Under the spotlight of a high profile campaign, "Blumenthal For Senate" continues its meltdown. What is ironic about this latest development, is how much the defendant sounds like the many businesses and people he targets.
At issue is Blumenthal's military service and his comments, apparently on numerous occasions, that he served in Vietnam. According to Fox 61 News, the "McMahon For Senate" campaign fed the New York Times the story. Whoever was the source, it was a bombshell, embellished by a video clearly showing Blumenthal, claiming he served in Vietnam.
What's even more disturbing, are the numerous deferments Blumenthal received, before enrolling in the Marine Reserves. While American teenagers were losing their lives, serving their country, Blumenthal was leading the life of the priviledged, obviously using his friendship with the politically well connected, including eventual U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, in order to avoid service, until he couldn't pull off the ruse anymore. But even then, he managed to land a cushy encampment in Washington, D.C., after his Parris Island training.
Blumenthal's credibility has become so fractured, not even his days at Harvard can be trusted. According the NYT expose, numerous Blumenthal biographys stated he was captain of the Harvard swim team. In reality, he was never a member of the swim team.
Now he sounds like so many other politicians, who have wilted under the spotlight, from Nixon to Spitzer. "I may have misspoken," he said. "My intention was to be always clear and straightforward."
Nonsense. This is a man, whose huge staff has scrutinized his every word and appearance, to insure a carefully crafted image that casts Blumenthal in the best possible light. Of this, I can attest. His staff recently contacted my radio producer, on a story I was doing about the attorney general, before it even aired. Blumenthal, as he did with the MSNBC video about not accepting PAC money, intentionally allows ambigious statements to stand, if it casts him in the best possible light, despite the lack of credibility the story may have.
Now the Blumenthal defenders are out slandering the NYT, claiming the piece is a hatchet job. Laughable. The Blumenthal Democrats are sounding like Republicans, now that they face similar NYT scrutiny.
Sadly, the candidate who gets shutout here, is his opponent for the Democratic Party U.S. Senate nomination, Merrick Alpert. Denied from speaking about his candidacy, before half of the Democratic Town committees manipulated by the Blumenthal machine, Alpert goes into this weekend's convention a long shot. Articulate, with firmly entrenched convictions, Alpert served his country, nobly, in Bosnia. In light of this latest Blumenthal fiasco, Alpert deserves the first look he was never given by his party, this weekend in Hartford.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
DOES HE WANT OUT?
Before all is said and done, Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura may be running for dog catcher in Podunk. First, he was flirting with seeking the Democratic Party gubernatorial nomination. Last week, at a sparsely attended news conference, he announced his candidacy for Lt. Governor. Now than Dannel Malloy has picked State Comptroller Nancy Wyman as his running mate, crowding the race for Lt. Governor candidates, word is Jarjura will seek to be the party's nominee for state comptroller.
What is becoming patently obvious is Jarjura wants out as Waterbury mayor, for whatever reason. His openly public search for a job, underwritten by the taxpayers, while currently being paid by taxpayers in the Brass City - try searching for a job in the private sector in this manner - leads one to conclude something is up in the center of the universe.
The Mayor has come under increasing criticism for advocating a major property tax hike to balance Waterbury's precarious finances. Furthermore, controversy seems to be swirling around his administration, from "Captain Blight," an obvious patronage job, to the mess enveloping school custodians. Combine this with the ever critical editorials about him, appearing in the Republican-American, and Jarjura may figure it's time to get out, while the going is good.
If the mayor gets shutout at this month's party convention, one must wonder if the self described wealthy entrepreneur might resign. One thing is for certain, Jarjura apparently doesn't want to be Mayor of Waterbury, by his continuous efforts to shop around for other employment.
What is becoming patently obvious is Jarjura wants out as Waterbury mayor, for whatever reason. His openly public search for a job, underwritten by the taxpayers, while currently being paid by taxpayers in the Brass City - try searching for a job in the private sector in this manner - leads one to conclude something is up in the center of the universe.
The Mayor has come under increasing criticism for advocating a major property tax hike to balance Waterbury's precarious finances. Furthermore, controversy seems to be swirling around his administration, from "Captain Blight," an obvious patronage job, to the mess enveloping school custodians. Combine this with the ever critical editorials about him, appearing in the Republican-American, and Jarjura may figure it's time to get out, while the going is good.
If the mayor gets shutout at this month's party convention, one must wonder if the self described wealthy entrepreneur might resign. One thing is for certain, Jarjura apparently doesn't want to be Mayor of Waterbury, by his continuous efforts to shop around for other employment.
Friday, May 7, 2010
DEMS WILL USE RELL FOR COVER
Make no mistake; Democrats in the state legislature are upset the Republicans walked away from any budget deal. They needed bipartisanship for the fall elections. So as they slap themselves on the back, offering congratulations for a balanced budget, that uses every gimmick in the book - some which would land the private sector in jail - they are drawing battle lines for the November elections.
"It doesn't play into a partisan narrative, that they (GOP) have been trying to portray that Hartford is broken, that there would be gridlock, that there would be no resolution of the deficits, that nothing would get done. That narrative has been blown out of the water. They have to find a new narrative because Democrats in the legislature worked with a Republican governor..." said Senate President Donald E. Williams, Jr., who apparently is in love with taxes and narratives.
In reality, there is no gridlock in Hartford, but there is partisanship. That's why the Democrats need Gov. Rell to sell the public that the Republicans are a part of this catastrophe. The Democrats dominate the legislature and have increased spending and added hidden taxes in this latest bill, all to balance a budget, which will fall under its own weight in due course, while handing a new governor massive deficits. But the Democrats' strategy is obvious; unable to find the bipartisan support they needed in the General Assembly, they will use Gov. Rell, a Republican In Name Only, as their cover.
The real story is how upset Republicans in the legislature are with Gov. Rell. In public and in private, they have expressed annoyance at her dismissal of GOP budgetary objectives in her negotiations with Democrats. That's why House and Senate Republicans walked out of the talks. Leadership believed Rell, not seeking reelection, had the perfect chance to take a stand against the tax and spend Democrats, especially in an election year. Instead, she has once again left her own party in the lurch. As Connecticut sinks under its unsustainable spending policies, legislative Republicans will be happy to say good riddance to a governor from their own party.
"It doesn't play into a partisan narrative, that they (GOP) have been trying to portray that Hartford is broken, that there would be gridlock, that there would be no resolution of the deficits, that nothing would get done. That narrative has been blown out of the water. They have to find a new narrative because Democrats in the legislature worked with a Republican governor..." said Senate President Donald E. Williams, Jr., who apparently is in love with taxes and narratives.
In reality, there is no gridlock in Hartford, but there is partisanship. That's why the Democrats need Gov. Rell to sell the public that the Republicans are a part of this catastrophe. The Democrats dominate the legislature and have increased spending and added hidden taxes in this latest bill, all to balance a budget, which will fall under its own weight in due course, while handing a new governor massive deficits. But the Democrats' strategy is obvious; unable to find the bipartisan support they needed in the General Assembly, they will use Gov. Rell, a Republican In Name Only, as their cover.
The real story is how upset Republicans in the legislature are with Gov. Rell. In public and in private, they have expressed annoyance at her dismissal of GOP budgetary objectives in her negotiations with Democrats. That's why House and Senate Republicans walked out of the talks. Leadership believed Rell, not seeking reelection, had the perfect chance to take a stand against the tax and spend Democrats, especially in an election year. Instead, she has once again left her own party in the lurch. As Connecticut sinks under its unsustainable spending policies, legislative Republicans will be happy to say good riddance to a governor from their own party.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
RATES WILL RISE
Less than an hour ago, the Connecticut House of Representatives passed SB 493, "An act reducing electricity costs and promoting renewable energy. The vote was 81-40, with 30 absent. Presumably, the absent ran for cover, for fear they could pay a political price in November. Late last night, the Senate voted 20-14 in favor of the bill.
Under repeated questioning from Rep. Sean Williams, R-Watertown, the co-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee, Rep. Vicki Nardello, D-Prospect, failed to answer pointed questions about the bill. And she is the one pushing hard for it. She could not even guarantee that electricity rates would drop, which is a promise of the bill. What the bill would do is crimp the electricity supplier market, just as the concept is beginning to resonate with the public.
The debate at 5:30 this morning was emblematic of how the General Assembly does business. under the liberal Democrats: pass a massive overhaul bill, friendly to the extreme left, without major public hearings, in the early morning hours, in the hope it might work, all the while raising our rates. Our only hope is Gov. Rell will veto the bill.
Under repeated questioning from Rep. Sean Williams, R-Watertown, the co-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee, Rep. Vicki Nardello, D-Prospect, failed to answer pointed questions about the bill. And she is the one pushing hard for it. She could not even guarantee that electricity rates would drop, which is a promise of the bill. What the bill would do is crimp the electricity supplier market, just as the concept is beginning to resonate with the public.
The debate at 5:30 this morning was emblematic of how the General Assembly does business. under the liberal Democrats: pass a massive overhaul bill, friendly to the extreme left, without major public hearings, in the early morning hours, in the hope it might work, all the while raising our rates. Our only hope is Gov. Rell will veto the bill.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Now Over $3 Per
The "experts" predicted we would top $3 per gallon for regular gasoline by Memorial Day. Some even said the prices had topped out. I knew better, predicting on my radio program, that we would top $3 per long before Memorial Day. Well, here we are, five weeks before Memorial Day and I spent $3.04 per gallon for regular. So much for the economic recovery.
Anyone who thinks we are on the road to recovery is deluding themselves. At best, the recovery has been fragile, jobless and underwritten by deficit spending at the national level and budget gimmickry at the state and municipal level. Now that we've topped $3 per gallon, you can expect the tumbling act to begin.
$3 per gallon is not only a pricey figure but a psychological one. A consumer sees $3 per gallon and suddenly decides to cut back on driving, going out to a restaurant or even holding back on that extra cup of coffee. $3 per gallon hits you like a slap in the face, when you pull into the convenience store to "fill 'er up." $3 per gallon will have a reverberating effect, because unlike the last time we saw numerous price spikes, businesses will not wait to pass the cost along to consumers.
Two years ago, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal promised an investigation into high gasoline prices. How's it going? In 2006, as Democrats fought to regain control of Congress, they attacked the Bush administration, because gasoline prices had topped $3 per gallon and promised hearings and investigations, if they won power. They are now into their fourth year of power. When do the hearings and investigations start?
This country can promote mass transportation all it wants, but Americans love their cars and SUV's. The outcry will begin any day now, because Americans have a difficult time with $3 per gallon. And it's still five weeks before Memorial Day.
Anyone who thinks we are on the road to recovery is deluding themselves. At best, the recovery has been fragile, jobless and underwritten by deficit spending at the national level and budget gimmickry at the state and municipal level. Now that we've topped $3 per gallon, you can expect the tumbling act to begin.
$3 per gallon is not only a pricey figure but a psychological one. A consumer sees $3 per gallon and suddenly decides to cut back on driving, going out to a restaurant or even holding back on that extra cup of coffee. $3 per gallon hits you like a slap in the face, when you pull into the convenience store to "fill 'er up." $3 per gallon will have a reverberating effect, because unlike the last time we saw numerous price spikes, businesses will not wait to pass the cost along to consumers.
Two years ago, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal promised an investigation into high gasoline prices. How's it going? In 2006, as Democrats fought to regain control of Congress, they attacked the Bush administration, because gasoline prices had topped $3 per gallon and promised hearings and investigations, if they won power. They are now into their fourth year of power. When do the hearings and investigations start?
This country can promote mass transportation all it wants, but Americans love their cars and SUV's. The outcry will begin any day now, because Americans have a difficult time with $3 per gallon. And it's still five weeks before Memorial Day.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
It's What He Doesn't Say, That Counts
As usual, with Attorney General Dick Blumenthal, you have to listen to what he doesn't say to determine, where he stands on the issue. He has become a master of the trick, in his long tenure as AG, but the glare of a U.S. Senate campaign is shining light on how he operates.
Earlier this week, campaign fundraising reports were released by the candidates, and as it turns out, Blumenthal accepted at least $118,000 in PAC money, leading to a crescendo of criticism from his opponents. Blumenthal, in his own words, was constantly repeated, from his interview on MSNBC, one day after he announced his Senate candidacy.
"I've never taken PAC money. I've rejected special interest money because I've stood strong and have taken legal action against many of those special interests," Blumenthal said.
Now comes word, the "Blumenthal for Senate" campaign has taken money from the Senate PACs of Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy and AFLAC, the insurance company. When the Linda McMahon campaign cried foul, noting his MSNBC comments, Blumenthal's people were quick to respond.
"Given what we've learned about Linda McMahon, it's laughable for her to question Dick Blumenthal's integrity...The people of Connecticut know Dick Blumenthal will take on powerful interests and fight tirelessly for them in the Senate," said his campaign chairman Michael Cacace.
Blumenthal maintains that "integrity" by what he did not say. While creating the illusion of not accepting PAC money, Blumenthal never stated in the MSNBC interview he would not take PAC money as a Senate candidate, and his chairman never addressed the PAC issue in his comments, instead taking the opportunity to criticize McMahon's personal fortune to underwrite her campaign.
In examining Blumenthal, one must always listen to what he does not say. By scrutinizing his campaign contributions, you can make the case a vote for Dick Blumenthal is a vote for three of the Senate's biggest liberals, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy and a company, who's trademark is a duck. In other words, a vote for Blumenthal won't be what it's quacked up to be.
Earlier this week, campaign fundraising reports were released by the candidates, and as it turns out, Blumenthal accepted at least $118,000 in PAC money, leading to a crescendo of criticism from his opponents. Blumenthal, in his own words, was constantly repeated, from his interview on MSNBC, one day after he announced his Senate candidacy.
"I've never taken PAC money. I've rejected special interest money because I've stood strong and have taken legal action against many of those special interests," Blumenthal said.
Now comes word, the "Blumenthal for Senate" campaign has taken money from the Senate PACs of Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy and AFLAC, the insurance company. When the Linda McMahon campaign cried foul, noting his MSNBC comments, Blumenthal's people were quick to respond.
"Given what we've learned about Linda McMahon, it's laughable for her to question Dick Blumenthal's integrity...The people of Connecticut know Dick Blumenthal will take on powerful interests and fight tirelessly for them in the Senate," said his campaign chairman Michael Cacace.
Blumenthal maintains that "integrity" by what he did not say. While creating the illusion of not accepting PAC money, Blumenthal never stated in the MSNBC interview he would not take PAC money as a Senate candidate, and his chairman never addressed the PAC issue in his comments, instead taking the opportunity to criticize McMahon's personal fortune to underwrite her campaign.
In examining Blumenthal, one must always listen to what he does not say. By scrutinizing his campaign contributions, you can make the case a vote for Dick Blumenthal is a vote for three of the Senate's biggest liberals, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy and a company, who's trademark is a duck. In other words, a vote for Blumenthal won't be what it's quacked up to be.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Inclusive Party?
I thought the Democrat Party billed itself as the inclusive party, the party that included all factions, then ironed out its differences and paraded out a united front?
Apparently not. Just ask Merrick Alpert, the "other" candidate for the U.S. Senate Democrat Party nomination in Connecticut. He's battling the overwhelming favorite, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Alpert cannot even get the time of day from his party hierarchy. His crime? Having the unmitigated gall to partake in the democratic process by seeking public office.
Democrat State Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo all but ignores him. While Blumenthal receives special treatment, with "verbal" permission to run a Senate campaign office out of Democrat state party central in Hartford - the type of cozy arrangement, Blumenthal would investigate as AG - DiNardo remains mum, except to instruct Democrat town committees to thwart Alpert's ambitions. The party establishment is operating at full speed.
Alpert, who has served his country in Bosnia, is hoping to gather the 15 percent of party delegates at next month's convention, to insure a primary. If he fails that, he plans to gather enough petitions to force a primary against the long time establishment candidate Blumenthal. He may become the Democrats worst nightmare. In the two joint appearances he made with Blumenthal, he outperformed the AG, in style, preparation and articulation. His only fault is not being part of the establishment.
On Monday night, he turned out to be the smartest Democrat in the state. While party fatcats were giving Blumenthal a standing ovation at the annual Jefferson, Jackson, Bailey dinner, Alpert chose to ignore the event, donating the $175 a pop it cost to hear Blumy and others speak to a soup kitchen. It may be the best $175, he ever spent.
Apparently not. Just ask Merrick Alpert, the "other" candidate for the U.S. Senate Democrat Party nomination in Connecticut. He's battling the overwhelming favorite, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Alpert cannot even get the time of day from his party hierarchy. His crime? Having the unmitigated gall to partake in the democratic process by seeking public office.
Democrat State Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo all but ignores him. While Blumenthal receives special treatment, with "verbal" permission to run a Senate campaign office out of Democrat state party central in Hartford - the type of cozy arrangement, Blumenthal would investigate as AG - DiNardo remains mum, except to instruct Democrat town committees to thwart Alpert's ambitions. The party establishment is operating at full speed.
Alpert, who has served his country in Bosnia, is hoping to gather the 15 percent of party delegates at next month's convention, to insure a primary. If he fails that, he plans to gather enough petitions to force a primary against the long time establishment candidate Blumenthal. He may become the Democrats worst nightmare. In the two joint appearances he made with Blumenthal, he outperformed the AG, in style, preparation and articulation. His only fault is not being part of the establishment.
On Monday night, he turned out to be the smartest Democrat in the state. While party fatcats were giving Blumenthal a standing ovation at the annual Jefferson, Jackson, Bailey dinner, Alpert chose to ignore the event, donating the $175 a pop it cost to hear Blumy and others speak to a soup kitchen. It may be the best $175, he ever spent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
