James Craven wrote on (NewBritanHerald.com) Jan 8, 2011 8:47 PM:
" As I am accustomed to having my name in print, I don’t mind doing it here.
After covering the mayor’s office for a number of years, I was not surprised to read of his entrance into the race for a state senate seat. He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, some prefer coffee (a few arsenic), but the facts are clear in his case, as is his record. Objectively, the city is better off today than it was before he took office. That it still needs a tremendous amount of work also is true.
So, say what you will, but it is hard to find wrong with anyone who puts themselves out there for ridicule and criticism when they do so for public service to the community. In the end, I found him honest, loud, a consummate politician (take that as you will) and enamored with the city he represented.
Whether I would vote for him is not for this forum, but I do wish him luck. "
When the New Britain Herald reporter who covered the mayor's office for many years says the city is better off for having had Tim Stewart as mayor, then he must have done a great job for this city!
Clarification:
It has come to my attention that this original posting was posted on New Britain Herald.com and that one of my readers, and not Mr. Craven, forwarded it to me. At the time that it was posted on this blog, I believed, although incorrectly, that it was Mr. Craven who originally sent it to me. I apologize for any confusion that may have resulted by the posting of Mr. Craven's comments on here.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
James, that was very nicely written. I have always known you were a fair and balanced reporter, even if The Herald had preferred your writing not to be. That has to be one of the nicest, and truly honest writings the Mayor could get.
Henry Zembko
Frank:
It was good to see Jim Craven's name on something. Even though Jim was subject to the dictates of his bosses when at The Herald, I feel he was fair and balanced in his reporting and in his writing.
Jim Craven has proven his ability to be a fair reporter in the style of the old days when the media reported the news no matter which party it impacted.
If you doubt me, I need only remind you of his expose regarding the online posting of nasty comments by a Democratic staffer at the state capitol who was using a state computer to publicly post vicious comments about the mayor.
Oh that's right, the admitted culprit was none other than the son of the Democrat's chosen candidate to run for state senate and the same person who was serving as a New Britain Alderman while admitting his illegal use of a state computer, and was also reportedly living in his parent's Berlin pool house while elected to serve as a New Britain Alderman.
As I recall, the scandal, started by Mr. Craven's investigation, led to Mr. Gerratana's having to withdraw from his candidacy for Tax Collector a short time before the election.
I guess his mother, who was a State Representative during his formative years, taught the younger Gerratana well regarding how Demcoratic politics work in New Britain.
I'm sure Mrs. Gerratana must be extremely proud of her son's accomplishments.
Is it safe to say that the ACORN doesn't fall far from the tree?
McComish v. Bennett (Clean Elections) - Case Background:
The Goldwater Institute has partnered with the Institute for Justice to bring an end to the use of matching funds as part of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act. Narrowly passed by voters in 1998, the act uses taxpayer money in an attempt to level the financial playing field between candidates for state offices.
This matching funds provision was challenged by two lawsuits – McComish v. Bennett and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett – which now have been consolidated. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on March 28 to reverse a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld matching funds.
Here's how the provision works: If a privately funded candidate raises or spends money beyond a specific limit, an unelected state commission gives approximately the same amount of taxpayer money to all publicly funded opponents. In addition, if a person or group makes an independent expenditure in favor of a privately financed candidate, the commission also gives the same amount of money to all opponents funding their campaigns with tax dollars.
In effect, the state government is using public money to dilute the political speech of one group and promote the political speech of another.
HARTFORD – The Yankee Institute has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to review McComish v. Bennett, an Arizona free speech case challenging the constitutionality of so-called “matching grants” by which taxpayer money is given to certain political candidates.
The case is relevant to Connecticut because both Dan Malloy, a Democrat, and Mike Fedele, a Republican, received such grants worth $1.25 million each for their respective gubernatorial primary campaigns earlier this year through Connecticut’s Citizens Election Program.
The constitutionality of this program has been the subject of litigation in Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield.
With the treatment of Mayor Stewart by Terry Gerratona's son while working for a state rep, it may be this will work in Mayor Stewart's upcoming election to the State Senate
The son must have learned about politics somewhere? Any guesses?
Post a Comment