Mayor Dan Drew on Illegal Aliens: "Can we please stop referring to the immigrants on the borders as "illegals?"

Jim O'Rourke Comments on Malloy's Signing of Ethics BIll- What the Hell is he Smoking?

Argentina- A few hours ago on Facebook, our esteemed and HISPANIC (NOT!) State Rep. Matthew Lesser let the public know his feelings during Governor Malloy's signing of an ethics bill, "Important legislation and I'm proud to have played a role in this passage."  What's the big deal Insider,? I bet 1/3 of our over 2,000 daily readers are asking themselves about Lesser's posting and grandstanding as per his usual practice.  He tweets and Facebooks to his fans whenever he looks at himself in the mirror, why is this anything new?


 If one checks out Che Guevara's- er, Lesser's Facebook page, they will find the man claiming to be part of the House Assembly's Spanish Caucus because he allegedly has Argentinian ties on his mother side.  One could sit here and make a ton of jokes referring to the thousands of members of the National Socialist (Nationalsozialismus) party that took refuse in Argentina after World War II ended in 1945.  Seriously, Matt looks more Aryan (German) than a product from Argentina, but hey if it gets the old boy votes god bless him. Anybody remember that scene with Gregory Peck from The Boys from Brazil when the little Hitler clone chucked the guy down the stairs?

 The real culprit in this piece happens to be former CT Deputy Speaker of the House Jim O'Rourke who felt that it would be a wonderful idea to comment and take credit for some of these ethics bills finding their way to the house in Hartford.  The question The Insider has for Mr. O'Rourke: What the hell are you smoking?

"¿Matt, usted no podría estar parado detrás de mí que me está poniendo nerviosa?"

Let's recap Jim O'Rourke's ties to ethics:


On the night of January 21, 2009, O'Rourke was allegedly involved in events related to the hypothermia death of a 41 year old Rocky Hill woman. O'Rourke said the woman got in his car at a local bar and he tried to drive her home, but she got out of the car and planned to walk the rest of the way home. The woman was found dead by a cross country skier. Local police did not immediately charge O'Rourke with any crime related to this incident.^[2]
On April 30, 2009, The Hartford Courant reported local police were seeking to issue a warrant to charge O'Rourke with negligent homicide for his role in the incident. The following day, House Speaker Christopher Donovan announced he had suspended O'Rourke from his post as Deputy Speaker.^[3]
The state's attorney ultimately declined to prosecute O'Rourke for his role in this incident. However, in February 2010 the decedent's estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against O'Rourke and the bar in which the incident occurred

Let's get real! Having Jim O'Rourke making comments about ethics is like Dan Drew claiming he hurt his shoulder saving all the lost souls in the dunk tape at Wesley School.  

Upcoming Meetings in MIddletown CT

Upcoming Meetings

Upcoming Events

6/26/2013

Finance and Government Operations Commission

7/1/2013

Common Council Regular Meeting

7/1/2013

Public Safety Telecommunications Commission

7/1/2013

Common Council Questions to Directors

7/2/2013

Insurance & Claims Commission

7/2/2013

Riverfront Committee

Do you want your tax money going to political campaigns? Common Council Votes May 7

This story was brought to the Insider's attention in an article by the Middletown Eye here: Mayor Drew, who spoke at a lecture held at Wesleyan organized by the non partisan group Democracy Now on campaign finance reform along side WesDem leader Ben Florsheim this past fall advocating public funding of campaigns to "level the playing field." As you may recall,  at the lecture, open to the public held just by "coincidence" during the 2011 fall campaign season, was "crashed" as stated by Florsheim by local Middletown Republican candidates and incumbent Mayor Sebastian Giuliano, who were not invited, as then candidate Drew tried to tell the crowd. It was after this lecture, and with the help of student leaders Gabriela DeGolia and Ben Florsheim that over 450 Wesleyan students were registered to vote, coincidentally, around the same margin by which Drew won the election. Florsheim, who is president of the Connecticut College Democrats and an up and coming politician in his own right, and DeGolia then wrote letters and organized protests of Giuliano's appointment to the SEEC (State Elections Enforcement Committee).  De Golia and Florsheim then manipulated statements made by Republican candidates and local citizens, who had merely quoted state statues, and the two  published statements & handed out flyers accusing the Giuliano campaign, candidates, and a private citizen not involved in the campaign, of felony voter intimidation against Wesleyan students.

To get back to the topic of Your money: idea behind the resolution is  to force campaigns to be "grassroots" efforts. However look at Drew's contributors who he claimed were "grassroots":Connecticut Young Democrats, Leadership in Action, People for excellence in government, Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union 777, Susan Bysiewicz,State Rep. Matt Lesser, Colleen Flanagan, a spokeswoman for Gov. Dannel Malloy, State Treasurer Denise Nappier, Democratic councilmen Robert Santangelo, Grady Faulkner, Hope Kasper and James Streeto, along with Democratic Town Committee Chairwoman Elizabeth Santangelo. Those aren't grass roots contributors, it's they are Dem cohorts- and likewise- members of the local Republican party contributed to to Giuliano. Our point is: practice what you preach if your are going to preach it!

 In January, it was reported that Drew's campaign raised over $97K (vs. Giuliano's $68K),  the majority of which came from businesses rather than individual donors; the Insider's point is that the pot is calling the kettle black with this resolution to stop supposed campaign corruption and favors  by businesses who donate to local campaigns. The Insider suspects that because of statements at this lecture, the local Democratic Councilmembers will be in favor of having tax money used for local campaigns.

On the agenda for the regular common council meeting for May 7, 2012 is a resolution
regarding public elections and the financing of those elections. This resolution states
in part that the residents of Middletown, CT “stand with communities across America
in protecting our republic from the influencing effects of well-financed interests by
establishing that
1. Corporations should not enjoy the Constitutional rights by being considered
human beings;
2. All public elections shall be publicly funded;
3. Independent political spending shall be limited and made transparent;”

On the surface after reading quickly, this sounds admirable; however, after thought, not
so much.  The Insider would rather put in place or enforce the regulations that limit the
amount of spending or lower the cost of an election rather than make all public elections
publicly funded. Elections are too costly, that’s a given, so perhaps it would be better
to cap the amount that may be spent on an election for a specific office. For example, if
you’re running for Mayor you may spend $30,000; how you come up with that amount
and what you do with that is up to you, but that’s it, that’s all you’ve got.
The Insider doesn’t want to see our tax dollars, and that’s what public funding is: my taxdollars whether it be local or federal, spent on campaigns when there are so many other needs to be met. We don’t believe that the residents of Middletown want to have their mil rates go up even more than they already are ( 2+ mil) so that candidates for the next election can receive campaign funds. How would you feel if your tax money went toward say the Communist Party? Or a campaign party called "I did Your Mother"? If this resolution passes, all parties would receive equal funding-

This resolution, if passed, speaks for all the residents in Middletown and the Insider is not sure
that the Council, just by virtue of their position as Council, has the right to put forth
a position such as this without some sort of public hearing or public input. Also, this
resolution is assuming that the voter has not the ability to judge candidates and vote on
their candidates based on informed knowledge but rather on the money spent on their
campaign. The Insider would rather think that the voters in this city are more informed and engaged then that.