As I've said before, I'm in sympathy with Jonathan Pelto to a great extent. He's absolutely right that, at least in his first term, Dan Malloy has presented a clear and present danger to the public schools of this state. But I have to say his latest defense of his spoiler candidacy is a tad disingenuous, as he rebuts one compelling argument against his candidacy:
“Foley enters this crisis masquerading as a moderate, just as did George W, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Does anyone doubt that if elected he would immediately attack the unions, layoff state employees, slash social services, cozy up to the gun lobby, and try to drag Connecticut into the whole Koch-led national right-wing insurgency?
But of course, the authors fail to reveal that Wisconsin Tea-bag Republican Scott Walker achieved his goals thanks to the support of Tea-bag Republican majorities in both the Wisconsin State Senate and State Assembly.
Scott Walker’s anti-union legislation, known as 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, passed because the ultra-right controlled the Wisconsin State Senate by a margin of 19-14 and the Wisconsin Assembly by a margin of 51 to 45.
The truth is that regardless of who becomes Connecticut’s next governor, as a result of the legislative re-districting of 1990, 2000 and 2010, the Connecticut State Senate and Connecticut House of Representatives will remain safely in the hands of the Democratic Party.
via Wait, What
It's a superficially compelling argument, but it seems to me it proves too much. If Foley presents no threat because the legislature is safely in the hands of the Democrats, then how does Malloy pose such an existential threat? Pelto's argument all along has been that Malloy has used the power of his office to push an agenda that neither the legislature or the people really support, or, for that matter, are even aware, as so much of it is being done on the sly. And he's largely correct in that assertion. So, what's to prevent Foley from using the power of his office to do much of what Pelto's critics are predicting? There is precedent, after all. Look at how Rowland steamrolled over the Democrats during his terms, not to mention the bizarre way in which the dim witted Rell managed to manipulate the Democrats and the public. There are many ways in which an executive can achieve his or her ends without legislative support, so long as they can count on legislative impotence, a long tradition here in Connecticut. The supreme irony is that the one issue on which there will be no disagreement between Foley and Malloy is on the education issue itself. There is no reason to think that Foley will do anything but embrace the corporate education model more wholeheartedly than Malloy has done and nothing the legislature can or will do will stop him.
Post a Comment