OP-ED | Dear EMILY’s List . . . Really?
by Sarah Darer Littman | Jul 28, 2011 8:52pm
(14) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
Dear EMILY’s List,
I am a registered Democrat and a pro-choice woman, and I appreciate the goal of your organization. I’ve even given you money in the past.
But here’s the thing, when I decide who will get my vote, it’s based on a lot more than whether or not my candidate has a penis. My thought process is considerably more complex, because, as I’m sure you’ll appreciate, we women are thoughtful, intelligent and educated and we want the best possible candidate regardless of sex, sexual orientation, religion, or any other discriminatory factor.
That’s why I was appalled to see that you’d endorsed a flawed candidate like Susan Bysiewicz in the U.S. Senate race. Perhaps you didn’t do your research or actually talk to people in Connecticut?
If you had, you might have learned of the candidate’s overweening ambition, well-known in these parts, which led her to make an ill-advised leap from running for governor (where she had a comfortable lead in the polls) to the attorney general’s race, without, apparently, checking to see if she met the legal requirements for the job (she didn’t). Having thus been shut out of the 2010 election as a candidate, then Secretary Bysiewicz did an awful job of handling a nail-biting governor’s race fraught with controversy, astounding this observer with her utter and complete tone-deafness by calling the race for Democrat Dannel Malloy before all the votes had been counted.
But, EMILY’s List, that’s just the top of the Bysiewicz iceberg, which you would known if you’d done just the slightest bit of research before giving her your endorsement.
Because there was also the matter of the “constituent database” Bysiewicz maintained on 36,000 citizens who had contacted her office, in which the former Secretary of the State kept detailed information, including race and ethnicity.
Mysteriously, no one knows quite how, despite the fact that only a few people had the password to the computer on which the database was kept, information from a 2006 Bysiewicz campaign computer was uploaded into this publicly funded database. And then in 2009, Bysiewicz’s 2010 campaign, Friends of Susan 2010, Inc. submitted a FOI request for the information held within the database and used this information for mailing campaign literature. Mrs. Bysiewicz testified under oath that she “was not involved in uploading this information into the state database and had no knowledge or information as to who did, ” according to the report produced by then Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s office.
Yet in your endorsement, EMILY’s List, you called Bysiewicz “a strong voice for reform and transparency in government.” What?
Are you disturbed about your endorsement yet, EMILY’s List? No? Well, maybe this will convince you. It’s a story confirmed to me by a DTC chair. Instead of bowing out gracefully after the state Supreme Court ruled that she wasn’t actually qualified to run for AG, the candidate acted like someone straight from central casting for the movie “Mean Girls.” She encouraged a political neophyte to throw her hat into the ring at the convention, when it was clear that an immensely qualified candidate, George Jepsen, had the nomination all but locked up.
But Bysiewicz holds a really nasty grudge against Jepsen, so she did her best to let him know it.
As with the SOTS database, Bysiewicz denied any involvement of encouraging “Spoiler Candidate” to run, but those involved know straight from the erstwhile candidate that she did in fact do so. What’s more, Bysiewicz’s campaign staff was seen guiding “Spoiler Candidate” around the floor, in her quest to draw votes away from Jepsen.
And so, EMILY’s List, I have to ask you in the nicest possible way…what the heck were you thinking?
Sarah Darer Littman is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers and an award-winning novelist of books for teens. Long before the financial meltdown, she worked as a securities analyst and earned her MBA in Finance from the Stern School at NYU.
Tags: Bysiewicz, EMILY's List, U.S. Senate, Election
(14) Comments
posted by: CTBob | July 31, 2011 8:48am
Well said Sarah. As a delegate to the 2010 Democratic convention, I saw first hand what went on with regard to the “spoiler candidate” put up by Susan’s “people”. I completely lost any remaining respect I had for Bysiewicz after witnessing that ugly little episode.
I’m sure Emily’s List has done some wonderful things for qualified candidates as a PAC, but this time they missed the mark completely.
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | August 2, 2011 9:00am
Nice job, Sarah. Endorsing a candidate just because s/he looks like you is always a bad idea.
Bysiewicz should be disqualified because of ineptitude alone. As you have well documented here, she just makes one mistake after another.
posted by: Careful | August 2, 2011 9:33am
Don’t sell Susan Bysiewicz short—as the Republicans do not have a potential candidate—to defeat her!
“Beating up on Susan Bysiewicz” — will get her elected into office!
Voters are not impressed by hate mail!
posted by: Careful | August 2, 2011 9:46am
Terry G. Cowgill: Until the Republicans can produce a candidate to defeat Susan Bysiewicz—she gets my vote!
Your unsupported “she maes one mistake after another,” only verifies that you dislike her, but then again, you wouldn’t vote for Susan Bysiewicz, anyway,—so what else is new Terry G. Cowgill?
Show me the Republican who will defeat her. Susan Bysiewiz is doing well in the polls.
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | August 2, 2011 10:38am
@Careful: Hate mail? Please. She is a lousy candidate and first she has to get past Murphy anyway. There is talk that Chris Shays might get into the race, so the GOP could have a viable candidate after all.
And as for my assertions about her many mistakes being “unsupported,” did you actually read Sarah’s column? Why should I bother enumerating Bysiewicz’s missteps when Sarah did such a fine job?
posted by: Careful | August 2, 2011 8:47pm
Terry G. Cowgill: You chose to disqualify Susan Bysiewicz based on the well documented ineptitude writings you completely accepted from Sarah Darer Littman.
Don’t sell Susan Bysiewicz short—as she fares well in the polls. Susan does not have carry the the baggage of Chris Murphy—being a Yes man for Pres. Barack Obama—on her shoulders. And don’t bring Christopher Shays into the picture—before he starts posing as as a bonifide Republican election candidate.
I am surprised that Terry G. Cowgill would accept
the writings of “SuperDemocrat Sarah Darer Littman” as political-reference-gospel.
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | August 2, 2011 9:58pm
@Careful, you just don’t get it. I didn’t choose to “accept the writings of “SuperDemocrat Sarah Darer Littman’ as political-reference-gospel.”
Believe it or not, I actually follow CT politics myself and could have come up with the same list myself, Fortunately, Sarah did it so I didn’t have to.
Look, if you like Bysiewicz then fine. But don’t hector those who refuse to buy her act. Try agreeing to disagree. It’s not so bad, really.
posted by: Careful | August 3, 2011 10:10am
Terry G. Cowgill: Good show, Terry! You are entitled to your opinion, and I know you dislike Democrats—as much as Sarah Darer Littman loves all Democrats—except for Susan Bysiewicz—which relects badly on her devoted—Democratic Party heritage.
Susan Bysiewicz may surprise both of you! Don’t sell her short!
posted by: saramerica | August 3, 2011 1:00pm
Just curious “Careful”: 1) If I am such a blindly devoted “Super Democrat” would I really write an op-ed piece critical of another Democrat? and 2)Just so you know - my “well-documented ineptitude writings” won 1st place at the CT Press Club awards. I do my research, and I don’t make any claims for which I don’t have documented or confirmed evidence. Looks to me like your claim is the inept one here.
posted by: NOW What? | August 5, 2011 2:54pm
Hey, come on folks - “everybody” knows that Ms. Bysiewicz would get a sizable vote from male voters >ahem< simply because we’ve >ahem< historically uh, considered her to be good-looking 
Point being, “Careful,” is that would be the ONLY reason that anyone would vote for her. Many people are choosing to be quiet about her past indiscretions simply because we don’t really consider her to be a serious candidate for the U.S. Senate… or any *other* elected position going forward, for that matter. She appears to already be past at least her political “prime.”
As far as I can tell, the only reason why EMILY’S List endorsed Bysiewicz was becasuse Bysiewicz is a female Democrat… and EMILY’S List readily and publicly acknowledges that its primary purpose is to support female Democrats.
posted by: Careful | August 5, 2011 9:02pm
SteveHC: You sound like a male chauvinist—but your reasoning appears flaky - by saying that Nancy Bysiewicz appears that she is past her prime prime! I believe that you have a surprise coming, Stevie!
posted by: Careful | August 6, 2011 9:54pm
SteveHC: You appear to go overboard with your claims about what “Everyone knows about Susan Bysiewicz,” but then again you express as an the expert that she is past—at least her political “prime.” Your “bad karma towards her” doesn’t make you an expert Stevie, as Susan Bysiewicz may surprise you at the polls. Her poll numbers put he in second place in the polls—far above the loser category, you feel your careless expertese, qualifies her for. You are entitled to your opinion, Stevie, but you are not quallfied to speak for what everyone knows! That’s why we have the voting process, and fortunately, you can’t vote for other people, so don’t write off Susan Bysiewicz,only because she doesn’t have YOUR vote!
posted by: NOW What? | August 8, 2011 3:28pm
Actually I’m as far from being a male chauvinist as a guy could possibly get (yeah, I know - “that’s what they ALL say” . A tremendous amount of research has been accomplished over the decades and even most recently, indicating that - like it or not - election success is determined more than EVER before by photogenicity, and perceived attractiveness and youthfulness… and this is even more important for females in local elections than it is for male candidates. Ella Grasso and Golda Meir were very significant anomalies, even in their day, and won their elections *only* because of their consistent demonstration of “no-nonsense, get the job done” attitudes AND abilities. If Susan Bysiewicz wins another election - ANY election - I *hope* it would be because voters believe that she has the ability to do the job that she’d be elected to do, rather than her good looks, but I just don’t see that happening.
(“Stevie” - LOL - I only know *one* person who used to call me that… I kinda like it…
posted by: Careful | August 8, 2011 7:35pm
SteveHC: You seem confused, Stevie, —and are apparently still mulling over your vote for Susan Bysiewicz. She has better attributes in job performance and physical appearance—than the “good old boys” you apparently, usually vote for —that have failed job performances. “as Pres. Barack Obama rubber stamps!”
Step up to the plate, and hit a home run, Stevie. Don’t foul out! Don’t waste your vote for the usual losers who have downgraded our country!