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 PURA soap opera continues in Connecticut: Business eyeing the exit signs

The trouble at PURA and the two energy companies it oversees began – ages ago, it now seems – with the elevation of Marissa Gillett to the chairpersonship of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulation Authority.   Connecticut Commentary has previously weighed in on the controversy: PURA Pulls The Plug on November 20, 2019; The High Cost of Energy, Three Strikes and You’re Out? on December 21, 2024; PURA Head Butts the Economic Marketplace on January 3, 2025; Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA on February 3, 2025; and Lamont’s Pillow Talk on February 22, 2025:   The melodrama full of pratfalls continues to unfold awkwardly.   It should come as no surprise that Gillett has changed the nature and practice of the state agency. She has targeted two of Connecticut’s energy facilitators – Eversource and Avangrid -- as having in the past overcharged the state for services rendered. Thanks to the Democrat controlled General Assembly, Connecticut is no l...

The Murphy Thingy

It’s the New York Post , and so there are pictures. One shows Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy canoodling with “Courier Newsroom publisher Tara McGowan, 39, last Monday by the bar at the Red Hen, located just one mile north of Capitol Hill.”   The canoodle occurred one day or night prior to Murphy’s well-advertised absence from President Donald Trump’s recent Joint Address to Congress.   Murphy has said attendance at what was essentially a “campaign rally” involving the whole U.S. Congress – though Democrat congresspersons signaled their displeasure at the event by stonily sitting on their hands during the applause lines – was inconsistent with his dignity as a significant part of the permanent opposition to Trump.   Reaching for his moral Glock Murphy recently told the Hartford Courant that Democrat Party opposition to President Donald Trump should be unrelenting and unforgiving: “I think people won’t trust you if you run a campaign saying that if Donald Trump is ...

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...