Saturday, November 25, 2006
Apologies for the delay between posts. During Thanksgiving thefederalist is too busy with family, food, and football to worry about blogging, and I would hope the same goes for all of you.
Anyway....
While our eyes have been focused on the national arena, the winds of change have blown through Darien politics. Peter Hovell is out as chairman of the Board of Finance. Mr. Hovell was a prominent member of the Darien Republican party, and a major power player at Town Hall. How did he find himself on the outside looking in?
From what thefederalist sees, there are two possibilities. The first is that the other members of the Board of Finance had just had enough of their old leader. The vote to remove him from his leadership position was rather one-sided. While this incident was clearly a negative for the former chair, the uniting of Democrats and Republicans on the BOF for a common cause could be a sign that further inter-party unity is on the way.
However, one cannot forget the RTC. I don't care if what I'm about to say is polite or not: Peter Hovell was a Donald Rumself-esque thorn in the side of the RTC. He was one of the cornerstones that the 2005 Young campaign was built on. He was also the man who predicted that the town would find itself in the middle of a financial storm during First Selectwoman Klein's time in office (in case anyone is interested we now have a surplus). Was Mr. Hovell's prediction simply wrong? Or was this warning simply a scare-tactic to further his own political interests?
There are some good people on the RTC, and perhaps Jack Orchulli is one of them. As the leader of the RTC, Mr. Orchulli very well could have seen the harm that Mr. Hovell was doing, not only to his party, but to the town as well. Mr. Orchulli is not an idiot, and he could have corralled the Republicans on the Board of Finance to vote Mr. Hovell out.
Note: thefederalist knows none of this to be absolutely true. This is only speculation, and I'm only human. For all we know Hovell could have just been tired of the job and told the members of the BOF to kick him out!
Before the weekend break, a definition:
Abstain-to refrain deliberately from an action or practice
While the subject of "Beach-Chair-Gate" has been beaten like a dead horse, there is something aside from the utter stupidity of that debate that bothered me. As we all know, Selectwoman Young took issue with a set of gifted chairs due to a "safety issue." While this might seem ridiculous to most, Selectwoman Young seemed very adiment about these safety concerns, which brings me to my question: If Selectwoman Young felt so strongly that the safety of our community would be put in jeapordy by these chairs why didn't she vote against them? While her stance against the gift seems silly, it is her decision to abstain from the vote that should be of greater concern.
A final word: Congradulations to the 2006 Darien Football Blue Wave. While the season ended on a low note, watching the Boys in Blue go 4-0 earlier this year and play toe to toe with some of the best teams in the state was great. In fact, the Blue Wave wasn't eliminated from state playoff contention until they lost to Greenwich, which was the second to last game of the season. The Blue Wave also scored more points against the Cardinals than any other team in the FCIAC...not bad for a team that admittedly struggles offensively. In my opinion, the Darien Football Blue Wave was 2-3 games better than their 5-5 record.
Anyway....
While our eyes have been focused on the national arena, the winds of change have blown through Darien politics. Peter Hovell is out as chairman of the Board of Finance. Mr. Hovell was a prominent member of the Darien Republican party, and a major power player at Town Hall. How did he find himself on the outside looking in?
From what thefederalist sees, there are two possibilities. The first is that the other members of the Board of Finance had just had enough of their old leader. The vote to remove him from his leadership position was rather one-sided. While this incident was clearly a negative for the former chair, the uniting of Democrats and Republicans on the BOF for a common cause could be a sign that further inter-party unity is on the way.
However, one cannot forget the RTC. I don't care if what I'm about to say is polite or not: Peter Hovell was a Donald Rumself-esque thorn in the side of the RTC. He was one of the cornerstones that the 2005 Young campaign was built on. He was also the man who predicted that the town would find itself in the middle of a financial storm during First Selectwoman Klein's time in office (in case anyone is interested we now have a surplus). Was Mr. Hovell's prediction simply wrong? Or was this warning simply a scare-tactic to further his own political interests?
There are some good people on the RTC, and perhaps Jack Orchulli is one of them. As the leader of the RTC, Mr. Orchulli very well could have seen the harm that Mr. Hovell was doing, not only to his party, but to the town as well. Mr. Orchulli is not an idiot, and he could have corralled the Republicans on the Board of Finance to vote Mr. Hovell out.
Note: thefederalist knows none of this to be absolutely true. This is only speculation, and I'm only human. For all we know Hovell could have just been tired of the job and told the members of the BOF to kick him out!
Before the weekend break, a definition:
Abstain-to refrain deliberately from an action or practice
While the subject of "Beach-Chair-Gate" has been beaten like a dead horse, there is something aside from the utter stupidity of that debate that bothered me. As we all know, Selectwoman Young took issue with a set of gifted chairs due to a "safety issue." While this might seem ridiculous to most, Selectwoman Young seemed very adiment about these safety concerns, which brings me to my question: If Selectwoman Young felt so strongly that the safety of our community would be put in jeapordy by these chairs why didn't she vote against them? While her stance against the gift seems silly, it is her decision to abstain from the vote that should be of greater concern.
A final word: Congradulations to the 2006 Darien Football Blue Wave. While the season ended on a low note, watching the Boys in Blue go 4-0 earlier this year and play toe to toe with some of the best teams in the state was great. In fact, the Blue Wave wasn't eliminated from state playoff contention until they lost to Greenwich, which was the second to last game of the season. The Blue Wave also scored more points against the Cardinals than any other team in the FCIAC...not bad for a team that admittedly struggles offensively. In my opinion, the Darien Football Blue Wave was 2-3 games better than their 5-5 record.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
What I thought about Tuesday...
...As Democrats across the country breath a collective sigh of relief, and the rubble of a nasty November campaign begins to clear, pundits from every side of the isle begin to rise up to explain what happened and why.
If you read the DailyKos you'll be lead to believe that a majority of Americans have had enough with Bush and his neo-conservative agenda, and have begun to turn to liberalism as a solution to our nation's problems. However, if you turn on the radio, you'll hear the likes of Mark Levin and Sean Hannity saying that the reason why Republicans lost is because they weren't conservative enough. These hard liners advocate that those Republicans who survived the purge return to their "Reagan principles."
thefederalist believes both the liberal blogs and the conservative radio hosts to be wrong. Tuesdays win wasn't a smashing endorsement of progressivism, nor was it a complete repudiation of conservatism. Tuesday's results were a victory for moderation.
If you ask most Americans what their political beliefs are, you won't hear many people saying "I'm a hard-core neo-con" or "I'm an extreme liberal." Most people set up political shop in the middle. These "independent" voters, like many of us, are tired of business as usual on Capital Hill. To these folks, extremism is not the answer.
Whether it is reality of perception, the Republican party led by President George W. Bush came to embody an unapologetic extremism that a majority of voters believed was leading America down the wrong path. Democrats appeared to be more moderate than their Republican counterparts for three reasons: a)they stood against the failing policy of the Bush administration b)they supported "blue dog" candidates that took conservative stances on social issues and c)they (and their leadership) are not as well known as those Republicans who are tied to President Bush.
Liberal Democrats should pay close attention to the second reason. While they were able to knock off "moderate Republicans" such as Nancy Johnson, Democrats owe their newfound majority in the House, and especially in the Senate, to blue dog Democrats. These moderately conservative, moderately progressive candidates were the ones who carried the day in places like Virginia, Montana, and who were able to win a majority of governorships and state legislatures.
No, extreme liberalism is not on the rise, and you haven't heard the last of conservatism either. Whichever political party is able to call the middle of the spectrum as their home will not only hold the most victory celebrations come November, but will be the most able group to move America forward.
...As Democrats across the country breath a collective sigh of relief, and the rubble of a nasty November campaign begins to clear, pundits from every side of the isle begin to rise up to explain what happened and why.
If you read the DailyKos you'll be lead to believe that a majority of Americans have had enough with Bush and his neo-conservative agenda, and have begun to turn to liberalism as a solution to our nation's problems. However, if you turn on the radio, you'll hear the likes of Mark Levin and Sean Hannity saying that the reason why Republicans lost is because they weren't conservative enough. These hard liners advocate that those Republicans who survived the purge return to their "Reagan principles."
thefederalist believes both the liberal blogs and the conservative radio hosts to be wrong. Tuesdays win wasn't a smashing endorsement of progressivism, nor was it a complete repudiation of conservatism. Tuesday's results were a victory for moderation.
If you ask most Americans what their political beliefs are, you won't hear many people saying "I'm a hard-core neo-con" or "I'm an extreme liberal." Most people set up political shop in the middle. These "independent" voters, like many of us, are tired of business as usual on Capital Hill. To these folks, extremism is not the answer.
Whether it is reality of perception, the Republican party led by President George W. Bush came to embody an unapologetic extremism that a majority of voters believed was leading America down the wrong path. Democrats appeared to be more moderate than their Republican counterparts for three reasons: a)they stood against the failing policy of the Bush administration b)they supported "blue dog" candidates that took conservative stances on social issues and c)they (and their leadership) are not as well known as those Republicans who are tied to President Bush.
Liberal Democrats should pay close attention to the second reason. While they were able to knock off "moderate Republicans" such as Nancy Johnson, Democrats owe their newfound majority in the House, and especially in the Senate, to blue dog Democrats. These moderately conservative, moderately progressive candidates were the ones who carried the day in places like Virginia, Montana, and who were able to win a majority of governorships and state legislatures.
No, extreme liberalism is not on the rise, and you haven't heard the last of conservatism either. Whichever political party is able to call the middle of the spectrum as their home will not only hold the most victory celebrations come November, but will be the most able group to move America forward.
Monday, November 06, 2006
A request...
...I ask you all to vote. I ask you all to understand that what happens tomorrow will change the course of this country. Tomorrow, Americans have a very clear choice to make. Know that your choice will have a direct effect on the future of this nation.
It is my firm belief that as of this election eve, there is something very wrong with this country. There is something very wrong when disagreement is looked at as treason, when soldiers are used as pawns to fight political battles, when an entire nation is split for political gain, when one man and one party hijack the laws and traditions of two hundred years answering to no one, apologizing to no one.
Yes, there is something very wrong with this country. But we the people have the power to fix it. YOU have the power to right the wrongs of an administration that has failed our soldiers, failed our founding fathers, and has failed Us.
Tomorrow we can turn the tide. We can restore respect for the principles that this country was founded on. We can reclaim our place as the example of liberty and justice for ALL. We can stand up and say NO! to those who wish to rule with fear and polarization. We will stand up against the hypocrites, the self-righteous, who do good when it is politically convenient, returning to their self serving, self celebrating behavior all too soon.
In a matter of hours, those who have been a door mat for failure will discover whether they have survived this political storm or not, and tonight thefederalist prays for the latter. Vote them out
Every single one
...I ask you all to vote. I ask you all to understand that what happens tomorrow will change the course of this country. Tomorrow, Americans have a very clear choice to make. Know that your choice will have a direct effect on the future of this nation.
It is my firm belief that as of this election eve, there is something very wrong with this country. There is something very wrong when disagreement is looked at as treason, when soldiers are used as pawns to fight political battles, when an entire nation is split for political gain, when one man and one party hijack the laws and traditions of two hundred years answering to no one, apologizing to no one.
Yes, there is something very wrong with this country. But we the people have the power to fix it. YOU have the power to right the wrongs of an administration that has failed our soldiers, failed our founding fathers, and has failed Us.
Tomorrow we can turn the tide. We can restore respect for the principles that this country was founded on. We can reclaim our place as the example of liberty and justice for ALL. We can stand up and say NO! to those who wish to rule with fear and polarization. We will stand up against the hypocrites, the self-righteous, who do good when it is politically convenient, returning to their self serving, self celebrating behavior all too soon.
In a matter of hours, those who have been a door mat for failure will discover whether they have survived this political storm or not, and tonight thefederalist prays for the latter. Vote them out
Every single one
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Remember remeber the 5th of November
the gunpowder treason and plot
I see of no reason why gunpowder
Treason should ever be forgot
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes , 'twas his intent
To blow up the king and Parliament
Three score barrels of powder below
Poor old England to overthrow:
By God's province he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, make the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the king!
Hip hip horrah!
the gunpowder treason and plot
I see of no reason why gunpowder
Treason should ever be forgot
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes , 'twas his intent
To blow up the king and Parliament
Three score barrels of powder below
Poor old England to overthrow:
By God's province he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, make the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the king!
Hip hip horrah!
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Know this...
...A vote for Diane Farrell is a vote for Nancy Pelosi. If elected, and the Democrats are able to win a majority in the House of Representatives, Diane Farrell will support Nancy Pelosi when she runs for Speaker of the House. For those of you who haven't sat in on a civics class for a while, the Speaker of the House is 3rd in the line of succession to the presidency. Before September 11th, Congresswoman Pelosi had a consistant record of voting to cut defense spending. She has also ardently defended a woman's right to partial birth abortion, but can't seem to find the time to support the Patriot Act.
...A vote for Chris Shays is a vote for Denny Hastert or John Boehner. If Republicans are able to maintain control of the House of Represenatives, it is unclear who will be Speaker of the House (Hastert would probably be a safe bet had Mark Foley been able to show a little self control). If elected, Chris Shays will without a doubt support either Hastert or Boehner should either run for Speaker. That's the same Denny Hastert who dropped the ball in the Mark Foley scandal. And for those of you who don't know Mr. Boehner, just last Sunday he described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "the best thing" to happen to the Pentagon in a long time. Such statements defending a Secretary of Defense who, time and time again has proved his incompetence in executing his duties makes one question Mr. Boehner's own handle on reality.
...A vote for Allan Schlesinger is a vote to maintain Senator Ted Steven's chairmanships. Yes, that's the same Ted Stevens who took our tax dollars to build a bridge to nowhere.
...A vote for Senator Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont is a vote for Harry Ried, should he seek to become Majority Leader of the Senate (assuming a Democratic victory). That's the same Harry Ried who is under scrutiny to this day for his shady land deals in the state of Nevada.
I know, I know...a lot of problems presented here, not many solutions. thefederalist recommends that you call your respective national political parties, and demand a change in leadership...or help support the long-shots who are running against Pelosi, Hastert, and Boehner this election cycle.
...A vote for Diane Farrell is a vote for Nancy Pelosi. If elected, and the Democrats are able to win a majority in the House of Representatives, Diane Farrell will support Nancy Pelosi when she runs for Speaker of the House. For those of you who haven't sat in on a civics class for a while, the Speaker of the House is 3rd in the line of succession to the presidency. Before September 11th, Congresswoman Pelosi had a consistant record of voting to cut defense spending. She has also ardently defended a woman's right to partial birth abortion, but can't seem to find the time to support the Patriot Act.
...A vote for Chris Shays is a vote for Denny Hastert or John Boehner. If Republicans are able to maintain control of the House of Represenatives, it is unclear who will be Speaker of the House (Hastert would probably be a safe bet had Mark Foley been able to show a little self control). If elected, Chris Shays will without a doubt support either Hastert or Boehner should either run for Speaker. That's the same Denny Hastert who dropped the ball in the Mark Foley scandal. And for those of you who don't know Mr. Boehner, just last Sunday he described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "the best thing" to happen to the Pentagon in a long time. Such statements defending a Secretary of Defense who, time and time again has proved his incompetence in executing his duties makes one question Mr. Boehner's own handle on reality.
...A vote for Allan Schlesinger is a vote to maintain Senator Ted Steven's chairmanships. Yes, that's the same Ted Stevens who took our tax dollars to build a bridge to nowhere.
...A vote for Senator Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont is a vote for Harry Ried, should he seek to become Majority Leader of the Senate (assuming a Democratic victory). That's the same Harry Ried who is under scrutiny to this day for his shady land deals in the state of Nevada.
I know, I know...a lot of problems presented here, not many solutions. thefederalist recommends that you call your respective national political parties, and demand a change in leadership...or help support the long-shots who are running against Pelosi, Hastert, and Boehner this election cycle.
