A_map_of_New_England,_being_the_first_that_ever_was_here_cut_..._places_(2675732378).jpg
RWhitcomb-editor RWhitcomb-editor

Don Pesci: A Conn. congresswoman's unusual "Metoo'' case

Editor's note: Congresswoman Esty announced yesterday she would not seek re-election.

Stories like this open a window into sealed rooms in which the usual favorable campaign propaganda is produced by the truckload.

This one, which ran in the Washington Post, is not good news for Connecticut U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty, most recently seen bobbing her head in assent to a vigorous attack on the National Rifle Association (NRA) by a teenage rabble rouser in Washington DC.

The Post story begins with a knock-out lede: “The threat from Rep. Elizabeth Esty’s chief of staff arrived in a voice mail.

“’You better f-----g reply to me or I will f-----g kill you,’ Tony Baker said in the May 5, 2016, recording left for Anna Kain, a former Esty aide Baker had once dated.”

Kain alerted the police, according to the Post story, “filed a report for felony threats and obtained a 12-month restraining order against Baker.”

A week later, Esty found out about the episode, and “… rather than firing or suspending Baker, the congresswoman consulted her personal attorneys and advisers, she said. She also spoke to Kain on May 11, emails show; Kain said she provided detailed allegations that Baker had punched, berated and sexually harassed her in Esty’s Capitol Hill office throughout 2014, while she worked as Esty’s senior adviser… On May 5, 2016, Baker called Kain approximately 50 times and said he would ‘find her’ and ‘kill her,’ she alleged in the petition.”

Three months after the reported abuse, Kain bade Esty goodbye, the congresswoman having provided him with a favorable job recommendation. Kane found employment with the Ohio branch of Sandy Hook Promise (SHP), an organization formed after the slaughter of school children and staff of the Sandy Hook Elementary School that agitates in favor of gun control and school safety. Before hiring Baker, SHP contacted Esty by phone.

We do not know if there is a record of the conversation -- SHP’s spokesperson was unavailable for comment when the Post story ran -- but it seems reasonable to assume that Esty had not warned officials at SHP that their hire had assaulted and threatened women, was an alcoholic and had exhibited brutal and violent tendencies. Esty had signed a non-disclosure agreement with Baker. The penalties for breaking contracts superseded any political backlash that might have damaged Esty’s career as both a third term Congresswoman and an ardent defender of women’s rights in the post-Weinstein #metoo era.   

Esty retained Baker in her office for three months after she had full knowledge of her chief of staff’s assaults and life-threatening e-mails. On the advice of counsel, she signed a non-disclosure agreement that would protect both her and Baker from the indignity of answering media inquiries. And, as part of the agreed upon separation, Esty recommended Baker to Sandy Hook Promise as a promising hire. For all of this, Esty is deeply sorry.

Will sorry be enough? Esty is, after all, a woman who has placed herself on the post—#metoo barricades. Her mistake was simply listening to the lawyers -- Esty is also a lawyer – and not acting in the moment as her conscience prompted her. If she is on the left side of the political barricades, why should unsavory incidents such as these cost her a well-established position of eminence within the social progressive movement she has ridden like a hobby horse into re-election efforts for three, possibly four terms in the #metoo inspired Democrat Party? “Esty said she plans to advocate for greater accountability in how congressional offices are managed,” the Post advises, closing out the tawdry tale.

Republicans already are waving Esty’s head on their campaign pikes, and Democrat support for the beleaguered Esty is flaccid. Executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, most often the last passenger to jump overboard on a sinking ship, said he’s “not ready to jump off” the ship yet. U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal was cautiously unoptimistic. “I’m deeply disappointed,” said the moral conscience of the Senate. “She should talk to her constituents. It’s their decision not mine. I need to know more and so do her constituents.” The always eupeptic U.S. Senator Chris Murphy said, “I talked to Elizabeth, and I'm glad she acknowledges this [that mistakes were made]. Nobody working in a congressional office or any other setting should feel afraid to come to work. Protecting victims of workplace harassment needs to come first, and the rules of Congress need to change to ensure that happens."

Esty has said she has no intention of resigning her position in the U.S. House. Is it presumptuous to suppose that the congressional reforms Murphy believes are necessary might be more quickly adopted if Esty did resign?

Don Pesci is a Vernon, Conn.-based columnist and frequent contributor to New England Diary,

 

Read More
Commentary Robert Whitcomb Commentary Robert Whitcomb

Don Pesci: Political monopoly and the plight of young men

Hartford, Connecticut’s capital city, has been a one-horse town since 1971, when the last Republican mayor, Ann Uccello, was recruited by then President Richard Nixon to serve in the U.S. Department of Transportation. Since that time, more than 44 years, Hartford has languished in the grip of the Democratic Party hegemon. Hegemony always has and always will produce aberrant and corrupt government, largely because in one-party systems there are no political checks and balances, the administrative state is captive to an easily manipulable single party, and there are fewer eyes looking through the windows.

Former Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim, convicted and sent to prison on numerous corruption counts, once again is running for mayor in his old bailiwick; and three years after former Hartford Mayor Edie Perez had been convicted of corruption, an appellate court has overturned his hastily arrived at  conviction.

The Perez case now lies before Connecticut’s Supreme Court, three of whose justices have been appointed by Gov.  Dannel Malloy, the nominal head of Connecticut’s Democratic Party.

In addition, Mr. Malloy has appointed three justices to Appellate courts and thirty-nine judges to Superior Courts. The wheels of justice in Connecticut grind exceedingly slow, and so there is little chance that Mr. Perez will any time soon follow in the footsteps of Mr. Ganim and announce his candidacy for his old mayoralty seat.

More than four decades is a longtime for any hegemon. It seems proper at this late date – better late than never – to ask what progress, or regress, Hartford has made during these years of one-party rule?

Although Mr. Malloy and his crime czar, Under Secretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Mike Lawlor, lately have  tried to take credit for a national drop in crime rates, Connecticut cities need much improvement. 

Based on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report statistics released in September 2013, three Connecticut cities were listed among the top 10 most dangerous cities in the United States with populations fewer than 200,000: New Haven was second, Hartford fourth and Bridgeport sixth. Among the Top 101 cities with the highest percentage of single-parent households in a population of 50,000 plus, Hartford ranked number two, and we know from reliable studies that single parent households in urban areas link with disruptive social pathologies such as teenage pregnancies and the incarceration of young males.

Researcher Sara McLanahan,  at Princeton Universitysuggests that boys are much more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by single mother. Her study shows that even after controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity, boys raised in single parent households are more than twice as likely to be incarcerated than boys raised within a traditional intact two parent household. Hartford is now the murder capital of New England. As July gave way to August, Everett Scott, 47, was brought to Hartford Hospital with a hole in his chest, apparently another drug-related murder. He did not survive. The usual meeting was held, attended by the usual politicians, who promised to do something. In 2014, there were 19 homicides in Hartford; in the first seven months of the 2015, the death toll was 19.

From the back of the room, Pastor Sam Saylor called out, “We stand at the number 19... In 2012, on Oct. 20, a 20-year-old boy, my son, died. Here we are now at the end of July facing number 20." For the benefit of the politicians seated at a table at the front of the room, Mr. Saylor asked his audience, “How many of you have lost a loved one to gun violence?" Twenty five hands were raised.

The politicians -- among them U.S. Representatives John B. Larson, and Elizabeth Esty -- no doubt well intended, nodded empathetically. Fewer illicit guns among drug dealers might be helpful; the General Assembly already had promulgated to little purpose new gun laws regulating sales among the sort of people in Connecticut who do not join drug gangs, and such regulations obviously had not diminished the death tally in Hartford. More cops might help. Call in the National Guard?

For obvious political reasons, one is not likely to find among Democratic or Republican Party campaign planks measures that will redress this problem; the war on young blacks in cities is a hard political nut to crack, because it would require a courage and honestly politicians find it difficult to muster. It would require, among other things, an acknowledgement that all the palliatives we have over the years thrown at the problem have worsened the lot of young blacks and Hispanic boys.

The black protagonist of Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, published in 1952, was a specter because people refused to see him. The plight of boys and young men in early 21st Century is likewise invisible.

Don Pesci (donaldpesci@comcast.net) is a Vernon, Conn.-based political writer.

Read More
Commentary Robert Whitcomb Commentary Robert Whitcomb

Don Pesci: Do political endorsements matter?

VERNON, Conn.

First Lady Michelle Obama has endorsed Democrat Dannel Malloy for re-election as Connecticut's governor. In a picture worth a thousand words, Mrs. Obama was shown on “Capitol Report” being bussed robustly by U.S. Sen. Dick Blumenthal, who no doubt would endorse Mr. Malloy were Mr. Blumenthal a newspaper; some would argue that Mr. Blumenthal  is a newspaper. The winner of the Malloy contest with Republican Tom Foley will become governor of a state first in the nation in progressive governance and crony capitalism and last in almost every other important measurement of prosperity.
Will the first lady's endorsement matter to anyone but hardened Democrats, or to voting age high-schoolers who prefer healthy and pallid lunches to pizza and brownies? Probably not. For politicians, endorsements are little more than shows of party solidarity, and there are few political marriages in the nation more solid than that between Mr. Malloy and President Obama. Indeed, newspaper editorial endorsements in Connecticut’s left-of-center news media also have become highly predictable displays of ideological solidarity.
The lame-duck  president has had some difficulty getting himself invited to campaign soirees elsewhere in the Disunited States. Democrats vying for office in Red States  have tended to shun the president, if only to avoid the falling timbers of Mr. Obama’s foreign and domestic policies. Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is recklessly absurd because all foreign policy but his is constructed around a realpolitik understanding of friends and enemies. Mr. Obama is the first U.S. president who seems incapable of distinguishing between the two. In domestic policy, Mr. Obama should have devoted his energies during his first term to settling market uncertainties occasioned by a ruptured housing mortgage bubble partly caused by Beltway favoritism and the dismantling of the Glass Steagall Acta Franklin Roosevelt measure that that prevented investment banks  from meddling in commercial- banking activities. Instead of attending to the crisis at hand, Mr. Obama created a crisis of his own making by instituting Obamacare, a progressive baby step on the way to universal health care.
Mr. Obama will be appearing in Bridgeport – if, indeed he does make an appearance, a previous campaign appearance on behalf of Mr. Malloy having been called off because of the Ebola crisis – only a few days after Anne Melissa Dowling, Connecticut’s deputy commissioner of the Department of Insurance, announced that  of course she was concerned about insurance-policy cancellations in Connecticut.
“Dowling, NBCConnecticut reported, “says some 55,000 people across the state will have their policies canceled either because it no longer meets the requirements of the Affordable Care Act or because grandfathered policies that didn’t need to meet requirements have simply been canceled by the insurer.”
Even here in true blue Connecticut, some members of the state’s all Democratic congressional delegation have proven resistant to Mr. Obama’s charming attempt to make the world over according to his eccentric predilections.  Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty, for instance, has announced she will not attend Mr. Obama’s prospective campaign appearance of behalf of Mr. Malloy unless the president somehow manages to cross her path in her own district. The lady is very busy attending to her re-election – partly by composing and endorsing killer ads against her opponent, Republican Mark Greenberg, that even The Hartford Courant considered “creatively misleading” and (gasp!) “false.” Mrs. Esty has announced she would not be calling on the president when he appears in Bridgeport, only a hop, skip and a jump from Mrs. Esty's 5th District.  Connecticut is such a small state that anywhere in the state is but a hop, skip and a jump from anywhere else.
The Courant, the state’s largest  newspaper, endorsed Mrs. Esty, the second time it had done so. One of the indispensable determinants that garner Courant endorsements is experience in office, a requirement the paper waived during its first endorsement of Mrs. Esty, who at the time was running against a far more experienced candidate, Republican nominee for the U.S. House in the 5th District Andrew Roraback. The notion that the more experienced candidate for a particular office ought to receive the approbation of voters is, in fact, an argument for the perpetual election of incumbents, except on those rare occasions when the retirement of an incumbent leaves an office vacant. It is a policy, highly suspect in a constitutional republic, that would have stopped the American Revolution in its tracts: King George III, who inherited the British throne at the age of  12, had a much longer and deeper experience running the American colonies than did any of the founding fathers of the country. Most Americans are uncomfortable with perpetual monarchies or unchanging legislatures.
But not The  Courant. The paper’s current endorsement of Governor Malloy is riddled with enough qualifiers to sink a battleship, and this year, as usual, Democrats in Connecticut’s congressional delegation have garnered the paper’s affections; this at a time when Republicans are expected to retain control of the House. Some bean counters expect Republicans to capture the Senate as well. As the whole of New England moves further left, the usual endorsements will increasingly be taken with a ton of salt by voters less progressive than the usual progressive representatives.
Don Pesci (donpesci@att.net)  is a Connecticut political writer.
Read More