Skip to main content

Is Elizabeth Esty Turning Into A Mud Wrestler?


Connecticut’s 5th District has always swung like a pendulum between Democrats and Republicans. This election year, Democratic incumbent Elizabeth Esty will be facing Republican challenger Mark Greenberg in what promises to be a bruising contest.

Democratic Party ghouls already have put together a campaign dirt book on the inoffensive Mr. Greenberg. No doubt the load of dirt already has been sifted by the Esty campaign; in every political pig heap one may expect to find at least one salient point of information.

Investigative journalist for the Hartford Courant Jon Lender got hold of the dirt bag and splashed some of its contents in the paper. We discover from Mr. Lender’s account of the Democrat’s dirt bag book that Mr. Greenberg is Jewish, apparently not a good thing, although past Attorney General and current U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal is also Jewish, apparently a good thing. We discover that Mr. Greenberg, a successful businessman, made much of his money in real estate, apparently a bad thing. Mr. Blumenthal – who recent dropped from the fourth to the seventh richest man in the U.S. House – also came by his riches through real estate; his lovely wife, Cynthia Malkin, is the daughter of Isabel Wien Malkin and Peter L. Malkin. The Malkin family owns 10 million square feet of real estate, including the Empire State Building.

A little less than a year ago, according to a Daily News story, “a group of stakeholders in the world-famous tower had filed a class action suit alleging that the Malkin family, which manages the skyscraper, had cost them more than $400 million by ignoring lucrative cash offers before going public.” 

Mr. Blumenthal, who came by his fortune the easy way – by marrying into it – is not yet the most prominent Jewish politician in Connecticut, a lot that falls to Abraham Ribicoff, who had the good fortune of being a Democrat in ultramarine blue New England. Mr. Ribicoff's service was varied: He was a U.S. Congressman, the 80th Governor of Connecticut and President John F. Kennedy's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. Former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, also Jewish, has a long record of service in the U.S. Congress as well as the State Attorney General’s office.

Alas, Mr. Greenberg is not a progressive Democrat. He is a right of center Republican; therefore, his path to office will be strewn with mud balls.

Democrats are much better than Republicans at slinging mud. “Throw enough mud,” said Cardinal John Henry Newman, “and some will stick – stick but not stain.” In political campaigns, mud throwers are content with the mud that sticks. A temporary blotch is more useful than no blotch at all.

Connecticut Democrats vying for re-election this year are going to have a tough row to hoe for several reasons.

The Democratic lodestone, President Barack Obama, the titular head of the Democratic Party, has lost much of his magnetism, partly as a result of near comic blunders in foreign policy. How did we arrive at a point in foreign policy in which ex-KGB agent and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose principal Middle East clients are Iran and Syria, now stands to benefit from an attack by the U.S. military on ISIS?  The sense among most Americans these days is that events are in the saddle riding Mr. Obama, the Congress and all the members of Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional Delegation.

In Connecticut, Governor Dannel Malloy -- whose progressive program, replete with favors handed out to mega-billion dollar companies, eerily resembles the progressive giveaways of Mr. Obama – continues to dip in the polls. While the nation recovered from the recession more than five years ago, Connecticut has recovered only about half of the jobs it lost during Mr. Obama’s stunted and long delayed recovery. In a speech given to the New York Economic Club in 1963, President John Kennedy taught us how properly to recover from a recession: unchain entrepreneurial activity by reducing regulations and taxes. This is not the trumpet being blown by Connecticut progressives.

Mud throwing will always be the default position in politics. If your political jihad is not wafting you into office – mud will do. If you cannot beat your opponent by an articulate defense of your record, beat him up.

Most recently, Ms. Esty had clumsily attempted to tie Mr. Greenberg to the Democrat Party’s perennial tar baby, former Governor John Rowland, now on trial in New Haven.

Through her spokeswoman, Laura Maloney, Mrs. Esty called upon Mr. Greenberg “to immediately tell voters of the 5th District the whole story about his extended involvement with an ex-felon. If Mark Greenberg can’t stand up to John Rowland, how can voters expect him to stand up for them?”

Evidently, Mrs. Esty has not been reading newspaper accounts of the Tar Baby trial in which Mr. Greenberg had testified AGAINST Mr. Rowland as a PROSECUTION witness.

In what may be the gentlest put-down in recent campaigns, Mr. Greenberg’s attorney wrote in response to Mrs. Esty, “As you should be aware, Mr. Greenberg's testimony was as a friendly, cooperative witness for the government. Any attempts to undermine the credibility of Mr. Greenberg, as a witness for the government, might have the inadvertent effect of actually assisting Mr. Rowland in his defense. Presumably, that is not your intent."

That last line will lay upon Mrs. Esty’s heart like an anvil for the duration of the campaign. Presumably, Mrs. Esty’s intent was to reach into the Rowland trial muck pit, fetch out a handful of gunk and tar Mr. Greenberg, a witness for the prosecution.

Nice try, but no cigar this time.

Comments

peter brush said…
In general it looks as if the DNCC book on Greenberg presents information that may or may not be of direct use to Esty. It is a bit of a stretch to suggest that its merely identifying Greenberg as Jewish is meant to be rhetorical ammunition for her campaign. I suspect what the handlers and consultants are up to is giving her a heads up so that she can best avoid clumsiness or political incorrection around the issue.
On the other hand, there's no question that Greenberg's business dealings are enumerated and characterized for that purpose. The report's table of contents under "business history" refers to "eviction of gay widowers." The plural "widower" no doubt intended to suggest that Greenberg does this terrible thing repeatedly and on an ongoing basis. Well, he did do it twice, and prevailed in court, the second time on a summary judgement. It turns out that a gay partner "widower" is not under NY law "family" for purposes of renewal of leases (in rent-control apartments.) It's ok for Greenberg to "identify" as a Jew, but can the fifth district vote for someone so hostile to the gay widower community?

Almost half of the Dem document is given to Greenberg's positions on issues. Can't say precisely what it says about me in relation to the electorate of fifth congressional district, but the Greenberg point of view as alleged by the Dems is actually very attractive to me. What's more, rhetoric supposed to demonstrate his extremism strikes me as moderate or even as prudent reclamation of language misappropriated by movement propagandists.
----
In April 2010, Greenberg said that he would not have voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program in
2008.
“They [the government] have no business in TARP, no business in the economic stimulus package,”
Greenberg said. [

In 2011, Greenberg opposed Cap-and-Trade legislation.

In 2012, Greenberg was noted to have supported a repeal of Obamacare from its inception.

“I am very pro-life […] But in terms of wording, pro-life, what’s the opposite of that? Pro-death. I mean
let’s talk real, pro-life, pro-life, pro-life; not this pro choice stuff,” Greenberg said.

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