Skip to main content

A Republican Post-Election Bar Fantasy


The Democratic Party in Connecticut is NOT your daddy’s party. It’s the party, said a Republican sipping whiskey from what appeared to be a coffee mug at a city bistro, “of death penalty abolition, get-out-of-jail early credits for violent gang members, abortion on demand, anti-clericalism, endless spending, endless taxes, red ink, pension payment dodging, condoms for Catholic school girls, smoke and mirror budgets, progressively higher pay for teachers who continue to pass through illiterates, anti-constitutionalists, cities in social ruin, one party states …” and, believe it or not, he might have continued, but the bartender, who knew him and raised his eyebrows archly, intervened and asked whether he wanted a refill.

He did. Jack Daniel’s straight up.

His head was beginning to ache. Shouldn’t he go home and fall asleep in his plush leather recliner before the TV after cursing in his heart the MSNBC talking head who had received a Virginia Associated Press award for his work on the riveting documentary, “Parvo Puppies?” Why did he insist on watching leftist TV anyway? Incipient sadism?

It was late and raining outside; even the hidden stars were weeping tears.

It hadn’t been the best of times for Republicans in Connecticut. But it hadn’t been the worst of times either, as the Democratic Party continued to drift leftward, perilously close to the edge of its flat earth.

Another partier – Republicans do party together occasionally; they are not all business all the time – joined in.

She, an energetic brunette dressed in non-designer jeans listened patiently to the Jack Daniel guy’s spiel and thought Republicans in Connecticut might easily pick up some seats in the General Assembly in the upcoming off presidential year election, provided the Republican running for governor against Dannel Malloy wasn’t social-issues phobic. He or she probably would need to shorten by a considerable amount the ten foot pole Republicans so far have insisted on placing between themselves and party activists who yearn for a politics of limits and a return to social normalcy. Republicans run on the economy; Democrats run on social issues. And, she said, smiling a world conquering smile that caught the attention of the Jack Daniels guy, “that’s where the votes are.” Americans don’t relate to numbers; they relate to politicians who are able to wrap emotional charges around economic and social issues, which is one of the reasons Barack Obama rather than Mitt Romney is president.   

“Good luck with that,” he said, pouring his JD sloppily into his coffee cup mug. “How long you been here?”

“Couple of hours.”

“No, I mean in Connecticut.”

“Couple of years.”

“From?”

“Texas.”

JD exploded in mirth, “You moved from Texas to Connecticut? Oh dear, you ARE adventuresome,” and showed her the bottom of his cup.

The Carrie Underwood song, “Good Girl,” began to throb, the Jack Daniels guy thought, THROUGH the dimly lit wall sconces:

Why, why you gotta be so blind?
Won't you open up your eyes?...

He nodded at sconces and longed for his leather recliner. He heard through the bar buzz a challenge thrown down, “You gotta fight.”

He nodded an insincere assent.

“You’ve probably heard the story of John Kennedy’s visit to the Alamo,” said the woman. “Senator Kennedy went to the Alamo Mission on one of his hops to the White House. He reeled off a set speech and wasn’t their long before it broke in on him that he had to be somewhere else – quick. So he turned to someone accompanying him and asked where the back door was. The front was jammed with admirers, and he wanted to avoid them to make up some time. He was told, ‘Senator, there are no back doors to the Alamo, only heroes.’ That’s what we need, heroes.”

He knew she was right. That night, he dreamed dreams.

Comments

peter brush said…
social-issues phobic
--------------------
Foley came close to beating Malloy, but I do agree with the Texana that social issues are an opportunity. Heck, I think a generally more conservative p.o.v. would be at least as successful as whatever the Nutmeg Republicans have stood for, which is not much. But, that could just be my wishful thinking. The electorate in Connecticut is new left, or way more tolerant of leftism than it was, for argument's sake, back in 1972. Still, I see no advantage to be gained by going along with, compromising with, the Dems on issues like gun control or good government. It's best hope is to stand for traditional values and the State's constitution, fight stuff like abortion on demand or "gay marriage," while also standing for more limited and affordable government. I'd like to believe that the Republicans have an advantage with education, that they could profit politically if they were to push against the teachers unions, and for more school funding going directly to kids/families.
Don Pesci said…
In part, it’s an “I’m aboard, tow up the lifeline” problem. How do you convince a successful politician (McKinney, Cafero …) that an appeal to conservative values, especially on social issues, might improve the lot of the party when their own experience cries out against it? They are moderates who have plowed the political waves successfully by avoiding social issues (not to be confused with social issues of the moment.) They really do think that everyone, like them, can win campaigns by avoiding, say, the toll single motherhood has taken on urban “families,” to pick but one little discussed social issue. Instead, they retreat from the field altogether and permit Democrats to define, very narrowly, what the social issues are. Here’s another example: 50 percent of people in the United States are using social services they never paid for. Is that a social issue? Tons of bills are passed every year. I sometime have fun with legislators asking them to name one bill passed since the founding of the country that has NO social repercussions. They all do. Yet when I told a Republican leader in the state that Republicans should EXPAND the use of the expression “social issues” rather that retreat from it, leaving that verdant political field entirely in the command of Democrats, he stared blankly at me, as If I were expecting him to inveigh against, say, abortion facilities that murder infants born after botched abortions.
peter brush said…
How do you convince a successful politician (McKinney, Cafero …) that an appeal to conservative values, especially on social issues, might improve the lot of the party?
------------------------
Good question. I think the only way to influence pols is to have someone win elections with a more conservative agenda. I believe you are right, even here in Ct., to think "social issues" ripe for Republican picking, but my confidence in our electorate not un-bounded.
I do think there is a growing anger at the growth of means-tested government hand-outs. In the fall of 2011 when Malloy had folks lining up here in Hartford (and elsewhere) to get cash compensation for alleged freezer-food loss, it wouldn't have hurt if our Republicans might have said something. I also believe Malloy's hand-outs to putative job-creators is deeply unpopular. At the end of the day, Connecticut's finances are going to be the first, second, and third issues in political campaigns, and our guys have to make it clear that the problem is spending (and particularly, spending on State employees).
But, to the question of convincing pols, both here and in the country at large, we need a Ronald Reagan leader.
peter brush said…
The Republican Party never fully adapted itself to the fact that modern big government is an interest group in and of itself, inherently at odds with the rest of society, that it creates a demand for representation by those it alienates, and hence that politicians must choose whether to represent the rulers or the ruled. The Republican Party had been the party of government between the Civil War and 1932. But government then was smaller in size, scope, and pretense. The Rockefellers of New York and Lodges of Massachusetts – much less the Tafts of Ohio – did not aspire to shape the lives of the ruled, as does modern government. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal largely shut these Republicans out of the patronage and power of modern government.

By the late 1930s, being out of power had begun to make the Republicans the default refuge of voters who did not like what the new, big government was doing. Some Republican leaders – the Taft wing of the Party – adopted this role. The Rockefeller wing did not. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/20/as-country-club-republicans-link-up-with-the-democratic-ruling-class-millions-of-voters-are-orphaned/
peter brush said…
Hey, don't worry, Don. The Courant says the Dems are going to fall because of their "war against" open government. No suggestion that the electorate, let alone the Courant's editorial guys, will ditch the Dems anytime soon, but patience...
--------------------------

And there was no final public hearing on the state's gun control bill. There should have been.

How do such insults to good government happen?

It happens when a ruling party — in this case Connecticut's Democrats — gets too settled, too comfortable and finds it easy to stretch the boundaries too far.

Its priority becomes convenience for those who rule and to hell with the governed. It takes a "we know better than you" attitude.

It's bound to catch up with them.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-democrats-war-on-open-government-20130412,0,658480.story
Don Pesci said…
When Huey Long wanted to keep his thumb on the politicians in Louisiana, he pulled them all out of New Orleans, where they too frequently got drunk and visited bordellos, constructed a new really neat art deco building in Baton Rouge, and moved government operations there. Mr. Malloy has the same thing in mind for state services. When I first heard that he wanted to ship all state workers, now inhabiting a score of buildings in Hartford, to the new digs near the Convention Center, I longed for an general strike that would just bring everything to a screeching halt; then we could see just how much of state government we really need. However, Malloy-Long’s plans have been put on hold temporarily – we’re out of money.
I beat the Courant, as usual, here:
“If Republicans in Connecticut were not a bunch of spineless go-alongs hanging by their torn fingernails to increasingly disappearing legislative seats, they would insist on bills that break down Berlin Walls intended to prevent the liberating and free flow of data. But look what is happening: As a result of Sandy Hook, we now have before the General Assembly a bill that would restrict information on death certificates. Why? Because we wish to spare the stricken parents of young children murdered in Sandy Hook the resulting publicity that might occur should FOI laws be rigorously enforced.”
http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2013/04/an-interview-with-don-pesci-sandy-hook.html

Don Pesci said…
You will notice that the Courant made no mention of this "independent" agency: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2012/10/get-michelle.html
peter brush said…
I did notice that. You followed the situation; did the Courant ever take any notice of Malloy's treatment of late victim advocate? Not a rhetorical question, but probably a stupid one.
Can we hope for more Joe Markleys; i.e., Republicans with spines?
I'm hoping the State doesn't remove its bureaucrats from their bureaus down on Capitol Ave. The neighborhood would be without a bastion of civilization it currently enjoys during working hours, at least.

Don Pesci said…
The Courant favors the program: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2012/08/courant-oks-defective-risk-reduction.html#more
And for that reason they're not likely to shed many tears over Cruz's forced departure.
In addition to everything else, I think the penology is wrong. We should be moving towards shortening initial sentencing for non-violent crimes. The Lawlor program does not distinguish properly between violent and non-violent crimes. With shorter sentences, prison administrators could be given the authority to lengthen sentences for prison infractions, encouraging good behavior while incarcerated. The best studies show that there is no difference between longer and shorter punishments in terms of remediation. Courses are junk; work programs work. I haven’t gotten to any of this because I’ve been spending a good amount of time batting away Lawlor’s idiocies. Maybe someday.

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

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."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e