Let me take you bu the hand and show you how business is done at City Hall nowadays and why it's important for the public to be informed by having all local government meetings broadcasted on Public Access television.

Back in July, under increasing pressure from the public, Mayor Boughton finally appointed an ad-hoc committee to look into the feasibility of broadcasting Common Council meetings on Public Access television.

8.COMMUNICATION – Public Access Broadcast of Council Meetings. Mr. Cavo moved to refer this item back to the established Committee, including Mr. Cavo, Mrs. Basso and Mr. Perkins. Seeing no objection, the referral was so ordered by Mayor Boughton.

Now, although the committee was formed by the mayor, once you look at who's on the committee, it's becomes quite apparent that Boughton stacked the deck in his favor.

To prove my point, let's take a close look at the members on this "committee:"

Joseph Cavo: President of the Common Council who is already quoted by the News-Times, to be against broadcasting any council meetings.

Joseph Cavo, the president of the Common Council, promised in July that a committee meeting would be called to consider the televising of Danbury government meetings.

He has yet to schedule a meeting, using his power to block public discussion of the televising of government meetings.

Cavo, a Republican, opposes the televising of meetings. He says it would be too expensive.

Pauline Basso: A person who's best describe as a rubber-stamp Boughton loyalist. When you do a google image search for "rubber stamp Republican Boughton" her image pops up on your screen. Oh, she just happens to be majority leader of the Council.

Duane Perkins: the Democrat who's out of luck. Poor guy.

You can see where I'm going with this right?

Boughton and Cavo claim that the who broadcasting thing would cost too much citing a cost of 60,000 but ask yourself this question...where exactly did they get this figure from? Can News-Times reporter Elizabeth Putnam ask Boughton this question when she does a follow-up article. I'm still waiting for the mayor to answer my question from a year and a half ago when I asked him simply which city services are being drained by illegal immigrants and by how much money. Since this was his rallying cry against illegal immigrants, I thought he would have a quick answer (oh yeah, that's right, he told the people at the town meeting that he was forming a committee to look into this...)

You shouldn't be shocked to learn that the committee (as of today) hasn't EVEN HELD ONE MEETING. Not one meeting although this issue has been talked about in the public, countless letters to the editor have been written, Lynn Waller has talked about it at so many Common Council meetings that I've lost count, and most importantly, this IS CLEARLY something the public wants.

Again, we all lose and you can put the blame squarely on Mayor Boughton and the do-nothing Republicans who rather form committees than get anything done. Think I'm kidding? Go down to City Hall and find out how many ad-hoc committee have been formed in the last six months and how many have met and you'll get the picture. BAsed on what I hear around town, the committees that have met are committees based on proposals Boughton originally introduced.

You can see where I'm going with this right?

In the end, we all lose. Is this the type of leadership you expect from the mayor? Is this the type of leadership you expect from the majority political body in the city?

Again, the public has been asking for this for years. City Hall is already wired by for broadcasting (they use to televise meetings), the upgrade should NOT costs 60,000 since the wires are already in place (you don't need to upgrade wires) and Boughton and Cavo FAILED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC how they arrived at 60,000 in the first place.

Where's the survey that states that it will costs 60,000 to but the meetings on the air? Who can the News-Times call to confirm that someone told Boughotn and Cavo that it will cost the city 60,000 to get the meetings on the air? Hell, if that’s the case, why form an ad-hoc committee in the first place (since they already have the answers)?

If Bethel and Ridgefield can broadcast their meetings, Danbury can do the same (and quite easily). In the end, the mayor stacks the deck and AGAIN we all lose.

You can see where I'm going with this right?

Seems like blogger was down for most of the morning but we're back online now.

Sorry for the delay, now let's back to the show!

The title speaks for itself.

I lived in the 5th District for almost 20 years. I've lived through the era of the shameful slumlord Gary Franks and the silliness of Toby Moffett attempt to campaign in the area (come on folks, I loved the guy also but he really wasn't from the 5th and his loss gave us Franks) but nothing, and I mean nothing, can compare to the outright lunacy of one Nancy Johnson (R-CT).

Don't let her attempts to portray herself as a moderate or independent fool you as it's nothing but a smoke screen. Johnson's outrageous voting record exposes her as nothing more than a Rubber-stamp right-wing Republican who is beholden to special interests to a level never seen before in Connecticut politics.

Using an analogy from a friend, Johnson is the type of person who would carry the water through the desert for the President. Johnson outright supports the head Republican in charge every step of the way on issues ranging from the war in Iraq and Dick Cheney's energy bill, to the revamping of Social Security and neglecting the environment.

If that is not bad enough, Johnson rakes in special interest money at an alarming rate and has proven time and time again that she can be bought for the right price. Whether it's big oil, or big drug companies, if you have a checkbook, you can buy Johnson's vote.

Why am I unhinging on Johnson you ask? Because for everything this person has done in her career, the campaign she is currently running against Democrat Chris Murphy is the most disgusting campaign I've ever witness to date. This "person" had the nerve to use the events on 9-11 to her political advantage going as far as re-creating a funeral in one of her ads. Take a look.

Shocking? Well you haven't seen anything yet...

The DAY AFTER the fifth anniversary of 9-11, an event that will leave an impression on me for the rest of my life, the very day after she participates in the 9-11 ceremony in Danbury, Johnson exploits 9-11 AGAIN in her "new attack ad" which pathetically accusing Chris Murphy as being soft of the war of terror.

Has she no shame?

I'll let fellow blogger CT Progressive give the details (as a side note, please visit CT Progressive's site No More Nancy as it's one of the best blogs in CT.

Johnson attempts to attack Murphy over his opposition to illegal wiretapping through the usual attack ad lies and distortions. Yet the message is completely lost in the sheer stupidity of the ad. See for yourself:


Question #1:

Why is the "average people" image of a bunch of people in rain coats and umbrellas? Does this terrorist attack involve some sort of monsoon? Acid rain? Seriously is that the only picture they could find?


Question #2:

I thought the bad black and white pictures were supposed to be of your opponent? Doesn't a candidate's own ad usually feature them smiling in colored pictures? Why did Johnson's campaign choose to use this picture of her? It's not very flattering. I guess beauty is the price you pay for being "tough" on terrorism.


Question #3:

Are we talking about terrorism or cutting student aid? Nancy probably thought she could slip this one past me...not so fast. Look closely at the image shown when the announcer says, "Nancy Johnson says act immediately." They display a blurry image that's supposed to convey Johnson's action on terrorism, but upon closer review it seems this image has nothing to do with terrorism at all. In fact, it's a chart about financial aid for college students. An odd choice for Johnson to display given her vote this year to support the largest cut in history for federal student aid programs. If you look close enough you can see the chart labeled with "Federal Pell Grant", "Tuition Assistance Program", "Outside Grant or Scholarship", "Federal Subsidized Stafford Loan", "Federal Unsubsidized Stafford Loan", and so on. Perhaps the dots in their columns represent all the times Nancy Johnson has voted to cut these programs.



Question #4:

This is probably the most mind boggling one of them all. Maybe it's some landmark that I just don't recognize, but where the hell is Nancy Johnson standing in her photo-op with the veterans at the end of the ad? Are these people at Area 51 or something? And what are they looking up at and saluting? The flag is clearly located in the lower left corner of the screen behind them. They are all looking in different directions too. Hmm...you think this was a TV photo-op rather than an actual event? But I gotta give Nancy major props for taking the time to put on her red jacket so that she could match the veterans. It's a real nice touch.


Seriously, is this the worst ad you've ever seen? I could not stop laughing when I first saw it. Is Johnson's media person some high school kid? First there was the recreated 9/11 memorial service ad, then the ridiculous game show tax ad, and now the most bizarre ad of them all.

Although I felt that Murphy was reading from the 2004 playbook of John Kerry as he didn't fight back against Johnson's first disgusting ad, in a press release, Murphy finally took the gloves off and ripped into Johnson's bizzare accusations.

"Nancy Johnson's decision to run an ad on September 12 politicizing the 9-11 attacks is disgusting. Her ad is intended to scare people into thinking that we are safer if the Bush Administration is allowed to break our laws, and she should be ashamed," Murphy said. "She is so out of touch with the people of Connecticut that she is listening to people who think politicizing terror is more important than fighting it. Not only is she politicizing the issue, she is making my record up out of thin air."

[...]

"Current law gives the federal government the power to access the networks of terrorists that intend to harm us, so long as the President chooses to follow the rules. But the Bush-Cheney Administration has refused to obey existing law. The blame lies also with Nancy Johnson and the Republican Congress, who have abandoned their responsibility to oversee this Administration, rejecting the crucial system of checks and balances which has protected this nation for more than 200 years," Murphy said.

"When I go door-to-door in this district, people tell me they want someone in Washington who will ask hard questions and hold the federal government accountable, not someone who goes along to get along. If Nancy Johnson listened to the people of Connecticut, she'd know that catching Osama bin Laden and protecting the nation are not partisan issues. People want to see a higher standard of discourse in Washington, where an open dialogue can lead to solutions to protect our nation from those who intend to harm us, while simultaneously upholding the privacy rights that form the foundation of our American values. This television ad fails to meet those expectations," said Murphy.

This is not the first time that Johnson has expressed her wholehearted support for the Bush-Cheney illegal wiretapping program. On June 20, 2006, Johnson was the only member of the Connecticut delegation to vote against an amendment that would have prohibited the use of federal funds to engage in electronic surveillance such as wiretapping, unless that surveillance complies with existing law. [Roll Call 295, 6/20/06]


[...]

"Nancy Johnson is the only member of the Connecticut delegation - Democrat or Republican - who was unwilling to stand up to George Bush and Dick Cheney and say: Enough is enough, you are not above the law," said Murphy. "The amendment Johnson voted against would only have required that the Bush Administration abide by existing law. That is my position on this issue. I believe that the federal government must play by the rules, just like the people of Connecticut do. Nancy Johnson's loyalty to President Bush is so strong that she supports him even when he breaks the law. Yet again, Nancy Johnson has proven that she is a part of the problem in Washington."

The people of the fifth district can do better than have someone like Nancy Johnson represent them in Washington. It's not that I'm anti-Republican, I'm anti-idiotic and based solely on that point, Johnson has proven that she deserves her pink slip in November.

This is big.

Tomorrow, Democratic congressional candidate Chris Murphy will record the national Democratic response to the President’s weekly radio address. The radio address will play on Saturday morning after the President’s weekly address which airs at 11:00am EST.

Murphy is one of a very small group of Democratic candidates who will be addressing the nation in this format. According to the campaigns press release, Murphy's address will focus on an issue on many voters minds, health care.

When talking about health care, remember this about Nancy Johnson.

(a cross post from ConnecticutBLOG. Seeing that the governor resides in Brookfield, I thought this might be of interest.)

I knew it would be just a matter of time until people start questioning the antics of Gov. Jodi Rowland-Rell.

You see, the governor has been able to walk away from recent troubling episodes in his administration such as the infamous Lisa Moody scandal and the events surrounding her nomination of Peter T. Zarella as Chief State Court Justice.

Now things have changed and it seems that the current and former governor have something in common, they both love taking money from state contractors and they both have a bit of a problem telling the truth.

The Journal Inquirer has the goods.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell - whose office only last weekend issued a statement declaring that she wasn't accepting campaign contributions from state contractors and lobbyists - has received a total of at least $175,000 from more than 200 individuals employed by state contractors and two others identified themselves as lobbyists, state records show.

[...]

The reports filed by the governor's campaign committee with the secretary of the state's office reveal that dozens of her biggest benefactors between November 2005 and June 2006 weren't low-level employees at companies that hold state contracts, but high-ranking executives.

Those who filled out a space on Rell's campaign contribution forms identifying themselves as employees of a state contractor, each of whom gave $2,500 to the governor, include:

* Five top officials at three of the biggest insurance companies in Connecticut: Ronald A. Williams of Farmington, president of Aetna; Alan M. Bennett of Madison, chief financial officer at Aetna; Craig R. Callen of Hartford, an Aetna senior vice president; David Johnson of West Hartford, chief financial officer of The Hartford; and Jay S. Fishman of Englewood, N.J., the chief executive officer, chairman, and president of St Paul Travelers.

* Three senior officials at Fairfield-based General Electric: Chairman Michael Neal of Weston, Chief Financial Officer Keith Sherin of Weston, and Vice President and Senior Tax Counsel John Samuels of Greenwich.

* Three principals in MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc., a New York firm that invests in both public and private companies: Ronald Perelman, the financier who serves as the firm's chairman; Howard Gittis, its vice chairman and chief accounting officer; and Barry Schwartz, its executive vice president and general counsel.

* Key executives at various other companies, including: George David of Avon, chief executive officer of United Technologies Corp.; Nathaniel D. Woodson of North Haven, chief executive office of the New Haven-based utility United Illuminating Co.; Michael J. Critelli of Darien, chief executive officer of Stamford-based Pitney Bowes; Larry R. Gottesdiner, chief executive officer of Northland Investment Corp., which owns the Goodwin Hotel and other Hartford properties; and Diane P. Wilson of Berlin, chief financial officer of Vertex Inc., a New Britain-based software and development firm.

Similarly, 59 individuals associated with firms with state contracts also have contributed $1,000 each to Rell.
They included Carl Johnson of Farmington, a partner Blum, Shapiro & Co. P.C.; James S. Ciarcia of Rocky Hill, a financial analyst at Northeast Utilities; William M. Samuelson of Cheshire, director of business and professional banking at Webster Bank; William Huntley, president of racing, sports, and gaming technology at New York-based Scientific Games Corp.; and Charles DiBona of Stamford, a broker at Marsh & McLennan.

The chief spokesman in the governor's office, Judd Everhart, trumpeted Rell's support for tough campaign finance laws in a statement issued last Saturday, when Rell and several legislative leaders were honored by three national watchdog groups.

The statement said the governor was "setting the tone for Connecticut's reforms" by following the requirements of legislation that has not yet taken effect, adding that "her campaign is not accepting contributions from contractors, lobbyists, and other sources banned from gubernatorial campaigns beginning in 2010."

It's Rowland all over again folks and no one should be fooled.

When asked for a comment from the DeStefano campaingn, the response came back as soon as I hit the send button on my email program.

"Gov. Rell has built her entire campaign on this promise, which has now been revealed by the Manchester Journal-Inquirer to be completely false.

Gov. Rell has broken her pledge and it will be interesting to follow this story as her broken promise unravels."

As recently as four days ago she was still telling the press that she was not taking money from state contractors, something that was clearly false.

You can bet that the media will pick up on this story over the next few days and hopefully and while they're at it, remember the following:
Rell has given...

No comment regarding her association with former Gov. John Rowland during the his scandal.

No comment regarding Lisa Moody's status of Cheif of staff.

No comment regarding Rell's nomination of Peter T. Zarella.

No comment regarding Rell not addressing or listing any issues she would tackle if re-elected on her website.

AND NOW, no clear answer regarding breaking her pledge to not accept any money from state contractors.

Can the love affair with Gov. Rell stop now?

After the Rowland scandal, the voter in Connecticut deserve answers.

You know, I'm pretty hard on the guys at the News-Times and for good resason, they simply do not cover what's going on in local government. Now every once in a while, the planets line up in a straight line and those guys step up to the plate and hit the nail on the head.

Today is one of those days.

Now as long as I can remember, people have demanded that the local government meetings at City Hall be broadcasted on Public Access television. Since surrounding towns are able to get their meetings on the air, it seems only fair that like the largest city in the area would be able to do the same but unfortunately, this is not the case.

Citing that airing the broadcasts would be too expensive, Boughton was refused to spend the money nessacary to have the meetings on television although (according to the mayor), the costs would be 60,000. Now this number seems high since I tape several meetings, volenteered at Comcast Cable, and have a basic idea on what it would take to record a meeting (at the VERY least, one or two stationary cameras and videotape...now rememeber, I said the VERY least). Also, there was a time when meetings were on cable on cable so the technically, City Hall is still wired up for broadcasting. Updating the required equipment should be a snap (cameras, videotape).

Boughton claims that braodcasting the meetings would be too expensive yet has no problem coughing up the cash for a proposed doggie park so his pets can have a place to hang out. Now personally, I think knowing what's going on at City Hall is more imporatant than having a place for dogs to take a dump ad it seems like the editors at the News-Times echo my opinion.

Danbury Republicans are using their majority power in city government to keep public meetings off cable television.

Democrats did the same thing when they held the majority in city government, but that doesn't make it right.

The Comcast cable system that serves Danbury, Bethel and Ridgefield has a government channel reserved for the televising of meetings.

Bethel and Ridgefield put their meetings on cable. Danbury does not.

Joseph Cavo, the president of the Common Council, promised in July that a committee meeting would be called to consider the televising of Danbury government meetings.

He has yet to schedule a meeting, using his power to block public discussion of the televising of government meetings.

Cavo, a Republican, opposes the televising of meetings. He says it would be too expensive.

Mayor Mark Boughton, a Republican, has also opposed the televising of meetings -- also citing the expense, which he estimates at $60,000 a year.

Why don't these Republican leaders want the taxpayers of Danbury to watch government meetings on television?

There can be only one answer -- they don't want a larger audience to know what goes on at public meetings.

Danbury spends money on all sorts of things, and Cavo and the mayor find money in the budget for their pet projects. So there is money available for the televising of public meetings.

Other municipalities manage to televise their government meetings for much less than $60,000 a year. But even if that is a realistic estimate of what it will cost, Danbury can afford it.

In recent years, apathy has grown in Danbury. Too many voters don't know what's going on in city government. That is not healthy for the future of the city.

Elected officials shouldn't be afraid of the voters seeing what they are doing. Contrast the attitude of Boughton and Cavo to the attitude of Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi on the televising of government meetings:

"We're pretty happy with it," he said. "A lot of people in Ridgefield commute, and they don't want to get home at 6:30 p.m. and go out for a two-hour meeting."

This is not a complicated process. City Hall is wired for the televising of meetings. All that's really needed is a commitment by elected officials to televise them.

Stonewalling like this from the Republicans makes you wonder if they are hiding something.

Again, please watch this video clip and listen closely to the August Common Council local committee report as well as Lynn Waller's comments (note: Waller is frequent defender of the mayor).

Now, since this clip first aired, I have noticed that the News-Times is attempting to report on more local political issues so I hope that this trend continues. I wish I can say that there has been a change at City Hall but it's still business as usual.

For those who don't know the Danbury News-Times ins't the only newspaper in town and contrary to the views of Lynn Waller, there are immigrant newspapers that have English articles.

Which brings me to an excellent but brief article I came across in the latest edition of the Tribuna newspaper that goes into the background of immigrants in Danbury. My only crtique of this story is that it's simply to short and I wished it would have dug deeper into the immigrant background (for instance, I'm sure many people would like to know why we call a secton of Danbury Germantown).

All in all, this is a good and informative piece and hopefully other writers wil pick up on this and further expand on this subject that now has people (some of whom are decendents of immigrants (legal and illegal) who settled in Danbury) up in arms.

Give it a read.

Oh, this is rich!

I came across this letter to the editor in today's Danbury News-Times. Note the portion in bold.

I am writing to discuss the largely overlooked issue of illegal immigration.

Our nation is at a precipice and if we fail to properly address the massive migration of illegal people into this country we will lose the democracy we hold so dear.

It is incumbent upon journalists and newspapers in this country to accurately and fairly report news and information on this issue. I am sad to write that this newspaper has failed in that regard and I truly hope that this lack of journalistic integrity will be addressed.

I ask this publication to live up to the level of reporting that I know you are capable of. In doing so, this paper will help to protect the people of this country from the destruction that illegal immigration will cause on a massive scale.

[...]

Those who are pro-illegal immigration are unwilling to listen to the other side of the story. It seems that intimidation, vulgarity and character assassination are the means by which they advance their cause.

Now, when I read the portion I highlighted in bold, I almost spilled my coffee on myself. One moment, we have those in the anti-immigrant community who are crying "foul" and then we have those boneheads who write crap like this:

I read in the paper that Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton raised the Brazilian flag on the City Hall flagpole in recognition of Brazilian independence day.

[...]

I hope that when he travels to Brazil, he takes an American flag with him so that he can raise the American flag on a Brazilian flagpole.

This moron wants the mayor, who raised a Brazilian flag in recognition of Brazilian independence day go just go down to Brazil and raise a American flag, beat his chest and scream USA!

Bonehead indeed.

Vulgarity, character assassination, and racist comments are labels that should ONLY apply to the anti-immigrant community wackos (or who I call xenophobes) who are ignored by most in the city. Anyone who has attended a anti-immigrant meeting or seen these people in action know what I'm talking about when I call these people over-the-top (to put it mildly).

Whether it's anti-immigrant people calling up on public access shows, screaming hate-fill rhetoric at immigrant marches, or showing their true colors at their events, it's the anti-immigrant community that have no problem expressing their outright hatred of all immigrants, not just those who are undocumented.


To further prove my case, here's a video highlight of the xenophobes who go by the names of the Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control (CTCIC) and U.S. Citizens for Immigration Law Enforcement (USCILE). Watch these very small segment of the area show their true colors based on a report I did on the immigrant rally held in Danbury earlier this year.



Ripping up a flag...class act Uncle Sam.

I rest my case.

The problem isn't illegal immigration; it's the outright hatred of the people in the anti-immigration community and their inability to express themselves without showing their true racist nature.

OF COURSE illegal immigration is a problem, but it's a national problem and it's needs to be addressed but on a national scale. Since you’re limited to do much on a local level, Boughton is correct in addressing this as federal issue. The problem I have with the mayor is for all the speeches and press conferences he has given on illegal immigration in the last two years, he hasn't done what little he could do locally (within the law) nor is he lead the way in finding innovative ideas to help tackle the issue.

But that's for another post.

A bunch of radicals with no real agenda but to scream racist remarks and nonsense (you know who you are) does nothing to address the problem in Danbury. Most of these people will always hate someone or something whether it's immigrants, African-Americans, or gays...it's their nature to hate since most have nothing else to do with their time. It's because of these morons, who came into existence when Mayor Boughton flip-flopped over building a day-laborer center by Kennedy place he proposed and suddenly became the symbol of the anti illegal immigrant cause, that Danbury is now considered the laughing-stock of the state.

Think about it.

Here we are, more than two years after Boughton first raised the issue AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE CITY IN TERMS OF TACKLING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. All we get is the same old rhetoric from those at city hall with no results which begs the question...is this all ultimately just grandstanding? (I'll tackle that issue later). The only thing that has changed is the number of letters to the editor we have to read from a very small group of racists who do nothing but immigrants on a daily basis (this is WELL DOCUMENTED) and offer up unqualified Republicans such as the person who is trying to portray herself as a hero for senior citizens and running against Bob Godfrey (again). Luckily, there isn't a chance in hell she's going to win in a heavily Democratic district.

But that's for another post.

For many of you who are new to this site, here's what I'm going to do for you (including the reporters/editors at the News-Times who waste their time giving the extremists two seconds of their time). I'll present a very detailed presentation and history lesson of the origins of the anti-immigrant community (many of which DO NOT LIVE IN DANBURY). If we could only get beyond the idiots who scream their hatred, maybe we can look at this issue with common sense. Right now, even listening to these people and their out-of-touch idea is a COMPLETE waste of time.

...developing.

Well, I'm exhausted.

I had a great time interviewing several of the vendors at theTaste of Danbury this weekend. I also interview several politicans who made their way to Hat City including Ned Lamont, Chris Murphy, and a host of State Rep. candidates. I also talked to many people about the state of conditions in Danbury and lets just say that people had a lot on their minds.

I'll post my full report on everthing that happened this weekend later this week. I have a great amount of video that I need to edit. Also, in the next coming weeks, I'll be interviewing more local officials and community leaders and I'll make an announcement before I conduct the interview because, I want to give you, the reader, an chance to ask questions.

As I stated several times, this blog is going to expand and improve very soon so come back often.

...developing.

(Danbury 911 memorial: photo by CTBLOGGER. Click to enlarge.)
Remember.

There will be light posting this weekend as I'll be out around town at the Taste of Danbury and the Irish Festival. I'm also conducting interviews with various politicials such as 5th Congressional District candidate Chris Murphy, Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont, Lt. Gov Democratic candidate Mary Glassman, as well as several State Rep and Senate candidates.

And no, I'll be doing more than interviewing politicians...that's too easy.

I'll be on the scene bringing you highlights from the festivals that you won't see anywhere else.

...developing.