Jonathan Kantrowitz

Glassman:

Just two weeks into her campaign, Mary Glassman’s exploratory committee has already raised more than $25,000 from several hundred contributors, and today’s Quinnipiac poll puts Mary ahead of other candidates who have been campaigning for months.

“I’m heartened by the response I’ve gotten these last two weeks,” says Glassman. “I didn’t take this decision to explore a run for governor lightly, and I’m ready to keep working for the people of Connecticut.”

Glassman was the top vote-getter in the 2006 statewide gubernatorial primary, harnessing more votes than her then-running mate Dan Malloy. A six-term first selectman, she won her last election with 71% of voters favoring her over the Republican opponent.

Lamont:

“Today’s poll results show that we are now the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for governor by a margin of 16 points. While it is early in this process, it is clear that Connecticut voters want an outsider who will be able to lead our state in a new direction, and that our focus on creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, and taking an entrepreneurial approach to governing is resonating with voters across the state.

“I look forward to continuing to talk to voters in every corner of our state about my vision for the state of Connecticut and how we can can get there together. I intend to make an official announcement about my plans in the coming weeks.”

Bysiewicz:

Susan Posts Stunning 52-point Lead
Q-Poll Shows Bysiewicz as Clear Frontrunner

Today’s Quinnipiac Poll results show Susan Bysiewicz with a remarkable 52-point lead in the first public poll of the Democratic primary for Attorney General.
Bysiewicz 62
Jepsen 10
Undecided 24

593 Democratic Voters, MOE +/- 4%

From Quinnipiac’s Dr. Douglas Schwartz: “Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz has to feel good about her poll numbers…she is the clear favorite over the virtually unknown George Jepsen in the Democratic primary. And her favorability numbers have remained high.”

While this is great news, rest assured that Susan is taking nothing for granted and will work hard to earn the Democratic nomination this August.

Criticizes Republicans and Democrats

Here’s his press release:

Over the past decade, the American people have witnessed few examples of bipartisanship. Unfortunately, one point on which Congressional Republicans and Democrats agree is spending—the more the merrier.

From 2001 to 2008—the years of the George W. Bush administration—the national debt increased from $5.6 trillion to $10.7 trillion. The ascension of President Obama has only exacerbated the country’s extravagant spending habits, and familiar faces in Congress continue to pass laws calling for increased spending. Most estimates suggest that the debt will soon rise to 100 percent of GDP—the highest percentage since World War II.

Although the current national debt of $12 trillion may seem like imaginary money to our members of Congress, the problems it causes are very real. Interest payments on our debt account for approximately 10 percent of national spending, making debt the fourth largest expenditure behind only defense, social security, and Medicare. Every year, dollars that could be invested in education, economic development, national security, or alternative fuel research are instead sunk into paying for Congressional profligacy.

The national debt also compromises America’s international position. China currently holds $800 billion worth of United States Treasury Securities. This puts us in a position of weakness in negotiations with China. How can we pressure China on human rights and Iranian nuclear sanctions when we must turn to them the very next day with our hands out, asking for more money?

But most importantly, the national debt threatens the long-standing economic vibrancy of the United States. Eventually, it must be paid, and to do this the government will either have to print more money, thereby causing inflation, or increase taxes. Both options have a proven detrimental effect on economic growth.

In short, the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress is jeopardizing the future of the United States. If Congress is not stopped, we may no longer be the country of limitless economic opportunity and international strength.

Will Gregory appreciates the gravity of the situation, and he knows that measures must be implemented immediately to reverse the tide. If elected, Mr. Gregory will:

Propose a Balanced Budget Amendment similar to the nearly-passed amendment proposed in 1982. This amendment will require that federal government expenditures not exceed federal government revenue unless the country is in a state of war or unless the budget is approved by a supermajority of Congress. This amendment will require Congress to closely analyze all legislation for extraneous expenses, forcing Congress to return to its Constitutionally limited role.

Call for greater transparency on governmental spending. If the American public knew about the $1.9 million allocated for the Pleasure Beach water taxi service in Connecticut (2009), or the $254,000 given to the Montana Sheep Institute (2009), would it approve? Will Gregory feels that such expenditures are wasteful spending binges, especially when they are bought at the expense of future American generations. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for such extravagance.

Halt the rapid growth of governmental entitlement programs. These programs cannot immediately be cut—too many Americans count on the hard-earned money they have put into these safety nets—but action must be taken now to prevent future insolvency.

Every day, Americans make sacrifices to ensure home budgets are balanced. Will Gregory believes that it is time for Congress to live within its means. We must reign in out-of-control government and take back the future of our country.

Gave $41 Million to Senate Banking Committee

Flood of Dollars Looks Like “Wall Street Buying Votes,” says Watchdog; More Massachusetts-Style Backlash Likely If Consumer Protections Are Dropped

-- A report released today by Consumer Watchdog on the financial industry’s efforts to neuter the financial reform bill in Congress, and the Senate Banking committee in particular, finds the sector gave $41 million to committee members since 2005 and spent $336 million lobbying Congress in the first three quarters of 2009.

Some senators are interpreting the results of Tuesday’s special election in Massachusetts as a sign they should go slow on financial and other needed reforms.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” said Carmen Balber, Washington director for Consumer Watchdog. “Senators who have taken millions from the financial industry appear ready to kill proposed consumer protections that would rein in the speculation and greed that cost Americans their homes, jobs and savings. But selling out to Wall Street yet again will do nothing to restore confidence on Main Street. The message for the Senate is to stand up to their financial industry donors or pay the price when the voters lose faith as they did in Massachusetts.”

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Banking committee, was the top recipient of industry money, and took $9,000,975 from the financial sector since 2005. Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-LA) took $2,461,009. Shelby has opposed an independent consumer protection regulator and news reports suggest Chairman Dodd is considering dropping his initial proposal for a strong independent consumer financial agency.

Pollster Frank Luntz today announced new research, The Language of the Clean Energy Economy, that shows the American people are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment. The newly released public opinion data indicates a widely shared bi-partisan consensus on the need to reshape the energy-environmental debate and illustrates a clear path forward for Senators as the 2010 climate change debate begins on Capitol Hill.

Luntz said today that passing legislation that boosts national security and energy independence, promotes innovation and new technology, creates jobs, and reduces pollution as part of a declining cap on carbon emissions is smart politics for Republicans and Democrats alike. Joined by Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp and David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, Luntz released polling results that he says “provides a road map for generating consensus and support for cleaner, safer, healthier policies and proposals regarding climate legislation.”

“Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think,” Luntz said. “A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike. And even those that don’t still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment.” In reference to recent political events, Luntz added: “People are much more interested in seeing solutions than watching yet another partisan political argument.”

Luntz’s firm, The Word Doctors, conducted a national poll of 1,007 registered voters (+/- 3% margin of error). The firm also conducted a series of “Instant Response” qualitative dial sessions around the country. Luntz’s research unveiled areas of clear agreement on climate legislation between Obama and McCain voters, and among the general public:

• Republicans and Democrats agree that national security is the top reason to enact comprehensive climate policy. Luntz noted that national security “crosses demographic lines, is embraced by opinion elites and doesn’t require a belief in climate change.”
o Pitted against economic and environmental arguments, national security was consistently the highest priority.
o McCain voters in Luntz’s qualitative research strongly believe “the costs of our addiction to oil are too high in terms of lives, money, foreign policy and standing in the world.”

• Reducing pollution and holding companies that pollute “accountable” enjoys broad bipartisan support.
o Americans see climate legislation as more than just corporate social responsibility. When given a list of business and economic reasons to support the legislation, the top choice mirrored the public’s highest priority for Washington and Wall Street: accountability. The exact language of the statement: “Cap and trade will limit the amount of pollution companies can emit, giving companies incentives to reduce emissions—and holding those who don’t accountable…”

o This was chosen as the top reason for supporting the policy among both Obama and McCain partisans – a rare example of bi-partisan public consensus.

“This is a crucial moment in the effort to pass national climate legislation that limits carbon emissions,” said EDF President Fred Krupp. “Frank’s research proves that no matter who Americans voted for in 2008, in 2010 they want to see Congress act on climate legislation. It’s a national security priority, it’s a crucial means to reduce pollution, and it’s essential to creating permanent American jobs.”

David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, Inc., a major energy company, noted, “Comprehensive climate and energy legislation has the potential to address effectively our nation’s critical dependence on foreign sources of energy and solve the climate change problem. Sensible legislation, drafted by Republicans and Democrats alike can create private sector jobs driving the new energy economy. This research conducted by the highly respected Frank Luntz makes it clear as day that the door is open and the time to act is now.”

Luntz concluded, “Americans want clean, safe, healthy, secure energy. That’s why Republicans and Democrats alike strongly support action to address climate change. Sure, Republicans are more concerned about the national security component and Democrats the health component, but support for action right now spans all partisan and ideological lines.”

More than 80 leading CEOs from U.S. businesses, including Exelon, Virgin America, NRG Energy, eBay and PG&E, sent a letter to President Obama and members of Congress today calling on them to move quickly to enact comprehensive climate and energy legislation that will create jobs and enhance U.S. competitiveness.

Saying that the U.S. is “falling behind” in the global clean energy race, the letter calls for forceful leadership to achieve legislation that will unleash innovation, drive economic growth, boost energy independence and decrease our carbon emissions. The letter comes just one week before President Obama delivers his State of the Union address on January 27th.

“American businesses recognize this challenge and have already begun to respond and innovate. However, today’s uncertainty surrounding energy and climate regulation is hindering the large-scale actions that American businesses are poised to make,” the letter states. “We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate. It is time for the Administration and Congress to embrace this policy as the promising economic opportunity that will empower American workers to compete and American entrepreneurship to lead the way.”

The letter was signed by 83 CEOs from some of the nation’s largest electric power, manufacturing, clean tech, technology and consumer facing companies.

View the full text and the list of signatories

“The United States can’t afford to fall behind in the global race to lead the new energy economy,” said Jonathan Wolfson, CEO of Solazyme, a leading renewable oil and bioproducts company. “American businesses have a history of leadership and innovation and are poised to do that in a new clean energy economy.”

“Power companies need and want to be part of America’s clean energy transition,” said David Crane, president and CEO of NRG Energy Inc., which owns and operates more than 24,000 megawatts of electricity generation capacity in the U.S. “But we need the certainty of clear rules and strong policies that will help us invest in that transition while also addressing climate change and keeping power affordable.”

“The same inventive solutions that will help the environment will also help move the airline industry forward,” said David Cush, president and CEO of Virgin America, a U.S. commercial passenger airline. “Big challenges have historically propelled more innovation and greater efficiencies. Strong climate and energy policies can be that challenge – one from which we will all emerge stronger.”

“Smart businesses can only do so much on their own to address climate change,” said Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg. “At this point, the rules need to change: there needs to be a price or tax on carbon. This incentive for genuine innovation needs to be firmly in place in order for the US to compete effectively in the global race to a clean energy economy.”

Peter A. Darbee, Chairman, CEO and President of PG&E Corporation said, “As the country looks to ways to support job creation, promote economic growth, and improve energy and national security, it’s clear to leading businesses that smart, sensible energy and climate policies can and should be part of the solution. We are asking leaders to recognize this opportunity and make it a reality.”

The Supreme Court ruled today that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns. The court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Read More

Statement from Sen. Russ Feingold

This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century’s worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.

Statement from Freedom 21 (leading campaign finance reform advocacy group):

Today’s Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case is a disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court.

The decision will unleash unprecedented amounts of corporate “influence-seeking” money on our elections and create unprecedented opportunities for corporate “influence-buying” corruption.

Today’s decision is the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in Supreme Court history. In order to reach the decision, five justices abandoned longstanding judicial principles, judicial precedents and judicial restraint.

With the Citizens United opinion, Chief Justice Roberts has abandoned the illusory public commitments he made to “judicial modesty” and “respect for precedent” to cast the deciding vote for a radical decision that profoundly undermines our democracy.

In a stark choice between the right of American citizens to a government free from “influence-buying” corruption and the economic and political interests of American corporations, five Supreme Court Justices today came down in favor of American corporations.

With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy.

Ned Lamont leads the pack in the Democratic primary race for Governor, where almost half of the voters remain undecided, and has small leads over Republican contenders, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. The poll indicates a weird male/female split in Ned’s behalf, however – 42% of men and only 18% of women favor him in the primary, but a higher % of women than men favor him in the general election 40%-36%. Ned’s trends are up, and he has benefited more that Malloy from SuBy’s drop-out from the race.

While 44 percent of Democrats remain undecided, Lamont gets 27 percent, followed by Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy with 11 percent. No other Democrat tops 5 percent, the Quinnipiac University poll finds.

On the Republican side, 59 percent are undecided, with 17 percent for former ambassador Tom Foley and 8 percent for Lt. Gov. Mike Fedele. No other Republican tops 6 percent.

In possible general election matchups:
• Lamont edges Foley 38 – 36 percent;
• Lamont tops Fedele 41 – 32 percent;
• Malloy beats Foley 37 – 33 percent;
• Malloy leads Fedele 37 – 31 percent.

Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz tops the Democratic pack for State Attorney General with 62 percent, with 10 percent for former Democratic State Chairman George Jepson and 24 percent undecided.

Lamont gets a 35 – 21 percent favorability, as 42 percent don’t know enough about him to form an opinion.

The “don’t know enough” number for other candidates for Governor or Attorney General ranges from 59 percent to 96 percent.

School Bus Seat Belts

Connecticut voters support 73 – 20 percent proposed legislation to require seat belts on school buses in the state. Parents of public school students support the measure 73 – 22 percent. Women back it 79 – 14 percent while men support it 66 – 27 percent.

There is strong support across party lines and in every area of the state.

From January 14 – 19, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,594 Connecticut registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. The survey includes 593 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points and 420 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 4.8 percentage points.

Details:

1. (If registered Democrat) If the Democratic primary for Governor were being held today and the candidates were Ned Lamont, Dan Malloy, Mary Glassman, Gary LeBeau, Rudy Marconi, Jim Amann and Juan Figueroa, for whom would you vote?

REGISTERED DEMS..
Tot Men Wom

Lamont 27% 42% 18%
Malloy 11 12 11
Glassman 4 2 6
LeBeau 2 2 1
Marconi 1 1 -
Amann 5 7 4
Figueroa 1 – 1
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 4 2 5
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL) 2 1 2
DK/NA 44 31 51

TREND: (If registered Democrat) If the Democratic primary for Governor were being held today and the candidates were Ned Lamont, Dan Malloy, Mary Glassman, Gary LeBeau, Rudy Marconi, Jim Amann and Juan Figueroa, for whom would you vote?

REGISTERED DEMS…….
Jan 21 Nov 10 Feb 10
2010 2009 2009

Lamont 27 23 na
Malloy 11 9 12
Glassman 4 na na
LeBeau 2 2 na
Marconi 1 1 na
Amann 5 3 4
Figueroa 1 na na
Bysiewicz na 26 44
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 4 1 3
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL) 2 2 2
DK/NA 44 33 36

2. (If registered Democrat) If the Democratic primary for State Attorney General
were being held today and the candidates were Susan Bysiewicz, George Jepsen and
Michael Jarjura, for whom would you vote?

REGISTERED DEMS..
Tot Men Wom

Bysiewicz 62% 59% 64%
Jepsen 10 17 5
Jarjura 3 4 3
SMONE ELSE(VOL) – 1 -
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL) – 1 -
DK/NA 24 18 28

3. (If registered Republican) If the Republican primary for Governor were being held today and the candidates were Tom Foley, Mike Fedele, Oz Griebel, Mark Boughton and Larry DeNardis, for whom would you vote?

REGISTERED REPS..
Tot Men Wom

Foley 17% 18% 15%
Fedele 8 7 10
Griebel 2 3 -
Boughton 6 7 6
DeNardis 4 5 4
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 3 2
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL) 2 2 1
DK/NA 59 56 62

4. If the 2010 election for Governor were being held today, and the candidates were
Ned Lamont the Democrat and Tom Foley the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Lamont 38% 9% 74% 30% 36% 40%
Foley 36 77 10 37 44 30
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 2 2 1
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL) 3 2 1 3 2 3
DK/NA 21 11 14 28 17 25

5. If the 2010 election for Governor were being held today, and the candidates were
Dan Malloy the Democrat and Tom Foley the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Malloy 37% 9% 73% 27% 33% 40%
Foley 33 76 8 31 41 27
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 3 3 2
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 1 5 4 3
DK/NA 24 10 16 34 19 28

6. If the 2010 election for Governor were being held today, and the candidates were
Ned Lamont the Democrat and Mike Fedele the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Lamont 41% 11% 75% 35% 38% 43%
Fedele 32 72 9 28 39 25
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 3 2 2
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL) 3 2 – 4 3 3
DK/NA 23 14 16 31 19 27

7. If the 2010 election for Governor were being held today, and the candidates were
Dan Malloy the Democrat and Mike Fedele the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Malloy 37% 8% 72% 31% 34% 41%
Fedele 31 71 8 27 37 24
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 3 2 2
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL) 3 2 1 5 3 3
DK/NA 27 17 19 34 24 29

8. Is your opinion of – Jim Amann favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 11% 10% 16% 9% 11% 11%
Unfavorable 8 6 7 12 12 5
Hvn’t hrd enough 79 84 76 78 75 83
REFUSED 1 1 – 1 1 1

TREND: Is your opinion of – Jim Amann favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Jan 21 Nov 10 Feb 10
2010 2009 2009

Favorable 11 7 7
Unfavorable 8 8 13
Hvn’t hrd enough 79 84 79
REFUSED 1 1 1

9. Is your opinion of – Dan Malloy favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 32% 22% 46% 29% 35% 30%
Unfavorable 7 13 3 8 9 6
Hvn’t hrd enough 59 63 49 62 55 62
REFUSED 2 1 1 2 2 1

TREND: Is your opinion of – Dan Malloy favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Jan 21 Nov 10 Feb 10
2010 2009 2009

Favorable 32 21 19
Unfavorable 7 10 11
Hvn’t hrd enough 59 67 69
REFUSED 2 2 1

10. Is your opinion of – Ned Lamont favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 35% 18% 54% 33% 38% 33%
Unfavorable 21 37 9 23 26 18
Hvn’t hrd enough 42 44 37 41 34 48
REFUSED 2 1 – 3 2 1

TREND: Is your opinion of – Ned Lamont favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Jan 21 Nov 10
2010 2009

Favorable 35 31
Unfavorable 21 24
Hvn’t hrd enough 42 43
REFUSED 2 1

11. Is your opinion of – Gary LeBeau favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4%
Unfavorable 2 4 2 2 4 1
Hvn’t hrd enough 92 92 93 91 91 93
REFUSED 1 – 1 2 1 1

TREND: Is your opinion of – Gary LeBeau favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Jan 21 Nov 10
2010 2009

Favorable 4 4
Unfavorable 2 4
Hvn’t hrd enough 92 91
REFUSED 1 1

12. Is your opinion of – Rudy Marconi favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 5% 5% 6% 4% 6% 3%
Unfavorable 2 2 3 2 3 2
Hvn’t hrd enough 92 93 90 93 90 94
REFUSED 1 – 1 1 – 1

TREND: Is your opinion of – Rudy Marconi favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Jan 21 Nov 10
2010 2009

Favorable 5 5
Unfavorable 2 3
Hvn’t hrd enough 92 92
REFUSED 1 -

13. Is your opinion of – Mary Glassman favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 8% 7% 11% 7% 7% 8%
Unfavorable 2 2 2 1 2 1
Hvn’t hrd enough 90 91 86 91 90 90
REFUSED 1 1 1 1 1 1

14. Is your opinion of – Juan Figueroa favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 3% 5% 4% 2% 4% 3%
Unfavorable 2 1 2 3 3 2
Hvn’t hrd enough 94 93 93 94 92 95
REFUSED 1 – 1 1 1 1

15. Is your opinion of – Tom Foley favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 31% 48% 21% 31% 34% 27%
Unfavorable 6 2 8 6 8 5
Hvn’t hrd enough 62 50 71 61 57 67
REFUSED 1 – 1 2 1 1

TREND: Is your opinion of Tom Foley favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Jan 21 Nov 12 Sep 17 Jul 23 Apr 2
2010 2009 2009 2009 2009

Favorable 31 20 12 17 12
Unfavorable 6 6 6 5 6
Hvn’t hrd enough 62 74 81 77 80
REFUSED 1 – 1 1 1

16. Is your opinion of – Mike Fedele favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 16% 28% 8% 16% 19% 13%
Unfavorable 5 3 6 4 7 3
Hvn’t hrd enough 78 68 86 79 73 83
REFUSED 1 1 – 1 1 1

17. Is your opinion of – Larry DeNardis favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 7% 9% 5% 7% 8% 5%
Unfavorable 3 4 3 3 3 2
Hvn’t hrd enough 89 87 92 89 87 91
REFUSED 1 – – 2 1 1

18. Is your opinion of – Oz Griebel favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 1%
Unfavorable 1 1 1 1 2 1
Hvn’t hrd enough 96 96 96 95 94 97
REFUSED 1 – 1 2 1 1

19. Is your opinion of – Mark Boughton favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 7% 14% 3% 6% 10% 4%
Unfavorable 2 4 1 2 2 2
Hvn’t hrd enough 90 82 95 90 88 93
REFUSED 1 – – 1 – 1

20. Is your opinion of – Susan Bysiewicz favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 49% 30% 68% 47% 47% 51%
Unfavorable 14 23 5 14 18 9
Hvn’t hrd enough 36 46 26 37 34 38
REFUSED 1 1 – 2 1 1

TREND: Is your opinion of – Susan Bysiewicz favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?

Jan 21 Nov 10 Feb 10
2010 2009 2009

Favorable 49 43 40
Unfavorable 14 11 12
Hvn’t hrd enough 36 44 48
REFUSED 1 1 1

21. Is your opinion of – George Jepsen favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 14% 10% 18% 13% 17% 11%
Unfavorable 5 7 5 5 7 4
Hvn’t hrd enough 80 82 76 81 76 84
REFUSED 1 1 – 2 1 1

22. Is your opinion of – Michael Jarjura favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about him?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 13% 12% 13% 15% 14% 13%
Unfavorable 7 10 7 7 10 5
Hvn’t hrd enough 79 78 80 77 76 81
REFUSED 1 – 1 2 1 1

23. There is a proposal in the state legislature to require seat belts on school buses in Connecticut. Do you think that is a good idea or a bad idea?

HvKids
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom PubSch

Good idea 73% 64% 81% 74% 66% 79% 73%
Bad idea 20 26 14 20 27 14 22
DK/NA 7 10 5 6 7 7 5

;

State Comptroller Nancy Wyman today announced her candidacy for reelection, vowing to continue her advocacy for fiscal responsibility, long-range economic planning and affordable health care for all Connecticut residents.

“Our state faces enormous economic challenges that require government to respond with unprecedented decisiveness, creativity and compassion, and I look forward to doing just that on behalf of our taxpayers,” Wyman said. “I believe I can best serve the citizens of our great state by continuing to help Connecticut emerge from this downturn and lay the foundation for long-term recovery and prosperity.”

Wyman has brought openness and common sense to the budgeting process, implemented stricter accounting of state finances, and fought to increase the balance in the Rainy Day Fund as protection against tax increases. She also has overseen the complete modernization of the computer system that runs the state’s core financial operations – greatly increasing the ability to track government spending.

In the area of health care, Wyman’s recommendation evolved into the landmark HUSKY health insurance plan that covers more than 300,000 children and their families. She was recently named Co-Chair of the SustiNet board of directors, which is charged with designing a plan to provide affordable health insurance to small businesses, municipalities and individuals.

“I am honored that Connecticut voters have four times elected me to be their voice at the table of state government,” Wyman said, “and I am more eager than ever to live up to their support by working to make life better for all of our families.”

Wyman has received myriad awards for her work as Comptroller, including recognition of her leadership from the Connecticut Federation of Business & Professional Women, the Connecticut State Medical Society, the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, the Council of Small Towns and the Connecticut Coalition of Police & Corrections Officers.

Comptroller Wyman also has been involved for years in events seeking to raise funds for breast cancer research, and as spokeswoman for the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Red Ribbon holiday campaign. She has served as Chairwoman of the American Heart Association’s Greater Hartford Heart Walk, and of the National Kidney Foundation of Connecticut’s annual gala.

In 2007, Wyman sought private donations to create the Wall of Honor tribute in the State Capitol to the Connecticut men and women in the U.S Armed Forces who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Prior to her election as State Comptroller, Wyman served as State Representative (1987-1995) from the 53rd District. She was House Chairperson of the Education Committee and Chairperson of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education.

While a legislator, Wyman was noted for her work in the area of public education and was named “Legislator of the Year” by the Connecticut Education Association. From 1979-1987, Comptroller Wyman served on the Tolland Board of Education and was Vice-Chairperson for four of those years.

Wyman and her husband, Michael, have lived in Tolland since 1973. They have two daughters and sons-in-law; Stacey and Steve Papa and Meryl and Bill Baldwin, and five grandchildren; Taylor, Lindsey, Kyle, Max and Sydney.