Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter

It is telling when the two most powerful Democrats in the Connecticut legislature take the time to pen an opinion piece lamenting that a Republican is too effective at making his case.

That is what their op-ed, "Unlimited Debate, Fine; But Not Abuse," is really about. Their complaint is not about decorum or process. It is about control. And it is about their growing fear that Connecticut Republicans are gaining ground—because we are right, and because the people of this state agree with us.

For years, the Democratic majority in Hartford has governed as if they are entitled to rule—that their control over the legislature is some permanent fixture of reality rather than the result of an electoral process. They speak of themselves as "the majority party" as if they have always been and always will be. They wield their power not with humility but hubris, convinced that debate itself is something they generously "allow" rather than the foundation of representative government.

This arrogance blinds them to the reality around them: the people of Connecticut are increasingly rejecting their policies.

Poll after poll shows that on issues of affordability, electric rates, illegal immigration, parental rights, and public safety, most residents—including many Democrats—side with Republicans. Rather than accept this reality and engage in an honest debate, Democratic leaders demean those who challenge their failing policies.

Make no mistake—my Democratic colleagues are not upset because I am supposedly disruptive or uncooperative. I work in a bipartisan manner on dozens of bills every year and have strong working relationships with members on both sides of the aisle.

They know this.

Their frustration is that I am effective when I speak. I ask questions that they don’t want to answer. I challenge them not with rhetoric, but with reason. And they have no response.

Last week, I pressed the Democratic majority on their refusal to honor the budget guardrails they themselves endorsed in early 2023. I challenged them on their priorities—why they were funneling taxpayer dollars into Planned Parenthood and far-left activist organizations pushing illegal immigration and gender-affirming care, while rejecting my amendment to fund Meals on Wheels and low-income heating assistance for struggling seniors.

Instead of defending their choices, they tried to silence me—twice. In an attempt to shut down debate, they interrupted me on procedural grounds, something that has happened to me perhaps once or twice in the last decade. First, they objected to me "reading from the bill"—when in fact, I was exposing the long roster of radical organizations receiving taxpayer funding while my constituents’ electric bills continue to skyrocket. There is no rule against this, and they know it. They stopped me again, claiming I was suggesting their intent, when I pointed out that their policy choices reflect their disdain for President Trump. If that was over the line, it’s nothing compared to the partisan rhetoric routinely offered by Senate Democrats.

I also spoke on an amendment to protect fairness in women’s sports by prohibiting biological men from competing against female athletes. Senator Duff rushed to the floor, not to engage in serious debate, but to label it a "mean" amendment. In that instance, who was guilty of questioning intent?

The real issue at stake is not me. It is the process of open debate itself.

The Democratic leadership frames this as a matter of "courtesy,” as if allowing debate is some privilege they graciously extend to the minority. Debate is not a courtesy. It is a right. It is the fundamental mechanism of a representative government.

What Senators Looney and Duff are really doing is laying the groundwork to silence dissent by limiting debate. They claim I am "abusing" unlimited debate because I use it to successfully challenge their agenda. They suggest that my effectiveness in holding them accountable is justification for invoking procedural tools to silence the minority. That is authoritarianism.

For generations, "calling the question”--shutting down debate—has been considered a nuclear option in the Connecticut legislature. If they take that step, they will embrace the very tyranny they claim to oppose.

Senators Looney and Duff speak not from a place of strength, but of fear. They know that the people of this state are waking up to the consequences of their failed policies. They know that if we continue to expose the truth, they will lose. That is why they wrote this op-ed. That is why they attack me.

But I am not going anywhere. I will continue to speak up for my constituents. I will continue to defend our Constitution. I will continue to fight for what is right. If they choose to shut down debate, let it be clear to the people of Connecticut: The real threat to democracy is not a Republican asking hard questions. It is Democratic leadership afraid to answer.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘