Chianese. The letter focused on how Chianese was unfair to Republican Phil Curran, who was nominated to fill the vacant seat on the Common Council. For those of you who don't know, Chianese blocked Curran from being voted in and instead referred the appointment to an ad hoc committee. You can read the letter here. Instead of posting the entire letter, I decided to only take out parts of it.The writer started by saying:
After 30-plus years risking his life for Danburians, Phil Curran decided to begin a new much deserved stage of life -- retirement. Chief Curran could have decided to relax and take it easy but rather chose to continue serving our great city in another capacity.
They then went on to explain what happened:
With family and friends present on June 5, Chief Curran anticipated taking the oath of office and becoming our newest councilman. However, this great event did not take place as Ben Chianese, Democrat of the 6th Ward, blocked this by referring the appointment to an ad hoc committee.
They concluded by taking a direct shot at Chianese:
Shame on you, Mr. Chianese, this is politics at its worst! Mr. Chianese owes Mr. Curran, his family, and the rest of Danbury an apology for his actions. He has not just embarrassed himself but also the electorate who put him in office expecting him to represent the best of Danbury.It should be interesting to see if the sixth ward voters of Danbury take this into consideration when voting, or if Councilman Chianese will easily earn re-election.
28 comments:
I wish for once that the people reporting stories like this would look into the reasons why Ben voted the way he did. I feel if you want the truth, you should take a look at the mayor and the parade ordinance and ask why he was trying to add another Republican to the council, immediately prior to a controversial vote. A vote which was made necessary as a result of the mayor’s multiple inappropriate, and illegal votes the month before -- votes he cast in his attempt to spoil the BI-PARTISAN vote that he did not like.
It is also interesting to note that the writer of this letter to the paper is the last person the mayor picked to speak, while ignoring others at the public hearing who had questions on this subject. It was no surprise that he spoke glowingly about this ordinance, as the letter writer is a member of the Danbury Republicans serving on the zoning board. One might assume that there is partisan politics at work here, instead of for the well-being of the citizens of Danbury.
It would of passed with Curran or without him there.
DP playing partisan politics again.
DP left out that the writer of the post is a member of the Danbury RTC. He also left out the reasons behind Ben's vote that the first anon correctly pointed out.
This post is about as misleading as the partisan Republican comment DP left on CTLP.
Misleading DP:
http://ctlocalpolitics.net/2007/06/30/jim-himes-live-blogging-at-kos/#comment-14666
Read DP's misleading attack on Chris Murphy on CTLP and read the real person behind this site.
It is not a misleading attack and if nobody is going to point it out then I will. People deserve to know what is going on. I don't understand why it is ok for ctblogger to play partisan politics? Just because you agree with him? Well, guess what, in the world of politics people don't agree on everything and that's just the way it is.
Chianese did this just to humiliate Mr. Curran. They guy is a blowhard who won't shut up. Please do not vote for this guy!!!
Ben is gone!
This had nothing to do with Ben or Mr.Curran, This had to do with the Mayor as stated in the first post.
You people need to stop the spin and look at the truth. How many times will the people of Danbury "take one for the team" when it comes to mis-use of power. If a Democrat did what the mayor did two meetings ago, you Republicans would be up in arms.
But I guess you need to run cover for him. Win at any cost only cost the city!
Do the right thing and open your eyes.
DP,
TrueBlueCT clearly explained why your partisan misleading comment on Murphy was garbage. Here, let me refresh your memory.
Wow DP, that House vote that Murphy “skipped”, sure was a close one, only 382-37. If Murphy hadn’t missed the vote, it would have been a more resounding 383-37 margin!
Your just as partisan as your RTC buddy dbyblogger and DanburyDan (funny how all these pro-Boughton sites started at the same time). Your post on Ben is as misleading as your attack on Murphy (you should really stop posting on CTLP, it makes you look silly). You try your best to act like your non-partisan with this site but people know better.
Mayor Boughton is to blame for the entire matter since he could have simply send the parade ordinance to a special session thus avoiding Curran (a fireman and cronie from the school of Joe Cavo) from having the ability to cast a vote. The only reason Curran was appointed was to give Boughton the one vote he needed to pass the ordinance.
I think CGG of CTLP said it best about your partisan tactics.
The coordinated attacks on Murphy in CTLP’s comments section are a bit transparent guys...
You guys at the Danbury Republicans are really funny.
BTW: Placing Boughton's political sign days before the Memorial Day parade was really classy.
First of all you didn't include my answer to TrueBlueCt's comment which was:
"The point is that he missed it, after he made a commitment to the people of the fifth district that he would make ethics his first priority."
Secondly, I am by far not as partisan as The Danbury Dan, Danbury News Blog, and the Hat City Blog. In fact I did not express my opinion at all in this current post regarding Councilman Chianese, and if you look I rarely will express my opinions, especially to the degree that the other local bloggers do. And, just to clear the air, I have no idea who runs the other blogs (except Hat City) and to tell you the truth I don't care who they are. So they may tilt to the right, Hat City Blog titls very far to the left. Life goes on -- that's what makes them enjoyable to read.
Thirdly, regarding Murphy again, I simply posted three links to stories that seemed to be a little interesting and I said it "looks like Chris Murphy has some explaining to do". I didn't make them up, and whether you feel that the stories were taken a little to far is up to you, but they are the facts and I can't change that. I posted it under a post that was for an open forum. You have sure taken it way out of context.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and that is a big reason why I started this blog -- for people to share how they feel. It's ashame that some have taken it a little to far.
Geez it's funny how you Dems think that it is really classy to have Dodd signs out on Memorial Day. Nice job Mayor Boughton!!!!I want a big sign asap!
NEWSFLASH: Dodd is running for President.
Mayor Boughton and the arrogant Republican machine broke a long held gentleman's agreement between the two parties thats been in place for as long as I can remember.
I can't wait to get my hands on a DUMP MARK sign.
Oh come on DP, that anon just posted ONE of MANY partisan comments you left on CTLP. You make the Headless Horseman look like a catholic school girl.
Why didn't you explore the reasoning behind Ben's decision (Curran would have voted in favor of the parade ordinance although he was NEVER attended ONE ad-hoc meeting NOR was he at the debate in May)?
Why didn't you go into how Mayor Boughton violated the charter by not appointing someone to fill Ted C's seat in the allotted time?
I took a look at what the other anon stated about the creation of this site and it's quite strange that this site, DanburyDan, and Danbury News started within weeks of each other. I think it's time to investigate whether or not the owners of these sites are connected with the Danbury Republicans.
I have not posted MANY partisan comments on CTLP and for the record I reported on how our Representatives in Washington voted regarding a pay increase. I then posted the Murphy links and responded once on that. In fact the next post, which is the last one I did actually gave a compliment to Hillary Clinton saying she is a person who would be very difficult to beat. This is what you call "MANY partisan comments"? They aren't.
Go ahead and do an investigation on the connection of the local blogs. You won't find anything regarding me. I told you the truth -- I don't know who is behind them. For your reference, the day I decided to start this blog I found The DanburyDan a few days before. I did not come accross the Danbury News Blog until January.
I have my own views and I do not express them to the near extent that the other bloggers do. This blog is the most bi-partisan blog in Danbury. I could block the comments, or do what ctblogger does and ban people from commenting on his site, but I choose not to because it is unfair to the ones that post responsible comments, and I want people to express their views.
get a life dems..if you don't like a blog's view then don't visit it..its a shame that you all spend your time writting comments claiming you aren't partisan instead of focusing on the real problems of this city..and by the way, Chianese is an idiot!
NewsFlash: Arrogant Republican machine? You are kidding right?This city has been run by Democrats for 40 years. That is how we got so screwed up. Everyone that workd for the city is a dem. You go Mayor!!!
Double News Flash! The Democrats have left a vacancy on the Zoning Board for over a year! Then Chianese lectures about being 2 days late???
I posted comments on DanbruyDan and Hat city blog. Dan deleted my comment and recently, has gone as far as to slander Ivon for a comment that he can't prove Ivon made.
Since ctblogger goes after the illegal nonsense (and has been threatened), I can understand why he has to monitor his comment section. One only has to look at the NT boards to see what type of idiots ctblogger has to deal with on a daily basis. I'm not the biggest fan of his site but I have to admit that the guy is passionate about his stance and his videos are pretty damn good. His video on Elmer's Diner was incredible.
Danbury News on the other hand is a complete joke and dbyblogger is clearly a Republican hack who's even posted on the Danbury GOP message board. He posts once every full moon.
You would do yourself better in reporting on both sides of the political spectrum. What about the strange developments with the Danbury Republicans posting a HUGE Mayor Boughton re-election sign on the corner of Main and South two days before the Memorial Day parade? It was ALWAYS a gentleman's agreement between the two parties not to have signs out on any lawn before the fall and many veterans were (and still are) upset over this. I think there was a letter to the editor about this.
How about David Cappiello's defense of Louis DeLuca? That wasn't strange?
If you're going to call yourself non-partisan, you could start reporting on these stories rather than looking up minutes from the Danbury Dem site, getting Ken Guckert's name wrong (and not noting the error).
In terms of this particular post, why didn't you disclose that the writer of the letter to the editor was written by Robert Melillo, a member of the Republican Town Committee (Voting Reg. committee), and member of the zoning board? A non-partisan writer should have mentioned that in the post in an effort to be "fair and balanced." Besides Rob, what other letter to the editor addressed Ben's decision? You can't see a political attack when it happens or are you promoting the Republican agenda?
As for the zoning board, the vacancy is an alternate and I'm sure you don't want to talk about Boughton's latest appointment to EIC, Brian Davis, who just happens to be a contractor.
Maybe you should start your own blog.
he already has his own blog, its called the HatCity Blog.
good one!
the hat city blog guy isn't the only person in town upset with the current administration and I laugh at the hypocrisy of the conservatives in Danbury who whine about ctblogger and cheer the antics of the other sites which are nothing more than mouthpieces for the Republican Party.
I met the hat city blog guy and he's a very nice man and who isn't afraid to challenge anyone face to face about issues in the city (he's not hard to find). Although we didn't agree on everything, I grew to respect him (especially on his stance against that moron BigT, the parade ordinance, and bringing to light the stupid traffic problems at Elmer's Diner).
I can't say I have any respect for the other bloggers that Republicans adore who either slander people or make fun of different ethnic groups behind such childish names as DanburyDan and Wild Man.
the guy who commented about the writer of the letter to the editor makes a terrific point. i would also like to know why DP didn't mention the political background of Robert Melillo in his post. In an election year, why didn't DP make that point known? i double-checked and found the same info by checking the Danbury GOP and City of Danbury site and the person who outed Melillo is correct.
dp, in fairness and in terms of the non-partisanship that you're claiming, I think you should do a follow-up to this post.
Okay. Because some people just need to hear it from me, Rob Mellilo is in fact a Republican on the Zoning Board, and very active within the party. Despite this, he made a valid point in what he said, and if someone else wrote a letter on the opposite side of the issue, I would have reported it.
Just for the record, I have much respect for all of the local bloggers and everyone else should too. By just looking at their sites you can tell they put a lot of work into their blogs, even if you don't agree with them.
Now, maybe we could all put this behind us and move on to more current news. I will say thanks to those who expressed themselves in a respectable way.
DP,
I think the problem here is that it took you over twenty comments to tell your readers somehing that you should have stated from the start and many days after you wrote this post.
Look, if you knew that Mellilo was a VERY active member of the RTC, you had a responsibility to alert your readers and let them make up their own conclusions about the claims in his letter. I, for one, see a problem with Mellilo's letter in light of his role on the RTC since he's known for pulling this type of partisan stuff in the last few months and he's a true loyal attack dog for the party.
Thanks to the commentor who pointed out these facts about Mellilo. He's the same person Boughton picked last at theo June's Common Council meeting although Ken Guckert and Helena Abrantes had their hands raised thoughtout the entire public speaking portion of the meeting.
I can see the point from some who claim that you're somewhat leaning to the right. If you want to claim non-partisan, you could start by showing all the facts.
BTW: I'm a friend of Ken's and your coverage of him is completely unfair. Please do more than read from the Danbury DTC minutes (which are riddled with errors).
DP,
Thanks for setting the record straight but you should add this as an update to your post. Looking at the comments on this post, I think you owe that to your readers.
Thanks again for clearing up things.
You people are insane. Who cares if DP said who the writer is or not. He posted it because it was in the newspaper. He said he'd post if someone wrote the opposite view. He did nothing wrong, especially compared to the other bloggers.
Post a Comment