The Working Families Party announced today in a release that they were making some early endorsements, including U.S. Reps. John Larson and Joe Courtney, Jim Himes, and the following list of state legislators:
The state legislators who received early endorsements from the party are: Senator DeFronzo, Senator Looney, Senator Colapietro, Senator Handley, Senator Prague, Rep. Aresimowicz, Rep. McCluskey, Rep. O’Brien, Rep. Geragosian, Rep. Genga, Rep. Fontana, Rep Fleischmann, Rep. Perone, Rep. Butler, and Rep. Tercyak.
A cross-endorsement from the WFP means that the candidate will appear on the ballot twice: once on their own party’s line, and once of the WFP line.
68 responses so far ↓
seems like the WFP could have made these endorsements anytime their are no surprises here.
you would think they might wait until after the legislative session you know wait for all the votes to be cast
What do all these candidates have in common?
I’ll be impressed when this “party” fields candidates of their own in a district that may hurt a democrat. Until that time, they are just the Democrat Party II.
I know there were questions in some cities during the 2006 elections as to whether votes on the WFP line would be counted as valid votes for a candidate. Have these been settled?
The socialists are starting early. I thought the reason for starting a new political party was to bring new blood into the political dialog? Endorsing Democrats and claiming “victory” when their urban candidates win ring hollow. Nothing more than the unions getting two bites of the apple.
The Socialists are starting early. I thought the reason we have political parties was to provide different solutions to our complex issues? Yep.
The devil is always in the detail. Who doesn’t want affordable health care?
A good paying job? A good education?
These endorsed candidates are part of the problem, not the solution.
Simply endorsing ultra liberal, pro-union Democrats as their own candidates and claiming victory in one-sided urban elections rings hollow.
UnionThug-
We’ve endorsed Republicans on occaision before, and we’re glad to anytime they’re willing to make promises on some of our core issues like good jobs at living wages, fair taxation and affordable healthcare for everyone.
I’m sure you can imagine, a party that is five years old (going on six!) must operate differently than parties that are over 150. Our goals are to push forward our issues, and that often means cross-endorsing the candidate who is closest to us on the issues our members care about — and then once in office, holding them accountable to those promises.
And where we can run on our own and win, we love to. But coming in third place running for Congress hardly does our issues any good, and it might do them some harm. So our strategy is always to push our issues in any given race the best way we can.
Joe Dinkin said:
Has the working families party ever actually studied the economic effects of “living wages” on unemployment and is there a study to back it? Or is it just feel good rhetoric?
You only endorse safe Republicans, maybe one or two out of 187.
You’re all democrats; why not work within the Democrat Party to push your issues instead of creating a shell political party.
EHTP:
There are tons of Living Wage Studies.
The Economic Policy Institute is a good place to start.
The idea is pretty simple though: people who are working full time shouldn’t have to remain in poverty. Raising wages helps people out of poverty and puts more money in the pockets of people who spend all of it, putting more money into local economies.
and Union Thug, out of 187 members of the state legislature, there are currently only 56 Republicans. And we’ve endorsed several, who vote the right way on our issues sometimes.
We certainly have not endorsed all of the Democrats either. We endorse those who best reflect our ideas and where we think we can most make a difference on our policies. And we’re certainly not going to endorse folks who’ve voted against our core priorities, whether D or R.
We’re certainly not a shell — we’ve got an identity, a membership, and a platform separate from the Dems. As for your advice, you pursue your political strategies and we’ll pursue ours.
How is it the issues and stances on so many issues from the
Working Family Website
and the
Communist Party USA
site seem so similar?
I thought surely by now it would be obvious to anyone that despite all the grand sounding plans & schemes, that a collective mentality regarding the economy simply doesn’t work. It makes the poorest among us even poorer and denies them everything including even hope.
By the way Joe Dinkin - you might want to check out ispell.com.
Everyone in here can easily spot it when I don’t use it.
UnionThug, Perhaps you should begin petitioning to start the “Huckabee Party” here in CT if elected officials aren’t right wing enough for your politics.
>>Raising wages helps people out of
Raising wages by caveat as opposed to market, drives small business out of business and they’re the same people that create over 80% of new employment.
Let’s kill the goose that lays the golden eggs while we’re at it!
I suspect that most would agree that 17 an hour is a pretty good starting wage; yet I know of *large* nursery operations can’t fill the available jobs with legal Americans and as a result almost 60% of their employees are illegal.
Joe Dinkin said:
Look at the WFP in New York state, where they endorse Republicans somewhat frequently. There are at least some GOoPers that didn’t buy into the psychotic Gingrich revolution and its accompanying war on anyone who can’t cut donation checks to their party, and if WFP manages to draw at least non-anti-worker Republicans out of hiding, they’ll have done great work for society win or lose.
Why there are so few non-rabid Republicans in Connecticut is an open question, to which I’d dearly enjoy hearing the answer. Are there any in the state that support a progressive income tax of the sort that Rockefeller Republicans used to promote?
ACR, I didn’t know red-baiting was in again this winter.
No one is disputing that they could pursue their own political strategies - but why are they using the euphemism of working families party - why not just come out and call it the Socialist Party? They ARE all about redistribution of wealth and anti-capitalism. Are they unable to be honest about their agendas?
As for being in poverty while working a full time job - looks to me like the market is open enough that they could leave their job for one that pays better. No one forces anyone to keep a job that doesn’t pay well enough. If an employer cannot find people to work for cheap wages they will usually have to raise their wage.
Perhaps instead of beating business over the head with rules and regulations and wage controls, which only in turn feeds the vicious cycle of demanding higher wages and causing higher prices on products, the WFP should be all about how to educate and train people to get higher paying jobs and being more valuable workers. Jobs at McDonalds, and other unskilled jobs were never meant to be about providing incomes to feed a family of four or being highly paid career tracks.
In my estimation the WFP/Socialist Party is all about pro-union anti-labor and wealth redistribution and market control - and no respecting Republican should ever want their endorsement anyway.
matt w said:
My recollection is that the WFP line cost the Dems a crucial state senate seat in 2004 (providing substantially more than the Republican margin of victory) - If my memory is correct, it wasn’t because the Dem was bad on WFP issues, it was because the incumbent Republican had been a supporter in the state senate.
Who isn’t for affordable health care, making a living at your job, and fair taxation?
Why aren’t all people running for the legislature endorsed then? Why only ultra liberal, pro-union, safe district urbanish Democrats?
Why should us hardworking Connecticut taxpayers have to pay up to 50% for our own health coverage with high deductibles and co-pays AND have to also pay for other people’s health coverage as you propose? The local taxpayer is getting creamed paying for the union’s only health care provider, the blues.
I worked at a grocery store in high school. Why would we have to pay higher prices for goods and services because of artificially higher wages for people that CHOSE not to finish high school, college or not take up a trade? McDonald’s-like jobs are a starting not ending point in one’s employment career.
Many of us work longer hours or multiple jobs in order to TRY to keep pace with high health premiums, higher electric and gas bills, higher income taxes (having two jobs we are making more money—-right), higher property taxes, higher college expenses, etc etc.
And the WFP endorses entrenched liberals who every two years promise to ease our pain? Weren’t they in the legislature when these things were happening? Sorry. Even with a super majority these “victories” ring hollow.
I just don’t understand…has the WFP already had their nominating conventions? Are they sue there are no candidats that want to run as WFP? I support their right to ballot access and most of the things they stand for, but either they are a legitimate party or not ad I think if they have endorsed this early, they are doing themselves a disservice.
>> I didn’t know red-baiting was in again this winter.
Just compare the stances taken by both groups - it’s self evident.
I’ll try to answer a few of these questions and issues:
Gabe:
About the NYWFP cross-endorsing a high profile Republican for a State Senate seat in 2004:
The reason was to raise the minimum wage. The State Senate was Republican majority (it still is) and so a promise from a somewhat high ranking Republican to push through the minimum wage raise really meant something much more substantial than a freshman Dem who wouldn’t be able to move much of anything. The R (Nick Spano) not only pushed the minimum wage raise through the Republican majority State Senate, he pushed the Senate to reluctantly override Pataki’s veto.
CT Working Families are not the same folks as the NY WFP, and I can’t say we’ve faced that sort of situation here. But from my point of view, helping re-elect Spano was worth providing a raise for 500,000 New Yorkers. (In 2006, when Spano failed to deliver on WFP issues, he lost the WFP support, and lost his seat to his Dem challenger.)
Did Working Families endorse Chris Murphy?
This is certainly no platform we’ve ever held.
The WFP is certainly not done making endorsements for 2008. But our State Committee (the highest governing body of the WFP) offered an early endorsement to a few folks who’d really proven their worth on issues we care about. The process is not over though, and anyone is welcome to seek the WFP nomination at our online endorsement questionnaire.
Weicker Liker-
We haven’t endorsed in the 5th Congressional District yet, and any candidate is welcome to see the WFP endorsement.
That said, we’ve been pleased with Murphy’s votes on our priority issues.
Dinkin…
Don’t you feel these endorsements for Congress are a little one sided?
You essentially shut out Republican candidates and others in CT-1, CT-2, CT-4.
I guess the only thing I would like to know is how can you endorse all those state legislators and Congressman Larson without even knowing who their opponent will be?
Do you know that Senator DeFronzo, Senator Looney, Senator Colapietro, Senator Handley, Senator Prague, Rep. Aresimowicz, Rep. McCluskey, Rep. O’Brien, Rep. Geragosian, Rep. Genga, Rep. Fontana, Rep Fleischmann, Rep. Perone, Rep. Butler, and Rep. Tercyak are all more in line with your issues than any potential challenger?
No, it is impossible to know that. That’s my only gripe.
Joe Dinkin said:
Sorry. I must heave slept though it. I am not convinced you are a separate party. Unilateral “endorsements”? Why can’t the Democratic or Republican parties do the same thing and pre-endorse? Could it be because it is illegal?
We have affordable health care? Fair taxation? Lower energy costs? Affordable college tuition for our own children? A pro-growth, state economy?
We find it harder and harder to reach a “living wage” for our family without going deeper in debt. The harder we work the more we get taxed.
Your home party, Democrats, have a super majority and nothing changes. This is the system your endorsed 15 continue to perpetuate.
Disgruntled….
The Working Families Party is nothing but a sham.
No platform, nothing.
Its a creation of Labor Unions to ensure Democrats get elected.
Everyone was invited to participate in the process. Rep. Shays and Kevin Sullivan never turned in endorsement questionnaires.
Weicker Liker said:
I know that in CT-04, Shays passed on the opportunity to interview and fill out a questionnaire. He was too busy getting working-class hero John McCain elected.
Sorry sorry. Was thinking of the name of a childhood friend. Sean Sullivan I meant.
Living wage policies, unemployment insurance, public works programs and other such plans designed to ensure the working man a living were a leading cause of the severity and length of unemployment during the great depression.
History teaches us a great deal. The trouble is we don’t bother to learn it.
The problems the WFP are trying to solve are known and unarguable. The trouble is that the WFP is trying to cure symptoms while feeding the problem. Government has caused the issues the WFP is trying to cure and as such an expectation that government can fix them through further tinkering is ludicrous.
Success is all in how you massage the numbers.
http://www.mises.org/story/921
Weicker Liker and Adumbledore
Believe it or not, I’m as disappointed by the super-majority Dems’ performance in the last session as you are. I wish that in the last session they’d really passed comprehensive healthcare reform guaranteeing affordable coverage for everyone. I wish that they’d start fight harder against outsourcing, and pass a state Earned Income Tax Credit.
That’s why we formed our own party — to fight for those issues we feel aren’t getting sufficiently addressed.
EHTP-
What specious reasoning. The last thirty years have seen massive privization and deregulation, supply side tax cutes for high income earners, and paired back wage protections.
If all this laissez faire free market doctrinaire stuff is what’s going to save us, then why has economic inequality been steadily increasing for the last thirty years?
Yooohooo! Helllllllo, Over here!!!
I have been patiently awaiting an answer. I think i further deserve one when I read your comments form a previous entry,
Joe Dinkin said:
My question is even more validated by your comments here. How was everyone invited when you don’t yet know who everyone is?
Joe Dinkin said:
If you think our economy has been laissez faire I suggest you research the definition. I think that your misunderstanding of true free markets is the reason for your misunderstanding of the cause of unemployment and poverty.
Truly sorry about the Sullivan name mix-up.
But as for the real question, you’re right, we cannot know for sure which Republicans are likely to run against these folks. But these people who merited early endorsement are all with us on our core issues so often it would be pretty tough to imagine someone running against them who’d likely be better. So the our leadership made a decision to throw their support behind these most reliable votes on our issues early.
easthartfordtaxpayer -you posted an excellent link!
http://www.mises.org/story/921
How do living wage laws benefit unions?
Living wages directly increase wages for lower-skill union workers who previously negotiated below living wage contracts. Further, by forcing producers to pay higher wages even if they are nonunion, they reduce competition from nonunion companies, whose costs are forced up (the mechanism Neumark emphasizes). Because of the increased costs, however, such laws also undermine municipalities’ attempts to save their taxpayers money by privatizing public services or by putting welfare recipients to work, either of which threatens union jobs.
>>I think that your misunderstanding of true free markets is the reason for your misunderstanding of the cause of unemployment and poverty.
There’s **no** misunderstanding - these WFP people are on a mission set forth originally by Karl Marx and their only defense from that truth is to call it “red baiting”.
Baiting hell - just look at where they stand.
Joe Dinkin said:
The biggest driving factor in economic inequality is reduction of the real wage through inflation of the US dollar. Inflation which is necessary to pay for the various programs directed at preventing the very inflation and therefore reduction in real wages they cause.
Want to reduce economic inequality? Stop deficit spending. Stop endless war. Stop social programs. Stop wage fixing. Stop onerous legislative hurdles that only large corporations can keep up with. The list goes on.
Most of all, stop fractional reserve banking and unchecked monetary inflation through the Federal reserve system. The latter will effectively end most of the prior.
Joe Dinkin said:
Republicans should know quite well by now that there’s a difference between partisanship and ideology.
Connecticut has both a Democratic majority and a conservative majority in the legislature. Most blogger-types that I know would gladly trade the Democratic majority for a progressive one.
Joe Dinkin said:
I never mentioned Republicans. I said opponents. Some of these folks might even have primary challengers or not even make it out of the nominating conventions. It just seems that you folks have put the cart before the horse. And I wouldn’t call your endorsements fair when everyone hasn’t had the chance to seek your endorsement.
Also, realizing it isn’t the same, your response does seem to contradict what you said about your feelings on the NY example. See, these endorsed CT Dems have never actually delivered on any of your issues, have they?
You’re really not winning any points by calling us communists, because most of our ideas, from universal healthcare to a higher minimum wage to opposition to outsourcing have broad support among the public (and bipartisan too.)
D_R, we haven’t endorsed those Democrats we think are most likely to push for our issues, and we will continue to do so. If a Republican stepped forward and promised to help push single payer healthcare through the legislature, we’d be the first to step up in support.
I think the response still stands though - if those particular endorsees make it impossible to imagine a better candidate coming along, it doesn’t really matter if there is a primary challenger, or a green, or a Republican.
>>single payer healthcare
But you’re offended when you’re called Communists for that?
What would YOU call it?
Gimme a break.
Joe Dinkin said:
And that’s my point Joe, in these CT districts, you’ll never know if any will do that. Why would they bother to do to you folks for support, you are already supporting their opponent. Listen, at this point it is what it is, I would just hope that my point is well taken and that going forward you folks would at least wait until the candidates for a certain seat are know before you go ahead and endorse. In the 2CD and the 4CD they are know, and I have no issue with you endorsing there. The rest, are not known and you should hold off until they are. That’s all I’m saying.
And for what its worth I don’t think you guys are communists, just folks with ideas and agendas like just about everyone posting here.
D_R — I understand your concern, but the folks who were offered the opportunity to apply for the early endorsement not only have pretty darn near 100% WFP-issue voting records, they’ve also more often than not been champions of our issues in committees and on the floor. It’d be tough to imagine folks much more committed to our values - -and that’s why they were offered the early endorsement.
There are around 160 districts left for a Republican who’d be with us on as many issues to step forward and seek our endorsement. I welcome any takers to do so.
and ACR, the governments of Canada and several Western European nations just called to ask you to stop calling their healthcare plans communist.
Joe Dinkin said:
Again Joe, let me point out that I never mentioned party affiliation of a potential challenger.
disgruntled_republican said:
Holding out for the Whigs?
disgruntled_republican said:
My understanding is that for the general election, WFP can switch the candidates it chooses to endorse up until sometime in September, if they’re cross-endorsing.
Joe Dinkin said:
You know about concern-trolling, right Joe?
Joe,
Because there exists moderate Democrats in the General Assembly that you will not endorse this year, and assuming that their Republican competition are not worthy of your support, will you be fielding candidates OF YOUR OWN?
To me this is the true test of a party that is not a shell of the Democrat Party. Will you be running candidates against Sen. Doyle, or Sen. Hartley? How about the Reps. in the moderate Democrat House caucus like Mikutel and O’Connor?
Joe Dinkin said:
And that’s why Canadians are coming here to be serviced instead on Canada where it is rationed.
It’s not my decision to make — but I assure you the party will support candidates we really think can make a difference on our issues.
Joe Dinkin said:
I’ll take that as a no.
Prediction: you will do NOTHING to endanger a Democrat, even those you will not support.
Prove me wrong, Joe. If you don’t, you’ll have to admit that you are not really a party after all.
No, it’s really not my decision. We’ll have to wait and see what our members and leaders think is the most productive and useful course of action.
UnionThug said:
I rather thought the point of setting up WFP to begin with was so that economic liberals wouldn’t have to jump through the bizarre hoops set up by feces-flinging anti-worker ideologues like yourself to have leverage in the political process.
Become a member of the group and you get to tell them what they must do to be taken seriously. Otherwise, take your concern-trolling elsewhere.
Wow, I haven’t said anything anti-worker, Matt.
The only way you have political leverage is if you start challenging these moderate Democrats with your own candidates. You know, like a real party.
Until you do so, you’re just a shell of the Democrat Party.
ACR said:
How come the Republican Party’s stance on issues seems to be similar to the National Socialists?
ACR said:
I totally agree!
Joe Dinkin said:
Umm income inequality is exactly what they thing “saving us” is.