My Left Nutmeg - Recent Comments

Bob, the only way we end up with a Republican...

AndersonScooper — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:39:20 GMT

Would be if Alpert somehow damaged Blumenthal sufficiently with the base.

Yet somehow you're encouraging Merrick to get tougher?

Also, do you really believe Alpert is that much of a liberal at heart? (his resume suggests otherwise.)

If there was a chance in hell that Merrick could win this summer, I'd be giving him a pass. But right now he's just playing a Kucinich to John Kerry....

Let's look at the AG's record

Mr. Clean — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:23:12 GMT

During the debate, Blumenthal brought up his lawsuits to rein in electricity rates as a successful outcome of his actions. If that's a success, I'd hate to see what he considers a failure. Here are the facts:

Since 1990, the average residential price in Connecticut has gone from 10.01¢ per kilowatthour to 20.41¢ for 2009 (2009 data is for Jan-Nov only, as that is most recent available). That is a 103.9% increase.

Since 1990, the average residential price for the entire U.S. has gone from 7.83¢ per kilowatthour to 11.61¢ for 2009 (also data for Jan-Nov only). That is a 48.3% increase.

The difference in the rate that Connecticut now pays for electricity versus the rest of the country is 8.8¢ (which is 20.41¢ minus 11.61¢). Or, CT's rate is 75.8% higher than the national average.

In other words, since 1990, the price that Connecticut residents have paid for electricity has more than doubled. Meanwhile, electricity rates in the rest of the country have gone up by less than half that rate. Connecticut's residents are now paying almost 75% more for electricity than the national average.

Furthermore, in 2001, Connecticut residents had the tenth highest electricity rate in the country. Today, Connecticut has the second highest electricity rate in the country (behind only Hawaii).

This data is from the Energy Information Administration website.

If he wins the nomination?

AndersonScooper — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:16:40 GMT

What are you smoking?

Alpert has no chance, and is just acting selfishly as a distraction.

Changed the last line...

Jake Blount — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:08:07 GMT

The change seems less inflammatory and makes my point just as well...Jake

I feel your pain

saramerica — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:03:06 GMT

That's what it used to be like at my old house, Ann. I was loving living closer to downtown and being on mains water during this most recent cut. You really appreciate the simple luxuries like being able to FLUSH THE TOILET.

Was not loving quite so much the $2,000 bill for the tree that snapped off at the top and fell into my neighbors yard. But at least it didn't hit the fence or their house, so I got off pretty lightly compared to others on my street and around town.Kids are going to be off school for another day tomorrow.

Good job Jake

Bob Adams — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:50:36 GMT

I'm embarrassed by all the liberals who bash Merrick Alpert because he dares upset the "status quo" cart. Dick Blumenthal clearly believes that he deserves the nomination, and he will do little to appeal to the progressive crowd. Are we simply going to blindly support "safe" Democrats forever?

Where the heck was Dick four years ago when, if he possessed even one tenth of the political courage that Ned Lamont displayed, he would have easily trounced Lieberman and he'd already be our senator!

We need Merrick Alpert in this race! He's acting as the conscience of the Democrats, and much like Kucinich, he's vilified for daring to go against the overly cautious Democratic power brokers. If anything, he's giving Blumenthal a good excuse to raise more money, to rethink his "safe" positions on the issues, and maybe work on his debating skills. Not bad things, really.

The reality as I see it is I'd rather find out in a primary that Blumenthal maybe doesn't have the gumption to prevail in a tough race, rather than wake up on November 3rd with a Republican senator in Connecticut.

And how about the AG's record on progressive causes over the past decade or so...

CT Southpaw — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:36:43 GMT

Do some research. The man's record as AG reads like a list of progressive ideals. Even if you give Alpert credit for his positions, they are simply that, ideas. Not a record. It's the difference between a progressives with ideas, and a progressive who has actually walked the walk. The AG is not annointed. He's earned his status as the clear front runner through hard work and dedication to his job.

This same issue mirrors the Governor's race. A candidate with a proven record of progressive action, or someone with a good list of ideas. I'll go for the guy who's actually done it.

There clearly is a difference

Mr. Clean — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:36:03 GMT

between Blumenthal and Alpert (you did watch the debate, didn't you?). What Alpert wants is to give the voters a choice between a politics-as-usual candidate (i.e., Blumenthal) and a candidate who represents a clear alternative to the status quo (i.e., Alpert).

I don't see this as creating mayhem, but rather as breathing fresh air into a staid political system that seems to pre-ordain which candidate should and which candidate shouldn't be allowed to run.

Look, if you truly believe that Blumenthal is the candidate who best represents your vision for the future and believe that he is the one who can enact the changes you want, then by all means back him whole-heartedly. But, if you are supporting Blumenthal only because he's been annointed by the Party elders and he has raised more money than Alpert, then I would kindly suggest that you may want to re-evaluate your priorities.

Let us not make excuses.

SeriousDem — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:33:17 GMT

Kudos, Jake.
With regard to MEVD's comment about fund-raising: look, it's really quite simple. We all know too well the influence that money has in political campaigns. Mr. Alpert is an educated man, and he certainly doesn't seem naive. So he must recognize the financial challenges that his grassroots campaign faces.

Of course, he will not be able to out-spend Republican candidates who have publicly announced their intentions to bank-roll their own campaigns. And he certainly won't be able to out-raise his heir apparent Democratic challenger who runs a traditional campaign and has the vested interests (and, thus, the loyal political support) of corporate special interests - donors with deep pockets who want to see another career politician quietly slip into Dodd's open seat.

But is that what American politics has come to: highly significant and influential elected offices (which are supposed to serve the citizens) going to the highest bidder? Why even bother holding "elections?" Why even bother preserving the facade of living in a democracy (in which, lest we forget, the average citizen's interests are supposed to be afforded equal consideration in the political process)? Indeed, let us do away with those pesky documents we call the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; let us remove the stars and stripes from the American flag; and let us rename this nation. For absent a system of governance that respects the average citizen and champions the democratic principles, ideals, and political processes on which America was founded, the conception of liberty as we know it ceases to exist.

Further, anyone who concedes so easily (as the MEVD commenter above has) to the current "real world" deficiencies of our system of governance has lost sight of his civic responsibility to do something about those very problems. Merrick Alpert is not such a person. And neither are his growing numbers of supporters. The political climate is ripe for an honest and tenacious advocate like Mr. Alpert, and without question fundamental change is on the horizon.

Right On, Frank

lakezoarian — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:32:53 GMT

.
n/t
.