December 30, 2010

What does Obama have against Connecticut?

Last month, there were two states that turned more Democratic in the wake of the midterm elections: California and Connecticut.
Ohio, meanwhile, shifted sharply toward the GOP.
So when the time came to cut a check for the $100 million earmark that U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd shoveled into the health care measure to help out plans to rebuild John Dempsey Hospital, you'd think collecting the cash would be no sweat.
The money was meant for Connecticut.
Connecticut is a solid Democratic state.
Yet Ohio gets the dollars.
Presidential politics, of course, plays a major role. Ohio is a valuable state in the Electoral College while Connecticut is more like Wyoming.
But what is the point of sending Democrats to Washington to represent Connecticut if the Democratic president is going to ship even our earmarks off to GOP hotbeds?
There's something seriously messed up when our lawmakers can't even secure money they build into the budget for their home state.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

24 comments:

Concerned Conservative said...

The fact that Ohio State University is getting the money proves this. The Obama administration sees no benefit in presenting a gift to a state in which they feel is certain to be for Obama in 2012. Ohio, a battle ground state is a state in which the Obama administration feels they can buy votes with this grant. Apparently that's the "change we can believe in".

Anonymous said...

stop with the heath care gripe!!!!!!! get the police report and inform the people

Anonymous said...

"But what is the point of sending Democrats to Washington to represent Connecticut if the Democratic president is going to ship even our earmarks off to GOP hotbeds?" Exactly.

Solution: Send Republicans to Washington from Connecticut which would become a GOP hotbed of its own.

Steve Collins said...

11:12 - The police report coverage is over. I am not our police reporter. All I can do is post it, if that proves possible.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Obama is sucking up to Boehner

Anonymous said...

Steve,
I think you need to look no further than the tax cut bill where Ohio had 13 yes votes and 5 no- while Connecticut had 2 yes votes and 3 no- if our people aren't going to vote with him we can expect nothing- red or blue

Anonymous said...

LOL! Lady in Red! Dancing Cheek to cheek!

Anonymous said...

obama is the worst president we ever had bring back bush!!

Anonymous said...

You couldn't tell me CT is a Democratic state by the way Bristol voted. They didn't even vote for a Democratic Dan Malloy. I bet he won't forget THAT when it comes time to pass out the money or railroad/bus stops. lol.

Anonymous said...

Connecticut is full of rich white liberals, Obama resents us and feels we don't need his handouts.

toto said...

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of battleground states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Anonymous said...

You get what you deserve. Try thinking before you vote for president in 2012.

Concerned Conservative said...

The state Demo-rats should be outraged that Obama is trying to buy votes in Ohio rather than supporting a state where the majority stood by him and his Congressional allies.
Where's the outrage from the Democrat Congressional delegation, the Governor-elect, Dodd, Blumenthal, Lamont The Hartford Courant, Rick Green and every other liberal, Obama supporter that told the voters supporting Obama would ensure this grant?

Anonymous said...

If the rest of the state is like BRISTOL why give money he hasb the tax payers paying for the creeps running the street

Anonymous said...

Why give money to a state that has bristol leaching off of it

Anonymous said...

Maybe he doesn't like reporters who write sensationalized titles on their blogs?!

Anonymous said...

The CT Democrats will vote for their Messiah no matter what. He doesn't need to give them anything, and the rest of the elite elected don't need to keep their promises. Baaaaa......

Anonymous said...

Bring on Sarah Palin!!!

Anonymous said...

Malloy reappoints Linda Schwartz as Veterans Affairs commissioner

Anonymous said...

Solid Democratic state!? YOU ARE NUTS! We've haven't had a Democratic Governor in how many years? Since Ella. Remember?
You could NEVER tell this is a Democratic state never mind a Democratic town. Bristol didn't even vote for Dan Malloy. Of course he will ignore Bristol after that slight. Bristol is so s_r_w_d!
Those two Republicans we elected, Betts & Welch, had better get to Hartford and do SOMETHING fast or we will be voting Democrats back into office so fast their heads will spin.

Anonymous said...

8:20

Wasn't Neil a democrat?

TRUTH HURTZ !!!! said...

SURPRISE !!!! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope no-one is so ignorant that they did not realize that was mr. dodds plan from the start .He only has one more day to butt slam us again before he leaves.

Anonymous said...

You can never trust a democrat with money.

SOLID BLUE STATE said...

Solid Democratic state!? YOU ARE NUTS! We've haven't had a Democratic Governor in how many years?

January 3, 2011 8:20 PM
`````````````````````
Hey Steve ..... Maybe you should run a story informing citizens that we now HAVE a DEMOCRAT sitting in the governors seat , to join with the institutional veto proof DEMOCRAT congress . Or maybe some folks have a bit of difficulty comprehending the written word .