Skip to main content

Bridgeport Pols Kiss And Do Not Tell

In Bridgeport, it’s all over but for the kissing.

Challenges to Bill Finch, who won the Bridgeport mayoralty primary against corruption crusader state Rep. Chris Caruso, are fast disappearing.

Former Mayor John M. Fabrizi, who indicated he might enter the mayoralty race as a third party candidate should Caruso win the primary, has agreed to settle comfortably into obscurity now that Finch has prevailed over Caruso. And pictures printed in The Connecticut Post show House Speaker James Amann sharing the dais with Caruso after Casuso had been dished by Finch; Caruso, as usual, looks earnestly out at the audience, while Amann stands to his left wearing a Mona Lisa smile. Another photo shows Finch, his left arm wrapped around his wife, punching the air in a victory salute, while Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams smiles and applauds in the background.

It seems odd to find Amann in Caruso’s corner and Williams in Finch’s. Amann was widely criticized by the left wing of his party for having supported renegade Democrat Joe Lieberman, who challenged party endorsed senatorial candidate Ned Lamont in a general election in which Lieberman, with strong support from Republicans, dished Lamont, who has since popped up here and there, in and out of state, supporting left leaning Democrats. Amann is generally regarded by moderates in his party as a fiscal conservative. If pictures really are worth a thousand words, what do these two shots mean?

There are small clouds hovering over the joy fest. During the Bridgeport primary, Caruso, as expected, let loose upon Finch his anti-corruption blunderbuss; Finch, ever the gentleman, did not return fire when the two engaged in debate but is still picking buckshot out of his hide. While it seems unlikely that Caruso would challenge Finch in a general election, he has alerted the authorities that party corruption may have leached into the primary.

“Caruso is considering challenging the outcome in court,” according to the Connecticut Post, which notes that “baring any unforeseen developments like a court order overturning the primary results,” the general election will be crowded with independent and third-party candidates.

Hartford presents a similar tableau, according to the Waterbury Republican American: There, Mayor Eddie Perez, tainted by charges of corruption, won a decisive primary victory, but some of his challengers are considering running against Perez in the general election. In both Bridgeport and Hartford, it is widely supposed that federal investigators are foraging in the corruption debris, and no one, this side of J. Edgar Hoover’s shade, knows what they might already have found.

In the meantime, citizens of Hartford and Bridgeport may not even know the names of the Republican candidates vying for mayor -- so weak is the Republican Party in Connecticut’s cities.

In days gone by, when the parties had funds enough to support candidates, some party money might have been diverted to clean Republican candidates in Bridgeport and Hartford. The money and party support might not have made a difference in cities where Democrats far outnumber Republicans, but an attempt certainly would have been made by Republicans to push forward a plan that would prevent the criminalization of the cities, a dumping ground for ex-cons newly out and on their way back to prison. And some effort would have been make to hold Democrats in the city responsible for the collapse of public education.

That is no longer the case because the influence exerted by parties has been considerably reduced by reforms that prevent funds from flowing anonymously into party coffers. While parties are poor, incumbent politicians have become rich, both in money and influence. Also, gerrymandering has carved out spheres of influence that assign cities to Democrats.

Hartford and Bridgeport await a Republican candidate who can marshal meager forces to wage a forceful campaign against the predations of city politicians. But the smiles and nods and genuflections of Amann and Williams suggests that that day is not yet upon us.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p