The Anxiety of New Years' Resolutions

Every year we hear the same old story - "I'm going to create some New Year's Resolutions and I'm going to stick with them."  The second part is where people get it wrong.  Haven't they learned anything from politicians?  It's perfectly fine to create a set of promises - whether they be to others or to ourselves, but its an absolute no-no to plan on keeping them.  What's wrong with you people, anyway? Why buck the system?  Why set yourselves up for disappointment and disaster?

Here are some of the resolutions that often abound, with a side of commentary, of course:

Resolution: I'm going to lose weight. 
Reality:  Liar!  You've just spent the last three weeks eating like you've just entered the Dittsville Pie Eating contest and oh - now - now you plan on dropping the weight?  I bet you have a refrigerator full of ice cream, cheese-cake, pies, cheeses, cookies, and tons of other stuff that doesn't exactly make Body for Life's top 10 foods for a healthy lifestyle.  Oh, and don't forget to throw in an unattainable goal while you're at it, like planning to lose 30 pounds by June!  Live in a house with others?  Oh, good luck with that - I bet they all look forward to a diet of salad and tofu? Hmmm. Yeah right!

Resolution:  I'm going to find a new job.
Reality:  I like this one myself.  But, easier said than done.  Hell, losing weight is easier to achieve than making this one come true in an Obama-economy, and for those in Connecticut  - an Obama-Malloy-economy, hell it will be a two-for!  The problem with this one is that you have to be willing to enter the fray of new style resume writing (whatever "fashion" HR types are looking for this year), schedule management, answering stupid questions, and the desire for humiliation and rejection based on the slight of gamesmanship from the moronic-HR team.  After all, they need to pretend to look busy and strategic too, you know.  No HR job is safe unless they have a million appointments on the calendar, thousands of unreturned phone calls, and a line out the door longer than any ride at Disney. Am I saying, keep your crappy job - no, I guess not.  Just don't go into the job finding effort half-hearted or you'll be worse off from wasting time going in no direction with lots of aggravation in return, feeling 10x more miserable than before.

Resolution:  I'm going to take up _____.
Reality:  This could be anything from golf, to playing a musical instrument, to learning to cook like Betty Crocker.  As someone who could have a world class tag sale based on bits and pieces of nearly every hobby imaginable, you might want to invest in a hobby that is - nearly free, so that when you quit, you won't feel more depressed than necessary, and you can cheekily say you gave it the old college try.  And you won't have even more clutter than necessary laying around reminding you of the day when you tried Polo, or Scuba Diving.

Resolution:  I'm going to get outside more.
Reality:  This isn't such a bad idea, but the problem is that New Year's Resolutions are made in January when its minus 16 degrees outside, and after about five minutes of breathing like Jack Frost you realize that your lungs have crystallized and that man was made for better things like sitting inside the warm house watching reruns of Sanford and Son or the Food Network. With any luck, you'll resort to this resolution in June, when the sun is warm and you can't slip and kill yourself on the ice.

Resolution:  I'm going to be a better person.
Reality:  This only worked for Ebenezer Scrooge.  And remember his case was special; if a dark robed scary skeleton-looking guy brought you into a graveyard at 3 am and threatened you with death by pointing to a gravestone with your name on it in ALL CAPS - I bet you'd promise to make big changes too.  I think you are born how you are, bad genes, personality and all,  and you can make some changes here and there, but a wholesale personality change looks and smells of severe metal illness.  The friends you have like you for who you are, or else they wouldn't be your friends.  And if you don't have any friends do you want to win over some new ones by pretending you're Elton John or Jerry Seinfeld? C'mon get real. 

I guess I could go on.  And on. And on.

So here is what I recommend. 

Don't make ANY New Year's Resolutions about ANYTHING.  If you have an inclination to make a few modifications to your life, some by choice, and others by circumstance, than make them life-long changes and commit to them.  If they don't work, abandon them and go with what feels right.

Obviously, there is one place I do deviate from this check and tongue entry - if you have health problems and the doctor tells you to give up the gallon of ice cream you inhale each night, then find a way to get it done. You can start by throwing out all the empty calories in your refrigerator and stop shopping for food filled with salt, sugar, mega-carbs and fat. 

Other than that.  Like Mr. Roger's said, "I like you just the way you are."  If you're good enough for Rogers, than you are good enough for everyone else. 

So be it resolved, no more resolutions. 

Merry Christmas from The King

First, I want to thank all of my friends who've been knee- deep this past year in the fight, working to keep America free.  While Connecticut's results were beyond disappointing, at least the encroachment of Socialism on the National level was - for the most part - halted by our friends in other states.

But we have a long way to go. 

There is still a lot of undoing of what Obama and his cronies have passed that needs to be REVERSED and STOPPED.  Note that I didn't write amended, or retooled or make reference to anything that remotely mentions keeping his socialistic bills in place in some other form. 

The economy is in shambles, and taxes are at an all time high.  Things may appear somewhat stable, but the double digit unemployment figures tell the tale of what things are really like.  Make no mistake, things could unravel further if Obama gets his way.

The next two years will be harder than this year.  The wicked witch Pelosi and that SOB Reid were easy demons to expose by their own words and and deeds.  Starting next year, the bullseye will be on us.  The so-called President, and his Democrat buddies will spend 90% of their time working with their friends in the media to make Republicans and Tea Party members out to be cruel, heartless, and the party of "no" even if the bills we are trying to reverse - should have never been introduced, let along passed, in the first place.

Remember, if we cave a little or compromise a little - we still lose.  Republicans who talk about amending the Healthcare Reform Bill are just a stupid as those who put the whole ridiculous thing in place.  The only option that makes sense in a Capitalist Society is repeal.  Anyone uttering the word "replace" should be accosted publicly.

If we aren't going to be strong, than we are wasting our time.  I suggest we look at root causes to solve issues, and control the dialogue, instead of playing the reaction game and letting the far left dictate our every move.  The one thing we lack is coordination within the Party.  I'm hoping we find a voice in the crowd (other than that ridiculous Sarah Palin) or we are going to be doomed.

In liberal Connecticut, we really have problems.  We lack a principled Republican party, we have no organization, and a lot of angry people, divided and worn.  Chris Healy has got to go.  I don't care where.  But he must go NOW!  If we settle on an establishment, big money tycoon who lacks charisma and leadership skills, then we continue to be on the verge or losing Party status in Connecticut.  It's a disgrace and an embarrassment!  The last election was evidence of pure INCOMPETENCE of the Connecticut Republican Party.  Oh sure, we sort of tried - well effort is admirable, and success is valuable. 

So, conservatives, libertarians, Republicans - all of you - take a few days to rest up!  Have a Great Christmas with your families and friends!  The King will be back in full force next year! Hope to see many of you on the battleground!

Lastly, a quick note of thanks to those serving in our Armed Forces and sacrificing so much for the rest of us.  For you guys - we just can't pay you back enough for all you do!

Again, Merry Christmas from the King!  May God Bless you!

Good Bye Chris Dodd!

Dodd: disgraced like his father

Lately, there's been a lot of revisionist history about Chris Dodd's so-called acheivements and alleged legacy floating around in print and in his farewell interviews on TV. What's missing is the fact that Chris Dodd didn't run for re-election because he became tired of the job or he had better offers elsewhere.  No. I instead like most of those with 20-year tenures, he's feasted upon the system like a rat in a cheese factory, and eventually got caught in its trap of corruption.  Dodd leaves the United States Senate on a sour note - if not disgraced - having been caught up in the Countrywide Scandal and having been involved in payoffs to AIG and other executives through the course of his banking committee tenure.  It's ironic that Dodd follows in the footsteps of his father, Thomas Dodd, who also served in the United States Senate, and was censured by the Senate in 1967 for using campaign funds for personal purposes... something that is not being repeated by his friends in the media -  as Dodd gets a free ride by the likes of Dennis House and others who have been serving  if not cheerleading his interest for decades.

Chris Dodd would still be running (and likely re-elected even if he ran against Linda McMahon) and we'd be looking at six more years of Dodd's continued advancement of a socialist state which given his votes is Dodd's true legacy. Never once did Dodd either recognize or stand up to the corruption of his party or of Washington because he has been a steady recipient of its self-serving policies. Dodd was a liberal loyalist who was in the pocket of big labor unions his entire life, as they rewarded him with steadfast support, he never once wavered in filling their pockets with benefits and rewards.  Dodd and labor is a sweetheart story that never subsided.  He spent 30 years of public service dedicated to taxing Americans and expanding Government involvement in our lives.  Much as a leader of his party, exposing hypocracy at every turn.

A revelaing article on Chris Dodd's corrupt activities can be found here. It's interesting reading backed full of citations and factual references which even Dodd and his cronies won't deny.  Dodd's guilt is so clear that even the biased Connecticut press or his party collegues could not find a way to keep him in office for six more years.  The evidence of his crimes was too damning, and too obvious.  Just like his father, Thomas Dodd, he leaves the U.S. Senate under a dark cloud, and instead of taking accountability, is heard murmuring against the very system of bribe and con that he helped to forge.   

The biggest irony came last week in his admonishment of the Congress during his farewell speech on the Senate floor where he claimed that Government at the Federal Level had become ineffective, and partisanship has paralyzed Government.  Yet not once did he make the point that the Obama Presidency has been clearly the MOST partisan in the history of our nation.  Like a loyal Democrat, he wouldn't dare criticize his own party, or his own President.  Here was the disgraced Senator from Connecticut lecturing his peers on morals and effective Government.  What an joke by one of the Senate's longest serving hyprocrites.  I can't image what his colleageus were thinking of this incredible shrinking character and his stammering indignation.

But we all know, Chris Dodd will leave the Senate to the spoils of his victories at the expense of taxpayers.  Retiring with millions in campaign donations, homes all over the world, and endless connections through favors and patronage.  What a life.  A life of corruption and shame - a tale that history won't hide.

Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out, Mr. Dodd.  So glad you are gone!  I pray that history records you as just another corrupt Senator feeding at the troth, corrupt and indignant to the end.

The King's View on Social Networking

Social Networking Addiction

www.thekingsview.blogspot.com

If you're on the internet these days, you're most likely involved in some form of social networking whether its Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Foursquare or the dozen other sites used for connecting with people. For months I've wanted to write about this all consuming portal which has invaded our lifestyles, and charged our habits to probably the same extent that microwave ovens altered meal preparation.

And before I get on my high horse, I should fully admit that I'm no different than the the punk kids with their baseball caps on sideways that you see banging away on their cell phones to shoot virtual objects in the sky or pretending to race the Grand Prix, or what-have-you.  And for the record, any jab I take at users of social media also applies to me as well.  So if I can take the heat, so can you.

First, let's look at Facebook.  Back about two years ago, as if out of nowhere - Facebook caught like wildfire.  It became almost like a game to see if you could connect with as many people as you knew (or didn't know - and I'll get to that later).  And at first, the majority of users never realized the implications of bringing together work associates, high school buddies, and even neighbors together in the same place.  It's sort of like a terrible seating arrangement at a wedding.

Not that it would surprise anyone, but my original Facebook friends were like-minded college- based political friends who stayed in touch with each other well beyond our college years.  So after some time I began to receive requests from high school friends, and junior high school friends, and others - and that's when things began to get weird.  First it was sort of fun to find out what people had become after 15-20 years of elapsed time.  And I have to admit - it was interesting to find out who ended up married, divorced, or never got married at all. After a while, the novelty became sort of old - and it occurs to you why you never kept in touch with some people, and why you did keep in touch with others.

Fast forward to the present.  After a few years of using Facebook, I've come to some hard and fast rules about its use.

1.  Much like email, tone and inflection can be misinterpreted
2.  People can be fickle. Roll with it.
3.  Don't put work friends on your page, ever. People at work have no need to know your business.
4.  You can learn a lot about people from their writing. Including how smart or how stupid they are.
5.  Facebook is best used among friends and associates whom you've actually met.  (I think I have a handful few contacts whom I haven't met in person on my list).
6.  Adding family to Facebook is a bad idea - almost worse than putting work associates on Facebook.
7.  It's your wall, and your page.  You don't have to appease anyone, so if people unfriend you because they don't like what you write or think - don't worry about it.
8. Don't expect your real-life friends to support your politics or positions on Facebook because some aren't as courageous as you.
9. Weed out your friend list once in a while.  Social Networking means actually socially interacting and networking.  Lurkers not wanted.
10. If you go on vacation, you don't need to tell your Facebook friends. Remember the phrase "Loose lips sink ships"?  Well, they also share gossip about friends not being home.  And there have been a few cases where bragging led to break ins.  Be smart.

And that's that!

Twitter.

Twitter is a twilight zone of sorts.  And I like it a lot for a variety of reasons.  First and foremost, for information gurus - like myself - its a wealth of information at your fingertips.  Enter any topic preceded by a hash sign and your likely to get the most up-to-date, unfiltered stories or updates in seconds!  Further, ask any question with the right hash sign and you're more than apt to get several answers back on your query from product questions, to what stain to use on decks.

Twitter allows you to participate in group conversations in an inconspicuous manner.  Unlike Facebook where your name and face appears on group pages along with your comments, you can be one-hundred percent anonymous.  I think this is particularly important since there are no privacy settings on Twitter, and anyone can follow you or look at your feed to determine what and when you send things.

There is nothing dishonest about being anonymous.  But there is something moronic about giving everyone your real name, sharing your every move, and taking the risk by assuming that some jerk might not use your tweets as a weapon against you in some unexpected form.  There are a lot of weirdos out there waiting for their chance to prey upon some victim so try to mitigate the risks by not being too revealing of your own personal information.  The whole world can read your tweets, and some people can query where you are, by running location queries on cell towers. After a while, anyone who puts their mind to it can figure out your usual tracks through hints and details over a period of time.  Humans are creatures of habit, and sometimes it can lead to their demise.

All in all, my experience with Twitter has been enjoyable.  It's fun to watch sports games, debates and shows with Twitter on hand.  You make "twitter friends" pretty quickly, and find you have a lot in common with people down the line on a variety of topics. And it can become pretty entertaining if not challenging to be clever within the limited 140 characters.

During the Chesire Home Invasion Trial, I met some great people who shared the same mindset about what should happen to the evil creep Steven Hayes and his cowardly associate.  It can be refreshing to come across like-minded people through group connections like this.  A bunch of us formed a congenial relationship and continue to chat now and then about less serious stuff.  That's a benefit of Twitter. 

I think you also have to have a tough shell to play on Twitter.  People follow and unfollow you without warning.  It's a good lesson in recognizing that these relationships are temporary and you can't take it personal if someone drops you because they don't like your point of view, or even if they do, they may find you too verbose, one dimensional, or simply boring. 

Twitter is a tool that allows you to see the best and worst in people. There isn't much of a filter, and people don't need to hold back because there isn't much risk in typing what you think behind a phony persona.  Twitter is less visual than Facebook, so I know some people simply hate it for that reason. Many of these people are that types that need to see everything, and leave little to the imagination - like a little kid that hates books without pictures. Oh well, to each their own.

Driving and Social Networking

Yep, this topic has everyone buzzing.  With the advent of the new mobile phone products, you can not only talk while driving, but you can also type or message on social networking sites.  Social networking is damn addicting!  Checking in with your tweeps, and sending out useless information as if its the most important thing in the world to do at THAT VERY MOMENT is part of the habit and addiction.  Some think it has to do with rewiring of the brain so that you need to multitask at a constant rate, and tweeting, listening to music, talking or what have you satisfies the urge to do so much at once.

The problem with the driving and texting or surfing or whatever is that we now have a ton of distracted drivers doing everything except driving and focusing on the road.  Admittedly, I'm not much different than some of the teenage punks, although I've become better over the last few months.  Of course, it only takes a second, and better isn't part of the equation if I smash my car into a thousand pieces and end up like roadkill.

So that's my take on social networking.  What can I say.... tweet, tweet, tweet.

Has the World Gone Mad?

http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Has the world gone mad?

This is a question that I continue to ask myself as I watch the endless horror on the morning newscast.   The news is so bad that its impossible to watch it without getting physically sick.

Case in point.  Last week, a woman was taking her morning jog in West Hartford in plain sight on a fairly busy street, and suddenly she was attacked, dragged into the bushes, and brutally assaulted and raped.

Case in point.  Court documents reveal that a 10-year old girl, Zahra Baker, was murdered and dismembered, her body parts scattered in various places near Charlotte, North Carolina.

Case in point. A 30 year old military soldier takes a 13 year old girl to an Old Saybrook, Connecticut hotel, and rapes her.  This week he's brought back to Connecticut by authorities in irons, and both lives are permanently damaged forever.

Case in point. Two 29 year old twins shot each other at point blank range at a Colorado shooting range in what may have been a double-suicide attempt.

Case in point.  Today a toddler, Thomas Chrisholm, went missing and was found drowned in the Pequonnock River near the Beardsley Zoo.

These are not stories about far away Islamic terrorists planning their next attack, or Obama taking control of drinking water and food.  Nor are they stories about oil leaks, airport scanning devices, or stupid kids print "F-U on Burger King receipts.  No, these are stories about the poor quality of humanity.  These stories speak to the deepest, darkest elements of our own society.

There are those who see the world through rose-colored glasses, and the reason they do so is that its plainly their way of coping with reality - to disregard it.  Then there are those who choose to take the passive-aggressive route and argue with people for pointing out the ills of society - "oh, you're just a Debbie downer." or "you are always so negative."  Well, I've got news for you - rape, murder, torture, child abandonment, and all the other stories are hardly trivial.  It's evidence that mankind is approaching a boiling point, and the types of people around us do not value life or expect to take accountability for their crimes.

The stories about are not scattered over a month or two.  No, these stories are simply a few days worth of what's clearly the ongoing decline of our society.  We spend plenty of time worrying (and correctly so) about madmen half a world a way trying to kill us by any means possible.  But what about the villainy in our own midst?  What we do to ourselves as a society is almost as bad as the terrorists themselves.

I suppose there is no point to this essay since I have no solution, or remedy.  There is no quick fix, and the problems seem to mount and grow each day.  It's almost as if we've become numb to what we see and hear.  Movies about bogeyman are no longer a interesting substitute for the evening news - stories far more real and graphic then could be dreamed up by Steven King.

This chapter being written by humanity is a pathetic one. 

Has the World gone mad?  Yes.  And our local world has too.

The best you can do is watch and protect your children, be alert, and simply be prepared to trust no one.    I just have to wonder what kind of world our children and children's children will live in.  Don't you?

The Correct Verdict: Hayes receives Death

Dr. William Petit: Class Act

thekingsview.blogspot.com

Once in a while the world surprises you.  Monday was one of those days.

Like many of my colleagues, I watched the news reports and read the tweets from the Steven Hayes penalty phase over the past several weeks.   I read and dissected each statement, if not each word tweeted from Room 6A.  At times my blood boiled visualizing the acts of arrogance and terror committed by Hayes and his counterpart Komisarjevsky.   And I was outraged by the ridiculous marathon testimony by the defense's hired gun, professional testifier Dr. Eric Goldsmith.

Based on the testimony provided, I was convinced that Steven Hayes made a conscious and independent decision to do what he did - commit heinous acts of rape, torture, and murder.  That being the clear case, without hesitation I believed that Hayes absolutely deserved the death penalty.

But would this jury actually have the courage hand down a verdict of Death? 

Honestly, I had my doubts.  Everyone knows that Connecticut is a notoriously liberal State full of so-called intellectual thinkers who are often so philosophical that they lose sight of the plot.  It probably also didn't help that just days before deliberations began, Connecticut residents elected a new anti-death penalty Democrat to the Governorship who's made public commitments to sign a bill to do away with capital punishment.

Then came the knocks at the door.  And the chicken-scratch notes, including one which appeared to illustrate a hung jury, followed by the question - what are the next steps? My heart sank.  And not just for me, but for Dr. William Petit and his family.

Then on Monday afternoon, we got word that the jury had come to a verdict.  I stared at my computer monitor - banging the refresh key over and over and over again - praying, hoping, and waiting.  And then... one by one, on all six counts, Hayes was given Death.   I felt both joy and relief.  And in strange way - happiness for the Petit-Hawke family.

Typical disappointment from the Courant

It didn't take long for the Hartford Courant editorial board to take its usual left wing position on the Hayes verdict.  In their November 9th editorial "Death penalty serves no purpose", they attempted - rather poorly -  to rationalize their anti-death penalty position.

First, they start from the interesting premise that "it is wrong to take a life except in self-defense."  A curious position to take since this trial is about three innocent women who's lives were certainly not taken by an act of self-defense, but out of lust for murder, and in attempt to dispose of the witnesses to their crimes. 

Second, this whole argument about whether it is right for the State (or Government) to take a life is faulty from the start.  All Governments make policy decisions which both directly and indirectly result in the act of taking lives, this is most evident with acts of war. Only a fool with both eyes closed wouldn't recognize that utilizing armed forces and military machines in either a defensive or offensive action results in death by the hundreds - and its all state authorized, if not outright mandated by Congress and President.

Moreover, the Government extends permission to the armed forces to interrogate, try, and execute active military combatants for certain crimes.  Just because the executions are carried out by men in a military uniform doesn't remove the accountability of the civilian leaders and legislators who provide the oversight and funding to carry out justice.

The idea that the State has no right to authorize murder is so broad a statement that its impossible to realistically defend.  Would the editors at the Courant believe American actions in World War I, and in World War II were unnecessary, illegal, and immoral?  Certainly not all actions taken by the Allies were defensive in either of the World Wars.  But they may have been necessary to end the conflict, and save American lives.

Third, how ironic is it to see liberals bring up the argument that its too expensive to seek and carry-out the death penalty?  This is one of the few scenarios, given progressives usual nature to find a million reasons to spend like thieves, where they champion the desire to "save the taxpayer" money.   If the system is too expensive, then perhaps they can find ways to reduce their own fees around the process and procedures that they've created.

Forth, let's remember that it was the State that pushed to seek the death penalty under the provisions established under Connecticut Statutes.  And, it was the State that urged and convinced Dr. Petit to agree with the decision to seek the death penalty.  A decision not taken lightly.  We seem to forget that he death penalty is within the extent of the law.  It exists not out of barbarity, or as some deem it - the natural human desire for revenge and bloodlust, but as a long established punishment under the law for vile acts of murder.

In their final analysis the Courant argues "if he is crazy... than he'd be unfairly executed."  Well, we already know from the testimony that he was quite aware of his action and in complete control of himself.  Even if he did feel betrayed by Jennifer Petit because she told the bank teller that she and her family were being held prisoner and robbed, and he killed her out of rage, that doesn't justify insanity - nor should it save him from lethal injection.

The editors at the Courant don't want to see the rationale for holding Hayes accountable and putting him to death.  They can't bring themselves to understand the pain caused to the Petit-Hawke family, and the community at large.  It's so much easier for liberals to not have to make the tough decision and  just send him away to a life of television, air conditioning, three square meals a day, and recreational activities like taking classes to pass the time - none of which seems like much of a punishment to me. After a while, he'd become accustomed to his living situation and adapt to the reality. 

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment for heinous crimes like the one's Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky committed.  If the editors at the Courant really want to make sure "he is never heard from again", then rest-assured, after a period of appeal as mandated by Connecticut law, he'll have a period to reflect on his crimes in a lonely cell on death row.  And then he'll lose the gift of live that he took from innocents, and squandered himself.

The Courant is right about one thing - killing Hayes won't bring full closure.  As Dr. Petit said in his post-penalty phase press conference, "[The idea of closure is was created by imbeciles... there will always be a hole in my heart and in my soul"].  Well said, and all of us will sleep a little better knowing that Steven Hayes is no longer with us, and facing the music - where ever that may be.

In closing, may God Bless the Petit-Hawke family, and all those who have stood by them in support of Jennifer, Haley and Michela.  We will never let their memory fade.

Connecticut Election Results: A Critique

http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Foley: enthusiasm deficit

You'll have to excuse me.  It's taken a few days of decompression before I could draft a few thoughts on the disastrous election outcome for Connecticut Republicans.

My criticisms here will be direct, and don't plan to hold back.  So if you're a Connecticut establishment Republican looking to blame Susan Bysiewciz, or make up other far-fetched excuses, you might want to go over to Chris Healy's blog instead.  There you can read his ridiculous claims of how Republicans were swindled and hosed by voting improprieties and extended voting hours.  Sorry, but the buck stops here.  We own this defeat.

And its particularly painful, because on a night when national Republicans scored incredible gains across the nation, including taking 60 seats in the House of Representatives, several Senate seats, and Governorships, and even capturing the most State Legislative Chambers since 1928, we were left to sit and sulk, and pray for a miracle. But at the end of the night (or even the week) it never came.  We didn't even get a consolation prize.

Here are my thoughts by race....

The Gubernatorial Race

Rell: Let Fedele flap in the breeze deciding
whether to run for re-election

This race may have been doomed before it started.  Current Republican Governor Jodi Rell took her sweet time deciding whether or not she was going to run for re-election.  Republicans like Michael Fedele, Tom Foley and several others did the right thing by waiting to see what Governor Rell had planned.  After all, none of these candidates wished to primary a sitting, and very popular Governor like Rell. 

So it wasn't until November 9, 2009 - when it was ridiculously late - that Republicans learned the Rell wasn't going to run for re-election. Republicans had to scramble in a half-hearted effort to try and get their campaigns going in any direction.  Had he not been screwed over by the Governor, Lt. Governor Michael Fedele probably could have been better prepared, and inserted in the pre-election process to give him a bit more name recognition and a public presence which would have helped him score a foothold for contention.   Instead, Republican candidates, from Jeff Wright to Oz Griebel visited near-empty RTC meetings looking for support just prior to the Republican Convention.

Once the primary season started, we saw what turned out to to be a three way battle for the nomination that featured both Mike Fedele and Tom Foley beating the living hell out of each other on television, and Oz Griebel sliding off into oblivion.  Tom Foley painted Lt. Governor Fedele was as part of a long standing problem who has been nothing short of disengaged and in the shadow of  Jodi Rell for years (hardly a positive commentary on the Rell administraton as a whole).  And Mike Fedele painted Tom Foley as a corrupt, job killer, raising the spectre of Bibb and other issues that would later become the weapons of choice to be used by the Democrats to to beat Tom Foley down into the ground.

I don't know what happened between Tom Foley and Govenor Rell, but it was clear to anyone watching that she wasn't interested in helping Tom Foley campaign, never mind win.  Rell's radio commercials (which sounded similar to the ones she appeared in for Linda McMahon) had to be about as unenthusiastic as I've ever heard.  One pictured her being dragged to a dungeon to read the script, she sounded so uninterested.  And the commercials weren't even aired until about two weeks before election day.

Meanwhile, while Tom struggled to overcome the Bibb accusations, and a series of other attacks, we had a chance to see the Malloy camp in action.  Better organized, the Malloy camp mobilized volunteers - from college students to hundreds of Union members to work and campaign on his behalf.  Malloy, to his credit, learned a valuable lesson from his first attempt to run, and it was apparent to everyone that he knew how to mobilize forces to deliver the votes (and even the voters). 

Very similar to my earlier complaints about Peter Schiff, Foley also didn't spend a great deal of time away from home base.  He decided early on to disregard the second district - and campaign in his own neck of the woods.  Election results do show that against previous Republican statistics, he could have done remarkably better, had he showed more visibility.

From a personality standpoint (and I don't really mean to belabor this point), Foley came across very reserved, quiet and sort of weak, and many folks I spoke with viewed this as Fairfield County arrogance.  Now in contrast, Malloy came across brash, cocky, arrogant, and rude.  But given the two styles, and the anger out on the street about jobs, people were willing to give the guy who spouted ideas and suggestions the nod on November 2nd.  It's hard to go into such critical debates as reserved and lacking charisma.  And the first debate was awful for Foley, as it appeared that he let Malloy beat him to death at the podium, and he just took it, looking like a deer in headlights.  We believe that after the first debate, many people had made their mind up.  And in the remaining debates, while Foley did much better, he still never delivered a knock out punch that he needed to climb above Malloy and surge ahead.  Although Foley did close the gap in the last few weeks of the campaign, his slow start and melancholy approach did him in.

It doesn't matter how qualified you are (and I believe Foley was far better qualified to deal with Connecticut's economic problems than Malloy is), if you can't articulate your ideas and positions in a coherent way that appeals to the audience, than you're done for.

Connecticut will likely regret putting Dan Malloy in the Governor's Mansion.  High taxes, business unfriendly, pro-union, pro-spending policies are likely to do even more damage to Connecticut's economy.  And what's worse is the the Connecticut Legislature is solidly Democrat.  It burns me that Republicans would let this happen.  Connecticut, with a Liberal Governor, and Dems in control of both chambers of the Legislature will mirror the exact chemistry that we've seen in Washington for the past two years that has been so disastrous.  Tom Foley didn't even make the case that Democrats have controlled the State Legislature since 1972 - do you think that might have helped?

The United States Senate Race

McMahon: didn't get the
 soccer-mom vote

I think I beat the drum of disappointment regarding the outcome of the Connecticut U.S. Senate primary campaign, Republican convention, and its lingering results.  I was not a fan of Linda McMahon when she started sending me mailings unfairly portraying Rob Simmons as a big spending, cap and trade, villain.  I found the mailings beyond reproach, and I was offended to see a newcomer treat a man who had spent so much of his life serving his country as a solider, and as a government official, and then as an  elected official with such disrespect.  For a guy who had done so much for the country and state to have been treated so maliciously by Linda McMahon - a wrestling executive with tons of baggage - gave her a tainted image, not just in the second district, but throughout the State. And at the end of the day, that certainly hurt her.

Many of us were antagonized after watching a well-orchestrated coup d'etat during the Connecticut Republican Convention.  Linda McMahon's campaign staff in collaboration with Chairman Chris Healy (who's wife was working for Linda and making a six figure killing) hijacked the nomination from Rob Simmons through bribery, threats, and intimidation of delegates.  It was downright disgusting.

$21 million dollars later, and a whole lot of promises and commitments to people, and Linda managed to pull off a win during the primary.  So she became our nominee and that was that.

There was a short period of time, when Richard Blumenthal was sucking wind in the polls after he made untrue comments that he served in Vietnam.  He worked very hard to overcome the deficit but it really wasn't all that hard because despite his gaff, Linda McMahon was always going to have far more negatives than positives.  Between her ties to the Pro Wrestling business including all the shady practices of that industry, and all of her employees' deaths and her nonstop barrage of negative mailings and ads, she was destined to go down in flames.

I strongly believe that Rob Simmons would have made a better run of it as he was the only candidate on the Republican side who would have embarked on an issued-based campaign. He would have had the chance to beat Blumenthal. Connecticut isn't a place for a campaign of glitz and showmanship, which appeared as an odd backdrop for Linda's campaign.  Simmons was the ultimate serious face, who could have challenged Blumenthal on the merits of policy and service without appearing to be going for the jugular vein at every turn.  All my sources on the Democrat side told me of the relief the Blumenthal camp felt when Rob was out, and Linda was in.

Another point about Linda's failed campaign is that she seemed to be rejected outright by women.  I don't know whether they sympathized with Richard Blumenthal, or they just dislked Linda so much that they went against her 5-1.  I would have thought that women would have flocked to Linda for her achievements as a successful CEO and business-mom.  But clearly, the rejected her by a wide margin. I would have to say its not women against strong women, else Jodi Rell would not have done so well in previous years by taking a good portion of the woman's vote.  I tend to think that it may be Linda McMahon's line of business that advocated violence against women, and sexism.  That may have pushed the female vote away from McMahon.  Wrestling was never a big hit with the ladies.

The result of Richard Blumenthal winning this seat guarantees him not only six years of rubber stamping the Obama and Democrat agenda, but most probably a life-time appointment.  I would expect to see Blumenthal eventually move up to a leadership position over the next few years.  If not for his savvy ability to navigate systems, certainly by virtue of his never-ending commitment to self-promotion and advancement.

After all I've written here, I never really expected the GOP to win the U.S. Senate seat, but if there ever was an opportunity to do so, this was it.  $52 million dollars spent by Linda McMahon wasn't enough to take it which speaks more to her appeal as a candidate and the way she conducted her campaign, rather than the strength of Richard Blumenthal.  State GOP leaders will try to blame the demographics of the State, but that is hardly saleable given that Republicans have won the Governorship with solid majorities in previous years.

United States House of Representatives races

This area of failure is almost the most puzzling to me and I believe it speaks to the Connecticut GOPs biggest failure.




Peckinpaugh never had a chance



Peckinpaugh v Courtney (CT-2)

Janet Peckinpaugh was by far the worst of the worst when it came to Republican candidates in 2010.  As she's been beaming into our homes for years as a member of the liberal media establishment, and well known for her lawsuits against male news anchors, she already a major hurdle to overcome with the Republican base. 

Putting that aside, she was a pointless and useless primary candidate who clearly never had a grasp of the issues.  Two things come to mind when she was interviewed by the Press early on.  First when Dennis House asked her who she voted for in the last election cycle, she said, "I don't remember."   This was clearly a lie since people remember who they voted for and moreover, it was an opportunity to present clear strategic thinking by at minimum shouting "not Joe Courtney!" which would have endeared her to the Republican base. 

Second, Janet told us that she wanted to represent  us in Washington so she could report back what was happening in Washington to the people of Connecticut.  No dummy! We want someone to represent our interests in Washington, not report back what's happening! We want someone to make news, not report it!

Joe Courtney never had it so easy.  After watching clueless Janet slide in between Daria Novak (the GOPs endorsed candidate) and Doug Dubitsky to win the primary, he knew he was going to have a walk in the park.  Janet never had a grasp of the issues, and never articulated a position in any coherent manner.  Republican leaders kept telling me that Peckinpaugh came from a big Republican family out in the Midwest, but they never defended her as a Republican who would represent our interests or positions with any sincerity. 

Self-checked by not having a penny to spend, she ran no commercials, and I think I received one terrible mailing which showed her standing next to her kid - who had an angry look on his face.  This race didn't even force the Connecticut Democrats to spend money to counteract a Republican challenge thus freeing up capital to throw in support of Democrats in tighter races in other districts.

If we are lucky, we'll never see Janet Peckinpaugh as a candidate for so much as dogcatcher.

The biggest Congressional disappointments were in both the Connecticut 4th and Connecticut 5th districts.  Both of these seats were thought to be moving Republican in keeping with the nationwide trend of disappointment over Obama's failed economic policies, and the desire to punish Democrat office holders in border districts or generally Republican districts (which may on a fluke have gone Democrat during the Presidential election in 2008.)  In truth, it will take a bit more analysis for me to understand why at the last minute these two districts did not go Republican given their polling track - particularly in the 5th District where the expectation was that Caligiuri was nearly a shoe-in.


Debicella v Himes (CT-4)

Bridgeport may have killed Debicella

Connecticut's 4th District used to be almost a safe Republican seat given that it was held by moderate Chris Shays for years.  Shays lost during the Obama landslide a few years ago to Jim Himes, who is another steady liberal vote for Obama.  The outcome of this race was a surprise given the nationwide surge for Republicans and the fact that Himes was an advocate for many of Obama's failed policies. 

The thinking on this one was that the Bridgeport fiasco may have also helped Himes secure that win, and that for whatever reason Himes did better in Norwalk and in a few other towns where Republicans have historically done better.  There is also the idea that Linda McMahon's lack of appeal may have impacted the vote in District 4 as Democrats were able to get their voters to the polls to vote against Republicans en mass.

All in all, this is a district that Republicans probably should have won, if even by a thin margin.  It will be interesting to see who stayed home and who didn't when it comes to reviewing vote totals v demographics.

Caligiuri v Murphy (CT-5)



Caligiuri: Lost with 8 point lead

 This battle took place in Connecticut's 5th district which is considered the most Republican district in the state which borders New York and goes as far out as the Litchfield Hills. Of course it also includes Meriden and New Britain which have not been supportive of Republicans since the days of Nancy Johnson - although redistricting also played a role in making in easier for Democrats to win.  Yet this seat stayed Democrat which was a big surprise to most of us given that polls showed Caligiuri up by as many as eight points just days before the election. 

Caligiuri believes that one reason he lost is that his opponent had $2 million to spend on the campaign versus his mere $80,000.  In an environment where television and radio ads and mass mailings can make a difference, it was clear that this battle was quite lopsided.  I personally saw several well run television spots from the Murphy campaign which worked to drive home the message (true or false) that Murphy worked with both sides of the aisle and was an independent thinker in Congress.  Of course, Murphy has been a strong advocate for Obama's policies, but with so few ads making that case, Caligiuri suffered a huge handicap in this race. 

Notwithstanding, the negative ads run by Chris Murphy regarding Caligiuri as a guy that bankrupt Waterbury, Caligiuri wasn't able to run a campaign based on sound economic policies and issues that resonated with the public.  I believe this was less to do with the candidate as much as it was a campaign that never got out of neutral.  Why didn't state central come in and help Caligiuri raise funds?



Healy: Aught to be run out
of Connecticut on a freight-train



Caligiuri's loss is by far the biggest disappointment for the Connecticut Republican Party.  For this, State Central and Connecticut's Republican State Chairman Chris Healy need to answer for such a complete disaster, and for their complete incompetence given such a national Republican surge. 



It's hard to accept results where all five congressional districts, the U.S. Senate and the Governorship all go to the Democrats. (Which isn't to take anything away from the hard work that Ann Brinkley did in Connecticut's first district despite the blow out).  The Connecticut Republican Party has a lot of soul-searching to do over the next few months.  God willing, they will fire Chris Healy and start anew seeing competent leadership at the top, and start putting strategies in place where Republicans work together for the good of the State and the Party, and shun personal attempts to line their own pockets with cash and fortune.

How Liberals Argue

www.thekingsview.blogspot.com

It's very hard to debate with some people.  It's not always the point of winning the argument as much as it is presenting the facts that support your position.  When it comes to some topics, abortion, for example - you may never get a person to concede their point of view in light of statistics, facts, or information because the argument (IMHO) is extremely emotional and personal for some.

However, there are plenty of topics where a rational person, using logic and the evidence presented, will examine the facts and see they are are not in dispute, and formulate a reasonable conclusion.  Rational thinkers can be swayed if the facts support sound judgement.  Irrational thinkers will not move off their positions.  It's nearly impossible to argue with someone who is not concerned with facts, and I often find that this occurs with people who tend to be either extreme, or simply hell-bent on being right.

The political season affords Republican thinkers the opportunity to go toe-to-toe with  emotional Democrats and frankly, its like mixing oil and water.  The video below shows a very typical argument between a conservative and a liberal.  You would not believe from my own experience how precise this illustration really is.  I particularly like the part where the liberal becomes so frustrated that she resort to insults, name calling, and fiction to support her arguments. 
I tell my conservative friends all the time.  Do not bother arguing with liberals in a one on one scenario.  It is a waste of time and energy except when a neutral party is listening to you debate.  The only person you care about convincing that your positions are sound is the only the  person who you may have a chance to influence.

I laugh when people say Republicans and Democrats are largely the same.  That couldn't be farther from the truth.  Unfortunately, when it comes to results; spending federal money on frivolous nonsense, that has been known to be true. The lack of sticking to principle, is what lost Republicans control of the House of Representatives just a few years ago.  When you act against your own facts, you lose all ground to defend your arguments.

 But issue for issue, pound for pound, Republicans and Democrats are generally on completely opposite sides of the equation.  Of course, you can't always get some people to act the way they know they aught to because its easier to do what's expedient than to do what is right. But that's a different topic for another day.

Check out the video below.  Have you ever had a similar argument with a liberal?

Democrat John Larson has one of his thugs attack former West Hartford Councilman Republican Joe Visconti

Yesterday CBS News Morning News co-anchored by loyal Democrat activist Harry Smith aired an early morning interview with a MoveOn.org activist Lauren Valle who claimed she was stomped on by a Rand Paul supporter. Without a doubt, this scenario follows the usual pre-election tactic by the Democrats which is to invent scenarios to paint Republican (and now Tea Party) activists as violent bigots suppressing minority vote, blocking voting booths, and doing whatever else they can think of.  Without a doubt, MoveOn.org is the socialist front for the Democrat Party which engages in high profile activism (organized protests, voter fraud, and theatrics) to advance the cause of the far left-wing's agenda.

Valle, it's been learned, perpetrated violence at a Rand Paul event by getting in several Paul supporter's faces and yelling. Unfortunately, one Paul volunteer got a little overzelous and fell right into her trap.  He's become the perfect scapegoat for the season.  I know this happens on both sides, yet we NEVER see the media run stories about how Black Panther operatives bully people at the polls in New York, or how Act-Up and MoveOn.org crowds riot and destroy property to advance their causes.  Liberal lunatics are always depicted as victims and Republicans as the aggressors.

One group on the left that is particularly violent and destructive are the organized labor or union thugs.  The Unions often pay and transport contractors to rally in front of businesses, poll locations, and attend candidate appearances to make it appear as if their Democrat candidate has more support than he or she really does in front of the camera.  Labor unions are well organized, and without a doubt the second strongest special interest group in the mix, only the teacher's union weilds more power.  The union thugs have been known to destroy property and intimidate people through pushing and shoving and other violent acts.

Well, on October 26, 2010, a cell phone captured an incident where Democrat John Larson appeared at a scheduled debate with Ann Brinkley.  Video below.



As usual, the Union thugs were out in full force, but this time - Republicans and Tea Party actvists were also outside to show support for Ann Brickley.  If you look closely, on the left, you can see a person holding the Gadsden Flag.  That person is former West Hartford Councilman Joseph Visconti.  You will also see one of Larson's thugs dressed in a pink shirt violently push Joe down to the ground.  Despite that this video has gone viral on Youtube.com, the national or local media hasn't bothered to air or even investigate the story.

This is evidence of two things, the fact that liberal bias continues to exist when it comes to election coverage, and that supporters of Democrat candidates aren't beyond becoming violent and unruly at events. 

One final note, Visconti may have gone down hard, but to his credit he made sure the Gadsden Flag never touched the ground.

Connecticut Tea Party should follow this example

The Tea Party movement is the most misunderstood and misrepresented organization on the planet. Most people (myself included) have had a difficult time understanding exactly what and who comprise the Tea Party. The problem being that, organizationally, it's very hard to know who's running the show. The answer - "we all are" really doesn't cut it. Even in 1773, when the Sons of Liberty embarked on their campaign against the tyrannical British Government and their colonial representatives, there was a known group of ring leaders who reponsible for public protests - John Adams and Paul Revere among them. That aspect of the Tea Party is still very much unknown. Moreover, Republicans, with whom the Tea Party seem aligned have also been suspect of the national movement.

The commerical below is somewhat helpful in defining who their members are.




I recognize that commericals like the fabulous one above take capital to air on television. But Connecticut Tea Party organizers can surely find someone in their ranks with enough savvy technical experience to create similiar commericals like the one above. Instead of allowing local media like The Hartford Courant to determine exactly who and what the Tea Party is, Patriots can control their own destiny and show voters what they are all about. They can dispel the notion that they are raviing lunatics with guns. Or Libertarians without conscience. Clips like this show people that they are moms, dads, students, and working people who are fed up with the status quo.

Twitter and the Steven Hayes trial



Twitter Bird



While most of the country has been focused on the upcoming mid-term elections, many of us here in Connecticut have divided our time between politics and -- the Steven Hayes trial. Since that horrible day in 2007 when two souless creeps broke into the Petit home and committed henious crimes against Dr. Petit, his wife, and children, all of us have attempted to imagine the horror happening to us, and recognizing that it could happen to any of us, at any time. Admittedly, since the news of the tragedy, we've all become a little more cautious about personal security, and far more protective of our loved ones.

It's been three long years since Hayes and Komisarjevsky murdered the Petit women, and yet it seems like yesterday. The media still uses the same mug shot of Hayes when they report on the story. He appears like a clueless, bald-headed freak - and in truth, I'm sick of his face. We all are.

Connecticut doesn't allow television cameras, or electronic recording equipment in its courtrooms, so we are stuck with artist sketches - some very good, and some very cartoonish. But surprisingly, the courtroom does allow ipads, cell phones (on silent), and computers. Which has permitted those watching the proceedings to tweet - sometimes word for word, what witnesses are saying. And of course, we also get observer's color commentary on everything from facial expressions of the jury, to one reporter referring to another as the moocher reporter.

So, over the past month, I've been glued to my Droid, reading all the court activity via Twitter - while on the road, at work, and even at the gym. While we rely on 140 character rapid-fire reports from neutral eyewitnesses (mostly journalists), we in reality - are thinking, feeling, and monitoring the proceedings through the eyes of Dr. William Petit and the Hawke family. Every word, quote, and observation is carefully measured by those of us out in the global, virtual peanut gallery.

Twitter is a marvelous tool. It's so unlike the medium of television, and radio - where you tune in and take what's dished out by the press in a one-way format. Twitter allows us to interact with reporters and observers, real time, as they report proceedings. And sometimes, we outsiders pipe in with color commentary of our own.

While some reporters, like George Colli, sort of get into the whole interactive format of the medium - often asking people what they think and provoking dialogue, I'm sure some reporters dislike the idea of being on a level playing field with a hundred amateur voices. I've been fortunate enough to have sone incredible interaction with not only reporters, many people who feel strongly about the trial (including some close friends of the family). And I do admit, not all the commentary I've seen is in good taste, and some of the retweeting by individuals becomes a little tiresome. Do we really need a nonstop echo?

In some ways a lot of this is probably not healthy. And I mean the obsession of wanting to constantly stay connected, and wanting to read every #Hayes tweet, and feeling the need to join in the conversation, or even vent. Then again, the interaction with paid journalists, lawyers, and Twitter Nation is almost a sort of group therapy.

When witnesses told of the extreme horror and detail of events of that night, we shared in the pain with reporters. And when Steven Hayes was found guilty, we read it on Twitter and jumped for joy in celebration. When we saw the rediculous boastful journal entries by Joshua Komisarjevsky, we became angry, and when we heard Hayes whining about the size of his cell, and wanting to commit suicide, we all wondered-- why stop the sick SOB?

As we continue with the sentencing phase of this trial, its good to know we have a place to interact with Petit-Hawke family supporters. I'm glad I can add my voice to the dozens of people online who hope and pray that justice is served, and Hayes and Komisarjevsky will be no more.

Susan Bysiewicz's plan to harass Republicans at the Polls

We often talk about just how much Government interferes in our everyday lives. If not directly, then indirectly through the government's imposition of taxes, imposing fees on any activity they can collect revenue on, and passing legislation, some necessary, but much of it ridiculous, such as telling people they can't buy alcohol on Sundays, or trying to regulate talk radio.

Government agencies are the extended arm of Government officials which act to enforce the whims of the latest "hot issue of the week", or make it difficult to open a business, or even register your car. This reminds me of the well-known quote by President Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."

Well the problem of Government isn't limited to just laws and mandates, it also comes in the form of abuse of power, or extended influence. Richard Blumenthal, for example, has spent most of the last 15 years manipulating businesses, and utility companies, in what he's calls - the public interest. Of course, its not the public interest he's really concerned with as much as the advancement of left-wing causes, or using his office to win lawsuits so the state can collect revenue for their never ending programs. All of this, done to give the public the impression that he's their hero under the false pretense that he's out for the little guy, who Blumenthal just caused to lose his job.

Following in Blumenthal's footsteps is Connecticut Secretary of State, Susan Bysiewicz. She is embroiled in a new controversy that is receiving national attention. Yesterday, Bysiewicz said that polling workers (likely Democrats) would have the right to deny voters the right to cast ballots if they entered the polling place wearing World Wrestling Entertainment merchandise. While she didn't have the courage (or legal backing) to mandate an actual ban, she simply gave her henchmen at the polls the right to make life difficult for Linda McMahon's supporters.

This is obviously an abuse of power by Bysiewicz who is trying to influence the vote. It's also an example of how lucky we are that the State Supreme Court decided that she wasn't qualified to be Connecticut's Attorney General. Can you imagine the level judicial activism by a Bysiewicz AG?

I'm also trying to remember if anyone was turned away from voting for John Kerry if they were wearing a Heinz Ketchup logo, I mean after all the Heinz fortune just about bankrolled his candidacy.

You also have to wonder how far you could go with mandating merchandise bans at the Polls? Will unions be denied access for wearing Local 890 T-shirts? Will people wearing NRA hats be turned away? Maybe we could turn away people who wear a happy face logo - after all I'm sure they are suspect of some mischievous act promulgated by a Republican in such a stoic State.

You have to really wonder how poll workers, many who know nothing about Professional Wrestling, are going to recognize what WWE merchandise looks like. With all due respect to Linda McMahon, exactly how many poll workers, who are usually older ladies mostly in their 60s know who John Cena or Stone Cold Steve Austin is? Maybe the Democrat Party is holding special training sessions to teach Democrat poll workers how to recognize "Austin 3:16" or the angry face of "The Rock".

It's funny that we haven't heard from the ACLU on this issue. They are quick to chase high school graduations away from church buildings, but they've mysteriously been silent thus far on this obvious free speech issue. We also haven't heard from our current Attorney General, who I'm sure wasn't all to pleased to see his own party give Linda McMahon an issue to beat him and the Democrat party over the head with. If Dick is smart, he'll make a statement that he doesn't care what clothes people wear to the polls.

For my purposes, I hope everyone who owns WWE clothing merchandise, whether they are a Linda McMahon supporter or not, goes to the polls dressed in their best wrestling garb. Let's show Secretary of State Bysieiwicz and the Democrat Party that we are tired of Connecticut's government officials endless abuse of office.

Maybe Linda McMahon is right after all, it is "time for something different."


Video to the story carried by WTNH - New Haven can be found here for a limited time:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17315,23628,23670,25834,26328,26637,26761,26849,26992,27095,27126,27156,27178&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=Susan+Bysiewicz&cp=8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn&fp=5fd0c046186e9fd0

Third Televised Gubernatorial Debate: Foley v Malloy

This is the third televised debate between Tom Foley and Dan Malloy. This one is being held at Fairfield University. From the looks of things, the union slobs got in very early because you can see them sitting right behind the moderators all wearing their bright yellow union shirts. Well, that what unions get paid to do - work for Democrats and make a lot of noise. Republicans are too busy working. I'm watching this as a replay on but I know full well it was live at 3pm - which is when normal people are working.

Anyways, we have Face the State's Dennis House - he is usually pretty fair when he conducts interviews on his show. Most the questions he asks are softball questions which is why everyone running for office can't wait to go on his show. And then we have John Dankosky from National Public Radio (NPR). Well you know if they are from NPR, they probably reek of liberalism. I expect John to put pressure on Foley all night, and ask Malloy what is favorite color is. Honestly, speaking - anyone who works for NPR has a personal self interest in seeing Malloy win because it helps to preserve NPR funding and thus keep them employed.

I re-edited this and opted where it isn't obvious to put my comments in [brackets] so as not to accidently attribute my opinions to either candidate.

Here we go. First question to Dan Malloy.

House asks given that unemployment is at record high, what will you do in your first 100 days. Malloy talks about General Accepted Finance Rules and a plan to get out of the economic times. Malloy goes on about electric rates, and how bad things are. So far he's not answering the specific question put to him. All of his answers are great generalities about making things better but not one detail is provided.

I hope Foley answers the question. Foley talks about changing direction and how legislature makes the business climate unbearable. Foley wants to create a policy that will reduce budget deficit which we are being told is also scaring away business. Foley tells us that obtaining permits take too long to get business moving. Talks about one situation where it took 19 months to obtain a permit. Foley goes after the unions - which will like fire up Malloy because unions are in his pocket.

Malloy gets two minutes to respond and says we've had Republican Governor for 16 years and wants to see a new course, but again says nothing about what he would do specifically to make changes. [Someone should ask him how long the State Legislature has been in power since they really control the budget - I think since 1972.]

Foley comes back and actually does mention the Legislature's role in creating the budget including accountability for spending. Foley says "its untrue to say that the Governor has done this."

Next question from Dankowsky: Three managed care companies involved in Husky program made three million dollars and spent two percent on actually healthcare, how would you improve - what is essentially the ratio of expenditure on providing healthcare is increased [he is rallying against profits and its probably a fair question if true] . Foley rallies against National Healthcare, and then goes on to talk about how expensive Healthcare cost delivery is. [Not the best answer]. Talks about premiums going up because of uncertainty due to National Healthcare, and the hospitals not being able to charge back to the government for equipment, etc so costs are being passed on to patients.

Malloy wants to renegotiate insurers who are part of the Husky Program. [Well, easier said than done. Good luck there.] Malloy pulls out a piece of paper (a note) that he says someone gave him on the way in tonight. [Oh, ok... this isn't planned]. House doesn't intervene. Malloy then being the humble guy he is says the guy called him "Mr. Mayor soon to be the next Governor ... from his lips to God's ear". Apparently, the guy after losing healthcare now is happy to have received notice he has healthcare once again because of healthcare reform. So he's on the public dole.

Malloy: "I want to rule out excess profits, and limit the profit people can make when providing a service." [Oh this guy is going to be popular with businesses. He wants to chase the rest of the business out of Connecticut. God help us. Does he think people don't use electronic record keeping? Really?]

Malloy then goes into a diatribe about Foley wanting to deny people from getting hearing aids or Prostate Cancer Screening.

Foley says that Malloy is lying. Talks about reducing costs.

Malloy reads some document he attributes to Foley which outlines that a basic care package for small businesses approved by the Connecticut Insurance Commissioner - that is exempt from mandates. He says exempt three times. Malloy is having a disconnect because he is accusing Foley of not wanting to include mandates without defining precisely what they are.

Dankowsky ignores Malloy's comments and asks the next question of Malloy: "Do you support changes to the system of binding arbitration for municipal workers." Malloy: "No I don't". He is against the idea of Policeman, Teachers or Fireman going out on strike, and worried about people getting arrested. [Strange - if people don't misbehave, they don't get arrested]. He is a proponent of binding arbitration and claims that most decisions by binding arbitration over the last 18 months came out with zeroes, and then boasts that Stamford had double zeroes.

Foley: "Dan is starting to sound like a Union Representative." Some of the Union slobs in the audience ignore the rules and start to clap. How annoying. Foley goes on to say that State mandates are the cause for increasing property taxes, and mentions that some mandates require towns to collect revenue solely through the imposition of property taxes, which are steadily increasing and driving a lot of older people out of their homes. Binding arbitration being mandated by the state is overreaching. Union leaders want binding arbitration and Mayors and selectman don't want it. Proposes that all negotiators involved in binding arbitration should be members of the National Arbitration Organization and not just a bunch of locals who can be influenced easily.

Malloy retorts that Foley is against mandates, but happy his doctor is mandated to have a degree to practice medicine. [Sort of a wise-ass answer that has nothing to do with binding arbitration.]

Foley responds by changing subjects and asking Malloy if he can prove that Malloy has said something untruthful in his TV or radio ads if he would apologize to the people of Connecticut. Oh boy, that's a lead in. Malloy says its an interesting question he asks and goes on to change the subject twisting Foley's comments on providing healthcare free of mandates. Obviously, Malloy is taking this out of context. Foley says, "I'm just asking you a simple question." [Malloy uses the oldest trick in the book - he answers a question by asking another unrelated one. Poor.]

They banter back and forth and Dankowsky tells them they are going to get back to questions.

House asks the question citing a few examples, "As Governor how would you prepare for a State-wide disaster." Foley talks about the Federal Governments role, and talks briefly about state government's role. Talks about proper staffing and funding for emergency teams. Talks about Governor's need to be a strong leader and appoint qualified managers.

Malloy says that the Federal Government is not responsible for responding to emergencies, that it is the local firefighters and police (another chance to reach out to unions). Talks about how he responded to nursing home fire, flooding and drought conditions, hurricanes and power outages. [So what?]

Foley responds: Large disasters are coordinated through FEMA. [I think there is a disconnect with this question since neither candidate really answered it.] Malloy rips FEMA for not providing aid for the recent hurricanes, and takes a very unfair swipe at Governor Rell for not securing federal diaster relief funds. [Foley should point out (and doesn't) that both of Connecticut's US Senators and all five of Connecticut's Members of the House of Representatives - which are supposed to represent Connecticut's interests in Washington D.C. are all Democrats. If Malloy has a beef with anyone, it should be those charged with actually securing support from Washington. Missed opportunity by Foley to hit back. Damn!]

House asks about Privatization citing examples where there are successes like in Chicago with parking meters. Malloy is against privatization. He brags about unprivatizing some of the services previously privatized by his predecessor. [Of course, he's all about the unions, he would never defy them through transfer of jobs to the private sector.]

Foley goes on to say he believes that it doesn't make sense to use state workers to perform a service that can be done much cheaper by the private sector. He uses the example of Riverview Hospital and says the State of Connecticut pays out $922,000 per patient. (There are about 80 patients on the books). Says private contractors have said they could do this for half the cost which would result in a savings of about $25 million dollars per year. [Hmm. Republican or Democrat, someone should look into that0. Foley asks why we would have state workers pave roads if private companies can do it much cheaper. Fair question. Finally, Foley brings up the fact that Malloy will raise taxes.

Malloy sort of digs a hole digs a hole for himself on the tax issue by making something up about Foley increasing Property Taxes which Foley quickly denies and asks Malloy to be honest with Residents of Connecticut by telling them which taxes he actually intends to raise, and how much.

Question: Dankowsky: Commission led by business leaders produced a report regarding closing the achievement gap, having better teachers: Foley is in line with the latest Commissions Report including choice, money following child, assessments of teachers and principles. His plan is identical to the Commission's report. Also, wants to grade schools A through F. Wants a final exam for High School Students. Uses Massachusetts as and example where many of these provisions have been implemented and are showing success. [Solid answer].

Malloy goes on to say that the Commission should have been put together 8 years ago [another cheap swipe a Governor Jodi Rell], then says he testified at the Commission's hearing, and brags about how the State should have followed Stamford's Achievement Gap plans that he created. Hmmm? Malloy wants mandatory pre-K, and wants to extend the school year. Oh, boy who is going to pay for that, Dan? He wants to be our education Governor.

Foley slams Malloy by pointing out that Stamford has the largest achievement gap than any other city in the State.[ BAM!] Also, clarifies that Dan doesn't support the provisions that Foley listed above. Malloy skirts the issue, blabs about nothing, and wants to make change. [Poor answer.]

House asks about reducing costs within State University System. Malloy goes on to say that State University Managers are overpaid. Wants people to have "Connecticut Common Sense: They know when to move forward, and they know when to stand still." [Boy, he's creative, I've never heard that before. It doesn't even have any context. This guy Malloy can really talk, I give him that]. Malloy backtracks and says he supports UConn and supports the administration.

After rallying against the University Presidents, Malloy says he stands with them. [Yes, he stands with everyone who votes.]

Foley talks about retirement benefits being too large for Municipal workers. Foley says the costs at UConn continue to rise at a high steady rate. Worried about budget control at UConn is not under any single entity but under several. Wants to restructure the system.

Dankowski: Asks about Fairfield County traffic issues and problems on Meritt Parkway. Foley says the commission came out with a 200 page report which is not a plan. Surprisingly, he talks about creating high rail service from New Haven to Hartford. [Don't know how he proposes to fund this, idea. I think the congestion issue is sort of an odd question given all the other issues facing the state.]

Malloy wants to reduce the number of exits on the Merritt Parkway to reduce accidents, he then lists all kinds of public transportation ideas that would be enormously expensive. Wants more parking spaces.

Foley slams the General Assembly by saying that the money collected for transportation policy was diverted from the Transportation Fund to the General Fund so the General Assembly could continue their spending spree. [Good answer]. Malloy says its the Governor's fault. [Note: Malloy will NEVER criticize the Democrat controlled State Legislature or assign them ownership for ANY of the State's problems. He has followed the same rule of thumb in EVERY public appearance and in each of the debates.]

Dankowsky asks Dan Malloy to list three specific cuts he would make to the State Budget. [Good question actually]. Malloy says he need to look at the Medicaid System and go to Generic Drugs. [Note: Hahaha. So what if there aren't any generic drugs for the symptom or illness that a person has?]. Malloy says electricity costs are too high [Isn't Blumenthall campaigning on how he reduced electricity costs?] and then Malloy wants to streamline building projects. Sort of weird answer. He then lists several issues and problems. We learn Malloy can't count to three.

Dankowsky jokes, "Mr. Foley you can feel free to give us more than three". Foley attacks the $3 million dollars in additional budget spending. He promises to have a hiring freeze for state workers. Wants to use the commissions report on waste and duplication and enact those ideas. Use of outside contractors, and talks about Riverview Hospital savings. Transition Elderly medicaid patients to Community based care which he says patients prefer.

Malloy takes the low road and accuses Foley of putting mental patients on the street. Foley corrects him by saying he would not reduce healthcare spending.

House asks a "Sports Question": asks Foley if he agrees with the University of Notre Dame's agreement to play UConn provided that the game take place in New York or New Jersey, and not Connecticut's Rentschler Field in East Hartford. Foley wasn't familiar with the decision, and sort of fluffs the question. He says perhaps we don't have the same market size. He then goes into a discussion about Connecticut NOT promoting a professional team coming to Connecticut [allusion to The Whalers - this isn't a popular position he's taking] or building a stadium or venue. [Ugggh. Would have steered clear of that whole topic. Gesh!]

Malloy gets the chance to watch Foley flub the question and certainly doesn't do much better. He says he would have taken the coaches aside and told them we won't play Notre Dame, we will play someone else. [I don't think he understands the significance of playing Notre Dame for the prestige of the program, does he?] Says we don't coordinate the sports events in the Nation? He says we don't go after NCAA to host quarter finals and finals here in Connecticut. [WHAT? I guess he doesn't realize how often Hartford has hosted the Woman's NCAA tournament, and he doesn't remember how Hartford hosted the Men's first round back a few years ago - and few business even bothered to stay open to service the thousands of fans who came off of buses to see the games at the Hartford Civic Center). You don't get second chances after such a terrible response by Hartford].

Closing Statements.

Foley first. Foley alludes to the National Movement for change and that he is part of it. Talks about the fact that his business background will help him fix the problems and attract businesses to the State. Talks about the huge spending problem. Says he will not raise taxes but Malloy will raise taxes by about $2000 per household on average. Says he can stand up to unions unlike Malloy. Wants to be the education and jobs governor. And is not a career politician who will say anything to get elected.

Malloy: In a round about way says he's not going to respond to Foley's points. He then moves into his typical discussion about his own personal hardships, and listening to tapes designed for blind people because he had a learning disability as a kid. Gives a spiel about being a working class person quoting Mama Malloy. Goes on and on about dozens of alleged accomplishments.

In the final analysis it was a good debate between the candidates. Mostly issue-oriented, and very civil. Foley needed to come out stronger in this debate to leave a lasting impression, and I think he has improved over the past two debates, but I also believe he didn't come out with the knock out punch someone like him - who is behind in the polls needs to move even.

It's going to be an interesting two weeks. It will come down to what message resonates. Bibb and class war-fare versus Business competentcy and sound economic principles. We'll soon find out.