Quick News Updates

Rep. James O’Rourke has been reinstated to his position of deputy House speaker, now that he’s been cleared by prosecutors of any wrongdoing.

Several new laws went into effect yesterday.

The governor did veto the Democrats’ budget. Talks are said to be ongoing. The new fiscal year means that the governor is basically funding departments by executive order, meaning that some programs aren’t getting funding.

Richard Blumenthal says that the state can’t sue the Diocese of Bridgeport for being an unregistered lobbyist unless state ethics laws are clarified.

Lastly, there’s a press conference scheduled today in Enfield to demonstrate support for a federal grant that may make Enfield’s old Lego factory a manufacturing site for lithium/ion batteries for all-electric cars. The plant, if it happens, could mean 600 jobs in Enfield.

Advertisements

33 responses to “Quick News Updates

  1. I don’t think Jim O’Rourke should have been stripped of his Deputy Speaker position to begin with. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? He wasn’t even charged with crime.

    Jim is a good guy and I’m happy to see that this is over and done with.

  2. He wasn’t even charged with crime.

    Aside from leaving the scene of an accident; neither was Ted Kennedy.

    Drunken Democrats have the ability to get just about anything whitewashed.

  3. O’Rourke wasn’t drunk nor did he leave the scene of an accident, I don’t see any similarities here.

  4. O’Rourke wasn’t drunk …

    We don’t know anything aside from what he’s volunteered.

    What’s a married guy doing out at a bar while his wife and children are home waiting for him?

  5. Count Pete

    Don’t be so sure it’s over and done with. He and other leading legislative miscreants may yet be made to squirm.

  6. AndersonScooper

    R.I.P. Sarah Palin

    Damn, I’m some disappointed. If we want comedy, I guess we’ll just have to settle for Mike Huckabee in 2012. Or Newt Gingrich.

  7. Damn, I’m some disappointed. If we want comedy, I guess we’ll just have to settle for Mike Huckabee in 2012. Or Newt Gingrich.

    Hell Scooper, all I have to do for comedy is just read your predictable post.

  8. Hell hath no furry like a media commentator whose narrative has been upset.

    This is the way things were suppose to go: Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin was would abide the pelting of a pitiless storm of law suits filed by her political opponents in Alaska, all of which have been turned aside by the courts; then she was supposed to run either for president or for some other national office, at which point the pelting would begin all over again.

    As the Fourth of July approached, she announced that she was retiring as Governor of Alaska, and shortly thereafter the speculation hit the fan.

    Vain speculators on the left, a good many of whom apparently read Vanity Fair, thought that Palin resigned because she could not bear the heat pouring out of the political kitchen. The Vanity Fair article on Pain, thousands of words long, drew the veil on some of the infighting that occurred in the John McCain political camp when McCain picked Palin to run as his vice presidential candidate, on the whole not a pretty picture.

    Most of the chatter on television was devoted to two questions: Why had she done it, and is there political life after resignation? Running like a dark rumor through the chatter was the supposition that some unspeakable political faux pas had yet to be discovered.

    The answer to the second question was “probably not.” Some wiser heads with memories pointed out that other politicians had salvaged their careers after greater tragedies. In deference to Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, now suffering from a brain tumor, Chappaquiddick was not mentioned.

    Palin herself suggested 1) that her family had been unjustly pummeled before and after the campaign, both by vain politicians and consumers of Vanity Fair; 2) that she was spending an inordinate amount of money defending herself from unmerited prosecutions: 3) that she cared about Alaska’s future, and that resigning now would enable the Lieutenant Governor of that state to carry on after she had left and, most likely, win a future campaign in his own right, thus keeping her beloved state in Republican hands. She was resigning, Palin said, “ … so the administration could continue effectively” without her. Self sacrifice of this kind in unheard of in national politics. Palin also intimated she would be willing to go on the road to support the candidacy on grown up politicians I either party.

    Point 1 was studiously ignored by the Vanity Fair crowd; everyone but some small minded bloggers on the left conceded point 2; and point 3 was opaque to the kind of political beltway commentator who believes that politics ends at the borders of Washington DC. Anyone who had spent any time commenting on state politics would have had no problem processing point 3.

    So, here we have a politician who cared about her family, cares about her reputation, cares about her state and thinks some ideas are bogus while others are worth sacrificing for.

    How could there possibly be a place for her in Washington politics?

  9. R.I.P. Sarah Palin

    Great news! That Vanity Fair article summed it all up pretty well. I never liked her and I’m glad to see she’s history.

  10. What’s a married guy doing out at a bar while his wife and children are home waiting for him?

    You mean to tell me that he’s the only person in the entire world who went to a bar while his spouse and children were home? There are millions of people who do the same thing.

    We don’t know anything aside from what he’s volunteered.

    That’s not true either. The other people at the bar said he was not drunk that night.

  11. Based of past miss-prosecutions in Alaska. it would appear that Palin has some reason to be learly of the feds.

    Last April, federal judge Emmet Sullivan formally accepted a motion to set aside a guilty verdict against former Sen.Ted Stevens of Alaska issued by President Barack Obama’s Attorney General. The presiding judge threw out the indictment, and called the case the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he’d ever seen. The judge also initiated a criminal contempt investigation of six members of the prosecution even though an internal probe by the Office of Professional Responsibility was in process. Sullivan said he was not willing to trust it due to the “shocking and disturbing” nature of the misconduct.

    No doubt Brenda is happy with this history also.

  12. Let’s face it Don, Sarah Palin is unelectable as a Republican candidate for US President. She has support from the VPILF crowd of perverts, a few conservative women and that’s pretty much it. It’s impossible for the rest of the electorate to take her seriously. The VF article simply confirmed what should have been looked into with her long ago.

    The sooner she’s no longer being talked about in Republican circles as a candidate for 2012, the better the chances are that the Republicans can win the White House. YesDon, that makes me happy and I would think it would make you happy too.

  13. Last April, federal judge Emmet Sullivan formally accepted a motion to set aside a guilty verdict against former Sen.Ted Stevens of Alaska issued by President Barack Obama’s Attorney General.

    Oh look, isn’t that a clever little sentence! I wouldn’t have thought to mention President Barack Obama and his Attorney General in a discussion about Bush administration prosecutorial misconduct, but it does give a nice impression of wrongdoing where there wasn’t any.

  14. Sam,

    No, it indicates a commendable correction. There simply is no other way of saying that, since it was the Obama administration, and not the Bush administration, that pulled the prosecution. Too bad about Stevens, eh?

    Sarah,

    She hasn’t said she intends to run for president. I think you’re jumping the gun in Democarts hands. Must be a lot of perverts and conservatives in the Republican party, according to your reconning. Funny how these things are just dropped everywhere when the subject is Palin.

  15. Oh look, isn’t that a clever little sentence! I wouldn’t have thought to mention President Barack Obama and his Attorney General in a discussion about Bush administration prosecutorial misconduct, but it does give a nice impression of wrongdoing where there wasn’t any.

    Sammy: It’s after noon on the Glorious Fourth. Have a beer or something and lighten the *&*% up, OK?

    Sheesh.

  16. What is it about Palin that drives liberals crazy? I know liberals really liked John McCain (up until he won the Republican nomination). I know women don’t like Palin and I kind of have my own theory why, which I will keep to myself.

  17. I know women don’t like Palin

    Huh?

    I’ve never seen a political figure ever get my wife that worked up; and my wife is a solid Republican woman who has in the past raised up to 10K in the backyard alone for a gubernatorial candidate.

    Further, the ladies at church – not normally inclined towards politics at all; seem to adore Palin.

    There is however no question that Palin polarizes – folks either like her a lot; or not at all.

  18. Huh?

    I’ve never seen a political figure ever get my wife that worked up; and my wife is a solid Republican woman who has in the past raised up to 10K in the backyard alone for a gubernatorial candidate.

    ACR,

    Palin may do well in your home but in the rest of America, women did not embrace her. I think a lot of it was liberal media driven but that’s another story.

    Below is just one example of my claim but there have been many others.

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846443,00.html?iid=digg_share

  19. Below is just one example of my claim but there have been many others.

    Fails to take into account “intensity”.

    Conservative Christian women seem to adore Palin; *and* that’s a demography that we can’t afford to lose; plus they’re largely under utilized due to the fact they’re generally unmotivated.
    Palin seems to get them on their feet and we have no surplus of workers.

    That’s true with pro-life, NRA as well.

    While I remain pro-choice for example, I’m also aware that chasing the pro-lifers away would cost the GOP even further as they’re a reliable block and they’ll tend to outwork and occasionally out-donate many other subgroups all of whom we’ll need to knit together a coalition that can win.

    Thus, this Rockefeller Republican sees Peter Wolfgang and the FIC as an ally.

    Similarly, with rare exception a Republican can ill afford to tread heavily on firearm rights as without the NRA block few can pull off a victory and then only in a handful of markets (ie: NYC).

    With a big tent we win ….sometimes.
    No sense in a smaller tent.

  20. What is it about Palin that drives liberals crazy? I know liberals really liked John McCain (up until he won the Republican nomination). I know women don’t like Palin and I kind of have my own theory why, which I will keep to myself.

    Liberals like eggheads and dislike the culture wars. Actually that’s a yankee thing more than anything, hence the entire northeast being colored blue in recent years.

    Of all the many ways you could describe Palin, she is definitely not an egghead, and definitely brings the culture wars.

  21. No, it indicates a commendable correction. There simply is no other way of saying that, since it was the Obama administration, and not the Bush administration, that pulled the prosecution. Too bad about Stevens, eh?

    I still think it was an inartful construction, but I’m sorry if I got your intentions wrong.

    While I remain pro-choice for example, I’m also aware that chasing the pro-lifers away would cost the GOP even further as they’re a reliable block and they’ll tend to outwork and occasionally out-donate many other subgroups all of whom we’ll need to knit together a coalition that can win.

    ACR, my question is whether the national level Republicans are chasing pro-choice voters out — or, how do you keep the tent from shrinking to the point where you’re outside of it looking in?

  22. Doug found a couple of people that like Palin and I found a few who don’t. We could trade stories and theories all day but the bottom line is she’s UNELECTABLE as a Republican presidential candidate.

    C’mon you hockey mom defenders, I want you to think SERIOUSLY now, do you really think the Republicans could win with her leading the ticket? It’s a simple question.

  23. ACR, my question is whether the national level Republicans are chasing pro-choice voters out

    Hardly and it won’t happen either thanks as much to Goldwater as anyone else.

    We had pro-choice Christie Todd Whitman as a national speaker while the Democrats wouldn’t let pro-life Gov Casey (D-PA) anywhere near a microphone.

    I’m pro-choice because I don’t trust the government to not make a mess and therefore see some hypocrisy in chanting “less government, less government” like a mantra all the while promoting bedroom police.

    That doesn’t obligate me to like Roe which I consider poorly framed thus setting a bad precedent; and the majority of my pro-life associates don’t seem to have a problem with my stance including Wolfgang who is by the way actually a very nice guy.

    Further, even the most ardent pro-lifers have come to the realization that they don’t have a prayer without knitting together a larger coalition and that subsequently it’s as incumbent on them to seek common ground as it is for even the most pro-choice Republicans.

    Please remember that it was a Republican Governor (Nelson Rockefeller) that brought safe, legal pregnancy termination to the United States years prior to Roe.

  24. do you really think the Republicans could win with her leading the ticket? It’s a simple question.

    Not really – however chasing her off as some of the dimwits that ran McCain’s campaign into the ground seek to do is totally out of order as well.

    Blaming Palin for the pathetically mismanaged McCain campaign is outrageous.

    Since she does ignite some of the base, keeping her around is better than not.

  25. ACR, my question is whether the national level Republicans are chasing pro-choice voters out — or, how do you keep the tent from shrinking to the point where you’re outside of it looking in?

    If I may give my thoughts, National Republicans are not chasing pro-choice voters out. By his own admission, ACR is a pro-choice Republican and nobody has tried to chase him out.

    Republicans need to be for smaller government, less taxes and personal responsibility. These are non-negotiable. While Republicans tend to be pro-life and pro traditional marriage, most Republicans respect those with different opinions.

  26. We had pro-choice Christie Todd Whitman as a national speaker while the Democrats wouldn’t let pro-life Gov Casey (D-PA) anywhere near a microphone.

    Casey wasn’t allowed to speak because he refused to endorse Clinton. There were five other anti-abortion governors who did speak. Nice try, though.

  27. C’mon you hockey mom defenders, I want you to think SERIOUSLY now, do you really think the Republicans could win with her leading the ticket? It’s a simple question.</blo

    If this country continues in the direction we are going……YES

  28. If this country continues in the direction we are going……YES

    LOL! You might be on to something there.

  29. There were five other anti-abortion governors who did speak.

    None of them mentioned abortion.

  30. None of them mentioned abortion.

    I would love to see a quote from an RNC speech in the last 20 years with an explicit statement of pro-choice views.

    Oh, and Whitman?

    Her pro-choice orientation is hardly a badge of courage in New Jersey; in fact, it’s pretty much a prerequisite for anyone seeking the governorship. It has also proved negotiable at crucial points. When two pro-choice Republican governors, William Weld of Massachusetts and Pete Wilson of California, demanded a chance to present their views at the national convention, Whitman let the party freeze them out.

    Maybe her ’92 convention transcript tells a prouder story than this — if you have it I’d be interested to see it.

  31. I would love to see a quote from an RNC speech in the last 20 years with an explicit statement of pro-choice views.

    You might well have something there.

    Reagan rather brilliantly took the south away from a Georgia native incumbent largely due to his overt and outright pandering to the pro-life crowd that then was heavily clustered in the south and not particularly strong at the time elsewhere.

    It worked and Carter was history. (But he* still* won’t shut up!)

    Reagan however then did nothing for them aside from give them lip service on fairly regular basis.

    Don’t take that as any sort of slight.
    I liked Reagan just fine and consider him the finest President since Washington himself.
    (George Washington will never have been given enough accolades.)

    We squashed Buchanon in 1996 and he only appears now on leftist liberal media outlets “as a Republican” so those with an agenda can utilize the loon as a perfect example of how `horrible’ the Republican Party is.
    Hell – if that putz actually represented my party I’d have taken a swig of hemlock by now. (I’m not real fond of his brother “Bay” either.)

    Never-the-less; the majority of pro-lifers and pro-choicers have both come to the realization that some accommodation needs to be made for the other side.

    Many on the pro-choice side will agree that Roe was legislating from the bench and it’s no secret that Republicans tend find that deplorable.

    Therein lies the area of agreement.

    Should Roe be overturned the battle will begin anew at the state level.
    We’ll deal with those problems then.

    I’m not convinced that MOST Republicans actually have strong feelings either way and would rather the issue would go away.

  32. largely due to his overt and outright pandering to the pro-life crowd

    That wasn’t who he was pandering to.

    Reagan however then did nothing for them aside from give them lip service on fairly regular basis.

    He did give them the Mexico City Policy.

    We squashed Buchanon in 1996 and he only appears now on leftist liberal media outlets “as a Republican” so those with an agenda can utilize the loon as a perfect example of how `horrible’ the Republican Party is.
    Hell – if that putz actually represented my party I’d have taken a swig of hemlock by now. (I’m not real fond of his brother “Bay” either.)

    You squashed Wilson, Weld, and Whitman, the pro-choice candidates, before they could even enter the race. And managed to turn Forbes from a hands-off style pro-choice politician to a hard-line anti-abortion advocate. Both Dole and Kemp were pro-life, as was every single candidate that was considered for VP. You managed to throw a delegate to Keyes and Bork for good measure.

    And, since then, the Republican Party has officially supported a national constitutional amendment banning all abortions in every platform.

  33. We squashed Buchanon in 1996

    Buchanan, to his credit, seems to have some logical thought processes about foreign policy. Too many in both parties seem to think that…

    1: kill a bunch of strangers in a foreign country
    2: ???
    3: everybody loves us again!

    is a valid foreign policy, when it’s just madness.

    And he was man enough to acknowledge that those grandmothers in Florida obviously didn’t cast their votes for a man widely reputed to be a holocaust denier. Not a lot of candidates are willing to throw back mistaken votes. So I give the man some credit, even though I think he’s wrong on most subjects.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s