YourCT.com header image 2
← Norwalk: Squabbles Over Vets Park Norwalk: Dems Prepare To Nominate Slate →

Norwalk: Dems Ready District E Candidates


by turfgrrl


July 23rd, 2007 · 45 Comments

Norwalk District E Democrats have announced their slate of candidates. They seek to return Gwen Briggs and Bill Krummel as the district candidates and chose Ned Lamont’s chauffeur Marc Bradley as the at large candidate. I’m not understanding the heavy promotion of the Ned Lamont chauffeur link, but I guess the District E Dems see any link to Ned Lamont as a “powerful” zen like election mojo. It worked so well for them in Norwalk last year.

“I was working for the Lamont campaign. I was his driver. I sat in on pretty much every meeting he had. I having traveled around Connecticut and am now settling down in Norwalk,” said Marc Bradley, who hopes to win an at-large seat. “Redevelopment is certainly going to be (a priority) and education is a big thing. Funding the schools and programs, and doing as much with the budget you have.”

Bradley, a Rowaytonite who works in the financial industry, Briggs, wife of mayoral hopeful Walter O. Briggs, Krummel, a retired engineer, and Board of Education Chairwoman Jody Bishop-Pullan all hope to receive their party’s backing during the Democratic Town Committee nomination meeting tonight in the Community Room of City Hall 125 East Ave.

Stuart W. Wells, District E Democrats chairman and husband of Town Committee Chairwoman Galen Wells, said all three incumbents have done a good job in their respective positions.
Krummel, as chairman of the council’s Public Works Committee, has worked to repair aging city infrastructure and “solve the problem of flooding,” Stuart Wells said.

“Bill is on the top of that more than anybody, also because of his background as a civil engineer,” Wells said. “Jody is doing a good job and taking care of the needs of our children and schools.”

Asked if Walter O. Briggs’ candidacy will affect his wife’s council reelection bid, Wells answered, “It’s going to be a positive factor. She’s done a good job on the council as well. She’s on the (Finance & Claims Committee). So she’s on top of all the budgetary needs.”

Wells said District E Democrats strongly support Briggs’ candidacy for mayorand Andrew S. Garfunkel’s bid for reelection as town clerk.

source: The Hour, District E Democrats are backing all three incumbents Robert Koch, July 23, 2007

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

45 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Dems Ready District E Candidates”



  • 1 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 8:16 am

    Oh come on now; you did one on the full Republican slate PLUS one on their District D slate.

  • 2 turfgrrl // Jul 23, 2007 at 8:40 am

    mgeake: And the full Democratic slate is? Funny, Dems haven’t held the nominating convention yet, so what’s your beef?

  • 3 anonymous // Jul 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

    Appears Mr. Geake is jumping the gun here. If you would like to share with us what the entire entire ticket is, please, let us in!

  • 4 anonymous // Jul 23, 2007 at 9:14 am

    Ned Lamont ? Who is he. I think he lost last year.

  • 5 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 9:21 am

    My beef is that on July 16th — days before the Republicans held THEIR nominating convention — you previewed their candidates. That day, I asked if you were going to provide equal time.

    On July 19th, you concentrated on the District D Republican candidates, just as this thread is just the District E Democrats.

    I constantly defend this blog when people say it is just the mouthpiece of the Norwalk Republican Party. Perhaps I’ve been wrong.

  • 6 ENrwlker // Jul 23, 2007 at 9:33 am

    #4 — Ned Lamont? He was one of the three major candidates Norwalk’s Democrats pushed hard for last year (along with DeStefano and Farrell). I think they all did about as well as the local Democratic ticket will this fall …

  • 7 turfgrrl // Jul 23, 2007 at 9:36 am

    MGeake: On July 16th I commented on the Advocate story that ran that day on the Republican slate. Is it my fault somehow that your Democratic leadership still can’t get out of its own way and do press releases so that local scribes have something to write about? For that matter any candidate or party can send an email over here and get coverage. You can lead a horse to water … And btw, I got an official invite by the Republicans to attend their nominating convention. I have yet to receive an invite from the Democrats. If people want stuff on the blog, they need to communicate.

  • 8 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 9:45 am

    Mad Max’s companion article was in yesterday’s Advocate, so I don’t understand the derogatory crack about press releases.

    As for getting an official invite, [1] you are a registered Republican, and [2] the perception, reenforced by this thread, is that this blog is purely a Republican mouthpiece, so why would the Democrats go out of their way to help with your (which you admitted here on July 16th) biased coverage?

  • 9 UnSavvy1 // Jul 23, 2007 at 10:10 am

    MGeake…boy are you hard to please! First you complain about the lack of coverage of the potential Democrat candidates, then you tell Turf that she is basically not welcome to cover your convention.

  • 10 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 10:26 am

    Her complaint, as I understood it, was that she had not received an official invitation. I am not the one who would issue an “official invitation”. I would welcome her, and she can consider this my “unofficial invitation” to be MY guest.

    What I was detailing was the perception she has among many in the party and especially the leadership. Today has done nothing to help that perception and will make it that much harder to defend this blog — as I clearly stated I have to do constantly — in the future.

  • 11 turfgrrl // Jul 23, 2007 at 10:37 am

    Mgeake: You are confusing bias with partisanship. Every person on the planet is infused with biases, to say otherwise is disengenuous. My biases, my interests, my likes, my dislikes, my opinion, my blog. But go ahead, I find it rather amusing to be called a Republican mouthpiece.

    As for your assertion that a registered Republican should not be getting an official invite to the Democratic nominating convention, I suppose that in a random sort of way that is true. However, I am on many Democratic lists, and when it comes to fund raisers, gee, somehow I manage to get invited. Funny about that. But here’s the head scratcher for you, you see I am on the master email list, and apparently no email has gone out to Democrats on that list to show up to the nominating convention. Tsk tsk, marketing 101 there buddy.

    And while we’re at it, the blog is open for all commentary. Anyone can submit commentary for a Guest View. Anyone, and sometimes everyone can disagree with my opinion on whatever. You’re implying that this blog a closed marketplace of ideas, yet here you are disagreeing with what coverage is here and suggesting, although I use that term loosely based on your tone, different coverage.

    Which brings us to the very salient fact that on Thursday I left for a road trip and warned that posting would be light in my absence. Sunday, I was on the road, as the post indicated. It does make for a better conspiracy to think that I chose not to cover the Sunday news in detail, because of some bias against Democrats. Then again, what I have to say about some Democrats and their positions on issues doesn’t inspire great flattery either.

    So methinks the partisan accusations will continue, I’ll just keep calling things as I see them, and the comments, as always, are open for what anyone wants to say about that.

  • 12 Anonymous // Jul 23, 2007 at 10:46 am

    The Dems don’t even post their nominating convention on their website!

  • 13 Mr Greenpeace // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:05 am

    The other day two republicans were working at vets park, one was digging holes in a line, the other filling them in, when asked what they were doing the answer given was planting trees the other guy is out sick today. ( I know second time around for this barb)

    Todays Advocate article by Tim Stelloh on the proposed Amphitheater never revisited his other article on possible contamination at Vets park he did months earlier.No in depth reason we should be concerned about traffic, health, or quality of live in any part of the city.I have to admit while pointing out the facts no where contamination was mentioned in his article the Hour is staying far away of the subject,,wonder why?

    politics in the press has been more than obvious the last year when the Hour had information on high profile murder cases and was ignored by present day administration becuase it made someone look bad,,The Advocate weekend warriors were not equiped to handle any new news, the regulars were not in so news was not attainable till midweek..

    The Advocate and the Hour get their news releases usually sesnitive to the current administration leaving out information on previous articles showing no concern from the minority.

    Where are the facts, seems to me anyone can go online nowadays and find them report them but when they make someone look bad or simply makes the readership ask why hasn’t our own city hall thought of this , they are usually not news they are forgotten stories that don’t fit in with the party involved.

    More news in Norwalk is left unchallenged by all news sources including channel 12 than get reported, it is play ball or else don’t see the game at all.

    We as a city, as a readership get our news from press releases, any real news is not reported by the regulars its the out of the loop reporters like Framptom, Fenwick, Ginocchio, when we see some highlights by the regulars its so they can get other stories down the road as if they were thrown scraps.I don’t blame anyone for not writing in depth its just don’t tip the boat, don’t ask hard hitting questions just write what we give you..

    I have found AP reports on the city and surrounding areas work the best, they are outside the loop and don’t challenge the facts or idependant voters need for answers.Then have your advertising , the decisions are made at the top not the reporter in the street these news papers rely on that.

    This mornings Mark Ginocchio article on highway rest areas mentions Duff covering himself with his comments but here in Norwalk where trucks have been an issue including overnight parking on our exits off ramps ect won’t be covered by the same reporters who wrote the stories about overnight in Vets Park it would make editorial sense but bad politics wouldn’t it? there is no followup its bad for news here in Norwalk and I don’t understand why..

    talking about the power plant again but never about the possible problems that exist or the level of polloution the EPA lets then spew but talk about taking it over for Norwalk and one thinks by reading the papers there is nothing wrong with regards to the environment with the site,,I wonder why when these things are reported the previous news is not read to include the facts that is what journalism is all about isn’t it?

    I will now touch upon the politics of the site, there is none , I have never been stopped from posting I dislike both parties and no use for public employees who don’t do their job and grandstand when they do one thing wrong and consider it done right.The city is full of real estate conflicts and backroom politics but where does this not happen?

    I may have not given the news reporters a great score for their reporting, it was not because of their talents its the obstacles including their own newsrooms that prevents investigating reporting and the ability to go back and use the archives to complete a story,,lets face it use todays papers as examples, clean up the reporting I’m sure the rest of the city will follow..exposure and facts are a great thing..

  • 14 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:06 am

    I stand corrected on the wording.

    And I understand that you were on a road trip when the paper came out, but you are back now, so nothing prevents you from opening up yesterday’s paper (as if you haven’t already) and doing the right thing.

    As for no e-mail going out, that is true — snail mail went out to those who could actually vote at the convention, and that does not include you. But you are aware of the date, time, and location of this getogether, so why did lack of an “official invitation” become an issue? Are you officially invited to all the other meetings you get.

    But getting back to biased vs. partisan — since you favor derogatory adjectives for Democratics and positive adjectives for Republicans, either term fits. Especially giving the continuing disparity in coverage.

  • 15 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:08 am

    The Dems don’t even post their nominating convention on their website!

    http://www.norwalkdems.com/events/new/calendar.php

  • 16 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:10 am

    The Dems don’t even post their nominating convention on their website!

    I posted the link, but the spam filter is probably holding it for review by TG.

  • 17 anon // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:22 am

    I think TG is pointing out that the squeakiest wheel gets the oil, in the blog’s case, that means if you send TG info it goes up. If you don’t you don’t. I have sent TG emails and she’s responed to them with posts.

  • 18 longtimer // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:25 am

    The Democrats say vote for us because we do a better job and then fail to keep turf informed? Why waste a vote on them?

  • 19 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:38 am

    #16 Most of TG’s topics come from newspaper headlines, including her July 16th thread. If Democrats have to e-mail her about an article about their candidates in the Advocate, but Republicans don’t for the fundamentally same article about their candidates, then how is that not partisan coverage?

    #17 It would be truly sad for Norwalk if the criteria for getting elected was solely how informed TG was kept.

  • 20 longtimer // Jul 23, 2007 at 11:49 am

    Considering that the papers cover politics superficially, I’m happy she’s covering what’s going on.

  • 21 dem4life // Jul 23, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    Mike face it, Turffie is going to slam Dems anyways. Why do you want to encourage her to write more about that? Hey Turffie show us you can post a positive news story about Dems.

  • 22 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    The Dems don’t even post their nominating convention on their website!

    Well, the Republicans didn’t post theirs on their website. Oh wait, THE REPUBLICANS DON’T EVEN HAVE A WEBSITE.

    I still don’t see the link I submitted, but ours was listed and has been for a very long time.

  • 23 anonymous // Jul 23, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    Mr Geake you’ve been a thoughtful, prvocative, respectful, interesting poster on this blog up ’til today. Are you trying to get in good with the Democratic leadership before tonight so you won’t be tainted by your participation on this blog?

  • 24 UnSavvy1 // Jul 23, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    MGeake, what you have done today, either unwittingly or by design, is deflect the debate away from what you claim you are seeking….coverage of the Democratic candidates.

    More than 20 posts and not one mention of any of the District “E” Democratic potential nominees.

  • 25 Watchdog // Jul 23, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Good afternoon, Mr. Geake. I see you chose not to run for political office this November. That’s unfortunate because you would have made a strong candidate. What changed your mind?

  • 26 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 1:36 pm

    #24 Where did you get that idea? I’m the endorsed at-large candidate from District B and expect the party’s endorsement this evening.

    #23 You are absolutely correct, and that wasn’t my intention. I’ve made my point and will quiet down now.

  • 27 anonymous // Jul 23, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Tell us more about Marc Bradley. The article says he’s a Rowaytonite in the financial services industry. But he also says he wants to settle down in Norwalk? What’s his background? I’m a little suspicious because it sounds like Lex Paulson- wehatever happened to him?

  • 28 Watchdog // Jul 23, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Where did I get that idea, Mr. Geake? Oh, dear. Please reread this thread in its entirety. At some point, as a candidate, you are treading precarious waters as you go back and forth with bloggers, Turfie included, in an overzealous “I hear you, but this is the way it really is” fashion (also see Festival noise comments).

    Would you vote for a candidate who banters with constituency in this way… or… who makes snide partisan remarks? At some point, at least during campaign season, some semblance of protocol is required of the serious candidate. Surely you want to appear from the very start that you respect your fellow colleagues on the council, regardless of their politics, to collaborate productively toward common goals.

    It is commendable that you sign your name, Mr. Geake, but it also can work to obstruct you before you even begin sincere campaigning - on the issues - if you evoke such strong opinions without resolutions.

  • 29 Anonymous // Jul 23, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    I’ll take a candidate who engages with bloggers in that fashion over one who does not. Most of the town’s politicos who post on this blog are merely bloviating without dealing with any substance. I also agree with MG that Turfie, while admittedly partisan, is also biased in her determination of the agenda here. It’s an insidious way of making sure of what topics get discussed.

  • 30 turfgrrl // Jul 23, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    anonymous 29: Of course I’m biased in what I cover here. Why wouldn’t I be? As for topics outside the realm of my interest, which as I’ve pointed out several times, I’ll post what people send me. Which for all the pixels generated on this topic, few take advantage of, yet some insist on complaining about.

    As for dem4life’s assertion that I only “slam” Dems, apparently he/she missed the many “positive” news posts about various Democrats, just as others conveniently miss the critical posts about various Republicans.

    Caveat emptor.

  • 31 Turf Girl Supporter // Jul 23, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    The bloggers/netroots on this site are from all over the political landscape. Some democrats have a lot of support on this site. For example the young guy, Dave Watts has a huge following and he is a do- gooder liberal type. Maybe, democrats have to appeal to the people who post here?

    It is not turfy writing- it the people stupid!

  • 32 Jack Chiaramonte // Jul 23, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    Hi Mike…I’ve known Turf Girl for a while and she is not a staunch republican as one might assume after reading your posts. On ecomonics, she leans Conservative and liberal on social issues from the many chats I’ve had with her. We don’t always agree on issues, but she has always listened to other peoples points of view and has been quite fair in my estimation. Case in point, just look at the above right-hand banner column. On the bottom is the headline “NORWALK 2008 POLITICS” and the links are all Democrat’s, no Republicans (yet), including yours Mike. Above that in “CT SITES WE LIKE”, both Dem & Repub’s has equal links as do Libs, Conservatives & Independents. In a nut shell Mike, if there is something you’d like to see covered or an issue You’d like to pen a post about, TG will oblige you I am certain.

  • 33 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    Well, I’ve been waiting since 8am this morning …

  • 34 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    And that’s after having originally asking on July 16th

  • 35 turfgrrl // Jul 23, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    Mgeake: Is there some reason that you are still waiting?

  • 36 MGeake // Jul 23, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    My mistake.

    You got it out there while I was driving home from New Jersey. There were no comments, so I didn’t spot it when I just refreshed the screen Mary had been looking at.

    Thank you.

  • 37 turfgrrl // Jul 23, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    MGeake: See how hard it is to blog and drive? ;)

  • 38 Jerry Aldrich // Jul 23, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    I consider myself a equal opportunity “Free Lance” slammer of both Republicans and Democrats. Both have been blasted unmercifully by me. I have never had TG edit or filter any of my posts. So to me she has been pretty fair. I see stuff said about Republicans and Democrats, that even make me blush, but she lets them stand no matter what party affiliation the poster is from.

  • 39 Anonymous // Jul 23, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    Looks like a big night for conventions, no posts since
    Jerry Aldrich:

  • 40 John Velasquez // Jul 24, 2007 at 8:46 am

    “I was working for the Lamont campaign.”

    If I was the Dems, I don’t think that I would brag about Ned. He was turned down by his own party voters. It seems to me that he is kind of like “Same old gravy, just warmed over.” He is to the Dem fund raisers, as President Bush is to Republican Fund raisers, they are trying to distance themselves.

    I believe that even the Democrat’s are becoming more middle of the road in their thinking. The exception is the Ultra Liberal Left Wing of the base. They are the “turn off” for a large segment of Dems. I figured that the Dems would get it but they don’t.

  • 41 Anonymous // Jul 24, 2007 at 9:05 am

    Ned was defeated by Republicans voting for Lieberman, not Democrats.

  • 42 Concerned Citizen // Jul 24, 2007 at 10:36 am

    No #41 your wrong..the dems were split - the left wing anti-war crowd and the more conservative Ronald Reagan dems. The republicans also had Sleshinger running and many repub’s like Joe’s stance. Lamont lost due mainly to the fragmenting of his own party.

  • 43 dem4life // Jul 24, 2007 at 11:11 am

    Lamont lost because Lieberman lied his way through a campaign propped up by Republicans.

  • 44 Anonymous // Jul 24, 2007 at 11:35 am

    “Ned was defeated by Republicans voting for Lieberman, not Democrats. ” This is incorrect, Ned was defeated by dems voting for Lieberman. Even Jim Ammon supported Lieberman so what does that tell you?

  • 45 Concerned Citizen // Jul 24, 2007 at 11:44 am

    dem4life: I’ve read many of your post and even if I don’t agree with them, I admire your honesty. Your comments are fair in that you critique your fellow democrats as you do republicans. I do think your last post (#43), is not right though. The moderate and conservative leaning Democrats don’t all fall is step with Lamonts “Howard Dean” thinking. A good portion of the democrats supported Lamont as did republicans that looked past party partisanship. I know I did. I have always been a “repub4life” myself, yet I found myself voting for Joe this time around. Why didn’t I vote republican? Was I “propped up” as you said? No. I share Joe’s view when it comes to dealing with terrorists, that’s why. After so many years of voting strickly republican, I had no second thoughts of voting for Joe this past election.

Leave a Reply