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?...
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
--------------------
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.
------------------------
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.
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/
--------------------------
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
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
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.
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.