Endorsement: Rob Simmons motives can not be questioned
There are a number of reason why I am endorsing Rob Simmons for the Senate, but they point to one overriding factor. Rob has made a career of serving his country and not himself. The perilous situations this country is facing require this kind of service. We can ill afford to elect a candidate who one has to question their motives. In the post-Dodd era, motive becomes a litmus test that will be used by the vast number of unaffiliated voters that will have more sway on this election than either party can overcome.
The voters –not to mention the Blumenthal Machine– are sure to question Linda McMahon’s motives in spending $50 million to gain a seat. Can she claim this as her patriotic duty to the residents of CT? If that is the case, it is more likely to fall on the deafened ears of those struggling in this economy. As a dedicated conservative, I also have to question what was her motivation in donating money to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign. It escapes me what it took to clear that tid bit from the memories of the delegates at the Republican Convention.
Peter Schiff’s motivations are laser focused on the economy. Something he has made a career of as a prognosticator and investor. There is no doubt Schiff knows the workings of a healthy economy. But he also has a penchant for going it alone. The outsider’s outsider, if you will. His management skills and steadfastness would better be served in an executive position. In the Senate, he needs to be able to work alongside 99 other colleagues. This may not be one Schiff’s strengths. I would be wholeheartedly behind Schiff for governor. A cerebral Chris Christie is what this state needs now.
Rob Simmons has served his state and country well. His only mark was being on the wrong side of the anti-Bush sentiment in 2006. He has ran a shrewd campaign by not campaigning. You can’t attack what you can’t see. The fact that he hasn’t dropped in the polls shows the voters are fed up with money and backroom deals that have decided too many elections. Not to mention the ridiculous number of glossy mailers we all received. It’s a sentiment showing up in grassroots activism everywhere. The people are questioning motives. Rob’s motives have secured my vote.
I can’t believe you guys are so hung up on Simmons. You do realize he is just as responsible for this collapse we are going through as anyone else right?? No I realize you don’t.
Stop with the “Rob Simmons has served his state and country well”. In his last stint he voted for every spending package out there. 6 years of spending spending spending. Enough with the fact he is a vet…. that does not make him a good candidate. See McCain on that one as well.
Enough with the old (Rob Simmons) and bring on the new (Peter Schiff)!!! Who cares if Schiff is an outsider. That;s what we want. Guess what Novak is an outsider too but yet you endorse her. Stop with the wishy wash crap. You want Simmons because he is an old buddy. Does he need a job or something??? Wal Mart is hiring… he can use his political nature there. It works great as a door greeter!!
1Everyone is untitled to their opinion Scott, even if it’s contrary to yours.
Bottom line is that we know Rob, we trust Rob, we like Rob and we’re voting for Rob. It’s really that simple for most of us that live in the 2nd district especially those of us that have gotten to know him over the years.
There is NO argument that served his state and country well. 30+ years of honorable service. You don’t have to agree 100% with his voting record, but you simply can’t argue that.
Your rude comments about WalMart don’t endear you to anyone Scott. I think Peter Schiff will get 10% of the vote if he’s lucky. Why? Where has he been. Why isn’t he campaigning outside of his comfort zone? He and McMahon are fighting for the same votes. He will come up on the VERY short end of that stick.
2Im sorry to hear that. Its sad that most people have no idea what the true nature of this government is. Unless you send someone who has principles (The constitution), and will swear to defend our freedom, we will soon all be serfs.
3Simmons is a compromising, big-spending, open-borders, pro-amnesty, establishment neocon RINO, exceptional military service notwithstanding. The list of outstanding military men who were horrible politicians is very long and getting longer every election cycle. Even Benedict Arnold served honorably before becoming a turncoat. I won’t be wasting my vote on a RINO who votes with the Demonocrats most of the time anyway.
4before you go with simmons…please take a look at this video and just see the true nature of simmons..in the enviornment of the people…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K43Zq_ND_Y
5Ray,
That is my opinion of Simmons. You have your opinion of the man and I have mine. You are right they differ. Oh well it doesn’t look like I am the only one holding that opinion. I will say it again… he would do better at Wal Mart being a greeter than in political office.
Simmons is not a Conservative. I thought you were voting for only pure conservatives in this election?? The Democrats don’t lose with Simmons in office. He is a big spender and he isn’t changing regardless of what he told you. You bought it hook line and sinker… your problem.
6Why do you have to go back to the personal attacks Scott?
Same thing with the greeter comment. However, I’m sure he’d be good at just about anything he set his mind to do.
I ignored Dan because he couldn’t raise the level of conversation. I guess I’ll have to do the same for you.
7The New London Day says:
THE DAY ENDORSES SIMMONS
8“As A Congressman, Mr. Simmons Played An Important Role In Reversing A Pentagon
Decision To Close The Naval Submarine Base In Groton. After Losing The 2006 Election,
Mr. Simmons Became The State’s Business Advocate. In That Position He Got High Marks
From Businessmen For Helping Cut Through Government Red Tape. … A Former CIA Officer,
Colonel In The U.S. Army And Vietnam veteran, Mr. Simmons Has An Impressive Grasp
Of Both Foreign Policy And Domestic Issues. He Has Realistic Ideas About The Tough
Choices Necessary To Trim The Growth In Federal Entitlement Programs … [I]n This
Primary Race, At This Time, The Day Endorses Rob Simmons As The Best Republican
Candidate To Oppose Mr. Blumenthal In The Nov. 2 Election.” – The Day
GOP Voters Should Pick Experience Over Rhetoric
Editorial
The Day (New London)
July 30, 2010
….
Ms. McMahon made her riches through an exploitative and often degrading form of
entertainment with links to steroid use. WWE glorifies violence and bullying. It
has treated women as objects and people with disabilities as victims, not equals.
Ms. McMahon says WWE has cleaned up its act to “PG” status. Still, the nature of
her business background will turn off many voters.
And while Ms. McMahon’s anti-big-government rhetoric is attractive at a bumper-sticker
level, a closer examination finds little of substance and no clear policy agenda.
That leaves the money, which we do not find adequate reason to endorse a candidate
to serve as a U.S. senator. …
Our choice is made easier by former congressman Rob Simmons’ decision to re-enter
the primary contest. Without the financial resources to compete for weeks with Ms.
McMahon, Mr. Simmons suspended his campaigning after losing a tough nominating contest
at the state Republican convention in May. He is now back for a sprint to the finish.
The odds he faces are long, but the prospects exciting. If successful, he could
access significant financial backing in the general election.
In terms of experience, there is no comparison. As a congressman, Mr. Simmons played
an important role in reversing a Pentagon decision to close the Naval Submarine
Base in Groton. After losing the 2006 election, Mr. Simmons became the state’s business
advocate. In that position he got high marks from businessmen for helping cut through
government red tape. He also received an education on the challenges small businesses
face in the struggle to grow and create jobs.
A former CIA officer, colonel in the U.S. Army and Vietnam veteran, Mr. Simmons
has an impressive grasp of both foreign policy and domestic issues. He has realistic
ideas about the tough choices necessary to trim the growth in federal entitlement
programs – Medicare and Social Security – including raising age eligibilities, considering
income requirements and utilizing optional tax credits as an alternative to direct
payments. …
But in this primary race, at this time, The Day endorses Rob Simmons as the best
Republican candidate to oppose Mr. Blumenthal in the Nov. 2 election.
Yea Ray you have never personally attacked anyone in your comments. Now you just gave me the best laugh of the night.
Anyways… well tell Rob to apply then because he won’t be going to Washington anytime soon unless he is paying his own way.
9http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=16843
Read point 3… you got to love it… yup you guys want to rip Courtney for not reading the Health Care bill… well looks like Rob doesn’t read the bills either. Is he going to start now??? HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Good Support Ray!!!!!!!!!!!!
What Your Congressman Won’t Tell You
By Brigid McMenamin
1. “I can’t lose.” This year 404 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are standing for reelection. For most it’s a formality: On average, more than 90% of House incumbents win, according to a 2005 report by the Cato Institute.
What’s behind the incumbency advantage? Campaign financing, for one thing. We taxpayers pick up the tab for incumbents’ regular offices, staff, publicity, travel and mailings, so they needn’t raise as much money to run. Challengers, on the other hand, must come up with a fortune — and do so in dribs and drabs since Congress caps individual contributions at $2,000.
But the biggest factor is partisan gerrymandering. Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that states must ensure each congressman represents the same number of constituents, the process of redistricting after every census has been aggressively used by state party bosses to protect their incumbents. “Because of gerrymandering, almost 90% of Americans live in congressional districts where the outcome is so certain that their votes are irrelevant,” concludes the Cato report. And it’s bound to get worse: In June the Court ruled states can redraw congressional districts as often as they please.
2. “I’m above the law.” Some people were dismayed last spring when Capitol Police didn’t give a sobriety test to Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) after he rammed a Capitol Hill security barrier late one night and emerged from his Mustang “impaired,” with “unsure” balance and “slurred” speech, according to the police report. Georgetown University law professor Paul F. Rothstein wasn’t surprised: “They always give [congressmen] a pass.”
Why? Inside Congress author Ronald Kessler says that historically, most officers have operated under the mistaken impression that the Constitution prohibits arresting or even ticketing congressmen while Congress is in session. The belief was so prevalent that the Justice Department issued a statement in 1976 explaining the “previous policy of releasing members who had been arrested was based on a misunderstanding of the clause in the U.S. Constitution,” which forbids only civil arrest, not arrest for a crime.
Nonetheless, Capitol Police still coddle and avoid arresting members of Congress. For one thing, protecting congressmen is part of their mission. For another, Congress controls their budget — including top cops’ salaries.
3. “Read the bills I vote on? Who’s got that kind of time?” In a perfect world, our legislators would vote on each bill based on thorough, firsthand analysis. But that’s not how it works in Washington. Most congressmen don’t actually read bills, relying instead on impressions gleaned from staff and lobbyists. And in many cases, they couldn’t read them if they wanted to: The 700-plus-page Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, for example, surfaced after 1 a.m. and went to vote early the next morning. “That’s the way it’s done,” Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) told the Hartford Courant in January. Result: Congressmen seldom know exactly what they’re voting on. Take the 1,600-page Appropriations Bill in 2004 that had already made it through the House before it was discovered that a staffer had slipped in a provision permitting his committee to browse any tax return filed with the IRS.
There have been some attempts to get Congress to change its ways. In February, for example, D.C. nonprofit ReadtheBill.org persuaded some reps to introduce a resolution requiring the House to post each bill online for 72 hours before even debating it. But that resolution has been languishing in the Rules Committee ever since.
4. “Congress is just a stepping stone to big money — in lobbying.” Congress is a pretty good gig, financially speaking. Our senators and representatives currently earn $165,200 a year — four times the median U.S. household income. But it’s not nearly as lucrative as lobbying, a job congressmen have begun flocking to once they’re out of office. “As late as the 1980s, few lawmakers became lobbyists because they considered it beneath their dignity,” writes Robert V. Remini in The House: The History of the House of Representatives. But today it’s the top career choice for former congressmen. According to a 2005 report by Public Citizen, since 1998 more than 43% of all eligible departing congressmen have gone into lobbying. Take William Tauzin. The Louisiana Republican, and former chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, left the House for a $1 million-plus-a-year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. According to press reports, PhRMA was wooing Tauzin the same month he pushed through the Medicare bill. Tauzin denies it fueled his zeal for the bill, but you can’t help wondering how the prospect of that kind of money might influence one’s judgment.
5. “My health care benefits are way better than yours…” Congressmen love tinkering with our health care. They virtually created the managed-care industry, for instance, with the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which tilted the playing field in favor of HMOs, ultimately stripping many Americans of all other choices. Meanwhile, congressmen enjoy more than a dozen options, including the prized indemnity plans only 3% of workers with coverage receive. On top of that, for an annual fee of $480, they can get just about all the medical attention they want at the Capitol Office of the Attending Physician, which has five doctors and a dozen assistants on call for routine checkups, tests, prescriptions, emergency care and mental health services. Who’s making up the difference? Taxpayers, naturally, to the tune of at least $2.5 million this year alone.
What happens once a congressman is out of office? He needn’t fret: Just five years into the job, he’s entitled to keep his regular health coverage until he’s ready for Medicare. And he doesn’t have to pay extra, as you do for Cobra, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which he voted for in 1996.
6. “…and so is my pension.” Congress is forever changing the rules on retirement plans: limiting contributions, punishing pension underfunding and making it hard for employers to plan ahead. Just this summer Congress passed yet another complex bill that’s likely to wreak more havoc, according to James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council. The new Pension Protection Act includes funding rules that, Klein says, “could undermine the retirement security of the very participants the bill’s trying to protect.” Indeed, less than a month after the PPA took effect, DuPont froze its pension plan and cut back on benefits.
Whatever the outcome, Congress won’t be losing sleep — their pensions are exempt. Most qualify for a 401(k)-style plan with a nice match, up to 5% of salary. After five years on the job, they’re also entitled to a regular pension, bigger than almost all other federal workers’ at the same pay and twice what a midlevel executive would expect. If elected before age 30, they can collect in full at age 50; those elected later can retire after 25 years or at age 62. Their pensions rise regularly with the cost of living and can never be taken away — short of a conviction for espionage or treason-related offenses.
7. “I enjoy great perks and gifts, and it’s all legal.” Working on Capitol Hill comes with a lot of fringe benefits. Congressmen enjoy taxpayer-subsidized gyms, salons and restaurants, free parking, and a nice office. They also get $1 million-plus allowances per year for staff, mail and travel home, where they can rent another office and lease a car on your dime, according to the National Taxpayers Union.
On top of that, House ethics rules allow them to accept gifts, luxury jet rides and free overnight trips of up to seven days abroad for meetings, fact-finding missions and speaking gigs, provided they’re related to official duties and not sponsored by lobbyists. Between 2000 and 2005, congressmen and staff accepted 23,000 of these trips, often to vacation spots and worth nearly $50 million, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Turns out that 90 were sponsored by lobbyists — Mr. and Mrs. Tom DeLay’s infamous $28,000 golfing trip to Scotland among them.
With elections looming, there has been talk of reform. In January, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called for a ban on such trips and gifts, but come May he was happy to settle for the sham cleanup proposed by the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act — which would offer optional ethics classes for congressmen but allow them to go on accepting gifts.
8. “I simply can’t be fired.” Once he’s elected, it’s almost impossible to kick a congressman out of office, even if he becomes mentally incompetent or is sent to prison. To oust a member of the House or Senate, it takes a vote of two-thirds of his colleagues — which has happened only twice since the Civil War, five times in all of U.S. history.
House rules do discourage a congressman from participating in committees if convicted of a crime for which he could get two years or more in jail, and his own party may force him from leadership positions even if he’s not convicted. For example, Democrats pushed Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) off the Ways and Means Committee last June because FBI agents swear they caught him accepting a $100,000 bribe and found $90,000 cash in his freezer. (Jefferson denies any wrongdoing.) But even if convicted and sent to prison, Jefferson could seek reelection from his cell, as did former Ohio Democrat James Traficant Jr. in 2002. Traficant received only 15% of the vote and lost his seat — but he was still allowed to collect his full pension.
9. “Lobbyists love me because I deliver the goods.” The reason lobbyists court lawmakers is that they have the power to help friends and hurt foes. For instance, a congressman can create a specific tax break or other loophole for a lobbyist’s clients, giving them an unfair advantage over rivals. Congressmen also hold the power to steer federal funds to friends by earmarking money for pet projects — a power they often abuse. Case in point: the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere,” a Golden Gate-size span between a small town in rural Alaska and a nearly deserted island, for which Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) persuaded Congress to earmark $223 million in 2005. Similar abuses have increased dramatically in recent years, with the number of earmarks coming out of the House Appropriations Committee nearly tripling, to 15,877 earmarks worth $47.4 billion in 2005, from just 4,126 earmarks worth $23.2 billion in 1994, according to the Congressional Research Service.
10. “Rules are meant to be broken.” Congress is notorious for breaking its own rules: Only a handful of members dock their own pay when absent for reasons other than health, for example. But it’s Congress’s failure to follow its own legislative procedures that’s truly galling. When the joint House-Senate conference committee meets to reconcile different versions of a bill, for instance, House rules forbid adding anything beyond the scope of the version the House has already approved. And once the committee comes up with a compromise bill, the House is supposed to hold at least one public meeting, giving members a written explanation of the changes and three days until the vote. But the conference committee routinely flouts these rules, often making big changes without explanation, then getting the Rules Committee to waive restrictions so they can rush bills through unread. How common is this? The Rules Committee issued so-called blanket waivers for all 18 bills that went through the conference committee from Jan. 4, 2005, through March 2006.
Last December, Speaker Hastert took it a step further by letting Sen. William Frist (R-Tenn.) add on to a bill after the conference committee was finished: 40 pages of legislation protecting makers of avian flu vaccine and similar drugs against liability even if they injured or killed patients through gross negligence. Then Hastert got the Rules Committee to make kosher what he’d done. Frist’s spokesperson claims there was “bipartisan consensus” for such an incentive, but couldn’t explain why it hadn’t made it into the text of the bill if it was so popular. Hastert’s office failed to return our calls.
10By KEITH C. BURRIS
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Jul 29, 2010 @ 11:49 PM
Now that Rob Simmons has rebooted his campaign for the U.S. Senate, some long knives are out.
A few Republicans, in Washington and Connecticut, say Simmons is being uppity or troublesome. Linda McMahon has the money. She’s already outspent Dick Blumenthal 5-1. Get out of the way and let her have it, Rob, they say.
One blogger called Simmons’ campaign “shenanigans,” and one newspaper called him “a spoiler.”
But others are saying, “Let’s take a second look at this thing.”
Despite all her money, McMahon has barely made a dent in Blumenthal’s lead. Early polling data and much gut instinct still tell a whole lot of Republicans that Simmons would be the stronger candidate in the fall. More important, many Republicans are worried about McMahon’s political skills and qualifications. Her campaign is an off-the-shelf collection of buzzwords and cliches.
She seems to say she should be our senator because she once went broke; has a jobs plan, but she doesn’t; wants tax cuts for the rich and wants tax cuts for small businesses that create jobs.
So does every candidate. That’s not a jobs plan.
McMahon does not know what a jobs plan is. She lacks political skills and sense. She doesn’t truly know what politics is. She has money — not an issue or the germ of a plan, for anything.
He has the resume
Simmons could actually be a senator, and a good one, albeit a conservative one for this state. He’s a conservative, to be sure. But he’s qualified, having served the state as a legislator and state business advocate, and having served the nation as a soldier, CIA agent, Senate staffer and congressman.
A candidate with a true “outsider’s perspective” might trump all that with a great platform, a brilliant critique of where the nation’s national policymaking now is, or an original idea on jobs, taxes or debt. But McMahon has none of that.
In fact, when it comes to substance, her campaign is null, nothingness, a void. McMahon is neither conservative nor qualified. She’s a candidate with a fat checkbook. Period.
Simmons, for his part, should do more than say he’s available. He should talk about what he did for veterans and Electric Boat and what he would do in the future. He should give his solution to the Afghanistan War. He should describe rebuilding U.S. intelligence. He should come out against bailouts for anyone.
Simmons is the outsider now. He has no money to speak of and no staff. Simmons has only a lifetime of public service, an understanding of politics and government, and a passion to serve.
He is the Mr. Smith of this campaign.
Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester.
11Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Scott, it seems like every one of your posts have something negative or condescending in it. I guess you just won’t quit until you don’t have anyone to snipe at.
Bottom line is if I said the sky was blue you’d dispute that. I don’t know why, and I don’t really care. I just hope one day you will learn how to debate and issue without every comment being negative. I have to tell you, that causes your argument to lose much of its effectiveness. Especially when you argument has little or no merit to begin with.
12an issue that is.
13What doesn’t have merit Ray?? The fact that Simmons even admits that he doesn’t read bills before voting has no merit??? You, Paul and the gang of CT GOP are not doing CT or the country any favors by backing Simmons. He is a big spender and doesn’t read bills before voting. EVERYTHING you despise Courtney for. What is going to make it better by putting him into office??? NOTHING… that is why Schiff is the answer.
Its too bad you don’t like it…. and can’t see it. Simmons vs Courtney… doesn’t matter who wins as it will be the same result!!
14I’m supporting Schiff. Our country is on the verge of economic collapse and he is the only candidate of the 3 on the Aug 10 ballot that understands how our economy works. The economy is Schiff’s area of expertise. In addition to his economic skill set he also believes in and understands the Constituion, which works for me too.
True Rob did honorably serve our country in the military and while with the CIA. Yet, he also voted with Pelosi 58% of the time while in DC.
It’s too bad that the 2nd district is comfortable with Simmons record because he was part of the spending problem in DC….bringing back the pork to the 2nd district is a contributing factor to the massive unsustainable debt our nation faces.
In my opinoin a vote for Simmons is a vote for more of the same (also know as the ruling class). Check out this article re: the ruling class and see if you think Mr. Simmons is a ruler or a leader… http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the
I say NO More ruling class!!!
15Ray,
What is your answer to YOUR candidate not reading legislation that he is ready to vote on???
What is your answer to YOUR candidate voting with Pelosi 58% of the time??
What is your answer to YOUR candidate taking hundreds of millions actually bllions of dollars in grants and pork during his last term????
These are issues in case you don’t realize it. This is why posting with you is idiotic. When issues are brought up with your candidate you ignore and talk about rudeness and such… never answring the questions at hand.
16I think Scott, with all due respect, is trying to make hay out of something he should know all, not most, lawmakers never do in actually reading a bill they vote on. Everyone knows that Simmons gave an honest answer. That is something rare nowadays. In response to a similat question another congress person was also pretty honest. The news reported it as – Abercrombie responded to a question CNSNews.com posed to several members of the House: “Did you have the chance to read the final version of the climate-change legislation that came out yesterday?” followed by an inquiry on how they would vote for or against the bill.
Only one congressman, who responded to the question around 1 p.m. on Friday, said he had gone through the entire bill–but even he still needed to read an additional 300-page amendment to the bill, which had just been added, before voting.
“I’ve read the bill, but haven’t had the chance to read the manager’s amendment,” said Rep. John Boccieri, (D-Ohio). “That’s what I’m heading back to my office to do right now. It’s 300 pages.”
17My answer is email Rob’s campaign for your answers.
18Ray,
1. Nice copout answer.
2. I have emailed them in the past questions… they don’t ever answer and that was with a full staff. I am sure with no staff there will be no answer as well.
3. You arer the great defener and endorser of Rob. You should have something to say about his past to make people believe there is a reason to vote for him. You give no answer so why would anyone listen to what you have to say on the man.
Again nice copout.. another good laugh produced by Ray Sulich
19Janise,
And the people here liek Rich, Paul, Ray etc all chastised the current Congressmen for not reading the health care bill. They were honest too. The people here thought it was a miscarriage of justice and they should ll be impeached… ahhh but when honest Rob says something it is ok…
Like I said… lots of laughs. Love watching them all talk out of both sides of their mouths and bodies. Makes for great entertainment… and when you call them on such an issue like this they care to say… why don’t you write the campaign… In other words, I have no answer because I thought Rob was doing the right thing…. NOT!
20Well Mr. Charlwood, take a looksie at this and tell me if after staring at it for weeks on end that you could understand it. http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8
21It’s A Health Care Maze Not Even a Rat Looking for Cheese Could Navigate! Big Government on Steroids. I say that even today after all this time there still isn’t a congressman that voted for it that can honestly say they understand it. But i agree with you that anyone who does not has no business voting for it.
22The answers are obvious as the questions are straight from the Democrat talking points.
1. Legislation is often too complicated, long and purposely loaded with legalese that make it all but impossible to read and comprehend before they are scheduled to be voted on. AKA Health Care. AS IS, one legislator cannot possibly read every package that comes up for a vote. The solution is to stop loading the legislation with items that don’t directly pertain to the legislation in question. Secondly, sufficient amount of time must be given to all legislation so they can be read and understood. Lastly, if they were able to contain themselves and their actions to Article 1 Section 8 they might have time to read the legislation.
2. Be specific about ALL the legislation that made up the 58% he agreed with her on. The question itself is ridiculous. Tell me that with everything that came to a vote in the house anyone could have possibly never voted the same as any other member.
3. Please provide a COMPLETE and COMPREHENSIVE list of the all the grants and pork in his last term and your analysis of what was “good and bad”. Please include a summary of what each grant and or pork was supposed to provide and what would have been effected if the grant or pork was not provided.
4. I don’t know what “You arer the great defener and endorser of Rob.” means. 85% of the 2nd district supported Rob Simmons at the convention. I’m fairly certain about the same number will support him in the 2nd district during the primary. That pretty much sums it up when you all to it the list of items I previously provided from Rob’s bio.
Beyond that, I like Rob Simmons as a person. He’s honest and hard working. I admire his ethics and his dedication to Connecticut and our Country. Can’t say that about too many candidates.
The bottom line is I don’t answer for Rob Simmons. If you have questions that pertain to the candidate or his voting record you should direct them to the candidate. There’s almost never a cut and dry answer as to why a vote is cast in a certain manner on a particular issue. Why? Because of all the misc. items often tacked on during the process. Perfect example is the recent measure that would have provided assistance for the 9/11 responders.
Seems to me that your are entertained by what you don’t have the capacity to understand.
23you’re not your entertained. It would be nice if we were able to edit these posts for a few minutes after they are first entered! It’s easy to miss typos when typing in this little box.
24Ray you can research the 58% of the time (1,859 votes) where Simmons voted with Pelosi through the Congressional Quarterly Member Vote Comparison via the Library of Congress. I believe you want the 107th through 109th houses.
Sadly, our country is on the cusp of entering dark times due to the massive push toward socialism from within our government over the past 40+ years. I’m not saying Mr. Simmons is in favor of this push from within. What I am saying is he was in DC and did not publicly stand against it or speak out against this push.
I personaly do not trust any incumbent, from either party, and WILL not vote for any incumbent. Mr. Simmons is an incumbent and when I look at McMahon and Schiff. Schiff is the only one that consistently ties his political platform back to the Constitiution and our country needs at least one Senator who will vote 100% of the time based off of the Constituionality of the bill…not some phony emergency.
In my opinoin, a vote for Rob is a vote for the ruling class.
25I’m not the one questioning Simmons voting record. If Scott wants to know why Rob voted the way he did, HE needs to do the research.
How about this Scott…..
THE NORWICH BULLETIN ENDORSES SIMMONS
26“The Choice Is Clear. Only One Candidate Is Committed To Serving The People Of Connecticut.
Rob Simmons.”
Our View: Only Simmons Has Knowledge, Vision In GOP Senate Primary
Editorial
Norwich Bulletin
August 2, 2010
In the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, we enthusiastically endorse the candidacy
of Rob Simmons.
Simmons is the only candidate with the experience, the knowledge, the understanding
of how government works and the dedication and commitment to serve Connecticut citizens.
….
Simmons has served as Senate staffer and congressman. He understands our intelligence
community, a vital component in keeping Americans safe. He also understands the
value of reaching across party lines.
The single most critical issue in this campaign is the loss of seniority Connecticut
suffers with the retirement of U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn. Simmons understands
that and is best suited to minimize that impact for all Connecticut citizens.
McMahon and Schiff
The campaigns of endorsed Republican Linda McMahon and financial adviser Peter Schiff
are based on a promise to change the way Washington works. Before you can change
something, you first have to understand it – and they don’t.
McMahon’s campaign is based on her successful business career, the former CEO of
a sleazy “entertainment” business that exploits and degrades women, glorifies violence
and is riddled with drug scandals. She refuses to deal with that honestly, instead
dismissing it as “just a soap opera.”
When people die, it’s not just a soap opera. …
The choice is clear. Only one candidate is committed to serving the people of Connecticut.
Rob Simmons.
WeThePeople,
Rob is not an incumbent. He’s been out of office for 4yrs. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Peter Schiff is a bad candidate, I just think Rob is better. Just as I’m sure you believe Schiff is better. No sweat, that’s why we have primaries and elections. I’d like to see Rob on the Republican ticket, but I could vote for Schiff if he wins the primary and Rob doesn’t.
I guess another way to put it is that I’m not “against” Schiff, I’m for Simmons.
Let me ask you this, you feel constitutionality is a major concern and I wouldn’t disagree with that one bit. That should be the first hurdle any measure has to pass…. however once the constitutionality question is answered, who of the two is better equipped to take it from there?
27WOW… the Norwich Bulletin endorsed Simmons. Holy Cow that will put him right over the top… Oh wait the Norwich Bulletin is the paper the Canterbury citizens whine about all of the time.. but again now it is a good thing because they have endorsed Simmons.
More entertainment…………….
28I don’t think the Bulletin endorsement of Simmons was much of a surprise.
So the next one will either be Peckinpaugh, who will surprise them with some alleged sudden grasp of the issues that happened overnight, or Dubitsky. Of course, the Bulletin may indeed factor in Daria not attending the most recent debate while completely ignoring Peckinpaugh’s lack of appearance at the debate she initially agreed to…
It’s probably 4:1 odds in favor of Peckinpaugh on that endorsement. However it goes, if the Hartford Courant does it, the Norwich Bulletin will likely follow. But I’d be equally unsurprised if the Bulletin endorsed no one. They’ve been pulling a few surprise moves lately (Oz Griebel being one).
Ray,
Even I like Simmons as a person too… Sure, excellent military record to boot. It’s just that constitutional test he can’t clear the hurdle on. And that’s a disturbing fact especially given our situation.
If we can’t even nail that down, what’s to stop the type of decision-making on this from creating the next George Bush or Barack Obama? Effectively, we’ve already said that just about anything goes because the Constitution is a mere suggestion. I’ve argued that if we don’t like it, we should try to change it instead of making things up.
If we want the president to declare war, then we should amend the Constitution. If we want to hand off Congress’ responsibility to coin money and regulate the value thereof to a private bank, same there (see Lewis vs United States on that characterization of “private” – it was a suit filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act). Otherwise, it’s complete disorder as mission creep sets in and politicians invent new tasks for themselves. And before we know it, we’re in so much debt and we have so many problems created by government intervention in terms of healthcare, education, foriegn policy, ect., that we can’t even keep track of where it all began. Then again, that’s where we are.
29I don’t understand why so many who post here are so paranoid about the possibility of Simmons winning a simple primary. A Bulletin endorsement? Means nothing. I think some who post here were also once endorsed by the bulletin. Were you scott? Did it mean anything? See what I mean? And it looks like libertarian and liberal both seem frightened by him. You have a vote. So just speak your mind at the polls. Are you even registered to participate?
30Good post Janise. You’re right about the endorsement. Simply the opinion of the endorser.
I say let the chips fall as they may. Good luck to all!
31Yes Janise I am a registered voter. I served on the BOE in PLainfield.
No I was never endorsed by the NB…
It is not a simple primary…. The economy is a disaster and has been for 40 years. A vote for Simmons is a vote for more of the same old same old… A vote for Schiff is a vote for a better economic future. It’s pretty simple.
32Scott,
33Did years of reading and contributing to this site lead you to change your party affiliation to Republican? If so, welcome to the fold we are glad to have you.
No Scott, it isn’t that simple. If it were that simple, Schiff would be doing better in the polls now wouldn’t he?
34Paul,
No I am not going to go be a GOPer… I had thought about doing it.. but for ONE reason only.. to vote for Schiff. If the GOP are not smart enough to vote him in then I just won’t vote in November. I will abstain because Simmons is definitely not the choice… McMahon I would have to think about and hear more about her ideas.
The GOP is the same as the Dems… spend spend and spend some more. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Better to be an Independent than be associated with either party.
35So Scott is not a republican? Scott, please explain this? You mean that you support democrats and are registered as such? Am i confused or are you?
36Janise,
That onion doesn’t have too many layers
37Janise,
It’s really not that complicated.
I was an independent my whole life until 2005 when I was aksed to join the Democratic ticket with Kevin Cunningham to run against Don Gladding and Bert Brunsdon. Kevin won.. I lost.
So no I am not a republican … so what? Does that mean I can’t comment on GOP issues. The fact that Ray and friends would like to put Simmons back in the seat is quite laughable but also not good for America. Ray wants to play technicalities that Simmons is not an incumbent… which is true… but he is a very big part of the big SPENDING years of Bush.
Ray has comprehension issues…. you will have to excuse him if he thought that was complex.
38Scott showed his true colors when asked to join the Democrat ticket and you read right, he wasn’t even elected !!!! When is the last time you heard of a Selectman being elected but his running mate kicked to the curb?
Who’d you vote for in the last Presidential Election Scott? That is truly laughable now isn’t it Scott? Now he tries to play mister fight for your rights but where was he when all the proof was coming out against Obama?
How complex is that Scott ? LMAO !!!
39Ray,
I was running against a 14 year incumbent… lost by 7 votes. At least I have tried… what have you tried for Ray?? I got elected to the BOE just like yourself. It’s really not that hard is it Ray??
You voted for McCain… he never had a chance. Isn’t that the reasoning you are using for not voting for Schiff?? Why did you waste your vote???
40Oh and the 14 year incumbent was a democrat just so you know
41I thoght he wa sthere for at least 50 yrs Scott??? U sur it twas 14?
42Sorry kids juice packs still embedded into the keyboard!!!!
I thought he was there for at least 50 yrs Scott?? U sure it twas 14?
43I NEVER see a wasted vote per se. If it’s going to be wasted in one’s mind, don’t bother.
44sorry meant 14 elections… that makes it 28 years
45It is funny/sad how we beat on each other for positions we volunteer for.
Virginia Raymond GOP with a lock for our district in ???? Uhh 98-2000?
Boy she says “we do like to eat our own!” Running in a primary with Burke!
That always stuck.
“Most times the message gets lost in the battle.” JD 2010
46The Schiff people are out and about again. Maybe if Schiff’s campaign wasn’t dead in the water, maybe if he actually wanted to win this rather than promote his book. Schiff is a genius, I will give you that. His campaign is dead. He has zero traction. His supporters need to realize this and move on. Rob is our only shot at stopping McMahon from buying this seat. I wish Schiff had more going for him, but he’s not a viable candidate. And with him in this, he’s going to turn into a spoiler.
47I’ve run for 2 offices and was elected both times (BOE and BOF). I was also elected to the SCC.
I’m not voting for Schiff because I don’t think he’s the best of the offered candidates. I voted for McCain because he was the best of the offered candidates. The only wasted vote is the one that wasn’t cast!
So I take it you did vote for Obama! Knowing what you do now, who’s vote was really wasted?
48Scott,
How hard the elected office is certainly commensurate with the amount of effort and passion you dedicate to the position you are elected to.
Didn’t you resign from the BOE? Sounds to me like the voters had it right for the Selectman position. Good thing those 7 voters didn’t think casting their vote was a waste of time or waste of a vote huh!
49Scott, can you share with us who you voted for in the primary? You do agree that these are important, right? Certainly, you did not forget to vote today. So, since you had months to position yourself with which party to vote within, who did you eventually vote for? Thanks.
50