Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Former Massachusetts Governor/former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is going to be the special guest at a private party in New Canaan this evening.

A crowd of around 250 is expected, although I’m told this is not a fundraiser.

I have a call in to Romney’s staff for more info.

According to CNN, Romney has been endorsing dozens of conservative candidates, leading political insiders to speculate he will take another shot at the White House in 2012.

Romney is backing Tom Foley of Greenwich, the Connecticut GOP’s gubernatorial nominee, who will be at the party. Here’s what Romney had to say about Foley back in late March:

“Tom Foley is a smart businessman and a good problem-solver who can find and apply common sense solutions to the problems facing Connecticut. Tom has a long and successful history of turning around troubled companies in difficult settings, and these are the leadership skills that are required in today’s challenging times. Tom is capable of putting politics aside and going to work on behalf of the people of Connecticut.”

UPDATE: I wondered if Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon might take the opportunity to meet Romney during his visit to Connecticut since he has not weighed in on that race. But her spokesman Ed Patru told me “I don’t believe they have a meeting scheduled.”

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

John Mertens, a third party candidate running for U.S. Senate, today announced that on Thursday he plans to deliver “a major address on the economy” at the Pond House Cafe in West Hartford.

Mertens said the half-hour speech will be followed by a “no-holds-barred question-and-answer period.”

Mertens might garner some coverage. But the reality is were Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal or Republican nominee Linda McMahon to schedule something similar, they would likely attract tons of interest in part because of the novelty of their campaigns actually holding a press conference to discuss policy.

As we reported last week, McMahon has yet to hold a press conference since announcing her candidacy last September. And while Attorney General Blumenthal schedules press conferences to talk about issues related to that office all the time, candidate Blumenthal so far has held only one to defend himself against allegations he misrepresented his military service.

How about it Dick and Linda? Can you guys talk for 30 minutes straight at a public event about your economic policies and then be willing to field all sorts of questions from the audience/media?

Comments(7)

|

E-mail

|

Print

It’s not uncommon for some candidates/politicians/voters to insist a distinction be drawn between an official’s private and public life and that the media too often focuses on the former.

When newspapers dig into a candidate’s arrest record, as was the case Friday with The Hartford Courant’s coverage of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley, one of the more typical reactions is: “C’mon. Is this all the media cares about? We’re facing real issues in this state. What do unprosecuted arrests from 1981 and 1993 have to do with solving Connecticut’s budget crisis? This is exactly why good people don’t seek public office – because they have to worry about personal issues being blown out of proportion on the front pages.”

And sure enough Foley in response to the report told the Associated Press: “It was a personal matter. I think my qualifications for governor are related to my career and business experience.”

But after Foley’s opponents in August’s GOP primary – Lt. Governor Michael Fedele of Stamford and businessman Oz Griebel of Simsbury – called on him to be more forthcoming about the arrests, Foley issued a lengthy statement Friday night that instead questioned how the information reached the press.

According to The Courant, the arrests were detailed “in a binder of documents and allegations that Foley’s former wife provided in 2002 to the office of then-Gov. John G. Rowland. Copies of documents from the file were obtained by The Courant, although not from ex-wife Lisa Foley.”

Rowland had appointed Tom Foley to a seat on a new task force to examine the state’s divorce and child custody laws. His wife thought his participation was a bad idea.

Foley in his statement issued Friday night said: “I first heard about the letter (from his wife to Rowland) yesterday afternoon after it was leaked to the Hartford Courant. The circumstances of how a confidential document from the Governor’s office was leaked to the press and by whom raise serious questions.”

Confidential document? Before taking over the Governor’s office, Foley needs to familiarize himself with the state Freedom of Information Act which requires all sorts of documents, including a Governor’s correspondence, to be made available to the public, including reporters, upon request.

I don’t know how The Courant obtained the letter to Rowland about Foley’s arrests, but it is very possible the newspaper did so through the Freedom of Information Act and not, as Foley implies, some “Deep Throat” transaction in a dimly lit Hartford parking garage.

Also court records are available through FOIA, like those detailing Foley’s contentious divorce and child custody battle that my Hearst colleague, Ken Dixon, reported about last weekend.

As he seeks a public elected office for the first time Foley needs to understand, like it or not, this information is available to the public.

But even if the letter detailing Foley’s arrests was “leaked” to The Courant by someone in state government, so what? The public often has to rely on government employees’ willingness to pass along information to reporters in order to get a better idea of what their elected officials are up to.

Foley’s Republican opponents are hoping the arrests lead voters to question Foley’s character.

But voters should also be scrutinizing Foley’s response and how it reflects on his own personal views and understanding about the need for transparency within state government and within the Governor’s office.

Will Governor Foley seek to keep documents critical of his appointments/administration/himself from the press/public? And when they do get out, will he address them head on or spend all his time downplaying the information and focus instead on trying to plug leaks in his administration?

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Foley just released the following statement responding to today’s Hartford Courant article about his prior arrests in 1981 and 1993.

He takes aim at both Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele of Stamford and Simsbury businessman Oz Griebel, the two Republicans who are challenging Foley for the GOP nomination in August’s primary and who today demanded he release more details of the arrests:

“Jon Lender of the Hartford Courant published an article this morning about two motor vehicle related infractions I was involved in a number of years ago. One was in 1981 and the other in 1993. The one in 1981, when I was 29, involved a minor car accident in which the occupants of the other car filed a complaint resulting in my arrest. The case was later dismissed. The one in 1993 involved my former wife and we were both arrested. The charges were dropped in that case, too. I was candid with Jon Lender and he wrote a straight and fair article.

These were unfortunate incidents and ones that I wish hadn’t happened. Both of these incidents came to light as a result of a letter my former wife wrote to the Governor’s office in 2002 at a time when our relationship was particularly strained. I first heard about the letter yesterday afternoon after it was leaked to the Hartford Courant. The circumstances of how a confidential document from the Governor’s office was leaked to the press and by whom raise serious questions.

My opponents have already tried to exaggerate these long ago incidents to gain advantage in the race. Their over-the-top attacks and mischaracterizations include that I was imprisoned, that I have not been candid about these events, that there are still unanswered questions, and that these incidents involved domestic violence. My opponents should be ashamed of their false and intemperate remarks which raise serious questions about their truthfulness and personal characters. In the 1981 incident I was retained in a police cell overnight until an attorney could arrive from New York City. Characterizing this as imprisonment is misleading and mischievous. I was frank and forthcoming with Jon Lender and there are no unanswered questions or discrepancies in my story. There was no suggestion in Jon Lender’s article that domestic violence was involved in either of these incidents and I categorically deny that any domestic violence occurred between me and my former wife at any time before, during, or after our marriage. To raise that specter publicly without any evidence is a shameful lack of fair play in the public domain.

In 2006, I was fully investigated for a Top Secret clearance and for confirmation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If these incidents were cause for concern about my temperament or character, I would not have received a clearance or been confirmed as a United States Ambassador.

I hope my opponents will soon see that the citizens of Connecticut are interested in a dialogue about the serious issues facing Connecticut and not events from long ago that have no bearing on who should be Connecticut’s next governor. I call on them to engage in a substantive dialogue about the issues and stop embarrassing our state with cheap attack politics.”

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

One day after former U.S. Congressman/ex-Republican gubernatorial candidate Larry DeNardis endorsed Greenwich millionaire/businessman Tom Foley for Governor, political insiders are buzzing about a Hartford Courant story detailing Foley’s arrests in 1981 and 1993 for vehicle-related incidents.

In the first case Foley was accused of ramming another vehicle and spent a night in jail. In the second case Foley’s estranged wife complained he tried to run her and their son off of the road.

Foley said both charges were dropped.

His opponents in August’s Republican primary – Lt. Governor Michael Fedele of Stamford and businessman Oz Griebel of Simsbury – this afternoon demanded Foley seek the release of sealed court records detailing the 1981 incident.

“The charges against Mr. Foley are very serious and there remain many unanswered questions,” Fedele said. “The first test of any candidate for Governor is to be forthright and honest with the people. Mr. Foley needs to come clean and authorize the release of court records relating to his arrest and imprisonment and explain the discrepancies in the various accounts of his second arrest so voters can know the full truth about these troubling incidents.”

I figured I’d put in a call to DeNardis this evening for his thoughts.

DeNardis said he was at a funeral earlier in the day, followed by a family gathering, and did not learn of The Courant story until much later from a friend. But he had still not read it when I called just before 6 p.m.

“I know from what I’ve been told one of the incidents relate to his very contentious divorce he went through,” DeNardis said. “From what I know of the account it would not appear there’s anything that would be problematic for voters.”

Foley has dismissed the incidents as minor and said he does not plan to seek the release of any records.

DeNardis said: “I think when the court seals records they have good reason to do so and I would assume as much.”

“I said yesterday morning in my endorsement that personal integrity is important to me,” DeNardis said. “I think Tom Foley possesses it and I continue to think so.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

According to our sister newspaper, the Danbury NewsTimes, Danbury’s attorneys failed to delay next Wednesday’s deposition of Mayor Mark Boughton in the civil rights lawsuit filed by day laborers arrested on his watch.

I’ve written on this blog before how I believe Boughton’s controversial approach to illegal immigration in Danbury will become a campaign issue during his run for Lieutenant Governor.

And during Tuesday night’s televised Democratic gubernatorial debate candidates Dannel Malloy and Ned Lamont were asked how they’d deal with immigration, so it’s on voters’ minds.

Danbury city attorneys tried to make the case that Boughton needed the delay because of the “intensive preparation over the next several months” required for his campaign.

Seems to me it’s more important voters have the opportunity to hear first hand Boughton’s answers to questions about the civil rights case before deciding whether or not they want to elect him second-in-command of the state. Disagree or agree with Boughton, the deposition should provide greater insight into how he’s approached his job running Danbury and his views on the responsibilities/powers of cities and states.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

As we reported, the General Assembly on Monday overroad Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s veto of a transportation bill that prevents her administration from moving forward with a $35 million plan to build a new commuter parking garage a block-and-a-quarter from the Stamford train station.

What that means is the fate of the current, aging station parking facility – whether it will be repaired or rebuilt and where commuters will park while that work proceeds – remains in limbo.

Department of Transportation Commissioner Joseph Marie felt so strongly about the need to build the new, 800-space garage that he contacted our newspaper last Thursday to urge the General Assembly allow the veto to stand.

And Rell and Marie also last Thursday convened a meeting of some lower Fairfield County lawmakers in Hartford to discuss the issue.

The problem is the Governor reached out to the wrong party.

According to both House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk and Rep. Livvy Floren, R-Greenwich, who also represents a portion of Stamford, only Republicans were summoned to meet with the Governor to discuss the garage.

Meanwhile Democrats have the numbers in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to override a gubernatorial veto without any help from the GOP minority. And it has been Stamford’s mostly-Democratic legislative delegation that has been wary of Rell’s parking garage idea and the lack of details surrounding it since her announcement in April.

Cafero could not attend the Governor’s Thursday meeting, but said he “encouraged her to reach out to the Democrats to find a solution … That never happened.”

Floren, who did attend, said “I told the Governor I couldn’t understand why the rest of my delegation wasn’t invited.”

Senator Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, had heard about the Republican-only meeting over the Stamford parking garage and confirmed no one reached out to Stamford Democrats.

“There was no overture by the Governor or her Chief-of-Staff in any shape, form or fashion to talk about it, to articulate their position, to find out if there was any common ground or any solution short of an override,” McDonald said.

Although most Senate Republicans supported Rell’s veto, House Republicans including Cafero and Floren, sided with the Democrats and overroad the Governor on the grounds the legislation also addressed a variety of other transportation issues.

“The DOT bill annually is a bill that is comprised of several parts,” Cafero said. “It’s a potpourri of transportation issues important to a lot of people.”

I contacted Rell’s office today for a comment and spokesman Donna Tommelleo e-mailed me the following statement: “The Governor did meet with a handful of legislators last week. In the end the Legislature decided to override her veto. It’s their prerogative.”

Comments(5)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Over the weekend a tipster forwarded me an e-mail circulated by the Democratic State Central Committee to delegates about Lee Whitnum, the Greenwich Democrat whose long-shot bid for her party’s U.S. Senate nomination was further complicated when she mistakenly showed up at the Republican convention instead.

According to the DSCC e-mail, Whitnum has been mailing letters and ballots to delegates falsely claiming a re-vote on the Senate nomination was ordered. The DSCC e-mail tells delegates to disregard Whitnum.

During the May 21 convention Democrats chose long-time state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, also of Greenwich, to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd.

Asked about the DSCC e-mail, Democratic Chairman Nancy DiNardo today told me: “We were getting calls and e-mails from people who were confused by (Whitnum’s letter), asking us what it was all about. So we had to send out an e-mail to people.”

I called Whitnum this afternoon for a response.

“My God, they’ve treated me unfairly from day one,” Whitnum said, arguing Blumenthal all along has been getting preferential treatment from party leaders. “I don’t know what to do.”

She said she is trying to post a video on her campaign website further explaining the issue and plans to “call each and every delegate personally in the next few days and ask them to please vote.”

Here’s the e-mail the DSCC sent delegates.

———————–

To: State Convention Delegates, Democratic State Central Committee Members, and Democratic Town Chairs

From: Allison Dodge, Executive Director and Nancy DiNardo, State Party Chair

Date: June 19, 2010

Recently you may have received correspondence from Ms. Lee Whitnum relating to our Party’s U.S. Senate endorsement and her wish for a revote in some manner. The purpose of this email is to clarify any misinformation that this correspondence may contain and to offer our willingness to address any concerns you may have regarding this letter.

Ms. Whitnum’s correspondence wrongly implies that State Central somehow approved a “re-vote” of the State Convention’s U.S. Senate endorsement. This action has in no way or form been approved or endorsed by the State Central Committee, Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo, or Party Counsel Kevin Reynolds.

For background purposes, some of you may remember Ms. Whitnum from 2008 when she attempted to primary Jim Himes in the 4th Congressional District. This year, Ms. Whitnum filed papers to seek the endorsement for U.S. Senate. However, Ms. Whitnum was not nominated at the State Convention this year. Md. Whitnum suggests that this was due to the fact that she first attended the Republican State Convention at the Connecticut Convention Center. Ms. Whitnum insists that this was inadvertent and we do not dispute that.

However, Ms. Whitnum lays the blame for this mistake on State Central for, among other things, not informing her of the location of our State Convention. We assure you that Ms. Whitnum was provided this and other pertinent information. Additionally, our website had this information and this information was also well publicized in television, radio, and newspaper reports.

You should also note that Ms. Whitnum did contact State Central and our counsel with her complaint. She was informed, through a lengthy series of emails, that the appropriate administrative remedy would be for her to request a Dispute Resolution Hearing as provided for in Article V of the State Party Rules. Ms. Whitnum has refused to follow this course of action and, instead, has opted evidently to proceed with her own remedy.

In conclusion, Ms. Whitnum was not nominated at the State Convention and the recourse she has set forth in her correspondence will have no effect whatsoever on the U.S. Senate endorsement.

We hope that this clarifies this issue for you. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 860-560-1775. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Allison Dodge

Executive Director

CT-DSCC