Schiff Questions Fedele
Spots on the bill at party town committee meetings are in demand as the selection of delegates to conventions takes place later this month. Monday night found two candidates for statewide office, Michael Fedele and Peter Schiff, at the East Windsor Republican Town Committee meeting. The north central town, with about 1,400 registered Republicans, will in two weeks select six delegates to the state convention.
Gubernatorial hopeful Fedele was up first and went on at considerable length about his background because, he said, the members might not know him very well. This suggests Fedele has not used his position as lieutenant governor to create a bond with local party organizations in the way Jodi Rell did while she served John Rowland for nearly 10 years.
Listening to Fedele for a half hour at the Town Hall Annex in the Warehouse Point section of town, one would not have suspected Connecticut faces catastrophic budget problems. Fedele barely mentioned them. When he did, he proposed no credible, specific solutions to wrestling that monster.
When Fedele invited questions from the audience, Senate candidate Schiff raised his hand, acknowledged the state’s a mess, and asked Fedele what he’s been doing. That question should be posed at every appearance Fedele makes. He may eventually find a compelling answer, but he offered none last night. The Stamford resident said that in September Rell should have vetoed that budget that became law without her signature. ”I would have vetoed it,” he declared. If so, he kept that to himself at the decisive hour 6 months ago.
Fedele rival Tom Foley spoke to the East Windsor Republicans two weeks ago and, I understand, made a better impression than Fedele. The audience was capable of enthusiasm, as Schiff proved in the hour following Fedele’s departure from the room.
No candidate for governor, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to make an appearance without being pressed on what he or she will do about the budget deficit.
This is only an impression from listening to and watching 25 people at a Monday night Republican town committee meeting: Peter Schiff will win some of their delegates, Michael Fedele may not.
5 comments
We are in what amounts to a Mexican Standoff. No candidate wants to be the first to alienate potential supporters by identifying the specific budget reductions, or the magnitude of the tax increases, that will be required to fix our fiscal mess.
Whoever speaks first gives the advantage to the remaining candidates, who will say that the proposed cuts are ineffective or inhumane, and that the tax increases are far too onerous.
The trick for the successful candidate is to talk about the state’s fiscal problem, without getting tagged with any responsibility for contributing to it, long enough to garner support but with sufficient vagueness to assure that no one can claim a ‘plan’ to address it won’t work.
Whatever is eventually done to correct the state’s fiscal problem will be monumentally unpopular with lots of voters on both sides of the lower spending/raise taxes battle line. There is no upside for a candidate to become unpopular now.
Thanks for the report
Well, I agree with some of what you say Georges, concerning Republicans like Scott Brown, but it cannot apply to Peter Schiff because he has actually been saying those things for years. I’m a Schiff French fan from France and I became a fan of his works before he even became a candidate for US senate.
Kevin, regarding your earlier blog post, if Fedele is such a lapdog, then why no Rell endorsement? Who/what is she waiting for, and what did her loyal “lapdog” do to piss her off so badly? I always got the impression that it was because Lisa Moody was overly concerned about him outshining Jodi.
Fedele and two other gov. candidates came to our RTC meeting last week. Newington mayor was very impressive, but all of them mouthed pieties about balancing budget and the problem is not balancing budget. Saying you’re going to do that implies you will raise taxes and other state “revenue sources”. Wright identified a critical symptom of the spending disease, but would not commit to doing what it will take to cure it. The symptom is that people are leaving this state in droves. The sob story side to this is that young people leave because they have to, and their parents will never see their grandchildren. And the problem is not the lack of “affordable housing”. It costs too much to live here, there’s no doubt of that, especially compared to what we get for the cost. But young people have no opportunity here. This situation isn’t “sustainable”. People who raise families here will likely only see their grandchildren after a plane ride. Is this “sustainable”? But the legislature is fiddling with a bunch of “environmental ” hobgoblins, and the GOP candidates who came to our meeting talked slogans. If someone begins to talk real sense, credibly says he will eliminate agencies/bureaucracies (start with that monstrosity in the building they demolished the Armory for), propose Constitutional changes (leg. meets once every two years for only a short period of time, no exceptions), talk about getting rid of gov’t employee unions (instead of begging them for concessions), that person might “get traction”. Otherwise I fear this is all just so much political malarkey and fun and games. Someone should do a mental exercise: Pretend the state /munis are finally and irredeemably broken –which shouldn’t be so hard to do. What would you propose to do then?