I’m pleased to announce that Republican State Senator, and candidate for Congress in Connecticut’s 5th District, David Cappiello will be joining CTLP to talk to us about his campaign for Congress during a live blog.
Where: Right here
When: Thursday, January 17, 2008
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Please join us then.
62 responses so far ↓
I might miss it.
Could you ask him where he is on choice?
He’s pro-choice. The real question is whether he’s still for a rapid withfrawl from Iraq. (Or if he thinks the surge is working, and in what ways).
What it takes me leaving for a Republican to sign on and liveblog?
I’m actually pretty excited for this one. Good catch HH.
CGG said:
Yes, actually your resignation was one of the conditions. Mua ha ha! J/k.
Thnx CGG.
Noticed David Cappiello’s potential challenger, Tony Nania, recently filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Nania seems to be talking a good game, but where is he?
If you can’t make it to the live blog, put your questions in this thread and someone will make sure they get asked during the liveblog…
– Just to keep everyone informed, the emergency shut off function on my Mr. Coffee automatic coffee brewer has shut itself off.
Isn’t modern technology wonderful?
Gabe said:
Yup. And if you aren’t sure, a reminder thread will go up later on this week. You can put questions there, as well.
And kudos to HH for all the hard work he’s been putting in setting this up.
1) Who is he endorsing for POTUS? Why?
2) Does he support NAFTA?
3) Should the US military remain in Germany?
4) Should the US return to the gold standard?
To caveat these comments with “I’d need to study the issue further” would be fine with me. Anyway, I just think that anyone running for office must have a gut feeling on each of these issues.
Finally, I’ve met Dave and he seems like a nice guy… also, he called on DeLuca to resign. And that was the right thing to do.
>>also, he called on DeLuca to resign. And that was the right thing to do.
There were already 24 Dems doing just that; for a 25th member of the CT Senate to jump in was unnecessary and amounted to nothing other than disloyal grand-standing.
The disloyal part doesn’t sit well with me.
I understand he’s not famous for keeping his word either.
Connecticut doesn’t need another incarnation of Weicker.
>>Does he support NAFTA?
Hopefully you’re aware that CT is among very few states that actually “won” in NAFTA - it increased our exports (ie: a lot of Bosch components that go to Mexico for final assembly).
The number one destination for CT manufactured goods?
Mexico.
ACR… we disagree on Senator DeLuca. Going back to July 2007, I believe it was only Prague (and Caruso in the House) who had called for resignation.
For me, I felt Clinton, Rowland, Newton and DeLuca all should’ve resigned. Dillon and Clemons also should’ve been punished in some way in 2007. And for that matter, the Senate ought to be doing as Rennie suggested with Gaffey.
As for NAFTA… I believe “Commerce with all nations,” but taking that one step further, I prefer bilateral, not multilateral, trade… just too messy. And I’m pretty sure that NAFTA passed with 50 Senate votes, not 67… as required for a treaty. So what makes NAFTA an agreement and not a treaty? Without researching it, I’m pretty sure the Constitution (what I’m sworn to uphold) mentions treaties, but not “agreements.”
It is NOT the job of Republicans to eat their own young.
There is, on the other hand a time to glance at one’s watch and hurriedly exit without saying a word.
What’s said over coffee, or in front of the press do not have to be congruous.
ACR said:
Two things always strike me when Republicans talk about their party: first, that being a high-ranking Republican sounds an awful lot like being in the mob; and second, how lying to the public and press comes so naturally that one has to wonder if it’s an institutional rite of passage for candidates seeking to run under the party banner.
I should add that if Cappiello can reverse the trend of Republicans insisting that their elected leaders cover up even the most conscience-shocking and blatant criminality by fellow party members (remember, the GOP turned against Weicker for coming out against Nixon — he was and basically remains the epitome of old-school Rockefeller Republican-ism), then he has the potential to do much good for CT politics even if he loses.
We need more daylight and less omerta in politics these days, and while there are a lot of out-and-proud Democratic reformers, it’s also in some ways a sucker’s game when your opponents so consistently put party over country that the press basically expects and excuses it.
>>old-school Rockefeller Republican
You know not of what you speak.
>>how lying to the public and press comes so naturally
Entirely different issue and that is neither what I stated nor implied; much-less is that anything I would do or endorse.
Piling on at number 25 when 24 are already beating someone mercelessly seems classless to me.
To do so when the victim of the beating is a member of your own team strikes me as over the line.
Suit yourself; or paraphrasing Borowitz; “If you want to drink the blood of human babies, that’s your business.”
Your mileage may vary.
Not available in Alaska.
matt w said:
Agreed.
We also need far less completely partisan garbage like the rest of that particular post was choked with.
Tim:
NAFTA vote
A pro-choice, pro-civil rights Republican who famously battled (and was eventually driven from his party due to) the Pat Buchanan wing of the GOP, and who used his time as Governor of his northeastern state to introduce a sales tax to finance quality infrastructure and public services?
Nope, doesn’t sound like Lowell Weicker at all.
Though I understand why you don’t think there’s any room for that kind of guy in the Republican Party of today. I just think that’s a shame.
ACR said:
Really? When you said “What’s said over coffee, or in front of the press do not have to be congruous,” it seemed to me that you were saying that you expect party members to say something different than their actual beliefs or act out of character in front of the press.
ACR said:
Yeah, and there was once a time when both parties were interested in the law. If everyone else in your party is staying silent on the obvious violation of the public trust as in the case of DeLuca selling appointments to Galante, it takes especial bravery to come out and demand justice. You seem to think that’s a bad thing, and I think that says a lot more about you than about Cappiello.
(I like how you mistake the “perpetrator” for the “victim” here, though!)
El Kabong said:
“Partisan garbage?” I pick plenty of fights with “my team,” and still manage to rise through the ranks. Democrats are like that. Republicans are (currently) not.
Do you want to face facts and change the other side of that equation, or do you put the “eleventh commandment” in front of the other ten?
matt w said:
A typo: Mr. Rockefeller introduced both a sales tax and an income tax in New York State – Mr. Weicker only introduced an income tax.
Nonetheless, I’d love to hear how Weicker isn’t a Rockefeller Republican.
I said:
ACR… I s/h said “I’m pretty sure that NAFTA passed with less than 67 Senate votes… as required for a treaty.”
I’m not a lawyer. I’ve never studied the Constitution per se. Nonetheless, 61 is fewer than 67 and that seems to me as though it is a subversion of the Constitution. But I’m totally open to getting a better understanding.
>>how Weicker isn’t a Rockefeller Republican
Rocky never stabbed a fellow Republican in the back.
BTW - just for reference; I stuffed my 1st envelope in 1960 - it was a Draft Rockefeller mailing my older sister was doing.
She made it politically until her too early death, and then Rocky sent the largest floral arrangement of all.
I actually met, and members of my family knew, Nelson Rockefeller well. I’ve also had dealings with Lowell Weicker. Lowell Weicker is no Nelson Rockefeller.
Please don’t insult this Rockefeller-Republican by claiming that the snake known as JulieBelagaWeicker has anything to do with what is now so often sneeringly referred to as “liberal-Republican” (usually that’s preceded by at least “those” however more often it’s “those [expletive]”)
Tim:
I’m pretty sure the North American Free Trade Agreement is as it name states; a trade agreement.
>> I pick plenty of fights with “my team,” and still manage to rise through the ranks
Yeah?
What’s your current office?
>>and I think that says a lot more about you than about Cappiello.
I dunno - you’d be hard pressed to find anyone of any political stripe that would refer to my hand shake as anything less than good.
I certainly have never promised to vote one way on any issue and then done the opposite less than a day or two later. Ever
Death would be preferable to that level of dishonor.
ACR… if we redefine a “treaty” as an “agreement,” then can we redefine “arms” as “slingshots?”
District Leader - not so huge, but I’ve only been back in CT for 18 months and on my town committee for 12. I’ll be seeking to chair a committee in a couple of months.
That’s lots better than poor Rick Torres, who was a good guy that got steamrolled out of the GOP (and had bricks thrown through his store window besides) for trying to do what he thought was best for his hometown.
The Rockefeller Commission report revealed much about the illegalities of Nixon’s CIA, which is on a par with Weicker’s actions against Nixon. He also refused to endorse Nixon in 1960, and drafted a 2700-word statement condemning Nixon’s lack of leadership on national issues. Rockefeller was willing to call a spade a spade, and a law-breaking thug a law-breaking thug, regardless of party.
But the point here — which you have yet to even hint at rebuffing — is that today’s GOP puts party before country. Governor Rockefeller would most certainly be ashamed at the sad pack of right-wing, anti-choice, anti-tax jihadists that have laid claim to his legacy here in northeast.
It seems to me that Rockefeller had and continues to have much more in common with Weicker than he ever did with you.
Thanks for the thoughts and questions everyone! We’ll try to make sure Senator Cappiello gets all your questions if you can’t make the live blog.
>>ACR… if we redefine a “treaty” as an “agreement
Trade agreements are nothing new - and they’re not always any part of a more formalized treaty.
Were NAFTA a full treaty with bi-directional FREE trade, I could fly into some border town and DRIVE out in a car not sold here.
I can’t do that.
I do however applaud your efforts to formalize that agreement so as to accommodate me in that quest.
>>He also refused to endorse Nixon in 1960
There have been plenty of races where I’ve found myself too busy elsewhere to be of much help.
You’ve clearly never relied on Weickers word and/or handshake.
100’s of CT Republicans did just that and found the man to have no honor.
Witness unaffiliates voting in GOP statewide primaries for several years courtesy of Weicker. We voted that way (I was among them) due to a commitment Weicker made to our guy which in 1986 Weicker broke.
>>District Leader
Sounds like party bossism - we don’t even have such a position.
Many RTCs do - especially in multiple-precinct towns.
http://www.wallingfordgop.com/Town%20Comm/Info/info.htm
http://www.stratfordrepublicans.com/SRTC.htm
http://www.gcrtc.com/GRTC/directory.asp?district=1
Of course, as the Republican governor of a large state deemed crucial to Nixon’s chances, this was (rightly) considered a serious blow to the party at the time.
What’s next in your credibility-obliterating series of B.S. excuses for pretending Weicker wasn’t a Rockefeller Republican?
matt w said:
What’s the difference?
BTW, ACR — why do you run around claiming various supposed enemies are “stabbing [X] in the back”? You are surely aware that the phrase came into common usage as a fascist-nationalist rallying cry in Weimar Germany, meant to suggest that the German people would have been undefeatable in WWI were it not for a “betrayal” by subversive forces acting to undermine the nation’s strength.
It seems to me that deploying that same grotesque mythology for domestic political purposes must be an oversight or error on your part.
Matt - you’re truly a silly character and seem to me to be half out of your mind.
But you’re still young.
With luck you’ll be fully crazy when you mature.
There’s much hope for you!
I’ve found that the only people worth dealing with at all are at least half crazy.
Seriously - rattle my cage sometime; we really should have coffee; then we can decide which of us is less balanced. (I have more experience and usually win these contests)
My phone number’s everywhere - but just in case you’ve somehow missed it: 860 919-8315 (I don’t answer blocked - ever).
>>What’s the difference?
None.
MattW said:
Gerard W said:
As Hamlet would say, “There’s the rub”.
That arrogant assumption, and the concomitant actions of the GOP in putting the protection of its own over the rule of law have played a large part in the mess this country is in today.
>>That arrogant assumption
No more than your own.
If one didn’t actually believe your political goals were in the best interest of the nation (or at least CT) as a whole but rather were simply an expeditious end to one’s own self-interest; whether that be power, money or both - you would amount to little more than a political whore.
May I assume you would agree with that?
What level of arrogance would one need to possess to believe those with a contrary opinion have some different agenda?
Sure we can point to obvious exceptions of various stripes; those self-serving jerks are anomalies.
In over 30 years of political activity; the number of people I’ve dealt in either party that struck me as having goals of their own as opposed to that of the greater good have been (thankfully) few.
Only those that refuse to accept the reality that occasionally those of a totally different political perspective might be correct on some issue; or could even possess a great idea, go on to succeed over the long haul.
The rest are simply too arrogant.
I’ve read this paragraph several times and can’t believe that you actually are saying what your words appear to convey: namely that in order to succeed in the long haul one must “refuse to accept the reality that occasionally those of a totally different political perspective might be correct on some issue; or could even possess a great idea”.
I would say that the converse is true.
>>I’ve read this paragraph several times
Hmmm - it’s not my best sentence is it?
Read the entire post; I suspect we’re of one mind, in the abstract at least.
See what happens when you stop in the middle of a post to let the dog(s) out?
The next to last sentence in post #41 should (had I bother to actually look at it rather than simply spel chk it) have said:
“Only those that accept the reality that occasionally those of a totally different political perspective might be correct on some issue; or could even possess a great idea, go on to succeed over the long haul.”
Two otherwise extremely partisan examples might include:
LBJ - Civil Rights
Nixon - EPA
As an aside - certainly you and I (and every other thinking and considerate driver) would be in total agreement as it regards those “safety patrol” idiots in the left lane.
*falls over in a faint*
Stop the PRESS! ACR and I AGREE on something
See, there is hope for this country, after all!
As my children will attest, there are few things that make me more filled with road rage than the idiots who stick in the left lane and tootle along - and never ONCE look in their rear view mirror to see the traffic bottling up behind them.
It’s supposed to be the passing lane.
Did you see
this? I think it’s brilliant. Now that we’ve found something we agree on (wait, TWO things we agree on) we should run with it. It can be our first bi-partisan legislative effort - to get a similar law passed here in CT. I bet you it would cut down accidents on I-95.
>>to get a similar law passed here in CT
I’d rather something along the lines of what I understand is the norm in Germany, where failure to yield the passing lane can get someone’s license suspended much like DWI. (We need a DWS law, driving while stupid.)
Traffic flows like water. Watch from some vantage point and you can notice how one too-slow vehicle causes lots of lane changing as traffic avoids the obstacle, much as water flows past a large stone in a stream or brook.
Greater effort on slow drivers and less on “speeding” would make the interstates safer. (It would do wonders on the Merritt too.)
>>Did you see this?
No, however I have seen Mass Troopers sweep along on the Pike chasing everyone out of the left lane with another Trooper following and tagging those that got back over after the 1st one past. (Ya gotta love it!)
Hey ACR….
What ever happened to your interview with Tony Nania?
Have been looking for it on your blog.
Is this guy really serious in his interest in challenging David Cappiello for the 5th District GOP Nomination?
Yes! I was in Germany last summer, and driving on the Autobahn was awesome.
Someone comes racing up behind you and you damn well pull over to the right lane.
You might enjoy this screen shot from the GPS driving to Berlin.
Let him officially announce will ya?
I’m holding back at his request.
He’s got a few letters out; we’ll see who can raise enough to field a decent campaign. I suspect it’ll be Nania and I doubt the other guy was planning on a primary.
BTW - your earlier post regarding others professionally involved in Nania’s campaign was pretty far off base.
Nania’s got a lot more connections and whole LOT less baggage.
From my perspective a lot better list of allies too.
Oh, Yah?
So Foley and Krivda are not professionally involved? Who is then?
>>You might enjoy this screen shot from the GPS driving to Berlin.
Excellent!
I had a 911 in 1986 and saw that number and (much) higher often….on I-84.
BTW - This photo is that you on the right?
Are you a user too?
(I do about a gallon a day and usually ship a pound ahead when I travel just to be on the safe side)
>>So Foley and Krivda are not professionally involved?
NO.
>> Who is then?
Hmmmm, how can I put this politely?
None of your business!
Hahahahahahahahaha! I wish…I just took the picture ’cause she struck me as kind of…cheeky.
Yes! I am…I felt like such a typical “ugly American tourist”, being in a cosmopolitan cultural capital like Berlin and almost crying with joy when I saw a Dunkin’ Donuts so I could get an iced coffee. In my defense it was like 90 degrees at the time and the A/C in our hotel wasn’t working.
ACR said:
A few letters? That’s funny considering Cappiello has sent tons of letters out. He has also shown that he can raise a decent amount of money. Cappiello is an excellent candidate who can beat Chris Murphy. Nania can’t. And as far as creating the decent campaign goes…Cappiello has an impressive campaign at least far better than Nania.
You wait and see the baggage that comes out on Nania if he runs. Cappiello is well respected in Hartford and in the areas he serves.
Can’t wait to see this list of good allies for Nania. Let’s just say Lou DeLuca’s endorsement is not impressive.
>>almost crying with joy when I saw a Dunkin’ Donuts so I could get an iced coffee. In my defense
A Dunkin addiction needs no defense; it’s those de-caf people that need a little talking to. (It’s them in the left lane!)
How can we possibly compete in a global market with a decaffeinated America?
Impossible I say.
I abuse caffeine because it’s my patriotic duty to do so and encourage others to do the same.
GOPer; we’ll see I guess.
Saramerica:
Who’s this guy?
Is he Jewish?
What does his father do?
Where did he go to college?
What does he do now?
Oh….sorry.
I’m pretty sure I was somebody’s mother in a previous life….some people refer to me that way now…but that’s another thing altogether.
ACR said:
We are going to have to find out sooner or later if this really is a serious campaign. . I can’t see why Nania is getting into this race against Cappiello who has started working hard very early and has raised a lot of money as a challenger. On his website he also recently named his leadership of his campaign naming Rep. Bill Hamzy Chair, Rep. Mary Ann Carson, Mayors Stewart, Boughton, and Bingham Co-Chairs. All very respected leaders and the Mayors of 3 big cities in the district.
That is why I am curious as to who is backing Nania and who is also professionally involved if he is starting a serious challenge for the nomination.
Lol! I guess it’s true what they say…you don’t have to be Jewish or a mother in order to be a Jewish mother.
He’s known as The Webmeister in the blogosphere, and he’s the antidote to my ex-husband. You would like him - he drives an M5 , fast (like there’s any other way to drive an M5). I knew it was true love when he actually let me drive the M5 .
Speaking of Cappiello, on Face the State he took a staunch position against anything resembling amnesty for undocumented workers. It sounded as if he was really in favor of deporting all 15 million!
At the least, he wants to continue with the status quo where we have a semi-permanent underclass of foreign workers. To Shays credit, even he wanted to get everyone into the system, with his position being give them everything but the vote.
I hope the press gets Cappiello out and on the record on this issue. His hard right stance is just what Dems need to keep the Hispanic vote within our coalition.
>>I can’t see why Nania is getting into this race against ….
He’s in the race to support normal more-conservative-than-mine Republican principles.
He’s not “against” anyone.
When it’s time, it will be clear to any regular readers and certainly to anyone I know, why I would be inclined to support him.
matt w said:
And Matt puts party before…..everything…..
One hopes those who represent us in Hartford and Washington dig far less into partisan crap. Nothing would ever get accomplished if they only spent their time vilifying the other side as he does.
But he WILL make a great Dem Town Committee Chair, blasting others all day long not for their actions but because they are registered as GOP….they must be evil. A trait exemplified by many DTC chairs across the state, Connecticut’s true hate preachers.
No wonder so many people despise politics.
And yes, some Republican Town Chairs fall into the same nonsense but not nearly as much. Maybe it’s because we have a Republican president and governor but for whatever reason, they don’t seem to hold as much hate and bile against the world.
>>And Matt puts party before…..everything…..
Can’t get anything worthwhile done that way; and I suspect he’ll figure that out sooner or later.
I offered to buy him coffee…but he hasn’t called.
Odd thing is; I have several Dems on speed-dial including the chair of my town’s DTC and the chair of a neighboring town’s too. We’re all 3 as partisan as they come; but there’s a time and place for that nonsense and it’s not when there’s heavy lifting to do; then you need everyone moving in the same direction.
You must log in to post a comment.