The Hartford Courant story is titled, provocatively, 'Racist' Tweet From Republican Joe Visconti Draws Fire From Democratic and GOP Leaders. The word “racist” is imprisoned in quotes
to indicate some disagreement as to whether the perennial right of center
gadfly, Joe Visconti, is a racist.
He is not a racist,
those who know him best will assert, rather passionately. Visconti has argued
that his message, appended to a picture of Democrat Attorney General prospect
William Tong, has little to do with race and everything to do with political
orientation.
Tong has promised,
if elected to the august post of Attorney General of Connecticut, to take after
President Donald Trump with hammer and tongs (non-racist pun intended).
Visconti has in the past referred to himself as “Trump without the millions,” and
so there was bound to be friction between the two. It burst forth in Visconti’s
picture decorated with the following sentiment: “Kim Jong Tong For CT AG
#never.”
The charge of racism
has become one of those tar pits in which rational argument sinks to the bottom
and is never heard from again. So, let’s save it till later and ask instead a relevant
question: Is there any statute or constitutional provision that authorizes
Connecticut’s Attorney General to deploy the resources of his office – which
are considerable; the office is one of the largest legal organizations in the
state – to assist in the unmaking of a President?
The answer is an
emphatic “NO!”
The statute creating
the office of Attorney General – a position that evolved from “the King’s
lawyer” in the colonial period -- preserves the foundational nature of the
office. Initially, the office was mandated to represent the governor and his
administrators during court proceedings.
The reach of the
Attorney General was extended first under Joe Lieberman and later under Dick
Blumenthal. At the present time, according to Attorney General George Jepsen,
the office embraces: Antitrust,
Child
Protection, Civil
Rights / Torts Collections; Child Support, Consumer
Protection, Employment
Rights, Energy,
Environment,
Finance,
Health
and Education, Heath
Care Fraud / Whistleblower / Health Care Advocacy, Privacy,
Public
Safety, Special
Litigation, Transportation,
and Workers'
Compensation.
The constitutional
box has been, shall we say, grotesquely distended, and some of the distention presents serious conflicts. For instance, how is the Attorney General’s office to
represent – at the same time -- both whistleblowers and the agencies against
which the whistles are blown? That is a question raised several years ago by this writer and never sufficiently answered.
Tong’s first campaign ad for Attorney General boasts, “The NRA. The big banks. The
right-wing hate machine. I’m William Tong and I beat them all.” The ad produced
chills among writers for The Hour of Norwalk: “The feel of William Tong’s first
television advertisement: apocalyptic, with loud, dramatic music.”
Well, good for you
Tong, but you have not yet produced the statutory mandate that will allow you
as Attorney General to beat the banks, the NRA or – and this is the thistle in
Visconti’s breast – President Donald Trump. The Tong ad grotesquely over-leaps
the statutory mandates of the office he hopes to occupy. Then too, it is
uncertain at this point whether Tong has the relevant court time to become
Attorney General, a hurdle that confronted Susan Bysiewicz in her 2010 campaign for Attorney General.
Visconti’s juvenilia
was roundly condemned by all the right people. Republican nominee for Attorney
General Sue Hatfield, whose candidacy Visconti backed, responded through her
campaign spokesman that “Sue won’t tolerate this kind of rhetoric and will
condemn it always no matter who says it.” Republican leader in the State Senate
Len Fasano noted caustically, “Representative Tong was targeted by an irrelevant
individual with a tweet that is ignorant, immature and irresponsible. Connecticut
residents want to hear about policies regarding real issues, not personal
attacks. To inject such rhetoric distracts from the meaningful debates we
should be having.”
Point taken: It is possible to register serious reservations
with Tong’s campaign without descending to personal attacks and – very important
– burying reasonable objections beneath a smoking pile of rubbish. Even so,
charges of racism, particularly in Visconti’s case, are overwrought and, for flawed
candidates, the last refuge of scoundrels.
Comments