Patch’s Poll: Do You Think It’s Okay for Malloy to Campaign For Obama?

The Connecticut Republican chairman criticized the governor for making a trip to New Hampshire this past weekend to give a speech for the president.

In a presidential election year, the state of New Hampshire is again in play as a swing state.

With that, politicians who do not represent The Granite State are flying in to campaign for both President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy paid a visit to Hampton, N.H., over two hours away from Hartford, to campaign for Obama in front of an audience of about 100 people.

According to a story in The Day newspaper, Malloy noted that 2012 is going to be a close election and that he’s “not going to shy away from doing everything in my power to make sure people understand what’s at stake.”

Jerry Labriola Jr., the chairman of Connecticut’s Republican party, told the newspaper that the governor was making a “political trip” involving “thousands of dollars in expenses.” An administration official disputed his cost estimate.

Do you think it’s okay for Gov. Dannel Malloy to campaign for President Obama if it doesn’t cost taxpayer dollars? Take our poll and share your thoughts in the comments.

Paul August 30, 2012 at 03:27 PM
Abolshing the Death Penalty also killed Malloy's chances for reelection. What a slap in the face to Dr. Petit
Rob Laughlin August 30, 2012 at 03:43 PM
How about we try and stick to the topic, rather than continuing the frothing at the mouth, mindless hate fest demonstrated above. What he wants to do with HIS own time and money to support a candidate is really none of your business. If he was a Republican and was going up to support Romney most of you would keep your trap shut. I don't like the Govenor myself, but the whole question was rather stupid and I now regret wasting my time on this post.
meowkats4 August 30, 2012 at 05:57 PM
Connecticut is in the Toilet, we got a governor that likes to campaign and go on trips, we have a department of labor that knows nothing, we got businesses using Mr. Tax and Spends "carrot" that he will give away our tax dollars if they stay and create jobs or come to create jobs. He is in love with the Unions. Are we happy yet? A recent survey of business friendliness by the Kauffman Foundation gave New Hampshire an overall grade of A. Connecticut got a D. New Hampshire ranked the fifth-most friendly state in which to start a small business; Connecticut ranked 44th. We’re supposed to take political advice from this guy? No, thanks says New Hampshire. http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120830/OPINION01/708309912
Tony Fornuto August 30, 2012 at 06:54 PM
Can we assume that you feel the same way about Scott Walker and Chris Christie campaigning for Romney? I'm no Malloy fan, but at least you should be consistent.
Robert Angelo August 30, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Agree with all of the above, including the name calling being inappropriate. I see both sides of issue. Should spent more time here to fix our states problems, which are many. But if he feels he must support the president, it should be on his vacation time allotted state employees, for appearances sake. Either way, he would be doing a disservice to taxpayers on both the state and federal level of government. For those that don't get this, he has stuck CT. Taxpayers with more taxes and supports a president that has put the country in the hole for 5 trillion more, in less than 4 years.
Catherine & Dennis August 30, 2012 at 11:25 PM
As Governor do you only work a 40 hour work week Monday - Friday? Did he spend his own money? Did the Democratic party pay the expenses? If the answers are yes, then no problem. I dont think the answers are yes and everyone has a right to their opinion as to how State money is spent. You have your right to your opinion as others have their right to their own. And as you said, in your opinion you felt it was a stupid question that was a waste of your time to post. :)
tchjjal August 31, 2012 at 12:10 AM
It's best that Malloy is away. Less damage to do at home!
Dean August 31, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Democrats have to pay for the campaign expenses. He is not the best communicator either. Keep in mind he won because the Republicans ran a bad candidate against him.
tchjjal August 31, 2012 at 02:24 AM
Actually, Folley was a good candidate. He was winning until the unions came up with the bags of ballots that they "found" in Bridgeport. The Dems are corrupt as they come!
Malvi Lennon August 31, 2012 at 02:20 PM
@tchjjal. I totally agree with you
R Eleveld August 31, 2012 at 02:34 PM
I see no problem if Malloy works for Obama, he could not ask for a better spokesperson.... $2B in new taxes, and he still can't balance the budget. That should make peopel feel good about voting in Obama for another 2 years. PS: Obama should be paying for the travel expenses, but based upon reports from some CT towns that will not be happening, and that is a problem for every CT citizen.
R Eleveld August 31, 2012 at 02:35 PM
CT does not allow recall. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0082.htm
Maria Giannuzzi August 31, 2012 at 02:54 PM
There are several Republican governors campaigning for Mr. Romney. A few spoke at the Republican convention. (More governors were going to attend and speak, but because of Hurricane Isaac they remained in their home states.) And that means much time and expense for the person speaking. The speaker has to prepare a speech, usually with the aid of a speechwriter, practice it, and then give it at the convention. There is the time lost traveling to and from Tampa, the overnight stay or a stay of a few nights at a hotel, the parties they attend (and I heard there were some great parties and gifts sponsored by AT&T, Microsoft and other large corporations). There is the time spent getting one's hair cut and coiffed and getting one's clothes ready as well as packing before and after the event. It does add up in terms of time and money. Would you begrudge Mr. Romney the support of these governors? In my opinion, most governors work hard and doing a little political campaigning for candidates is no big deal. There are certainly more important issues to be concerned about.
meowkats4 August 31, 2012 at 05:16 PM
@Maria: Note the Author states: Do you think it’s okay for Gov. Dannel Malloy to campaign for President Obama if it "doesn’t cost taxpayer dollars"? Your like a run away train going on about expenses, parties!!! I say let him go Campaign, let him campaign for President Obama, great maybe he will get a job with the Obama administration!!! Just want to know what will he do if Obama is not re- elected?
Maria Giannuzzi August 31, 2012 at 09:14 PM
Apparently, you did not read the last two sentences of my comment. Governor Malloy is a "governor." I answered the poll question. And I also said, "time and expense for the person speaking." In other words, the speaker is covering his own expenses, although it is possible that the political party will reimburse him or her for those expenses. A governor doing some political campaigning a few times a year is a non-issue. You would do better to find a truly important issue to complain about. And yes, those Republican delegates and others attending the convention were invited to parties sponsored by major corporations, despite the fact that the Republican National Committee has the funds to hold their own parties. The Democrats will probably do the same. I would say that large corporations holding extravagant parties and handing out small gifts at a political convention is a much more important issue than Governor Malloy going to New Hampshire.
R Eleveld August 31, 2012 at 09:57 PM
Facts: The RNC budget was ~$55MM raised through a 501c3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Republican_National_Convention The DNC budget is unknown and is supposedly short some $27MM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Democratic_National_Convention Both cities received $50MM Federal grants for security. I know CT Republicans had to pay their own way to the convention, accommodations and other expenses. Many corporations want face time with "Friends". The 545 elites in Washington and the hundreds of State Governors, and legislators that can help "friends". That should be OK if you believe Government should support 'some' if not 'all' "friends". I oppose bailouts (AIG. GM), handouts (Solyndra and the other Solars), and "investments" (Jackson, Bridgewater). The same will happen at the DNC, but the DNC is supposedly not taking cash, but "in-kind" contributions. So if they need 100K bottles of water, then Coke brings in water. What is the difference vs giving the DNC 100K so they can buy water. There is none. Interestingly I learned because it is held in T.W.C. Arena and Bank of America Stadium the DNC wanted to separate themselves from the issues prone BOA so they are not accepting corporate cash contributions. However they can "donate [cash] to a non-profit called "New American City, Inc.", which is run by the directors of the convention host committee." So semantics and subterfuge is the appropriate message here.
Dean August 31, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Come on! The unions did not magically find a bag of votes. Foley was a terrible candidate. Simmons and Shays would have both beaten Malloy, but it was offensive to me that all four candidates for Senate and the Governorship were from Stamford or Greenwich. None of the people in that race represented the interests of the state. That county is disconnected from the rest of the state regardless of the party and then they swing in with their bags of money and give us a choice of two extremes. There were no reasonable people. HOw many people in the state really care about McMahon cutting taxes for the wealthiest among us, or Blumenthals fight against cigarette companies, or Foley's its all the unions fault or Malloys we uh uh uh if we give big business taxpayer money they will creat jobs. The reality is is that Rell, Williams, and Donovan were irresponsible for years and now CT is in a tough spot. Now we have rich blaming the unions and the unions blaming the rich and everyone else is screwed because elected officials dropped the ball. What people fail to realize is the rich pay more in taxes than most other places in the country and the unions contribute more than many states. As far as unions pay compared to the cost of living, CT ranks in the middle of the 50 states. This is just a poorly run inefficient state that uses an arachaic town system and does not have tolls on its borders for 3 heavily traveled major interstates that cost CT more than it benefits.
stluva50s August 31, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Malvi Lennon, What a silly and immature comment to make on this subject. You are supposedly a mature woman running for office and the best you can offer is "dittos" to another poster saying something inane and pointless about the governor being away? I hope your potential constituents have low expectations because they aren't going to get much in depth of political insight! Grow up!
Maria Giannuzzi September 01, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Why are corporations funding political conventions at all, whether with cash or in-kind contributions? Most of the delegates are state legislators and other elected officials. Many have generous state or federal salaries. I understand the federal government providing money for security, although some of the security seems unnecessary. The delegates can pay for the convention, with assistance from the RNC or DNC. It is only once every four years. The conventions now just seem like another excuse for lobbying by major corporations and a few very wealthy individuals. According to one report, just before his speech Mitt Romney shook the hand of David Koch (? spelling), who apparently is prepared to give as much as $400 million dollars to the Republicans this election year. $400 million dollars. Another flagrant example of big money (both corporate and individual) influencing the political process.
Jim Bennett September 01, 2012 at 04:07 PM
Ok the big difference between Malloy and the Republican Governors that spoke at the RNC is that the Republican Governors have states that are in better shape since they took office. Can anyone say CT is in a better place since Malloy took office?? Maybe you can, but your lying to yourself!! Higher taxes, lower incomes, more fees??
R Eleveld September 01, 2012 at 06:52 PM
Maria you are catching on. If government through its rules, creating regulations, modifying its myriad programs, picking winners & losers, funding this or that, add in the 50 states doing the same that will effect businesses, and people, all want a chair at the table. It is NOT a political party issue. It is how government was and has been done for the last 50 years. Since the 1970's lobbying has grown dramatically with the size of government. Add in the states and you can see this is BIG business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States Why? Well as the government's tentacles have grown into the economy, the potentially affected by this, want to have their case heard. Why? Because government can create an advantage for or against you. With the sweep of a pen Washington can make or break the entire ethanol industry. OR they could make or break sugar cane, OR they can make or break solar, OR autos or banks. Get the idea. Google had spent little for Lobbyists until a year or two ago when they realized that laws could be written to hurt them, and they wanted to make sure they could stop, modify, or kill these actions. http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2968686/google-joins-lobbying-elite So Maria as a "progressive" -- your words -- you want more government and then this is what you must expect. Be careful what you asked for, you will get it. Relative to $ at the conventions... I do not hear you complaining about Soros? Why?
Ben Rodriguez September 01, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Of course it's OK. What a dumb question. Democrats and Republicans travel all the time for governing and campaigning. Stop pretending this is something new people.
Ben Rodriguez September 01, 2012 at 10:51 PM
I lived in Boston when Romney was Governor. He gained a reputation as being absent because he was off campaigning. Eventually the newspapers calculated he was in NH and other states quite a bit, getting ready for his presidential run. Eventually, the game was up and he quit, leaving fool of a LT Governor in his place (who later got trounced by the current MA Gov.). For Republicans complaining about governors campaigning for President Obama, you're being hypocritical to say the least.
Tony M September 02, 2012 at 03:18 AM
As long as the Governor pays for his travel, hotel/ motel, meals with his own money; I have no qualms about his campaigning for President Obama.
Maria Giannuzzi September 02, 2012 at 03:12 PM
Big money in political campaigns is not "more government." It is an effort to influence government policy. In fact many large campaign contributions to Republican candidates are intended to bring about less government. Many contributors have a vested financial interest in reducing government regulations. Less regulation, more profits for them. I would hope that the large benefactors for the Democratic Party will be mentioned during this week's Democratic convention. Let's see how much Mr. Soros is contributing versus Mr. Koch and other very large contributors to the Republicans. The amounts are scandalous. Every voter should ask themselves what is the ultimate goal of such immense campaign contributions. Most progessives want fairness in the political process, opportunity for those without huge bank accounts and the right connections, and a strong safety net when capitalism fails ordinary men and women. Many progressives want the big money out of political campaigns and public funding of campaigns with dollar limits. This includes everyone, Mr. Soros as well as the Koch brothers.
Maria Giannuzzi September 02, 2012 at 03:34 PM
For those who want to look into a real issue, they should examine the role of Ralph Reed in the actions which led to Jack Abramoff being convicted of defrauding his Native American casino clients. Ralph Reed is back again heading up a new organization to support Republican candidates. What I find fascinating are Jack Abramoff's, Grover Norquist's and Ralph Reed's frank admissions about using Christian fundamentalists to achieve their goals for their wealthy although unsophisticated clients and their own organizations.
R Eleveld September 02, 2012 at 05:11 PM
You are naive Maria if you honestly believe that as the size of government has grown and its power over more segments of the economy will result in more money flowing into politics and more desire for face time with the elites. The difference is whether those are your kind of "friends" or someone else's idea of "friends". This is a concept many can not fully comprehend becasue this is so large it is like contemplating the universe. The myriad little ways Federal government has entered local life, and the State is not far behind. Government is involved in everything, and growing. The government can with a stroke of a pen cause massive changes, like the credit card swipe fee issue that created the BoA backlash. This was supposed to reduce the costs of products bought at stores where swipe fees were charged by banks... Do you know of any merchants that lowered the price of a pack of gum by $0.20 cents? You do not understand the tentacles,a nd many really do not fully comprehend the reach of the government and how corrosive it really can be. As long as the funding is disclosed, like Wall Street's or a Unions large funding of Obama, or Romney I am OK with it, not happy, but OK.
Maria Giannuzzi September 03, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Isn't a lot of this--the big money and the lack of disclosure--all about power. It's not really about profits, tax cuts and tax loopholes. It's about who will be dictating (and I use that word intentionally) what goes on in this country at the federal, state and local levels. It's about control. And the more big money (with lack of disclosure) controls our politics and governance, the less democratic we are as a nation. That is the real danger of money in our political process.
R Eleveld September 03, 2012 at 12:55 PM
This is the chicken and egg argument. You believe government is good, so that drives your mental process, or how you look at the world. I look at how people actually react to certain inputs. Government did not grow because more money was spent on lobbying, and politics. Government first grew and got its tentacles into more of the economy, and people realized to protect their interests they needed to make sure they had a seat at the table. That precludes the less fortunate because they can’t afford a seat, and that magnifies the separation of the rich and poor. You want government to make things "fair". So to do that, Government writes more laws, rules, and regulations to make things "fair" yet in doing so it can make or break industries. This begets more lobbying, and money from those that have the money. Look at the swipe fee debacle, or the real estate meltdown financed by mega $'s not from Wall Street as your instant wrong reaction will be, but by FNMA, GNMA, Et Al. Look at the ethanol industry that can not survive without US $. Sugar, Solar Cells, some financial institutions, autos, and there are many more. You want to get rid of the money shrink government. Less control means less chance for laws, rules and Regulations. If you do not want to do that because of your idea of fairness, then stop your complaining. This is a result of your desire for fairness. First you get and egg, then a chicken, or large government and then money.
Spiff September 03, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Maria, responding specifically to your 7:44 am on Monday, September 3, 2012 comment, if you want the government to have less dictatorial control, THEN STOP VOTING FOR OBAMA, MALLOY AND ALL THE OTHER DEMOCRATS THAT ARE RUINING OUR COUNTRY!!! Vote for smaller government, vote for lower taxes, vote for more personal freedoms, vote for less government control, VOTE FOR ANY PARTY TO THE RIGHT OF THE DEMOCRATS!!! I've been telling you that 'till I'm blue in the face (along with many others on this site), but for some reason you just ain't gettin' it! It's funny how your thought process comes full circle.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something