In two recent editorials printed in this publication on September 9, Democrats here in Connecticut were charged with inappropriately campaigning against the current Governor, John Rowland, and his administration. While this was the supposed theme of the both editorials, this was obviously not their intention: instead both columnists used this editorial page as an opportunity to lobby for the reelection of John Rowland and, simultaneously, to publicly discredit his Democratic opponent Bill Curry using the same sort of "slam" tactics both authors supposedly held in such aversion.

Both articles attacked Mr. Curry's record in the same style of partisan opposition with a total and obvious misrepresentation of the facts. The weightier of the two commentaries, entitled "Democratic trashing of Gov. Rowland unacceptable", took the opportunity to link Mr. Curry to former Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim. Was this link used to indicate some form of misdeed on Mr. Curry's part? If you want a cheap, political sleight-of-hand none is better than guilty by association.  During Mr. Curry's years of service as Connecticut's State Comptoller, he was known for his honesty and efforts to help clean up state government.  As a member of the General Assembly, Mr. Curry introduced the first campaign finance reform laws in Connecticut's history.

However, and following the aforementioned author's example, it everyone should be reminded that Mr. Rowland's hometown of Waterbury has been a hotbed of political corruption for years. It is clear that money and contacts, both municipal and state, has been mishandled for years.  Yet, given this fact, why should our state continue to invest millions of dollars in taxpayer's money at redeveloping Waterbury? Why should we continue to move numerous state offices to Waterbury? The answer is clear, the Governor has a vested interest in the city.  Henceforth, fair Waterbury is now able to enjoy the lovely, and aptly named, Rowland Government Center.  Furthermore, Mr. Rowland has steadfastly refused to enact an campaign finance reform laws or accords.  That makes sense, after all Enron and other big business interests have worked hard and have donated plenty of money to elect and keep John Rowland in office.  Why would Mr. Rowland want to support campaign finance reforms?