As if we didn’t have enough options already, Waterbury Mayor Mike Jarjura is the latest hopeful to eye a gubernatorial bid.
The Mayor summed up his family’s feelings on his candidacy this way:
“My family thinks I should have my head examined because the problems are mounting as every day goes by,” he said.
The announcement, as well as the multitude of others, makes it ever more likely that each major party’s State Convention will be utter chaos.
36 responses so far ↓
Now if all these candidates for Gov, AG, SecState etc use public financing for their campaigns thats is going to cost this state how much? This is getting out of hand.
>>This is getting out of hand.
Just consider it another stimulus package.
NeoConn… the public financing really is a totally irresponsible program. Don Pesci posted this Thomas Jefferson quote before, but I think it bears repeating (I really have to thank you Don… I always felt like a bit of an extremist arguing against public financing at cocktail parties, but now I’ve just memorized this gem and people don’t immediately dismiss me as a loon anymore): “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” It is a total absurdity that, while the state undergoes what may very possibly be the worst crisis in history, our tax dollars may be used to help candidates campaign that we do not support (and finance a battle fighting for it in federal court).
PS: Jarjura’s candidacy is a total joke… they guy who gave John Rowland a six figure salary after he got out of prison doesn’t have a prayer in a state-wide democratic primary, let alone a general election.
Is anyone else getting the feeling that the stars may be aligning just right (PUN!) for the Republicans to sweep the Governor’s office and the AG’s office (I still believe that Blumenthal is a lock for U.S. Sen.)? Here’s my thought process…
1) Jarjura exemplifies a major problem: The convention is going to be a flaming disaster again, an all out political and literal brawl amongst a bevy of would-be candidates. Nobody is going to come out of it looking very good, and Democrats are much worse at unifying after things like this than Republicans.
2) That being said, Ned is the likely nominee for the Dems. The problem is that he a) doesn’t have his signature issue, the war, to run on, b) there’s just a certain je ne sais quois about him that makes him unpalatable to a lot of people, and c) I think the je ne sais quois is that he looks like he was born with a silver spoon up his a&$ (which by all accounts he was). That last quality might not hurt him so much down in the FC, but it isn’t going to sit well with folks up in central CT…. oh, and the southeastern corner? Forget about it. His opposition to the war didn’t make him any friends (sub base etc. etc.) and his coifed appearance will hardly go over well with blue collar longshoremen and shipyard workers.
3) As for the Attorney General’s race, the Democrats have a huge problem, in that Susan Bysiewicz is likely too popular within the party to lose the primary, but is going to get hammered in the general election. I don’t think that John Droney was kidding when he said that if he was chairman, he’d try and force it before the superior court before the primary. The problem is as follows A) assuming Dick Blumenthal even issues an opinion (I bet he squeaks out of it), it won’t mean squat… I doubt that a court would even reference it, B) the Courant reports today that she claimed the non lawyer exemption in 07 AND 08 as well, so she can’t really just claim it was a “mistake” anymore and this issue isn’t going away, C) if the Republicans are smart, they will wait to really pummel her on her qualifications until the general election, F) she just seems generally unlikeable, and E) the Republicans are going to show pictures and video of her standing next to Chris Dodd (hell, maybe even John Edwards from the Jackson dinner) at every opportunity.
NeoConn – It all depends on how many candidates qualify for the primary and then meet the CEP requirements (assuming, of course, that CEP is still in place at all). But, with a bunch of assumptions about primaries and such included, I’ve currently got it pegged at $31.6 million for the entire 2010 cycle.
Heath, I got moderated again.
NeoConn–
Do you know how hard it is for a gubernatorial candidate to qualify for the $$$? (Obviously you do not.)
Without Googling, I think the threshold is $250,000, raised in increments of $100 or less.
Have you ever tried to get 25 people to give you $100 each? Now multiply that effort by 100.
But don’t let facts get in the way of using fear and ignorance to advance an agenda.
Republicans will propose eliminating public financing of campaigns. They may not get their way 100% but at a minimum, they will get it reduced.
Fuzzy – liberated your comment. I suspect that the length of the comment is the issue.
“PS: Jarjura’s candidacy is a total joke… the guy who gave John Rowland a six figure salary after he got out of prison doesn’t have a prayer in a state-wide democratic primary, let alone a general election.”
I want to believe that but we’ll see who lines up in support. Rowland Dems (not publicly of course) like Droney, Ritter, DiBella, Ciatto, etc. might see this as their opportunity to get back to the trough. I don’t see Jarjura getting the nomination but these guys don’t worry about scorched earth as long they’re taken care of.
Although this may sound like a broken record (I hope most recognize this metaphor) – Dan Malloy is the DEMS best candidate to win in the general election. He has proven that he knows how to govern and has a well formulated program for when he is elected. That being said, I suspect that Heath is correct that the conventions will be chaos. It remains to be seen what will happen in the primaries.
Oh boy, Obama just punked the hell out of Boehner.
He’s making the Republicans look like total asses. You’d think they’d know well enough to occasionally offer polite applause.
Wait, Boehner finally got a clue. He just applauded the jobs bill.
AS,
It’s another campaign speech. Who needs it? Tell us what the state of the Union is, as if we didn’t know.
It must really bite going to a political fundraiser in CT and not to be running for Governor.
It really separates the party players from the casual party candidates and donors at the Bon Bon table.
CT is the real home of the Seven Dwarves Cinderella.
LMAOO a republican like Fuzzy handicapping our Democratic races….Fuzzy….you have stated that Lamont is the “likely nominee” what exactly is your evidence to draw that conclusion?
As to the AG’s race..it is my conclusion that the more she stays in the race,the more toxic it becomes.The issue presented by SB is now as much of an institutional democratic issue as it is a personal issue for SB, in that her race can make the other big races toxic.Additionally, she appears to be playing russian roulette with the AG office which has been safely held by my party for 50 years,in that if in the unlikely event Foley won for Governor and she lost the Court case,then Foley under the succession statute would get to select the AG and I bet that new AG would not be a Democrat.
Pesci–
After only one year, I know you want to blame Obama for the fall-out from eight years of Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility.
However your argument is dis-honest, and we both know it. Had Obama and the Democrats done nothing in the face of the financial crisis, we could be in the middle of a 2nd Great Depression.
Of course you all have nothing else to run on. Except another bull-shit argument, that somehow cutting taxes will somehow lead to smaller deficits. (and how I miss Jack Dobbs!)
Bruce, I don’t think I’ve ever said that I’m a Republican on this site. If you want to criticize my assessment, then please offer a substantive critique. My statement about Lamont being the “likely” nominee was based off $ + poll numbers. Maybe the same reasons that I said he would be unsuccessful in a general election would apply to the primary.
Having said that, I agree with you that Malloy would be a MUCH stronger candidate for Democrats. Stamford was an exceptionally well-run city under Mr. Malloy, and I sincerely get the feeling that he might have the balls to take on the supermajority (assuming it’s still super).
BTW, did Obama just call the Supreme Court out to their faces? I mean, I thought Citizens United was a terrible decision, but Jesus. I really felt like that was poor form.
Of course you all have nothing else to run on. Except another bull-shit argument, that somehow cutting taxes will somehow lead to smaller deficits. (and how I miss Jack Dobbs!)
You want to see Jack Kennedy about that.
Bruce–
Please don’t join the other boys in trying to run Susie B. out of the AG race. What you’re doing is distasteful, and since Susan will remain the probable nominee, (and no one knows Jepsen’s name), it’s actually your actions, in partnership with Chris Healy, that might put the AG office at risk. Without us going negative against each other, we both know the Republicans wouldn’t stand a chance.
And as an attorney, will you please define what “active practice” means? What would be the court’s definition except for holding an active law license? I mean are you saying that a law professor wouldn’t qualify? Please, play judge, and delineate how the opinion would read. I think we deserve as much from you.
Also, will you bet me on the outcome of a court ruling as to whether Bysiewicz is qualified? (which chance I hope she gets, just to defeat you guys’ smear and innuendo.) Why don’t we put up $500 even money? I could use a new suit.
What you’re attempting to do is so ugly. A 23-year career in law, politics and government isn’t enough for a woman to be seen as qualified to be AG? Twelve years as Secretary of the State of Connecticut doesn’t amount to a hill of beans?
And of course the damn 10-yr statute is unconstitutional. (let’s bet $500 on that too, eh?) But don’t let any of it get in the way of your Susie-hate. Shame.
Business tax cuts, which increase productivity, which increases revenues, cannot reduce deficits if they are not applied to reducing the deficit. Clinton did a good job here, applying to the deficit the revenue increases that resulted from the Reagan tax cuts. Obama — as indicated by the alarming defict hat has accrued under his term — seems to be interested in neither.
Anderson,
Ask yourself what YOU really know about Susan. Ok, fine, I’ll ask you… has she ever argued a case in court? How much experience does she have as a litigator?
What is it that makes her specifically qualified to be Attorney General other than having been a politician for twenty years?
When I first heard of the Susie B thing, I sort of thought it might like one of those things like the birth certificate. People will focus on it and not on her record, and will end up looking like fools in the process…
I guess it’s not as wacky, but I still have questions. Could Susie B really have practiced law while being Secretary of State? If she was an accountant, could she do accounting on the side? Or any other job? I thought SOS was a full time job? Would she be violating some law if she, on a Saturday, prepared someone’s will or did a real estate closing? Seriously, how could you be SOS and be an active lawyer?
Has a SOS ever jumped to the AG job?
Does this all just come down to whether or not she spent $40 or $80 or whatever the numbers are for the annual licenses?
GMR–
Yes, even as SotS, Susie can give LEGAL opinions. And yes, she is practicing law if she does so. “As a lawyer I advise”… or “my legal interpretation is…” The SotS’s office is full of lawyers. And Bysiewicz is one of them. (at least the equivalent of a managing partner.)
And can you find me where it states that a SotS can’t provide pro bono legal services on her own time? Or is pro bono work now not considered “active practice”? (help me with that one, Bruce.)
The problem is that no one, not even our Bruce, can define “active practice”. They’re just pretending it means full-time work as a lawyer, as that serves their venal pile-on.
The funny thing is that Cam Staples has only two years of full-time practice. But he wants to try to destroy Susan through this false interpretation of a vague and almost certainly unconstitutional statute. So we know Cam’s definition of “active practice” can’t mean more than eight months a year’s worth. lol.
Anyway Bruce knows the courts won’t accept his stretch. (If they did so, they’d be ruling that law professors weren’t qualified to be AG’s.) And that’s why he won’t bet me the $500, which he knows I’m good for….
Anderson,
You do realize that most law professors at UConn Law aren’t even members of the bar in this state correct? And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the ones who are check the “don’t practice” box on the exemption form.
I really don’t get this hang up on law professors being qualified. They’re scholars, not practitioners.
And again, I ask you…. I’m Fuzzy Dunlop, Esq. , managing partner of the firm of Connecticut. Susan B walks in for an interview and says, “I’d like to run your civil litigation practice.” What does Susan say to me to make me think that she’s qualified for this position?
Fuzzy, the ambulance chase, the real estate attorney, the tax attorney — what do they know?
If you want to argue that prosecutors and defense attorneys, are better suited the above, go ahead. But that’s still not providing us with a working definition of “active practice”. I guess we’ll have to wait for Bruce.
However when it comes to Susan, 23 years into her career, she knows plenty about law and government. And if you want to argue she’s a dimwit, or know-nothing, you’re liable to piss off a whole range of women.
And can you find me where it states that a SotS can’t provide pro bono legal services on her own time? Or is pro bono work now not considered “active practice”? (help me with that one, Bruce.)
I thought that you could be considered “inactive” if you did less than $450 of billings per year, so Pro-bono wouldn’t help there.
If Susie had paid the full fee, would she be considered active, or would we still be having this discussion? I’m just trying to figure out what a lawyer who was SOS could do to maintain the “active” status.
I just see a lot of problems pursuing this particular argument that she’s not an active lawyer and thus can’t run for A.G. It seems that maybe technically she wasn’t active, but that even though you don’t have to be a lawyer to be SOS, you probably should be.
Way too premature to assume Lamont is going to be the nominee. Democrats don’t have wiggle room for risk in 2010. Malloy is a safer bet in the general for the Dems and is better qualified to actually govern the state, not simply campaign.
CTDonkey–
Where have you been for this to be your first comment?
How do we know you’re not a Foley operative, hoping you end up with an under-funded opponent?
Malloy is attractive in the same manner that DeStefano was. Clearly he’d make a great governor. But first you’ve got to get elected. And unfortunately Dan hasn’t really caught on. (where Lamont has plenty of name recognition, goodwill, and an established base.)
PS– Whoops, I found this CTDonkey quote: The Kos poll is left wing propaganda and means nothing. They still think everybody loves Obama as much as they do. All you have to do is look at Ma, the most liberal state in the union and you can see what is coming this November.
Donkey– are you a donkey, or a liar? Maybe Jarjura?
Anderson,
No one is calling her a dimwit or unintelligent and I don’t believe that I’ve heard anyone even insinuate that she is unqualified because she is a woman. Once again, you are creating a strawman by falsely accusing people who raise legitimate questions about her qualifications of being sexist.
The bottom line is that all lawyers are not created equal. What I mean by that, is that some choose different types of practice; some become litigators and others become transactional business attorneys. A litigator brings and defends lawsuits, and appears in court. As I have said repeatedly on this site, the Attorney General is the state’s chief litigator. However, by all accounts, Susan was a transactional attorney when she worked for Robinson & Cole and White and Case. This experience would no doubt be significant for SOTS, but NOT for Attorney General, who again, is our state’s chief litigator. I have seen nothing in her background that leads me to believe that she has specialized knowledge or experience as a litigator, or that she is particularly capable of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of lawsuits or evaluating and hiring litigators.
Bruce,
To clarify a few of my positions… I am not looking to start an argument over these issues, but only to make it clear that I do not fit neatly into one party or the other. I am a unique and beautiful snowflake.
- I strongly oppose the death penalty. It does not have any deterrent effect whatsoever. I would far rather just have a guilty man rot in prison than risk putting an innocent man to death.
- I believe in stronger sentencing for violent crimes and sex crimes. I believe that committing a sex crime against a child or a violent sex crime against an adult should result in a life sentence, for the simple reason that there is no hope of rehabilitation.
- I oppose public financing of campaigns
- However, I do not believe that corporations are entitled to the same first amendment protection as real people.
- I am against “card check” for unions. I believe this will allow both unions and corporations to unduly intimidate and influence employees.
- I believe that it should be a goal of our government to achieve universal or near universal healthcare. I believe that the only way to do this is by requiring citizens to obtain coverage, making price discrimination illegal, allowing insurerers to compete across state lines while being subject to federal regulation, and offering some form of a public option.
- I support gay marriage, but not on constitutional grounds. I support it, quite simply, because there is no good reason against it.
- I strongly opposed the war in Iraq. As Pat Buchanan might say, we are a Republic, not an Empire.
Well Fuzzy – you need to pick a new name – that wasn’t fuzzy at all.
The whole discussion concerning “active practice” is mooted by the constitutional provision which says that the AG need not be a lawyer to assume that office. It is not likely that a judge would find that constitutional provision unconstitutional. The statue that contravenes the constitution is unconstitutional. It has to be changed.
This issue cannot be definitively decided by the present AG. It has to be decided by a court.
So, the request to the AG is inept, since he can only provide a non-binding opinion. It is also politically dangerous. The present AG is a partisan Democrat; Susan Bysiewitz is a partisan Democrat running for AG. Does anyone see a political problem here?
The following is from a CT Supreme Court case –
“The question dispositive of this appeal is the meaning, in its application to the applicant, of the phrase “actually practiced law for at least five years in the highest court of original jurisdiction . . . or in one or more district courts of the United States.” The claim that the applicant is entitled to admission necessarily requires a construction of “actually practiced” as “been authorized to practice.” Obviously, under that construction the applicant would be entitled to admission.
The word “actually” was added by an amendment, effective February 1, 1941, to § 8 of the 1934 Practice Book. It is not to be assumed that such a change would have been made without reason. Brown v. Cato, 147 Conn. 418, 421, 162 A.2d 175. Clearly, the word “actually” was inserted to emphasize the necessity of practice before a court as distinguished from a mere unexercised right to practice. Actual practice in the highest court of original jurisdiction provides a crucible for testing legal knowledge and its practical application in behalf of clients. The framers of the rule could reasonably consider that such a requirement would provide a fair and desirable safeguard for the citizens of Connecticut who might employ an attorney who had been a member of the bar of another jurisdiction and thereafter had been admitted without examination to practice in this state. In the light of the 1941 amendment, § 8 must be construed to require “actual practice” and not merely “authority to practice.”
Even more delicious irony is the In Re Application of Dodd case, regarding the attempt to be admitted to practice in the state without examination by the former Senator, and father of the soon-to-be former Senator – where the court said his “administrative duties” did not constitute actual active practice, so Tom Dodd was denied admission to the bar.
Anderson,
Don’t be such a presumptuous, arrogant ass. Even if it were my first comment, need I introduce myself to you beforehand? Where do you get off? Please! What a joke.
You’ll also notice that the quote your clipped from a previous post was me responding to the daft statement you are trying to link to me. Do your research, buddy boy.
Dan Malloy would be Tom Foley, regardless of dollars. You heard it here.
Anderson, not that I don’t find it amusing but in fairness to Donkey, that great and accurate quote you are trying to hang on him was mine. Besides, I don’t like sharing the credit with Donkey.
Love, Puffy
“The Kos poll is left wing propaganda and means nothing. They still think everybody loves Obama as much as they do. All you have to do is look at Ma, the most liberal state in the union and you can see what is coming this November”.
You must log in to post a comment.