U.S. Reps. Chris Murphy, D-CT, Joe Courtney, D-CT and Jim Himes, D-CT, all parted with the donations sent there way since 2002 from U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, the ex-chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. 

Himes, who said he “admired Congressman Rangel” wrote $16,000 in various checks to local charities;  Murphy forked over $21,000 and Courtney, who took in the most from the Harlem powerbroker – gave out $25,000.

Republican Congressional candidates and Chairman Chris Healy had publicly called on the three to return the funds donated by Rangel through his reelection committee and his National Leadership Political Action Committee. Rangel stepped down from his post Friday after rank and file Democrats expressed their concern over Rangel’s “admonishment” by the House Ethics Committee for taking unreported corporate trips to exotic Caribbean locations in 2007 and 20-08. Rangel is still being investigated for tax fraud and the improper use of his rent-stabilized apartments in New York City.

Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi snuck into New Haven to raise some money for our Congressional team, charging $5,000 a head to hear another pitch for taking over the nation’s health care system and putting it in the and of faceless bureaucrats.  CT News Junkie reported the event was to benefit Murphy, U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro and U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-CT.

It is easy to see why the Democrats are huddling quietly. There have been few public appearances from the Congressional delegation as Pelosi, aided by her Lieutenants –  Larson and DeLauro, scramble to find the 217 votes needed to jam through a health care bill  that an overwhelming number of Connecticut voters have rejected.

 We have Jeff Cohen of National Public Radio and the CT Mirror to thank for Thursday re[port on that icon of probity Abe Giles, the King of the North End, former legislator and Hartford ward healer extraordinaire, who lapped up thousands of dollars of CEP money and spread it to the faithful in 2008.  Giles is a generous man. He once allowed dozens of voters to use his home as their address for registration purposes.

Giles, trying to win back his seat in the House of Representatives, got $25,000 in CEP money, repeat taxpayer money, to run his campaign. Half of it went to “campaign activity” that barely past the smell test and the rest….?

According to the Cohen:

Records show he paid his grandson $1,000 for campaign buttons.  It’s unclear from the records if that payment was for a reimbursement. And he paid $1,000 to an old acquaintance in town from Atlanta to work as a singing bus driver and a campaign aide.

“He got overpaid. He got somebody else’s check and took off,” Giles said. “I didn’t even try to get it back. He was going back to Atlanta, or wherever.”

Giles also paid his own company $800 for rent for his campaign headquarters. He paid Working Families Party Board of Education member Sharon Patterson-Stallings at least $2,000 for canvassing.

And Democratic veteran Prenzina Holloway got $2,000 for grassroots political work. Giles said he wasn’t exactly thrilled with what he got.

A singing bus driver?

Giles was unsuccessful in his efforts, losing to State Rep. Marie Kirkley-Bey, D-Hartford.

Democratic Legislators who would be unemployable in the private sector and see their government jobs as their only avenue to pass the time of day, are eager to keep the CEP  afloat.

That would include State Rep. Chris Caruso, D-Bridgeport, State Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield, D-New Haven, and an assorted of other dead beats who are terrified about the idea of having to go out and ask citizens to contribute hard dollars to their visionary quests for future service.

But you can’t keep a guy like Abe  Giles down, even if you indict him or accuse him of what some would call good natured larceny.

“As a matter of fact, I’m not a taker, I’m a giver,” Giles said. He said he has always tried to hire people from the community to work on his campaigns. “And that’s the only reason. It wasn’t no kind of quid pro quo or anything like that.”

For the time being, we are trying to get a hold of one of those Go with Abe buttons.

Hoydick won every polling district over Andersen who had won the same district votes in 2008 during her loss to State Sen. Dan DeBicella, R-Shelton. Democrats have a 4,000-vote advantage over Republicans in Stratford, making the win a true testament to the candidate and the sharp campaign operation run by the Stratford Republicans and the House Republican office.  Scores of Republican volunteers from various statewide and Congressional campaigns offered hours of service making calls, walking neighborhoods and turning our the vote.

Andersen was a seasoned candidate who tried to portray herself as a fiscal conservative and a “common sense” candiddate. House Democrats did put a spirited and thorough effort into this campaign.

The race was called due to the vacancy created by John Harkins’ landslide election as Mayor in in November.

Photo: Connecticut Post

Charlie Rangel is all about power and the abuse of it. But like anyone who has been around other people’s for a long time, he  is finally, slowly getting caught and with it comes scrutiny of his actions. To keep himself safe,  Rangel has written many checks to keep him from public calls for his head.

That is why is was no surprise when the House Ethics Committee announced February 27 it would admonished him last week for taking illegal corporate trips in 2007 and 2008, only one Democrat Congressman has called for him to step down from his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee.

To his partial credit, U.S. Rep.  Jim Himes, D-CT, announced over the weekend he would give $2,000 of the $18,000 he has received from Rangel since his election to charity. U.S. Rep. Joe  Courtney, D-CT, ($25,000) and U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, D-CT, ($16,000)  have not given up a dime, nor has fellow committee member U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-CT, offered a word.

All were quick to criticize Republican misdeeds, including former Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-TX, who was admonished in 2005 and U.S. Rep. Marc Foley, R-FL, in 2006 for his sexual misconduct with staff.

Rangel waited three decades plus before finally ascending to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which writes and passes the tax laws that we all have to abide to, no matter how much we might protest to our accountants. For the last year, the House Ethics Committee has been looking into Rangel’s various private affairs which have crossed the line into outright criminal behavior. Rangel has failed to report income from a  condominium in the Dominican Republican that he bought for nothing, funnelled tax dollars into a private college that publicized his name, bent housing laws in the use of his rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem and took unreported corporate trips  to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008.

The New York Post and the New York Times have been filling their papers with the details of Rangel’s actions.  The Times Editorial board even called for Rangel to “give up the gavel.”

It doesn’t matter. Rangel will only leave Congress if he is expelled or expires. He will never be thrown out by his constituents. He provides.

Rangel’s National Leadership PAC has been used to collect millions in donations from other PAC’s and corporate donors. This money is then handed out to Democratic Congressman or candidates in need.

It is typical of the Democrats in Congress to turn a blind eye when they have abused and violated a sense of ethics or decency. Millions of people pay their taxes and don’t get corporate freebies to exotic locations. It is even more disheartening when our own Congressional delegation doesn’t at least acknowledge that Charlie Rangel is symbol of what is wrong with our political system or relieve themselves of his hush money.

(Photo credits: New York Times, AP)

Congressmen John Larson, Rosa DeLauro, Joe Courtney, (all three right)  Christopher Murphy and Jim Himes will likely walk lock-step with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and reaffirm their last vote that will end private heath care through a series of mandates, tax increase, new government bureaucracies and cuts in Medicare.

Their plan is assured now that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, joined by U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-CT, and other liberals, will ignore the Rules of the Senate and justify this seizure of one sixth of our economy through a simple majority vote.

President Obama, who used to teach law, swatted any concern about the 60-vote standard, or cloture rule, during the back and forth with Republicans at Blair House, saying people cared little about the “details of Senate procedure.” 

“A majority vote makes sense,” President Obama said.

Obama rightfully opposed Republican attempts to ignore cloture and use “reconciliation” in 2005 when many wanted to approved scores of federal judicial appointments being blocked by the then Democrat-Minority.

During that tense moment, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-CT, formed a compromise group to move a dozen judges through the process, including Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts

Democrats are prepared to roll the grenade, pass a bill that they hope the American people will reluctantly embrace or forget by the time of the November election. Democrats will remind everyone that welfare reform, tax cuts and other pieces of legislation were approved by simple majority votes. That is true, but this proposal is a seminal shift in national policy that affects every American. Those other bills are small in comparison.

Each Connecticut vote shouldn’t come as a surprise. DeLauro and Olsen are the most radical of the five members, are clearly going down with the ship, hoping their long-term support and a friendly district will not turn them out. Courtney has been trying to say gold-plated – public sector health care plans – from being taxed, but he will cave. Himes is also a true believer and Murphy will also make a grand statement about fairness and accessibility

Lieberman is the only member of the delegation to indicate he won’t go to the mat. Even a fellow with an 90 plus ACLU rating can add.

Democrats, or at least its hard-core leaders, are prepared to make it the campaign issue, behind the economy which continues to suffer despite 5.8 percent growth. It is clear the $782 billion stimulus package, also supported by the entire delegation, failed to deliver. Another 485,000 American filed unemployment claims last month.  The country is stuck in a 1970’s style semi-recovery, built on borrowed money, time and fear.

Republicans, led by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-TN,  made sharp and coherent argument at the Summit on tort reform, interstate sales of insurance, elimination of pre-existing condition but they could have been talking to their house pets the way the President acted. 

The die is cast. The Democrats are ready to rumble and Connecticut’s Democratic team is set to deliver the cure. Take two aspirin and call us in November.

“It’s on her dime – finally, but to any serious person, no amount of pleading through high priced lawyers will qualify her to be Attorney General,” said Healy.  “Fortunately, the Republican candidate exploring a run for Attorney General is fully qualified to represent the state and defend its interests without a cloud.”

It is another in a series of blatant shape shifts engineered by Blumenthal as he attempts to paint himself as an “outsider,” despite spending his entire adult life as an elected or appointed official dedicated to big government at any cost.

But, Dick is a fighter, your see. He is a fighter who fights by fighting for Connecticut so we can fight another fight.  Nex time you see him, count the number of times he uses that word.

Each day, whenever a microphone lurks, Dick Blumenthalblows into it with another bizarre, half baked comment that contradicts his record. Last week, Blumenthal gavef two differewnet answers about eliminating the payroll tax on companies that hire new employees.

Now, it’s a rule that has stood the test of time and served the Republic. Blumenthal’s hope is that people will see him as someone untainted by politics – an apolitical servant of the masses.

The Senate fillibuster, Senate Rule 22, or “cloture” rule allows a member of the Senate to speak uninterupted until 60 votes  are cast to conclude debate. These are rules that protect the minority from the oppression of a simple majority. The rule has its origins in ancient Rome and has been used in the Senate since 1851, but more formally since 1917.

The filibuster switch is the latest attempt to replace fiction with fact.

In November, 2007, Blumenthal slobbered over Sen. Dodd for using the “filibuster” rule to stop efforts to provide immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted in the government in warrantless wiretaps.

Blumenthal’sefforts to sckewer private companies, like AT&T from complying with anti-terrorist is enough to disqualify him from office. Time and again, Blumenthal has sided with the political sector of our population which believes you can fight terrorists with affidavits and writs.

Before the Democrats took back control of the U.S. Senate in 2006, Republicans, lacking the 60 votes needed and frustrated by their inability to move forward federal appointments to the Judiciary considered the famed “nuclear option” and hoped to ram through the nominations on a simple majority vote. It would have plunged the nation into a Constitutional crisis. We don’t recall Dick Blumenthal saying the law should have been changed then to accommodate the Republicans’ wishes. In the end, a compromise was reached.

Blumenthal has also been coy about whether he believes the current health care proposals should be approved in the House and Senate under the “reconciliation” rules, that would also make a mockery out of the legislative process.

If you don’t believe he means it, click below and listen.

“I haven’t presumed to ask. I don’t know whether he would and I don’t know whether we would ask,” he said. “At this point it is an open question,” Blumenthal told reporters after visiting with the Yale University College Democrats. It was a line worthy of the late William A. O’Neill, the unwitting Master of Obfuscation.

This is typical Dick Blumenthal,  to offer a open-ended comment that has no meaning or doesn’t offend a soul, but sound reasonable.

“The president of the United States is someone whom I deeply respect and admire,” Blumenthalsaid. “I have differences with him, and if elected, if I’m fortunate enough to be elected, I would take stands on the merits, but the main priority is fighting for the people of Connecticut.”

That, Blumenthal, he’s a  fighter.

“I will fight for Connecticut whether or not I agree or disagree with the president,” he said. “If I agree, I will side with him. If I disagree, I will oppose him. And he may not want to come to Connecticut if I take that view.”

GO BULLDOGS, E-L-I YALE!!!

A few days ago, Blumenthal pulled the same stunt on the MSNBC “Morning Joe,” featuring Joe Scarborough, Mihka Brzezinski and Democrat sycophant Lawrence O’Donnell. The four-way banter was hard to follow, but thankfully, there is an official transcript on the subject of Countrywide Financial, Chris Dodd and Blumenthal’s position on “abolishing” the payroll tax.

BLUMENTHAL: I will tell you, and if you live in Connecticut, you’ll be receiving a check next week or in weeks thereafter from countrywide, because our suit against Countrywide, or our legal action, has produced, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars across the country. Ive taken action against exactly the kinds of practices that  Washington, D.C. ought to be preventing. and I want to change the way Washington works.

Reality Check: Blumenthal’s lawsuits produced $1.3 million for 340 borrowers in Connecticut, not hundreds of millions nationwide.That’s $3,000 per homeowner, peanuts compared to the thousands lost by many of this mortgage holders.  Second, Blumenthal was late to the party, filing suit on August 5th, 2008. well after similar suits were filed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan of Illinois and Edmund “Jerry” Brown in California, who filed on June 24th, 2008

SCARBOROUGH:The last question I’ll have on Chris Dodd, who actually, we all like Chris Dodd around here, but I think this is a fair question to ask. did Chris Dodd act in a way that was unethical by taking a sweetheart deal from Countrywide?

 BLUMENTHAL: Well, first of all, I would never take a sweetheart deal –

REALITY CHECK : No one asked him if Blumenthal would  take any deal- that wasn’t the question nor the inference. Blumenthal repeatedly said there was nothing wrong or improper with Dodd-Countrywide mortgage deal but uses the pejorative language  which describes it, nonetheless.  The whole idea is absurd since Blumenthal has no mortgage on his palatial estate in Greenwich. It is a Trust Mortgage.

BREZINSKI: I know you wouldn’t. but we’re asking as Attorney General, if you would –

BLUMENTHAL: I know as a former prosecutor –

REALITY CHECK: Blumenthal was a federal prosecutor from 1977 to 1981. Did  he mention that?

 O’DONNELL: I  got a better interest rate than Chris Dodd got on that loan.

 BLUMENTHAL: Well, maybe we ought to investigate you.

(REALITY CHECK: Dick has a sense of humor.)

Now, earlier in the interview,  Blumenthal offered an idea long supported by Republicans, lowering or eliminating the payroll tax to spur immediate economic growth. But again, he shaped shifted when the follow up questions caught him unawares and his comments were no-sensical and filled with self-inflating blather about his role in the universe.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let’s bring in the Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, Mr. Attorney General, you want to be United Sates Senator. “”the New York Times”" Charles Blow came in today and said 56% of Americans don’t think the President has a clue on how to get Americans back to work. How do you do it?

 BLUMENTHAL: I think we need job creation first and foremost, that ought to be the President’s priority, and  I’ve been saying it for some time now, because in my job, I hear people, half to listen to people, because they contact me directly. Iwould do it through a series of tax credits, payroll tax holidays or exemptions, but also money back to states so that they can invest in the transit and schools and infrastructure that will create more jobs. in other words, a combination of measures going beyond the $15 million that the Majority Leader, Harry Reid believes, will pass.

REALITY CHECK: Blumenthal doesn’t tallk to people and has never publicly pushed for payroll tax relief. The Reid proposal is $15 billion, not million. And what does “going beyond” mean

SCARBOROUGH:do you agree with the (U.S. Sen. Charles) Schumer plan. Schumer and, I guess (U.S. Sen.) Orrin Hatch have come together with a plan where you cut payroll taxes.

BLUMENTHAL:I do agree with it, except I think it should be extended. It should be made more permanent so there is more confidence and trust on the part of the business community. a small business — and after all, jobs will come from small businesses. 

REALITY CHECK: “More permanent”  is lawyer-eeze. It is either permanent or temporary. Which is it?

SCARBOROUGH: Right.

BLUMENTHAL: Cannot hire without some confidence that that kind of exemption, the payroll tax holiday, will continue to exist for some time.

SCARBOROUGH:   Now, there are a lot of Democrats that have had a problem over the past year with giving small businesses tax cuts. Do you think people like  (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi have it wrong? That they’ve got to cut taxes for small business people,  to get people back to work? 

BLUMENTHAL: I have urged again and again and again, and I’ve broken with some of my Democratic friends. I have a very independent record as Attorney General and a very bipartisan one. I believe that there need to be more aid to small businesses. In fact, using the Small Business Administration for not only loan guarantees, but also other kinds of aid, because, again, we will not have really prosperous recovery without aid to small businesses.

REALITY CHECK:  Blumenthal, again creates the fantasy world that he is at the vanguard of independent thinking. There are no facts to back this claim up – no press releases or public comments showing that he long supported cutting the payroll taxes. Who are these Democrats that he has parted with?

Then, in mid-sentence, he defaults to his role of Attorney General as giving him a window into the souls of the entrepreneur class, where he spent most of the last two decades tormenting small and large businesses with lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits.

At the end of this insipid “interview,”  O’Donnell of all people, goes back to the Blumenthal position on an open-ended commitment to lifting payroll taxes, which provide funding for the Social Security program.

O’DONNELL:  You (Blumenthal) said, you said that you think that this payroll tax holiday for new hires should be made permanent. The payroll tax is the Social Security tax, you’re saying, permanently, the 6.2% that employers pay should — on new hires, from the unemployment rolls should be permanently abolished and you are thereby, by making this permanent, advocating the biggest defunding of Social Security Trust Funds that anyone has ever proposed. 

BLUMENTHAL: No, I meant to say, more stable, more permanent, over a longer period of time. not eliminated entirely. I’m glad you came back –I’m glad we straightened that out.

REALTIY CHECK – What Poppy-cock! Again, the parsing to have it both ways. More permanent is nonsense. It’s either permanent or its not. But Blumenthal, seeing he could be accused of raising the Social Security Trust Fund, looks for a safe landing, hoping no one will  press him further.

Anyway, this could make the debate more permanent.

“Dick Blumenthal stonewalled all attempts to get to the bottom of the Countrywide scandal from the get-go to protect Chris Dodd,” said Healy. “Only after the political heat got turned up did Dick Blumenthal join the chorus of criticism while still defending Sen. Dodd’s sordid deal.”

“Dick Blumenthal has continued to defend Chris Dodd against criticism over his special mortgage rates, even claiming that he was a ‘victim’ of Countrywide all while real victims of the predatory mortgage lending practiced by Countrywide lost people their homes and life’s savings,” Healy said.

“There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on his [Chris Dodd] part any more than the victims who were misled or deceived by Countrywide.”(Dick Blumenthal on Face the State with Dennis House on WFSB February 15, 2009)

“If Chris Dodd received a sweetheart deal from Countrywide, and so far, no one has proved that he did, I certainly would never take it,” (Dick Blumenthal on Morning Joe on MSNBC, February 12, 2010)

“Dick Blumenthal can go to court faster than any man alive when there’s media to be had,” said Healy. “But while his fellow Attorney’s General were taking Countrywide to task, Dick Blumenthal took a pass.”

Healy noted the following timeline, which showed Blumenthal’s reluctance to press Countrywide on their aggressive loan practices, which provided easy terms but serious consequences for those borrowers who were unable to meet payment terms.

The Countrywide controversy came to light on June 12^, 2008 in the edition of Conde Nast’s portfolio.com.

On June 24, acting on a series of complaints from borrowers, Attorney General Lisa Madigan of Illinois and Edmund “Pat” Brown of California, both Democrats, filed suit against Countrywide Financial.

On August 5, Blumenthal, acting with Banking Commissioner Howard Pitkin and Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell, took Countrywide to court.

“While everyone is pleased that some Connecticut consumers are going to receive some money from the announced settlement, Dick Blumenthal is trying to cover his tracks,” said Healy.

“Dick Blumenthal’s promise that he would not take a sweetheart mortgage deal is not enough,” said Healy. “Connecticut voters deserve to elect a U.S. Senator who, unlike Chris Dodd and Dick Blumenthal, would do the right thing regardless of political friendships, rather than wait until the political wind is so strong there is no choice but to act.”

This has become the latest installment of protecting the political welfare state – led by State Rep Jamie Spallone, D-Essex, State Rep. Chris Caruso, D-Bridgeport and the rest of the ultra-left crew who have formed an uneasy bond with the Rell administration on protecting the CEP from the realities at hand. Spallone, who is runnig for Secretary of the State, is co-chairman of the General Administration and Elections Committee (GAE).

Between them, they have proposed alterations in the funding requirements for third parties, and reductions in grants for the legislative and Constitutional office races. The hope by those who pray at the CEDP alter of good government is legislators will vote for the taxpayer financed money – again once the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals decides the pending lawsuit brought by the Connecticut ACLU, the Connecticut Green Party, the Connecticut Lobbyist’s Association and the Connecticut Republican Party (amicus brief only). When the case was heard about a month ago, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal was set to argue it personally before the three-judge panel. But at the last minute, Blumie bailed and let another Assistant Attorney General make the pitch. It didn’t go well, accordingly to lawyers in attendance.

Few who have watched the case except the court to uphold the law. A recent case by the U.S. District Court in Phoenix is a good indicator of the end of the CEP in Connecticut, hopefully, forever. That court struck down the provision of that stae’s “Clean Election” law which provided matching funds to those taking taxpayer money when a non-participating candidate raised and spent more than the freeloader.

House Republican Leader Larry Cafero, R-Norwalk and Senate Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, have consistently proposed eliminating the funding in the face of a $500 million deficit this year. Oh, did we forget to mention that deficit and the $60 million that was appropriated for CEP sponsored 2010 Elections? It says a lot when the state is going to Hell in a Hand Basket and all the Democrats can think about is saving their free money for the next election.

Gov. Rell cut $30 million from the CEP funds as part of her rescission efforts. Now, if the Democratic Legislature decides to “fix” the issues concerning third parties and the funding, they will have to add at least $30 million back into the kitty – money that could be spent on nursing homes, legislative mail and retirement payments for UConn English professors.

But where are the Senate Democrats on this? Well, we know State Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, the Grand Dame of the liberal movement, thinks the CEP should be scrapped and the money should be used on nursing schools.

The Senate Democrats want no part of any CEP reform. The last thing urban Senators want is for the Green Party to have candidates with thousands of dollars to torment them, let alone a Republican candidate with $100,000 in this political environment.

State Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, is no dummy. She is Senate co-chairman of GAE committee and represents a competitive district. Not a peep from her on this stinker.

So, the missiles are on their way from the third branch. Duck and cover and let the politicians earn their support in the free market of ideas.