Mr. Weicker, who declined to run for a second term as
governor after he had fathered Connecticut’s income tax and who as a Maverick
Republican Senator often described himself contentedly as a “turd in the
Republican Party punchbowl,” thought his former party had pandered to the
National Rifle Association (NRA). He said, “I absolutely reject the pandering
to the NRA and the gun lobby in Connecticut. They didn't want to rock the boat.
Well, Jesus, the boat needing rocking, if you look at what happened up there in
[Newtown] with that nutcase.”
Mr. Shays, the last moderate Republican U.S. House member in
all of New England, echoed Mr. Weicker ardent feelings: “Our party is so
hurting. You don't let one group determine who a candidate should be when gun
control is a non-existent issue compared to what our state is faced with. We're
losing jobs and we're losing wealth."
Both Mr. Weicker and Mr. Shays thought former Republican
Party state Senate leader John McKinney would have made a more formidable
candidate than Tom Foley. When Mr. McKinney lacked a sufficient number of
delegate votes at the Republican Party nominating convention to continue his
gubernatorial candidacy, Mr. Foley, it was rumored, made certain that he received
a sufficient number of cross-over votes to continue his campaign.
It simply is not true that the Republican nominating
convention had been captured by the NRA. Mr. McKinney more likely was voted
down by the convention because he was perceived to be a creature of the
legislature. Mr. Foley had run against Mr. Malloy previously, losing by a very
narrow margin, and it would have been awkward for the Republican convention not
to have affirmed a second run. The notion that the NRA is directing the tiller
of the state Republican Party is part of the political mythos created by the
National Democratic Party machine, which is at least as progressive as Mr.
Weicker, if not more so. Grownup Republicans who have the best interests of
their party at heart will not fall for the imposture. But then they are not
quite as susceptible to Democratic campaign propaganda as are most members of
Connecticut’s left of center media. Dangle a hook with a left of center worm on
it before the lips of Connecticut’s media, which has too many friends
among the state’s hegemonic Democratic Party machine, and they will lap it up
like candy. It was Joseph Pulitzer, after whom the Pulitzer Prize is named, who
memorably said “A newspaper should have no friends.”
Mr. Weicker and Mr. Shays do, however, raise an important
question: Where have all the moderates, both Republicans and Democrats, gone?
One is tempted to reply in the words of the old Pete Seegar folk song -- “gone
to graveyards, everyone.” The “moderate” in modern politics is deader than the
Foley campaign. All the moderate Republican members of Connecticut’s U.S.
Congressional delegation, which once included Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons and
Chris Shays – have been replaced by progressive Democrats, and they were not
dislodged because they were proponents of the NRA. They were dislodged because
they were Republican moderates thrown out on their tails by a resurgent
progressivism.
Rob Simmons -- who ought not to be lumped in among gun
averse politicians that regularly and shamelessly pander to the anti-NRA crowd
– would have made a much better Republican candidate for governor than either
Mr. Weicker or Mr. Foley. Anti-NRAism has become the fetish of the left, and
Mr. Simmons’ real service as a Colonel in the U.S. Marines during a real
shooting war, Vietnam, has inoculated him permanently against such stupid
fables. As a candidate for governor, Mr. Simmons would not have carried with
him into a gubernatorial campaign the taint of having been a creature of a
state legislature that had deprived Connecticut of its character as a prudent
tax and regulation averse state. Mr. Weicker is more than the father of the
state income tax: He is the Grand Seigneur of a budget that has tripled on the
tax and spending side within the space of three governors and, as such, should
not be offering advice to a party poised to embrace more modest governance.
The Republican Party in Connecticut is dying because it is
poor and out of power. It is poor because campaign financing regulations divert
campaign funds from parties to people, usually deathless progressive
incumbents. It is out of power because it is timid and too moderate at time when
progressives are at their weakest, at least nationally. In a political
campaign, you cannot beat something with nothing; you cannot beat someone with
no one.
If Connecticut’s Republican Party were really smart, party
members would begin today to groom Rob Simmons as Republican Party candidate
for the U.S. Senate in 2016. Mr. Simmons is not gun-phobic; he is not afraid to
fight the good fight; unlike Mr. Weicker, he is tied by strong bonds of
affection to his party; and Mr. Simmons is a real marine who, unlike present
U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, fought in a hot war, while Mr. Blumenthal was
passing out teddy bears to children in Washington D.C., falsely
claiming later,on numerous occasions, that he was a veteran of the Vietnam War.
If these remarks seem to some a prelude to a movement to draft
Mr. Simmons to run against Mr. Blumenthal, I can only plead guilty. Mr.
Blumenthal, however, is among the half dozen richest members of the U.S.
Congress, and the state Republican Party is the poor cousin of the major
parties. Where, then, will Mr. Simmons get the money to wage a creditable
campaign?
Comments
-----------
Speaking as a paleo-con tea-bagger, I've had occasion to vote for Shays,and I voted for McKinney in the primary against Foley. I do think McKinney would have been a better candidate, but not because of guns. I gave Weicker in his limo the finger at close range back circa 1993, and am not sure who is more loathsome, Lowell or Dannel.
The idea that Foley lost because of the gun issue may be true, but it strikes me as unlikely. Foley was explicitly non-activist on the issue, saying only that he'd sign any repeal the Democrat-controlled legislature might put on his desk. That he was endorsed by the gun lobby says only that it was opposed to the author of the idiotic new law and opposed to his authoring any further idiotic laws in that direction.
Why did the electorate go with Malloy again? As the "Register" points out by quoting a pollster, his fiscal management, his taxing and spending, is very unpopular with the populace; and the people don't like it, either. “Connecticut voters say Gov. Dannel Malloy is a good man to have in a crisis,” Douglas Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac Poll, said at the time. “On the day-to-day issues of governing, such as budget, taxes and the economy, he gets failing grades.” Reading the rest of the paper's editorial sheds little light on why Malloy should have gotten a second term. But, since the State is headed for a crisis (created by decades of ineffective-yet-expensive liberal programs), maybe the Malloyalistas wanted a guy they perceive to be a good a smart and courageous crisis manager.
I can't understand the moonbat mind; who can? You are right about how to connect with the more or less sane independent/moderate voters; less timid rhetoric pushing a less moderate agenda demonstrably productive of producing a healthier polity and economy. I bet Scott Walker or John Kasich could win here.
Simmons has made some very bad calls (Partial Birth Abortion, McCain-FalseGold, voting for Jimmy Carter and later admitting it on his congressional stationary) but I would not put him in the same category. I have thought all along he was waiting to take our Faux Vietnam Veteran on again in 2016. As Ann Coulter has said, Simmons is as good as Connecticut Republicans are ever going to get.
As for Tom Foley, he was a good candidate who almost won twice. Shame on those who fell for the class envy tactics for the scoundrel that did win. I thank him for his service to country.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
H. L. Mencken
A Little Book in C major (1916)
That’s right. Most editorial supporting Malloy were of that kind, surrounded by qualifiers that would disqualify someone less energetic. If one cannot approve of the Marquis DeSade’s morals, one may at least compliment him on his energy.
--------
The New England Dems may be said to have wicked energy. But, their policies are not as coherent as Mr. DeSade's. He got what he wanted. The progressives have seen for decades now that their policies are universal failures not only failing to deliver on promises of social justice but also ruining the culture and the economy. This is why the Dems are also not as intellectually honest as the Marquis in presenting their perversions for sale to the demos. What if DeSade had to put up with elections every four years?
What gets me about the editorial boards is that they seem to think that the elections have nothing to do with decades long agendas of the political parties. This self-bamboozling is a major achievement in Connecticut where one party has dominated for decades. The press acts as if the Democrats win all those elections not because of their ideology, but because their candidates have simply been that good. Are liberal states from California to Illinois to New York running out of money even as they ruin their business climates? Not if the open-minded follow-the-science editorial boards don't look.