Patriot or Hyprocrite?

What is it with people who think that once you support a candidate that you're locked into that support 'til death?

Primaries can be drag out, knock down fights that often leave contenders battered and bruised, and heck - even sometimes mortally wounded. But that's almost to be expected by anyone who is vying for their own political survival to face the opposition party in the General Election. It's winner take all; and those in second and third place drift off into oblivion - at least until next time.

Now admittedly I was quite outspoken in opposition to Linda McMahon, and Janet Peckinpaugh in previous posts. And to be honest, I still have reservations about their ability and overall effectiveness of both candidates once in office. But in contrast to the option of sending Democrats to the House and Senate to rubber stamp the failed policies of Barack Obama, I'd rather send people who would at least provide a level of opposition to his policies. The idea of a guaranteed Democrat vote for two more years of job loss and higher taxes is frightening.

If you've been paying attention at all you've noticed that Democrats have been running away from their President and their own policies. None of them are running ads promoting higher taxes and more stimulus spending, are they?

Even in Democrat strongholds like Connecticut, Dems like Chris Murphy has been running ads that mention he's been "working with Republicans to keep jobs in Connecticut". And Joe Courtney has made a point of running commercials that state that he voted against the Obama stimulus plans - basically trying to sell himself as some quasi-fiscal conservative. If the Democrats were actually proud of their party and its principles, they wouldn't have to go out of their way to sell themselves as either collaborators with the GOP or try to co-opt Republican positions.

So what about the option of supporting third party candidates? Well, that option is beyond rediculous. Third parties in a two party system are spoilers in the General Election. Nothing is gained by voting for an Independent candidate except to siphon votes away from Republican candidates and help to assure a Democrat victory. You'll notice in many cases where left-wing parties are established (for example, like the Working Family Party) that they often cross-endorse and run Democrat candidates on their party line on the ballot. Meanwhile, Conservative and Liberatarian parties run their own candidates as true opposition candidates.

Third party voters will tell you that they are either "voting on principle" or "teaching the Republican Party a lesson". Well to you who think this way, I'd rather have an imperfect Republican candidate elected instead of one who's votes guarantee higher taxes and spending, and carte blanche for liberals to do as they wish at my expense.

There is no better example of the detrimental impact of a third party candidacy than the 1992 candidacy of H. Ross Perot which crippled Republican Presidential re-election chances, and gave us eight years of William Jefferson Clinton. As memory serves, Perot spent most of his time (and money) trying to pull down George Bush, and spent very little time attacking the positions of Bill Clinton despite the fact that Perot had far more in common with Bush than he did Clinton when it came to economic and foreign policy positions. But most know that Perot's election bid was his way of getting even with Bush for personal disagreements. Yet, regardless of the rationale for his campaign, Republicans lost the Presidency and Democrats took power for eight years.

The battle for the heart and soul of any political party should be conducted during the Primary. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. People win primaries for a number of reasons including they spend more, they slide in-between two other candidates (like Janet Peckinpaugh did in the second district), and sometimes its just because they are more appealing through their positions and temperment. And sometimes its a matter of simple demographics. Whatever it is, it is.

Understandably, burnout and anger are always a factor in post-primary elections. Losing stinks, and the idea of having to get behind a candidate whom you've been trying to pound into the ground for the past six months is not that appealing. So if you're on the losing side, you take time off and recharge your batteries. At the end of the day, you'll recognize that you'll likely find more in common with candidates from your own party, than you would with voting for the opposition candidate.

I guess you could vote third party, but that's akin to throwing a temper-tantrum and taking your ball and going home. Third party candidates generally amount to very little, but clearly their small impact to offset general election results is sometimes enough to tip the balance in favor of the person with which you have the least in common with.

Third party voters often refer to themselves as Patriots - out to rid the world of RINOs (Republican in Name Only), and you'lll find many of these people follow the same routine each election cycle - never really satisfied with the candidate who wins the primary because they find they ONLY agree with that person 70% of the time, as opposed to their candidate whom they agreed with 95% of the time, all the while - they likely agree with the Democrat candidate only 20% of the time. So in practical application is supporting a third party candidate who's candidacy will likely help elect someone whom you have 20% in common truly Patriotic? Or is it Hyprocracy at its best?

Often when you try to explain the outcome of their decision, third party goers become angry and dispondent. It's hard to reason with someone who is so unreasonable.

It's time for Republicans to weigh the risks in the balance. Tom Foley, Linda McMahon, Janet Peckinpaugh, and everyone else who won their Republican primary deserve Republican support. And we taxpayers don't deserve two more years of punishment because your perfect candidate didn't win the primary. And the Democrats in power are praying and hoping that some of you defect enough or sit home in order to give them two more years of one party control and declare it a mandate for a much more expansive government.

Connecticut Gubernatorial Race and the Death Penalty

There was jubilation last week when twelve Connecticut jurors found villain Steven Hayes guilty on 16 of 17 counts for his involvement in the 2007 Chesire Home Invasion which included the brutal rape, kidnapping, and murder of the Petit women. In every niche that contained an internet connection, we followed the case via Twitter for nearly two and a half weeks, as journalists from local and national networks tweeted the minute by minute testimony, body language, and reactions from the proceedings in a way that allowed us to see and feel what was happening in the courtroom. When the jury cried, we cried, and when the verdicts were read – we cheered. And darn it, we cheered loudly!

But the verdict is only a chapter in a long ongoing saga; there is much more to come. On October 18th the jury will reconvene to start the penalty phase of the Hayes trial - which includes the possible decision to put Hayes to death for his heinous crimes. I make no bones about this one; I strongly believe that Hayes should die by lethal injection. While Connecticut has only executed 127 people since 1639, I have no problem making Steven Hayes number 128, and his buddy - Joshua Komisarjevsky number 129.

Connecticut, as we all know, is a very blue state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 20% margin, but notwithstanding steady voter loyalty to the Democrat Party and its principles, Connecticut residents also support the death penalty by a 2-1 margin, perhaps more. One can argue that this is a paradox of sorts given that Republicans tend to support Capital Punishment while Democrats are usually soft on crime and criminals – and champion theories of experimental reform and reduced punishment. Yet this particular crime has struck such a chord with people that it’s served as a reminder as to why the Death Penalty exists. These horrid crimes were committed against women and children in a shocking manner that I won’t go into here.

Last year the heavily Connecticut State Legislature sent a bill to end the Death Penalty to Governor Jodi Rell (R) which she promptly vetoed citing that some crimes are heinous enough to warrant Capital Punishment. The bill to abolish the death penalty passed the Connecticut House by a frightening 90 to 56 margin, but passed the State Senate by a tight 19 to 17 margin. If for no other reason, we were lucky to have Governor Rell in that position to stop the liberal’s mad proposition.

But liberals are a like a mutating virus – relentless, and hard to kill. And this issue is figuring front and center as a part of this year’s Gubernatorial Race. Democrat Dan Malloy has already vowed to push for removal of the death penalty, while Republican Tom Foley has voiced support for the continuing the Death Penalty. The clear evidence of these positions has been confirmed during their last two debates between the hopefuls. If being a career politician, and big Government, tax and spend policies weren’t enough to disqualify Malloy, then his decision to embark on a crusade to remove the death penalty (against the will of the people) certainly is. And despite the evidence of the certainly of guilt by Steven Hayes (admitted), Malloy is unmoved by the details and horror while bragging that he’s been some big time prosecutor. Well, maybe not so big time after all, it appears.

The two groups that tend to be activists for death penalty abolishment are left wing liberals, and religious fanatics who misrepresent Biblical teaching to support their point of view. In fairness, Christ said nothing for or against capital punishment which was certainly far more prevalent during His time than in ours. Christ could have easily spoken out on the matter if he felt strongly about it as he often did with other cultural topics. In Roman times even thieves suffered crucifixion, an act that often resulted in death. In Matthew 22:21, Christ said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." Christ could have referenced the 12 commandments, or any decree He wished, and instead directed followers to simply follow the law – regardless of its mandates.

History shows us that Democrats have led us into war more often than Republicans. The result of declaring and enacting war is the obvious legal mandate permitted to soldiers to burn homes, destroy property, take hostages, injure and kill the enemy. Liberals use the argument that the state has no right to condemn and put someone to death; however, when it comes to war – which results in murder on a massive scale, they forget this argument all together. So it’s clear that the state does have a right to mandate death after all; and any argument contrary to this is to ignore the obvious. In fact, taking it a step further – war often kills more than enemy combatants – often innocent persons are killed, as a result of combat. And my argument at present is to find fault with acts of war, but rather to expose the inconsistency in the argument that the State doesn’t have a right to condemn men to death. Military tribunals are also empowered by the State, and are further evidence of precedence where the State can sentence men to death.

And for those who argue that the Death Penalty isn’t a deterrent, I challenge them to provide evidence of how a crime was committed by the condemned after they were permanently removed from society via execution. Capital Punishment is both a punishment and a deterrent.

This week we will hear that Hayes’ defense attorneys will try a new tactic to help him escape the ultimate punishment. They will claim that pursuing the death penalty costs the State of Connecticut $3.1 million dollars and that the State can’t afford the cost of the process. Of course, the cost of the trial has nothing to do with the guilt of the villain, or morality of the punishment, and is nothing more than a shady backdoor approach to find a way to allow Hayes to escape absolute justice. If the process created by the State is too expensive, than it is up to the State to find a way to reduce the cost rather than abandon the process, and let murderers, rapists, and villains avoid the will of the people.

Leading up to Election Day, Connecticut residents have a lot to think about in light of how their Government has functioned, and what they can expect from those balloting for election. But one thing is clear, if you believe that people like Steven Hayes deserve Capital Punishment for heinous crimes they commit – like those on the poor Petit family, then don’t consider Dan Malloy. If you want justice for criminals – support Tom Foley. Connecticut, the choice is yours.

Who "The King" is voting for, and my Predictions

U.S. Senate:

I'm voting for Rob Simmons, but it would be a miracle for him to win given that he re-entered the race way too late. Moreover, money-bags McMahon has been both visible and has spent a ton on commercials and mailers. In truth, Simmons didn’t need $16 million to beat McMahon - he just had to stay in the race and make his case. Simmons’ decision to bail out was a bad one. Now its too little, too late. Peter Schiff on the other hand, had ample time and resources to make his case, but instead he just campaigned in his home district, and in a few rich towns. He will get 15% maximum and that's all he really deserves. My advice to him is - next time, hire professional campaign staff, and keep your family out of it. Fact is that Peter's volunteers worked harder than he did.
Predicted Winner: Linda McMahon by a landslide.

Connecticut 2nd Congressional:

I'm voting for Daria Novak. She's worked like a madwoman, campaigning in every nook and cranny of the district. She never rested, stopped, or broke. Her campaign has been 90% positive. Most of campaigning came in the form of grassroots support and visibility at area events. But her campaign needs a major facelift to be successful in the general election, else she will be crushed by the Courtney machine. Doug Dubitsky is a nice guy but he lacks the team to bring him over the line. I think he will do ok but I expect Daria to win. Janet Peckinpaugh isn’t resonating with the public. Her best hope is that she slips in between Novak and Dubitsky. Peckinpaugh’s problem is that she’s Janet Peckinpaugh - a late entry, poor communicator, and comes across dimwitted in most public appearances. She is also a liberal media personality who has had controversial behavior at the television stations she’s worked for. Given the three choices, Republicans aught to pray that Peckinpaugh does not win the primary on August 10th, the results for the GOP in the general election would be embarrassing.
Predicted Winner: Daria Novak, but the race will be closer than expected.

Attorney General:

I’m voting for Martha Dean. She’s a consistent campaigner and solid on the issues. Republicans know her for her spunk and conservative principles. She’s sharp as a tack and knows the law better than anyone in the field past or present. Ross Garber has run a 100% negative campaign. He’s perceived as a clown in most circles and not worth five minutes of consideration.
Predicted Winner: Martha Dean by a landslide

Governor’s Race:

I’m voting for Michael Fedele. I can’t say that I’m excited about this race at all because we just don’t have folks with the “matter of fact” personality and delivery of Governor Jodi Rell. Rell was the perfect Connecticut candidate – no nonsense, and couldn’t be dragged down into scandal – no matter how hard the Hartford Courant tried to make her out to be John Rowland. On the downside, she didn’t battle Democrats and appeared to be a lot like a rubber stamp to their whims, and that is part of why we are in the trouble we are in. Initially, I was leaning toward Tom Foley. He seemed to have solid command for a period but didn’t come across well in the debates. At the end of the day, he’s just another millionaire from South West of Hartford. I met both candidates and talked with them – Foley was less energetic in person than Fedele. Fedele has more humble background and is far more appealing to voters. I think the Governor’s race is mess to start with, and it’s anyone’s game – a Foley win helps Democrats in a State that has been downsized to death by Corporations and CEOs (like Foley). In a good economy, Foley might have been a better choice. Oz Griebel wants tolls in Connecticut. Enough said – that’s the last thing Connecticut needs – which is why he’s down with Peter Schiff (US Sen Cand) at 15%. No resonation. No tolls, No Oz. At the end of the day, Foley kept a commanding lead; I am having a hard time seeing that totally disintegrate on August 10th.
Predicted Winner: Toss Up; Tom Foley by a hair

Lt. Governor’s Race:

I’m voting for Mark Boughton. I think a lot will have to do with Boughton’s last minute appeal and how well Mike Fedele does. I’m not a big fan of Lisa Wilson-Foley. And its not just because she uses a hyphenated name. Early she started endorsing and cross endorsing candidates which I found distasteful. Also, although her background is interesting, I just don’t see her qualified to run for Lt. Governor without more political experience and service. Boughton has been a successful mayor of Danbury, Connecticut, and has done a great job in a tough city. He would be a huge asset to either Foley or Fedele from a political point of view. Connecticut has shown that its not necessarily favorable to business candidates, so it will be interesting if Wilson-Foley’s feminine qualities resonate with Connecticut constituents at a higher octave then her business background. I met Mark Boughton and liked him.
Predicted Winner: Mark Boughton by a hair.

Thoughts on the Unopposed:

State Treasurer:

I’m glad that Jeff Wright got out of the Governor’s race and decided to run for State Treasurer. Jeff is capable and ready. God willing he will make a huge case against Denise Nappier and beat out one of the biggest spenders in Connecticut History.

Secretary of State

Jerry Farrell is running unopposed. He comes across as a bit odd, in person. But we'll see where it goes. I'll most likely vote for him unless he loses his mind at the podium.

Connecticut Congressional District 1:

If I lived in District 1, I’d vote for Anne Brickley .

I don’t have any opinion on candidates in Districts 4 and 5 at this time (I will update if I do). But they have their hands full with the incumbent’s seated on the Democrat side.

Vote Rob Simmons for U.S. Senate

I'm sure this essay won't make me popular with some of the tea party folks or the libertarian members of the Republican party, but the best I can do is explain why I am voting for Rob Simmons on August 10th.

As everyone who reads this column knows, I supported Rob Simmons before he suspended his campaign shortly after the circus of a Republican State Convention. For all the reasons, outlined in my previous essay, Rob Simmons, is simply the best qualified individual to represent Republicans and Connecticut constituents. Rob has the legislative background, military service, job creation expertise, and temperament to handle the job. No on the job training will be required. What some people deem as "Washington Insider" I believe is simply background and experience to navigate the complexities of the Halls of Congress and get the job done.

I've discussed a lot about how I'm no fan of Linda McMahon and the fact that she's not qualified for a role much bigger than state representative, let alone running any major agency. She is full of baggage and evidence shows that her bankruptcy and wrestling background is an automatic disqualifier in most minds. Linda is shark meat to the Democrat-Blumenthal machine which would chew her up and spit her out in record time. Linda is better off in the pro wrestling arena than in Washington. And we'd be all better off for her departure from the race to take the elements of stupidity and nonsense which would engulf any attempts at issue-based rationale discussion and debate.

As you also know, after Rob Simmons suspended his campaign, I opted to give Peter Schiff a good look. I felt that Peter was also a victim of some unethical antics by Chris Healy and his drones who worked tooth and nail to eliminate the possibility of Peter receiving a fair hearing by delegates. The baloney with not showing his video, cutting him off, and doing everything they could do to eliminate his voice was clear corruption that will be forever identified with the legacy of Connecticut Chairman Chris Healy. And face it, I was supporting Rob Simmons at the State Convention, so my view on the Schiff situation was obviously neutral. The fix was in and Linda was pushed to endorsement - chair leading and all from the Healy machine (well financed by the McMahon campaign).

After the convention, Peter Schiff never got going. He ran a very incompetent campaign - outright refusing to leave comfortable surroundings down in Southwest and Western Connecticut. His visits to the Connecticut Second Congressional Distinct were few and far between. Peter had weeks to get his act together and travel the state to get his message out, and had he done what any competent candidate would have done - he probably could have done well, and eliminated the need for Rob Simmons to get back in the race.

The feedback I heard at Town Committee meetings ranged from "Who is Peter Schiff" to "Why won't he come to the second district". Peter blew it. I'm convinced that Rob Simmons withdrawal from the race gave Peter the opportunity to come in and make his case to the anti-McMahon voters. So, instead of doing this, he did nothing. He put up a few videos on youtube and attended rallies close to home where the money is, and a few in Hartford County, but never traveled to the poorer districts of Connecticut to hear the pain of jobless residents in places where job creation is needed most. Moreover, he never even bothered to go to Norwich, a very large Tea Party town; he never took the opportunity to energize his own local base; these folks spent hours and days dedicated to his grassroots cause. In the end, Peter Schiff rewarded them with NOTHING.

Moreover, Peter Schiff owes an apology to all those folks who ran around collecting signatures and putting up signs (some bought at their own expense). His failure to act cost him. He will be lucky to get a third of the vote. Peter Schiff is the poster child for failure based on his own arrogance and ignorance. Either or both, it doesn't matter. As one voter said to me "if he can't even show up in our district during the campaign, how is he going to represent us once elected into office." Point taken. Point accepted.

I'm sure I sound a little bitter about Peter Schiff's lack of dedication to his own cause. But this happens in many campaigns. Campaigning is a full time gig, best left managed by experienced people who understand how to get the message out, and how to make even the most dismal of candidates appear engaged and accessible.

All this brings me back to Rob Simmons.

Simmons is getting flack for withdrawing and reappearing late in the game. But when you think about it, it's ridiculous to hear Linda McMahon complain about it when she has the capacity to spend $16 million dollars on TV, mailings and to buy Town Committees for their support. Be happy that Rob Simmons didn't go the dirty route and that we see our US Senate primary become like what you see in the the Malloy/Lamont or Fedele/Foley TV drama. None of this endless attack ad garbage is appealing to constituents. The result is we know even less about these four than we did before it became a mud slinging contest.

Rob Simmons isn't charismatic; He's capable. Its not a surprise to me that the Hartford Courant gave him their endorsement even with controversy of his early withdrawal. The endorsement was based on a holistic view of his past accomplishments and temperament. Obviously, Connecticut is best represented by Simmons' character, independence, experience and dedication. Rob Simmons cares about his constituents. Few people question his motives and ability to do the right thing even if its unpopular. There are a few cries of RINO, but that term is just an empty name-calling tactic used by opponents during campaigns to try to elevate their candidate to a higher position than they are capable of attaining on their own merit. Yes, Rob isn't right on everything, but who cares, he's electable, and he's right where it counts.

On August 10th, let's give Rob Simmons the nod. He's the best opportunity for an issue based debate without the circus or phony rhetoric. And based on every poll, he's the GOPs only realistic options for defeating Richard Blumenthal in November, and keeping Obama's government expansion in check.