Will New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart Chose a Presidential Photo-Op over Principle?

Erin Stewart: Republican Free-thinker
or modern-day Democratic Prop?

It is reasonable that local politicians should follow expected protocol and extend personal pleasantries when important political dignitaries visit their community. And it is The King's view that this should be certainly be the case when President Barack Hussein Obama visits Central Connecticut State University in New Britain on Wednesday, March 5th.

But make no mistake, President Obama's visit to The Hardware City isn't merely some accidental pit stop on the way to his next golf outing; Mr. Obama is intentionally using a newly reacquired Republican stronghold as the back-drop to promote his half-baked economic ploy to raise the minimum wage.

Mayor Erin Stewart should be cautioned to carefully weigh the role she will play when the President's Circus comes to town.  At a time when Connecticut Republican Party loyalists are furious over the perception that CTGOP leaders (and in particular their would-be gubernatorial candidates) are hesitant and weak on both economic and social issues, it will be critical for Ms. Stewart, a leading Republican, to avoid getting caught up in the theatrics of the moment, and remind Mr. Obama and Mr. Malloy that Connecticut's economy has suffered tremendously as a result of liberal Democrat policies enacted by both of their regime's administrations.

Instead of traveling around Connecticut to promote a short-sighted scheme to raise the wages of high school students employed by their neighborhood grocer, the White House and Governor's Office should be working to create real career opportunities for residents of the Nutmeg State. If Obama and Malloy surrogates persist to sell the line that they are trying to help the alleged 13% of seniors, and 55% of women stuck in minimum wage jobs, then perhaps you could ask them to lay out their specific plans to do so, and urge them to reduce the regulatory and tax burdens on small and large businesses, thereby creating better opportunities for the entirety of Connecticut's struggling workforce. She can also remind him of the CBO report which states that raising the minimum wage will result in the loss over a half million jobs in the USA.

On Wednesday, while the President dazzles his staged union audience, Mayor Stewart has an unique opportunity to either stand in the background, clapping, and cheering like most good little collaborative Connecticut Republicans usually do, or to greet the President like a brave, new opposition leader and point out the misgivings of his band-aid politics. This means refusing to play a part in his public relations charade.

This will be the test for an upstart CTGOP leader who could take this opportunity to teach our present State Party Chairman, noncommittal Republican politicians, and others what it's like to have real courage, and stand up for Republican principles which so many in our Party, have for too long abandoned.  Anyone who tells you to put politics aside to aid the President in his photo-ops endeavor should remember that "silence is acceptance" and it's up to a few brave souls to respectfully protest counter-productive policies.

I AM

THE KING

Connecticut's new Bysiewicz AG Standard

On Thursday I watched with amazement as the Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary Committee made yet another gaff in it's two-week long war on Connecticut residents.  It was astonishing to witness members pass SB6342 favorably out of committee in a 29-15 vote.  For those who don't know, SB6342 is affectionately referred to by most as the "Bysiewicz Bill" otherwise known in the official record as AN ACT CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR CANDIDATES SEEKING ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

"Bada-Bing"
Under the new AG standard, even - say,
Susan Bysiewicz would be qualified.
And that's pretty scary

The bill is highly controversial because it dumbs-down the qualifications for those seeking the office of Attorney General here in Connecticut to the point where just about any book-smart test-taker who's current with their Connecticut Bar fee can now run.  As you'll recall, in the last election cycle - Susan Bysiewicz, was deemed unqualified to run for AG by the Connecticut Supreme Court because she hadn't actively practiced law for 10 years in Connecticut which was one of main requirements within the statute for those individuals seeking the AG office.

Now, to most normal people, one would think that the person who would serve as Connecticut's highest ranking attorney, representing Connecticut in lawsuits on the national stage, and who would be involved in litigation on important legal matters would at least have 10 years of active practice as an attorney.  Apparently the geniuses in the Judiciary Committee believe that having experience practicing law actively as an attorney is no longer a mandatory attribute for the suitor, since our representatives have decided it's far more important to place politics over merit by taking the first step toward making sure future candidates need only be card carrying members of the Connecticut Bar (not necessarily active) and reside in the nutmeg state for at least 10 years. (and as as a side note it was disclosed that the Connecticut Bar actually drafted the Bill's language). Let's face it - the Committee thinks the AG role is nothing more than a big-time management position disconnected from the work of its office.  Just another polico swiveling in their leather back chair up in Hartford.

It's hard to image why our Representatives would make such a shortsighted move.  What's even more remarkable is that people like Republican State Senator John Kissel (S-07) also voted in favor of this lunacy.  Sadly, I watched him stumble through his unintelligible remarks which hardly seemed to support his decision.  His whining about having reservations about SB6342 didn't seem to get in the way of his casting a Yea vote.   Looking timid and foolish, Kissel mumbled into the microphone that lessening the standard would offer the opportunity for a larger pool of candidates from which voters would have to choose from - yeah dumb, dumb - unqualified candidates like Susan Bysiewicz. I wondered to myself - is this the same John Kissel who voted against Marijuana decriminalization and abolishing the death penalty?  You could see disgust in the eyes of a few of his colleagues who had the foresight to vote No including Republican John Hetherington (H-125), and Democrat Arthur O'Neill (H-069) - who switched his vote at the last minute recognizing the negative impact of passing such a watered-down standard - that's if any standard exists in this bill at all.

Has Rep. John Kissel lost his mind?
Where is the sensible guy from last week?

What Representative Kissel and his friends have done in effect is reduce the Connecticut Attorney General's post to just another political position.  Now any fool who took the bar exam and has lived in Connecticut for 10 years can climb the political ladder and seek to become the next CT AG.

As Deputy Republican Leader Themis Klarides (H-114) pointed out [paraphrasing]: we all know people people who go to law school, pass the bar, then spend most of their lives working in other general legal capacities or who don't even practice law would now be qualified for AG. And she's right - like those who engage in non-profit work, or in some other paper-pushing corporate setting - wholly disconnected from actual litigation or providing legal opinions, or worse - those who spend a lifetime in politics growing their name recognition for a chance to run for higher office.  Sooner rather than later under this new criteria, that AG race is going to amount to being nothing more than another political popularity contest.  And you know what's worse than that - after she gets crushed by Chris Murphy in the Democrat Senatorial Primary, we could once again see that dumb-as-a-rock Susan Bysiewicz make another run for AG now that the bar has been lowered so even she could step over it.

If our General Assembly really had an interest in establishing the highest qualifications for the Connecticut Attorney General's position - do you know what they would do?  They would get out of their dusty chambers and take the time to go visit some of Connecticut's best law firms and ask partners what standards and qualifications they use to hire their attorneys.  I bet the bar just might be a tad bit higher than the new Bysiewicz standard that our state politicians find so appealing.

I really hope people are keeping track of each and every vote taken by those on both sides of the aisle.  Sometimes I think the effort to win a Republican majority in the Statehouse is an attainable goal, but it doesn't help when our own members make just as many asinine decisions as those on the other side.  With Connecticut taking a hard left turn, the prospect of a merit-less left-wing activist sitting in the AG's office, publishing legal opinions is hardly appealing. You think about that.
 
I AM,
 
THE KING
 
This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Connecticut Democrats and their Transgendered Bathroom Bill

Just when you thought there was one place you could go to find peace - free from family, friends, and bloody politics. But alas - oh no - not even the bathroom is to be spared from the sickness of extreme left-wing Degenerates that control Connecticut's Legislature.


It's a sad day when Moderates and
 Republicans allow perverts to control
 the agenda

It's not like your Democratic Legislators don't have enough to do.  I mean, expanding Connecticut debt to spend ratio is a full-time job in itself - isn't it?  And isn't their big priority to find new ways to extort money from the public through new taxes on gas, coupons, and yoga classes as part of their War on Capitalism. Or developing a layout for their new highway toll system, or implementing their $11 million Bus to Nowhere scheme, or finding ways to save horrid creatures like Stephen Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky from the penalty of death they so rightfully deserve.  Aren't they engaged in enough madness for one term?

Well hold on to your seats folks, it gets worse.  Much worse. 

If you haven't heard Bill 6599 masquerading under the pretentious title - An Act Concerning Discrimination contains provisions to make people who claim to be transgendered, a protected group under the law.  Not only does this go well beyond acceptable or moral principles usually defined under civil rights legislation, it is basically nothing less than state-sponsored perversion.  It is an abomination that the State of Connecticut would even take up this filth for consideration on taxpayer time. 

A major concern for parents and women is that the bill, for example, has a provision which permits cross-dressed freaks the right to go into, and make use of the woman's bathroom. It's a pretty disgusting scenario if you think about it. But that's not all, the legislation serves to protect cross-dressed freaks from so-called discrimination in the workplace. Unfortunately, this madness extends to our schools, and despite last minute efforts to seek amendment by the Family Institute of Connecticut - children attending classes Kindergarten through 5th Grade will also be exposed to teachers who go from being Mr. Smith to suddenly showing up as Mrs. Smith overnight.  Again, this is state-sponsored perversion.

Now how they are going to administer this in places like gym dressing rooms, saunas, sports facilities, and all other scenarios where under normal circumstances men and woman are separated for privacy reasons is beyond me. But my prediction is that this is legislation, if signed into law, is going to create chaos for businesses, organizations, schools, and courtrooms everywhere.  The descrimination lawsuits are going to mount, and the ACLU and their friends are going to have a field day in Connecticut. It really makes you wonder if legislators ever consider the ramifications of their actions - even in extreme cases like this.

I'm dismayed to report that HB6599 passed out of Committee on a 24-17 vote. For the record, the following derelicts supported this perverse bill (name/chamber/district):  E. Coleman (Sen-02), G. Fox (Rep-146), P. Doyle (Sen-09), G. Holder-Winfield (Rep-094), J. Albis (Rep-094), D. Baram (Rep-015), B. Bye (Sen-05), C. Clemons (Rep-124), P. Dillon (Rep-092), M. Flexer (Rep-044), T. Gerrantana (Sen-06), B. Godfrey (Rep-110), E. Gomes (Sen-23), A. Grogins (Rep-129), G. Hamm (Rep-034), E. Hewett (Rep-039), D. Hovey (Rep-112), T. Klairides (Rep-114), E. Meyer (Sen-12), B. Morris (Rep-140), M. Olson (Rep-046), K. Roldan (Rep-004), J. Serra (Rep-033), J. Taborsak (Rep-109).

Four people didn't think this vote was important enough to participate in or were afraid to go on record: J. Berger (Rep-073),  M. Gonzalez (Rep-003), A. Roraback (Sen-30), W. Tong (Rep-147).

And the following individuals are credited with voting against state-sponsored perversion: J. Kissel (Sen-07), J. Hetherington (Rep-125), A. Adinolfi (Rep-103), C. Caprino (Rep-032), M. Fritz (Rep-090), D. Labriola (Rep-131), M. McLachlan (Sen-24), A. O'Neill (Rep-069), T. Rowe, (Rep-123), R. Sampson (Rep-080), J. Shaban (Rep-135), B. Simanski (Rep-062), R. Smith (Rep-108), J. Welch (Sen-31).

The next stop for this bill is the floor of the Statehouse for open debate, and then a final vote. And it may not surprise you to learn that, of course, Govenor Dannel Malloy is a big proponent of "transgendered rights."  Just like the tax increase bills, and bill to abolish the death penalty, Malloy eager awaits his opportunity to permit cross-dressing men into woman's bathroom's all over Connecticut.  You can't make this stuff up!

As an aside, you have to wonder how many of the alleged religious figures who came out for the photo-op at the Capitol this week in support of abolishing the Death Penalty also came out to support gay and transgendered rights?  I bet likely all of them - since the Churches no longer preach the literal Word of God anyway, and the Holy Bible is seen as nothing more than an ancient artifact with no bearing on the present; just another paperweight on the desk. Funny how politicians crow about the Separation of Church and State when it comes to banning Nativity Scenes on public grounds, but when it comes to supporting their left-wing causes - they roll out the red carpet for their preferred preachers.  Let's face it, the white collar in Connecticut is an activism license used to brainwash parishioners into liberal thinking through guilt indoctrination.  But maybe that's a different essay for another day.  We'll see.

I want to warn you that this filthy bill has a lot more to it.  I recommend reading the Family Institute of Connecticut Action Alert page to see the frightening detail, or if you have the patience - simply read the bill itself.  It's hard to imagine that we keep talking about this bill as a first step in a litany of even more perverse pieces of legislation to follow.

I'm not one to usually urge people to call their elected officials.  I tend to believe that the time for calling is before the election takes place - and that the calls should be made to fellow voters. I believe that the die is  cast the minute the votes are counted, and you get what you got.  But in this rare case, it may be important for those among us to place a call mired in outrage and passion about this issue.

If you're so inclined, make calls to the following numbers and let them know how you feel as a parent, as a voter, and as a person who just believes in common decency:

House Democrats 1-800-842-8267

House Republicans 1-800-842-8270

Senate Democrats 1-800-842-1420

Senate Republicans 1-800-842-1421

And while your at it, why don't you call Chairman Chris Healy's office and leave him a message.  Ask him what he's doing as Chairman of the Republican Party to oppose this disgusting bill.  Healy's office (860) 826-7378.  Maybe if you're lucky you'll get to talk to Catherine Marx instead.

Tell them The King sent you (on the other hand, don't - they might hang up on you). 

I know it's times like these that you want to abandon all hope, and throw in the towel - and that's just what the opposition wants.  Remember, its their intention to cause us to fight on multiple fronts at the same time - to drain our energy, and break our will.  Don't dare allow them to succeed!  Never surrender!

I AM,

THE KING

The original blog article can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Malloy: The Marijuana Governor?

Ever since Dan Malloy started his campaign to tax everything in sight, I've heard the statement, "Dan Malloy must be on drugs!"  Well, while the Governor may not actually be on drugs, we at least know that he and his 60s-throwback friends in the Legislature are a big advocate of them.



Marijuana Legalizers
are McStupid

Today, with the full support of Governor Dannel Malloy, the Judiciary Committee held public hearings which seeks to decriminalize certain drugs via a series of acts, including: S.B. 1015: An Act Concerning the Palliative Use of Marijuana, H.B. 6391: An Act Concerning Penalties For Certain Driving Under The Influence Offences, Offender Risk Reduction Earned Credits And Home Confinement For Certain Non Violent Drug Offenders, and S.B. 953: An Act Concerning Non-Violent Drug Possession Offenses including others.  These bills are the wet dream of those demented individuals who wish to proliferate drugs in our neighborhoods and communities to create a state endorsed dependency on drug use, leading to an economic subculture for drug kingpins who can expand their heinous trade in the open.

It's so disappointing to see Republicans like Penny Bacchiochi testify in favor of legalizing drug use based on misguided emotional appeal - "Hundreds of people have died or are in pain." she exaggerated.  All I could think is that the bad guys are realling winning when they can get Republicans to act like liberal Democrats.  It's a shame that the residents of Somers, Stafford and Union have been hoodwinked into being misrepresented by someone who is as short-sighted as Bacchiochi, and who would open Connecticut's doors to drug lords eager to intice our children into their dangerous cartel.  Bacchiochi acts as if there are no other options to manage pain.  Residents of her districts aught to really call her judgement into question. In fact, maybe they aught to just recall her and replace her with someone who puts children and families before the drug cartel.

Further disingenuous is Democrat Michael Lawlor who claims that the pro-Marijuana bills are not meant to undermine police efforts to keep drugs under control, and out of our children's hands.  Instead, just like the anti-death penalty crowd, Lawlor makes simpleton argument that its just too expensive to use police for law enforcement of drug laws, or to bring criminals to trial (and provide them public defenders), or bother incarcerating criminals, or sending them off for treatment.  Lawlor and other drug advocates simply want to avoid the larger discussion of the negative implications of drug use on society, by hiding behind cancer victims. 

The suggestion that reducing the possession of amounts of Marijuana to a mere infraction under H.B. 6391 is to surrender our values and efforts to drug lords who can't wait for an open market to conduct business here in Connecticut.  I can't imagine placing drug use into a laughable catagory on par with j-walking, cell phone use, or even blocking a side walk with motor vehicle.  What kind of message does that send to kids?  Using drugs is no big deal?  And its ok to do drugs as long as you pay the fine?  This is pure madness!

At least Republican Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, who serves as a school expulsion officer, spoke at length on the hazards of Marijuana on young people -  particularly the negative effects in a school setting.  Marijuana has contributed to poor school performance, attention issues, delinquency, theft, and truancy in middle school and high school student.  It also creates a habitual dependency that lasts on through adulthood, which will still create the desire for supply and demand, and sale of such products which lead to the use of other products for those seeking other hallucinogenics.  Cafero asked his colleagues to "follow the money" trail of who seeks decriminalization of marijuana and see where it leads.  And he is right that often times drug distribution often leads to a much larger criminal syndicate.  Cafero also made the point that the present set of bills do not even provide for age limits for drug use.  These bills are an outrage! 

Chief State's Attorney Kevin T. Kane confirmed that despite liberal rhetoric theorizing that decriminalizing some drugs would reduce cost to the judicial system, that there would be no actual reduction in savings. Kane said that judicial cost is not going to change much because its no more than the cost of looking at a file, and generally assigning a public defender. Moreover, people who are brought to trial end up getting sent to diversionary programs anyway.  However, abdicating the state's position to force drug abusers into treatment would be counter-productive. Forced substance abuse programs may be the only opportunity for some to get help (marijuana users do not face incarceration).  If the State were to go with the mail-in fine via infraction fewer people would be directed toward help.

A larger concern verified by Attorney Kane is the problem with trying to determine whether someone was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana as its not as easily detectable as alcohol by use a breathalizer. Kane admitted that its hard to get a conviction based soley on drug use. He said it would police be difficult without proper training and new equipment for police to determine that Cannabis was the root cause for an accident. He also pointed out it was more likely that if Cannabis were decriminalized, there would likely be more people using it, driving under its influence, and failing in school, etc.

Attorney Kane stated that times have changed and the marijuana trade has become increasing violent over the years.  It's no longer people wanting to sit around and just get high.  It's a larger more serious matter - people who deal in illegal goods and services and traffic in illegal goods and services, tend to start protecting territory and forcibly collect debts owed to them, and it would create an environment for expanding violence based on territorial competition. Signalling a tolerance for the product might be further detrimental to law enforcement and the judiciary because it would lead to increased use and trafficking, and subsequently, more criminal activity.



Add campaign for anti-drug use

An even bigger disgrace is Barbara Fair, so-called Executive Director of My Brother's Keeper, a fringe racist-baiting group out of New Haven which spends its time advocating for low income programs for minority groups.  Her agenda (by her own admission) is what she calls the disperportional inequity amongst blacks being cited for drug trafficking around schools. Her testimony seeking to remove or limit penalties for drug distribution around schools should be particularly alarming to parents.  Barbara Fair is just asking the state to look the other way when it comes to drug distribution in urban environments - because her chief concern isn't children; its keeping black people out of jail.  My Brother's Keeper? More like My Brother's Crack Dealer.  What a creep!



Perhaps, people like Penny Bacchiochi  should listen to Lt. Michael R. Rinaldi, President of the Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association (NEOA) of Connecticut.  The following fact based points are relevant:

• The Federal Drug Administration, American Medical Society, American Lung Association, and the American Cancer Society all oppose legalization of Marijuana.  Marijuana is four times more likely to cause cancer and lead to other cancer related/respiratory illnesses.
• The FDA and AMA have deemed smoked marijuana to not be a medicine.  Marijuana has not been deemed to be beneficial as a medicine in fact quite the contrary when it comes to impacts on the respiratory system.
• Marijuana is one the most prevalent illegal drug detected in testing following traffic fatalities involving the use of drugs; a major public safety issue
• Most studies collected by those undergoing drug abuse treatment show that Marijuana is generally documented as the "gateway drug" to other drugs to use of other illegal drugs. Notwithstanding, the legislature's decriminalization would remove the social stigma associated with its use, and toughen the role of positive parenting through its quasi-endorsement of the drug. 
• Social scientists agree that decriminalization would lead to increased use, increased addiction, increased workplace issues, increased healthcare costs, increased health burden borne by taxpayers, increased additional treatment costs, increased insurance premiums, and increased traffic fatalities.
• The claim legalization would result in the elimination of the black market is clearly false, as evidenced by the existing black market for cigarettes in place today
• Of the total prescriptions filled for marijuana only 1.5% were for Cancer, Glaucoma, and AIDS patients.  The remaining 98.5% were for soft tissue injuries, sleeping problems and other minor issues.  70% for people under the age of 40 despite that the Compassion Act was passed for the "sick and dying of the aged".
• Massachusetts recently passed the law decriminalizing Marijuana.  It's understood that the packaging related to the distribution of drugs into smaller less than one ounce bags now causing a distribution problem for law enforcement due to the size of the bags which fall just under the illegal limit.  Moreover, there is no teeth in the Massachusetts law - no one is paying the fines, and there is no provision for following up with offenders in the current law.
• Montana has repealed its laws on use of Marijuana because of its negative impacts on its population and labeling as a drug source state citing increase in drug trafficking and increase in violent crime. Thus its caused increased burden on state government.  Arizona and New Mexico have begun the process of repealing their new laws.
• On average, Marijuana costs about $120 an ounce. An ounce of cannabis creates approximately 120 joints.  As demand would increase, so would the cost and that would result in an increase of activity in an economic subcultural
• Connecticut would require additional costs to train and purchase equipment to handle Driving while Drugged enforcement which does not exist today.   
• In California since its legalization, 90 California cities have sought repeal of the Marijuna legalization laws. 
• As a matter of public safety, unlike alcohol which marijuana legalization advocates love to reference, marijuana remains in a person's system for between 24 and up to 4 weeks. 
• An FDA study shows that the use of Marijuana by those infected by HIV-AIDS often leads to complications that lead to reduced defense mechanisms, form new vesicular cancer, and expedite death.
• The Marijuana Policy Project and the Drug Policy Alliance are the two primary organizations that wish to push drug use in the United States.  The goal of these two disgusting groups is to open up marijuana use for recreational purposes, and expand drug dependency, and set up commercial centers of operation for the marketing and sale of marijuana and other drugs.  
• Local Connecticut Drug Treatment Centers report that over 50% are undergoing treatment for Marijuana use, and this is likely to rise if the drug is legalized thus creating additional burden for the state and community.

Other consequences of Marijuana use can be found here.   When you read the effects that marijuana has on a person, it makes you wonder why Connecticut's Governor and Michael Lawlor would wish to decriminalize drugs.  The ability to tax another product is hardly worth the pain and suffering it would cause.  I never expected our Connecticut leadership to one day try to ban smoking in bars, restaurants, and now seek to legalize pot smoking without age restriction.

Parents should really be concerned with the kind of leadership Connecticut has in place.


This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

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!

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.

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.

Help Peter Schiff to get on the Republican Ballot

The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of ideas. The understood, often toted phrase is that the Republican Party is the Government Of the People. So given that our recent Connecticut Republican Convention seemed to be much less about ideals and substance, and more about backroom politics and last minute deals to make name recognition far more important than political positions and historic donating and voting records (with a few notable exceptions which I will get to in later posts), that its high time to work toward reminding our Republican State Party Chairman Chris Healy and his cronies that just because he and a select few have lost their way, doesn't mean the rest of us are unprincipled.

The Linda McMahon campaign is nothing more than a farce. Which isn't to say that its not a well-run, well-financed operation - managed in part by ideologically empty people like our own State Chairman, Chris Healy, and his wife - both who are already on track to make six figures from this venture. Linda McMahon is nothing more than a Pro Wrestling promoter who has donated lots of cash to Democrats (including liberal Democrat Joe Courtney who unseated Rob Simmons during the last election). She has also donated to Rahm Emmanual and other Democrat Kingpins. You can learn a lot about people by who they support and donate to. And then you can get into the background of the culture contamination that Linda McMahon's business, the WWE. See this article here by National Review's Rich Lowry for a clear picture on what kind of nonsense Linda McMahon claims gives her the right to represent Connecticut Residents in the U.S. Senate.

So with Rob Simmons dropping out, the Connecticut State Party would love you to think that its game over and you don't have anywhere else to turn. Well, I suppose they are temporarily correct since they worked so hard at making certain the rules for getting on the primary ballot worked against Party-outsiders who were a threat to their end game: McMahon standing alone unchallenged to face Richard Blumenthal.

So despite the hurdle manufactured by State Central, Republicans and conservative activists are working around the clock to get Businessman Peter Schiff on the Republican Primary ballot. The desire is to collect 12,000 names - much more than the reported 8,000 which are needed to formally be certified to allow Peter to enter the Republican race. The energy around the Schiff campaign has been a breath of fresh air to watch. It's good to see a candidate excited about the issues, and not just run ads about their opponents. It's great to see a candidate who understands economics and the issues without requiring a political hack whispering in their ear to tell them what to say or think on every issue. Peter is energetic, educated and ready to go. No on the job training needed.

From a converted Simmons supporter's standpoint, I think the move to Peter Schiff is a logical one on so many levels. First you have to take into account the fact that above all else, we do know a great deal about Peter Schiff's economic positions through his commentaries on YouTube and dozens of appearances on a large number of cable television business shows - which took place long before he announced as a Senatorial Candidate. So, there is no self-invention or new conversion to his principles. Peter's positions are are out there on the web for you to view and digest, and judge on their own merit. (And in fairness, make sure you search Linda McMahon on YouTube so you contrast the difference for yourself).

Second, Peter has run an issue-based campaign from the start of his bid, unlike Linda McMahon who has sent out very derogatory and misleading pieces on Rob Simmons voting record - mostly limited to the Cap and Trade issue. McMahon's campaign, unlike Schiff's has been devoid of her political positions on most issues and has offered little if nothing in the way of substance for voters to judge her by. "Something Different" and wanting to create jobs for Connecticut are taglines from just about every politician regardless of position sought or party affiliation. Linda has spent $16 million dollars telling us plenty about how Rob Simmons voted, and not much about how she intends to vote or change Washington.

Peter Schiff is a well respected economist with little baggage except that his positions are well known, whereas Linda McMahon has lots of baggage (much of it left to be exposed) and is the preferred opposition candidate of Richard Blumenthal and the Democrat Party - this is evidenced by the large number of Democrat pollsters, general polls, and public comments by Democrat officials. Clear evidence of this, is that after Linda McMahon captured the Republican Nomination, Richard Blumenthal's approval ratings shot up and he overtook Linda McMahon in a head-on comparison by a much larger margin than anyone expected.

Fact is that as an unknown, unqualified entity, a Linda McMahon election to the U.S. Senate might be considered counter-beneficial to Connecticut's interests at large. McMahon, who has never held elected office would be wandering aimlessly around the halls of Congress trying to get herself acclimated with the climate and Government process whereas - even Richard Blumenthal would be better positioned to advocate for Connecticut given his relationships and comprehension of Governmental process. This isn't to say I'm supporting Blumenthal, but simply pointing out the facts as they stand, and those understood by Connecticut residents. Being a complete outsider as Linda refers to herself, is not all that in a serious role such as U.S. Senator where qualification and navigation matter to get things accomplished.

I recognize that this article is rather late considering that all signatures must be certified by June 8th. But its not too late to get up and do something, even if it means adding your own name to the required 8,000 that Peter Schiff needs to be part of our Republican process. I've sought to collect about a dozen names by petition, so I feel that I've done my part to the extent possible - surely a drop in a bucket, but its a bucket where every drop counts.

You can go here to learn more about Peter Schiff. And if you'd like to find out how to add your name to a petition in your area, call the Schiff campaign at 203-874-6880.

Please don't let Chris Healy, State Central, and Linda McMahon limit the open process. Let's put Peter Schiff on the ballot, and see a few issue-based debates, and then decide who is best qualified to represent Connecticut Republicans in the general election against Richard Blumenthal. Please give Peter Schiff the support he needs.