Reps. Murphy and Courtney Vote AGAINST the Fairness Doctrine

I've not seen any reporting in Connecticut on this yet, but yesterday the U.S. House passed an amendment 309-115 basically preventing reimposition of the ill-fated Fairness Doctrine. Most interestingly, although liberal Congressmen Rosa DeLauro and John Larson voted against the amendment, freshmen Congressmen Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy voted for free speech and the marketplace. You can access the full vote here.

State Dems: Tough on Lawful Gun Owners, Easy on 16 and 17 Year Old Criminals

You have to read this stuff to believe it.

The Courant has coverage here of the bill concerning making criminals out of lawful gun owners who are the VICTIMS of theft. The bill passed the Senate 24-11 and now heads to the House.

Click here for coverage of the juvenille bill.

CT Dem Delegation: "No" on Funding the Troops

We at ConnCon like to remind our readers that elections have consequences. Today's latest lesson of that can be found in a "breaking" story posted at 2:00 today on the Hartford Courant's website. (The Courant demonstrates its bias by titling the story "Democratic Congressmen Band Together on Iraq"; only because it is Dems does the Courant not point out WHAT they are banding together on.) The Courant is reporting:

The four Democratic members of the Connecticut House delegation banded together and said in a joint statement today they will oppose the Iraq spending plan, a plan with no timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops, and instead "demand legislation that includes consequences" for the Iraqis and "a plan to redeploy and then bring our troops home." In an unusual development, the members issued a four-paragraph statement, saying, "We will vote the will of our constituents in Connecticut and the American people -- voting against a measure that does not hold this administration accountable for its failed policy in Iraq or set a new direction. "We cannot in good conscience support a bill that keeps our troops in the middle of a bloody and chaotic civil war with no exit strategy and no timeline for redeploying our troops," they said. Making up their minds today were Reps. Joseph Courtney, D-2nd District, Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, and Chris Murphy, D-5th District. Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, announced his opposition Wednesday.

Amazingly, the Courant goes on to mention the motivation, perhaps to provide cover, as follows:
They were all under intense pressure from Connecticut anti-war activists who have been flooding their offices with e-mails and phone calls. A Connecticut Opposes the War newsletter issued today via e-mail, for instance, listed each member's phone number and reminded readers: "Democrats need to hold firm now in order to keep the pressure on Bush and Republican legislators."

Perhaps most interestingly, Rep. Murphy claimed he was compelled to vote against the spending bill because, according to the Courant, he "had been sent to Washington with a mandate to end the war." Voters in his district would be right to be confused about this point because last fall -- while running against Nancy Johnson -- Murphy notoriously danced around foreign policy issues.

In any event, it's illustrative that our Democrats have -- unlike the leadership of their party -- come out against the funding bill. Again, the 2006 election brought a lot of so-called "moderate" Democrats to Washington. That was not the case in Connecticut.

Governor Proposes Cap on Property Taxes, Dems Revolt

The Hartford Courant reports:

Hoping to stem rising local taxes on homes and cars, the Republican governor said she is taking the unprecedented step to limit how much cities and towns can raise them. Under her plan, local property tax increases would be capped at 3 percent per year, with some exceptions.

We at ConnCon absolutely love the idea of capping property taxes so that they cannot double for 33 years! Property taxes are WAY too high and this is a very bold proposal, indeed. The Governor rightfully stated "There will be, I believe, a property tax revolt unless we get real relief. And we need to have that now."

Of course, no discussion of property tax relief would be complete without pointing out that the state Democrats have already come out against the proposal. Under the Governor's plan a town could "exceed the 3 percent cap with a two-thirds vote of the local governing body and a majority vote of the residents. There would also be exceptions for emergencies, such as a natural disaster." House Speaker, D-Milford, reacted harshly stating "This plan ... would create chaos, more bureaucracy, threaten basic services in every town. Can you imagine 169 towns holding referendums on taxes?"

The Speaker's "concerns" expose the fact that he doesn't think taxpayers ought to have a say in how much they are taxed! Imagine, voters actually deciding how much the government needs! What a concept!

We at ConnCon will keep a close eye on this one....

Support the Troops?

Thanks to a long-time ConnCon reader for pointing out this story from Saturday's Hartford Courant. The article notes that the West Hartford Board of Education, by a 4-3 vote, voted in favor of HOLDING classes next Veteran's Day.

The message sent by the vote was not lost on dissenting board member Tom Fiorentino, who, according to the Courant "explained that the decision was ill-timed and 'unwise,' given the country's ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan." Proponents of the decision claimed it "would give the town's veterans and military staff an opportunity to participate in recognition ceremonies." By that logic, why not hold classes on other holidays? Would not holding classes on Martin Luther King Day allow for recognition of Dr. King's efforts?

We at ConnCon think the vote -- coupled with a recent anti-war "forum" held in the town where Rep. Larson was told to impeach the President -- is a sad commentary on the Town of West Hartford.

Rep. Murphy Unmasked, Dissed on Rush Limbaugh Program

Thanks to a reader for pointing out that our freshman from the Fifth District, Rep. Chris Murphy, was the subject of discussion midway through the Rush Limbaugh radio program on Monday.

Rush had the following exchange with "Sean" from Woodbury, CT:

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I wanted to call because I visited my newly elected Democrat Congressman Chris Murphy on Friday in a town hall meeting, and for about the first half hour of the meeting he sat there and berated this country, said it's our fault we have terrorism in the world. We caused it. The president's incompetent. The military can't win. It was all the stuff you talk about all the time. I never, ever imagined that liberals are this bad. I've been a listener for a long time, and I guess until you see it, you just can't believe it -- and one of the things he did mention (I know you've been talking about the cutting off funding) he actually admitted that the Democrats are going to have a vote on cutting off funding. RUSH: Oh, I don't... Well, he may think that. I'll be curious to see if that really, really happens. They'll only do it if they know they're going to lose it. Unless it looks like the surge is working and unless there's real progress, they can't allow that to happen. They cannot permit victory. They own defeat. They must secure defeat! So he could be telling you the truth. But I want to ask you something. I'm really serious about this, Sean -- and don't take it personally. I'm asking this for my own education. How long have you listened to this broadcast? CALLER: I don't remember, but I used to watch you on TV when I was younger. RUSH: All right. CALLER: I'll be 30 this year, and I've been listening and paying attention to you, I would say I listen every day for probably a good five or six years. RUSH: Okay, five or six years. The television show was 1992 to 1996. So you've got a long history with this program, and you admit that throughout this long history, you have heard me eloquently, precisely describe liberals -- and yet that wasn't quite enough to get you to fully accept it, believe it, or understand it. You still had to see it in order to believe it. You had to be exposed to it personally in order to believe it. Why did you doubt me? CALLER: Rush, I didn't doubt you. I think that it's just something so opposite of what my beliefs are that... I don't know. I certainly don't doubt you.

RUSH: Exactly right, and here's the point that I want to make. You, like a lot of people in this audience, I say what I say about liberals, that they own defeat, that they want America to lose. Most Americans do not want to think that there are other Americans who believe and desire such things. So they'll think I might be exaggerating or that I'm wrong, or even if they like me, "Ah, Rush is kind of off, going off his rocker again here today," because they just don't want to believe it. Most Americans don't want believe that there is a political party with a high number of members elected who actually want the worst for their country, and until you see it like you did, you don't believe it, because you don't want to believe it. You think nobody could really dislike their country that much. These people hate George W. Bush; they don't even know him! How do you explain the vitriol, the personal hatred that these people have for Bush -- not just elected Democrats, Hollywood types and so forth -- who have never even met him? There is an explanation for it, but even when you hear 'em say it, it doesn't really register. So I'm glad you got to hear this guy. I'm glad that you had a way to personally validate what you heard on this program, because it underscores the fact of just how pervasively bad and extreme and dangerous that it is when people hear the truth but don't want to accept it because they don't want to believe people like that really exist in the country and have positions of power. Exactly right, right? CALLER: Exactly. I'm still in shock. It's like three or four days later. He opened the microphone, I got up, said a few words, nothing that you'd be overly proud of, and then I just walked out, and I had about ten people -- there were at least 300 people there, and about ten people clapped for me, and everyone else looked like they were ready to lynch me, and it was really -- RUSH: What do you mean I wouldn't be proud? You got up in the lion's den and you took the guy on! You may not think that you said anything as well as you could have said it, but you still got up and said it. That's gold star behavior. CALLER: Well, I did say to him, I said that, "You know, you guys are going to get us killed and we're going to fight this war whether you want to or not. Next time it's going to be on the streets of New York." I really bit my tongue. I really wanted to say some really rude and profane things, but I felt that it was better to take the high road. RUSH: It was probably wise you didn't do that because you wanted to walk out of there with some credibility with what you said, and if you'd have called the guy names or treated him the way he's describing Bush, everybody else, that crowd would have dismissed you. So you did the right thing. Congratulations. (applauding) CALLER: I'm glad I made you proud, Rush. You make me proud every day. RUSH: Thank you, then we're mutually proud and that's progress. I'm glad you called. I appreciate that story.

We've recently posted on Rep. Murphy's amazingly liberal stances -- many of which were masked last fall -- and we add this to the list. It's also worth noting that Rep. Murphy is touting his most recent late night speech on his website. We've watched the speech and were amazed at the manner in which Rep. Murphy chose to defend his vote on the non-binding (!) resolution on the war in Iraq. Perhaps most appalling was Murphy's possibly anti-Israel comment combined with his insult toward Americans and his assertion that American attitude was to blame for the deep-seated hatred our enemies harbor toward us:

We need to come to grips with the fact that we live in a world in which our own supposed allies create societies that foster extremism and violence amongst their most marginalized members. And at the same time our nation often strangely views cultural and detachment as a virtue rather than a weakness. This combination CAUSES those that speak different politicaltongues and those that worship different Gods to look upon our great nation with undeserved derision. (Emphasis added)

No doubt we are witnessing the beginning of a very long and very liberal career. The best we can do is post these comments in the hopes that the voters of the Fifth District will see Rep. Murphy for who he is: a slick, smooth, blame America first liberal.

ABA Switch: Bryant Now Rated Qualified

The Hartford Courant is reporting that a "substantial minority" of a newly constituted American Bar Association panel has found Superior Court Judge Vanessa Bryant "qualified" to be a U.S. District Court Judge. A "minority of the committee" believes Judge Bryant is "not qualified."

On May 5, 2006, we reported:

"A majority of the committee is of the opinion that Vanessa L. Bryant is not qualified for appointment as judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut," Stephen L. Tober, chairman of the ABA Committee on the Federal Judiciary, wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Given the fact that ALL politicians involved in the process (Sens. Dodd and Lieberman, Governor Rell and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal) have continued to press the nomination despite a finding of "unqualified" by both the ABA and the CT Bar Association it's tempting to say that politics is the explanation for the ABA's change of heart. (Despite those evaluations, Judge Bryant was recently confirmed unanimously for a fresh eight year term on the state bench.)

However, the Courant reports:

Roberta D. Liebenberg, the committee chairwoman, said the panel regularly conducts a supplemental evaluation for nominees whose names were withdrawn from consideration. President Bush renominated Bryant in January."This is not something that is out of the ordinary. This is something that is consistent with our standardized procedures," she said. About half of the committee members who reconsidered Bryant's nomination are new to the panel, Liebenberg said.

Whatever the reason for the change, it's pretty clear that Judge Bryant will soon be ascending to the federal bench in Hartford.

"No" Vote

On February 20, Governor Rell nominated Appellate Court Judge Chase T. Rogers to be Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. (We first reported that Judge Rogers was under consideration here.) Governor Rell's Press Release notes that Judge Rogers "was confirmed March 15[, 2006 to the Appellate Court] on votes of 139-1 in the House of Representatives and 34-1 in the Senate." Because judicial confirmation votes are notoriously (i.e. negligently) unanimous -- even in the case of Judge Vanessa Bryant who has been rated as unqualified to be a federal judge by both the state and federal bar associations -- the two "no" votes piqued our curiosity. Who voted no, and why? Further investigation has yielded few details.

For starters, it appears that the Governor is incorrect as to the tally in the House of Representatives. According to the roll call here, (click on "House Roll Call Vote 6") the vote was unanimous, 141-0, in favor of the nomination. In the Senate, the vote was somewhat different than reported by the Governor, too. It was 35-1 in favor of the nomination. (See here, click on "Senate Roll Call Vote 11 ADOPT.) The lone "no" vote was cast by Senator Gary D. LeBeau, of East Hartford, pictured above.

We at ConnCon cannot find any press release explaining Senator LeBeau's no vote, but will endeavor to do so. Additionally, it will be interesting to see if Senator LeBeau repeats his no vote on the nomination this time.

CORRECTION: Representative Mike Lawlor has informed us that we at ConnCon have misread the vote tally and that (now retired) Sen. Gunther and NOT Senator LeBeau voted "no" on the nomination. Thanks to Rep. Lawlor for pointing out our mistake.

A Vote and a Lesson

Yesterday, by a vote of 246-192 the United States House of Representatives -- led by the Democrats -- passed the resolution to the right. (Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.)

Our own congressional delegation voted 4-1 in favor of the resolution. No doubt this is the latest demonstration of the far-lefts' "support the troops but not the mission" mantra, a concept we at ConnCon take issue with but will leave for later discussion. But, it's also a lesson in how elections have consequences. Had this resolution been proposed in, say October 2006, our state delegation would have opposed it 3-2, with Reps. Johnson, Simmons, and Shays voting against. But, the liberal winds blew pervasively through Connecticut last November and, unlike much of the rest of the country, our moderate Republicans were replaced (with the exception of Shays) by tow-the-line liberals.


It's said that a picture says a thousand words. If so, have a look at the photos above, taken just after the vote. The first is of freshman congressman Christopher Murhpy from our Fifth District, who positioned himself prominently behind the group of young Democrats speaking in favor of the resolution. The other is of our new speaker, Nancy Pelosi, smiling just after the resolution, reminiscent of President Clinton smiling in the Rose Garden after the ill-fated Oslo Agreement.

Elections have consequences, and this one is severe.