Mereja

Author: Daniela Altimari

  • Bernier slams Murphy on health care vote

    Justin Bernier, a Republican trying to unseat U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, D-5th District, said Murphy ought to be “ashamed” of himself for supporting the health care bill.

    “Chris Murphy and his colleagues should be ashamed of themselves for ramming through the health care bill against the will of the American people,” Bernier said in a statement.  “Connecticut voters say they want real health care reforms to reduce costs and expand access to care.  This bill fails on both counts; it represents a government takeover that will explode the budget deficit and lead to higher prices.

     

    “Voters tell me they are upset with their representatives in Congress because they are not representing the will of the people.  Chris Murphy’s vote of ‘Yes’ for this health care takeover is more proof that he has turned a deaf ear to the people of Connecticut.  We must – and will – clean house in November.”

     

    However last week’s Q poll found that the views of state residents on the health care plan are a bit more nuanced.

    While 48 percent of the voters said they “mostly disapprove” of the health care overhaul (compared with 40 percent who “mostly approve”), 51 percent said President Obama has done a better job handling the matter than the Republicans in Congress have. (Only 31 percent give the GOP a better grade.)

  • Joe Courtney: Health care bill closes the gap between “haves and have-nots”

    In Courtney’s words, the bill will end the practice of “tax-paying Americans who don’t have health insurance underwritting the health benefits of members of Congress.”
    UPDATE: After the vote Courtney released a statement on the bill. “Passing this bill is an act of real progress toward helping families, individuals, and small businesses get access to affordable health insurance. This legislation is a major step in fixing our broken health care system and will begin to do so immediately.”


    Watch his comments on the floor of the House here:

  • Jim Himes highlights fallen friend on the floor of the House

    In making his case for the health care bill, Himes invoked his friend, Greenwich Democratic Town Committee Chairman Dave Roberson, who died in a car accident earlier this month.
     

    Roberson had no health insurance and did not receive regular medical care, according to Himes.  He lost control of his car after a meeting; an underlying heart condition may have contributed to the accident.

  • Chris Dodd: Democrats “mismanaged” the marketing of the health care bill last year

    Dodd, a Democrat, made the observation at the end of a press conference outside his Hartford office this afternoon.

    The main topic was Dodd’s bill to overhaul the financial regulatory system, but with a major vote looming in the House, the conversation naturally gravitated toward health care.

    Dodd said Democrats “really left the door open for people to speculate what was in it – or what could be in it and that ended up having a huge impact.”

    But he also predicted that once the bill passes, it could boost the fortunes of Democrats running for re-election (a category that does not, of course, Dodd, who announced earlier this year that his 30-year career in the U.S. Senate will come to an end when his current term expires.)

    “There’ll be a lot to talk about in terms of positive achievements in this bill,” Dodd said, citing the closing of the so-called “doughnut hole” for Medicare recipients. “The death panels are not here…the cutting of any guaranteed benefits under Medicare [have] never been here at all in this bill…there’s been a lot of misinformation.”

     

     

     

     

    Dodd said he doesn’t buy the conventional wisdom that Obama’s entire presidency is wrapped up in the success or failure of the helth care bill. He noted that no one issue can dominate today’s 24-hour news cycle forever. 

    “If the Obama crowd thinks if they just win this, they’re home free, they’re making a mistake,” Dodd said. “Those who think if they lose this they’re done forever, they’re making a mistake too.”

    Prompted by a questoin from the AP’s Susan Haigh, Dodd also addressed a $100 million allocation in the bill that Gov. M. Jodi Rell hopes to use to help fund a new UConn hospital. The money isn’t guaranteed to come to Connecticut: At least 14 other states could apply for the grant, Dodd said.

    But he also said he is confident the money will remain in the health care bill, even if though its not a sure thing that it will wind up at UConn.

    “I understand people have concerns about some carve out for some individual state,” he said. “This is is not at all.”

    Oh, and financial reform? Dodd said the mark-up on the bill starts Monday, adding “I’m determined to try and get it done before this Congress concludes its business,” he said.

  • Wait — Chris Dodd’s not running?

    In his blog today, Hearst Newspapers’ Brian Lockhart has a telling slice-of-life exchange between two Stanford Stamford locals discussing the U.S. Senate race.

    The take-away? Maybe everyday folks aren’t all that focused on politics after all…  

  • Another day, another award for Chris Dodd

    As the clock runs down on the long career of the state’s senior senator, kudos are coming in from various groups.

    This time, it’s the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, which is honoring Dodd with its Roger Sherman Public Service Award,

    The award lauds Dodd for his three decades of “dedication and service to Connecticut towns and cities during his distinguished career as congressman and senator.” In particular, it cites Dodd’s “compassion and tenacity in the cause of those members of our society most in need.”

     

  • Simulated rape as entertainment? “Unconscionable” says woman who works with convicted sex offenders

    There’s a widening gender gap among Republican U.S. Senate candidates Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons but don’t count Eileen Redden among the former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO’s female fans.

    Redden, who has worked with convicted sex offenders for two decades, is deeply troubled by the violent and sexually explicit content once promoted by WWE. And she believes McMahon the candidate ought to answer for the excesses overseen by McMahon the CEO.

    “Linda McMahon promotes violence against women and sexual abuse – as reflected in her [WWE] sextertainment,” Redden said. “She is a dangerous candidate.

     

    Redden has studied the link between viewing sexually exploitative material and sexual aggression; she said she finds it deeply troubling that 13-year-old boys are being exposed to such programming.

    “It’s not entertainment,” Redden said in a phone interview. “It’s highly dangerous to an impressionable adolescent male brain.”

    She said she finds WWE’s simulated rape scenes “unconscionable.”

    That view, incidentally, was shared by participants in a focus group convened by the Simmons campaign. Voters were shown WWE video and asked to comment. They used words such as “sick,” “perverted,” “terrible” and “disgusting,” according to a summary of the focus group findings provided by the Simmons camp. (By the way, Redden did not participate in these focus groups. She has no affiliation with the Simmon campaign and said she decided to conact me only after reading the article about McMahon’s popularity with women.) 

    WWE says criticism of its content is misplaced: while raunch and violence may have dominated in the 1990s, the new WWE produces PG-rated entertainment suitable for the whole family. (The change appears to have been driven less by a concern over the impact of its shows on young minds and more by the demands of advertisers.)

    McMahon herself addressed the issue in an early campaign video. WWE content used to be rated TV-14 (“parents caution stronly urged); now its TV-PG (“parental guidance suggested.”)

      “It’s fun, it has something for everyone within the show,” McMahon said. “It’s energetic, it’s entertaining, it’s music, it’s pyro, it’s pomp and circumstance. It’s what keeps people interested in the product.”

     

    Redden said she can think of plenty of other forms of “entertainment.”

    “If she wanted to entertain children, she could have built baseball parks,” she said.

     

  • And speaking of Bysiewicz…

    The Q poll frontrunner said she’s had a chance to examine the legal implications of joining a lawsuit by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

    “I have reviewed Attorney General Coakley’s lawsuit and determined that indeed I would support bringing a similar action in Connecticut when I become attorney general because I do think it’s important that same-sex couples have the same rights under federal law,” Bysiewicz said in a phone message to me yesterday.

    “It’s simply a matter of enforcing Connecticut law,” she added. “I would look forward to bringing a similar action.”

    Bysiewicz’ statement comes in response to a campaign by a Massachusetts activist named Paul Sousa. He is pressing each of the men and women running for AG in Connecticut to join Coakley’s cause to overturn the DOMA, which prevents legally married same-sex couples from Connecticut from receiving any rights and responsibilities given to married couples under federal law.

    Thus far, the other Democrats in the race — Cam Staples and George Jepsen — have also expressed support. Two Republicans who have launched exploratory committees — Andrew Roraback and John Pavia — believe Connecticut should not join Coakley’s suit; Republican Martha Dean did not offer an opinion when asked about the matter last week.

     

     

  • Linda McMahon moves to the top of the GOP field

    Former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon, who has spent millions on TV and radio ads and glossy mailers, now leads the GOP field in the U.S. Senate race, a new Quinnipiac University poll found.

    But that won’t help her in the general election: McMahon trails Democratic frontrunner Richard Blumenthal by more than 30 percentage points, according to the poll that was released this morning.
    McMahon’s surge among Republicans — she leads former Congressman Rob Simmons by 10 points — is attributable to one factor, Q poll Director Doug Schwartz said in a press release accompanying the poll results.
    “Money. She’s the only Senate candidate on TV right now,” Schwartz said. “She quickly has become as well-known and well-liked among Republicans as the former frontrunner for the Republican nomination….Simmons.”

    McMahon is largely self-funding her campaign. She has said she will spend up to $50 million of the vast fortune she and her husband Vince McMahon earned through their wrestling empire.

    And that, said the Simmons campaign, is the reason for her surging poll numbers. “It should be no surprise to anyone that after six months and millions and millions of dollars in uncontested spending, including on misleading negative attack mail against Rob Simmons that Factcheck.org deemed riddled with falsehoods, that Linda McMahon would be able to buy an improvement in her polling,” Simmons campaign manager Jim Barnett said in a statement. 

    Despite McMahon’s strong showing in the current poll, the majority of Connecticut voters 
    prefer candidates who  fuel their campaigns with donations, not their own personal wealth, the poll found.

    McMahon’s experience running WWE, a central point in her campaign and a key source of criticism from the Simmons camp, is a factor. Fully one-third of voters said it would make them “less likely” to vote for her. 
    “[W]e learn each day how McMahon’s candidacy is fatally flawed – whether it is marketing steroid-fueled violence and degradation against women, minorities and the mentally handicapped to young children, or being investigated by Congress – it is clear that once McMahon’s troubling record is thoroughly aired, voters will find it disqualifying,” Barnett said.

    But among Republicans it’s less of an issue: 23 percent said it would make them “less likely” to support her, while 26 percent said it would make them “more likely” to back her.
     
    The new poll marks a sharp reversal of fortune for Simmons. He was the first GOP candidate to enter the race and has been the frontrunner since last year. He even led incumbent Chris Dodd, before Dodd announced in January that he is not seeking reelection. 

    The new poll shows a gender gap among GOP voters: Simmons would win 38 percent of the men’s vote, but only 28 percent of the women’s. Fifty percent of Republican women back McMahon, who would be the first woman senator in the state’s history.

    Weston broker and author Peter Schiff also picked up some support: He now has 12 percent of the GOP vote, compared with 4 percent in January. 

    On the Democratic side, Blumenthal continues to show enormous popularity. He gets 79 percent approval rating, according to the latest poll and tops Mystic businessman Merrick Alpert, 81 percent to 6 percent among Democrats.  

    The poll of 1,451 Connecticut registered voters was conducted from March 9-15, after the Senate candidates had held their first debates. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.


     

  • Should he stay or should he go?

    In some quarters of the Democratic party, a debate is raging over Merrick Alpert. The wealthy businessman, one-time lawyer, military man and father of three is seeking the party’s nomination for U.S. Senate. 

    Some Democratic officials fear Alpert could play the role of spoiler and hurt presumptive Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal. According to a report on WFSB Channel 3’s website, the Democratic chairman in Manchester wrote Alpert an email suggesting that he drop his bid.

    A similar debate is raging on My Left Nutmeg. Some members of the party’s liberal wing still haven’t forgiven Alpert for trash-talking Chris Dodd on Fox New last year.

    Is Alpert a principled, anti-war progressive bent on challenging the status quo, just as Ned Lamont did in 2006? Or is he a self-promoter willing to do and saying anything to make his name, even if it ultimately hurts the party’s chances of winning the seat?  

  • Tables, Ladders and Chairs–UPDATED

    The Simmons campaign issued a lengthy press release in response to an earlier post about whether Linda McMahon would testify at tomorrow’s education committee hearing on a bill aimed at preventing and treating concussions among student athletes.

    McMahon used to run a company that had some experience dealing with the issue of head injuries and athletes performers. In fact, World Wrestling Entertainment has a detailed policy on the subject posted on its corporate website. That policy dates back to 2008 and stipulates, among other things, that “the intentional use of a folding metal chair to ‘strike’ an opponent in the head” could result in a fine and/or suspension.

    So how do you explain this match, dubbed which took place in December, 2009, well after the wellness policy took effect? (“TLC,” by the way, stands for Tables, Ladders and Chairs)

     

    WWE Spokesman Robert Zimmerman said the policy is an evolving document that is constantly being worked on.

    “In January 2010, WWE amended its Talent Wellness Program, specifically regarding the ImPACT™ Concussion Management Program originally instituted in 2008, eliminating the use of folding chairs or props to “strike” an opponent in the head,” Zimmerman said in an email. 

    “Prior to this policy change, The Tables, Ladders and Chairs event in question took place on December 13, 2009,” Zimmerman said. “Incidentally, no performer suffered a concussion during the TLC event.”

    UPDATE: Since this post went up, I received an email from James Caldwell, assistant editor of PWTorch.com.

    “After January, WWE presented an equally-dangerous PPV [pay-per-view] compared to TLC – Elimination Chamber in February – where, ironically, a wrestler named Sheamus suffered a concussion during a PPV match,” Caldwell wrote.

    “Also, The Undertaker [a WWE star performer] was nearly caught on fire during his ring entrance via a ‘pyrotechnic miscommunication.’ Now, WWE did keep Sheamus out of the ring the following week, but the fact remains WWE continues to produce equally-dangerous PPVs compare to the TLC PPV…just one month after their ‘revision’ to the concussion testing that Mr. Zimmerman referred to.

    “Instead of wrestlers hitting each other with chairs, wrestlers’s heads were bouncing off chain wiring and ‘bullet proof’ glass-paneled pods. Same effect? I believe so.”

     

  • Q poll results out tomorrow!

    Quinnipiac University will release the results of its poll on the U.S. Senate race tomorrow morning. The poll also asked voters about President Obama and “whether or not [they] trust the government.”

     

  • Student athletes, head injuries and the WWE

    On Wednesday afternoon, the legislature’s Education Committee will hold a public hearing on an important bill that aims to address the problem of head injuries in scholastic sports. 

    Essentially, the bill that would require coaches to complete an annual training course on recognizing concussions. It would also require any student who suffers a concussion to get cleared by a doctor before resuming athletic activity.

    Call it the state’s own wellness program. 
    You might think the woman whose company created what her spokesman calls “a very thorough wellness policy” that includes a detailed protocol for preventing and treating head injuries might have something to add to Wednesday’s discussion — especially since she also serves on the state Board of Education, which will work with the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and the Connecticut Association of Schools to make sure coaches have the training they need to implement the bill’s requirements.
    But Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and current Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, won’t be attending the meeting, said her campaign spokesman Ed Patru.



    State Sen. Tom Gaffey, a Meriden Democrat who co-chairs the committee and is the bill’s leading advocate, said he would welcome McMahon’s input on such an important topic. Perhaps the WWE’s experience in handling head injuries could provide some help to lawmakers as they weigh how to best protect Connecticut’s student athletes.

    “Certainly she’s a member of the state Board of Education and she operate[d] a huge entertainment conglomerate where presumably the participants in that enteratinment venue can suffer serious concussions from time to time,” said Gaffey, who wrestled in high school.
    “I would welcome her opinions…I  would think as a member of the state board of education that she would have an opinion as regards to the protection of student athletes. I would hope she would have opinion.”
     
    Does McMahon support the bill?

    “She cannot say specifically what her position is on this until she first has a chance to look at the bill and preferably read it,” Patru said in an email. “[T]hat said, she supports efforts to keep high school athletes safe.”


  • Five views of Chris Dodd’s financial overhaul bill

    No, they probably haven’t read all 1,336 pages of Dodd’s proposal yet. But several of the folks vying to replace him in the U.S. Senate have weighed in with their opinions.

    On the right, financial pundit, author and Republican candidate Peter Schiff dismissed the sweeping reform bill as indicative “all that’s wrong with Washington” and a weak attempt by the lame-duck Banking Committee chairman to hone his legacy.
    On the left, Democrat Merrick Alpert said the bill is emblematic of the Senate’s “culture of corruption” and shows why publicly financed campaigns are needed. (And Alpert once again relied on his favorite word to criticize his opponent.) 
    On the other hand, Democrat Richard Blumenthal found much to praise in Dodd’s proposal, though Blumenthal says he wishes it included a proposal for an independent consumer financial protection agency. (I am assuming that Blumenthal was speaking as the state’s Attorney General and not as a Senate candidate because his statement on the bill came through the AG’s office and not his campaign staff.)
    And Independent John Mertens said the bill is better than earlier versions, but still doesn’t go far enough. 
    Ed Patru, spokesman for Republican Linda McMahon, did not offer an opinion (despite this.) “Neither of us have read the Dodd legislation yet,” Patru said in an email.
    Republicans Rob Simmons and Vinny Forras did not respond; I will post their his comments as soon as they arrive.
    Meanwhile, here are Schiff, Alpert and Blumenthal’s views:
      

    Schiff (via email)

    “Chris Dodd is searching for a legacy, which in this case is more federal bureaucracy and red tape. The last thing this country needs is to give the Federal Reserve more power.  The Fed has done enough damage with the power it already has.  Putting the Fed in charge of regulating systemic risk is like hiring a fox to guard your hen house.  The Fed was the principal risk creator that lead to the finance crisis in the first place. Chris Dodd helped engineer the bailout of Wall Street, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and then forced taxpayers to pick up the tab for their outlandish bonuses.  This bill represents all that’s wrong with Washington and illustrates how politicians who don’t understand economics, are just making it worse.”

    Alpert (via email)

    “We need real reform to prevent the next financial crisis that is, in fact, already brewing.   Real financial reform means reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act to separate the low-risk commercial banking function, on which consumers and small business depend, from the high-risk investment banking function.  Real financial reform also means breaking up financial institutions ‘too big to fail’, so that the taxpayers do not have to again bail out the financial behemoths when they can no longer meet their obligations.  Real financial reform means establishing a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency to aggressively police the financial services community.


    “As Senator Dodd has learned, none of this will pass in the current U.S. Senate for the simple reason that financial institutions have given millions to Senators in campaign contributions and have spent millions more on lobbying the Senate on a day-by-day basis.  We can end this culture of corruption in Washington by having publicly-financed Federal elections, disclosure of all contacts between financial industry employees and member of Congress and term limits for all members of Congress.

    “Either we are going to be serious about reform or we need to accept that the tired, old incrementalism of career politicians will never produce a different outcome.”

    Blumenthal (via email)

    “The financial reform legislation proposed today is a significant, serious, and long overdue step toward curbing Wall Street excesses that led our economy to the brink of disaster. I will closely examine this complex and comprehensive bill.


    “I am pleased that the proposed bill:

    1. For the first time regulates hidden and opaque derivative markets that led to the failure of insurer AIG and helped cause the financial crisis;
    2. Ends too big-to-fail by giving the FDIC authority to liquidate failing financial firms at industry expense, not taxpayer expense;
    3. Institutes the Volcker Rule prohibiting banks from making risky bets on financial securities for banks’ benefit, endangering themselves, their customers and federal taxpayers who insure deposits;
    4. Provides shareholders with some authority to rein in out-of-control executive compensation;
    5. Takes steps to restore state authority to curb predatory lending and financial practices.

    “My hope is that the legislation will create a consumer financial protection agency with independent authority to write and enforce rules that protect consumers. I continue to believe that the agency should be a standalone entity, but I will study the committee’s proposal.

    “I still hope that this bill may be the basis for a bipartisan consensus to correct fundamental failings in Wall Street practices that pose an ongoing threat to our entire financial system.”


    UPDATE: Here’s John Mertens’ response (via email)


    “It does do some good things, and is an improvement upon the November version (see “Too Big to Fail” on my website: www.Mertens2010.com). However, it does not go nearly far enough. We should reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, to separate most commercial and investment banking activities. And, after causing huge damage to our economy, and requiring huge amounts of taxpayer-funded bailouts, it’s time to break up huge institutions like Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs into, say, five smaller (but still extremely large) institutions. Mr. Dodd says that ‘No legislation will stop the next crisis from coming.’ I do not agree. Stronger action to prevent entities from being ‘Too big to fail’ can do the job. I would vote for Mr. Dodd’s bill, but I would also fight hard for much stronger protections for us, the people.”
     

    Republican Vinny Forras (via email)

    After everything that Chis Dodd has done and been directly involved with,  including receiving insider, VIP loans from Country Wide, I find it inconceivable that this man is still in charge of the Banking Committee. It has been shown that Senator Dodd played a key role, along with his counterpart in Congress, Barney Frank as they FORCED banks to loan money to individuals who, under some sort of “Fairness Doctrine’,  had no business buying homes.
     
    We are guaranteed, life, liberty and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS… But we cannot guarantee that everyone who owns a home can afford the mortgage.   
     
     I feel that Dodd and his relationship with ACORN and other dubious organizations must be taken into account very seriously as we consider any legislation that this man is promoting, particularly after the animals have stampeded and now we are looking to close the barn door?
     
    I am dubious of Dodd’s proposal, which may have good points inside but I am trying to understand what brought him to this “OH MY, OR MY GOD MOMENT”… If he was doing his job properly I believe that the mess we are in may never have happened, or if it did, it would have been of far less magnitude. 
    I believe that our system is still the finest on the face of the earth, but once corrupted by influences such as ACORN or an administration or party that steers us into a socialist model, a bill like this is not worth the paper it is written on.
     
    Those in any industry who do things that are against America and Americans in an illegal or immoral spirit should be punished and barred from such practices going forward. I find it sadly amusing that Mr. Dodd at this point, as I stated before, after perhaps the most terrible collapse in our financial history is offering such a proposal .
     
    Also, for one who has been an insider at the highest levels for decades Dodd’s actions, knowing what he knew and what was happening behind the scenes, is guilty of MALPRACTICE and dereliction of duty to all Americans.  WE THE PEOPLE will be paying the price possibly for generations to come! You want to know one of the reasons that I decided to answer this emergency call for Connecticut first and America always? This was one of the issues that solidified my decision to run…. The career country club politician that Dodd is the poster child of…  And continues to be, in the face of all the injury to our economy that his actions have caused takes my breath away.   This is a parting scam, no doubt his last great drink at the public trough! I suggest that we let him sail off into the sunset and get on with repairing the enormous damage that he and his kind have caused….

      

  • The AG candidates and the DOMA, Part II

    Last week, I wrote about a Boston-based activist’s efforts to get the candidates for attorney general in Connecticut to support a lawsuit by Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley aimed at overturning the Defense of Marriage Act.

    Since then, another one of the Democrats running for the office said he would join Coakley’s legal battle against the federal government. 
    In an email to Paul Sousa, George Jepsen said he has had time to research the matter and would file a friend of the court brief if he is elected AG. 
    “I have had the chance to get up to speed on the Massachusetts DOMA suit, and am fully supportive. As Connecticut’s AG I would be willing to file an amicus brief in support, and would solicit the AGs of other states to do so as well,” Jepsen wrote to Sousa. “Thank you for bringing this to my attention.”

    Sousa’s group, Defend the Law, will now focus its attention solely on Susan Bysiewicz, the only Democratic AG candidate who has not said whether she would join Coakley’s effort, although she expressed support for the state law that permits same-sex couples to marry. The group plans to call and email Bysiewicz to convince her to sign on to the Massachusetts lawsuit.


    “Campaign organizers are optimistic that Bysiewicz will join her fellow Democratic Attorney General candidates in being willing to legally supporting the DOMA lawsuit, if elected Attorney General,” Sousa said in an email.

    A third Democrat running for AG, Rep. Cameron Staples, said he would join the lawsuit against the feds if elected.
     
    But the two of the three Republicans exploring a run for AG are on record as opposing Sousa’s request to sign on to the suit; a third, Martha Dean, did not offer an opinion when asked about the issue last week.

  • Blumenthal and the rating agencies, part II

    Yesterday Republican Peter Schiff said Democratic Richard Blumenthal’s recent lawsuit against Wall Street credit rating agencies was “political grandstanding.”

    Schiff, who takes credit for predicting the financial meltdown, says Blumenthal’s action came too late and asked where was the AG “when such lawsuits might have actually helped avert the crisis?”

    Turns out Blumenthal did file a lawsuit against those very same agencies for allegedly giving corporations better rates than they gave municipalities and states. 

    In 2008.

    “We are holding the credit rating agencies accountable for a secret Wall Street tax on Main Street — millions of dollars illegally exacted from Connecticut taxpayers,” Blumenthal said in a press release announcing the lawsuit. “Connecticut’s cities and school districts have been forced to spend millions of dollars, unconscionably and unnecessarily, on bond insurance premiums and higher interest rates as a result of deceptive and deflated credit ratings. Their debt was rated much lower than corporate debt despite their much lower risk of default and higher credit worthiness.”

    The case is still pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 

     

  • Triple H on his mother-in-law, Linda McMahon

    Triple H (aka Paul Levesque) sat down with WSJ Magazine editor-in-chief Tina Gaudoin. They covered a lot of ground in the 5 minute interview — his money, his family and WWE’s new line of dolls action figures.
    But at about 1 minute, 40 seconds into the interview, the topic turned to Triple H’s mother-in-law, Linda McMahon.
    He says he has kept an arm’s length from her Senate campaign and did not want to attend last week’s debate in Hartford for fear of becoming the focus of media attention.
    “It’s not about me, it’s not about WWE, it’s about…what’s right for the state of Connecticut,” he says.

    And while his wife, Linda McMahon’s daughter Stephanie, recently cut a commercial for her mom’s campaign, Triple H says he steers clear of politics. He has his opinions, but generally keeps them pretty close to the vest: “The surest way to get in a fight with somebody is to start talking politics.”

    [WSJ video]

  • Peter Schiff says Blumenthal “grandstanding” with his lawsuit against rating agencies

    The attorney general has sued Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s. alleging that they misled investors.

    “It’s too late,” Schiff said in a statement circulated by his campaign. “Why did Blumenthal wait until now to file this lawsuit? Because he’s running for the U.S. Senate and sees an opportunity for headlines. This political grandstanding is everything that’s wrong with politicians. If he really wanted to help the Connecticut taxpayers, he would have sued these ratings companies years ago and had the foresight to prevent the housing collapse.”

    Schiff points out that he was calling out the credit rating agencies way back in 2006. In a speech he gave that year to the Western Regional Mortgage Bankers Convention, Schiff warned that ratings agencies “were assigning investment grade ratings to securities [that] would become worthless.”

    “Where was Blumenthal back then when such lawsuits might have actually helped avert the crisis?” Schiff’s campaign asked. “Just like all the other career politicians, either Blumenthal did not want to disrupt the housing gravy train that temporarily enriched Wall Street and Main Street, or he did not know enough about economics or finance to understand the problem.”

     

     

  • The Lives of Others

    Everyone’s talking about Hearst Connecticut’s upcoming peek into the living rooms and tax returns of the men and women seeking elective office in the state.

    The newspaper chain submitted a list of 16 questions — ranging from what kind of watch do you wear to what schools do your children attend to what restaurants do you most frequently patronize — to those running for governor and U.S. Senate.

    Several candidates — notably mega-millionaire Linda McMahon and Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont — opted not to participate. “Linda submitted a very thorough and detailed personal financial disclosure form,” her spokesman, Ed Patru said, Such forms are required of all candidates running for U.S. Senate.

    UPDATE: Lamont’s campaign manager, Joe Abbey, said the campaign also chose not to participate in the exercise. “The biggest thing we want to focus on is Ned’s plan to get jobs back in Connecticut and get Connecticut back on track,” he said.

    Gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley answered some of Hearst’s questions. “Tom answered the ones he thought were appropriate,” spokesman Adam Schmidt said.

    Peter Schiff and Richard Blumenthal, both Fairfield County millionaires, played along. Photos of Blumenthal in the elegant living room of his Greenwich home are already up on the newspaper chain’s websites; Schiff is scheduled to have his picture taken in his Weston home this afternoon, his spokeswoman Jen Millikin said.

    Republican Rob Simmons, who — according to his personal financial disclosure form — is a New London County millionaire, also participated. “We were fully transparent,” campaign manager Jim Barnett said. “We provided all answers to all questions to best of our knowledge.”

     

     

     

     

     

    Critics say the piece carries the whiff of a political agenda. Does knowing where the Simmons family vacations or how many rooms the McMahon mansion has tell voters anything about their stance on the health care overhaul or U.S. policy in Afghanistan? The questions are intrusive and contribute to an overall blurring of the line between what’s public and what ought to remain private, they say. They appeal to voter’s petty resentments and voyeuristic tendancies but don’t shed any light on the great public policy issues of our time. Moreover, none of the questions ask how much of a candidate’s wealth was inherited and whether they receive a government-funded pension or other perk.  

    But we live in an age when a candidate for U.S. Senate can make the fact he drives a pick-up truck a campaign issue. Money does matter and knowing what they drive and where they live does tell us something about the folks seeking elective office.

    Love it or loathe it, I think Lockhart is right: Everyone will read it. I have to admit I am a teeny bit jealous of the buzz the piece is generating.

    I wrote a story last month about the rise of millionaire pols and, despite the presence of a few spicy details (Linda McMahon has more than $1 million in a checking account? Dan Malloy thinks rich folks run for office because they’re bored with the polo ponies?) the piece was a fairly conventional old-style piece of journalism. Kudos to Hearst for pushing the boundaries.

  • The AG candidates and the DOMA

    Where do the men and women running — or exploring a run — for state Attorney General stand on the federal Defense of Marriage Act?

    A Boston-based activist wants to know. Paul Sousa, a student at Boston College Law School, first launched his campaign last summer. At that time, his goal was to urge AG Richard Blumenthal to join a lawsuit filed by his counterpart in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley. 
    Coakley’s complaint challenges the constitutionality of the DOMA. It contends the law, signed by President Clinton, deprives legally married same-sex couples from Massachusetts of their rights under federal law and interferes with the authority of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to regulate marriage. Opponents say it is an attempt to use the courts to force same sex marriage into states where it is not recognized.
    But since Sousa’s campaign began, Blumenthal announced he’s leaving the AG’s office to run for U.S. Senate. (As for Coakley, well, that’s another story…)
    So Sousa is asking activists to contact the candidates to press them to support Coakley’s strategy and sign onto the lawsuit. 
    I asked them all the same question this afternoon. Here’s what they said:
     

    Susan Bysiewicz, Democrat

    “As attorney general, I would uphold the marriage laws of our state, which allow a man and a woman to marry, two women to marry and two men to marry. I have not seen the lawsuit the attorney general of Massachusetts has brought. I would like to look at that closely before I make a decision on this issue. I do not know what particular principles she is relying on.” 

    Martha Dean, Republican

    Did not provide an answer at this time. She said she will be available for questions on this and other topics when she formally announces her candidacy at a March 16 press conference.

    George Jepsen, Democrat

    Said he is consulting with attorneys to get a legal breakdown of Coakley’s case. But, he added, “I am very sympathetic to the cause” and noted his long public support for same-sex marriage.

    John Pavia, Republican exploratory candidate

    Does not support joining the lawsuit. “This is an issue for the legislature to decide on a state-by-state basis. We have more important things to be focused on like getting people back to work, creating jobs and lowering taxes. If it were up to me, we would have nothing to do with that case.”

    Andrew Roraback, Republican exploratory candidate

    “As far as the citizens of Connecticut go, it’s settled law. I support the law of Connecticut and  it would not be a priority of mine to influence the laws of other states. I don’t think that’s the role of the Connecticut attorney general. The role of the Connecticut attorney general is to uphold Connecticut law and protect Connecticut citizens.”

    Cam Staples, Democrat

    “I agree with [Coakley’s] position that DOMA violates the equal protection clause…I certainly think all Connecticut citizens deserve the same federal rights they enjoy under state law. I would certainly if we can join that suit…or find the right way to participate…Pursuing a suit against the federal government is certainly consistent with our responsibility to our citizens under state law.”