A Primer On Connecticut Politics: Pesci On The Media, The State Of Connecticut, Notable Politicians Past And Present

Q: Before we get to the particulars, the details where the devil lives and breathes, let me ask you some general questions.

A: Sure.

Q: When did you first start writing for newspapers?

A: I remember my first or second column for the Journal Inquirer. I’m not sure of the date. It was a column on Thurman Milner, who was then running as mayor of Hartford. Mr. Milner won the contest and became the first black mayor of a major city in Connecticut.

Q: Do you remember what the column was about?

A: I do. It has long since been consigned to the newspaper morgue at the JI…

Q: Curious that you remember.

A: No one forgets the circumstances involving the birth of their first child. The mayoralty race was well underway when the JI stumbled upon some questionable credentials presented by Mr. Milner. He had flourished a certificate from “Roachdale College.” The paper discovered the certificate was produced as a result of a dormitory scheme. In due course, a story appeared, but no other newspapers were picking up on it. Journalism, as you know, is ten percent thought and ninety percent repetition. I wrote a letter to the JI and received back a note from Chris Powell, the paper’s Managing Editor – also, at the time, the JI’s Editorial Page Editor – asking if the paper could print it as a column. I assented. Mr. Powell requested other columns, and a career of sorts was launched.  Sometime later in 1992, Mr. Powell ran for the state senate on the Republican ticket against a strong incumbent Democrat from Glastonbury. He was disappointed, but not shocked, when he lost the race. Connecticut is as blue as Herman Melville’s inscrutable blue sky. I recall joking with Mr. Powell at the time that he was setting himself up for a painful defeat because he was a journalist, and many people in the state were just itching to hang all the state’s journalists on hooks in Hell. Anyway, not to stray too far from your question, Mr. Powell later left the editorial page because someone else had been hired to take his place on the page  while he was campaigning, and perhaps he was weary wearing too many hats. He had been writing columns in the JI under his own byline since 1969 and distributing to other papers commentaries that were appearing as unsigned editorials in the JI. The new Editorial Page Editor was, I had supposed, not too comfortable with an excess of conservative opinion on his pages, and I lapsed into a hiatus of a few months. Up to that point, I had been writing for the paper for about ten years.  My temporary absence from Op-Ed pages in Connecticut was cut short by Mr. Powell, who suggested that I send future columns to a series of Connecticut papers. He was sending his column to the same papers under his own byline.  And so, here we are.

Q: I notice you chuckled twice so far: first when you said that journalism was ten percent thought and ninety percent repetition, and again when you said editors supposed their papers were non-ideological and non-partisan. What’s so funny?

A: I see I’m not going to be allowed to get away with much here, but it would be pointless to insist on a less inquisitive interlocutor. Repetition of a story lies at the very heart of journalism. Stories unfold, and essentials are always repeated. A big story – Watergate during the Nixon administration may serve as an example – is picked up by a host of papers and the elements of the story are always repeated. I’m not convinced that the tern “non-partisan” is all that useful; a paper that is partisan would not consider itself so. We should recall the birth of modern American newspapers in the post-Civil War period. Many of the leading papers of that day were unabashedly partisan, and quite a few were little more than party organs. You may have noticed that there is a synergy, shall we call it, between newspapers and politicians. One of the reasons Connecticut is called “the land of steady habits” is because its newspapers have been habitually left of center.  As incumbent politicians drift to the left, they carry the media with them; and as the newspapers go, so go remaining politicians as yet untouched by ideological imperatives. I can think of only one newspaper editorial page in the state that might reasonably be styled conservative. That would be the Waterbury Republican American.  Most of the rest are left of center. The preferred term today is “progressive,” though there are some important differences between progressives and liberals. I am speaking here of editorial opinion and perhaps the editorial prerogatives of publishers and editors.

Q: Let me interrupt you. Wouldn’t the editors of most papers in Connecticut insist their papers are moderate?... Another smirk!

A: That defense might have been true in Connecticut a few decades ago. Times change. I would argue that the very standard by which one may calculate the ideological posture of the media in Connecticut has shifted to the left. But it is true: Most reporters, editors and commentators working today might consider themselves moderate. They have said that, and they are wrong. The claim to moderation is a conscience salve. You just rub a little “moderation” on your editorial page and you have proofed yourself against the charge that you are left of center. Most newspapers in Connecticut allow national conservative commentators to ventilate on their Op-Ed pages. This is a painless concession to moderation and “fair-play.” There may be a conservative Op-Ed writer or two ventilating about state politics in Connecticut newspapers; if so, they have not yet disturbed the political universe. Presently [This self-interview was conducted at the end of January, 2014], Connecticut’s gubernatorial office is held by a Democrat who appears often as possible marching energetically in union picket lines. Governor Dannel Malloy has gone to some trouble to identify himself publically as a progressive Democrat. Most of his PR initiatives are readily identifiable as progressive. He is comfortable with the progressive policy prescription of President Barack Obama. All the leadership positions in the General Assembly are held by progressives. The state’s entire U.S. Congressional delegation is Democratic, and Democratic voters in the state, many of whom are not progressive but who reflexively vote the party line, outnumber Republicans by a ratio of two to one. The old Democratic Party apparatus one associates with Tammany Hall is still very strong in Connecticut’s cities. The operative axioms that underlie Mr. Malloy’s first two budgets are progressive, and none more so than the tax increase in his first budget, the largest in Connecticut history, as well as his venture into crony capitalism. Moderate Democrats in the state have long since been consigned to the dustbin of political history. Moderate Republicanism -- as represented by the three “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” past members of the state’s U.S. Congressional delegation -- is a desiccated corpse. The same is true in the Democratic Party. All moderate Democrats have been put out to pasture. A Bill O’Neill or an Ella Grasso today would be moldering on the back benches of Connecticut’s progressive Democratic Party. This is the real universe of decisive political facts that shapes Connecticut politics. The liberal to progressive mass has a strong gravitational pull on the media. If we ask ourselves -- “How did things get this way? Why is Connecticut, for all practical purposes, broke?”  -- it seems to me proper to lay much of the responsibility on the shoulders of Connecticut’s left of center media. A stronger resistance to the progressive, leftward drift might have given us a more moderate configuration, but Connecticut’s media has for the past few decades simply succumbed to the gravitational pull of Democratic and progressive interests. I think it may have been Chesterton, himself a repentant journalist, who pointed out that no great struggle is needed to float downstream; even a dead body eventually reaches that point at which rivers dump effulgent into the ocean. The media in this state has too often cooperated with the ruling regime. The vigorous and healthful antibodies one expects from a media in opposition – the only kind of press that deserves respect -- simply are not in evidence.

Q: That seems a little harsh. Let’s go back to some of the political characters in the state. Connecticut is full of them: former Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker; former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd, now a shill, as you think, for Hollywood; former suit-prone Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, now a U.S. Senator; former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman; Governor Dannel Malloy, whom you’ve called the most progressive Connecticut governor since Wilber Cross -- a curiosity shop of characters, including Mr. Powell, whom you seems to respect.

A: Mr. Powell is among the best newsmen in Connecticut, and his impatience with nonsense is refreshing. It was Mr. Powell who styled Mr. Weicker a “gasbag” in his review of Mr. Weicker’s fact-based autobiography, “Maverick.” I reprinted the review, with Mr. Powell’s permission, on my blog site, “Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes From  A Blue State." I’ve also interview him several times on the blog.

Q: What makes a good newsman?

A: He must have an intuitive grasp of the nature of a good story and the will to pursue it to the gates of Hell. There’s a little bit of Alexander Pope in every good journalist:

“Am I proud?

Yes, why should I not be,

When even men who do not fear God

Fear me?”

To arrive at Pope’s rather generous estimate of himself should be the ambition of any reporter or journalist who relishes his own independence. And I’m using the word “independence” here to indicate a sharp separation between journalists and politicians. Mr. Powell is fond of quoting Joseph Pulitzer on the point:  A good reporter should have no friends.  And then too, anyone who appreciates Fredrick Bastiat has his foot firmly planted on the right path.

Q: In understanding the drift of Connecticut politics during the last few decades, how important is Mr. Weicker? He’s retired now, but still a bit of a live wire.

A: Yeah. He pops up from time to time, most recently in an Op-Ed piece in the Hartford Courant in which Mr. Weicker advises the Republican Party to become more like Mr. Weicker. The shape and destiny of the Republican Party – very much on the downslide these past few decades – cannot be understood without a careful consideration of Mr. Weicker, the last Jacob Javits Republican in the Northeast.

Q: Javits… there’s a name that is not likely to ring a bell in the memory of people younger than 30.

A: Mr. Weicker is not younger than 30. Mr. Javits, a Republican U.S. Senator from New York who professed a progressive brand of Republicanism, left politics in 1980. Mr. Weicker has identified himself on a few occasions as a “Jacob Javits Republican.” Mr. Powell, in his review of Mr. Weicker’s autobiography, identified Mr. Weicker as a gasbag who used his own party as a campaign foil to assure his re-election in a state dominated by Democrats.

Q: And you?

A: Mr. Powell has the better and more objective view. I think it was Bernard Shaw who pointed out that most autobiographies take liberties with the truth. Mr. Shaw said the most truthful biography of Napoleon would have been one written by his butler. In his own party, Mr. Weicker was the spreading oak in the shade of which nothing vital could grow. He also famously – and accurately -- called himself “the turd in the Republican Party punchbowl.” When he was chased out of the Senate in 1989 by then Connecticut Attorney General Joe Lieberman  -- a “Jacob Javits” Democrat, be it noted -- Mr. Weicker’s home party breathed a huge sigh of relief and began earnestly to attempt to dig itself out of the rubble. Mr. Weicker later ran as an independent for governor of his state and won. He imposed an income tax on Connecticut and then high-tailed it out of town, declining to run for a second term on a ticket of his own invention.  Democrats in Connecticut learned from the Weicker-Lieberman race that any Jacob Javits progressive Democrat could defeat any Jacob Javits progressive Republican, and they’ve been winning office ever since. In the past 16 years, beginning with U.S. Representative Nancy Johnson and ending with U.S. Representative Chris Shays, all the Republicans in Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional delegation have been replaced by progressive Democrats. And in 2004, Republicans surrendered the gubernatorial office to Danell Malloy, who is every bit as progressive as President Barack Obama. The ruination of the Republican Party is Mr. Weicker’s legacy to his state – that and the state income tax. When Mr. Malloy in his first budget imposed upon the people of Connecticut the largest tax increase in state history, Mr. Weicker commiserated. He had been there, done that.

Q: You believe Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Weicker were leading political parallel lives.

A: Sort of. There are astonishing correspondences between the two. Through two bruising races – the Weicker-Lieberman race for the U.S. Senate and the Lieberman- Lamont race for the U.S. Senate – the two senators were pretty aggressive antagonists. It was Mr. Weicker who encouraged Mr. Lamont to challenge Mr. Lieberman. Of the two races, the Weicker-Lieberman contest was the more interesting to me.  Mr. Weicker, during his 18 years in the Senate, had staked out for himself large swaths of political territory that belonged to Democrats. He was friendly with Edward Kennedy and Chris Dodd, whose father, Tom Dodd, he had defeated in 1971 when Dodd the elder was reeling from scandals largely of his own making. David Koskoff wrote a fairly good book about Tom Dodd, “The Senator From Central Casting: The Rise, Fall and Resurrection of Thomas Dodd,” which I reviewed for one of the newspapers. Mr. Weicker’s campaign against Tom Dodd was, he later acknowledged, rougher than it should have been.  I made a record of Weicker’s comments on Tom Dodd when he was invited to appear on a radio show to say some soothing things about U.S. Senator Chris Dodd. He said, “In 1970, I made my first run for the U.S. Senate. It was a unique event in that I was pitted against a Democrat, Joe Duffy (sic), and an Independent, Tom Dodd — a beginning for me but an end to the distinguished career of Sen. Dodd. Though happy to win, I wasn't particularly proud of the tough verbiage I had landed on Dodd.” He also left some knuckle marks on Joe Duffey’s face.  Mr. Duffey was the anti-Vietnam political candidate of the moment. Mr. Weicker, who had called upon President Nixon to campaign in his corner, said Duffey and other protestors like him should be in jail. Later on, during the Watergate period, Mr. Weicker was to change his mind about the war. Mr. Lieberman was familiar with Mr. Weicker’s campaign methods. During the 1989 senatorial campaign, he attacked Mr. Weicker both from the left and the right. Much to Mr. Weicker’s dismay, Mr. Lieberman was indirectly assisted in his campaign by staunch conservatives such as Bill Buckley. The much abused Connecticut GOP, it seemed, was in full scale revolt against the “turd in the Republican Party punchbowl.” Mr. Weicker, at long last, was shown the door by his party. Today, Mr. Weicker says the Connecticut GOP booted him out, presumably for infidelity. But it was Mr. Weicker who had initiated divorce proceeding many years earlier; the final and fatal break was merely formalized with his loss to Mr. Lieberman. No one – not even he, it must be supposed – was surprised. During the Lieberman-Lamont race, Weicker and the Weicker-likers in the Democratic Party teamed up against Mr. Lieberman, but to no avail. Mr. Lieberman slipped the noose. Mr. Weicker and Mr. Lieberman were both liberals. A liberal group, the Americans for Democratic Action, rated Mr. Weicker in 1986 the most liberal Republican in the Senate. His rating was 20 points higher than that of Senator Chris Dodd. The bizarre notion of Mr. Weicker as a centrist was, even then at the apex of his senatorial career, preposterous. It was a fiction promoted by liberals who no doubt appreciated Mr. Weicker’s service in rendering harmless anyone in his party who displayed toxic conservative symptoms.

Q: Mr. Weicker declined to run again as governor. Had he done so, would he have won?

A: No.

Q: But he did say in an interview that ran in Connecticut magazine that he thought he could win.

A: Politicians are people whose whole lives are lived in the intersection of “yes” and “no.” The piece you’re referring to is called “Final Say: Lowell Weicker,” published in 2012. There is no final say with Mr. Weicker. There are no “last words,” and may never be as long as he has breath in him and there are Republican careers yet to destroy. The interviewer asked Mr. Weicker to justify his choice of Barack Obama over Mitt Romney in the presidential election, and Mr. Weicker doubted that a Republican moderate could survive a Republican primary, which is pure fantasy: Mr. Romney was hardly a fire breathing conservative, and he survived the Republican primary. The Republican Party in Mr. Weicker’s own state has never nominated a conservative for high office. Mr. Weicker’s nuisance value has ebbed since he left office. A re-election would have forced an awkward defense of the income tax in a general election. That tax was popular only among progressives in Mr. Weicker’s state. The tax changed the character of Connecticut and opened the flood gates to improvident spending. By the time Mr. Malloy was elected governor, spending in the state had tripled -- and the coffers were empty. Interestingly, the amount of the deficit faced by Mr. Malloy in the post-income tax period was, almost to the dollar, the same as it was when Mr. Weicker inaugurated his income tax. No one from O’Neill to Malloy had seriously addressed the spending side of the budget. A few months after Mr. Malloy was installed as the first Democratic governor since O’Neill had declined to run again as governor, Mr. Weicker lamented, “Where did it all go?” And I replied in a column, “Into the black hole, you ninny.”

Q: Mr. Weicker’s right hand man, Tom D’Amore, died recently and suddenly of a heart attack. His funeral drew quite a few people.

A: Yes, deservedly so. He was a nice man. During the height of the Cold War, a British agent was asked whether he could defend another agent who had gone over to the enemy. He said that if he were ever forced to choose between his country and his friend, he hoped to God he would have the good sense to betray his country, so imperious are the claims of friendship. The same might be said of Mr. D’Amore’s relationship between his friend, Lowell Weicker, and the Connecticut Republican Party. After he had been more or less appointed Republican Party Chairman by then Senator Weicker, Mr. D’Amore assured  the Republicans who had confirmed him as Chairman that he was not interested in presiding over the demise of the Republican Party. But he did -- he and Mr. Weicker. Rebuffed in his senatorial campaign with Mr. Lieberman by the very Republicans he had scorned over the years, Mr. Weicker had a second act as governor, in the course of which he imposed his income tax on the state that had rejected him. Some people at the time suspected that spite of some kind was roiling in Mr. Weicker’s veins. But it is equally likely that Mr. Weicker felt he was tying a knot in his loose legacy by imposing an income tax on the state. Within the space of two succeeding Republican governors, the state budget tripled. After Mr. Malloy had become governor, the first Democratic chief of state in Connecticut since the departure of Mr.O’Neilll, he imposed a massive tax increase to discharge a massive deficit, the result of profligate spending made possible by the Weicker’s income tax. Mr. Weicker was asked to comment on the new Democratic governor’s massive tax increase, the largest in Connecticut’s history, during a function attended by elder statesmen at the Hartford Club. Mr. Weicker heartily commended the governor for his steely courage and said he understood the necessity of tax increases. So, one imagines, did Mr. D’Amore.

Q: Senator Joe Lieberman ran aground on the same rocks, you believe.

A: Not quite, but the political Odysseys of both Mr. Weicker and Mr. Lieberman were eerily similar. Both were senators of long standing: one, Mr. Lieberman, a liberal Democrat whose foreign policy views were shaped by years of opposition to Soviet communism in its various shapes and permutations; and the other, Mr. Weicker, whose politics were shaped by a politically profitable resistance to what one might call Reagan Republicanism. Both took a bridge too far, Mr. Weicker far more often and more exuberantly than Mr. Lieberman.  Both were sensible that they were operating in New England, about which Barry Goldwater said: If you lop off California and New England, you’ve got a pretty good country. Mr. Lieberman endorsed John McCain for president over Democratic nominee Barack Obama, causing Democratic heads back home to explode. Mr. Weicker’s sleights to his party nominees are perhaps too many to mention.  One of U.S. Senator Chris Dodd’s Republican opponents, Republican Party nominee for the U.S. Senate Roger Eddy, popped down to Washington to secure Mr. Weicker’s support and was assured by Mr. Weicker that he could count on him 100 percent. Mr. Eddy returned home whistling “Happy Days Are Here Again,” only to hear, on the eve of the election, Mr. Weicker’s radio endorsements of Mr. Dodd – the revenge of “the turd in the Republican Party punchbowl.” Mr. Weicker was punished for his party lapses when liberal Democrats in his state and Republicans tuned towards Lieberman in his senatorial race. And progressive Democrats in Connecticut attempted similarly to punish Lieberman by flocking to Weicker preferred candidate Ned Lamont in a Democratic primary. Mr. Lamont won the primary but lost the general election to Mr. Lieberman, who by that time had discovered the benefits of party independence. Mr. Lieberman ran as an independent senator and won; Mr. Weicker ran as an independent governor and won.  But that history is not likely to repeat itself.

Q: Why not?

A: It takes a politician full of years in Congress to pull it off, and the present members of Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional delegation are – what shall we say? – light-weights. Both Connecticut U.S. Senators Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy are new arrivals. It takes a good long time for a U.S. Senator to grow a beard and, at least in Connecticut, all the long beards have drifted off to greener pastures elsewhere. Mr. Weicker hung himself with an income tax. Mr. Dodd is now lobbying in Hollywood. Mr. Lieberman has attached himself to a prominent law firm as a lobbyist. Before they had kicked the dust of the Senate from their feet, both Mr. Dodd and Mr. Lieberman had vowed, but not on a stack of Bibles, to eschew lobbying. It’s sure a strange world, isn’t it?

Q: But all that is in the past, so much water under the bridge. Can we talk a bit about the present and the future?

A: Yes. But remember, the past exercises a gravitational pull on the present.

Q: How would you describe the correlation of political forces in Connecticut today?

A: There is no enemy to the right in Connecticut, never has been. And in the absence of strenuous opposition, the state has moved very far to the left. Most Democratic politicians, who were alive and kicking in, say, 1990, the last year of the O’Neill administration, would be dismayed at the leftward drift. President Richard Nixon, shortly after he had taken the country entirely off the gold standard, used to say, much to the annoyance of the late Bill Buckley, “We are all Keynesians now.”  Similarly, it might be said by Mr. Malloy, “We are all progressives now.” Mr. O’Neill’s first term saw a rapid increase in spending, owing mostly to the boom period in the 1980s that had produced successive budget surpluses. The surpluses spurred spending, which resulted in a higher budget ceiling. When the boom ended, as all booms must, no serious attempt was made by O’Neill administration Democrats to lower the ceiling through spending cuts. Improvident spending had produced a deficit, which in turn led the way to so called “tax reform.”  The O’Neill deficit opened the door to an income tax. Mr. Weicker waltzed through the opening, and his “tax reform” relieved all state legislators at the time of a mounting pressure to reduce spending. Facing a similar set of circumstances in 2011, Mr. Malloy “pulled a Weicker.” The Malloy tax increase, the largest in Connecticut’s history, raised the spending ceiling. Connecticut is now the highest taxed state in the nation, and as such it is poorly positioned for a quick recovery if  the rising tide mentioned in a memorable speech by President John Kennedy ever does lifts all the boats.  I do say “if” because progressive proposals adopted both in Washington and at home in Connecticut have delayed a national and state-wide recovery. All this is background music, but the correlation of forces in the state, including a compliant, left of center media, is such that these harsh notes reach the ear as bewitching music, a song of sirens.

Q: But the Republican response to what you call the siren song has more or less fallen on deaf ears here in Connecticut. Are Republicans not shouting loudly enough?

A: I think the alternative message promulgated by Democrats, part of the siren song, is more alluring. Theirs is a bread and circus remedy. The Republican message is that wealth, real wealth, is created wholly in the private marketplace by entrepreneurs who are free to create products people want. The free flow of marketable intelligence is curtailed when the government aggressively, unnaturally and unnecessarily directs the flow. Democrats say: Not to worry, there’s nothing we can’t fix; and they proceed to offer a series of fixes, sometimes involving their political cohorts, that worsens matters. Long term solutions imposed from above on a quasi-free market rarely produce beneficial effects. The progressive is a Chanticleer convinced the sun cannot rise in the absence of his crowing.  

Q: These would be the crony capitalists.

A: Yes, progressive crony capitalists. Honore Balzac used to say that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. If he had lived in the 20^th and 21st centuries, he might have amended his apothegm. Nowadays, behind every great fortune lies a politician dispensing favors. And please don’t think that purist Democrats have no blood on their hands. It has been common among Democrats in Connecticut, champions of the proletariat, to launch rhetorical missiles at rich Republicans during campaigns. Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate Linda McMahon’s leaky boat was sunk by commentators who never failed to mention her self-financed $50 million dollar sputtering campaign. That’s fine: All’s fair in love and politics. The victor in the race was Dick Blumenthal, now the 6^th richest Senator in Congress. Mr. Blumenthal’s campaign suffered a bump in the road when he was shown several times in several different venues saying or strongly implying that he had served as a marine in Vietnam. These were bald-faced lies; Mr. Blumenthal said he had misspoken, and the bump was quickly surmounted. U.S. Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Jim Himes are millionaires, both Democrats. Mr. Dodd exchanged his Senate chair for a $2 million a year salary as a Tinsletown hawker, and if Mr. Lieberman has ever suffered proletarian want in the Senate, he is about to be richly rewarded for it. Mr. Weicker, whose grandfather was a successful business man, earned most of his money the easy way. Now that Mrs. McMahon – who ought not to have been elected to the Senate for a fistful of reasons – has been got out of the way, one expects to hear little in the future concerning the corrupting influence of personal wealth. How can you urge that point of view when three of the seven members of Connecticut’s all Democratic U.S. Congressional delegation are millionaires? The real corrupting influence in politics today lies in mutually beneficial  political exchanges between powerful politicians and crony capitalists on the right or left who prosper because of their efforts. These efforts always create disabling distortions in the market place and rarely help the majority of creative wealth producing entrepreneurs unattached to large corporations.

Q: But you can’t fit all that on a bumper sticker.

A: Right. “Raise the minimum wage” fits. It’s a campaign battle flag rather than a useful proposal.  The flag indicates that those in favor of the proposal have chosen to place themselves in the trenches with the poor and dispossessed. How many heads of household in Connecticut make no more than minimum wage? Probably not many. You are not likely to come upon that statistic in your local paper, and why not? It is the very first question that should be put to any politician in the state who is advocating for a boost in the minimum wage. Most minimum wage earners are part time workers in households with an average annual income of $50,000, some of them kids socking away a few bucks to defray the cost of their increasingly expensive college loans. After Governor Malloy gave UConn millions of tax dollars, the university boosted its tuition fees. The minimum wage raises the cost of labor for employers who either will or will not be able to recover sometimes slight profits by increasing the cost of his product or service. That loss may be recovered by reducing the hours of full time employees, laying off workers or reducing the quality of the product or service rendered, unintended consequences none of which are likely to help aspiring college students or, say, a child in poor section of a city who would like to contribute his fair share to the upkeep of his household. The minimum wage in Connecticut is also connected to union salaries by means of contractual escalator clauses; so any increase in the minimum benefits a powerful special interest group in the state that, some say, provided the edge to Mr. Malloy during his second run as governor.

Q: Are people so easily fooled?

A: Some are, enough are. It was Lincoln who said “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time,” though that would seem to be the ambition of many politicians.

Q: Thanks. It’s been fun. Let’s do it again.

Blumenthal’s Snippit

U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s awkward false claim, made or intimated several times, that he had served as a marine in Vietnam rose out of the newspaper morgues recently after former New York Times political writer Ray Hernandez joined a Washington D.C. PR firm.

The story in the Hartford Courant, “NY Times Reporter Who Was Fed Blumenthal Vietnam Scoop Will Join DC Firm Led By One Time McMahon Adviser”, actually is a story about a story, a story twice removed.

The story concerning a move by former New York Times reporter Ray Hernandez to the Washington PR firm DCI Group was first mentioned by Politico reporter Dylan Byers in a brief story, “NYT's Ray Hernandez to DCI Group”.

The Courant story is brief enough to be included here in full:

Dylan Byers of Politico reported that former New York Times political writer Ray Hernandez is joining a Washington PR firm.

Normally the comings and goings of journalists aren’t that interesting but in this case, as Byers noted, Hernandez’ move merits a mention. Back in 2010, Hernandez broke the story that now Sen. Richard Blumenthal falsely claimed he served in Vietnam.

The story was built upon a snippet of video from an obscure event in Norwalk several years earlier. Almost immediately, people began to speculate that video was unearthed by the crack opposition research team of Blumethal’s (sic) multimillionaire Republican opponent, Linda McMahon.

Columnist Kevin Rennie wrote the following on his blog right after the Times story broke: “The Blumenthal Bombshell comes at the end of more than 2 months of deep, persistent research by Republican Linda McMahon’s Senate campaign,” Rennie wrote. “It gave the explosive Norwalk video recording to The Times.”

Ed Patru, McMahon’s 2010 media strategist, fessed up to the Connecticut Mirror. ”We got our hands on it,” Patru told @CTMirrorPaz shortly after the story broke.

Flash forward more than three years later: Hernandez is leaving the Times to work at DCI Group, a public relations firm where Patru is vice president. Coincidence?

That last word – Coincidence? – hangs in the Courant story like a hangman’s noose. Of course it’s not a coincidence, you ninny. The McMahon campaign slips to a New York Times reporter “a snippit of video” showing Mr. Blumenthal lying about his service in Vietnam; the reporter constructs a story around “the snippit of video”; the story causes Mr. Blumenthal, then running for the U.S. Senate from his perch as Connecticut’s Attorney General, a bit of embarrassment, but he barricades himself from probing reporters, asserts he several times misspoke, and  survives “the snippet of video”; later the reporter, Mr. Hernandez,  is hired by a firm whose Vice President, Mr. Patru, was a campaign advisor to Linda McMahon, the millionaire. Coincidence? The imputation is that the hiring of Mr. Hernandez by Mr. Patru is a payback of some kind. In politics, as savvy reporters well know, there are no coincidences – unless the tangle of connections involves one of “our bums,” in which case we write a story that makes reference to a “snippit of video,” while failing to mention other snippits of video and news reports that show Mr. Blumenthal either saying or brashly intimating that he served as a marine in Vietnam.

Here is the “snippit of video” cited in the Courant story:

  

The story follows on the heels of multiple reports of a claim made by Tom Foley, a Republican Party gubernatorial wannabe, that Roy Occhigrosso, gyrating between his employment at Global Strategy and communications chief for Governor Dannel Malloy, may have crossed an ethical bar when the PR firm was awarded a Malloy connected contract. Mr. Foley had invited Connecticut’s media to look into a relationship he regarded as unsavory, if legal.

The Malloy-Global Strategy connection, it would appear from multiple editorials and commentary pieces in Connecticut, none of them favorable to Mr. Foley, may have been “a coincidence.” After all, political operatives constantly shuttle between newspapers, political organizations, educational institutions and high paying PR firms always happy to have in their employ politically connected fallen stars.

Such things happen all the time. Charlie Morse, the Courant’s chief political writer, left the paper, where he had for several years written glowing accounts of the sayings and doings of then Senator Lowell Weicker, to work on the Weicker campaign for governor; Michele Jacklin, who as chief political commentator at the Courant stepped into Mr. Morse’s empty shoes, left the paper to work on New Haven Mayor John DeStefano’s campaign.

Mr. Occhiogrosso floated from Global Strategy into the Malloy administration, then retreated to Global Strategy after two years of honorable service as the governor’s flack catcher. His company rewarded Mr. Occhiogrosso with a Vice Presidency, and even today, from his perch at Global Strategy, news reporters at the Courant continue to treat Mr. Occhiogrosso as if he were a paid communications director for the embattled governor. Shortly after Mr. Occhigrosso returned to Global Strategy, his company received a lucrative contract from the Malloy administration. Nothing to see here, please move on.

Happens all the time. Nothing to see here. Please move on.

Perhaps the best report on Mr. Blumenthal’s serial misstatements concerning his service in Vietnam came from Australia. The Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) featured Mr. Blumenthal as one of a few notable imposters in a documentary on stolen valor called “Heroes, Frauds and Imposters” (hit “play video” on the link provided here: ),” a documentary that puts Mr. Blumenthal’s misrepresentations in a proper context. That documentary, no snippit, will not be shown, it is safe to predict, anywhere in the state when the pretend Vietnam marine – like Mrs. McMahon, a Greenwich millionaire -- once again runs for office. 

The snippit averse Connecticut Commentary reported on Blumenthal’s manifest lies here.

And here.

And here.

And here 

And here.

Walker In Connecticut

Republicans this year asked Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, much maligned by union folk, to give the keynote address at the Prescott Bush Awards dinner in Stamford.

Mr. Walker is a grown-up, so his address was low key, interspersed with amusing vignettes. There was very little coverage of Mr. Walker’s remarks in Connecticut’s media. Most of the media accounts went for the color and passed over the discomforting  substance.

Unions were protesting outside the building, and someone was thoughtful enough to bring along the usual protest props. A photograph of one protesting group shows several union workers wearing cardboard cutout faces of the Koch brothers pulling puppet strings attached to another union worker wearing a Walker face. There are pictures galore in the Greenwich Times report: of Republican Senate leader John McKinney, who was given the Prescott Bush award this year; of Mr. Walker; of prominent Republicans in the state and of Linda McMahon, always good for a line or two in a lede story.

But one searches in vain for comprehensive coverage of Mr. Walker’s address and finds just a few scattered references here and there, studding the stories like glittering political sequins.

When readers of newspapers in the Lincoln era wanted to know what two major politicians debating each other for a Senate seat in Illinois actually said during their debates, they had only to turn to their newspapers to find there the transcribed speeches of Abe Lincoln and Steven Douglas. Republican papers polished the Lincoln oratory, and Democratic papers polished the apple for Douglas. Those days are gone, and with them a good amount of newspaper credibility – not to mention readers.

What precisely did Mr. Walker say to Republicans at the Prescott Bush Dinner?

Ameriborn News TV put up the speech here.  And so while Mr. Walker’s address is accessible, the substance of the address has not been sufficiently reported in Connecticut’s print media.

Republicans, Mr. Walker said to the sea of Republican faces in his audience, have reason to be optimistic. Republicans now control governor’s offices in 30 states. This was not always the case: “A lot of those states in 2010 were pretty blue. In fact, in my case, four years ago when I thought about running for governor and announced in April of 2009, everything in our state was controlled by Democrats: both Houses of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant governor, both U.S. Senator’s and the majority members of the House of representatives.”

Surely Republicans in the audience, if not union members in the streets outside, could well appreciate the parallel circumstances. Connecticut has been drifting in the direction of a one party state for years, a fait accompli celebrated by Democrats four years ago when then Mayor of Stamford Dan Malloy -- Dannel Malloy, since becoming governor -- won his contest against Republican contender Tom Foley, who lost to Mr. Malloy by the thinnest of margins. Currently there are 52 Republicans and 99 Democrats in the State House and 14 Republicans and 22 Democrats in the State Senate. Democrats have controlled the Senate since 1996 and the House since 1986. Following Mr. Malloy’s victory, Democrats captured all the political marbles. As a practical political matter, this meant that Democrats in the state no longer needed to involve Republicans in their deliberations.

Upon assuming office, Mr. Malloy felt confident enough to shoo Republican leaders in the General Assembly out of the room when he and Majority Democrats were cobbling together a budget satisfactory to SEBAC, a coalition of unions authorized to negotiate contracts with the governor. Marching under the banner of “shared sacrifice,” Mr. Malloy imposed on the state the largest tax increase in its history. This increase followed the second largest tax increase in state history, the Lowell Weicker income tax of 1991. After having given a leg up to Mr. Malloy during a special session of the General Assembly called to address the state’s deepening spending problems, Republicans once again, unsurprisingly, find themselves in Coventry on current budget discussions. One party states do not need bystander parties to govern.

The Malloy-SEBAC budget was never in balance. Even worse, negotiated incremental raises in salaries and benefits for union worker amounting to about 9 percent far into the future tied the governor’s hands behind his back in future budget negotiations. His school initiatives were opposed by teacher unions that benefited from his largess, and red ink, like some impish devil, kept popping out of the budget woodwork every time Comptroller Kevin Lembo screwed the jewelers loop into his eye.

Wisconsin and Connecticut are trains passing each other in the night in different directions. Mr. Walker thought Connecticut Republicans could learn important lessons from his own bruising but ultimately successful campaign and political strategy.

“Today,” Mr. Walker continued, “everything’s flipped. Both my legislative houses are Republican. The governor, one of the U.S. Senate seats and the majority seats in the House of Representatives are Republican.”

This political miracle was received with exuberant applause from Republicans in the audience. Wisconsin showcased a breathtaking change of events. The union members prowling and scowling outside the building for the benefit of news photographers hungry for color have not yet recovered from the whiplash. John Olsten, the President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, groused, "He [Mr. Walker] surely is not what you would call a fit in the state of Connecticut.” Nor, come to think of it, are any of few Walker-like Republicans in the General Assembly; such would seem to be the message from both leading Democrats and the governor, who have successfully rendered politically impotent any Republican presumptuous enough to unfurl Mr. Malloy’s “fair share” flag by cutting spending.

Such was the case in Wisconsin before the advent of Mr. Walker. Almost in the twinkling of an eye, the stage set, the actors and the political narrative all changed.

Blumenthal: Hey Bud, Can You Spare A Dime?

The New Haven Register did NOT say in its editorial that U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal ought not to be raising campaign funds from atop the bodies of 20 slain school children; this would have been irregular and, perhaps worst, impolite.

The editorial said that U.S. Representative Chris Murphy and Governor Dannel Malloy were “helping give voice to the victims’ families” in Washington D.C. preceding a vote on a gun regulation bill, necessary efforts on an important issue.

How You Know When an Election Is Over

You know when an election in Connecticut is over when virtually all incumbent Democrats are re-elected to office, after having been fulsomely endorsed by much of the state’s left of center media, and when, several days after the election, bad news headlines begin to appear in Connecticut’s only state-wide newspaper:“State’s Medicaid Costs Soar, Projected Budget Deficit Attributed In Part to Expanded Coverage.” That headline appeared in a Hartford paper as a front page above the fold story a little less than two weeks after the election.

According to the story, we discover that the state’s $365 million budget deficit “dates, in part, to two years ago when Connecticut became the first state to expand medical coverage to low-income adults as an early adopter of federal health care reform.” The federal health care reform program is Obamacare. The architects of Obamacare were careful to front load the program with alluring benefits; payments for the alluring benefits were deferred until after the election.

That would be – now.

Two years ago, Connecticut was plowing the field in preparation for Obamacare. In 2010, we discover from the story: “Connecticut had the largest percentage increase of any state in Medicaid enrollment among low-income adults — a 32 percent jump, not an insignificant bump on the spending Richter scale.

Governor Dannel Malloy’s budget hawk Ben Barnes, secretary of the state's Office of Policy and Management, must have felt the tremors long ago. Asked to account for the Malloy $365 million budget deficit – the governor prefers to think of it as an easily backfilled “shortfall” – Mr. Barnes said, “The number of people enrolled in that program has shot up.” He also notes, “One, the economy has been poor. More people have been impoverished as a result of high unemployment, things of that nature."

How long ago did Mr. Barnes sense the economy was underperforming? Long, long ago. The economy was underperforming, President Barack Obama never tires of reminding us, since the Bush recession; that would be more than four years ago.

Under the enlightened leadership of Mr. Malloy, Connecticut had been stuffing the state’s revenue sock since the governor presented his first SEBAC inspired budget, which included a massive boost in taxes – the largest increase, in fact, in the state’s history. And a new healthcare exchange was inaugurated in the state long ago to prepare for Obamacare, promoted by Democrats during their campaigns as a more prudent less expensive health care instrument.

Tilling the field for Obamacare, Connecticut shelved its old heath care system, State Administered General Assistance (SAGA), and instituted a new Medicaid Low Income Adult program (HUSKY Part D) in 2010. Under the old system, SAGA serviced people from ages 21 to 64; under the new Medicaid Low Income Adult program the eligibility age was lowered two years to19, thus increasing the number of health care consumers. Under SAGA, benefits were extended only to people who held less than $1,000 in assets, though beneficiaries were permitted to own a home and a car worth $4,500 or less. As Mr. Barnes put it, “You could essentially have one crummy, old car and no money in the bank, or a couple hundred dollars in the bank, and still qualify. But if you had any assets at all [apart from the crummy old car and a house] then you didn't qualify. You had to spend down those assets on medical services before you were eligible. So, that ruled some people out of eligibility."

Under the Obama-Malloy-Barnes new health care system, limits on assets were eliminated – would Linda McMahon qualify? – benefits are more“robust” (translation: more expensive) and the program kicks in at an earlier age. These “improvements” necessarily increase the cost of the program. Connecticut has not yet received from Washington a waiver filed last summer that would impose a $10,000 asset eligibility test for the Medicaid program for low-income adults, and the federal government, currently reimbursing Connecticut for 50 percent of the program, will not reimburse the state fully under the Affordable Care Act until 2014.

Why then, should anyone be surprised that the new Medicaid Low Income Adult program has kicked a hole in Connecticut’s budget bucket?

The post-election story in the Hartford paper helpfully provided the relevant statistics: “In two years, Medicaid enrollment by low-income adults has grown from fewer than 50,000 to more than 83,000, greatly outpacing the state's expectations, according to state figures. Total Medicaid enrollment was 588,488 at the end of the last fiscal year in June, up 13,676 in a year.”

Surely the state figures were available to both Mr. Malloy and Mr. Barnes. Two years is 730 days, a little less than 105 weeks, 8,760 hours in which to ponder projected costs, Mr. Barnes’ specialty.

Here is the truth: Everybody knew, much before the elections, that Obamacare would cost the states millions of dollars. Mr. Obama knew, Mr. Malloy knew, Mr. Barnes knew, all the Democrats in both national and state legislatures knew, publishers of newspapers knew, newspaper editors who endorsed here in Connecticut every single incumbent Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation knew. Everyone but voters -- prior to the election -- knew that Connecticut was marching lemming-like towards the edge of a fiscal cliff, piped in that direction by sweet talking politicians with more curves in their courses than a slinky.

And now -- after all Connecticut incumbent Democrats have been tucked into their comfortable sinecures -- the rest of us are, at long last, permitted to know.

Should a media that allows itself to be so misused any longer be permitted to call itself free – or even useful?

The Mop Up

It looks as if Republicans, once again, did not bring home the bacon in Connecticut. Campaign analysts are asking why.

This is an easy one. Republicans are outnumbered in the state roughly by a ratio of two to one, a very steep hill to climb. And, considering the historic nature of journalism in Connecticut, they cannot expect a leg up from the state’s left of center media. The Hartford Courant’s election eve endorsement editorial for instance looked as if it had been dictated to the paper’s publisher and editorial board by David Axelrod, and the paper’s endorsement of Democrat Elizabeth Esty over moderate Republican Andrew Roraback was particularly self-serving.

The paper endorsed all Democrats, at least two of whom are congresspersons for life, U. S. Representatives Rosa DeLauro and John Larson. If it is the mission of journalism to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, that editorial is a frank admission that the mission has been abandoned. Mr. Larson and Mrs. DeLauro are very comfortable indeed; not so their opponents, who are discomforted by massive spending gaps.

Linda McMahon spent a hundred million dollars in two attempts to win a vacant U.S. Senatorial position and lost both times. Is there a message there?

There is: Money alone can’t buy you a Senate seat. Mrs. McMahon spent $41,474,257 on her campaign, while her Democratic opponent Chris Murphy spent $9,345,243, a ratio of 4.5 to 1. Most journalists, and not a few voters on the receiving end of her mailers, were horrified by the imbalance; however, it was impossible to help but notice that the McMahon-Murphy spending gap was much smaller than that in two other races.

John Larson spent $1,961,468 defending himself from his Republican challenger, John Decker, who spent $47,005, a 41 to 1 gap. And Rosa DeLauro spent $1,039,238 defending herself against Republican Wayne Winsley, who spent $51,668, a gap of 20 to 1. Mr. Larson is operating within a gerrymandered district that makes ANY campaign fundraising redundant, and Mrs. DeLauro’s district fairly assures her a lifetime sinecure. Yet these imbalances, obvious for many years in their campaigns, hardly raised an eyebrow among the state’s left of center media.

There were no great numerical losses for Republicans in the General Assembly; the numbers remain similar, though some seats changed.

Republican conservatives lost at least one valiant soldier in state Senator Len Suzio, who was targeted by the Malloy administration for having discomforted Mike Lawlor, Governor Dannel Malloy’s Under Secretary for Criminal Justice and the architect of a problem plagued early release program. The thin-skinned Malloy administration is nettled by its gadflies and punishes them ruthlessly whenever possible. Suzio, a man of honor, lost by a heart stopping 221 votes out of nearly 40,000 cast in his overwhelmingly Democratic District after his opponent had imported many of his views into her campaign. The Malloy administration targeted other nettlesome conservative legislators but, for the most part, the few conservatives in the General Assembly acquitted themselves well.

What part was played in Connecticut elections by the Tea Party?

Tea Party members withdrew their participation, discreetly for the most part.

Is the Tea Party, some wonder, still a force to be reckoned with?

Though the Tea Party is not a party but rather a movement, some leaders within the movement recall General Ulysses Grant’s response after a humiliating counter attack by Confederate forces at Fort Donelson, “Dig in, we will get’em tomorrow.”

Tea Party members were not sought as campaign recruits by either McMahon or Roraback, who lost his race to Esty by a relatively slim margin. The Democrats, of course, used the Tea Party as a foil in their races, a stratagem devised by President Barack Obama’s Chicago shakers and movers, although it was clear that most Tea Party members in Connecticut were not animated by the Republican offerings this year. Mr. Murphy, the Planned Parenthood candidate, deployed the Chicago rhetoric to some effect against Mrs. McMahon. But generally, Tea Party folk were disengaged. There was not enough libertarian-conservative pollen among Republican candidates this year to attract the bees.

Looking to the future, what’s the most important take away for Republican candidates?

Both Mr. Roraback and Mrs. McMahon, who positioned themselves in their races as demi-Democrats, have demonstrated that Weickerism doesn’t work anymore. Mothball it; try something different. The Republican Party needs more Grants and fewer McClellans.

Courant Endorsements

The last of the Hartford Courant’s increasingly irrelevant U.S. Congressional delegation endorsements appeared in the paper on Friday.

The Courant -- shocking the entire state – endorsed U.S. Representative Chris Murphy over former soft-porn WWE impresario Linda McMahon who, in the course of her run for Joe Lieberman’s soon to be vacant seat, snubbed Connecticut’s left of center media.

Courant endorsements are “conservative” in the bad sense. Connecticut’s congressional delegation is non-diverse; all the members of the delegation are Democrats, and it is clear, following the paper’s endorsement of Elizabeth Esty over moderate Republican Andrew Roraback, that the publisher of the paper and its editorial board members prefer it this way.

Adding its endorsement of Democrat Elizabeth Esty’s to that of former Speaker of the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi, the Hartford Courant in its editorial, “Democrat's positions edge Andrew Roraback's bona fides,” tipped its hat to moderate Republican challenger Andrew Roraback’s bona fides, but found that his fides weren’t bona enough.

Mr. Roraback has billed himself during his campaign against Mrs. Esty, the wife of Governor Dannel Malloy’s Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), Daniel Esty, as a moderate Republican. In left of center editorial board lingo, “moderates” are much preferred over conservative and libertarian Republicans. Mr. Roraback earned his stripes as a moderate by setting himself apart from doctrinaire Republicans elsewhere in the country and flashing his bona fides as a “fiscal conservative,” code language to indicate his disassociation from disreputable“social conservatives,” not to mention toxic members of the much misunderstood– one might say purposelymisunderstood – members of the Tea Party.

Perhaps if Mr. Roraback had billed himself as a “maverick Republican,” following in the footsteps of former U.S. Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker, his fides would have been acceptable to the Courant’s editorial board. A maverick, as opposed to a moderate, is a Republican whose active distaste for all things Republican places him firmly in the Democratic camp.

Maverick Republicans are masked Democrats working within the party to subvert it. They are disguised sappers, ideological first cousins of the editorial writers at the Courant who generally advance super subtle reasons for bestrewing endorsements on leftist candidates.

Reason number one: The endorsed candidate has more practical experience than the challenger. Since Democrats in Connecticut, with invaluable assists from sappers, now command the governor’s office, the state House, the state Senate and the state Supreme Court -- Yes Virginia, the court is subtly affected by powerful partisan politicians, whatever you may have read about its vaunted courageous independence – the Courant’s rationale supports the present status quo Democratic hegemon.

The first casualty of this all too convenient rationale is the much cited journalistic doctrine that the proper mission of the media, when it is doing its job, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Within Connecticut, comfortable Democrats-for-life occupying gerrymandered districts, such as U.S. Representatives John Larson and multimillionaire Rosa DeLauro, are among scores of incumbent Democrats unmolested by the state’s purported non-partisan left of center media. Consistently applied, the doctrine that one should always vote for the more experienced candidate is subversive of democracy, which depends upon a fluid and diverse governing class: It is an argument favoring permanent and unchanging governance – perpetual rule by incumbents.

It should be noted that in its Esty endorsement the Courant carved out an exception to its own general rule. Of the two candidates vying for the U.S. House in the 5^th District, Mr. Roraback has more governing experience. And he certainly meets the paper’s second criteria without which candidates for office fail to receive its endorsements: The potential endorsee must forswear any political alliance with national Republicans on so called “social issues.” In this regard, true believing editorialists on the left reflexively support progressive Democrats.

Mrs. Esty, more reliably left wing than Mr. Roraback, was blessed with the Courant’s endorsement -- because the paper’s principle ideological duty, now and forever, is to hold back a fictitious horde of conservatives from assaulting the gates of paradise, a utopian vision of governance in which the governing authority overwhelms what social scientists sometimes call mediating institutions: the family, the church, voluntary associations, independent business enterprises, a non-partisan media and, somewhere close to the top of the list, a reified Republican Party dedicated to weaning the individual from a paternalistic state

What if She Wins?

Linda McMahon may or may not win her campaign to replace Senator Joe Lieberman in the U.S. Congress. Everyone agrees that her race with media favorite Chris Murphy is a close one. Although it is a presidential election year, Barack Obama appears to have lost some of his luster since his last election, his coattails having been clipped by four years in office during which the recovery promised by the president has yet to surface. The latest Gallup poll shows the president trailing Republican Presidential candidate MittRomney by seven points, not a propitious sign.

If Mrs. McMahon is elected to the U.S. Senate, her critics in Connecticut – pretty nearly every commentator in the state – will put down her win to dollars spent. In this regard, Mrs. McMahon is the exception in Connecticut.

All the seats in the state’s congressional delegation are held by Democrats who are able, by virtue of their incumbency, to outspend Republicans by indecent margins. Senator John Larson of the impregnable 1st District routinely outspends his Republican opponents; and until recently Rosa DeLauro, like U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal a millionaire, has effectively sidestepped her Republican opponent, Wayne Winsley.

When Mrs. McMahon lost to Democratic superstar Blumenthal, her critics were quick to point out that the $50 million misspent by Mrs. McMahon could not purchase an election. Dollars, it was said, didn’t matter. Assuming a win, Mrs. McMahon’s critics this time will insist that she bought her Senate seat on the cheap by flooding the state with ads that personally attacked her Democratic opponent, who in the past had some difficulty in paying his rent and later his mortgage; no big thing, happens all the time said editorials endorsing Mr. Murphy.

Finally, her critics will insist that Mrs. McMahon has no mandate to govern because she refused to engage during her campaign on important issues of the day, choosing instead to cling feverishly to a narrow campaign message forged by her handlers.

Mrs. McMahon may have picked up this trick from Mr. Blumenthal who during the final days of his campaign, following disclosures that the attorney general had lied several times concerning his non-service in Vietnam – no big thing – sedulously avoided his critics. Mr. Blumenthal’s entire senatorial campaign was a reprise of his glory days as Connecticut’s suit happy Attorney General, a public persona he finds it convenient to maintain as U. S. Congressman; as senator and the nation’s premier congressional consumer advocate, Mr. Blumenthal now is toying with a bill thatwould affect advertising for scooter chairs.

There is some justice to this last charge brought against Mrs. McMahon. The first rule of politics for Republicans running in a reliably blue state is this: If you don’t give the jackals red meat – say in the form of a carefully crafted position paper on President Barack Obama’s murderously ineptforeign policy blundering in Benghazi – the servants of the status quo in the state, who are legion, will sup on the marrow of your bones. Better to give them the red meat.

Mrs. McMahon easily might have avoided the presumption that she is light-headed on congressional matters by a few carefully thought out speeches on a) the economy, b) foreign policy and c) a topic of her own choice that might have thrown some light on her fitness to serve in what has been called, before it descended into a campaign Ponzi scheme constructed in Chicago, the greatest deliberative body on earth.

Both Mrs. McMahon and Mr. Murphy have become prisoners of their handlers. Mr. Murphy’s entire campaign bears the imprint of a “made in Chicago” mafia hit: Republicans hate women; Mrs. McMahon is morally destitute; crony capitalism directed from the White House will lift both the country and Connecticut from imminent ruin; the cure for bottomless debt is more Beltway spending; taxes should be increased on quarter millionaires to pay for improvident spending; salafists can be our friends, provided we lather them sufficiently with diplomatic kowtows and saccharine speeches concerning the brotherhood of man; bills passed on to creditors and young people expected to pick up the tab for bankrupted national programs will never come due; Wall Street alone caused the Bush economic collapse – all juvenile nonsense designed to spare the human brain the necessity of critical thought.

Convinced – not without reason – that Connecticut’s left of center media had iced the political sidewalk hoping for a an embarrassing pratfall on matters of little importance, Mrs. McMahon shut the door on the media during her primary run against former U.S. Representative Chris Shays. Money in that race was crucial; Mr. Shays hadn’t enough on hand to challenge Mrs. McMahon vigorously, and he made a serious error in judgment when he declined to ask delegates to the Republican Convention in Hartford to support him. Mrs. McMahon opened the door a crack during her debates with Mr. Murphy and agreed to talk with the editorial board of a major newspaper that in all probability will endorse Mr. Murphy.

As a result of all this, Connecticut citizens are left with anti-campaigns directed by political outliers who certainly will not bear the consequences of their efforts. The buck, as usual, will fall most heavily on the general populace, which is what happens when democratic institutions suffer irreversible breakdowns.

Abortion and Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional Races

One of Linda McMahon’s most insistent critics, Chris Powell of the Journal Inquirer, noted in a post-debate column that Mrs. McMahon’s view on abortion was … ahem … “more nuanced” than that of Chris Murphy.

The views of President Barack Obama on abortion are, if possible, more extreme than those of Mr. Murphy. There are no circumstances in which the president would disallow an abortion. As an Illinois state senator, Mr. Obama had fulsomely supported legislation permitting abortion on demand, which would include the kind of sex selection abortion practiced in China and – this may surprise pro-abortion proponents – abortions condemned by the early church fathers in the late Roman Empire. The paterfamilias of a family in Rome at the time St. Augustine of Hippo was fulminating against the practice held life and death powers over his children, born and unborn. While infanticide was rare, in the Clintonian sense, during the reign of the Caesars, a father could not be punished under Roman law for committing infanticide, most often involving female infants, by exposing the born infant to the elements. Abortions were more common. The president also has opposed the so called “born alive” bill, a measure that would have extended to infants born alive during botched abortions the same legal protections afforded born babies.

It was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, no tea partier, who declined to vote in favor of partial birth abortion because he regarded the practice as a form of infanticide.

Polls show a drift of women into the Republican camp. They also show that women’s views on abortion are more moderate than those of Democratic Planned Parenthood pied pipers. A July 2011 Gallup Poll measuring the favorability of restrictions on abortion shows preferences for a law making partial birth abortion illegal during the last six months of a pregnancy (64-31%); a law requiring doctors to inform patients about risks prior to performing abortions (87-11%); a law requiring parental consent for abortion (71-21%); a law requiring a 24 hour waiting period before an abortion is performed (69-28%); and the poll shows a slim majority (50-46%) in favor of a law requiring those seeking abortion to be shown an ultrasound image of the fetus.

Here in true blue Connecticut, as elsewhere in the nation, a long standing accommodation on the question of abortion had in the past tended to prevent unnecessary political abrasion between church and state. Such accommodation necessarily involves a resolve on the part of legislators to find a way to preserve religious rights guaranteed by the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” -- while preserving other rights. Any constitutionalist worth his salt knows very well that you cannot extend a constitutional right infinitely in any direction without abridging other rights.

When the resolve on the part of the state to accommodate religious prescriptions is missing, it seems reasonable to impute extremism to the legislator unwilling to make the necessary accommodations. This year, for the first time in its history, the national Democratic Party pushed abortion rights to extreme limits -- at the expense of orthodox Christians who understandably are concerned with the erosion of their first amendment rights to freely exercise their religion according to long accepted religious precepts.

The Obama campaign appears to be operating on the supposition that extremism in the service of the “virtue” of abortion will result in a harvest of votes from women. So far, recent polls show a severe drop-off of votes from women, perhaps because women are conscious of themselves as integrated personalities rather than ovary containers. Mr. Romney has cutthe gender gap from 20 to 9 points. At the same time, Independents seem to be declaring their independence from a party that has more in common with Eugene Debs than Former President JohnKennedy, who sounded in a speech he gave in 1962 to Economic Club of New York very much like a Chicago school economist not unfamiliar with Frederick Hayek’s masterful “The Constitution of Liberty,” a book published in 1960, one year before Mr. Kennedy assumed the presidency.

In Connecticut, Republicans have ceded to Democrats positions on social issues that are not supported by a majority of voters. Who convinced them that elections do not turn on such social issues as abortion, much more prevalent among African Americans than whites, or the integrity of the traditional family unit in urban areas, where fatherhood is a distant memory and young men who have not yet landed in prison search and find an aberrant form of social definition in murderous gangs? Although only 13 percent of American women are black, figures from the Centers for Disease Control show they account for 35 percent of the abortions. What accounts for the massive retreat from so called social issues on the part of Republicans? And why do Republicans running for the U .S. Congress from the Northeast this year sound like larval progressives who cannot wait to march to Washington and protest their party’s positions – except on fiscal issues?