Working Families has endorsed their list of candidates for the November election. On the list? A few surprises. These candidates will appear on both the WFP ballot line as well as their own party’s line. There have been elections where those extra votes have proved critical.
Here’s the list of endorsed candidates in full.
US CONGRESS
Candidate (District)
John Larson (1)
Joe Courtney (2)
Rosa DeLauro (3)
Jim Himes (4)
Christopher Murphy (5)
STATE SENATE
Candidate (District)
Gary LeBeau (3)
Mary Ann Handley (4)
Donald DeFronzo (6)
John Kissell (7)
Art House (8)
Martin Looney (11)
Edith Prague (19)
Janice Andersen (21)
Marilyn Moore (22)
Duane Perkins (24)
John Hartwell (26)
Andrew McDonald (27)
Donald Williams Jr. (29)
Thomas Colapietro (31)
Thomas McCarthy (32)
Len Fasano (34)
See the rest by clicking here:
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Candidate (District)
Joan Lewis (8)
Joe Hachey (9)
Henry Genga (10)
John Thompson (13)
Deborah Noble (16)
Andrew Fleischmann (18)
Timothy O’Brien Jr. (24)
John Geragosian (25)
Peter Tercyak (26)
Antonio Guerrera (29)
Joe Aresimowicz (30)
Gail Hamm (34)
Steve Mikutel (45)
Susan Johnson (49)
Sherri Vogt (50)
Arlene Avery (52)
Claire Janowski (56)
Ted Graziani (57)
Matt Conway (61)
Roberta Willis (64)
Michelle Cook (65)
Stephen Ferrucci (71)
Larry Butler (72)
Jaqui Denski (78)
Karen Houghtaling (80)
Cathy Abercrombie (83)
Mary Mushinsky (85)
Stephen Fontana (87)
Patricia Dillon (92)
Michael Lawlor (99)
David Stevenson (107)
Bob Godfrey (110)
Chris Caruso (126)
Jack Hennessey (127)
Andres Ayala (128)
Robert Keeley (129)
Chris Perone (137)
Bruce Morris (140)
20 responses so far ↓
Just because these folks happened to endorse a couple token GOP senators and ran someone against a couple Democrats they despise doesn’t really change what they are… a second ballot line for ,i>Democrats. In Hartford, they exisit purely to swipe mandatory minority representation from Republicans and maximize philisophical Democrats creating one-party rule under the charade of another party.
WFP is a fraud.
Headless Horseman, you’re dead wrong.
Here in Hartford, no one would mistake the WFP City Councilors for being just extra Democrats.
The charge to protect retirees’ healthcare originated with Dr. Larry Deutsch. (WFP) You can watch this clip to learn more:
http://video.nbc30.com/player/?id=269299
And just today, the Courant covered the push by Luis Cotto (WFP) to prohibit the Hartford police from asking about imigration status. You can read the story here:
http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hc-immigord0722.artjul22,0,5522517.story
Both of those originated in the WFP caucus — they’re not taking marching orders from Eddie or the city’s Dems. Disagree with our issues if you want (and I’m certain you do) but to say that we’re just a wing of the Democrats is completely off base.
As for our state legislative endorsements, our top issue this year was the Paid Sick Days bill. Candidates of all parties who supported that bill (including Republicans John Kissel and Len Fasano) had a pretty easy time seeking our endorsement. And candidates that opposed that common-sense measure risked losing it, even Democrats like Joan Hartley (Waterbury Senate) and Linda Schofield (Simsbury House) who both has WFP opponents.
Did Dr. Deutsch offer to pay for their health care? If not, who will pay for it?
That’s nice. Luis wants to tell the police to enforce some laws, but not others. Great platform you’ve got there, Jon.
Did Dr. Deutsch offer to pay for this one, too?
Let me respond point by point:
1) Where a city puts its resources is an expression of it’s values. And dramatically raising insurance premiums for retired teachers, police, paraprofessionals, firefighters, school secretaries, and so on, who are on a fixed income, who spent their careers working to build the city, and who negotiated their benefits in their contracts is hardly a value most of us share. It might even be illegal. But I’m glad to know that’s something you think is OK.
2) Hartford police have their hands full already, never mind adding on enforcement of Federal laws that the city receives no funding to support. And in the meantime, requiring the city police to inquire about immigration status would make a whole population refuse to deal with the police and certainly wouldn’t make policing any easier. This is certainly a reasonable approach for a city to an issue that has a startling lack of federal solutions, and I think it falls somewhere between Danbury’s and New Haven’s.
2.1) My name’s Joe. Not Jon. Thanks Jack.
3) I’d refer you to the study if I thought you’d even bother to read it, but all the studies and empirical data demonstrate that providing paid sick days over the long run saves money for money businesses, for the general public, and for the healthcare system, mainly because of reduce spread of illness at work and reduced turnover.
You’re assuming it has the resources — that’s not the case, in large part because it is spending money like a sailor on leave. There’s a reason why all of the development in greater Hartford is taking place outside of Hartford.
Now you’re a crime expert — or, anyway, Luis Cotto is a crime expert. No one is pushing to require the City police to inquire as to whether a person is here legally or illegally. The WFP, however, would handcuff a police officer and preclude him from inquiring about crimes that are being committed. Enforcement of federal laws depends on a local police presence in the same way that enforcement of local laws depends on a federal police presence. Who are you, or Luis Cotto, to say that a policeman cannot inquire as to whether a crime is being committed or not?
Sorry. It’s been a long day at work for both members of my Working Family.
I have a problem with it because the WFP is forcing it down every business’s throat. The WFP is trying to impose its will onto every single business, company or private employer, and insist that the employer do things their way. On what grounds? If you don’t like the conditions where you work, go somewhere else. It’s not hard to figure out.
>>WFP is a fraud.
YES!
“In Hartford, they exisit purely to swipe mandatory minority representation from Republicans”
That is just not the way the law works. For purposes of minority representation any candidate elected carries their party of registration NOT the party line they were elected on so long as their party of registration endorses them. If their party doesn’t endorse them they then carry the party designation of which ever line they get the most votes on.
This ‘designation’ is only for purposes of minority representation, and does not even apply to caucusing provisions….
Trust me on this one - we had to deal with this last municipal cycle in my town and had to get a legal opinion from the SOTS legal staff.
What a second ballot line really does is allow a minor party to demonstrate to a candidate the number of their supporters who support the candidate, and makes it clear to the candidate where those supporters stand.
Sorry if some Republicans feel it disadvantages them. That is only the case if their platforms don’t appeal to the public….
>>That is only the case if their platforms don’t appeal to the public….
That and the fact that others outright lie regarding the GOP.
IE: Ernie Newton; “Lincoln was a Democrat”
A Lie? Sounds more like either a mistake or ignorance to me…
In Hartford, they exisit purely to swipe mandatory minority representation from Republicans and maximize philisophical Democrats creating one-party rule under the charade of another party.
Well, I think that these minority representation rules in all these Connecticut towns are ridiculous. If a town’s voters want all Democrats or all Republicans on their city council or whatever, why should the law prevent that?
Where a city puts its resources is an expression of it’s values. And dramatically raising insurance premiums for retired teachers, police, paraprofessionals, firefighters, school secretaries, and so on, who are on a fixed income…
Heck, who am I to say how Hartford taxpayers should have their money spent? Just don’t come complaining to the state assembly when your mill rate is extremely high because of the benefits you dole out, or whatever else you spend your money on.
Are the benefits that Hartford pays to its employees higher than the benefits paid to employees of surrounding towns?
>>A Lie? Sounds more like either a mistake or ignorance to me…
Yeah, sure.
gmr said:
Funny, I’m the complete opposite. I’d like to see minority representation such that no party can have a majority unless there are no opposing parties.
For example on our 9 member Town Council the charter minority representation section provides that the majority party can’t hold more than 6 seats, a super majority, making it a totally impotent minority representation protection. I’d like it to say that no one party can hold more than 4 seats as long as there are at least 3 parties on the ballot. This would help to ensure that the career councilors in the majority party who are prone to taking action whose implications are clearly not understood and costly to tax payers have to at least convince members of an opposing party to go along with them instead of steam rolling every decision with their super majority.
Here in East Hartford we are about 4 to 1 D to R so there is almost no chance of ever changing super majority council membership except when someone vacates. It’s funny, when I talk to Rs from the Windsors or Manchester they always ask why I don’t just move out of EH like any reasonable R would do.
Yep WFP is a fraud I’ll agree with that.
Hey Dinkin, how much do you make with this racket anyway?
Saw you on Michael Moore’s website.
http://staging.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/free_sicko_ceo.jpg
You get some donations from Soros too?
http://ctlocalpolitics.net/2007/07/06/friday-open-forum-6/
Your “party” is just another front for the Communist Party aka “Progressive Democrats” and pretty much everyone knows it.
Thanks for endorsing/throwing in a few Republicans for laughs; is that how you hope to look legit?
But anyway, this is America; you are free pretend to be a real party if you like - heck Joe Lieberman did it.
Republitarian said:
Now that’s a good question!
Joe,
I respectfully make these make these comments to you regarding your first point from your post #4. You said:
“Where a city puts its resources is an expression of it’s values. And dramatically raising insurance premiums for retired teachers, police, paraprofessionals, firefighters, school secretaries, and so on, who are on a fixed income, who spent their careers working to build the city and who negotiated their benefits in their contracts is hardly a value most of us share.”
I can certainly sympathize will the plight of all who are on fixed incomes all across this country. Sadly the vast majority who are, are not the very people your party is concerning itself about above. Rather they are the very hard working people of the private sector who’s taxes are used to provide the employment, as well as the compensation, benefits, and pensions for the people you mention, in return for their services. Do not for one-second diminish the very critical role their working careers play in helping to build that same city.
Those same working people face all of the same issues of rising costs as the people you concern yourself about, with the additional concerns of not having benefits that are as rich, pensions that if they even exist, are but a fraction of those you point will enjoy, and job security their entire working careers that is next to nothing.
In addition I would add those public employees your party seeks to protect are very lucky that your party is looking out for their best interest. Who is looking out for the best interest of the poor hard working private sector employees who face all of the same problems of these private employees plus even more?
I think where a city puts it’s resources as you claim, is only one small way it can show what it values. I respectfully submit to you for your consideration, how a city (it’s leaders) work(s) to fairly balance the needs of all it’s residents on fixed incomes is a far better expression of it’s (their) values.
the Courant covered the push by Luis Cotto (WFP) to prohibit the Hartford police from asking about imigration status.
Wow…the WFP is for ILLEGALS in Hartford, now!! Another reason why I believe the SWnFP is SOCIALISTIC. We have a border and we need to PROTECT it. Sorry but I want immegration to be LEGAL - with people who come here to know ENGLISH! Why should I - an American - be forced to press 1 for ENGLISH? I do not hire bi-linguals in my business, and I won’t!
Joe Dinkin said:
Really? Well, just look at your own web site where you demonstrate your “minor party withmajor power” scenario, showing a hypothetical where a Democrat loses to a Republican on the D line, but makes it over the top with a small added percentage from WFP:
http://www.ct-workingfamilies.org/strategy.php?show=smenu4
I mean, this is clearly the goal of your group. A real third party runs its own candidates instead of cross-endorsing. You only have two actual WFP candidates out of 187 General Assembly seats.
Until you do that, WFP is a sham.
The Republicans here are just upset that the third party that shares their ideology the Fascist Party of Connecticut isn’t that popular…
Whine more.
ProgConn said:
Oh, I don’t know… the Democrats seem to be doing just fine.
An inquiry is not a thumbscrew. By “whole population” you evidently mean “illegal aliens,” since the police generally do not molest those who have not broken the law. Would you say the same of welfare fraud? Fraud investigators ought not to do their jobs because their investigation of genuine frauds certainly wouldn’t make policing them easier; easier than what? – not investigating them? None of this makes sense. Or is it just me?
You must log in to post a comment.