The Influence of the Internet

The Courant has a new article about Sen. Dodd's attempt to appeal to the Internet crowd by using YouTube, blogs, and a straightforward website. It's nothing that many of you already don't know. Another article takes the focus off of Dodd into a more macroscopic piece about all of the presidential candidates. Again, the information is just old information rehashed for those who many not have heard it the first time, like the implications of the 1984 Clinton YouTube video.

I think campaign are putting too much of an emphasis on the potential impact of blogs and the Internet on the presidential election. The 1984 Clinton video, while entertaining, received three million views. About 150 million will vote in this upcoming election. For a small group of the population, the Internet has a large impact on how they view candidates, but for the rest of the voting population, maybe around 145 million, they could care less about YouTube videos or what the blogs are saying. The presidency will be won the old-fashioned way, and blogs and YouTube videos are truthfully just flashy distractions with little substance. The only time the Internet can really have any influence is when the mainstream media reports on it, like they have with the 1984 Clinton video or George Allen's macaca video. In and of itself, the blogosphere and YouTube have incredibly little political influence on the presidential level. The mainstream media still sets the agenda for presidential elections.

On another note, I realize that I have not been posting as often as I used to lately, so expect to see the frequency of posting dramatically increase.

Lower the Voting Age

As you may have read, there is a movement to get Connecticut to lower its voting age to seventeen in certain circumstances. The idea is that someone turns eighteen by the time of a general election, they should be able to vote in the primary of that election. An impetus of the movement is Daniel Peterson, a noble citizen:

Daniel Peterson is a senior at West Haven's Notre Dame High School. He is headed for the military when he graduates and believes 17-year-old's who are old enough to enlist are old enough to vote.

"You're potentially sending someone off to war and a life-or-death situation and its kind of hard to not give them the full choice ...," said Peterson. "You're fighting for what somebody else thinks. Although you might believe in it you might not be fighting for your own opinions."

He is right, and I have voiced these same concerns about our current drinking age as well as the proposed smoking age, that the Courant covered several weeks ago. I have no idea why Susan Bysiewicz hadn't though of this earlier. I can't imagine that many people would be against this, and given how political ambitious she is, this would be the type of thing she could have supported. It is frankly embarrassing that this proposal had to originate from students, not from Bysiewicz herself or her office. It is not a difficult concept to understand, and if she spent slightly less time on her optical voting machines, she could help initiate reform on more significant issues.

What Is Going on with Rell?

Gov. Rell nominated Justice Peter Zarella, current an associate justice, to be chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. That in itself is fine, as Justice Zarella is experienced and qualified. The problem comes with Gov. Rell's conduct, as she didn't even spend time to interview him about his aspirations, plans, idealogy, or anything. At least her legal counsel could have interviewed him.

The response of the Rell administration, from Adam Liegeot, a spokesman for Rell, was:

"There was no formal interview of Justice Zarella because Gov. Rell already knew him and knew of his years of state service. The governor already knew that Justice Zarella possessed an ability to issue opinions supported by the facts that were informed with fairness."

While it is true that Justice Zarella's record could, at least in part, speak for itself, it still seems unbelievable that Rell would not bother to interview the man she nominated to become the most influential judge in Connecticut. Now, she is receiving flak from both sides of the aisle. Republican Rep. O'Neill said, "Personally, I would want to sit down and look this person in the eye to be sure. It's not like they had worked side by side during the Rowland administration." The Democrats are even more critical than O'Neill, lambasting Rell for not show leadership.

As much I prefer to have Gov. Rell in office than, say, DeStefano, I'm no longer sure if the woman I voted for is the one in office. First there was her education proposal that was even too radical for the Democrat's agenda and now there is this, which reeks of utter incompetence. Even if a qualified job applicant was likely to land a certain job, I would expect the manager of the business to interview him. Doing otherwise is careless and irresponsible.