News Roundup

President Bush's nomination of Judge Alito has paid off and Alito was confirmed today with a vote for 52-48. Both of our senators voted against him.

John Rowland has moved from his Pennslyvania jail, on the orders of a judge. The spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons was very vague on this, not say which court or why Rowland was moved.

The 2006 race in the 4th district between Chris Shays and Diane Ferrell is expected to be one of the tightest in the nation, and the money is already pouring in.

Tough Competition for Northeast GOP in Nov.?

According to the Courant, there will be, starting off an article with the line "On paper, Republican election prospects in the Northeast this fall look bleak." Regardless of whether of not that is true, it is a loaded line, and upon further analysis, potentially indicates bias.

For example, take the line "Any candidate who voices strong support for the war in Iraq is almost instantly an underdog." I disagree. I think that any Democrat who supports the war starts to run into problems, like Sen. Lieberman, but most Republicans still support the Iraq war. Reps. Chris Shays, Rob Simmons, and Nancy Johnson all support the war, and are predicted to win election bids, though Johnson may retire or even challenge Lieberman. Indeed, as 75% Republicans continue to support the war, Republican constituents probably expect Republican politicians to as well.

The article highlights politicians like Sen. Santorum, who has been falling behind in initial polling data to challenging Democrat Bob Casey Jr. However, little attention is given to politicians like Gov. Jodi Rell, who will very likely win in a complete landslide, the article merely calling the Connecticut governor a "favorite" in the approaching election. The author found it fit to reference the Santorum race polling data, but choose to ignore Jan. 12th polling data from Quinnipiac that found:

Gov. Rell defeating New Haven Mayor John DeStefano 64 - 21 percent; Rell beating Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy 68 - 17 percent.

Somehow, that doesn't quite fit with the article's title of "GOP Facing Battles in Blues."

Weicker to Support Lamont

From the Greenwich Time:

Former Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker remains open to challenging incumbent Joe Lieberman as an anti-war candidate despite the recent emergence of a potential dark horse in this year's Senate race.

That race would be a rematch of the 1988 Senate contest in which Lieberman unseated then-Republican incumbent and former Greenwich First Selectman Weicker.

"Everything stands exactly as I said before," Weicker, 74, said yesterday from his Essex home, nearly two months after threatening a political comeback against Lieberman and the Democrat's staunch support of the Iraq war.

...

"I can assure you, if Ned Lamont wins the Democratic nomination for United States Senate, at that point I would be gladly willing to step aside," Weicker said.

The two Lieberman critics have a history together, with Lamont serving under then-Gov. Weicker as chairman of the state's Investment Advisory Council, the fiduciary body in charge of state pensions.

"I think he'd make a terrific candidate," Weicker said of Lamont, who could not be reached for comment. "I wish him all the best."

It's time to look at the full picture, and not just the fact that Lieberman, along with the majority of Americans (depending on what poll you look at), supports a war. Another point to note is that while Democrats complain Sen. Lieberman is too close to President Bush, they turn to former Republican Weicker. Hypocritical?

Connecticutisms

As you can see on the sidebar, I have created a new section, Connecticutisms. The randomly generated quote is from a series of quotes that are about a number of different things and from all sorts of people, but ultimately all have to do with Connecticut. While I spent a great deal of effort to create a comprehesive list of quotes to be randomly selected from, I am sure that there are some that I missed. If you know one, email me or leave it in comments.

Lieberman Will Not Vote for Alito

Upon first learning the news, I think all are astonished. Sen. Joe Lieberman will not being voting to confirm Judge Sam Alito. The Connecticut Post reports:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., announced Thursday that he will oppose the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court because he fears an erosion of individual rights.

"Based on his personal statements during the 1980s when he was a government attorney, and particularly on his 15 years of judicial opinions, I am left with profound concerns that Judge Alito would diminish the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate guarantor of individual liberty in our country," Lieberman said. "This is not about a single issue but about an accumulation of his opinions that leads me to a preponderance of doubts."

Lieberman's analysis drew immediate praise from some Democrats who oppose Alito.

Lieberman had voted for Judge Roberts, and I had predicted he would vote for Alito. My assumption was based on Lieberman's classic voting traits, using integrity to make a personal decision. I hadn't guessed that, of all politicians, that Lieberman would cave in under pressure. But,

"He would be asking for increased primary opposition if he did not vote against Alito," Larry Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia said. "He has no real practical choice."

And, in truth, Lieberman didn't really have a choice. His base is deserting him, an extremely liberal Democrat is challenging him in the primaries, and sites disparaging him have become quite popular. Lieberman probably doesn't mind Alito, a qualified judge who has the support of all Republicans and a handful of Democrats. Alito will get confirmed either way, with or without Lieberman, and if the vote had been close, Lieberman probably would have supported Alito. I don't doubt that Lieberman has ample reason, mainly to protect himself in the coming election, to vote against Alito. I'm just surprised that Lieberman is entirely out-of-character, opposing a superb judicial nominee.

Malloy Gets to An Issue

Dan Malloy has proposed state health care coverage of all children who are uninsured. I'm not sure how far this will take him, and with only fuzzy details at the moment, its difficult to predict its potential political significance.

UPDATE: The Courant has an article on this, and DeStefano is firing back. DeStefano is quoted as saying: "Universal health care for children is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the course of the campaign, we will outline our health care plan, which is prevention-based, portable and focused on making health care more affordable and more accessible for adults and children alike, alleviating the incredible pressures on employers and families."

Endorsements for the Democrats

The race for the Democratic governor nomination has started to gain some real substance, steadily moving from the initial posturing stage into the cutthroat one.

Both DeStefano and Malloy have gained some decent respect and support from Connecticut politicians. From the Courant:

New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. rolled out a labor endorsement that he won weeks ago: a nod by the United Auto Workers that appears to give him a solid lead among union households.

Stamford Mayor Dannel P. Malloy, who was endorsed by a coalition of Hispanic politicians and a former New Haven mayor earlier this week, was backed hours later by House Speaker James A. Amann of Milford.

Malloy's endorsement from Amann is a big boost, if a little unconventional. It isn't typical for a House Speaker to endorse anyone, especially at this stage, and with Amann's political weight, it could be significant. There was some initial speculation leading up to this announcement, but it was nothing more than Malloy's camp just trying to wring out more publicity.

DeStefano's endorsements haven't come from the big-ticket names that Malloy seems to be courting, but from large but lesser known groups. This tactic might not produce as much publicity, but it still gives DeStefano a solid advantage.

Viewing at this with a wider lens, Malloy could be conducting the better campaign for endorsements. It can be rather safely assumed that Gov. Jodi Rell will be reelected, and that neither Malloy nor DeStefano will beat her. Malloy and DeStefano both recognize that their chances of winning the gubernatorial race are quite slim, and Malloy seems to be taking an approach that will be landing him with more potential for the future. If Malloy were to run for the House of Representatives in several years, associations with well-connected politicians will help more than past endorsements from groups.

On a side note, Blogger's service has been shaky today, and at times this blog may have been inaccesible. There also might have been minor template issues for some browsers.

Two Connecticuts?

Yes, according to a study conducted by the Yankee Institute. The institute, by studying data released by the government, concluded that their is a striking disparity between public and private sector jobs. Some of the results of the survey include:

* in most job categories, Connecticut's public-sector employees earn more than private-sector workers -- sometimes as much as 95 percent more

* the unionization rate has dropped to single digits in Connecticut's private sector, but the portion of public employees covered by collective-bargaining agreements is over 80 percent

* healthcare benefits in Connecticut's public sector are substantially better -- including the portion of insurance-plan cost that is covered by employers and the quality and variety of coverage offered

* job growth may be stagnant in the Nutmeg State's private sector, but that's not the case for government employment, which has outpaced Connecticut population growth by a factor of four since 1970

The Journal Inquirer also has an article on this. I'm not surprised by the study, and I think that most people could have guessed as much. It does help, however, bring the issue to light with defined statistics. With Connecticut legislators still focused on campaign finance reform, however, I'm not sure if many of them are willing to devote the time to develop solutions.

CT Republican Senators To Reform Campaign Finance Reform

As I have mentioned before, there are problems with the new campaign finance reform bill, some larger than others. The most glaring of all was the unattainable amount of signatures third-party candidates would need before getting on the ballot. Fortunately, Republican senators have listened, and have proposed two solutions:

One would lower barriers to Connecticut's new system of publicly financed campaigns for petitioning and minor-party candidates.

The other would close a loophole that they say allows political action committees to still underwrite campaigns with special interest money. Courant

One of the sponsors of the new modifications, Sen. John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said, "That's where the failure in the law lies, and if they are not fixed, that's where the blame will continue to lie." However, some Democrats are rejecting the changes, saying that it will diminishing the resources available to PACs and will render them far less effective. Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, the co-chairman of the government administration and elections committee, said he intends to submit alternative legislation to mend the bill.

It seems that just when you think the government has accomplished something, a problem will always arise to negate the feat. Granted, I've been saying since the beginning that the bill needed fixing, and I'm glad that they finally got around to it. But it brings up a new question: why did the legislature ever vote for a faulty bill? The details of the bill should have been worked out beforehand. The problem is, there is so much stagnation in the government that once a decent bill is proposed and breaks through the tedium, everyone is eager to vote for it to appearance that the government is hard at work, without being much concerned about the technicalities. The public, however, does care about the technicalities because they can have such sweeping impacts, like on third-party candidates. Now, campaign finance reform won't go away, because it wasn't solved the first time. Hopefully, the legislature will spend due time and effort on this the second time, to get a historic bill everyone in Connecticut can appreciate.

Sunday News Roundup

According to the Danbury News-Times, one Connecticut lawmaker wants to look into Connecticut Light and Power's slow response to storms last week, saying the "response time has gotten worse, not better," and that is "unconscionable."

According to the Waterbury Republican-American, questions about the integrity of Waterbury's records of registered voting have been raised, following the revelation that "former Mayor Philip A. Giordano, who has been in prison since 2001, was still listed as a voter."

According to the Hartford Courant, Scott MacLean will be taking on John. B. Larson in the 1st District. "MacLean, 51, of Hartland, a television director and ordained clergyman with no political experience, is challenging Democrat John B. Larson, the Hartford area's four-term congressman. 'I can proudly say I have never run for political office before,' MacLean told two reporters and two photographers who composed his audience. 'This is the first time ever. I haven't even made a political contribution before.'"

According the Hartford Courant, Ned Lamont was told by Mayor Eddie A. Perez to not run. Lamont smiled and said, "I don't think the mayor will be supporting me." My guess is that most state Democrats won't be supporting him either.

Interview with Paul Streitz: 2004 Senate Candidate and Potential 2006 Candidate

Paul Streitz has had a long and varied past, including time spent as a Shakespeare scholar, author, and a Senate candidate. Now, he has rallied many Connecticut residents to the issue of immigration control with his group Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, though the group has not been without its opposition. On the right is a picture of Mr. Streitz at the US/Mexico border.

For our readers, briefly what is your background?

I am a homeowner who lives in Darien. I work in NYC in market research. I am a graduate of Hamilton College and the Univ. of Chicago Business School. I served as an infantry platoon leader with the 82nd Airborne in Vietnam. I ran for the US Senate's Republican nomination in 2004 and may run again in 2006.

Why the transition from Shakespeare scholar?

I have written and produced two musicals. I became interested in the Earl of Oxford as an uncredited playwright and thought it might be a good play. However, as I got caught up in the research I decided to write a biography of the author, not a defense of him being Shakespeare. I did much reading of Queen Elizabeth I's early life and came to the conclusion that she had child when she was fourteen, almost fifteen, and that child was raised as the Earl of Oxford.

After finishing the book, Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I, and entering politics, I began to realize that Shakespeare/Oxford was more than a playwright. He is really the founder of the Anglo-American civilization (The other would be Alexander Hamilton). Shakespeare's works were both nationalistic and also a higher intellectual and psychological level than anything before. Queen Elizabeth I had virtually no influce on the era. It was Oxford as playwright and intellectual force. In the short time of Elizabeth's reign, you went from sociopaths like Henry VIII to the rule of law. This was done by Oxford transmitting the ideas with the plays as propaganda, or moral lessons for a population that was 95% illiterate. He also wrote the King James Version of the Bible, after his disappearance in 1604.

The transition was that I began looking at my daughter's future and decided that it was grim. So, I wrote some papers which turned into two books: The Great American College Tuition Rip-Off and Restoring America's Prosperity. The second book was a repudiation of free market economics and a proposal to return to Hamiltonian economics which built this country. Between immigration and free trade we are headed toward being a third world nation.

Why are you considering to run for the Senate?

Writing will get you only so far. At some point ideas have to emerge into political candidates and winning platforms. Otherwise, they can just stay in space. Plus, I thought that time was critical. Mass immigration and the destruction of American industry will destroy the country in a way that it will not be able to be put back together again. It was a question of importance. Few saw the disaster on the horizon. Incipient problems are always denied and shuffled aside, until they reach a critical point. In 2004, the Republican conservatives kept quiet about Bush's policies on immigration. Immediately, after his election, the fight began.

Why do you feel that immigration is such an important issue in Connecticut?

Immigration and free trade are different sides of the same coin: the replacement of American labor for cheap foreign labor. The cheap labor comes in the form of goods manufactured abroad, outsouring intellectual activities and importing cheap workers, either low skill workers or high tech workers. It is a labor problem and driven by companies wanting to increase their bottom line. There are 50,000 to 75,000 illegals in CT. They lower wages, they cause quality of life problems and massive economic problems.

What do you feel needs to be done in Connecticut and the nation as a whole regarding immigration?

We need to enforce our laws. Protect the border and No Amnesty. This is the answer to the illegal problem. Enforcement on employers is the key, not trying to deport millions of illegals. If the jobs dry up, the illegals will go home.

At the legal level, we need to reduce immigration to 1965 levels of 165,000 a year, not the 1.2 million per year we have had for the past decade. An immigration moratorium of seven or ten years would be good. Further, we need to repeal the H-1B and L1 and other technical visas and send these guest workers home. They simply rob Americans of jobs for lower wages.

The Westchester Weekly addresses some of the names that that you have been called, "reckless vigilante" as an example. How do you respond?

There is what I call advocacy journalism, which is practiced by most newspapers. The object is to discredit something they dislike not to report the facts and then give interpretations. Usually the article starts off with something negative, like "Few protesters showed up..." Then they leave out key facts. In an article about a letter delivered to Lieberman, it left out the fact that 100 CT residents had signed it and 250 other Americans.

A well-used technique is to engage in slander by quoting another source, as if that source's comments had any basis in fact. "It is reported that you are a communist," then the interviewee is supposed to try to prove why he is not a communist. My general answer is simply that this is slander and shows the opposition has no credible facts that they want to argue. When you ask, what makes you say that, what evidence do you have of that? You get blank stares.

The Fairfield Weekly was a very good example of such journalism. In it, the writer wants to ratchet up the level of aggression and verbal violence, which in turn then justifies violence against those proposing immigration controls. The article has its facts wrong right from the beginning: my car is blue not white, my hat is not leather, my dog is not a terrier and there are 150, not 800 McDonald's in CT. In addition, he simply fabricated quotes. He is a student of journalism at Yale, so while I expected the article to be negative toward my outlook, that it would be such a fabrication of misinformation and fantasy was beyond my immagination.

Anything you would like to add?

2006 is just the start of change. Immigration candidates are going to win in the USA. The country has to solve this problem. It most impacts on middle class and lower income voters, not the upper middle class and wealthy, who enjoy the fruits of cheap labor. 2008 the candidate that will be elected will be a Republican that supports strong immigration control. It may almost be the end of the Democratic Party over this issue.

Empty Exchange with Ned Lamont

Yesterday, CT Local Politics invited Ned Lamont onto the site and had a live online question and answer session with whoever was interested. Not surprisingly, the crowd that showed up to ask questions was quite liberal. A poll on the site has Ned Lamont winning 68% of the vote to the question "If the election for U.S. Senator were held today, for whom would you vote?" In contrast, Joe Lieberman only received 13% and "a Republican candidate" but 11%.
Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont for 2006 Connecticut Senate, Ned Lamont CT Senate, Lieberman
At the Q-and-A session, the questions online users asked were extremely mild. Ned Lamont was forced to think about the responses to difficult questions like:

1. "Ned, do you have a website?"- Cheryl
   "We'll have a web site up by early next month."- Lamont
   
2. "Will you be in New Haven this Saturday?"- inkadu
   "I'll be in New Haven on the 28th at 10:30 am, public library"- Lamont
   
3. "Other than give money, what can those of us who live out of state do to help your campaign?"-Mike
   "The web will make clear how you can help."- Lamont
   
4. "Who are your political heros?"- MikeCT
   
5. "Can you name two or three of your favorite Senators?"- TrueBlueCT

For some reason, the last two were too difficult for Lamont to answer, and they were never addressed. Lamont certain saw the questions. The last question from TrueBlueCT was asked in a series of three questions, another question being "where do you stand on the torture question?" That's a tough one to answer. Is there even a choice on that one? It's not as if a candidate can say they support torture. Regardless, Lamont did answer the torture question, but skipped the one on favorite senators and political heroes, which would have allowed us to understand who he is much better than a question on torture.
Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont for 2006 Connecticut Senate, Ned Lamont CT Senate, Lieberman
It's not his fault that he was lobbed generally easy questions by people who support him, but he should have at least answered the questions that were mildly difficult and insightful. The author of the site, Genghis Conn, did a great job of putting the session together, but it fell flat in terms of real value. Nearing the end, there was one question that I want to note:

A Moderate Dem. Sick of Radical Liberalism said...
i find it such a sad reflection of the Democratic party that they want to kick Joe out of the Senate. Joe was only several hundred votes away from being our vice-president today, for the Democrats. Joe has been and is a leader of the Democratic party, and yet the Democrats are using the blanket litmus test of the War in Iraq to kick out all moderates from the party. The irony here is that even if you, Ned, do manage to beat Joe in the primaries, you won't get elected to the Senate. Connecticut likes Joe because he is a moderate who cares about the people. The only people who don't like him are the left-wing Democrats, like yourself, who are using one issue to purge the party to make it radically left. If the Democrats do kick out Joe, Connecticut as a whole will be disgusted by the radical liberalism of the Democrats and their choice candidate, and vote for the Republican candidate. Shouldn't that be the last thing you want, Ned?

So, my question for you is this. Would you rather beat Joe and have a Republican win the Senate? Or would you rather lose to Joe and keep the seat Democratic?

You can't pick the option "I will win both." Because you won't. Period. Don't try to say you will, and don't try to cop-out of the question by doing a variation of that. Pick one of the options, plain and simple. As simple as your views are on Iraq, right? You can only be for or against. You can't be a moderate anymore in the Democratic party. This will only spell the end of the Democrats and the rise of moderate Republicans, like McCain, Guiliani, Swarteneggar, Shays, Simmons, Johnson, like so many more.

Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont for 2006 Connecticut Senate, Ned Lamont CT Senate, Lieberman
That is a good question. I'm not sure if that person had ever read my site, but I've mentioned several of those points before. While perhaps the person could have phrased some parts better, the question itself is an excellent one. But...there was no answer. Granted, the question was asked very late in the session. However, Ned Lamont posted twice after that question, meaning that it would have been very difficult for Lamont to have somehow missed the question. Six minutes later, still waiting, the same author prompted Lamont to answer the question, but no response ever came. When it became apparent nearly fifteen minutes after the question was orginally posed that Lamont would not answer it, Lamont's liberal followers scrambled to defend him:

TrueBlueCT said:
First of all, no matter what happens CT will not be sending a Republican to boost the current Senate majority. The trend is in the other direction, and the Republicans have a weak bench.

Second, this isn't a purge. It isn't about ideology either. There is plenty of room in the Democratic tent for moderates. But that's not the problem with Joe.

Lieberman's problem is that he has not been loyal to the Democratic Party. His FoxNews appearances have done significant damage to our collective message, and any Dem who thinks Sean Hannity is "a wonderful American" deserves a primary.

This is all about Joe acting like a rat, and by no means a left-wing purge.

P.S. you'll be disappointed to learn that there is litte radical about Mr. Lamont. In fact, that's what scares the heck out of Joe.

Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont for 2006 Connecticut Senate, Ned Lamont CT Senate, Lieberman
The Republicans certainly won't have a weak bench if Lamont runs. Then you can bet the GOP will run a serious and qualified candidate, and come November, will be celebrating the addition of a new Senate seat. Secondly, the responder said "It isn't about ideology either" yet then disparages Lieberman for calling Hannity "a wonderful American." Hannity does alot of work with the Freedom Alliance Fund, which gives money to the children of slain soldiers. And Lieberman can't call him a wonderful American? I thought it wasn't supposed to be about the ideology...
Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont for 2006 Connecticut Senate, Ned Lamont CT Senate, LiebermanLieberman kept on winning because he had wide support from both Democrats and Republicans. His central views have made him popular in Connecticut, and he had been a leader of the Democratic party. He was once nearly our vice-president, and he ran for president in 2004, though the campaign flopped. However, with the Democrats moving left, they have left behind the centrists, and now Lieberman has no support from his own party. If Lieberman wins the primary, he will keep the Senate seat without a doubt. If Lamont beats Joe, Lamont will probably lose to the Republican candidate because Lamont is so far left that, aside from the radical anti-war left, Republicans and moderate Democrats will vote for the alternative. And make no mistake, he is very liberal. Here are some of his comments from the Q-and-A session:
Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont for Connecticut Senate

"I will use the bully pulpit as a candidate and hopefully as a senator to make universal affordable healthcare a priority for this country. Senator Lieberman has not really addressed this crisis during his three terms."

"The Democrats should unite in opposing Judge Alito- see civil liberties, choice- he represents a deciding vote and a fundamental shift in the court. Democrats must fight this nomination vigorously."

Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont for Connecticut Senate
He didn't really answer the question asked of him on Alito, which was "would you support a filibuster for the Alito nomination and would you not be afraid to do whatever you felt was right even if the Democratic leadership opposed it?" Again, what was a thoughtful question turned into an answer devoid of much meaning. What his responses do tell us though are his leftist views, including on universal healthcare and Judge Alito, who is an extremely qualified and talented judge. Anyone who could support a filibuster on Judge Alito is extremely liberal. Even Democratic Sen. Diana Fienstein said she would not support it. While Lamont's supporters may say there is "little radical about him," to support filibuster of Alito when typical Democrats do not does seem to be on the path of "a little radical". As Sen. Fienstein said on Alito, "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court." Democrats should take that advice with Lieberman on the issue of Iraq.
Ned Lamont, Ned Lamont for Connecticut Senate

Blunt Support

Missouri Republican Roy Blunt is Tom DeLay's hand-picked successor as House majority leader. Though Blunt is staunchly conservative, our representatives, specifically Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays, have been backing him enthusiastically. The Courant explains:

But backing Blunt opens Johnson, Shays and other Republican centrists to questions - and in some cases withering attacks - from reformers and Democrats. And should Blunt lose - a distinct possibility - the two could be more isolated.

It makes sense for them to support Blunt, which would provide them safety in the coming months for their moderate views. However, Democrats want to know if this is more about politics than reform:

"What's so unbelievable to me is that she was so quick to jump on Blunt's bandwagon," state Sen. Chris Murphy said of Johnson, R-5th District, whom he hopes to unseat. "It seems she has no interest in changing the culture of Washington."

Shays has benefited from fundraisers involving Blunt, which must be at least a minor impetus for Shay's support. The Democrats are, without a doubt, blowing smoke around the issues, trying to obfuscate the truth by making what are at best tenuous links between Blunt and DeLay, and what are at worst blatant lies. As the smoke clears, we'll be able to get a better understanding of Blunt, and be able to evaluate our representative's decision.

Interview with Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate

As many readers know, I have long held beliefs valued by the Libertarian Party, sharing views on issues like Social Security reform, welfare, the economy, and gun control. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to interview Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate and ask him some questions about New England, his future plans, and more. Below is a transcript of the interview.

New England seems to be the one area of the country in which Libertarians have made the least headway. Do you have any thoughts on why this is, and perhaps what is being done about it?

Almost every part of the country feels that way about itself, but I disagree. Libertarians have made headway in New England. In 2002, Carla Howell ran for Governor of Massachusetts on a campaign platform to end the state income tax. The ballot initiative won 45.3% of the vote in a state often referred to as "Taxachusetts". (see http://www.carlahowell.org ) The Free State Project selected New Hampshire as the location that Libertarians and other small government advocates have been moving to in order to limit control of the state government. (see http://www.freestateproject.org) I also heard rumors (and they are just RUMORS, mind you) that Killington, Vermont wanted to secede to become part of New Hampshire, and that Vermont wanted to secede to leave the union completely. This doesn't sound like Libertarians are not having an effect in that area. I don't know of any special efforts being made by Libertarians to focus specifically on New England, however.

Compared to Republicans and Democrats, do you think that the Libertarians are held back by a lack of funding or by a lack of popular support?

I think the only thing holding Libertarians back are the Republicans and Democrats! Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and I were both legitimate candidates from legitimate political parties, and yet we were arrested and handcuffed attempting to attend the presidential debates in St. Louis, Missouri in 2004. To make matters worse, there was no media coverage of that fact whatsoever on any of the major networks. David Cobb and I also contested the vote count in Ohio - NOT because we thought there was any chance of changing the outcome of the election, but because of the widespread vote fraud that was being reported across the state. Once the general public becomes more aware of the Libertarian Party, and even more disgusted than they already are of "politics as usual", I think there will be a swift and dramatic shift of power in Washington to the Libertarian and other "third" parties.

What is, in your opinion, the biggest issue of the day?

I believe the root of the biggest issue is a lack of public trust in the government. The Supreme Court decided in favor of eminent domain, so we can't trust the government to keep its hands off our homes if someone else can make a profit using our property. FEMA's lack of response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita was a bigger disaster than the weather itself. People now realize that we can't trust the government to protect us the way it has promised. More recently George W. Bush admitted on national television that his administration has been spying on people inside the United States without obtaining the necessary court-issued warrants demanded by the Fourth Amendment. It has become obvious that we can't trust the government to respect our privacy, or ANY of the restrictions placed on it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our federal government is completely out of control. What could possibly be a bigger issue than that?

You will be running for Congress in 2006. Can we expect you to run again for president in 2008?

I have every intention of winning my congressional race, so you should expect me to be running for re-election in 2008. Rather than give up the House seat that I will have worked so hard to obtain, it will be more practical for me to endorse whomever the Libertarian Party nominates at their 2006 convention to make sure that person is included in the next series of presidential debates. Imagine how dramatically our world will change when Americans are allowed to hear practical solutions for our problems that do not compromise the Constitution in order to implement them.

How are you going to go about running against incumbent Rep. Michael McCaul in Texas's tenth district?

Very aggressively. I begin meeting the voters face to face this week with a "Listening Tour" - a series of town hall meetings in various cities within the district. Before I develop plans to represent the voters in District 10, I want to know what issues are of most concern to them. We are planning to walk as many miles through the district as my legs will allow, and I'm going to give them a closer connection to their federal government than they've ever dreamed was possible. I want them to know that this is THEIR government, and it is supposed to be protecting THEIR rights. I want them to know that "all politics is personal."

President Bush is currently receiving bad press from his authorization of wiretappings without warrants. How do you feel an individual's privacy and a government's obligation to protect citizens can be balanced?

First of all I want to eliminate the fallacy that there is "a balance" between individual rights and government obligations or privileges. No amount of government obligation can supercede an individual's rights! That is precisely the argument that this and other administrations have used to whittle away at the Constitution to the point that our own chief executive screams that the Constitution is "nothing but a goddamned piece of paper!" The government is still required to get a court-issued warrant, "supported by oath or affirmation," before searching or seizing our property or persons in connection with a crime. However, in order to get the warrant there must already be sufficient evidence of a crime to convince the judge to issue the warrant. In other words, the person whose property is about to be taken has already committed a crime, and has thereby waived his or her right to privacy or property. What I would really like to see in this country is a "zero tolerance policy" on violations of the supreme law of the land! I think ANY government representative or employee caught violating the Constitution should be tried and if convicted, imprisoned. Is it too much to ask for them to actually UPHOLD their oath of office?

Some people have criticized you for, with David Cobb, authorizing an expensive recount of Ohio's 2004 election results when Sen. John Kerry did not. How do you respond?

The answer is very simple once the question has been properly restated. Do the voters in Ohio have the right to expect fair and open elections? Yes. Absolutely. Do the voters in Ohio have the right to a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the vote count? Yes, I believe they do. Do candidates for federal office have an obligation to report election fraud that may be depriving the voters of Ohio from the "fair and open elections" they have a right to expect? Once again, I think the answer is obviously YES! Isn't it a sad reflection on our society that two unknown candidates with little or no resources are the ones demonstrating high levels of integrity, when the two major party candidates are shrugging their shoulders as if criminal negligence is to be expected of our government leaders? Finally, with regard to authorizing an expensive recount in Ohio, I think it is very dangerous to put this kind of a price tag on freedom. Should we allow communism to take over the world because it's just too expensive to protect our liberty? I certainly hope not.

Are there any demographics that you specifically target?

Living individuals who are sincerely interested in protecting their life, liberty, and private property.

Anything you would like to add?

In any decision about your life, either YOU can make that decision, or the GOVERNMENT can make the decision for you. If you have the "audacity" to think that you are mature enough to make decisions about your own life without government help or interference - they you are probably a Libertarian, too. To find out more about the Libertarian Party, please visit www.LP.org. To find out more about my congressional campaign here in Texas District 10, please visit www.Badnarik.org or call 800-807-7552. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!

Michael Badnarik

I will have some of my own thoughts on his responses tomorrow. If you want to respond, feel free to leave a comment. Michael Badnarik is an extremely intelligent man and his points on perserving the integrity of the Constitution are right on. I would encourage all of you to look into the beliefs of the Libertarian Party yourself.

Connecticut and Alito

Both Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Dodd say they are unsure of how they will be voting on the approaching confirmation of Judge Alito. It looks like we should have the final vote within a week:

Following Tuesday's scheduled vote, three days of floor consideration are scheduled, with a pivotal cloture vote expected Friday, requiring a 60-vote supermajority to end debate and proceed with a final vote. New Britain Herald

Sen. Arlen Specter from Pennsylvaniaa has already voiced his support for Alito. Specter is typically quite a liberal Republican, and for him to come out so early and announce his backing of Alito bodes well for the confirmation. With Specter voting for Alito, without doubt every conservative Republican will too. However, Sen. Lieberman hasn't yet been so forthcoming. "I have said that I will wait until after the Judiciary Committee hearings and vote before reaching any decision relating to Judge Alito's nomination," Lieberman said. Republican Republican
I'm sure that Lieberman will end up voting to confirm Alito. He voted to confirm Roberts, and in situations like this, Lieberman isn't willing to side with the far-left fringe elements of his party by voting against a highly-qualified judge. Dodd is still up in question. Like Lieberman, he did vote for Roberts, but Dodd, when in doubt, almost always sides with his party. In in this case, more Democrats than just Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy will be voting against Alito for specious reasons, and this opposition is likely more of a vote against President Bush and Republicans that it is a vote against Alito. Like with Roberts, every Republican will end up voting to confirm Alito, and with some of the more reasonable Democrats like Lieberman, Alito should end up with about sixty votes, if not more. Republican Republican

Money Matters

That's 'matters' as a noun, not a verb, based on a recent article in the Norwalk Advocate. The article reports on the November in Norwalk, in which Democratic incumbent Alex Knopp outspent challenging Republican Richard Moccia by a margin greater than 2 to 1. Officially, incumbent mayor Knopp raised $92,073 and spent $90,389 while Moccia raised $43,297 and spent $40,704. Moccia squeezed out a victory by only 176 votes, beating Knopp, who was running for his third term.

This case is quite relevant to the current showdown in the Democratic party for the gubernatorial nomination. Malloy has recently been raising more money, and gaining momentum. While DeStefano has more money in total, Malloy could beat him out by continuing his solid campaign. Furthermore, I take this case to be a lesson for all Democratic incumbents. Republicans can and will get out to vote when the candidate is right. There is a myth that the Democrats as a whole, care much more about political activism and political involvement that the more aloof Republicans. This demonstrates quite clearly that this isn't the case and that money and incumbency can only take one so far. DeLauro and Larson should keep this in mind in 2006, though Lieberman is probably the most susceptible of all.

News on Newton

I didn't think it could get much worse for former state Sen. Ernest Newton. But, apparently it has. His is being relentlessly attacked by state prosecutors, who are calling him "a shameless hustler who worked for mobsters, shook down social service agencies, stole from his own campaign treasury and had the audacity to demand a raise after obtaining a no-show job through the city of Bridgeport" (Courant).

The ironic part of this is that the bribes he took were all quite small, the greatest being $5000 dollars. It hardly seems worth it to risk an entire career for $5000. But then again, Newton doesn't really seem think logically. He has attributed his indictment to racism, a completely spurious claim. Indeed, it will only end up hurting minorities who may actually have legitimate claims of racism. Newton himself has gone far past the point of excuses and understandable explanations, and playing the racist card will only hurt his case.

Connecticut should be glad to be rid of Newton. He has consistently demonstrated unreasonable logic, which reflects poorly on the Connecticut Senate as a whole, and his corruption now only tars us further with the stain of Rowland.

Lieberman the Independent

Well, he is already independent enough. In response to questions being raised about whether or not he will actually win the primary, he said:

"I intend to be on the ballot in November," he declared.

He also did not seem concerned with the additional competition.

"Anybody who wants to challenge me, if they think they can do a better job than I've done for the state ... and our country, that's their right," he said. "And I'm ready, whether it's Lowell Weicker or anybody else."

He said there is room for differences of opinion within the Democratic party, and "if you disagree with me on the war in Iraq, I hope you'll at least respect the fact that I'm taking this position because I sincerely believe it's right for the security of the United States of America."

The full story is here. To be honest, it's no big surprise. Lieberman already does well enough with Republicans. It seems right now it's just his own party that he has to be concerned about.

The Alito Factor

It seems that Supreme Court justices aren't just evaluated by senators anymore. Some New England politicians have joined into Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation debate.

Former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman said:

"While some have suggested that Judge Alito has an ideological agenda, I believe that an honest and complete review of his record, as a whole, will find that his only agenda is fidelity to his judicial craft," she said. "If Judge Alito has a bias, it's in favor of narrowly drawn opinions that respect precedent and reflect the facts before him." Newsmax

The response from Connecticut hasn't been so pleasant. For rather vague reasons, Dan Malloy, the Stamford Mayor running for Connecticut governor, commented in a public letter on Alito. Mayor Malloy has no connection to the Alito confirmations, yet, for political reasons, saw fit to do so. Why? Malloy saw an easy target, and took advantage of it to get into the news. His letter addressed to Senators Lieberman and Dodd has little substance, and is even contradictory. He mentions how he wants Roe vs. Wade preserved, a classic Democratic platform for ages now. No surprises there. If a Democrat can find a way to get out to the public that he wants Roe. vs. Wade upheld, he'll bend over backwards to do so. Malloy's writing is generally verbose, yet ultimately the reader is left with little to ponder. For example, he writes:

"I know all too well the critical role our judiciary -- at every level -- plays in not only providing justice and security for all in our society, but also its fundamental responsibility in interpreting our nation's Constitution and laws when it comes to protecting the vital rights of our citizens, regardless of age, race, sex, sexual preference or economic standing. "

Which leaves the reader wondering exactly what his point is, aside from trying to make a letter longer than several sentences in length. He finally does get down to a point:

I find his judicial philosophy dangerously far out of the mainstream of both American jurisprudence and politics. In replacing retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose moderate conservatism has made her deeply respected on all sides of the political spectrum as a thoughtful and conscientious "swing vote" on the Court, with a fiercely right-wing ideologue, the President has thrown a sop to the extreme elements of his political base and threatens to inexorably alter the very nature of the Supreme Court for decades to come.

Fiercely right-wing ideologue? Extreme elements? Malloy seems that he would rather lose a gubernatorial race against Rell than have Alito be nominated, if Alito would "inexorably alter" America. Evidently, Malloy finds any shift to the right on the court a grievous threat. Yet he still finds it reasonable to claim:

While, in the spirit of fairness, I intend to withhold judgment on Judge Alito's nomination until the completion of the committee's hearings.

In the spirit of fairness, I feel like I can call his letter the work of a fiercely liberal ideologue who wants to please the extremes Democratic element in Connecticut. Oh, wait, maybe that isn't fair...

Democrats and Teachers Quid Pro Quo

The CT Post is reporting that "majority Democrats said Friday that they will take about $250 million out of the budget surplus to plow into the neglected Teachers' Retirement System." As over 90% of NEA donations are to Democrats, are the Democrats now just trying to look out for one of their main donors?

Democrats are Through with Sen. Lieberman

In recent Connecticut news...

John DeStefano's mayoral and gubernatorial campaigns were slightly mixed-up. A secretary for the mayor received calls regarding his gubernatorial campaign. All in all, no laws were violated, and the small mistake shouldn't hurt DeStefano.

Rumors that Sen. Joe Lieberman will be challenged in the Democratic primaries appear to be true. From the liberal DailyKos:

He has not formally announced yet, but he is laying the groundwork to run against Lieberman in the Democratic primary. I know you've never heard of Ned Lamont; but you are going to hear a lot about him in the coming months. He is a businessman from Greenwich, Connecticut; a progressive Democrat who is anti-war, pro-privacy and civil liberties; with the moxie and the money to go head to head with holy Joe for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Connecticut.

After spending an hour talking with Ned Lamont yesterday, I can assure you, he is the real thing. He has a tremendous intellect, but doesn't condescend or talk like a patrician. I think of him as a Jon Corzine with charisma. He's a big thinker who backs up his talk with action.

As I have mentioned before, the Democratic Party can't stand a moderate liberal. They are becoming a party of the far-left, intolerant of anyone who still thinks that America did the right thing when we removed a corrupt and murderous dictator and averse to anyone who could consider abortion morally unacceptable. They are hostile to everyone who doesn't follow their supposed creed of tolerance and open-mindedness, and somehow they can't find a way to tolerate Joe Lieberman, who had been an emblematic Democrat in 2000. So, now his party wants to kick him out of the Senate.

Republicans back politicians like Sen. John McCain from Arizona, and Reps. Rob Simmons and Chris Shays from Connecticut, who are all significantly more liberal than Lieberman is conservative. Democrats are using a litmus test of the Iraq War and abortion to evaluate every liberal. Come election time, the polarization of the Democrats will only hurt them, as moderates voters will support the only moderates left, the ones in the Republican Party. For the Democrat's own sake, they should quit splitting apart their own party or else the Senate seat will end up going to the challenging Republican, which should be the last thing that they should want.

To the Golden Parachute

Breaking news, from the Courant:

Larry Gold, president and chief executive officer of Connecticut Children's Medical Center, resigned today, sending another aftershock through the institution that has been rocked by allegations that management and procedural lapses have jeopardized patient safety.

Gold, who was hired nine years ago to guide the hospital out of a financial crisis, enjoyed a highly successful tenure until last May. Then, the state health department placed the hospital on probation and imposed a $250,000 fine, citing numerous violations that may have contributed to the deaths of three children.

In his prepared statement explaining his decision, he wrote:

"Though this was a difficult decision and one made after a great deal of deliberation, I am stepping back so that CCMC can continue to move forward to an exciting future. I believe that the new leadership will allow CCMC to leverage [an] opportunity to become even stronger and assume a national presence in the next decade.''

More on this later. On a side note, I am currently working on a "Features" section for this blog, which will serve as a comprehensive resource on a variety of Connecticut issues and elected officials. Hopefully it will be up within a week.

Grading Connecticut Schools

According to a newly released report, "Connecticut students didn't improve their scores on national or state tests last year and the state made little progress closing the achievement gap between students in wealthy towns and those in poorer cities" (News-Times). Also, Education Week, released its evaluation of education in states, giving Connecticut an A on its efforts to improve teacher quality a B- on standards, accountability, and school climate and a C in resources equity.

Overall, the results are generally encouraging. One problem that I have is that the state's accountability score "was lower because Connecticut has not taken steps to close or withhold funds from schools that aren't doing well. The state also doesn't have an exam all students must pass before they can graduate...[and] didn't report clear and specific standards in English, as did higher scoring states" (News-Times). Holding students accountable to have a firm grasp of the English language should be our first priority. Also, schools which fail to meet certain standards should have to face consequences, be it punishment or state intervention. According to the last census, states spent an average of $7,701 per pupil. Connecticut spent $9753. With spending like that, we should be getting better results than just an A, B-, and C.

A Full-Time Job? Or Just a Full-Time Salary?

Some Connecticut legislators have begun to voice the opinion that their job should be full-time, according to the Stamford Advocate. Currently, only a few large states, specifically New York, Pennsylvania, California and Michigan, have full-time legislators. Recently, Connecticut has has three lengthy special sessions, prompting questions of whether or not it is feasible for legislators to hold two jobs.

"A decision needs to be made whether we're going to be a part-time legislature or a full-time legislature," said state Rep. Joseph Mann, D-Norwalk, who works for the Norwalk anti-poverty agency NEON. "If we're part-time, there's an expectation that we need to be off doing our (other) jobs. I have a real job, and part of my situation is it's understood that I have to be up there for the five months and then I'm down at my job. But when there's a special session, there's a problem. We need to do what we need to do when we're there and those things that aren't earth-shattering should wait" (Stamford Advocate).

Personally, I think its partly about the money, and the legislators want as much as they can get. Senators and representatives currently are paid $28,000 per year, plus several a several thousand dollar stipend. Already, they make $12,000 more than the national average. A full-time legislator would require full-time pay for work that shouldn't be full-time. I'm not denying that it is a significant time commitment. It is. But as House Speaker James Amann said, "I got a couple people who complained about it, and quite frankly, I said, 'If you don't want to be a legislator, don't run. Period'" (Stamford Advocate).

States like Florida and Texas, which are immensely larger, don't have full-time legislators. Why should Connecticut? It would only make our government less efficient that it already is. Legislators should be able to wrap up all bills within the give schedule, and the recent special sessions don't indicate a growing commitment, only that the legislature is becoming more inefficient. When the legislature is running full tilt, without wasting any time whatsoever, then they can voice that concern. Until then, if they've been so busy, where's the eminent domain restrictions we've been waiting on for so long now?

Connecticut's Biggest Winners

In Connecticut in 2005, a few people lost really badly, but many people had small victories. For example, Democrat Christine Abercrombie won in 83rd House district. But what I'm not going to do is focus on all of the minor victories, like Abercrombie's. Instead, four people had victories of note in 2005. So here they are, listed in order, leading to the biggest winner of 2005:

4. Dan Malloy

Malloy had been under investigation for charges of corruption. During this time, he voluntarily stopped campaigning, and largely withdrew from the public eye, giving his rivals a distinct advantage. Fortunately for him, he was exonerated from all corruption charges, allowing him to enter the campaign again, and since then, he has raised money at a faster rate than John DeStefano.

In the November elections, DeStefano received 75.44% of the New Haven votes compared with Malloy's 50.97% in Stamford. It certainly did not seem to bode well for Malloy. However, Malloy was running against a Republican and a Green; DeStefano had but four minor third-party candidates as competition. Also, DeStefano only received 9,199 votes to Malloy's 12,384, even though DeStefano's New Haven is more populous. So the election results are more convoluted than they initially appear, and Malloy should be lucky he is still competitive in the race. Susan Bysiewicz certainly can't say that.

3. Rob Simmons

Representative Rob Simmons' fate in the 2006 election seemed to hinge on the future of the Groton sub base. If it stayed, so would Simmons. As it turned out, despite huge odds, it did remain open. Simmons played a large role in keep in that victory, and many voters will likely thank him next November, and keep him in office.

2. Michael Jarjura

Democratic Mayor Michael Jarjura in Waterbury had lost in his primaries by only 260 votes. Vowing to press on, he ran as a write-in candidate, and actually won. Without his name even appearing in the voting machine, he managed to take 38.5% of the vote, with Karen Mulcahy, the Democrat who had beaten him in the primaries, finishing second with 26.56%.

Governor Jodi Rell

Rasmussen Report has found that "87% of Connecticut voters have a favorable opinion of Rell and 81% approve of the way she's doing her job." In a hypothetical election against Dan Malloy, Rasmussen found that Gov. Rell would win with 65% of the vote to Malloy's 21%. If Rell were to go against DeStefano, 65% of the voters said they would vote for Rell, and 19% for DeStefano.

This isn't anything new. From California Yankee:

Governor Rell's high approval ratings shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has been following Rell since she become governor 18 months ago. Six weeks after taking office, a Quinnipiac University poll found 73 percent of voters approved of her job performance. By January 2005 Rell's approval was 83 percent, the highest of any public official in Quinnipiac history. And the governor's rating still stood at 79 percent in July.

As if she needed any more good news, she helped save the Groton sub base, got campaign finance reform passed, and is running a campaign without any money from PACs or lobbyists. The best of luck to Malloy or DeStefano next year. Rather than hoping to beat her, they should just try to make sure they don't end up making themselves look bad with only 20% of the vote in case they want to run again in future years.

Connecticut's Biggest Losers

To help conclude 2005 and start off 2006, I've decided to bring to light the biggest losers in Connecticut politics over the past year. I'm not using 'loser' in a pejorative sense, but rather I hope to address the question 'who has had the worst year, politically?'. For Joe Lieberman, though he is doing the right thing by following his values and beliefs, he has lost a significant amount of his base and party, making him qualify for the list. Expect the awards for the political winners tomorrow. And so, without further ado, I present to you the seven biggest losers in Connecticut politics in 2005, in order, leading up to the worst loser of all:

7. Michael Ross

In some respects, this goes without saying. He died, the first person to be executed in New England in forty years. Yet, isn't that what he wanted? Isn't that why he voluntarily dropped all of his appeals? Didn't he receive repeated front-page coverage in almost every New England paper, and isn't his name now known by almost everyone in Connecticut? Perhaps he considered himself a winner after all.

6. John Rowland

The really tumultuous events occurred in 2004, yet 2005 wasn't so great for him either. He was in jail after being the youngest governor in Connecticut history, and in August he was investigated once again for another violation of ethics laws, this time regarding the state's "revolving door policy," which prohibited an elected official from approaching his former office on behalf of a private contractor.

5. Senator Joe Lieberman

Republicans have never loved him. With the Iraq War starting to sour but Lieberman as staunch a supporter as ever, Democrats are now starting to hate him. (See yesterday's post for more details). The nation rejected him as Al Gore's vice-presidential candidate in the 2000 presidential election, and in 2004, his presidential attempt completely flopped. He's never had great luck, but 2005 only made his political life worse. Now he seems to be left without many supporters while approaching an election in which his own party wants to vote him out.

4. Susan Bysiewicz

Once considered to be the frontrunner among Democrats willing to challenge Jodi Rell, she withdrew after lackluster fundraising. Now, she’s even riled Democrats when she ran for reelection as Connecticut Secretary of State, an act redolent of hypocrisy.

3. Lisa Moody

Gov. Jodi Rell's chief of staff, she is currently being investigated for violating campaign ethics rules. Even if she gets off (which it is looking like she won't), this will only hurt Rell's image of being against corruption. And Moody herself will likely be facing jail time.

2. The Connecticut Green Party and Libertarian Party

Though all third-parties are hurt as well from the new campaign finance reform, it will hurt the major two the most. For example, a third-party needs to raise 200,000 signatures to get public money to run for governor. That is, without a doubt, impossible for any third-party today. While the parties will still be able to run candidates, they will only matter less and less are they become incredibly outclassed by the big budgets of the Republicans and Democrats. The campaign finance could even spell the deaths of third-parties in Connecticut.

1. Sen. Ernest Newton

Once considered one of the more influential Democratic state senators, he resigned while under investigation for accepting bribes. Ultimately, he pleaded guilty to three felonies. He became the Democrat's Rowland, except the Democrats were much more willing to forget about him than Rowland.

Disagree with my picks? Feel free to explain why in the comments.