Hartford has been a heavily Democratic city for many, many years. Essentially that has evolved into single party rule without any real dissenting voices. And now for those who still held to the hope that the Republican Party in Hartford would rise from the ashes once again, think again.
In recent years , the GOP in Hartford hasn't been known for making any tough choices. They remained silent throughout the Grand Jury corruption investigation into Eddie Perez. Not a word was uttered about corruption, Democrats, nothing. Part of that is probably because their own Republican Council Person, Veronica Airey-Wilson was neck deep in the scandal also.
I guess the big question for me is at what price was the deal cut to endorse the Democrats by Republican Town Chairperson Mike McGarry? McGarry who typically isn't known for his inclusiveness of minorities and gays, must now find himself in a strange position of doing exactly that. McGarry has apparently decided to endorse the openly gay Democrat and at least part of the minority representatives on the Council slate. For some reason, McGarry's endorsement does not include Shawn Wooden, Raul deJesus or David McDonald
Is it possible McGarry has seen the light and is now willing to accept all people regardless of their sexual orientation or race? Don't count on it. McGarry has apparently been bragging since primary day that he has cut a deal "with the Dem's".
And why is that? Most likely because McGarry has realized that under his leadership as Town Chair, he has allowed the Republican Party in Hartford to slide into oblivion. The GOP in Hartford probably has less than 1,700 Republican's of which maybe 500 are "prime", or regular voters who turn out to vote. McGarry knows that he doesn't even have the numbers in his own party to get a Councilperson elected.
Combine that with the "Working Families Party" operation and McGarry should rightfully be running scared. Like it or not, the "WFP" has an operation behind it, a formidable operation at that. While the GOP can just barely maintain the minimum balance in their Town Committee checking account, the WFP is well financed, much of it Union money, and they know how to run effective grassroots campaigns.
McGarry apparently cut his deal with the Democrats to try to ensure 3,000 votes for his candidates who are in real jeopardy of becoming extinct on the Council if the WFP comes on strong, as I'm sure they intend to do.
Although this last ditch effort by McGarry to save his slate raises questions, the even bigger question is to what level do these endorsements further the ideals of the Republican Party. The answer is probably none at all.
The Republican Party is typically about, or at least in places other than Hartford it is about, smaller government, reduced government spending, reducing taxes and small business support. The track record in Hartford of those McGarry is supporting and endorsing is the exact opposite. Under those he has chosen to endorse, Hartford has seen its mill rate more than double since 1999, city spending has increased over $150,000,000 annually.Numerous small businesses have been forced out of business by exorbitant taxes.
These actions have all been under the "leadership" of those very same people the Republicans are now endorsing. These are the actions of a desperate politician, Mike McGarry, and not the actions of anyone that wants to see Hartford prosper and see its residents and businesses benefit. Pure and simple it is a move by McGarry to save his own Republican "skin" by trying to undermine the potential of the WFP coming on strong in November, as well as my "independent" candidacy for Council.
I have called several members of the Hartford Republican Town Committee, and none of them know how the endorsements came about. From what several sources have told me McGarry claims to have cut the deal on primary day with Democratic Town Committee Chairperson Jean Holloway. McGarry has apparently told at least one of the "sources" that the deal was orchestrated on primary day and McGarry and Holloway committed to working together to get the Republicans elected.
I spoke with Jean Holloway, the Hartford DTC Chair, and she wouldn't deny the deal was made. She suggested that I contact McGarry to sit down and discuss the conversation that they had. She did say though "when you find those 3,000 votes, let me know and we can go look for them together".
It has to make most people wonder why the Republican's would even consider cutting such a deal, and was it one person or was the Republican Town Committee actually involved. From what I am hearing now, it seems like it was more the wheeling and dealing of McGarry. I would find it hard to believe that the Republican's can actually be supportive of the Democratic candidates when the direction of the two parties is so different.
The opportunity to rebuild the Republican Party is there, with some forward thinking leadership. It doesn't need to be a party of dinosaurs in Hartford. And no matter what party anyone belongs to, no one is well served by single party rule. It essentially ends any political debate when only one strong party has a voice and the minority party rolls over and plays dead.
It will be interesting to see if the new leadership at Connecticut Republican State Central is interested in re-gaining a voice in Connecticut's Capitol city, or is business as usual acceptable to them?
Much more to come on this subject.
-
17 comments:
According to the local democratic party rules, namely Article 6, Section 4, Pedro and the Council endorsed candidates cannot accept a cross endorsement from the Republican Party. If they wish to run as Republicans they must file a letter dropping off the Democratic Party line or they can reject the Republican endorsement.
Another example of a breaking story for you, Kevin, "I spoke with Jean Holloway, the Hartford DTC Chair, and she wouldn't deny the deal was made."
There has never been worse party leadership. Why else did State Rep Kelvin Roldan bring an attorney to the nominating convention in July? Roldan cited 20+ violations committed by Jean Holloway and Lou Watkins.
She "would not comment about her deal" regarding 3,000 cross-over votes on Election Day?? This is a false if not impossible commitment. When are the Hartford Dems or State Central going to wake up and remove Jean from her duties? She has been extremely detrimental to the Democratic Party in Hartford. She and McGarry both need to go. Terrible leadership for both parties.
Bruce, you are too good a lawyer to be making this argument. Your party rules state that a party-endorsed candidate cannot be a party-endorsed candidate of another party. Party-endorsement is a term of art and refers only to the persons endorsed by town committees for nomination. Once there is a primary (or if there is no primary b/c there were no successful petitioners) a successful candidate is a "nominee" of a party not a "party-endorsed" candidate. This was fought about 10+ years ago when Kathleen Palm was put on the Republican line. In any event, Title 9 governs how people become candidates for office and nothing in Title 9 prohibits anyone from being the candidate of more than one parties (hence WFP's ability to cross-nominate D's). Local party rules can't trump the General Statutes, nor can they force anyone to relinquish a nomination they obtained in a prmiary.
Kevin, on a purely political (as opposed to legal) front, I am curiuous as to which members of the RTC you contacted. Although I am not on the RTC I was present at its last meeting and the issue of cross-nominations was discussed in detail and there were no objections by any of the members of the RTC who were present. Either someone wasn't being truthful with you or they were not present at the last RTC meeting.
Rich,
If you were there, then I am sure you are aware that there was no vote or any motion made to allow Mike McGarry to ngegotiate or cut a deal on his own. Discussing an issue in a last ditch effort to get Republicans elected is a far cry from the RTC agreeing to move forward.
Maybe McGarry and the RTC should have listened a few years ago when I advised them not to underestimate the drive behind the WFP.
I'm not sure if you are an RTC member again, but when was the last time the RTC conducted any outreach to attract new voters to the party? And I don't consider a fundraiser in a bar outreach to the Community.
And as a regular reader of the blog, you should know I don't throw around the names of my sources unless they agree to be quoted, but I stand by what I said.
Kevin, I haven't been a member of the RTC for about 10 years for many of the reasons you cite (among others).
As for parliamentary procedure, no motion or further action by the RTC was needed. The RTC executive committee was designated at the nominating convention as the vacancy committee. Once candidates resigned, the executive committee had the authority under state law to fill the vacancies without further action from the RTC. In fact, the RTC executive committee could have done so without even consulting the RTC as a whole.
Mike has his flaws, but he did nothing wrong here. He intentionally raised the issue at the RTC meeting so people would be informed and have the chance to speak their mind.
As for what actually took place in the room that evening, you may stand by what you said, but the information you were given and which you have published is simply incorrect.
New York's Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of public interest groups such as Citizen Action of New York.[citation needed] The party blends a culture of political organizing with unionism, 1960s idealism, and tactical pragmatism.
--------------------------------
I don't know if our WFP guys are much worse than our Dems here in Hartford. However, by its very nature the party is worse.
The Republican Party in Hartford is all but defunct, and has been for years. I don't know what leadership could do differently, but it's plain to me that the electorate isn't buying Republican under any circumstances.
rich...always a pleasure to hear from you.
Surely Rich you must be aware of the distinction betwwen the WFP ( a legal minor party) and the Republican Party ( a legal major party)..different statutes apply with respect to cross endorsements.
Rich once a Republican receives a nomination..ie... they are endorsed by the vote of a body to be the nominee..ie..they are the endorsed candidate
With regarding Kathy Palm...please give me the docket number or parties to whatever as you say.." dealt with" the issue as I can find no court case in the judicial webpage dealing with the matter.I believe that she was endorsed by both parties but in the wisom of the party registers at that time so long ago, no one raised a fuss....Rich...an error isnt legal binding precedent.
Rich..nothing prevents you from seeking a legal opinion from your Republican State Party Counsel, once or if the local Republicans cross endorse.I may contact our State Party Counsel, Kevin Reynolds and seek his opinion on the issue, as Title 9 and the case law are silent on it.
Rich..hopefully you agree that the political calculus is bad for the endorsed Dems..as it splits them off from eachother right away..and from Pedro who met with Mike McGarry and approved this charade..and bad for your party as well, as it further reduces your brand and your ability to stand for your party's conservative principles.Your Republican Party cannot rebuild itself if it endorses and works with liberals from my Party, any hope of party building within your party is now minimal.
As to my Party..Pedro really screwed up if he takes this endorsement. Any hope of all 6 Democrats working together with him is gone.Just when Pedro needs to look like a leader here, he will shoot himself in the foot.If I was one of the un-republican endorsed democratic candidates, I would try to work with the WFP and publically declare my independance from Pedro and the rest of the Republican endorsed Democrats.
Bruce, the issue with Kathleen was that the DTC objected to her appearing on the Republican line. My understanding - and I was only a youngster in those days and not allowed into the circles of power - was that there was no legal basis for the objection, just a political one and she conceded and withdrew her name from the R line as a political accommodation. I got this shortly after it happened from John O'Connell (who was not happy Kathleen wouldn't stick to her guns and tell the DTC to pound sand). Perhaps John was wrong, but he was pretty careful about things so I tend to credit his account.
I think you are misdreading Title 9. It draws a clear distinction between "party-endorsed candidates" and "nominees." The former are those endorsed by a DTC or RTC. The latter are those who have either won a primary or, if there was no primary, were the party-endorsed candidates at the time for filing petitiions passed. Pedro was never the "party-endorsed" candidate of the RTC, Mike McGarry was, and once D the primary was over he was your nominee, not your party-endorsed candidate. As an aside, had Ed Vargas won your primary, he would have been your nominee even though he was never your party-endorsed candidate.
You guts need to stop with the debate and look at the real issue, and that's manulaption of the election process by eliminating any one who opposes the current mayor.
Yesterday was a sad day in Hartford politics, John passed away would called everyone to task during the budget process and was a true watch dog for the residents and business community even after his council days were over. There needs to be 9 individuals like John who sit on the council to turn this city around, and the other part us the death of the GOP in Hartford. A Trojan horse by the DTC chair and Mike jumps at the chance, what a leader, not. It's deals like this that keep the sane old crooked politicians in office. Maybe the only real opponent they would be afraid of is a "Grand jury."
Anon, it's ironic you point to John, because he cut his own deal with Mike Peters to get 3 R's on council and to help put People for Change out of business. I don't know how much, if anything, John knew about what was going on this cycle before he passed, but given what I know about him, which is quite a bit since he gave me my start in Hartford politics, I doubt the concept would have offended him. John was a very honest man and a staunch conservative, but he also understood that you sometimes have to compromise and make deals with people on the other side, especially when you are badly outnumbered and outgunned.
Your analysis that this deal "keeps the same old crooked politicians in office" is totally off-base. The 3 R's have exactly 1 year of experience in office and have run in exactly 1 municipal election (Mike F. ran for BoE). How are they the "same old crooked politicians?" Of the D's cross-nominated, Kyle Anderson has never run for office as far as I know, let alone served and Adam Cloud has 1 year of government experience and has never run for office other than for 1 term on the DTC when he still lived Downtown. This ticket is hardly fighting to preserve the status quo.
Rich, Anon might be referring to Ken Kennedy. After 10 years on Council, I don't think anyone can point to anything that he has done other than personal favors for politically connected friends. He is a total waste of space up on Council.
Anonymous 4:04
Kennedy has done something for Hartford...he has increased Hartford's population by fathering kids out of wedlock..
Cross-Endorsed Democratic Candidates
Segarra
Cloud
Kennedy
Aponte
Andersen
This is an affront to all who have dedicated them selves to Democratic beliefs. As Democrat's we have fought for Civil Rights ,Womens Rights, Gay Rights, Equal Opportunity, to name a major few.
For any Democrat to take the Bachman /Perry /Bush Republican endorsement is totally against everything we stand for as Democrats! They are either Democrats or need to leave the party and become Republicans.
And for anyone to compare this to the Working Families endorsement, they are liberal/progressive,looking to help the 'Working families across Connecticut.' They stand with us more than against us!
This is an affront to all who have dedicated them selves to Democratic beliefs. As Democrat's we have fought for Civil Rights ,Womens Rights, Gay Rights, Equal Opportunity, to name a major few.
---------------------------------
Isn't this Arena the guy who dedicated himself to equal opportunity by registering his German auto in more or less Republican New Canaan where tax/auto insurance rates are low? How liberal and progressive. With real members like him (i.e., blood-sucking hacks) I'd say it would make more sense to disband the Dem Party.
Sean...whether those losers go ahead with the endorsement or reject it...it is now all over the City and those guys will never get the support of liberals,minorities or the LBGT folks because Pedro and his cronies bought into doing away with the civil rights ordinances and reducing union power if they come into power. We can safely say that the republican endorsed folks will be chum in the water no matter what they do from here on in.
Post a Comment