Gaffey / Suzio: their Meriden debate
The MRJs Dan Ivers reported on the Tom Gaffey / Len Suzio debate.
Thankfully, Len raised the issue critical to the issues facing Hartford. The corrupt politicians who run the show and need to go:
Speaking in favor of term limits, Suzio criticized Gaffey as a victim of his long tenure in the legislature, and brought up reporting violations in his campaigns that were uncovered as recently as last year, as well as his relationship with a state university associate dean while he voted to fund the university system.
Fair and necessary points. But Sen. Gaffey responded:
strongly by saying Suzio should be ashamed for bringing up his personal life, and in remarks after the debate, said it was "better to be a gentleman than score cheap points."
No, Mr. Gaffey. YOU are the one who should be ashamed. But like Mary Fritz, you are so out-of-touch that you don't even realize how wrong you are.
Tim White
7 comments:
Tim,
You're funny. You say Gaffey's mixing of personal and professional conduct is a major problem (I happen to agree).
Yey, you support Caligiuri, despite his much-publicized affair with a married state lawyer investigating Rowland’s ethical violations while the investigation was ongoing, and while Sam was serving as Rowland’s attorney.
You have no problem with that?
Conflicts of interest should not be allowed to exist in the Probate office.
It is interesting that delegates of the Cheshire and Southington Democratic Party nominated Meccariello as their 2010 candidate for Probate Judge, even as stories of his possible judicial misconduct were being reported, and an earlier warning of possible conflicts of interest related to realestate. Then when Meccariello withdrew from the race, both Democratic Town Cuncils picked Matt Hall as the replacement candidate. Was Matt Hall a delegate that voted for Meccariello, and why has he declined to comment on the Smoron case that bought Meccariello down. Matt Hall said, "We should all trust voters".
So far, Matt Jalawiec is the only one we can trust, as he is the only candidate that was picked by the voters. Meccarielo and Hall were picked by the Democratic party leaders and Boman, a novice and new member of the Repulican Party, was picked over Jalowiec, an experience probate lawyer, by the Republican caucus, with only 2 votes cast for Jalawiec.
It certainly seems like special interests played an important part in party decisions rather than the interests of the public.
despite his much-publicized affair
I recall hearing something mentioned once in 2006 when he first ran for state senate, but not since then. When was this reported as news? I really don't recall. If it was 1995 to 1998, I was out of the country and the internet had not really hit VN yet. And if it was in the 1999 to 2005 period... I only really got actively following stuff online around 2004 or so. Don't mean to diminish your concern, just letting you know where I'm coming from.
Yes, I believe it was around that time you were away. Kevin Rennie of the Hartford Courant reported it and it was picked up by others. It was during the Meadows ticket investigation - not the major Tomasso-related issues that drove Rowland out of office. The lawyer worked for the state ethics commission.
Regarding the probate race:
People in Cheshire don't realize how much power a probate judge holds. I work in the medical field and have come across too many instances where 'rights' for a committed person are not understood by families, nor are liing wills and other papers that fall under the probate realm.
Jalowiec's "experience" in this field and temperment in general scares me and I would prefer a person who has more general and a wider bredth of experience in life.
I don't know Matt Hall nor Jalowiec, but am familiar with both of their reputation and work over the years. As such, I hope Mr. Hall is carefully considered and endorsed by the voters of both towns.
"I don't know Matt Hall nor Jalowiec, but am familiar with both of their reputation and work over the years."
You should then be aware that Matt Hall is basically a realestate lawyer who has served the local developers and realtors. While on the council, he supported their interests.
We don't need any conflicts of interest in the probate office.
We are suppose to have separation of church and state, and the candidates should not impose any of their religious views on us. We don't want your church dictating how we should live. Worship however you want, but keep your church out of our lives, our bedrooms and our family planning.
This is free country and we don't need the religious right to run this country like the taliban.
Post a Comment