Girolamo Grumpi,
obviously not his real name, is a retired journalist who lives north of
Hartford and who wishes to remain anonymous -- November 9, 2014
Q: By Sunday November 9, most journalist morticians in
Connecticut and others had turned in their reports. Among them was Lowell Weicker, who
left the Republican Party to run as an Independent for Governor in 1990.
GG: The Weicker response to the current elections was a
reprise of a column written by him and printed in the (Hartford) Courant last
May. Even then, there were serious problems with the Weicker analysis. Weicker
argued that the Republican Party has declined since he left it to run as
governor. A careful historian may want to pause here to note that Weicker did
not leave the parry of his own accord when he lost his seat to then Connecticut
Attorney General Joe Lieberman. He was not able to garner a sufficient number
of votes to win re-election, possibly because the Republican Party in his own
state had grown tired of his destructive hectoring. He is hectoring still; his
analysis, as applied to the National Republican Party is all wet.
The decline of the Republican Party nationally, Weicker wrote in May,“for many, and for me personally, started with the hijacking of the party by
Ronald Reagan conservatives in 1980 and has continued unabated up to now with a
political battlefield strewn with Republican bodies at every level of government.”
Well now, it may be true that the Republican Party has
declined in Connecticut, but you would have some difficulty supporting the
notion that IN THE CURRENT ELECTION The National Republican Party is in
decline. Even the New York Times, hardly a Reaganite paper, has noted the recent
precipitous decline of the progressive Democratic Party. In Connecticut and in
most of the Northeast, state parties did not succumb to the allure of the
Reaganite political narrative that Weicker considers toxic, which is why Barry
Goldwater said “If you lop-off New England and California, you’ve got a pretty
good country. Weicker appears to like Goldwater for some inexplicable reason.
Yet, Goldwater, the subject of “The Conscience of a Conservative,” was,
unsurprisingly, a conservative.
In his May column, Weicker wrote, “It's not just liberal
Republicans who have been tossed overboard but even moderates and Goldwater
conservatives. Nationally, Republicans have come to understand the poison that
is the tea party, but it will take a long time to re-establish a balance that
relates to America.” What? The Reaganites have tossed overboard not just
liberal Republicans – read: Weicker – but even “Goldwater conservatives?”
Come again? “The Conscience of a Conservative” was
ghostwritten in large part by Brent Bozell, and Bill Buckley added his two
cents to it. Buckley also energetically supported both the unsuccessful
presidential run of Goldwater and the successful presidential run of Ronald
Reagan, who mentioned Weicker but once in his diaries: Reagan said that Weicker
was “a no good fathead.” Connecticut Republicans appeared to agree with that
assessment when they tossed him out of the Senate and the state party nearly 24
years before Weicker wrote in the Courant:
“Now, the reader might think that I have enjoyed watching this unfolding travesty as it was the same ultra-right that engineered my downfall. Not so. I made the choice of becoming independent rather than climbing into any more Republican foxholes. Life is tough enough contesting Democrats.
“Then, after 1994, I chose to retire and remain semi-quiet on the sidelines. But today, as a citizen of Connecticut and for 38 years a Republican, I feel constrained to speak out before the election cycle begins. My purpose is not to endorse any candidates but to awaken the Republican constituency to the fact that your irrelevancy is killing all of us.”
In Weicker’s weepy May apologia, everything is wonderfully
and purposefully confused. Weicker seriously believes that the Republican Party
IN CONNECTICUT took a turn for the worst and became conservative after the
party booted him out, which is absolute nonsense. He
cannot and has not named a single Reagan conservative who has won high office
in Connecticut since 1962, when he served in the state House of
Representatives. There are none. Since Weicker “left” his state party, the two Republicans who
held the governorship, John Rowland and Jodi Rell, governed as moderate
Republicans. All the Republicans who had been members in Connecticut’s U.S.
Congressional delegation were moderate Republicans. We now have a progressive
governor, a progressive General Assembly, and all the constitutional officers
in Connecticut are progressive. It is as plain as the nose on Speaker of the
State House Martin Looney’s face that progressives in Connecticut had dished
moderate Republicans. In the post Weicker years, Connecticut moderates have
lost, progressives have won. Nationally, in the current off year election,
conservatives won, progressives lost. This is the hard truth that Weicker and
those in Connecticut’s media who approve his analysis cannot bear to
acknowledge. Once acknowledged, the false narrative crumbles like brittle lace.
In his most recent retort, Weicker answers the question
posed by the Courant “Why Tom Foley Lost?”
Insanity, Weicker writes, “is doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results.” The Connecticut Republican Party is clearly insane because:
“The ‘same thing” in your case is losing elections by trying to duplicate the GOP of the Reagan years. Moderate Republicanism was successful until William F. Buckley and the tea party conservatives staged their Trojan horse (sic) coup. It’s time to broaden the tent by changing party rules permitting unaffiliated voters to vote in Republican primaries. Republicans had that rule once, sanctioned by the Supreme Court, only to have conservatives toss it and attain greater exclusivity resulting in greater vulnerability.”
This is not the first time Weicker has suggested opening his
party to non-Republicans. One wonders in what sense inviting non-Republicans to
vote in Republican nominating conventions and primaries is NOT a Trojan Horse
cleverly introduced by the opposition into a walled fortress with a view to destroying
the Republican Party?
Q: It’s probably a safe bet that Weicker, at his point, has little influence over the state Republican Party.
Q: It’s probably a safe bet that Weicker, at his point, has little influence over the state Republican Party.
GG: Weicker has in the past referred to himself accurately
as “the turd in the Republican Party punchbowl.” The Republicans who defected
to (Democrat Joe) Lieberman in the 1988 election were not Tea Party
Republicans. The Tea Party movement dates from the post-Ron Paul 2008 election,
20 years after Republicans and Moderate Democrats had booted Weicker out of the
Senate. (Rick) Santelli’s rant against government facilitators of the mortgage
crisis occurred in 2009. Connecticut Republicans just got tired of Weicker’s self-serving
whips and scorns and finally cleaned their punchbowl.
Q: If an editorial were a vote, might it not be said that
the Courant and many other papers in Connecticut “voted” the straight
Democratic Party line?
GG: Yes indeed. The papers in Connecticut seem comfortable
with the state’s current political cast of characters, mostly progressive Democrats.
It should be noted that the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved very far
left since the days of (Ella) Grasso and (Bill) O’Neill, the last Democratic
governor before (Dannel) Malloy. Weicker refrains from mentioning the
opposition to the income tax of the two Democratic governors who preceded him.
The income tax was first introduced by (Governor Tom) Meskill, the Republican
governor who preceded Grasso in office. That measure, which passed the
legislature, was quickly repealed. It was Weicker’s obduracy – he vetoed six
non-income tax budgets – that pushed finally through the income tax and made
Meskill dance an approving gig in his grave. Meskill aide (Tom) D’Amore later
became Weicker’s chief aide, both as Senator and Governor, and it was D’Amore
who first proposed to the Connecticut’s Republican State Central Committee that
party rules should be changed to allow unaffiliateds to vote in both nominating
conventions and Republican primaries – a change in procedure that could only
benefit the turd in the punchbowl. The Central Committee politely declined to
commit suicide. The Courant has nodded yes to Weicker during his entire career.
They’ve been nodding yes to progressive measures – the income tax, the
abolition of the death penalty, Malloy’s crony capitalism schemes – ever since
Weicker first mounted the political stage. So, what Albert Camus said of
writers is true of political writers as well: Every word they write is a
commitment. The best that can be said of the Courant is that its editorial
writers have been faithful to their commitments.
Q: You’ve said that endorsements are not decisive.
Q: You’ve said that endorsements are not decisive.
A: They could be important in close races. The Courant’s endorsement
of (Elizabeth) Esty in the 5th District the first time she ran for office might
have turned the trick for her, and that endorsement was shameless.
Q: Why?
A: Because if we accept the Courant’s criteria for
endorsements, the paper should have endorsed (Republican) Andrew Roraback.
Q: What are the paper’s editorial endorsement criteria?
A: The most important appears to be experience. And in this
regard, Roraback ran rings around Esty. She had minimal political experience;
she was, however, the wife of Dan Esty, Malloy’s environmental commissar.
Roraback, still a young man when he ran against Esty, was for four years a
state Representative. He served five terms in the state senate, never during
his entire tenure having missed a vote in the General Assembly, the only person
who could make such a claim. Moveover, Roraback was, from the Courant’s point
of view, the perfect Republican, social liberal and fiscally conservative. Roraback's cousin, Catherine Roraback, successfully prosecuted the Griswold v.
Connecticu case that legalized contraceptives throughout the
United States; it was a precursor to Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. A few months ago (July 2014), Catherine’s old
law office in North Canaan was reopened as a historical research center in
honor of her memory. Experience is not the only criteria. Roraback met all
the paper’s criteria. And coming off an FBI sting operation in the course of
which a number of Chris Donovan’s staff were packed off to prison on charges of
political corruption, it would have been a moral statement on the part of the
paper had it thrown its weight, such as it was, behind the Republican running in
the 5th. (Former speaker of the State House of Representatives Chris
Donovan was the preferred candidate of progressive Democrats in the state
before the FBI sting operation).
Q: That never happened.
Q: That never happened.
A: No. Ideological considerations and perhaps political
inertia overcame the tug of moral considerations.
Comments
----------------
Would that the Party had become conservative. The Republican Party started in social activism, and remains the liberal party, which is the party dedicated to a silly egalitarian Idea. But, it has become the party for those interested in preserving an American tradition of self-government, of constitutionally limited government. It is also the party for those dedicated to policies of private property, free markets, and the rule of law.
The Maverick thinks that the Republican Party fails in elections (at least in Nuevo England) because it has become conservative. In this he is certainly mistaken (although, it may be that the Party itself agrees with him). Since Lowell acknowledges that the Democrat Party wins elections and therefore has complete control of the levers of power, can he please explain how its policies have actually played out on the citizenry and the State? Why should we care about Republicans losing elections if we are so well governed by the other party? Or is it that the Man from Squibb realizes that our towns are Dem basket cases, but believes it is the Republican Party's fault because it runs such radical right campaigns?
Many years ago the Republicans here in Hartford put forth a mayoral candidate to forfend against a potential petitioning candidacy of a particularly unsavory fellow lurking at Town Committee meetings. When the deadline for petition passed, and the endorsed candidate withdrew the "Courant" of Hartford howled. The Republican Party violated its duty to provide an alternative to the voters. Even though the Republicans can't win elections here, and would have no members of Council if minority representation weren't mandated by statute, somehow it had a duty to keep the Dems honest.
-------------
Welch agreed with Cruz, saying that playing to the middle has been losing strategy as evidenced by the losing campaigns of Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney.
"You got to give up on New York. You got to give up on California. Those are gone," he said. "Screw New York. You're going to lose New York. Forget it. Go to the country, this wonderful country, and present your ideas with an optimistic view."
-------
Fasano runs unopposed in his district, so as the Arkansas Shrew said, "what difference does it make?" But, still it's disheartening to hear of such foolishness. Rather than hair-on-fire warning about the Dem agenda, he's talking of bi-partisan improvements in health-care management, or some such.
There is not a chance in the world that Connecticut Republicans will (ever) win in our urban zones. And, black Republicans in particular not only can't win, but they'll be treated to vicious yet imbecilic ostracization, as with Clarence Thomas or Tim Scott. This is not to say that the Republicans shouldn't seek to convince voters wherever they can be convinced, but it shouldn't distort its agenda in an effort to outbid the Dems in the market for the votes of the alienated-American communities.
If I were a pol I'd push hard for school vouchers. To the extent that public education administered by district is popular it is largely due to habit, culture smog and inertia; like with the V.A.
Getting government out of school management would be like sunshine both fiscally and culturally. For one thing, the main reason our bright blue, morally superior, Nutmeg population is rather dramatically racially segregated is white libs don't want their kids in schools that happen to be of color. Avoiding those schools has meant (for decades now) moving
to another school district.