Dems Make Eastwood's Day With 35th District Nomination

She will again challenge Guglielmo.

Democrats from Connecticut's 35th state senatorial district have nominated Susan Eastwood to run for the seat in the November election.

The convention took place in Tolland on Monday. Eastwood will challenge longtime Republican incumbent Tony Guglielmo in her second try to the seat.

Eastwood was nominated in a speech by state House of Representatives candidate John Murphy.

Two years ago, Eastwood had the best showing of any challenger against Guglielmo ever.

“After 20 years in office, Senator Guglielmo is one of the longest-serving State Senators in Hartford. What has he achieved during his long tenure? This year he voted no on education reform and repeal of the death penalty," Eastwood said. "He voted no on Sustinet. He voted no on the energy bill and paid sick leave as well, and he consistently votes against the budget. It’s not enough to vote no. In these tough times we need a strong advocate who listens and has the energy and drive to fight for us.”

Eastwood said she is running for office, "because everyone in our community should have access to great opportunities - the opportunity for a great public education, to start a local business, access to quality and affordable health care, to a clean and a sustainable environment and an affordable retirement."

She added, "I want to give back to this community for all of the support they have shown me and my family over the years. “I am driven to run because we don’t have the time to wait. The issues are critical.”

Eastwood’s former campaign manager, Jordan Jacobs said that in 2010, Eastwood was running as a "proud Democrat against a strong Republican headwind."

"Many folks told her not to put Democrat on her signs but that’s not who Susan is," he said. "She is clear and proud of her values.” 

Jacobs said he expects an advantage in Democratic turnout in a Presidential election year. That gives Eastwood has a much better shot at winning, Jacobs said.

“What folks don’t know is that Guglielmo does very little to represent his constituents in Hartford," Jacobs said. "We have to do a better job this year to distinguish Susan’s priorities and Tony’s lack of power and status in Hartford. He no longer has a Republican governor to turn to for help.”

As the chairwoman of the Ashford Democratic Town Committee, Eastwood said she has long-standing ties to many of the statewide officials and elected members of the house and senate in Hartford.

Eastwood said she has witnessed "an outpouring of support to run again.”

“I want the people of this district to know that I am ready to take on the challenge and will be a strong advocate for our towns, schools, local businesses and farms, as well as a cleaner and safer environment," she said.

Eastwood said she plans to take the coming weeks to reacquaint herself with her supporters before making her official campaign announcement.

“I look forward to the conversation on how we can do better for the 13 Eastern Connecticut towns of the 35th district," she said. "We have missed so many opportunities in the Senate to help people. I look forward to building support for these and other new solutions.”

Eastwood lives in Ashford with her husband, Tony, and their two children, Aidan (21), and Emma (18).

The 35th District towns are Ashford, Chaplin, Coventry, Eastford, Ellington, Hampton, Pomfret, Stafford, Tolland, Vernon, Union, Willington, and Woodstock.

Tom May 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM
What we don't need is another Liberal Socialist Progessive who will vote to raise your taxes,create more bus lanes to nowhere and restrict the rights of property owners.
Rocky May 22, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Senator Guglielmo also vote against shortening the sentences of convicts as Malloy wanted and had passed. Yes, arsonists, violent criminals, pedophiles can all have their sentences shortened by being a good inmate. Sen. Guglielmo has the safety of the residents in mind. Sounds like Eastwood has been pandering to the unions
Long time resident May 23, 2012 at 01:05 AM
Basically, Eastwood says we should reject Guglielmo because he did not vote for Democrat initiatives. She, of course, will vote with the Democrats - so we should vote for her??? Obviously she has no plans to represent non-Democrats. Right out of the gate she has made that clear.
Mark Kalina May 23, 2012 at 02:33 AM
Tony will hold the seat until he no longer wants it. Keep up the good work Tony!
Bill Dauphin May 23, 2012 at 05:14 AM
LTR: "Obviously she has no plans to represent non-Democrats." Hmmm.... Per the article... “'I want the people of this district to know that I am ready to take on the challenge and will be a strong advocate for our towns, schools, local businesses and farms, as well as a cleaner and safer environment,' [Eastwood] said.
" So you think there are no "non-Democrats" among "towns, schools, local businesses and farms"? You think only Democrats benefit from a "cleaner and safer environment." Susan will likely vote with Democrats most of the time, just as the current senator votes with Republicans. But Susan will also be a *leader* on issues that are vital to *all* the people of Northeastern Connecticut; not just another party-line vote. We're not a mostly "blue" state by accident: Democrats represent the ideas and policy most CT residents prefer. Time the 35th got in step, I'd say.
Bill Dauphin May 23, 2012 at 05:20 AM
It's fair to call Susan a liberal and a progressive, but it's not an insult: Liberals and progressives care about their neighbors' well-being as well as their own, and have been responsible for many of the best ideas in the history of our state and nation. Anyone should be proud to be called "progressive," and I'm pretty sure Susan is. She is NOT, however, a socialist. I know y'all like to pretend that "liberal," "progressive," and "socialist" all mean the same thing, but they really don't. Try arguing over the real ideas and policies in play, instead of just throwing out scary words (and Capitalizing them to make them look Even Scarier!).
Long time resident May 23, 2012 at 01:44 PM
BD: Time for you to realize the accident of being "blue" has cost Connecticut dearly and if the 35th wants to stay in step with the direction the people of the state are turning towards it will keep our current state senator, a true statesman who has represented us well.
Bert May 23, 2012 at 02:34 PM
The Connecticut General Assembly has had a majority, and at times a super-majority, (over 2/3) of Democrats for 25 years. We need to remember that it is the Legislature that makes the laws and spends the money - not the Governor. The Governor runs the Executive Branch, can propose a budget and pieces of legislation, but cannot pass them. He or she can veto a passed bill but that veto can be overridden by the legislature. During the Rell administration there was a "super-majority" of democrats rendering the Governor unable to veto anything. Considering the miserable condition this state is in, why do we continue to elect the same democrats and expect anything to change.. Tony Guglielmo has been an outstanding Senator considering what he's had to contend with in the Chamber. He stands tall and does the right things for the 35th District, unfortunately he is in the minority. We need to reelect him and give him some help by electing more Republicans to have any hope of changing the condition of the state of Connecticut. We do not have to look far to see how well the "Progressives" have done in Connecticut. Union members may be doing fine but the rest of us who are working folks too - not so much. Their answer to all of this is to tax businesses and tax the rich. Businesses respond with layoffs and the rich say bye-bye to Connecticut, taking the hefty taxes they pay with them. We need a new focus on government and we need Tony Guglielmo to stay right were he is.
Rocky May 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM
You hit the bulls eye Bert, best statement yet!
Tom May 26, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Bill D todays progressive movement while much more a philisophical theory at the turn of the century has morphed into a political/economic system in much the same way that the philosopher Karl Marx thoughts and writings influenced the socialist movement of the late 1800s in Europe. The difference between the Progressives of Teddy Rossevelts era and those of todays is dramatic.While early Progressives concentrated their efforts on reforming certain aspects of the political system by emphasizing political control by individual vs. the political bosses and needed reforms to labor laws they remained firm supporters of capitalism, individual rights and local control. Todays Progessive goes far beyondhis commrades of the past. While seeking to raise the quality of life for the ordinary Ameican They advocate a centralized system with the state in control of most aspects life. from health care to education and most recently to exercising its power to run and control economic resources. The States desire to lift everyone to achieve the common good through control of economic resources is by itself the definition of Socialism. Simply put Todays Progressivism = Socialism After all Time magazine told us 31/2 years ago We Are All Socialists Now. I just wish you guys would be intellectually honest enough to admit it.
Bill Dauphin May 26, 2012 at 03:44 PM
Tom: "I just wish you guys would be intellectually honest enough to admit it." If the right were intellectually honest enough not to use "socialist" as if it were a slur, maybe the tone of the conversation would be a bit different, but in point of fact, liberal/progressive Democrats are NOT socialists: There are real socialists in the U.S. -- a Socialist Party, in fact -- and they would laugh at you if you said there was no difference between them and people like me and Susan Eastwood. Specifically, this... "Todays Progessive[s] ... advocate a centralized system with the state in control of most aspects life." ...is false. We advocate for sufficient public *investment* in matters that relate to shared public goods, and we advocate for adequate public regulation of matters that put shared public goods at risk... but that *does not* equate to state "control of most aspects life"; the assertion that it does is simply paranoia (if honest) or political fearmongering (if disingenuous) on the part of the right wing. Two final points: 1. You've referenced the wrong Roosevelt: What we need is a renewal of the New Deal. 2. You do know that the Time cover headline was a facetious play on the way the right *mis*uses the term "socialist," right?
Long time resident May 27, 2012 at 04:16 PM
But when the "sufficient public investment" takes so much from me that my standard of living, which I earn solely through my efforts in the private sector, are reduced to where I fare no better than others receiving the same service with less required contribution the term "socialism" becomes relevant in my mind. This is further exacerbated by the fact that I don't even receive the benefits of many of these so called "shared public goods", nor are they necessarily my priorities. Maybe a member of the Socialist party would laugh, but its just a matter of degree. We are getting closer to it all the time. Presumably well intended, but short sighted and ultimately self serving politicians who believe they know what is better for us than we do are a dime a dozen in Ct. Why don't they test their ideas in the private sector and assume the risk of loss? Surely if they are the leaders they claim to be and have such winning ideas they could get investors to finance their vision. Instead we are supposed to pay them a salary to impose their flawed solutions upon us. We the taxpayers are the ones continuously assuming the risk of their failed ideas. Ct becoming less blue won't be by accident either. (Please note, I do not refer to individuals as "socialists" unless they described themselves that way, or intend to impune anyone's patriotism on this basis. That doesn't preclude a discussion of socialism if it is relevant.)
meowkats4 May 27, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Today, members of the Democratic Party or the Green Party of the United States are most likely to self-identify as progressives. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold,[8] Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, and Paul Wellstone.
meowkats4 May 27, 2012 at 08:57 PM
I forgot to add Hillary Clinton is a Modern "Progressive" http://youtu.be/C2oOoCdFblc
Tom May 27, 2012 at 10:31 PM
First there is absolutely nothing unpatriotic in being a Socialist. That said there are also several distinct and different iterations of Socialism that have and exist as political economic systems/ philosophys. From Leninism to Social Democrats to Anarchist to Christian Socialist. Progressives today unlike those of FDRs generation seek to over time reform capitalism under a democratic system making it a system of greater equalization of results within the context of democratic capitalist system. OWS is a excellent example and those that Kathy referenced above fit in well of course Bernie is a Socialist. Paul Wellstone doesn't quite belong with the others. Under any current definition Democratic Socialist or Social Democrats the difference being miniscule they and those who agree follow and support that agenda are Socialist.Its really not a scary word it doesn't mean your a Leninist, Marxist or a Communist. To me Progressives are simply a rebranding of a 100 plus year old Social Democratic philosophy. In much the same way that Upton Sinclair who ran multiple times for state wide office in California as a Socialist and recieved about 60k votes, yet when running as a Democrat recieved upwards of 800k votes. .
Tom May 27, 2012 at 10:32 PM
And Bill I referenced the correct Roosevelt not the one whose failed policies extended the Great Depression and set us upon the road of less economic and personal freedom. Great Humor in order to be good must contain truith and Honesty in its implimentation in order for it to be good thats why theTimecover works
Bill Dauphin May 28, 2012 at 12:22 AM
Well, this conversation has wandered pretty far afield from the scope of a State Senate race, which, if you'll look back at the article we're commenting on, is what this is supposed to be about. I'm afraid the CT State Senate doesn't have the power to turn us into a socialist society, even if it wanted to (which, AFAIK, even the most liberal candidates running *do not* actually want). It does, however, have the power to do important work in protecting the rights of CT citizens and the state's economic and natural environments... which is why we need leaders in the Roosevelt-style (*both* Roosevelts) progressive mode. I won't continue the derail of this thread beyond one more post to respond to some of the replies above: 1. Tom said, "First there is absolutely nothing unpatriotic in being a Socialist." Note that I didn't say there was anything wrong with socialism (and didn't say anything at all about "unpatriotic"; no idea where *that* came from). What I said was that the right *uses the term* as if it were a slur. And I said it was intellectually dishonest of them to do so. Movement conservatives have spent *decades* turning that word into an insult; does it really surprise you that people act insulted when you apply it to them? Regardless of what I think about socialism, I'd have to be a fool not to understand what conservatives *mean* when they say it about a Democrat. All that said...(to be continued)
Bill Dauphin May 28, 2012 at 12:32 AM
(continued) 2. Liberal/progressive Democrats in the U.S. *ARE NOT SOCIALISTS*. I say that not because I think socialism is shameful, but because it's just not the same thing as what we advocate: No American Democrat of any influence (none at all, that I'm aware of) advocates for state control of the means of production, nor for anything even vaguely close to that. Even Bernie Sanders, the only person on Kathy's list who calls himself a socialist (and he's NOT a Democrat, BTW, although I wish he were) is more like a European-style Social Democrat than a classical socialist. American liberals are essentially still capitalists, though we support a more carefully regulated form of capitalism than free-market acolytes are willing to even think about. 3. LTR said, "But when the 'sufficient public investment' takes so much from me that my standard of living, which I earn solely through my efforts in the private sector, are reduced to where I fare no better than others receiving the same service with less required contribution"... but *THAT'S NOT HAPPENING*! Not now, and not under even the most progressive tax plans anyone has seriously proposed. Under even the most liberal tax proposals, the rich will still (after taxes) be richer than the less rich, and people who earn more will still end up with more after they pay their taxes. This is a pure strawman argument! (to be continued)
Bill Dauphin May 28, 2012 at 12:39 AM
(continued) 4. Similarly, WRT "I don't even receive the benefits of many of these so called 'shared public goods', nor are they necessarily my priorities." People on the right often make the mistake of assuming "shared public goods" means only social programs that benefit the poor and disadvantaged, and that they, by virtue of NOT being poor, don't benefit from them. Leaving aside my belief that we all benefit when fewer of our neighbors are poor, or sick, or poorly educated, in fact, "public goods" refers to *all* the things that a well-ordered society provides... things that add up to order itself. It's disingenuous to pretend that the rich don't benefit from these things: The evidence that they *DO* benefit, arguably more so than anyone who receives a "handout" is that the are, in fact, rich. It's the orderliness of our society that has allowed the successful to succeed; for them to pretend otherwise is a lie, one way or another: Either their lying to the rest of us, or they're lying to themselves. Now I've said my piece, and I'll leave y'all to it. Have a great Memorial Day.
meowkats4 May 28, 2012 at 12:45 AM
I believe that with VERY FEW exceptions, there is only one political party in this country. The Progressive Party! Every member of the Progressive Party believes in BIG government and votes to make the government bigger. Yes, some call themselves Democrats. Some call themselves Republicans, but they are virtually all Progressives! Name ONE Representative or Senator who has refused to vote for ANYTHING further until we pay our own way.
Long time resident May 28, 2012 at 01:34 AM
Bill: You say the rich will still be richer, but I'm not talking about the rich. I am talking about myself and others similarly situated who are just middle class. Wake up, this is not a rich versus poor issue. The middle class is being destroyed to accomodate your sense of social justice as the entitlement system grows and grows. You have no right to rob me of my lifestyle. We are not giving a leg up to people with the current social programs, we are giving hand outs and enabling people to continue getting hand outs. Progressives /liberals what ever you want to call yourselves want it that way, because then they continue to be "needed" and maintain their control. No matter how well intended, it will result in a weaker America and I sincerely fear for future generations. I wish you the best, but I do not want you or your political allies impacting on the lives and well being of myself and my fanily. Your vision is against my interests, pure and simple.
Tom May 28, 2012 at 03:02 AM
First Bill before you claim that Liberal/Progressives are not Socialist i would suggest you take some time and educate yourself to what socialism actually is all about.I For the life of me have never heard reference to a"classical socialist" and your so called European Socialist not sure what you mean by that other than a misnomer for a variety of distinct Socialist parties and philosophys that are practiced and supported throughout Europe. The difference is that they are not like many in this country who are unwilling or unable to recognize were they fit within the political spectrum. Again as stated previously there is nothing unpatriotic about being a socialist most who i have known in my travels with very few exceptions are American Patriots to the core.I'm not the one who raised the term within the context of being a slur. Regarding Ms. Eastman this state cannot afford n another intrusive Socialist Progressive with eyes on my my bank account to syphon off another $500.00 under the guise of reducing the defecit. I bet she will look to protect family farms but i seriously doubt she will be advocating for reducing the nos 1 reason why family farms in Ct are becoming extinct federal and state regulations closely followde by excessive taxation.
Mark Kalina May 28, 2012 at 02:00 PM
Susan Eastwood Point by Point- “What folks don’t know is that Guglielmo does very little to represent his constituents in Hartford," Tony is very responsive to his constituents- He and his staff exhibit the finest customer service and care for those who need his help and was very pleased with the result when I needed an issue resolved by him and his staff. “Tony’s lack of power and status in Hartford.” Attributable to the fact the Democrats control the Senate, House and Governor. They need no one else. If anything there needs to be more Republican minority balance for the good of the state to stop one party rule. Otherwise, the constituents of the few seats held by non Democrats are not getting their voice heard in Hartford due to the way the governor et al are generally ignoring the Republican with their super majorities. “This year he voted no on education reform and repeal of the death penalty," The education reform the governor was offering is nothing to be proud of. It is merely a power grab by the governor and legislature to remove home rule of the local schools.
Mark Kalina May 28, 2012 at 02:00 PM
Continued- We need the death penalty and it needs more teeth to act as at least a tool of prosecutors to get long prison terms for those who commit heinous crimes such as occurred in Cheshire. I feel the death penalty is a deterrent- because if imposed that person will not be able to kill another. "He voted no on Sustinet” Really? Susan wants that? A break the bank and budget boondoggle. We have federal mandates coming and you want to add this extra layer too? “He voted no paid sick leave” Not good for small struggling business’ Maybe once they get established and have a chance to grow they will add benefits to gain more experienced employees. The market place has a way of creating opportunities. Let’s not legislate those opportunities away.
Mark Kalina May 28, 2012 at 02:01 PM
Continued- “he consistently votes against the budget” Someone should- the state budget is bloated and needs to be pared down. Witness the ill advised New Britain to Hartford bus way. $600,000,000 for nine miles. If it were part of an integrated system and maybe $60,000,000 instead… Further I doubt they will get 16,000 riders/day. By the way that is actually only 8,000 unique riders back and forth. That is $75,000/rider to build. They’ll never recover the cost. If you want to be green, buy 8,000 efficient Prius cars for those folks and save hundreds of millions of dollars we don’t have…. “It’s not enough to vote no. In these tough times we need a strong advocate who listens and has the energy and drive to fight for us.” As I previously mentioned, the Democrats are allowing the Republicans do little other than vote no. If the Democrats would work constructively with the Republicans the results may be better. Don’t exclude the Republicans and then blame them that you don’t like that they vote no. I’m not sure the State of Connecticut can afford another free spending Senator such as Susan Eastwood… I know I can't....
meowkats4 May 28, 2012 at 02:35 PM
Thank your Mark, your points are appreciated. I cross my fingers that more people feel like you and I do on the issues here in Connecticut! I only hope more Connecticut Tax payers and voters will see what we see.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »