Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Windows Laptops Now Under $200
Nov 1, 2014 11:00 pm
Microsoft, reacting to pressure from low-cost Chromebooks, now has its own low cost but fully functional laptop PCs...more »
Some Customers Say Transition From AT&T To Frontier Has Been Bumpy
Oct 29, 2014 1:26 pm
(Updated 7 p.m.) Customers who previously had AT&T Inc. landline, Internet, and video services were switched over to...more »

Our Partners

˜

Republicans Win Special Election in 61st

by Christine Stuart | Apr 14, 2014 4:30am
(15) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2014, Town News, Suffield, Windsor

Courtesy of Facebook

East Granby resident Tami Zawistowski and Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley

The Connecticut Republican Party is claiming that East Granby resident Tami Zawistowski’s victory over Peter Hill in the 61st House District race was a referendum on Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

The special election held Friday showed that Zawistowski defeated Hill by more than 540 votes. Zawistowski will fill the seat previously held by the late Elaine O’Brien of Suffield. The district includes East Granby, Suffield, and part of Windsor.

“Tonight’s results are also a clear referendum on the failed economic policies of Dan Malloy which have given us the worst economy in the nation, brutally high taxes, and an unemployment rate that continues to far exceed the national average,” Republican Party Chairman Jerry Labriola Jr. said.

Courtesy of Facebook A spokeswoman for the Democratic Party said that the Republican Party’s perspective on the race is not accurate.

“I commend Peter Hill on a hard fought race and congratulate Tami Zawistowski. But please, someone give Jerry Labriola a reality check,” Sandra Lyons said. “We realize his party is in shambles with their recent party leader being indicted in addition to their leading candidate for governor being fined for violating election law. As much as Jerry needs good news, a special election for a state house race is not an indicator of anything for November.”

Zawistowski, who runs Resource Books LLC, a company that deals in rare and used books, ran and lost in 2012 to O’Brien, a popular town clerk in Suffield. O’Brien died in February from cancer.

Hill was a political newcomer who had served on the Suffield Police Commission.

Zawistowski’s victory brings the number of Republican lawmakers in the House up to 54. It’s the second special election Republicans have won since Rep. Sam Belsito picked up a seat in the 53rd District representing Tolland, Ashford, and Willington.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(15) Comments

posted by: art vandelay | April 14, 2014  5:47am

art vandelay

A question to the Jerry Labriola and the Connecticut Republican Party.  Was the special election held recently in New Haven a “Clear Referendum on the failed economic policies of Dan Malloy”?  Certainly not.  Gary Holder-Winfield and the Democrats won a solid victory while the Republicans didn’t even BOTHER to run a candidate.  Republicans in this state better wake up pretty quick and realize they will never win back the Governor’s Chair, or any other office unless they get involved in urban elections.

posted by: Christine Stuart | April 14, 2014  8:20am

Christine Stuart

Art, Republicans ran Steve Mullins in the 10th Senate seat race in New Haven.
Christine

posted by: art vandelay | April 14, 2014  10:43am

art vandelay

@Christine,
You’re correct the Republicans did run a candidate that was just a token.  The Reps put little or nothing into a campaign.

posted by: GBear423 | April 14, 2014  11:11am

GBear423

“We realize his party is in shambles…” Sandra Lyons said.

So that being said, her candidate was beaten… So clever this Party, and so classy!

posted by: Not that Michael Brown | April 14, 2014  1:23pm

Don’t know about Molly’s negative coat-tails, but the election was held on a Friday and only about 20% of the registered voters turned out. So, what can be said, the Republicans got more of their voters out than the Democrats did.  Democrats may have taken this one for granted or didn’t work hard enough.

The November election will be on the regular election day (Tuesday).  Turnout is expected to be a little over 60% state wide.  Democrats will lose if turnout is anything less than 60%.

posted by: CT Jim | April 15, 2014  10:44am

@Michael Brown, so democrats lose if turnout is less than 60%? Mmmmm So if everybody votes democrats win all the time??? Now wouldn’t that be democracy?? one could only hope.

posted by: ASTANVET | April 15, 2014  2:54pm

Again, this is the jerry springer of politics.  Everyone is looking for the “oh no he didnt” moment.  Pure partisanship.  Is this the best our state, our nation can muster?  We may as well have jimmy the greek prognosticate on ESPN about all the elections and really get people involved… what a tragic joke.

posted by: Not that Michael Brown | April 15, 2014  4:04pm

@CT Jim - More people voting is “democracy.”  Stopping people from voting is Republicanism.

posted by: ASTANVET | April 15, 2014  8:14pm

Not that michael Brown - not to be a nit picker about your insults - but: Republicanism is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic, where the head of state is a representative of the people who hold popular sovereignty rather than the people being subjects of the head of state.  Universal suffrage has little to do with political ideology, although your failed attempt to equate voter suppression with the GOP is ludicrous.  That is nonsensical huffington post/rachel maddow imaginings - intended to drum up a fabricated crisis to gin up support for the D’s.  (go team blue!!)  I surely hope that you can make better arguments than regurgitated campaign talking points.

posted by: Not that Michael Brown | April 16, 2014  12:27am

@ASTANVET - Thanks for limiting your nitpicking to only 100 words. Rachel Maddow?

Let me rephrase. More people voting is more democracy. Democrats tend to win when more people vote. Republicans tend to win when less people vote.  Republican legislatures around the country are on a campaign to ensure that poor people don’t get to vote.

posted by: art vandelay | April 16, 2014  1:21am

art vandelay

@not that Michael Brown,
It’s NOT a democracy when one party decides that the only way to remain in power is to get everyone who is not eligible to vote, to vote.  It’s WRONG when one party insists on not checking the legal status of people prior to presenting them with a ballot.  It’s wrong for one political party to hire limos, fill them with liquor, round up people from rehab centers, urban community centers etc., and bring them to the polls.(Toni Harp Election)  It’s wrong to hire Black Panthers to intimidate people from voting in urban cities like Philadelphia during national elections.  One party will even go as far as keeping polls open in urban cities when their party might loose an election. (Bridgeport 2010). One party (Democrats) will do anything quasi legal or illegal to remain in power. Their goal is to transform this nation from the Republic our Founding Fathers gave us into a statist/socialist country.

posted by: CT Jim | April 16, 2014  9:40am

@ Art Vandelay, your republican talking points are really getting old and stale. Not that I condone it but was there anything illegal about picking people up regardless of where they live and what stature they have in life to get them to vote??? And there is ZERO evidence whatsoever that democrats get non citizens to vote that is a joke. and of the 28 or so cases of voter fraud over the last 15 years more than half involved republicans so be careful with your paint brush.The Black panthers Philadelphia story was way over blown and was dealt with in that year. I believe it was 2008. I notice that you never mentioned the 10’s of millions that the republican party spent on poll watchers in 2012 in an attempt to slow down and suppress voting and lastly we all know you would have had no problem disenfranchising voters in Bridgeport in 2010 as long as your boy would win. It’s funny you guys love to wave your flags and scream about rights and democracy but when it comes to stealing elections by suppression you hide your contempt for voters under the guise we are not a democracy but a republic. I’d say you should be ashamed of yourself but I’m sure it would fall on deaf ears.

posted by: Not that Michael Brown | April 16, 2014  12:51pm

@Art Vandelay - Thanks for the laugh.

posted by: ASTANVET | April 17, 2014  10:24am

Not that michael brown - are we a democracy or a constitutional federalist republic?  hmmmmm… it would seem that you would be ok with 50% (+1) tyrannizing the other 49%... that is true democracy, Mob Rule.

posted by: art vandelay | April 17, 2014  11:12am

art vandelay

@CT Jim &  Michael Brown,
When it comes to getting Democrats elected, the ends justify the means.