Skip to content

Priorities

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

At the risk of beating a dead horse or two, I am going to return to a subject to which I’ve alluded in my two previous posts: the way our local Republican candidates have danced around the question of whether they support Donald Trump. Something I haven’t highlighted is one rather incredible argument they are making: that it really doesn’t matter who is elected president. Here’s what Heather Somers, our local (R-Airhead) Senatorial candidate has to say:

“Umm, well I have to say I think the most important vote that you can make in this election is actually on the state level, because what happens on the state and the local level are where we are most intimately affected and quite frankly in our house I try to say ‘keep the noise of Washington quiet’, because it’s like watching the Kardashians as far as I’m concerned.”

(Transcribed from the audio on the New London Day’s website)

That’s right. Washington is so far away! Nothing that happens there has any real effect on us, so who really cares who the president might be! What really matters is who we elect to the 18th Senatorial District, so really, the think to do is to look the other way and pay no attention to the man behind the teleprompter.

John Scott (R-Conflicted Insurance Agent) attempts to make the same point in a slightly different manner. He tries to get away with arguing that it is entirely irrelevant who he may be voting for, because the president doesn’t run the Connecticut legislature:

Scott suggested the question was unfair, and said, “So I will not directly answer the question but I will say that my position is I’m a Republican, I’m socially liberal and fiscally conservative and I want a smaller government that the taxpayer of this state can afford.

In the two years I served in Hartford, there hasn’t been a day where the president of United State has had a say in day-to-day operations of our government,” he said. “I therefore feel that my endorsement or lack thereof or renouncement or whatever is not important.”

via The New London Day

The mind boggles at the awesome amount of intellectual dishonesty loaded into that statement. Is there really any point to unpacking it? There must be a hundred ways, at the very least, that actions in Washington affect the state of Connecticut and the legislative choices state legislators have to make. I mean, John’s first act as a legislator was proposing a bill that would deprive students of federally available medical benefits so they would have to buy insurance from him. Anyway, it’s passing strange that a guy who is applying for a political job from us citizens tells us during his interview that questions about his political opinions are none of our business. This from a guy who ran his first campaign by smearing his opponent’s personal life, which was somehow, I guess, more relevant than John’s political beliefs. And, of course, the reason why John won’t tell is because, contrary to what he says, his “endorsement or lack thereof” is important. Important to him. He needs the cretin vote to win, so he can’t afford to throw it away by putting the interests of the country first.

So, two variations on a theme.

I really feel sort of sorry for Dave Collins, over there at the Day. When he announced his Trump test, I really think he had a sort of touching faith that our local Republicans were somehow different in kind from their national brethren, who have used bigotry since 1968 to harvest votes from the yahoos, all in service to the .01%. You’d think it would be hard to get people to vote against their own interests, but the Republicans have made it look easy for years. Now the yahoos have taken over, and Republicans like Heather and John have no choice but to protect their right flank. If that means disappointing Dave Collins, then so be it.

Colllins probably never imagined that almost every Connecticut Republican asked the question would come up with a way to change the subject, but change it they must, or risk losing the votes of the deplorables upon whom they depend. Now the poor guy is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He either abandons his Trump test, or consigns each and every Republican candidate to eternal damnation. For a shill with sterling Republican bona fides, that’s a tough place to be.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Dems Forget Something

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Ordinarily, I would say these Democrats have a point:

Democrats in the House of Representatives are wondering if there is, just possibly, room before the next hearing on why the Attorney General chose not to call in a drone strike over Hillary Clinton’s emails, for the Justice Department to tackle one other thing.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called on Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch on Tuesday to investigate Donald J. Trump’s $25,000 contribution in support of Florida’s attorney general, saying it “may have influenced” her decision not to pursue a complaint against Trump University.

via Daily Kos

The thing is, bribery isn’t illegal anymore, not unless you have something in writing to this effect: I, Pam Bondi, in consideration of, and solely in consideration of, $25,000.00 in my hands received of Donald Trump, do hereby agree to cease my investigation of Trump University.

I don’t think you’re going to find something that clear. Even Trump isn’t that stupid, though I can’t speak for Bondi. So the Dems are barking up the wrong tree.

Filed in Corruption | | Comments (0)

Second Epistle to Dave Collins

Sunday, September 11, 2016

In light of recent events, yet another letter to Dave Collins is in order.

Dear Dave:

Good job. Well, reasonably good job, though you really have to do what we Catholic school kids were told to do before confession. Yes, an examination of conscience is in order. You really have to try to figure out why serving honorably as a state employee disqualifies someone from legislative office. Also, why you think it’s so important to screw state workers out of their pensions. Did you make the wrong 401k elections or something?

But let’s put that aside. Let’s get back to the Trump test, for your work is far from over. Heather Somers is not the only local candidate who failed the test. Let’s remember your final condition on the test:

“Everything else — like still thinking about it — is a fail.”

Now, it won’t surprise you to learn that John Scott (you know, the guy whose obvious conflicts of interest have failed to interest a certain columnist at the Day) has also failed the test. It’s not that he’s “still thinking about it”. He just won’t say. He says it’s none of our business (and therefore none of your business), who he’s going to vote for and why aren’t we talking about the true threat to the Republic: Dan Malloy, which is the only thing, according to John, that we should be talking about. I’m sure you’d agree that one would be splitting hairs to say that John’s position is qualitatively different than “still thinking about it”, because the test requires that the test taker denounce Trump, and John is hardly doing that. I know you’re aware of what John has said, because we sent you the ill considered comment that he put on the Groton Democrats Facebook page.

So, there’s another “F” here on the eastern side of the river, and it’s only fair to Heather that you bring it to everyone’s attention. Otherwise you risk being called out for sexism.

While you’re at it, you might turn your attention to Aundre Bumgardner, who has more reason than Heather or John to denounce the Donald. He has gone silent. Who knows why. Maybe his for-profit charter school backers and the CBIA prefer that he keep quiet. I can’t answer for him, but we sure haven’t heard a word. In any event, it’s long past the time for these folks to put up or shut up; and since they’ve shut up, it’s time for you to send them to the same perdition to which you consigned Heather.

I realize that in your world a conflict ridden insurance agent and a never employed, non- taxpaying college dropout are probably superior to an accomplished attorney and a general foreman of a custom metal fabrication shop, town councilor and drug treatment advocate (so long as they have that “R” next to their name) , but after promising to vote for one of those despised ex-state employees, you’re in a bit of the same boat as Macbeth:

I am in blood
Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er.

Well, you’re not exactly steeped in blood, but you did say you were going to vote for a Democrat, and for you, that’s practically the same thing. Still, believe me, it’s easier to go o’er than return, and a lot more justifiable. You won’t believe how good you’ll feel when you vote that straight Democratic ticket. Sort of like Darth Vader when he returned from the Dark Side, only you don’t have to die in the process.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

An open letter to Dave Collins

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Dear Dave,

I hope you didn’t miss it! Heather Somers, Republican candidate for the State Senate, has taken and failed your Trump test. You remember. Here’s what you wrote:

“I would suggest calling this the Trump test, one I intend to try on every state Republican candidate I encounter this election season.

It’s pretty simple: A pledge to renounce, like Shays has, is a pass.

Everything else — like still thinking about it — is a fail.”

I know you’ve been working hard to run those Republicans to ground to administer the test, though I have to say you haven’t made much progress, but it looks like someone else at the Day has done your work for you:

Republican Somers conceded she’s not thrilled about either Democrat Hillary Clinton or the GOP’s Donald Trump.

But when asked whom she will vote for on Nov. 8, the former mayor of the Town of Groton said while she doesn’t like things that Trump has said, she is more put off by things that Clinton has done.

“Therefore I will support my party’s nominee,” she said, to applause from those there to support her.

It’s a fair summary of what she said, but, you really should watch the video. It’s right there on your website. Her consultants must have stayed up late thinking up those lines, and you can just tell Heather herself spent time rehearsing to make them come out just right. It’s a word salad so artfully arranged that it takes several seconds to realize that it’s complete nonsense. But you’re not fooled, are you? Are you?

No, there’s no doubt about it. Heather failed the test with flying colors.

Anyway, I know you journalists sometimes have a bit of a lazy streak, which is why you love getting fed stories by the Republicans. It’s so much easier than doing the work yourself. So, in case you’re having trouble bestirring yourself to call bullshit on Heather, I thought I’d give you a few points you can work with.

We lawyers have a phrase about distinctions without a difference. Distinguishing between what someone has said, and what someone has done, in this particular context, is just such a distinction, right? We both know, don’t we, that words are deeds, especially when those words are used to whip up hatred. Remember what Justice Holmes said about falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater? That’s what Trump has been doing, and you can go ahead and use that analogy. I’m giving it to you for free. We know, don’t we, that there has never been a major party candidate, at least in the 20th or 21st Century, who has been as toxic as Trump. The damage Trump has already done by what he has said is far greater than any damage Hillary has done, at least if we confine ourselves to facts, and not fevered right wing conspiracy theories. And we won’t go there, will we?

Now, what Heather may be trying to say, is that while Trump may be saying that he wants to do objectionable things, that’s no proof that he will actually do those things, because he’s a politician, and you can’t believe any politician will do as he or she promises. But what does that tell us about whatever Heather happens to be saying? Good point, right?

I know you’re too good a journalist and would never judge a person guilty due to reports of “clouds” or “shadows” or “concerns raised” when a close examination of the facts shows that there’s no proof of wrongdoing or even probable cause to believe there was any wrongdoing. So, you must be wondering what Heather finds so objectionable in what Hillary, a reliably centrist politician, has “done”. Maybe it was killing Vince Foster, but while the jury will always still be out on that one, it remains the case that, as with all the other “scandals”, there’s not a shred of evidence against her.

And then, there’s the matter of what Trump has actually done, in addition to what he’s said, for which Heather apparently feels he gets a pass. Like bribing attorneys general (pay to play, anyone?) or running a scam university. Or discriminating against blacks in his real estate ventures. Or stiffing his contractors. Or screwing unions. (Oh, I forgot, you think that’s a good thing) Really, you’d have a tough time finding anything Hillary has done that measures up to any of those things, never mind the other cons in which he’s engaged.

I hope this has been helpful. All us Democrats are looking forward to your column taking Heather to task for failing the Trump test. I know it will be hard for you to say something negative about Heather, because you’ve been so deep in the tank for her that it will be hard climbing out, so that’s why I’m helping you out. I know it’s hard, but you can do it. I’m sure you don’t regret that Trump Test column, and you’ll stick to your principles. I believe in you.

Your friend,

Ctblue

For the benefit of any readers from outside of New London County, Dave Collins is a columnist with the New London Day. He is not paid to shill for the Republican Party. He does it for free. I would have done this (well, it might have been phrased a bit differently) by way of a Letter to the Editor, but by the time it got published, the election would be over.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

Poor Tim Cook

Thursday, September 1, 2016

I’m writing this on an IPad, and I love the thing, but Apple is a different story. It’s a corporation, and like Google’s should be, it’s motto could be “first, do evil”.

It seems the European Commission has found, to Tim Cook’s stunned surprise, that Apple is using Irish law to avoid paying taxes, not only here in the U.S., but to Ireland itself. Apple Made a deal with Ireland to pay a portion of its loose change to Ireland in order to escape taxation everywhere else, and will now have to pay slightly more. Cook is furious, claiming that the Commission’s insistence that it pay taxes in line with the rates Ireland charges to other tax dodgers is “total political crap“.

For reasons that are mystifying to me, the U.S. government also feels that Apple, which avoids taxes here, should also be allowed to avoid taxes in Europe.

What I find interesting is that this ruling stems from a European regulation that forbids member states from granting tax benefits on a piecemeal basis. As I understand it, they are free to adopt any tax code they want, but the laws have to apply to everyone, and they can’t dish out the kind of tax breaks that have sent the states here in the best country on earth racing to the bottom. It’s the kind of common sense regulation that would be adopted here in a minute, if we had a Congress that was not bought and paid for by the corporations. Instead we have a system that allows a state and governor that shall remain unnamed to cut school funding while giving 22 million to a billionaire to build himself a nice new headquarters. These deals do affect interstate commerce, so the federal government should have the power to step in and bar them across the board. Everyone would be better off if no one could do it, but as it is at present, everyone has to do it because if they don’t, someone else will.

Meanwhile, my heart’s bleeding for poor Tim Cook. It’s so unfair that Apple is expected to help pay, be that contribution ever so small, for the system of laws and governments that makes its existence possible.

Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it.

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

It’s not entirely apropos, but the above quote from Shakespeare popped into my mind when I read this:

With a tie vote in a closely watched case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a series of voting restrictions in North Carolina to remain blocked ahead of November’s elections. The court handed down an order denying the request by the state to allow it to implement some of the restrictive provisions – provisions that had been struck down and deemed discriminatory in their intent by a panel of judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month.

The order means the appeals court ruling will stand at least through November, while signaling that the Supreme Court is likely split on the larger issue of the legality of the restrictions.

….

North Carolina had asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay on the ruling so it could implement some of the invalidated provisions – specifically its photo ID requirement, the early voting limits and the pre-registration ban – for November’s election. According to Wednesday’s order, the conservative justices were willing to side with the state on at least some of North Carolina’s request. However, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last February has robbed the conservative bloc its crucial fifth vote necessary to halt the appeals court decision.

via Talking Points Memo

Scalia did no better service to his country than taking leave of life when he did. In this particular case, it means that thousands of people, most of them black, will not be deprived of the right to vote. More broadly, it means that the court’s right wing has been temporarily stopped. A reminder of what’s really important in this election. We may have to hold our noses, but a Hillary presidency will spell the end of right wing domination on the court, and for that alone we must hold tight and pull the lever.

On another note, how does Clarence Thomas sleep at night?

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Hillary’s debate prep

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

I must admit that I had the same reaction as Atrios when I read this in the New York Times:

Hillary Clinton’s advisers are talking to Donald J. Trump’s ghostwriter of “The Art of the Deal,” seeking insights about Mr. Trump’s deepest insecurities as they devise strategies to needle and undermine him in four weeks at the first presidential debate, the most anticipated in a generation.

Her team is also getting advice from psychology experts to help create a personality profile of Mr. Trump to gauge how he may respond to attacks and deal with a woman as his sole adversary on the debate stage.

They are undertaking a forensic-style analysis of Mr. Trump’s performances in the Republican primary debates, cataloging strengths and weaknesses as well as trigger points that caused him to lash out in less-than-presidential ways.

…

The Clinton camp believes that Mr. Trump is most insecure about his intelligence, his net worth and his image as a successful businessman, and those are the areas they are working with Mrs. Clinton to target.

I mentioned it to my wife, but after a little reflection, I came to the conclusion that it probably makes sense to tip him off in advance to the targets, because it’s more likely than not to eat away at him until the debates, at which time he’ll come unhinged. This is a guy, after all, who spent years trying to convince Graydon Carter, formerly of Spy Magazine, that he did not, in fact, have short fingers. These things eat away at him. He is more likely to act out if given advance warning than if he had none. That’s my take anyway, and I’m assuming it’s what the Clinton folks are thinking. At least I hope it’s what they’re thinking, and what their experts are telling them, because if not, they’ve quite possibly made a major mistake.

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (0)

Today’s Euphemism: the alt-right

Sunday, August 28, 2016

I don’t know where the term “alt-right” originated, but it masks the reality, like so many right wing buzzwords. “Pro-life”, “ethic cleansing”, “school choice”, “job creators”, and “death tax” come to mind.

When a new word is substituted for the tried and true, it hides the reality, because it is free of the associations that ride on the back of the old terms. In the case of the “alt-right” we have a virtual smorgasbord of terms that are more appropriate: racist; fascist; misogynistic, come to mind right away.

It is also emphatically the case that the media loves to adopt neutral sounding terminology for purveyors of hate; it makes their primary job: casting each side as equally bad, so much easier. Of course, that doesn’t apply to Fox, but that’s okay, since they’re in the tank for Republicans, who forced the rest of the media into the false equivalence pose in the first place.

Here’s a bit of the process at work. A Trump surrogate argues on air that Hillary is herself a bigot for branding every member of the alt-right as a racist because, after all, not everyone who reads the Huffington Post is a communist, so not every Breitbart reader is a racist. They’re not racists, they’re just “God-fearing, baby-loving, gun-toting, military-supporting, school choice-advocating Americans!”.

Can you spot the logical flaw there? If not, stop reading this blog, you just can’t cut it.

This particular racist got some pushback when he spewed this bullshit, but one must ask why someone is permitted on air to mouth this nonsense in the first place. Apparently, it is now the standard line: How dare you imply that a movement that explicitly appeals to bigotry is totally infested with bigots, when it’s entirely possible that some of those bigots are not omni-bigoted, but are more focused in their bigotry.

But this fellow inadvertently pointed to something that is a bit of a departure for the Democrats. I haven’t read Hillary’s speech, but from what I hear, this racist was right: she made the connections fairly clear. She called the “alt-right” out for exactly what it is. It is to be hoped that the Democrats will continue to do so, by linking the term every time they use it with something people already understand. While they’re doing it, they should be attacking the broadcast media (the print media has been much better) for its failure to do the same. The beltway media won’t change its behavior unless it comes under the same sort of attack from the Democrats as the Republicans have used against it for years.

Filed in Language | | Comments (0)

I’m flattered, but…

Sunday, August 28, 2016

One thing you can say for our Republican State Rep, John Scott: He may or may not be voting for Donald Trump, but like the Donald, he can’t stop himself from replying to any tweet or Facebook post that targets him, even when most people with an ounce of sense would see an advantage in staying mum.

Check our this screenshot from the Groton Democrat’s Facebook page:

First of all, John, I’m flattered. While I would be proud to claim authorship, I didn’t write that post, though I confess I know who wrote it and actually did see it before it went up. I thought it should be a letter to the Editor, or maybe to Dave Collins, who still hasn’t caught up to you to have you weasel out of answering directly to him.

But, let me respond as if I did write it. Here’s the thing, John, I’ll defend Malloy when I think he’s right, and attack him when I think he’s wrong. I’ll admit right out front that I voted for him in 2014 because, as is always the case, the Democrat was head and shoulders better than the alternative (that would be the Republican, John). Heck, he’s offended me most in his support for the charter school/school privitization movement, and there’s no question that his opponent would have been even worse.

But, John. I’ve watched Donald Trump, I’ve heard Donald Trump, and Dan Malloy is no Donald Trump. He’s not a racist homophobe, who, if he performs as promised during the campaign, will lead America down the road to fascism. Any person running for public office in this country, from the Senate to dog catcher, owes his or her potential constituents an accounting of whether that candidate wants to take us down that road. You’re just afraid of offending the base, John. Why don’t you just admit it instead of trying to change the subject, like you Republicans always do. There are times, and this is one of them, when the public has a right to expect a politician to put their own interests aside, and…, you know,…do what’s right. Oh, and if you do see the light, try to bring Andre and Heather along. I would really like to know if Andre supports the racist at the top of his ticket, or Heather supports the misogynist.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

A curious thing

Friday, August 26, 2016

Democrats keep saying that voter fraud is extremely rare, but that statement is not quite true. There apparently is a lot of voter fraud, committed mainly by people who are convinced that voting fraud by “those people” is rampant. Latest case in point:

Donald Trump’s new presidential campaign chief is registered to vote in a key swing state at an empty house where he does not live, in an apparent breach of election laws.

Stephen Bannon, the chief executive of Trump’s election campaign, has an active voter registration at the house in Miami-Dade County, Florida, which is vacant and due to be demolished to make way for a new development.

“I have emptied the property,” Luis Guevara, the owner of the house, which is in the Coconut Grove section of the city, said in an interview. “Nobody lives there … we are going to make a construction there.” Neighbors said the property had been abandoned for several months.

via The Guardian

Other notable fraudsters: Ann Coulter and James O’Keefe. In O’Keefe’s case, he commits voter fraud while in the act of trying to prove that it exists; something he always fails to do, except in the deluded minds of the far right.

So, it is a problem, and if we could put a stop to it the Republicans would lose some votes.

Filed in Hypocrisy | | Comments (0)