“A day after arguing over who had more experience changing bedpans,” Ex-Amb. to Ireland Tom Foley (R) and ‘06 candidate/ex-Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy (D) “found the perfect venue for their bickering gubernatorial campaign” in a 10/7 radio appearance on WPLR. Both “touched briefly on the state budget crisis, but spent more time on who’s the bigger liar.”
Want More On This Race? Check out the Hotline Dashboard for a comprehensive rundown of this race, including stories, polls, ads, FEC numbers, and more!
Malloy: “(Foley) has a track record of putting people out of jobs. Tom doesn’t understand everyday people.”
Foley: “He’ll raise your taxes. I won’t” (Dixon, Connecticut Post, 10/7).
Malloy: “When you went away to make a lot of money, I went to New York to be a prosecutor.”
Foley: “We ought to retire him. Maybe he could go back to being a prosecutor” (Phaneuf, Connecticut Mirror, 10/7).
Tom And Dan The Builders
“Key differences” between Foley and Malloy “were on display” at a “forum hosted by building contractors and developers.” Both “agreed the state needs to be more business friendly,” and “also agreed the state” has to “do more to attract and retain businesses.” But “in their answers to questions about unions, transportation projects and how to operate” a state airport, “they differed.”
Malloy, on public vs. private sector unions: “Does anyone here want your fire department, or police department or your teachers to go on strike? Because what we have, we have unions, but we also have an arbitration system designed to make sure that doesn’t happen.”
Foley: “(I don’t think) state government has any role in telling cities and towns what sort of working relationship they ought to have with their employees or who they purchase services from. … (I favor) reviewing all these mandates on cities and towns and helping them figure out how to lower their costs” (Krechevsky, Waterbury Republican-American, 10/8).
Born To Run And Then Subsequently Help Elect Nearby GOP Governors
NJ Gov. Chris Christie (R) will be in CT later this month to stop for Foley. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) will also make appearance in Oct. “A schedule for the campaign stops was not release” but the Foley camp “said all three officials agreed to come to” CT “within the next” 2 weeks (Phaneuf, Connecticut Mirror, 10/7).
A Real Chattering Class Act
Hartford Courant’s Green writes “I have a Dan Malloy problem. No, it’s not some tortured, elitist argument I’m in with myself about how I see the Democratic gubernatorial candidate and his views. Aside from his cozy relationship with state employee unions, I like what Malloy stands for. It’s a more visceral response after watching him over the last six months.”
“As I watched Malloy and Foley call each other liar for 60 minutes the other night, my problem came into focus. Malloy’s strident streak — which borders on the nasty — was on statewide display. … Here’s a lesson for Malloy: Voters don’t like annoying candidates” (10/8).
Manchester Journal Inquirer’s Powell reacts to a 10/7 debate, writing “Strip away the demagoguery and pettiness that drenched the first televised debate of the major-party candidates for governor Tuesday night. Strip away Democrat Dan Malloy’s attacking Republican Tom Foley for failing to save a Georgia textile mill, for being rich, and for being a businessman, a member of a class of people that includes a lot of crooks — like the class of which Malloy himself was a member until recently, Connecticut mayors. And strip away Foley’s attacking Malloy for having been mayor of Stamford during a horrible recession when jobs were lost and for having had to cope with a school system with a lot of poor kids. What was left?”
“Malloy was articulate, focused, cunning, and indignant. Foley, the supposedly ruthless business executive, was diffident, imprecise, unpracticed, and understated. On presentation alone Malloy stole the show. As for the candidates’ answers, the event was less decisive” (10/7).
President Obama’s embrace of same-sex marriage last week underscored an imbalance in American politics so profound and enduring that it has almost disappeared from view, like scenery too familiar to notice. Yet that imbalance explains why legalization of gay marriage, although still fiercely contested, seems inevitable, while pillars of Obama’s economic agenda such as health care reform face a much more uncertain future.
Throughout the nation’s history, as historian Michael Kazin of Georgetown University argued in his perceptive 2011 book, American Dreamers, the Left in American politics (whatever its name at the time) has pursued two broad goals, one social and one economic. Liberals would define their twin priorities as expanding individual rights to an ever-broadening circle of Americans and promoting greater economic opportunity and equality. Conservatives would describe the Left’s goals as unraveling traditional morality and redistributing income.
But whether the agenda is celebrated or damned, the same long-term verdict applies: The Left has succeeded far more at reshaping the culture than remaking the structure of the economy. Generation after generation, reformers have secured greater legal rights and social acceptance for previously marginalized groups — a process that seems irrevocably under way for gays and lesbians. But the Left has succeeded only intermittently and provisionally at using government to challenge the free market’s excesses, as the continued public skepticism about health care reform and other Obama priorities demonstrates. “In a political culture which valued liberty above all,” as Kazin wrote, “the Left [has] had more difficulty arguing for the collective good than for an expansion of individual rights.”
The growth of both personal liberty and the circle of tolerance is a steady, if meandering, current in American history. The extension of rights to new groups invariably has been resisted, delayed, and won only after extended — sometimes bloody — struggle. But almost all the walls of resistance eventually have fallen. From the abolition of slavery to women’s right to vote, from the civil-rights laws of the 1960s to the legal and social changes that provided heterosexual couples unprecedented sexual freedom (on issues ranging from access to contraception to abortion) on to expanded workplace opportunities for women and minorities, the trajectory of American life has moved irreversibly toward providing more people greater autonomy to pursue happiness as they see fit.
Equality for gays and lesbians seems destined to join this roster. In Gallup surveys even in the late 1990s, a plurality of Americans said that gay relationships should be illegal. Now, most national polls show that slightly more Americans support than oppose same-sex marriage. The success of so many state-ballot measures nonetheless banning it hints that those numbers may somewhat overstate current attitudes, and Obama’s advocacy may cost him as many votes as it wins him this year. But young people now support recognition for same-sex marriages so overwhelmingly that it seems more a question of when, than whether, this barrier falls.
This unstinting process of personal liberation has produced not only benefits but costs (such as more single-parent families). But while the direction of change sometimes has stalled, it has never fully reversed; over time, the arrow has always moved toward greater equality for more people. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., the arc of American attitudes toward personal liberty may be long, but it always bends toward inclusion.
The story diverges on the Left’s other great priority: using government to soften the free market’s rough edges. On that front, the debate has ebbed and flowed in distinct cycles. Only in brief windows have liberals succeeded in expanding government’s influence over the market, whether to police corporate behavior or to try to expand security and opportunity: the Civil War years, the Progressive era, the New Deal, and the Great Society (which spilled into Richard Nixon’s regulatory advances). President Obama’s first two years, capped by health care reform’s passage, produced the broadest expansion of government’s authority in more than three decades. For the long stretches in between, the Left has struggled to defend its breakthroughs.
In 2012, Democrats seem clearly on the defensive again. In contrast to the steady warming toward gay marriage, Obama faces wintry skepticism about his health care law specifically and federal activism broadly — even amid hard times that have shattered faith in the private sector. “The Republicans are running more on repealing Obama’s agenda than Obama is running on the defense of [it],” notes Pete Wehner, a senior fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center.
On both cultural and economic issues, the nation remains closely divided and dubious of extremes. In their ardor to reverse Obama’s advances, Republicans from Mitt Romney on down risk overreaching: Polls also show most Americans willing to raise taxes on the rich and reluctant to retrench government programs such as Medicare as much as conservatives prefer. But the same inclination toward personal liberty that narrowly tilts most social debates like gay marriage to the left also usually tilts arguments about government’s economic role slightly to the right. That’s one of many reasons why neither party is likely to win a decisive advantage this November — or anytime soon after.
What We're Following See More »
"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."
Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."