Either by design or accident, it often seems that the political class in this state spends a considerable amount of time wondering just what the Governor will do next. With the municipal elections behind us and 2010 rapidly approaching, the parlor game “Will the Governor run for re-election?” is surging in popularity.
The answer to the question has seemed very much in doubt through the course of 2009. Despite a difficult budget process, all signs were toward the affirmative during most of the year. The Governor worked hard to be out in front on the economic crisis - from her televised budget address on February 2 to her “line in the sand” resistance to tax hikes through the summer. She staked out the center-right of the political battlefield and fought hard to hold it during the state’s longest-ever budget fight.
Ultimately though, her steadfastness gave way to acquiescence as she neither signed nor vetoed the Legislature’s budget. Voters deemed her actions a “cop out“, as Quinnipiac put it, by a 22 point margin.
The news from recent weeks has seemed to cast doubt on what once seemed likely. Ted Mann’s revelation of the Dautrich Project has exposed the Governor and her staff to perhaps the most critical attention of her term in office. The steady stream of e-mail messages acquired under the Freedom of Information Act not only have people wondering why they don’t just pick up the telephone, but also how taxpayer funds could be used for what seems quite clearly to be political polling.
But even in this case, much of the negative attention has focused on the perpetual “bad cop” in the Governor’s office, Chief of Staff Lisa Moody. The good people at Quinnipiac haven’t yet taken the temperature of the voters, but in coming days will surely reveal the extent to which the scandal has damaged the Governor – or, as many suspect, the extent to which it hasn’t.
The latest wrinkle in the Governor’s decision-making process is the return of Ned Lamont. Mr. Lamont represents everything that 2006 Democratic nominee John DeStefano did not – telegenic, inspiring, and independently wealthy.
But sequels are rarely as entertaining as the original film. The animus that Lieberman generated (or continues to generate, if you like) was palpable. Toward Governor Rell, one gets the sense that there is no policy difference so great it couldn’t be bridged by a plate of chocolate chip cookies fresh from the oven and a cold glass of milk.
So what will the Governor do? It remains, as always, a mystery. But if we’ve learned anything about this Governor it is that just when you expect her to zig, she zags. Given this, I believe the Governor will run for re-election in 2010 – and likely win.
10 responses so far ↓
I dunno if she will. Maybe she’s waiting until another taxpayer-paid poll is conducted before she’ll decide.
She did sign a few things that I thought she’d veto, so maybe she’s trying to strengthen her appeal among moderates. Or maybe she’s afraid that her veto would have been overrode, which could have made it appear that she doesn’t have much real power.
By allowing the budget to pass Rell put off making the hard cuts. It’s a calculated risk. If the economy rebounds then its moot and can be justified that the disruption of mass layoffs and rehires was avoided for a second time in a decade.
Whoever runs the big question is “Where do we go next?” If revenues don’t recover in 2010 (they won’t) what will the 2011/12 budget look like? More taxes and borrowing? Or do both sides accept the need for deep cuts in a sustained recession?
GB,
those “hard cuts” were not going to happen with the Dems in control of the Legislature so she let it go knowing the fight wasn’t over.
Recent events have proven her correct, and now the big battle begins anew (maybe). So far the dems ( Donovan in particular ) are ignoring the reality, but that can’t last for long.
JM, I haven’t seen any capitulation on the Democrats part.
The agenda is the same:
Government doesn’t need budgetary or operational reform.
Deficits can be funded by a combination of debt and tax increases.
Higher taxes and lower bond ratings are good for business and growth.
Then there’s the Lawlor/McDonald wing which took this year’s prize for the absurd. It went something like this:
Lawlor: We have a comprehensive plan to micromanage the Catholic Church’s finances in CT.
The comprehensive overhaul for managing the state of CT? Tee Hee. Not our jobs. No. We micromanage the Catholic Church now. Did I tell you I think we need a full-time leglislature?
One of our constituents complained about Catholic Church parish finances. No one’s ever complained about state operations. Tee Hee. No one. Ever. Otherwise we’d be just as responsive.
Look, we pushed back the budget closure into special session to get this Catholic Church legislation done. A full-time legislature wouldn’t have this problem.
I don’t think it’s all that complicated. If Moody stays, Rell runs. If Moody says she’s going, Rell packs it in. Of course saying it’s to spend time with family, take on other challenges, etc., etc.
Moody’s decision about her own future is how the Dautrich stuff will have impact, if it has any.
Gov. Rell’s lack of fundraising efforts so far ($15k last quarter, only $82,838 on hand as of Sept 30) have led some to speculate she won’t run again. Considering the outrageous cost of modern-day campaigns (a serious candidate will need about $5 million) she does seem to be cutting it awfully close. Despite that though she should be able to raise funds virtually over-night that the others cannot, except for Mr Lamont, of course.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/statewire/hc-ap-ct-connecticutgovernoct14,0,3834959.story
GB,
I don’t disagree about the Dems.
However, external forces are beginning to force the issue. The recent Moody’s downgrade is just the start. There’s a lot of money up there that has to be borrowed, and when the markets start to resist or extract a very high cost, there won’t be a lot of choices.
Of course, at that point the Dems may just throw Nappier under the bus, and keep whistling past the graveyard.
Off topic, but interesting.
Remember the Kelo decision? New London decided to use its eminent domain to take over a bunch of houses so Pfizer could build a research facility. The decision went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where a 5-4 majority ruled that taking private homes to give to another private company constituted fair use. So New London took the houses, bulldozed them, so Pfizer could build its research facility.
However, today, Pfizer said, yeah, it doesn’t really want to build there after all. To those who lost their homes, sorry I guess.
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-pfizer1110nov10,0,766810.story
The facility in New London is being closed. There will be some job cuts, the rest will move to Groton.
According to Rep Fred Camillo, Rell is not running for re-election.
Well Heath, I can’t say anything; I called it on my blog the same as you. Honestly, I’m quite surprised.
Although, the timing with the subpoena being issued today is quite interesting. Especially because it seems like the announcement was arranged on short notice.
You must log in to post a comment.