CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

OP-ED | A To-Do List for the Incoming Republican State Chairman

by | Jun 26, 2015 9:59am () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Analysis, Opinion, State Capitol, Branford, Derby

Congratulations, JR Romano, on becoming the new chairman of the state Republican Party! The good news for you is that for the first time in a decade, that fact may no longer be such an albatross around your neck.

There’s rarely been a better time to be a Connecticut Republican in the past decade and more. Republicans here hit a high-water mark in 2002 and spent a decade steadily sinking, losing Congressional seats, legislative clout, and eventually the governorship to Democrats. But in 2014 they picked up a bunch more seats in the legislature and changed out their leadership in both the House and Senate. What’s emerged looks and feels a lot more like an actual functioning opposition party than the sad rump of a long-faded historical powerhouse.

And I have to say that I’m thrilled to see the GOP choose a younger leader. I can only hope that my generation’s pragmatism and creativity will be qualities we embrace as we begin to take power.

Like a lot of people, I’ve long wished for a real alternative to the bloated, creaky Democratic Party edifice. So, Chairman Romano, in that spirit here are a few items that ought to be on your to-do list if you want to make that happen.

First, and this is something I keep saying, you still need to find a way to put some distance between you and the national party. Connecticut Republicans are very different from South Carolina or Utah Republicans, and you need to remind voters of that. Part of the reason why the last decade has been such a disaster for you is that the national GOP has been so bonkers. When you are fiscally conservative without being social dinosaurs, for instance, you do better.

This ought to be a little easier than it was during the more miserable years of Obama’s presidency. The Republican Party in general feels like it’s starting to move back toward the middle. I’d love to see Connecticut’s Republicans set up shop there for good.

One great thing you could do to start moving to the center would be to distance yourself from the anti-LGBT Family Institute, and stop pandering to the gun lobby so much. Connecticut’s moving away from you on these issues, and won’t ever be coming back.

Second on the list, and this will help with the first item as well, would be to reach out to minority groups. Yes, I know you already do this. It hasn’t worked yet, though I hope your experience helping Erin Stewart win in New Britain will help you change that.

Please keep trying. Start pushing back against the big government prison-industrial complex, for instance. Do more to keep the bad cops from infringing on the rights of minority citizens. Argue for property tax reform to let people in cities keep more of the money they spend on taxes. Be more welcoming to hard-working immigrants.

And for goodness sake, get rid of the racists in the party. When black staffers complain about white privilege, for instance, don’t fire them or get defensive about race. This sends absolutely the wrong message.

Third, encourage party leaders to tell us what you’d do if you were governing. Give people something to vote for and support over the next year and a half. It can’t be as simple as “cut taxes.” The Republican budget proposal was a very good start, but we need more.

Fourth, you’re going to win a bunch of town races this fall, probably more than you think. Capitalize! Shine a spotlight on Republicans doing productive things in their towns. May I suggest the Republican leaders in my own town of Enfield as an example?

Fifth, please try to nominate candidates who can actually win, then do whatever you can to rally the party around them. Ideological battles between Republicans are just going to make you look bad, as will a parade of self-funding millionaire candidates who have never actually held public office.

I know this seems like a lot. But this is what it’s going to take for the Republican Party in this state to actually win enough seats to break the Democrats’ hold on power. A deeply conservative GOP isn’t a threat to Dems, but a center-right, forward-looking one is. There are enough moderate voters out there to swing things your way.

Right now Connecticut voters are frustrated and angry, and they have little faith in their government. Give us an alternative we can actually vote for, and you may be amazed at what happens next.

Susan Bigelow is an award-winning columnist and the founder of CTLocalPolitics. She lives in Enfield with her wife and their cats.

DISCLAIMER: The views, opinions, positions, or strategies expressed by the author are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or positions of CTNewsJunkie.com.

Tags: , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(32) Archived Comments

posted by: Phantom | June 26, 2015  11:58am

I heard about this great future for the Republicans when Labriola won. Not!

posted by: Biff Winnetka | June 26, 2015  12:38pm

...“find a way to put some distance between you and the national party.”  And distance CT Republicans from national Republican party funding? Probably not gonna happen.

Yes, CT Republicans are a national Republican party outlier.  Rather than the tiny, dysfunctional CT Republican party trying to pull the national Party into Camp Dysfunctional, the CT Republican party ought to be considering the policies that have brought success to other state’s Republican parties.  Everyone needs a mentor, even State Republican parties.  Let’s consider the Texas, or Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin….models.   

“distance yourself from the anti-LGBT Family Institute…”
Maybe that’s good advice.  But the FIRST thing he should do???  With all the issues facing the CT Republican party and this State???  Seems a bit self-dealing on the author’s part.

posted by: art vandelay | June 26, 2015  2:04pm

art vandelay

I have to agree with you. You might have added the abortion rights platform.  Republicans need to distance themselves from that issue in order to succeed.

posted by: wmwallace | June 27, 2015  12:59am

No republicans need to reach out to inner cities and show them that the way things have gone under democratic rule has hurt them and not helped them. The status quote has kept many inner city people down and that is something the republicans can run on and should push and I think the new chairman will do just that.

posted by: Politijoe | June 27, 2015  6:21am


@Susan, another great article, and if JR Romano was smart, he’d actually take your advice seriously. Im just glad you’re not working for the Republicans.

posted by: justsayin | June 27, 2015  6:56am

Susan sounds like the dems agenda you are so fond of. LBGT and race? Please those our your issues not ours.

posted by: MuleTime | June 28, 2015  10:04am

Earth to Susan! The CT Republican party has been going left on social issues for over a decade. Where has that gotten them? How many national Republicans would have voted for civil unions in 2005? How many national Republicans would vote for Gay Marriage in 2007? How many national Republicans would have voted for the CEP in 2005? How many netional Republicans woud have voted for the gun control law in 2013? Anywhere else those all would have been party line votes, but because so many Republicans in CT are so liberal those all passed with bipartisan support. Tom Foley isn’t exactly Ted Cruz because he said he’s veto assisted suicide, which many liberals oppose.

If I’ve learned anything from the CT Repuublicans in the last 10 years it’s that saying you only care about money is no way to win elections

And if I’ve learned anything from CT Democrats it’s that caring about everything but money is no way to govern.

posted by: Politijoe | June 28, 2015  9:21pm


@Justsayin: LBGT and race issues are everyones ISSUES, thats where your wrong.

posted by: enness | June 29, 2015  9:21pm

And Romano should trust your ever-so-unbiased, magnanimous advice…why, exactly?

posted by: GBear423 | June 30, 2015  7:04am


I do not think the CTGOP has EVER voiced against gun control or LGBT issues.  They have been as quiet as a church mouse while 2nd Amendment Rights have been infringed, some elected representatives even support removal of Gun Rights.

Republicans are welcoming to hard working immigrants (one was candidate for Senate and Sec of State you recall?), I think we know what you meant though.

When any staffer goes public to speak against their candidate, they get fired.  Identity politics is the Democrats game. Republicans represent Americans… or that is the theory I heard.

There is not much distinction between democrats and republicans in CT, one side just sells the entitlement give-away game and the other has to pretend it doesn’t as much. They all go to the same country clubs, some even work for the same law firms that are soaking it to the tax payers.

If you want real progress in Connecticut, there should be a movement to create a bonafide Office of the Inspector General.

posted by: Michele | June 30, 2015  11:50am

I appreciate the depth of this op-ed. However, what does it matter what Republicans do in CT? They have no voice. And when people lose confidence in Democrats and vote for Republicans, the Republicans accomplish nothing because they cannot go against how things have been run for decades. If Republicans become moderates, they lose their Republican base, and if they stand their ground on issues that have been important to the party in the past, they are shut out. I see no solutions. I’m leaving the state. I’m not from here. I have lived in other states where progress is not a dirty word.

posted by: Politijoe | June 30, 2015  12:32pm


@Michele: I think you hit the nail on the head when you stated “If Republicans become moderates, they lose their Republican base”........ THIS is the central issue with todays modern GOP. They have been hijacked by extremists. The Republican party has created its very own Frankenstein with the Tea party who clings to a one-size-fits-all belief of no government, largely because it’s a bumper-sticker theory thats easy to understand. As a result they continue to define themselves by what they are against, instead of what they are for. This of course has implications in state elections as well. Until the Republican party chooses to clean its own house and return to the Republican values of moderation, compromise and deliberation it will remain increasingly marginalized.

posted by: art vandelay | June 30, 2015  6:49pm

art vandelay

Here we go again with words.  I do not consider anyone who believes in the basic principles this nation was founded upon as an “Extremist”.  I call them a Patriot.

I ask what is “Extreme” with the following:

1. Eliminating the National Debt.
2. Eliminate Deficit Spending
3. Protecting Free Markets by allowing businesses
  to prosper and profit
4. Abiding by the Constitution and its principles
  as it was intended.
5. Promote Civic Responsibility by allowing
  citizen’s voices to be heard
6. Reduce the size, scope, and reach of the
  Federal Government.
7. Reducing the scope and influence special
  interests and lobbyists have on government.

These are the principles on which the Tea Party was founded.  I see nothing Extreme in these beliefs.

What I do consider Extreme are leftist Progressive
Marxist Socialists who are determined to destroy the foundations of this country and turn it into some kind of European socialist society where a large centralized government controls everyones lives.  This is the goal of people like Barack Obama, Malloy, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Van Jones, Al Sharpton, Valeri Jarret, and others.

posted by: wmwallace | July 1, 2015  12:46am

Please the extremist on the left are the real problem. Again I know a number of democrats that feel the party has left them behind. Yes they are older democrats, but they feel they have no place in the party because of the direction they are heading into.
The republicans in the state are moderates for the most part and more middle of the road. Far from the extremist quoted by a couple of posters.

posted by: Politijoe | July 1, 2015  12:28pm


@wmwallace: you’re correct Ct republicans are comparatively much more moderate, however if we look at the GOP party as a whole, the moderates have been marginalized as a result of an extremist element within their ranks. The tea party wraps every issue in the flag and attempts to paint every scenario with a broad stroke of patriotism as a distraction from the hypocrisy that is rampant among this no-nothing fringe element. The reality is, this is the modern version of the village idiot that embraces a marriage of deceptive practices and bad economics that results in a bastardization of our democracy.

posted by: art vandelay | July 1, 2015  1:12pm

art vandelay

Could you kindly tell me what is extreme, flag embracing, broad brushed, hypocritical, a distraction, no nothing, and idiotic about the facts I presented in my last statement?  I see it as taking this country back from the extreme radicals who have torn this country apart.

posted by: Michele | July 2, 2015  8:05am

@Politijoe, I agree with more than I disagree with in your comments.
1. LGBT and race issues ARE everyone’s problems, and they need to be addressed by both parties. Both parties fail to create effective policies.
2. The GOP has been influenced and, in many states, hijacked by religious forces. Religion does not belong in politics. Personal belief is very different than religious policy. The SCOTUS’ recent decision on same-sex marriage is a move in the right direction..
3. You wrote: “The Republican party has created its very own Frankenstein with the Tea party who clings to a one-size-fits-all belief of no government”
I believe the Tea Party desires smaller government, not anarchy. Anarchy is not on the table, and stating that it is is misleading. The Tea Party was hijacked (by whom?) and more Tea Party candidates have been elected. You have to ask yourself why Tea Party politicians are getting elected. Again, religion doesn’t belong in politics, but enough people are discontented with current policy to elect far right representatives. Religion is used to garner support for a strange, unAmerican political force.
You continue: “As a result they continue to define themselves by what they are against, instead of what they are for.”
You are mostly right. Are they defined by what they are against? Yes, when they say they are against same-sex marriage. On the other hand, they are doing their jobs by pointing out failed policies and fiscal irresponsibility. There is a reason for division of power in government. One-party rule was never intended.
Why is the Republican party marginalized? On a national level, I believe it is that they want to distance themselves from social issues that the government must address before we see real change. And obviously the people they represent care about these issues. That should be enough. On a state level, I believe the Republican party is represented by many solid politicians with ideas that would benefit the state if they were allowed to be involved in the process. What needs to end are candidates like Foley and McMahon who look like corporate representatives.
What I see here in CT is power. Democrat power and Republican power, or lack of power. The Democrats can’t even acknowledge that the Republicans had a better budget because they would be giving away too much power. Power is what rules politics in CT, not true concern about its citizens.
No matter what the Democrats do, the Republican party here in CT needs to reassess everything it believes and stands for. It needs to decide whether it represents the people or business/corporations. It needs bold leadership with innovative ideas. What the GOP is doing isn’t working.

posted by: Politijoe | July 2, 2015  12:37pm


The teaparty is a narcissistic, paranoia-soaked sub-culture that fears government tyranny based on contradictory conspiracies of a federal takeover from a socialist president who was born in Kenya and aspires to be king of America. They are serial alarmist who operate under a fear-based worldview with irrational fears of radicals, Muslims, communists, socialists and Islamists. They fear Mexico; big Government and the Liberal Media. They fear welfare, liberals, unions, birth certificates, and death panels. They espouse creationism as a valid science and climate change as a hoax; they don’t believe government should regulate banks, Wall Street, the food industry, environmental polluters, FEMA, guns or education. The reality is, as melodrama, this is all very good entertainment, but as politics, it’s a train wreck. There was a time when the conservatives embraced moderate intellectuals and exercised arguments founded on pragmatic principals to influence legislation. Unfortunately this new variant of conservatism coalesces around an anti-government, anti-intellectual, anti-science extremism that subscribes to an apocalyptic worldview. These low-information conservatives routinely express half-baked theories of trickle down economics and dismantling long-held social institutions like Medicare and Social Security, repealing the federal reserve act, repealing the 16th (Income Tax) and 17th (direct election of senators) amendments, repealing hate crime legislation, repealing healthcare, the ADA, the department of education and describing the civil rights act of 1964 as an overreach of government and the solution to a limited government.

Partiers define themselves as individuals who never relied on federal assistance from the government and therefore pull their own weight. The fundamental lack of logic in this position is fairly apparent; most middle-class families have always benefited from government assistance such as: the FHA, Pell grants, 529 College savings, mortgage deductions, child tax credits, veterans benefits, the GI bill, as well as Social Security and Medicare. The obvious irony is this older, middle class demographic comprised primarily of 65+ white males is the group that gets the largest share of benefits from big government, of course, when almost half of Social Security beneficiaries have convinced themselves that the government mailing checks to them is not a social program, it becomes easier to understand why they might not recognize themselves as participating in government entitlements. These tri-corner colonialists are symbolic of the final gasp of breath within the old white establishment and they are angry about it. The countries demographics and the world are changing all around them. Our economy and social systems are becoming increasingly more costly and complex, as a result they don’t understand the rules, the score or the objective and just want to pick up their ball and go home but they cant.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | July 2, 2015  4:55pm

Poor politjoe is still struggling for credibility after:
1. Insisting that he has provided a clear definition and an actual percentage or amount for what he refers to as ‘fair share’ that the ‘wealthy’ should pay to support his version of government. To this day he hasn’t, but he’ll continue to insist he has while denigrating those who disagree.
2. Insisting that the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare is justified even though the decision amounts to a re-writing of legislation instead of an accurate interpretation - and the only rational outcome of such an interpretation - of the ACA based on it’s VERY clear language regarding funding. His inability to distinguish between what he FEELS is the right decision and what the right decision SHOULD have been based on a rational interpretation of the law through it’s own words - speaks volumes about his objectivity and thus, his credibility.
3. His increasing propensity to attack the intelligence and character of those who disagree with him. The better their argument, the more vitriolic his attacks.

For the record, I agree with a lot of what you say about the evils of corporatism and the difficulties facing the lower and middle classes, as well as the huge gap between the haves and the have nots. But it doesn’t serve your cause when you blindly accept things that clearly shouldn’t be accepted just because you favor the end result. The SCOTUS / ACA decision is the perfect example of this. The language was very brief and eminently clear as to the funding question. An objective, honest evaluation of that is not ony required, but necessary if any of what you hope to see happened to this country is to come to fruition. It’s imperative that the 3 branches of government remain separate, and that each does it’s job correctly. SCOTUS clearly blew this one instead of taking the opportunity to encourage changes that would might help the ACA a better, more useful system.

Hang in there pj - shiningstar agrees with you. What more could you ask for? It’s not easy being an ideologue with a large vocabulary but little in the way of intellectual honesty or objectivity.

posted by: Politijoe | July 2, 2015  8:43pm


@Michele: I think we are generally in agreement, however I would like to address a couple of your points. You stated “Anarchy is not on the table, and stating that it is misleading.”….. I based my comment on remarks this group has stated: Sarah Palin stating “don’t retreat, reload,” Michelle Bachmann calling for Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous,” Sharon Angle citing “second Amendment remedies” against Congress or armed partiers, who took up arms against government law enforcement agents to protect a rancher who refused to pay taxes on public land his cattle grazed on.  Mitch McConnell sending out an e-mail to gun owners warning that “You and I are literally surrounded. They are about to launch an all-out-assault on the second amendment, on your freedom; they’re coming for your guns.”

These so-called patriots justify their outrage and violent rhetoric with claims that Obama is destroying America. During the anti-healthcare rallies, partiers claimed they were taxed enough and “came unarmed this time”. Michele, you also cited that “The GOP has been influenced and hijacked by religious forces”….. I agree, if they are going to claim they are a party based on Christian values then don’t advocate for funding cuts to the needy. Stop framing every poverty issue as a judgment on the poor; refrain from fear mongering and paranoia and stop supporting increased military budgets that exceed a trillion dollars annually. Refuse to advocate for economic policies that are built on feeding greed, corporate welfare and debt merchants at the expense of the middleclass and working poor.

One additional point you mentioned “I believe the Tea Party desires smaller government”…….the problem I have with this is the same as everything else, hypocrisy and contradiction. The reality is the partiers love government. As long as they’re using the government to enforce their ideology, like denying the right for gays to marry or restricting a woman’s right to her own body. Or increasing governments interference in an individuals right to vote.

Finally Michele, you stated “they are doing their jobs pointing out fiscal irresponsibility.”……. once again, contradictions abound. You can’t have over 5 decades since a president from your party balanced the budget. Even the conservative saint, Ronald Reagan nearly quadrupled our national debt in his eight years in office.  George W. Bush then doubled it again. One cannot take seriously partiers who want no-taxes, deep cuts to poverty, education and welfare programs but increase big oil subsidies, tax breaks benefiting Americas wealthiest, corporate welfare and enormous military spending and then claim you’re “fiscally responsible.”

I believe any reasonable individual would begin to notice a pattern with regards to this demographic. Mainly the Tea Party is rife with contradiction, incoherence and a willful contempt for facts or reason.

posted by: art vandelay | July 2, 2015  8:56pm

art vandelay

I couldn’t agree with you more.  Sadly however it’s the Politijoe’s, Shiningstar’s & Gutbomb’s who control the Presidency, Supreme Court and the State of Connecticut.

posted by: Politijoe | July 2, 2015  11:38pm


@Truth to power: as I’ve already stated numerous times as simply as I can for you. The fair share is not a specific dollar amount- it is RATIO RELATIVE TO INCOME….. Hopefully you will read that a couple of times.. Your radical opinion of the ACA ruling appears founded in some alternate reality of tri-corner constitutionalism. This is the basic outline of the argument; please share with us what part of this is “rewriting legislation.”

Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, was enacted as part of Obamacare, authorizes federal tax credit subsidies for health insurance coverage that is purchased through an “exchange ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE under section 1311”

Section 1311, if read literally and in isolation, requires states to establish exchanges. There is no wiggle room in the isolated language. It is a flat and unambiguous requirement. However, statutory interpretation is read in its entirety, not by snatching phrases in isolation. Conservatives have argued semantics in an attempt to undermine the INTENT of the ACA, by referring to the Constitution’s core federalism commands which states: Congress cannot compel sovereign states to create Exchanges. Therefore recognizing that some states may not be “electing State exchanges,” because they may choose not to apply the requirements for an exchange or establish an exchange.

Thus, understanding Section 1311 requires reading it in concert with Section 1321 which authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to establish fallback exchanges in states that do not establish their own. In such cases, the Secretary “shall establish and operate such exchanges within the state.” Thus, if a state declines the role that the ACA urges it to accept, that obligation falls upon the federal government instead and thus provides an alternate mechanism for forming “exchanges” in states that does not require direct state involvement:

Therefore, when the HHS secretary is empowered by Section 1321 to create an exchange, Obamacare is in fact, directing the secretary to establish a “1311 Exchange,” fully eligible for tax credit subsidies under Section 36(b).

Therefore, conservative opposition may have a clear sense of what those four words mean out of context, but they are blind to the meaning of the law as a whole. If we look at the law as a whole, not just one line, its meaning and therefore the laws intent is perfectly clear. For the record, Congress does not intentionally pass statutes that may fail to achieve their goals.

posted by: Michele | July 3, 2015  6:18am

@wmwallace, I completely agree with your recommendation that the Republican party reach out to those who live in the cities. Let us not forget, however, that the Republican party argued against Second Chance. What in the world were they thinking? This was a perfect opportunity to reach out to those living in cities who are high risk of being sent to prison for non-violent, low-level drug offenses. This would have been a perfect opportunity to communicate that the Republican party in CT cares about those who cannot afford to move to any of the lovely small towns in CT that are mostly white. I attended my youngest son’s 8th grade advancement ceremony and there were only two faces that were not white. I have attended events and concerts with only white children performing.

Where is the affordable housing in CT? Not in its beautiful, peaceful small towns. The Democratic party has created a state in which those with the lowest incomes have no chance to ever change their situations. The hope of moving up, earning more money, getting a better job, and giving their children a better opportunity is not available in CT. The cost of living is prohibitively high. Taxes and fees are exorbitant for everyone, but especially for those earning little. Where are the jobs? Where is the manufacturing? CT (both parties) has clamped down, shut its eyes and hardened its heart to those in the lowest income bracket, and has alienated and ignored the middle class. Those who can afford to do so are leaving the state for better opportunities. Even the hope of a better job or lower cost of living is enough.

Every single decision that the current Democratic administration has made, voted on and passed has grown government. At a time of fiscal crisis, they have created new administrative positions to oversee new divisions who will require more funding in the future. When revenue is down, should government grow? While cutting support to social services and higher education, the new budget hires more consultants, pays salaries for more department heads, and basically gives citizens nothing more for their tax dollars. I have news for everyone: revenue will continue to decrease. Those who pay taxes are the ones who can afford to leave the state, and they will. We might have reached the point of no return.

I know Margaret Thatcher is not popular among liberals, but she said something about what happens when other people’s money runs out. I think we are seeing this happen in CT. What to do?

The Republican party could transform itself into a party that cares while fighting policies that are destroying CT’s economy. But will they? Probably not. I have no hope in the Democrats or the Republicans.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | July 3, 2015  9:33am

politjoe: I rest my case. You can say you have defined ‘fair share’ as often as you like, but it doesn’t make it true. Give a number, or give up. Use ad example if you must: ‘relative to his gross income of $xxxx.xx, taxpayer a should pay $x.xx or xx%”. You won’t and can’t.

Regarding ACA ruling: you use the word INTENT then choose to ignore that it is not SCOTUS job to determine intent. It IS their job to interpret what is before them based on the words being used. Any first-year lawyer would tell you this.

You close with “For the record, Congress does not intentionally pass statutes that may fail to achieve their goals.” That is OBVIOUSLY not the case. Congress may not have wanted it to fail but they neither constructed it to be SCOTUS-proof nor let others read it and debate its’ merits before passing it. Their INTENT was the exact outcome they got at the hands of a liberal, lawmaking court.

Please provide us with another long-winded explanation of ‘fair share’ according to politjoe without actually saying anything of substance. You can’t write tax code without numbers.

We can now add ‘obtuse’ and ‘intentional naivete’ to describe you

posted by: shinningstars122 | July 3, 2015  11:39am


Susan “moderate”  Republicans can pretend they are the norm and the voice of reason, but clearly for the last 10 years that has not been the case.

Look at the 14 GOP candidates for President right now,  well except for George Pataki;he is really what you are describing or rather wishing for, but he is from NY one of the largest Democratic bastions left helping to drag our great nation down.

Then guess what? Scott Walker is teeing up next and from this pool’s collective recent efforts and so called “successes” they have nothing in common for being conservative fiscally and more progressive socially.

It has become the death rattle to even publicly support moderate policies these days…just look what they are all saying about the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage.

These politicans are sticking to their conservative ” principles” hell or high water and it resonates with a majority of posters here.

Plus is it safe to assume that Mr. Ramono is a practicing Roman Catholic or worse a Evangelical Christian?

These folks have an agenda and revising American history is one of them.

Plus I have never heard of this dude and clearly he is part of the machine so folks please lower your expectations as we will continue to see more of the same from both of the two political parties.

The ongoing abandonment of the middle and working classes and mainstream politicians, which this person clearly is, bestowing all their attention, efforts and policy decisions to placate the plutocracy and corporations as was painfully displayed in CT over the last month.

The next general election in CT will become ground zero for outside money pouring in to try extinguish anything left that resembles progressive policies.

I wonder how much more Jeff Immelt’s bonus will be this year after standing up for all those poor, unpopular and over paid CEO’s?

posted by: wmwallace | July 3, 2015  12:55pm

The nastiness and name calling in this thread is disgusting and I am shocked it is allowed. I guess when it it tearing at republicans name calling is okay on this site. I for one am disappointed that the topic has gotten off the subject at hand.
I think Chairman Romano will do a good job as the leader of the republican party. That is the point and not the rest of the garbage displayed in this comment section.

posted by: Politijoe | July 3, 2015  5:54pm


For God sakes, tax policies are not lemonade stands; they are a comprehensive series of equations that form our system of progressive taxation with the ultimate objective being fair share relative to income. Therefore, to arrive at “a number” requires more than pulling a knob on a vending machine. There are variables that when implemented influence outcomes. For example, adjusting the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest taxpayers to at least to Clinton era levels. Although this would be a small burden it would remain a step in the right direction. Additionally, eliminate or at least restrict the carried interest provision, eliminate or at a minimum, lower the inheritance tax threshold. These few initial efforts would reduce some of the burden on municipalities and therefore middle class taxpayers.

Your statement “you choose to ignore that it is not SCOTUS job to determine intent. It is their job to interpret what is before them based on the words being used. Any first-year lawyer would tell you this.”……… Unfortunately, you’re wrong again. As the justices in this case clearly articulated, when considering the constitutionality of the wording, INTENT is critical to the decision. If we look at the law as a whole, not just one line of the wording, the meaning and therefore the laws intent is perfectly clear.

For instance, the majority opinion stated: “Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.”

The majority decision, read by Chief Justice John Roberts, said THE INTENT of the subsidies is appropriate

An amicus brief submitted by members of Congress who are current and former leaders of the committees that crafted the ACA as well as members of state legislatures who served during the period when their governments were deciding whether to create their own exchanges under the ACA addresses the very issue of intent.

The brief even quotes the Black Law Dictionary definition of “such” as “those…having just been mentioned.” The grammatical parsing is persuasive as intent.

Your comment “Please provide us with another long-winded explanation of ‘fair share’ according to politjoe without actually saying anything of substance.”…….. I’m fascinated that you claim to be interested in nuanced subjects and complex challenges like taxation policy and then expect bumper-sticker solutions.  Your biggest concern is that it takes too long to read. The truth is your certainly allowed to disagree with the facts, but you shouldn’t be swayed by your own illusion of knowledge when making up your own facts, that just seems intellectually lazy.

posted by: SocialButterfly | July 4, 2015  9:37am

@Politijoe: It is no wonder that during your enslavement to the state Demoratic Party that you never heard of Republican J.R. Romano?  You will.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | July 6, 2015  1:36pm

politjoe: I post that it is not SCOTUS job to determine INTENT as they did in the ACA ruling, and your reply is to use the ACA ruling as proof that INTENT is acceptable. Intellectually lazy, indeed.

Thanks again for yet another non-answer as to the definition of ‘fair share’. You’re batting 1000

posted by: Politijoe | July 6, 2015  2:31pm


@truth to power: you seriously believe you have a better understanding of SCOTUS role than the Chief Justice himself?....... Wow, that says an awful lot about your illusion of knowledge and your tenuous grasp of reality. Nevertheless, in spite of my best efforts to engage you in a dialog on taxation, SCOUTS, etc… you have simply remained wedded to your calcified ideology at the expense of intelligent discourse and thought. Absolutely no need to respond….. You said more than enough. Good day sir.

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 6, 2015  2:50pm


@truth - Roberts stipulated exactly that - intent matters. He knows his job a heck of a lot better than anonymous comment brigade here.

posted by: Politijoe | July 6, 2015  3:27pm


@gutbomb: thanks for the validation, if the amount of willful ignorance and uninformed fear-mongering on these comment boards is any indication of the national political landscape, we are in far worse trouble than imagined. I do however think the tide is beginning to turn, in large part because of the extremist rhetoric heard daily on hate radio and read on sites like this that has ignited the progressives and woken up the vast, silent moderate middle class. Unfortunately, it has come to the point for me where I no longer intend to engage any of these posters with any hope of a collaborative, intelligent dialog and instead will exclusively seek out those like yourself who share a moderate, informed view.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages