Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: "WE THE PEOPLE"

"SAVE THE MONEY, DISBAND HARTFORD'S REPUBLICAN PARTY"

17 Comments -

1 – 17 of 17
Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

According to the local democratic party rules, namely Article 6, Section 4, Pedro and the Council endorsed candidates cannot accept a cross endorsement from the Republican Party. If they wish to run as Republicans they must file a letter dropping off the Democratic Party line or they can reject the Republican endorsement.

September 21, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another example of a breaking story for you, Kevin, "I spoke with Jean Holloway, the Hartford DTC Chair, and she wouldn't deny the deal was made."

There has never been worse party leadership. Why else did State Rep Kelvin Roldan bring an attorney to the nominating convention in July? Roldan cited 20+ violations committed by Jean Holloway and Lou Watkins.

She "would not comment about her deal" regarding 3,000 cross-over votes on Election Day?? This is a false if not impossible commitment. When are the Hartford Dems or State Central going to wake up and remove Jean from her duties? She has been extremely detrimental to the Democratic Party in Hartford. She and McGarry both need to go. Terrible leadership for both parties.

September 21, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Anonymous Rich Wareing said...

Bruce, you are too good a lawyer to be making this argument. Your party rules state that a party-endorsed candidate cannot be a party-endorsed candidate of another party. Party-endorsement is a term of art and refers only to the persons endorsed by town committees for nomination. Once there is a primary (or if there is no primary b/c there were no successful petitioners) a successful candidate is a "nominee" of a party not a "party-endorsed" candidate. This was fought about 10+ years ago when Kathleen Palm was put on the Republican line. In any event, Title 9 governs how people become candidates for office and nothing in Title 9 prohibits anyone from being the candidate of more than one parties (hence WFP's ability to cross-nominate D's). Local party rules can't trump the General Statutes, nor can they force anyone to relinquish a nomination they obtained in a prmiary.

September 21, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Anonymous Rich Wareing said...

Kevin, on a purely political (as opposed to legal) front, I am curiuous as to which members of the RTC you contacted. Although I am not on the RTC I was present at its last meeting and the issue of cross-nominations was discussed in detail and there were no objections by any of the members of the RTC who were present. Either someone wasn't being truthful with you or they were not present at the last RTC meeting.

September 21, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Blogger KEVIN BROOKMAN said...

Rich,

If you were there, then I am sure you are aware that there was no vote or any motion made to allow Mike McGarry to ngegotiate or cut a deal on his own. Discussing an issue in a last ditch effort to get Republicans elected is a far cry from the RTC agreeing to move forward.

Maybe McGarry and the RTC should have listened a few years ago when I advised them not to underestimate the drive behind the WFP.

I'm not sure if you are an RTC member again, but when was the last time the RTC conducted any outreach to attract new voters to the party? And I don't consider a fundraiser in a bar outreach to the Community.

And as a regular reader of the blog, you should know I don't throw around the names of my sources unless they agree to be quoted, but I stand by what I said.

September 21, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Anonymous Rich Wareing said...

Kevin, I haven't been a member of the RTC for about 10 years for many of the reasons you cite (among others).

As for parliamentary procedure, no motion or further action by the RTC was needed. The RTC executive committee was designated at the nominating convention as the vacancy committee. Once candidates resigned, the executive committee had the authority under state law to fill the vacancies without further action from the RTC. In fact, the RTC executive committee could have done so without even consulting the RTC as a whole.

Mike has his flaws, but he did nothing wrong here. He intentionally raised the issue at the RTC meeting so people would be informed and have the chance to speak their mind.

As for what actually took place in the room that evening, you may stand by what you said, but the information you were given and which you have published is simply incorrect.

September 21, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

New York's Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of public interest groups such as Citizen Action of New York.[citation needed] The party blends a culture of political organizing with unionism, 1960s idealism, and tactical pragmatism.
--------------------------------
I don't know if our WFP guys are much worse than our Dems here in Hartford. However, by its very nature the party is worse.
The Republican Party in Hartford is all but defunct, and has been for years. I don't know what leadership could do differently, but it's plain to me that the electorate isn't buying Republican under any circumstances.

September 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

rich...always a pleasure to hear from you.


Surely Rich you must be aware of the distinction betwwen the WFP ( a legal minor party) and the Republican Party ( a legal major party)..different statutes apply with respect to cross endorsements.

Rich once a Republican receives a nomination..ie... they are endorsed by the vote of a body to be the nominee..ie..they are the endorsed candidate

With regarding Kathy Palm...please give me the docket number or parties to whatever as you say.." dealt with" the issue as I can find no court case in the judicial webpage dealing with the matter.I believe that she was endorsed by both parties but in the wisom of the party registers at that time so long ago, no one raised a fuss....Rich...an error isnt legal binding precedent.

Rich..nothing prevents you from seeking a legal opinion from your Republican State Party Counsel, once or if the local Republicans cross endorse.I may contact our State Party Counsel, Kevin Reynolds and seek his opinion on the issue, as Title 9 and the case law are silent on it.

September 21, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Rich..hopefully you agree that the political calculus is bad for the endorsed Dems..as it splits them off from eachother right away..and from Pedro who met with Mike McGarry and approved this charade..and bad for your party as well, as it further reduces your brand and your ability to stand for your party's conservative principles.Your Republican Party cannot rebuild itself if it endorses and works with liberals from my Party, any hope of party building within your party is now minimal.

As to my Party..Pedro really screwed up if he takes this endorsement. Any hope of all 6 Democrats working together with him is gone.Just when Pedro needs to look like a leader here, he will shoot himself in the foot.If I was one of the un-republican endorsed democratic candidates, I would try to work with the WFP and publically declare my independance from Pedro and the rest of the Republican endorsed Democrats.

September 21, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Anonymous Rich Wareing said...

Bruce, the issue with Kathleen was that the DTC objected to her appearing on the Republican line. My understanding - and I was only a youngster in those days and not allowed into the circles of power - was that there was no legal basis for the objection, just a political one and she conceded and withdrew her name from the R line as a political accommodation. I got this shortly after it happened from John O'Connell (who was not happy Kathleen wouldn't stick to her guns and tell the DTC to pound sand). Perhaps John was wrong, but he was pretty careful about things so I tend to credit his account.

I think you are misdreading Title 9. It draws a clear distinction between "party-endorsed candidates" and "nominees." The former are those endorsed by a DTC or RTC. The latter are those who have either won a primary or, if there was no primary, were the party-endorsed candidates at the time for filing petitiions passed. Pedro was never the "party-endorsed" candidate of the RTC, Mike McGarry was, and once D the primary was over he was your nominee, not your party-endorsed candidate. As an aside, had Ed Vargas won your primary, he would have been your nominee even though he was never your party-endorsed candidate.

September 22, 2011 at 7:08 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guts need to stop with the debate and look at the real issue, and that's manulaption of the election process by eliminating any one who opposes the current mayor.
Yesterday was a sad day in Hartford politics, John passed away would called everyone to task during the budget process and was a true watch dog for the residents and business community even after his council days were over. There needs to be 9 individuals like John who sit on the council to turn this city around, and the other part us the death of the GOP in Hartford. A Trojan horse by the DTC chair and Mike jumps at the chance, what a leader, not. It's deals like this that keep the sane old crooked politicians in office. Maybe the only real opponent they would be afraid of is a "Grand jury."

September 22, 2011 at 7:30 AM

Anonymous Rich Wareing said...

Anon, it's ironic you point to John, because he cut his own deal with Mike Peters to get 3 R's on council and to help put People for Change out of business. I don't know how much, if anything, John knew about what was going on this cycle before he passed, but given what I know about him, which is quite a bit since he gave me my start in Hartford politics, I doubt the concept would have offended him. John was a very honest man and a staunch conservative, but he also understood that you sometimes have to compromise and make deals with people on the other side, especially when you are badly outnumbered and outgunned.

Your analysis that this deal "keeps the same old crooked politicians in office" is totally off-base. The 3 R's have exactly 1 year of experience in office and have run in exactly 1 municipal election (Mike F. ran for BoE). How are they the "same old crooked politicians?" Of the D's cross-nominated, Kyle Anderson has never run for office as far as I know, let alone served and Adam Cloud has 1 year of government experience and has never run for office other than for 1 term on the DTC when he still lived Downtown. This ticket is hardly fighting to preserve the status quo.

September 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rich, Anon might be referring to Ken Kennedy. After 10 years on Council, I don't think anyone can point to anything that he has done other than personal favors for politically connected friends. He is a total waste of space up on Council.

September 22, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Anonymous Sees all and tells all said...

Anonymous 4:04

Kennedy has done something for Hartford...he has increased Hartford's population by fathering kids out of wedlock..

September 22, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Anonymous Sean Arena said...

Cross-Endorsed Democratic Candidates

Segarra
Cloud
Kennedy
Aponte
Andersen

This is an affront to all who have dedicated them selves to Democratic beliefs. As Democrat's we have fought for Civil Rights ,Womens Rights, Gay Rights, Equal Opportunity, to name a major few.
For any Democrat to take the Bachman /Perry /Bush Republican endorsement is totally against everything we stand for as Democrats! They are either Democrats or need to leave the party and become Republicans.
And for anyone to compare this to the Working Families endorsement, they are liberal/progressive,looking to help the 'Working families across Connecticut.' They stand with us more than against us!

September 23, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Anonymous peter brush said...

This is an affront to all who have dedicated them selves to Democratic beliefs. As Democrat's we have fought for Civil Rights ,Womens Rights, Gay Rights, Equal Opportunity, to name a major few.
---------------------------------
Isn't this Arena the guy who dedicated himself to equal opportunity by registering his German auto in more or less Republican New Canaan where tax/auto insurance rates are low? How liberal and progressive. With real members like him (i.e., blood-sucking hacks) I'd say it would make more sense to disband the Dem Party.

September 23, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Anonymous FDR said...

Sean...whether those losers go ahead with the endorsement or reject it...it is now all over the City and those guys will never get the support of liberals,minorities or the LBGT folks because Pedro and his cronies bought into doing away with the civil rights ordinances and reducing union power if they come into power. We can safely say that the republican endorsed folks will be chum in the water no matter what they do from here on in.

September 23, 2011 at 11:14 PM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot