Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 05, 2004 12:07 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 05, 2004 12:07 AM
RECALL TALK
THIS IS GETTING SILLY
I have to admit that I've been surprised by the
level of enthusiasm some have embraced all this talk about recalling Governor
Rowland. There is even a web site www.ENDtheCORRUPTION.com
As I said in an earlier entry it shouldn't
come as a big surprise that Rowland and his administration are taking it on the
political chin. But a recall? Give me a break! Word has it that Connecticut
voters are as the AP reported over the weekend
"upset by news of federal
corruption
investigations, fines and ethical missteps." Hello! This stuff isn't new. Even before Rowland trounced Bill Curry last year, questions about Rowland's ethics have been called into question. He was the first sitting governor to ever pay a fine to the ethics commission! and the Paul Silvester Treasurer's scandal was already a few years old. No, what is at issue is that the economy stinks, the state budget is in the tank, deep spending cuts, and a hopping mad state labor union are fanning the flames of discontent. Recalls should be reserved for mental incapacitation and dereliction of duty. If voters wanted Rowland out, they had their chance last year. Creating a buzz for something that isn't legally possible in the state may appear to be cute to those who want to embarrass the governor, but as a voter that took the time to go out and vote in last year's election I would be offended that my vote (and I'm not saying who I voted for) could possibly be made moot, because of some misused legal maneuver. And just for the record I feel the same way about term limits. We already have term limits, it's called the vote.
What say you? Rick
investigations, fines and ethical missteps." Hello! This stuff isn't new. Even before Rowland trounced Bill Curry last year, questions about Rowland's ethics have been called into question. He was the first sitting governor to ever pay a fine to the ethics commission! and the Paul Silvester Treasurer's scandal was already a few years old. No, what is at issue is that the economy stinks, the state budget is in the tank, deep spending cuts, and a hopping mad state labor union are fanning the flames of discontent. Recalls should be reserved for mental incapacitation and dereliction of duty. If voters wanted Rowland out, they had their chance last year. Creating a buzz for something that isn't legally possible in the state may appear to be cute to those who want to embarrass the governor, but as a voter that took the time to go out and vote in last year's election I would be offended that my vote (and I'm not saying who I voted for) could possibly be made moot, because of some misused legal maneuver. And just for the record I feel the same way about term limits. We already have term limits, it's called the vote.
What say you? Rick
Posted: Mon - September 29, 2003 at 07:45 PM