They don’t call it the “Grand Old Party” for nothin’.
On Sunday, Westport’s Republicans rocked out at the Westport Woman’s Club. I could bore you with the details — all the candidates, from Linda McMahon (US Senate) to Steve Rubin and Gail Lavielle (state legislature) were invited, blahblahblah.
But far more interesting is this: It was an Oktoberfest, featuring “authentic German food, German beer on tap, wine and live music.”
If that’s not enough to make you give it up for Mitt, how about this: Even Miss Connecticut was there.
Who knew she was a Republican?
This clearly looks like executive session to me!
Another subtle political post about Republicans dripping with resentment and sarcasm. What a shock.
Dan, give it up. I love ya brother. But enough. Are all Westporters required to swing to the left? Is that part of being in 06880?
It was a great party. The candidates spoke passionately, Jim Marpe was a wonderful MC, and everyone had fun mingling and listening to the live music. (Miss Connecticut is a lovely and intelligent lady getting a Masters in microbiology)
What moved me most was running into Democratic friends at the event. It made me once again proudly realize that we are Westporters first.
Please consider the local Republican candidates on their own merit and what’s best for our town.
Chairman, Westport BOF
This state needs a change. Democrats have failed this state. Linda baby.
I agree RB.
Time to get rid of Malloy and his cronies as well!
It is time for change. Look at the loss of Bridewater Associates from Westport. Connecticut’s democratic Governor inked the deal in private closed door executive session meetings. He paid back his Stamford supporters using our taxes, and specifically hurt Westport in the process. Westport must select someone to represent us at the State level who will not sit idly by as Westport is hurt by the State. In this case, it is clearly the Westport Republican candidates.
We lose Bridgewater, and we get a nursing home in return. Lots of backs getting scratched in CT. To suggest that one party is more or less complicit than the other though is a joke.
And WHICH “party” is responsible for the awful nursing home idea? Just think about that… It all goes back to the liberal-minded fools in this state.
SHS, the bidding/selection process for the project you are referring to is getting very strong support from certain high profile GOPers. And I am hearing this support could be what puts it over the top.
So both parties may have to live with, and explain, this legacy.
Sound like Mr. Kaner is on board with the program.
I just re-read my comment above. What “program” are you referring to???
I believe “Some things never change” was referring to the Baron’s South Committee’s bidding process and the tainted proposal that it recommended. I know I was.
This article and my comments have nothing to do with Baron’s South.
What I can tell you is that members of my board, regardless of political party, are only interested in what’s best for the town. Our board has proven itself countless times in this regard.
I think he doth protest too much.
Avi, Yes. And you now have an opportunity to show that ethical standards, transparency and the people’s trust in town government is more important than any political (partisan or otherwise) concerns. Your decision (and I believe you now have the key say in this matter) will set the tone for how our local government is viewed by all the citizens we are elected to represent.
John – our board makes smart things happen, as is evidenced by the actuarial reviews, Levitt investment, shift to Defined Contribution plans, commissioning an appraisal of Baron’s South, revamping of our budget formats to improve transparency, etc.
We always try to be constructive, as is the case with Baron’s South.
Pllease read the WestportNow account of our public meeting on the issue: http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2_5/comments/finance_board_hit_reset_button_for_barons_south/
The next major public discussion will be with the RTM on Octoer 29th.
Funny Dan, I recently wrote about the same thing after interviewing Miss Connecticut. What struck me as odd is I thought she would need to be politically neutral, like the Red Cross, but then, is Miss CT working for Donald Trump?
Is Candy Crowley working for team Obama?
You need to ask?
Yes, you’re right facts are known to have a liberal bias.
I gues 7.8% unemployment does have a “liberal” bias.
Obama’s not a liberal. Never has been. He’s a Democrat. He’s Black, but he aint no liberal. He’s also not a vulture capitalist gorging on the innards of the American middle class.
Avi, I think we hit the max number of replies, so starting another string….
I actually don’t need to read what Gordon wrote on that meeting. I was there and spoke and was quoted in the link you provided. I was the tall guy that everyone seemed to be upset with.
As I haven’t gotten a reply from you or any other members of the BOF from the letter I sent to the BOF last week ( http://06880danwoog.com/2012/10/13/john-mccarthy-barons-south-consultants-and-ethics/ ) re the ethical lapse I believe existed in the bidding process, perhaps you would like to give a reply here.
John – here is a link to the Westport News, clearly not affiliated with the First Selectman. It recaps the results of our public meeting. http://www.westport-news.com/default/article/Plans-for-senior-project-at-Baron-s-South-3918552.php
Regarding your letter: thank you for sending us your thoughts, insights, and recommendations. I believe you shared your opinion regarding the consultant with us at our public meeting. We will not make a statement regarding potential legal matters.
Your recommendation to refuse to evaluate the Baron’s South proposal is something we will not do. Our board will evaluate any and all requests or recommendations sent to us by the Selectman’s Office. (this is not Washington, DC gridlock)
As you have clearly seen, our board has always evaluated any request in a transparent manner. We will likely issue a formal BOF recommendation after both the October 29th public RTM meeting and a likely public BOF work-session to follow.
I believe that the BOF and RTM should first answer the question: Was there a potential conflict of interest which could have influenced the outcome of the RFP process or lessened the public’s trust in the process? If the answer is yes, then stop all further consideration and publicize why the process was stopped. If no, proceed and explain that this process is an example of how Westport wants to conduct business in the future. Oh, and then think of how this pro bono-Consultant driven template might be applied to the town’s next bond sale or decision on what investments the town makes for its pension funds. That might be fun!
This type of “gridlock” is never seen in Washington where ethics and conflicts of interest are usually just swept under the rug and written off as business as usual.