team is spread across Connecticut, and doing fantastic work. Over the last several weeks, they have recruited more than 3,000 volunteers, and together they have made more than 2 million calls and knocked on more than 150,000 doors.
And the results are showing. Despite two weeks of constant negative attacks by our opponent, Ned still leads in the recently released Quinnipiac poll 45-40, and Democratic voters believe Ned has the right positions on key issues, the right plan to turn the economy around, and the right character to be governor. And by a spread of 46-29, Democratic voters believe Ned is the best candidate to beat the Republicans in November and take back the governor's office for the first time in more than 20 years.
Every day, as each volunteer comes into our regional field offices, as we identify each voter, as we knock on each door and place each lawn sign, our momentum is growing:
In the latest Quinnipiac Poll, Ned Lamont enjoys a nearly double-digit lead among likely Democratic voters over rival Dan Malloy in his bid for the gubernatorial nomination.
Previous Q-Polls only questioned "registered Democrats", which is a larger pool and includes people who haven't bothered to vote for years. "Likely voters" are Democrats who have actually voted during the last few years, and are the ones who are most likely to drag themselves out of bed on August 10th and go down to their polling place.
So Lamont's current 9-point lead over Malloy in this poll is more likely reflective of his actual lead than previous polls that only questioned registered Dems. But you can't really compare the two polls when they questioned different sets of Democrats, so anyone who claims the race is tightening isn't working with valid data. Reporters who cover the political beat should know this difference.
Fifteen years of Republican rule in Connecticut has left our state with a huge budget mess and without a competitive edge. The Rowland/Rell years has resulted in Connecticut being last in job creation since 1991.
I saw Ned Lamont's new commercial the other day, the one talking about his plan to create jobs. Having been laid off since last fall and about to finish my bachelors degree, I know finding employment is not going to be easy. Ned's entire plan is on his website - you can find it here:
After reading the plan, I'm convinced Ned has the best ideas to move Connecticut forward.
Jobs are leaving our state in record numbers and I like Ned's plans to change that by investing in and supporting large, small and new business.
It took guts to take on Lieberman and it will take fortitude to bring our state back from the brink. I think Ned has the best plan to move Connecticut forward. I supported him in 2006 when no one else was willing to take on our junior senator and I'm proud to support him again in his bid for governor so he can make this business plan for Connecticut a reality.
In his editorial last week, while declaring that he didn't support Shays' candidacy, Managing Editor Nick Keppler wrote,
I love Chris Shays; I really do. He's a truly beautiful man who has dedicated most of his life to public service...
I wrote a letter to the editor that was published this week explaining why I don't love Chris Shays, pointing out numerous positions with which I disagreed, and taking issue with Shays' voting to go to war in Iraq, while having declared himself a CO. I also questioned how Shays had managed to avoid the draft in 1969, three years before declaring himself a conscientious objector. Keppler attached an Editor's Note, to my letter that read:
Chris Shays was on a Peace Corps assignment during the draft lottery in 1969. The author of this letter is a member of Greenwich Democratic Town Committee.
Keppler's comment appeared to provide an acceptable explanation for Shays' not being drafted at the height of the Vietnam War. The problem is that the Selective Service Administration never considered Peace Corps service as grounds for either a draft deferral or a draft exemption. I know, because I served in the Peace Corps in the 1970's, and I also wrote to the Peace Corps and the Selective Service Administration and received back a letter confirming that fact. So Shays pulled the wool over Keppler's eyes, which I pointed out to him in an email. I assumed that Keppler would be pretty ticked off at Shays for misleading him. To my surprise, however, he wasn't a bit miffed to find out that he'd apparently been deceived. This is his response to me:
As a professional journalist, I am obligated to get both sides and check with the Shays camp when someone says something as inflammatory as he was a draft-dodger. That is what I did and if I could go back and do it again I would not do anything differently. This matter is closed. Thank you. - Nick
So Nick Keppler joins the ranks of local journalists who never bothered to question Shays' misleading excuses regarding how he avoided the draft and saved his hide at the height of the Vietnam War, and who never bother to question the apparent hypocrisy of pacifist Shays' serving as a leading cheerleader for war. If he changes his mind and wants to find out what the real story was regarding Shays and the draft, here are some of the sources for Mr. Keppler or other journalists who can be bothered to do real journalism might consider beginning with.
First, journalists should ask Chris Shays why it is that he has no problem sending young Americans to fight and die in Iraq or any other war when he declared not only that he is a pacifist who believes war to be immoral, but also stated to Peace Corps Online in 2002 that he would have refused induction into the military had he not been granted conscientious objector status in 1972:
Chris Shays early political career was marked by acts of defiance. He registered for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War and acknowledges he would not have served if drafted.
If Shays decides to run for his old congressional seat, it would seem that a lot of military families, including those whose loved ones have been killed or wounded, would appreciate a full explanation of that discrepancy. And a lot of parents of military-aged children would also like to know how he could declare himself a pacifist when his own life was on the line, while blithely sending other young people off to war when he is safe and sound.
Then there is the matter of how he got out of the draft in 1969 when his lottery number came up.
The highest lottery number called for this group was 195; all men assigned that lottery number or any lower number, and who were classified 1-A or 1-A-O (available for military service), were called to report for possible induction.
So not only was Shays' explanation that he was exempted from induction into the military due to his Peace Corps service not supported by the facts, he also received a draft number that virtually assured him that he would be drafted. So Mr. Shays needs to tell us exactly how he did manage to stay out of the war. Did he pull strings? Was someone looking out for him? His explanation to Keppler just doesn't hold water.
Furthermore, Shays should make public his draft records, including his statement of beliefs regarding pacifism, which was accepted by the close vote of three-to-two by his draft board. He should also make available the records explaining why when he was exempted from combat service as a conscientious objector, he was not required to perform alternative non-combat service in the military.
If Shays feels he wants to return to congress and vote on matters of war and peace, he has an obligation to the voters of this district to finally give them a full and factual explanation. And Nick Keppler, as not only a professional journalist, but also a managing editor of a Fairfield County publication, should press Shays for a complete and honest explanation.
I don't care if Mr. Keppler thinks Shays "a beautiful man" or not; the voters of this district are owed the truth. He needs to go back to Shays and demand a full accounting. Then Keppler needs to publish that full accounting in his publication, and correct the misleading explanation that he printed this week.
The matter is most definitely not "closed". Not even close.
In his column in Fairfield County Weekly ("We Don't Need Chris Shays"), Nick Keppler writes that former congressman Chris Shays is "a truly beautiful man", whom Democrats "assailed with negative ads" during the 2008 campaign. A "truly beautiful man"?
Chris Shays is the guy who, though he dodged the draft when his number was called at the height of the Vietnam War in 1969, and claimed to be a conscientious objector when he again was called in 1972, nonetheless had no qualms about serving as George Bush's chief cheerleader for the hideous and senseless invasion of Iraq. That "beautiful man" sent more than thirty six thousand young Americans to be killed and wounded in Iraq, including more than three hundred from Connecticut, and hundreds of thousands more to be afflicted with PTSD, many for the remainder of their lives. It was that "beautiful man" Chris Shays who contended for years that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, even after it was proven that both assertions were utterly false. It was that "beautiful man" Chris Shays who dismissed the horrific torture and humiliations inflicted upon Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison as nothing more than the activities of a "sex ring".
It was that "beautiful man" Chris Shays who in 2005 served as one of George Bush's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters for his effort to dismantle Social Security and divert savings into stockmarket accounts instead. Where would Americans be today if he and Bush had been successful in funneling our savings into the collapsing stockmarket? It was that "beautiful man" who sat by for two decades and refused to push for federal assistance for our commuter rail system as its rolling stock became decrepit, or for more federal funds to repair our highways as our transportation system became even more sclerotic. And it was that "beautiful man" Chris Shays who insisted that it was just natural for Connecticut to receive less federal funds back from Washington per tax dollar paid out than all but two states; we just make too much money, according to Shays.
And let's keep in mind what one of those "negative ads" was with which Mr. Keppler says Shays was "assailed". It pointed out that Chris Shays had stated on September 1, 2008, literally hours before the beginning of America's worst financial collapse since 1929, a meltdown that almost brought on another Great Depression, that "The fundamentals of our economy are strong. No one can disagree with that." Don't voters deserve to be told that Shays, who for years had served as the vice-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee that had done nothing to stop the burgeoning disaster of unregulated mortgage debt obligations, had absolutely no clue what was happening? Is it wrong to point out that Chris Shays had demonstrated once again that he was absolutely oblivious about an issue about which he claimed to be an expert? Shouldn't voters who are asked to vote for him this year either for governor or congressman understand that he was asleep at the wheel of the most important committee dealing with financial regulation while this disaster was building?
Not only is Chris Shays not a "beautiful man", he is responsible for some of the ugliest failures of our government in its history. Voters have a right to be told the truth.
(The list of GOP gubernatorial candidates continues to grow... - promoted by ctblogger)
Chris "Both Ways" Shays is back from Maryland and on the verge of running for governor of Connecticut. If you had forgotten just what sort of character Shays really is, here are some more nonsensical comments from him.
Referring to the General Assembly Democrats during Governor Rell's speech on the budget, Shays said,
"The majority party (Democrats) sat on their hands when (Governor Rell) talked about being fiscally responsible. It's like they are in another world. It's like they can repeal the law of gravity,"
Really? Incredible that Shays has already forgotten that he served all during the Bush administration while the Republicans added more to the federal debt than was added from the beginning of the republic up to that time. He was serving on the Financial Services Committee in Congress while America's financial system headed into its greatest meltdown since 1929. It was Shays who stated, literally just hours before the meltdown began, that "Our economic fundamentals are strong. No one can disagree with that."
With the very strong numbers for Blumenthal from two polls, now, it is also interesting to see the Public Policy Polling survey that came out today on the Connecticut Governor's race.
There aren't going to be a lot of offices Democrats win for the first time since 1986 in this Republican trending year of 2010. But the Connecticut Governorship might be one of them.
Three Democratic candidates are ahead of the two leading Republicans.
Stamford's Democratic mayor Dannel Malloy appeared before the Greenwich Democratic Town Committee on Thursday evening and delivered an ebullient and wide-ranging address. Here's a roundup of Malloy's remarks:
Malloy began by expressing his pleasure that Greenwich resident Jim Himes had won his race for congress, unseating 21-year incumbent Republican Chris Shays last year. Malloy stated that he was proud to have worked with Jim and for Jim during his campaign. He revealed that he played the role of Chris Shays in Himes' debate prep last autumn, and joked that it was the only time that he had taken Shays' side of an argument.
[cross posted at yourct.com] Stamford Mayor and Democratic Gubernatorial front-runner Dan Malloy was invited to the White House along with about 80 municipal executives from across the country to discuss with the President implementation of the stimulus moneys just passed and signed into law.
Excerpt:
"We have urban areas -- Stamford, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven -- that are job-producing centers," Malloy said. "We need to get the money quickly."
Malloy said Obama has delivered on his pledge to work with mayors by including them in the economic recovery bill. Money is available for weatherization, community policing, schools and road repairs. But much of it will have to pass through the state first -- and that worries Malloy. "A lot depends on whether Connecticut state government can do its job and get the money in our hands. My fear is they won't," he said. Malloy ... sees a potential conflict between the governor's office and state legislature over how to disburse the stimulus funds.
"The last eight years was roughly the equivalent of 40 years in the desert," Malloy said. "This is the first time I've been back to the White House since Clinton was president." Malloy said the Bush administration would turn to the governor to see their input, but Clinton and Obama see mayors as their allies.
Bysiewicz and legislative leaders call for special election to fill future U.S. Senate vacancies in Connecticut
By Secretary of the State's Office
Secretary of the State Points to Senate Vacancies in Illinois, New York as Evidence of the Need for Long Overdue Election Reform.
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz today joined the incoming House Chair of the Government, Administration and Elections Committee, State Representative James Spallone (D-Essex) in calling for the adoption of a law designating a special election to fill any future vacancies in Connecticut's U.S. Senate seats. In the case of a Senate vacancy, current law provides for the governor to appoint a successor to fill out the remainder of a term or until a special election can be called on the date of the next even-numbered general election.
Jim Amman appeared before the Greenwich DTC last night. It was a bit of a surprise. And Amman appeared bewildered to be down in this part of the state. A fish out of water?
First, Speaker Amman had to sit in the front row as speakers trashed Joe Lieberman, whom he'd supported to the hilt in 2006. When he did speak, I think it would be fair to say that he didn't connect with his audience.
Amman talked about transportation, and his pride that the state's investment in new rail cars was about to reach fruition with their delivery. But then he said that the price of oil is coming down and there was a gasoline price war with gas now selling for $1.89. That brought out a spontaneous chorus of comments, laughter and questions of "where?" Because the cheapest gas you can buy in Greenwich is $2.49. He said oil price was $1.89 in Colchester (where?). There were a number of people who interrupted him to ask him to outlaw zone pricing and opined about how the price of gas declined as you went east along I-95. He seemed surprised by the sentiments. And he perplexed his audience by saying that the problem with zone pricing was that he and his colleagues didn't have the "data". That bewildered his audience even more. From our perspective, just what "data" does one need? For years we've known that gas costs a heckuva lot more in our region than elsewhere in the state. So how in the world could legislation outlawing the practice be hung up on data?
Jim Lash, current Greenwich First Selectman, will challenge Jodi Rell for the Republican nomination in 2010.
An article in today's Greenwich Time discussed the frustrations of Greenwich Republicans with Rell's budget plan, among other things.
The disgruntlement has reached a point that top party members in town are already predicting Rell would lose a Republican primary in 2010 if she ran for re-election.
It's been a longstanding Greenwich rumor that Jim Lash has ambitions for higher office. With some of the state's wealthiest and most influential Republicans already making public comments about a 2010 primary, and Shays looking like he'll want to run for re-election in 2008, I think a 2010 primary run is Lash's next move after he steps down as Greenwich's First Selectman.
An amusing footnote to the Rowland ruling story was provided by Jodi Rell, the softer, gentler side of the Rowland-Rell team.
"That was a decision made by a judge," Rell told reporters at the state Capitol. "I am not familiar with the exact language of the [revolving-door] law, so I would leave it to the discretion of the legislature."
Ah, a Governor blissfully unaware of her obligations under an ethics law her constituents expect her to live by. Perfect.
The Rowland-Rell combine dodged a bullet when state judge Edward J. Mullarkey declined to sign off on State Attorney Christopher Morano's request for an arrest warrant for Rowland on ethics charges.
Given the historic nature of the ruling -- it would have been the first criminal prosecution under Connecticut's ethics law -- the learned jurist issued a long and thoughtful statement, right?
Wrong. Mullarkey turned down Murano in silence, although obviously the fact that he was reappointed to the bench by Rowland just last year had nothing to do with it.
Wonder what could have been going through his mind. Mullarkey didn't return calls from the Courant asking for comment. Maybe he'll explain it to you. His phone number is (860) 566-3861.
Chris "Both Ways" Shays is back from Maryland and on the verge of running for governor of Connecticut. If you had forgotten just what sort of character Shays really is, here are some more nonsensical comments from him.
MLN is powered by