The sparks could have really flown at today’s five-way gubernatorial debate in Stamford.
Just a few days ago Republicans Michael Fedele and Oz Griebel were criticizing Tom Foley, the GOP nominee they hope to beat in August’s primary, for a Hartford Courant story about the Greenwich businessman’s/millionaire’s two prior arrests for motor-vehicle related incidents.
Fedele issued a statement Friday calling the charges against Foley “very serious” and calling on his opponent “to come clean” and fully explain the incidents to voters.
“The first test for any candidate for governor is to be forthright and honest with the people,” Fedele said in a statement.
And Griebel in his own statement said the report revealed “very real and serious concerns about Tom Foley’s judgement, temperament and the significant personal baggage he brings to the race.”
On the Democratic side, Ned Lamont of Greenwich has begun questioning Democratic nominee Dannel Malloy’s campaign claims he created 5,000 jobs as mayor of Stamford. Lamont’s campaign on Monday said Malloy should pull a television ad about job creation.
Malloy in turn charged Lamont, a cable executive, “laid off most of his workforce while paying himself hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
None of this came up during today’s debate, during which five panelists, including my boss at The Advocate, each posed one question to one candidate which was then also answered by the other four candidates.
I had hoped someone would ask either Fedele or Griebel why they believe voters should care about Foley’s arrests, which are several years old and were not prosecuted. That would have put them on the spot, Foley on the spot and also forced Lamont and Malloy – who have steered clear of the issue – to weigh in.
Barring the topic being raised by the panelists, I figured since Fedele and Griebel felt strongly enough about the matter on Friday, they might raise the topic themselves and confront Foley directly. Lord knows all five candidates strayed off topic and worked various talking points into their answers. But that wasn’t the case. Fedele said the next governor must have “character” but he might have said that regardless of the Foley issue.
Perhaps more inexcusable is that fact that, despite fielding a question about job creation and spending much of the debate discussing that topic and the economy in general, neither Malloy nor Lamont challenged the other’s record on job creation.
More than one candidate told the audience the state needs a leader with courage. It would be nice if they displayed a bit of that courage during these face-offs rather than leaving the dirty work to their campaigns.
Brian Lockhart writes, “I had hoped someone would ask either Fedele or Griebel why they believe voters should care about Foley’s arrests, which are several years old and were not prosecuted.”
Really? The fact that Foley engaged in violent behavior that could have resulted in serious injury to his young son by forcing his wife’s car off the road is no big deal? The fact that he rammed another person’s car on Long Island and was arrested for it and taken to jail is no big deal? Happened years ago, so forget it? Really? Sounds like a seriously disturbed individual to me, and the fact that it happened several years ago doesn’t at all suggest that we shouldn’t consider it.
And this attitude that it doesn’t matter because it was years ago flies in the face of the media feeding frenzy by Hearst and other CT media about Richard Blumenthal’s odd comment about having served in Vietnam. Blumenthal did indeed serve in the Marine Corps when he probably didn’t have to, he had been consistent in his biography and his comments, according to virtually every reporter who has covered him, including Lockhart and Dixon. Yet he was savaged in the media. But this seriously dangerous action by Foley in using his vehicle to force his wife and child off the road is to be passed over as having no consequence or insight into the candidate? Wow. That’s really hard to swallow.
Actually, it is better if the candidates do NOT attack their primary opponents directly. Better their campaign spokes people do the attacking. Why? Because 3 of the 5 candidates will need to support the last 2 after the primary. Those three should not want to other party’s nominee to be able to quote them in trying to defeat someone from the opposite party. Yes, I know it would make great fun for the political pendents, but LOYALTY IS A TRRAIT TO BE DESIRED.