What would you call a governor who proposed vast increases in spending on mass transportation and education, urged income tax increases, pushed for public campaign financing and signed a civil union bill for gays?
In any other state, the term would almost certainly be "Democrat," and probably "Liberal Democrat" at that.
Here in the old Land of Steady Habits, however, that record belongs to a Republican woman from a small town in an affluent, southwestern part of the state usually perceived as rather conservative.
M. Jodi Rell’s remarkably un-Republican approach to government has been baffling for politicians on both sides of the partisan divide.
Democrats, who had been giving lip service to public campaign financing, were shocked in 2005 when Rell announced she would back such a plan if the legislature agreed to reform its own campaign practices. It was Rell’s determination that eventually forced adoption of a landmark reform measure.
Many Republicans weren’t too happy with Rell’s action on campaign finance but they grudgingly went along, in part because it was clear how uncomfortable Democrats were at Rell’s unexpected tactics.
[...]
Her latest escapade — proposing huge education spending increases and a state income tax increase to pay for them — left GOP lawmakers reeling. Democrats seemed as bewildered, as if they’d fallen down a political rabbit hole and awoken in Wonderland, with Rell playing the role of Alice.
Take the reaction of state House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, who has been urging increased spending on local education and calling for increased income tax rates for millionaires for years.
After Rell’s budget speech last week, Amann was angrily questioning Rell’s call to raise $1.3 billion in new state income tax revenue and wondering if the state really needed to spend that much on local schools.
Asked if Rell had pulled the rug out from Democrats again by co-opting some of their signature issues, Amann was verbally stumbling all over the place in his vehement denial.
"No, I think what (she) did, by blowing through the spending cap by a half billion dollars and throwing a billion dollars worth of income tax (increases) on the table, I think that rug is good cover for us," said Amann. "I think it will be more of a cover over our heads if we want to now discuss any increases in taxes or spending that we want to do."
So she’s done it to both sides once again, this mild-mannered "Betty Crocker" of Connecticut politics, who continues to look and sound like a buttoned-down Republican while doing all sorts of very Democratic things.
Guess we have the start of a good ol' Republican civil war on our hands...where's the popcorn?
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
