Skip to main content

Why Republican Losses In Connecticut Will Lead To More Corruption


“You don’t have to love me. I’m a porcupine” -- Governor Dannel Malloy

There are two ways to lose an argument: by not saying enough or by saying too much. Likewise, there are two ways to lose an election. The Republican nominee for Governor, Tom Foley, cannot be accused of having said too much in his attempt to wrest the gubernatorial office from Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy. Mr. Malloy, on the other hand, has never in his long political career said too little.

Mr. Malloy’s second gubernatorial campaign and President Barrack Obama’s second presidential campaign were remarkably similar. Of the two, fortune -- as well as lots of money, a suburb ground game, sharper demagoguery, a media used to genuflecting before incumbents and a progressive ideology that has not yet wearied the general public in Connecticut – smiled broadly on Mr. Malloy, while baring its teeth towards Mr. Obama. National progressives lost the Senate and sent Joni Ernst to the chamber where she will no doubt “make the pigs squeal.”


The headline on the Drudge Report early the morning after was celebratory: “REPUBLICANS TAKE CONGRESS +7 +8? +9? SENATE, THE DEM DISASTER

In South Carolina, Tim Scott was appointed by Governor Nikki Haley to the U.S. Senate after Republican Jim DeMint resigned to join the Heritage Foundation. Now returned to the Senate, Mr. Scott is the first black candidate to win a race in South Carolina since just after the Civil War and the first African-American senator from the South since Reconstruction. Governor Haley more than a year ago warmly embraced PTR, formerly a Bristol, Connecticut based semi-automatic weapons manufacturer fleeing Mr. Malloy’s thrown quills. Malloy said, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass murder that gun manufacturers want “to sell as many guns to as many people as possible—even if they are deranged, even if they are mentally ill, even if they have a criminal background. They don’t care. They want to sell guns.” Sturm Ruger of Southport Connecticut had at the same time begun the process of expanding its business in Mayodan, bringing 500 new jobs to North Carolina over the next five years.

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Malloy are progressive politicians, which is to say both tend to yield to autocratic leftist impulses. To put it another way, progressives, as a rule, do not fancy trickle-up democracy. In Mr. Obama’s case, the chief executive, faced with a legislature one house of which was dominated by the opposition party, simply misused the Constitutional prerogatives of his office to redraft legislation by choosing which portions of bills passed into law he would or would not execute. Mr. Malloy does not have this problem, both houses of Connecticut’s General Assembly having been dominated for decades by members of his own party. Under the Malloy administration, Connecticut has what might be termed unitary party problems.

In a governing system in which power is shared between the two major parties, political corruption is more easily rooted out. In a tripartite system in which the balance of power is evenly distributed between the three departments of government – the executive, the legislative and the judiciary – corruption is more visible because there are more competitive eyes on the ground to report such indelicate corrupt activities that political flesh is heir to. A legislative branch in which both parties share power is more keenly aware of corruption and more ethically ordered. Disclosure is the most formidable enemy of corruption, and disclosure is more likely in a legislature in which power and authority is shared between the parties. In a political system in which the legislative and executive power is vested in a single party, corruption – politically defined as non-democratic, authoritarian governance – tends to become the well hidden rule rather than the exception.       


In Connecticut, where Democrats once again have swept the boards, back room deals, questionable elections, opacity in government and the arrogance of unchecked power – Mr. Malloy is expert in throwing his quills at those who presume to question him – will be the rule for the next few years. Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional Delegation, all Democrats, will be returning to a Congress masterfully captured by Republicans. The raucous voices of Connecticut’s two U.S. Senators and their influence over Congressional events will be muted for the last two years of Mr. Obama’s lame-duck presidency; the media influence on the Malloy administration will be similarly ineffectual. The few contrarians in the state’s largely pro-status quo Media conglomerate -- those few, that brave band of brothers – had better be on the lookout for the sharp quills. 

Comments

peter brush said…
a progressive ideology that has not yet wearied the general public in Connecticut
--------------
No question that the Connecticut electorate contains a large left wing element which believes that its truth must march on interminably, or until it runs out of other people's money. But, looking at yesterday's results in equally ideologically blind Mass., Maryland, and Illinois, and given how unattractive Malloy is to everyone with eyes and even some without, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mr.Foley has been a terrible candidate twice. The State of Connecticut is in for continued decline and extended corruption, but the results in other moonbat states provide hope that the less-ideologically motivated swing voters might go for a sane candidate next time.
PaulW said…
So future corruption it won't be Connecticut Republicans fault? Connecticut Dems must also be to blame that CT. Repubs suck when it comes to elections.

Foley liked to quote Einstein, saying the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". This after receiving the Republican nomination for the second time in a row.

It's ironic that the Connecticut Republican party itself operates as if the term "Connecticut Republican" is an oxymoron. Do you really think someone like your crush, Joni (not Jodi) Ernst, would fly here in Ct.?

Two things to ponder:

1. 818,000 unaffiliated voters in Ct.
2. John McKinney
Don Pesci said…
Paul,

Since Democrats control 1) the General Assembly, 2) the Governor's office, 3) all the Constitutional offices, 4) the entire U.S. Congressional Delegation, it is much more likely that political corruption would stem from Democrats rather than Republicans.

Regarding Einstein: Wouldn't it be best to let that sleeping dog lie? Connecticut is, after all, the only state in the union not to have recovered fully from a recession that ended five years ago, which seems to me and Einstein to suggest that our state has been doing something insanely wrong. The clean sweep by Democrats in Connecticut suggests that the folly will continue unabated, despite Einstein's warning.

I corrected Joni's name; thanks for pointing out the typo. Would that Democratic folly were so easily corrected.
peter brush said…
all the Constitutional offices
--------------
Please, Don, let me take (temporary?) solace in the belief that Herbst may still win the Treasurer posish. I don't know Nappier, but in her silence she provides cover for the pols in the legislature who are grossly under funding the pension funds. As said by the prudent folks at the "Courant" who joined the wise-persons at the "Day" and the "Register" in endorsing the Republican, Herbst "could make it difficult for the Democrats in power to ignore this ticking bomb." Never mind that the "Courant" endorsed Malloy whose increasing spending on progressive projects like Medicaid and corporate welfare will crowd out proper funding of the pensions.
----------
Though Ms. Nappier is not directly responsible for the state's skimping on its pension obligations, she hasn't mounted a forceful campaign to get everyone to do the right thing.
http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-herbst-for-treasurer-20141027-story.html

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