Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

According to Rob Simmons’ campaign chairman/friend, Eric Janney, the candidate is not technically waging a true primary campaign, but he is as in it to win it as a guy with few resources but lots of name recognition and a decent standing in the polls can be on August 10.

“I don’t think anybody stays in the process without some hope that you’re going to win,” Janney just told me by phone. “And if we win we’re running against Blumenthal.”

Janney’s comments were the most definitive yet that Simmons is back in the game.

The former U.S. Rep. from Stonington lost the GOP nomination in late May to Linda McMahon, who is using the fortune she amassed running Stamford-based World Wrestling Entertainment to self-fund her first bid for public office.

Minutes after McMahon’s victory speech at the Connecticut Convention Center in Hartford, Simmons told reporters he had qualified for the August 10 primary and, despite earlier promises to accept the will of the party’s convention delegates, owed it to his supporters to remain in the race.

Then a few days later Simmons at a press conference in New London said while he would leave his name on the ballot, he was suspending his campaign. He said he did not have the money to compete against McMahon and also at the time expressed doubt he might actually be a player in the primary.

But two recent polls – a Quinnipiac University poll and a Rasmussen poll – showed Simmons performing almost as well as McMahon against Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal, despite the fact she’s been running pricey ads and he’s pretty much done squat.

And today there were two new developments that indicate Simmons is taking the race more seriously – he has agreed to participate in a July 27 debate with Weston economist Peter Schiff, who petitioned his way onto the Republican primary ballot.

More importantly, Simmons has bought $350,000 worth of advertising time on television stations in Hartford, New Haven and Fairfield counties.

“He found there are lots and lots of folks that say ‘Gosh, I wish you were still involved, still running’ and he says ‘You know I’m on the ballot still’ and they say ‘No, I didn’t realize that’,” Janney said. “What we’re attempting to do is indicate to folks ‘I am still on the ballot. You have a choice and I’m on the ballot’. It’s really about loyalty to his supporters and folks who indicated they wished they had an opportunity to support him.”

While the ad is being described as a “public service announcement” Janney said “it has all the exact same disclaimers. From a purchase standpoint it’s a political ad. Our point is it’s more in the nature of a public service annoucement.”

He sent me the transcript, which does not mention McMahon, Schiff or Blumenthal. You can read it in full at the end of this blog post.

Some of Simmons’ supporters following McMahon’s convention victory had urged Simmons to avoid a bloody primary so the party could unite against Blumenthal.

“The overall point is we’re not poking anybody in the eye. We’re just saying ‘you have some choices here’,” Janney said. “In our opinion we’re on even footing with Mrs. McMahon as it relates to how one candidate would do against Blumenthal versus another.”

I asked Janney what else we can expect from candidate Simmons before August 10.

“If Rob’s invited to an event he goes to an event,” Janney said. “But we don’t have any lawn signs.”

Here’s the transcript of this “public service announcement”:

“Today, it’s important to vote with your heart and your head. Bailouts and tax increases have crippled the economy and cost us jobs. Small business is our backbone. Let’s help them. National security must remain strong. Put your trust in the candidate who is and will be an advocate for veterans. These issues will have a lasting effect on our children. In the Republican primary on August tenth, you do have a choice. I’m Rob Simmons, I’m still on the ballot, and I approved this message.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Just got an e-mail a little while ago from Peter Schiff, the Weston economist who petitioned his way onto the August 10 Republican primary ballot. In it Schiff continues to criticize GOP nominee Linda McMahon of Greenwich for refusing to engage him in a debate before primary day.

But the real news is the other candidate he mentions.

“It’s too bad Linda won’t be joining Rob and I at the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer debate on Tuesday, July 27th,” Schiff writes.

That’s Rob as in former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons of Stonington, who earned enough delegate votes at the Republican Party convention in late May to force a primary against McMahon.

Simmons continues to perform nearly as well as McMahon in the polls against Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal, despite the fact that he told the media he was suspending his campaign.

I have a call in to Simmons.

UPDATE:

This just popped into my e-mail from Cashman & Katz, a Glastonbury-based public relations and advertising firm:

————

ROB SIMMONS ASKS VOTERS TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES ON AUGUST 10 WITH NEW PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

STONINGTON, CT (July 21, 2010) – Former Congressman Rob Simmons has announced today that he will be running a television advertisement asking voters to look at the issues when making their decision in the August 10, 2010 primary.  The ad also reminds voters about his placement on the Republican Primary ballot.

Simmons, who curtailed his campaign for the U.S. Senate in May, said that the ads he will be running are in the nature of a public service announcement.

“For the past two months, I have been travelling the state supporting my fellow Republican candidates,” Simmons said.  “Everywhere I go people ask me if I am still running for the U.S. Senate.  My response has been “I’m still on the ballot.”

The ads are designed to present the voting public with the information they need to make an informed choice.

“This year’s election finds our country at a crossroads and will affect our children and future generations,” Simmons said. “Reckless bailouts and tax increases have crippled the economy and cost us jobs. This failure of our current leadership will have a long-lasting effect if we don’t make them pay for these mistakes. I also feel it is important for people to know that I am still on the ballot and to provide my fellow Republicans with a choice.”

————

I asked Chris Seneca of Cashman & Katz what Simmons is up to and he replied: “What I know is what I sent you. It literally just happened. He cut the commercial. It’s going to air this weekend. He still doesn’t have a paid staff, he still isn’t actively pursuing it. But he did do this.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

A source familiar with the issue told me today that, although it could be argued former Transportation Commissioner Joseph Marie violated the terms of a stipulated agreement when he criticized Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s and her staff’s handling of his recent resignation, the administration continues to honor the deal.

That, the source said, means Marie is still collecting a paycheck because, although he left the job on June 30, he is technically considered to be on administrative leave until his resignation takes effect July 29.

I was also informed the agreement was carefully worded to ensure Marie qualifies for unemployment benefits since that is usually not the case when an individual voluntarily resigns.

Marie’s attorney, Richard Hayber, hired after Marie signed the agreement, confirmed his client is still getting paid but declined further comment.

The initial explanation given for Marie’s sudden resignation June 30 was that he wanted to seek other employment and spend more time with his family. He and the administration stuck by that story for about a week. Ultimately the retiring Rell acknowledged to the press that she asked Marie to resign voluntarily after her attorney reviewed an informal complaint alleging inappropriate behavior. The governor also, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests from the media, released copies of the stipulated agreement Marie signed outlining the terms of his departure.

That two-page deal essentially stated that Marie left his job in good standing as long as he didn’t bad mouth Rell or her administration. If he did, then, according to the document, “such resignation in good standing shall be changed to a dismissal indicating that the services of Mr. Marie no longer pleased the governor due to inappropriate behavior.”

Marie was plenty ticked off when Rell and her staff provided all of the above details to the press and made his feelings known to me by phone. He has since hired Hayber.

I’ve been wondering if the Rell administration considered Marie’s statements to me a violation of the terms of the stipulated agreement.

My source said while they are sure some in the administration were ticked – they used a different word but I’ll write “ticked” – at Marie for speaking out, “none of his comments have changed how the administration is viewing the agreement … He’s still in the same status.”

I was also told that the phrasing of the very first paragraph of the document, which specified Marie “has indicated a desire to voluntarily resign from state service for personal reasons IN LIEU OF DISMISSAL” allows him to qualify for unemployment compensation he might otherwise be denied.

Of course none of this changes the fact that this entire public spectacle will make it harder for Marie to secure a new job…

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Here’s my report from the weekend looking into the little known, little understood practice of transferring the state’s film tax credits and whether there is a better, less costly way for Connecticut to entice movie-makers here.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Film-tax-credits-make-money-for-brokers-582521.php

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman was in his hometown of Stamford this morning for an event at CTE, Inc.

Lieberman was touting a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Labor that will be used to help provide job training and re-employment assistance to veterans.

While on the topic of employment, I asked Lieberman to discuss the ongoing debate in Washington between the Democratic-majority and Republicans over the extension of long-term unemployment benefits to around 2.5 million people.

And while Lieberman since losing his party’s primary in 2006 and winning the general election as a third-party candidate cannot always be counted on to back Democratic proposals (he campaigned for Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona for president in 2008) he is clearly on his party’s side when it comes to this issue.

“There’s just no excuse for this. This is just wrong,” Lieberman said.

The last extension expired in May. Republicans argue the $34 billion needed to keep the benefits flowing should be paid for, rather than borrowed.

Lieberman said while in the past he has opposed legislation because there was no money to pay for it this is a different situation.

“When you come to people in this country who have been unemplyed for along time and that check is their lifeline, you’ve got to view that as an emergency,” he said, calling the delay in Congress “an outrageously unacceptable form of gridlock.”

The Senate is expected to take up the measure again tomorrow.

“What it takes is a few Republicans to break ranks. We’ve got a chance to do that this week,” he said.

Democratic President Barack Obama also had tough words for Congressional Republicans today.

Lieberman added that unemployment checks go “right back into the economy and help the economy recover.”

Comments(12)

|

E-mail

|

Print

On Wednesday former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, the Democratic nominee for governor, announced he had secured an endorsement from CSEA/SEIU Local 2001, which represents 25,000 current and former state employees.

Union President Catherine Osten issued a statement calling Malloy’s candidacy a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to elect a governor who will be a true partner.” She called Malloy “the best candidate running, the best candidate for Connecticut and the best candidate for our members.”

And this afternoon Malloy’s campaign announced the backing of CEUI/SEIU Local 511 and its 7,000-plus members.

“The unfortunate truth is that Connecticut workers, including the members of CEUI, haven’t been given the respect they deserve,” Malloy said. “Rather than looking to them as a partner in getting our economy back on track, recent governors have chosen to ignore their input and their interests.”

The fact labor unions are backing a Democrat for governor is nothing new.

But while Malloy claims retiring Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell did not give the unions respect, I know from covering last year’s negotiations between the governor and union leaders that some legislative Democrats along with Republicans felt Rell should have sought additional concessions during the ongoing budget crisis, such as a pay freeze that lasted more than one year.

And back in April, when unions balked at her administration’s efforts to return to the bargaining table, she wasn’t happy, but neither was she exactly disrespectful to public employees. It is true the administration turned down some union proposals for cost savings not related to added concessions, but that’s not necessarily a sign of disrespect.

The union relationship with a Democratic governor will doubtless be less adversarial. But one has to also question how hard Malloy will push these political allies to give up more of their benefits when all the current concessions run out this time next year? The next governor faces an estimated $3 billion budget deficit.

Below is Malloy’s response to me back in March, when our newspapers broke the story about the little-known tradition of paying long-time employees, union and non-union, annual “longevity bonuses” just for sticking with the public sector.

While many critics argued public employee salaries and benefits are compatible with the private sector and the longevity payments are a creature of a bygone era that must be completely eliminated, Malloy was a bit more moderate in his approach to the issue:

“Longevity payments for lower wage employees have always been viewed as a way to reward hard work, perseverance and loyalty.  Those are qualities we should continue to foster in state government if we want to improve efficiencies and productivity,” Malloy said at the time. “The issue gets distorted when talking about higher wage employees, especially given the state’s unprecedented budget problems. That’s why we need to have a discussion of how the program needs to change.  Those conversations might include scaling back payments, instituting a cap on the program, or considering whether or not Connecticut can afford to extend the program to future state employees.”

UPDATE:

Hartford Courant columnist Rick Green makes a similar observation on his blog and points out something I did not – Ned Lamont of Greenwich, who faces Malloy in their party’s August 10 primary, has the support of the state’s teachers.

Comments(8)

|

E-mail

|

Print

After last night’s televised three-way Republican gubernatorial debate I made a mental note to contact Peter Schiff’s campaign today and find out whether there has been talk of his debating businesswoman/professional wrestling maven Linda McMahon.

McMahon, a Greenwich resident whose family owns Stamford-based World Wrestling Entertainment, won the party’s nomination in late May. But Schiff, an economist from Weston, petitioned his way onto the August 10 primary ballot.

She’s been ignoring her primary opponent but I figured the Schiff people must be trying to schedule some face-off, if only to raise their candidate’s profile while the millionaire McMahon continues her self-funded advertising blitz.

Before I even had the chance to reach out to Schiff, he publicly challenged McMahon to a pre-primary debate – preferably one in which they have an opportunity to pose questions to each another.

“If McMahon’s refusal to debate is any indication of what she would be like in Washington, she significantly lacks the necessary characteristics to be Connecticut’s senator,” Schiff said in a statement this morning. “The Nutmeg State can’t afford a senator who sits quietly in the corner.”

To be fair, McMahon isn’t exactly “sitting quietly.” She has been out and about making campaign stops throughout the state, done a few interviews with the press and, as I mentioned, is running lots of television and radio ads.

McMahon spokesman Ed Patru issued the following response: “Linda has appeared in many forums and debates with Peter Schiff throughout the course of this primary. We think Republicans understand the difference between them, and they have an expectation that Linda will focus on (Democratic nominee) Richard Blumenthal. She’s looking forward to debating Richard Blumenthal.”

Schiff by phone this evening called McMahon’s comments “presumptuous.”

“You haven’t even won the primary,” he said. “Ten thousand people signed a petition to put me on a ballot. Don’t we deserve a debate?”

He also argued that many of their joint appearances have been private, cordial meetings with groups of GOP delegates prior to the May convention that also included Rob Simmons. Simmons, a former U.S. Rep. from Stonington, won enough votes at the convention to make the primary ballot, but several weeks ago said he had no plans to campaign against McMahon.

“They were friendly affairs. There was no confrontation,” Schiff said.

The three also participated in one televised debate in March, which, like most of the debates held this campaign season, was more of a forum with disappointingly little to no actual candidate interaction.

Schiff told me the obvious – McMahon is in the lead and strategically it would make no sense for her to agree to a debate. Democrat Ned Lamont of Greenwich, who forced a primary against his party’s nominee – former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy – and has been leading in primary polls, has employed the same strategy. Malloy has hammered away at Lamont for refusing to 17 additional pre-primary debates and Lamont has countered they’ve made numerous appearances together.

“When you’re the front-runner you don’t want to. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose,” Schiff said. “But out of common courtesy and respect for the voters let your opponent have a shot to be fair.”

Schiff, who I call a “celebrity economist” because he’s made regular appearances on national television and authored some books, is confident that if voters see him run circles around McMahon when it comes to economic issues, they would be convinced he is the right candidate to send to Congress.

“If people see me and Linda on a podium – two people with zero political experience. Never been to Washington. Two successful businesspeople who want to go to Washington. Which one do we want to send? Who has the best experience? Whose knowledge is most relevant? Someone in show business, marketing and promotion writing wrestling scripts or someone in finance and economics?” Schiff said.

He added he is the candidate who was criticizing Washington lawmakers long-before McMahon decided to enter politics last year.

“I wrote books. I went on television. I articulated how mad I was,” Schiff said.

From a selfish standpoint as a journalist I’d love to see Schiff and McMahon actually mix it up live. While Schiff talks a good game about the economy, I’ve heard some criticize him for being too extreme and a one-issue candidate. So it would be interesting to see how he fared against McMahon on non-economic policies.

I’m no political consultant, but heck, a debate with Schiff might even help McMahon win over some unaffiliated voters and perhaps even some moderate Democrats in this traditionally blue state.

Schiff said if McMahon continues to refuse to participate in a debate, he might try to at least schedule one with Simmons.

“I’ve talked to Rob and I’m trying to figure out where his head is,” Schiff said. “I have a feeling if he was offered a debate with me he’d take it. I have a hard time believing Linda McMahon would let me and Rob debate and not be there.”

Comments(7)

|

E-mail

|

Print

That’s more like it.

Political debates this year have really been forums. Whether they’re running for U.S. Senate or governor, the candidates all stand behind podiums or sit side-by-side at a table and field questions from the moderator or moderators, hardly ever acknowledging their opponents.

Very polite. Very boring.

But tonight NBC Connecticut in the final ten or so minutes of the televised hour-long Republican gubernatorial debate allowed the three candidates to question each other.

The candidates are: GOP nominee Greenwich businessman Tom Foley, former ambassador to Ireland; Lt. Governor Michael Fedele, a Stamford businessman; and Simsbury businessman Oz Griebel, former chairman of the state Transportation Strategy Board. The three face off in a party primary August 10.

Fedele went first. If elected he said he will veto any budgets that contain tax hikes. Griebel has said taxes and other forms of revenue like highway tolls are on the table. “Why?” asked Fedele.

“I am first and foremost about getting spending under control,” Griebel said. That includes restructuring government to make it smaller but more responsive, he said.

Turning to Foley, Fedele said he gets worried when the Republican nominee talks about treating Connecticut the way he has his companies.

“On your watch you’ve driven the biggest textile mill in America … straight into bankruptcy,” Fedele said, referring to the Bibb Corp. in Georgia. Foley purchased Bibb in 1985 and it went bankrupt 11 years later.

“The challenge of fixing broken business is very demanding and often doesn’t work out as you hoped it would,” Foley said, adding: “I learned a lot about crisis management and about managing a large organization under financial stress … I think the Bibb experience will make me a better governor of Connecticut if elected.”

Then it was Foley’s turn. He said Fedele, who was tapped by retiring Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell as her running mate in 2006, is a Hartford insider and part of an administration that has allowed the Democratic majority legislature to pass tax hikes.

“The voters I’m talking to are clearly looking for change in direction and want a strong leader who will cut government spending and end game playing in Hartford,” Foley said to Fedele. “Given your record as a ‘Hartford insider’ … why should voters trust you to change your colors?”

“When you were in Ireland being ambassador you weren’t paying focus on what was going on here in Connecticut,” Fedele shot back. He said as lieutenant governor he has no power to veto budgets with tax increases and reiterated his pledge to do so if he succeeds Rell.

Foley turned to Griebel and similarly portrayed him as a Hartford insider who is mainly focused on issues in that region of the state.

“If elected governor I’ll represent all the citizens of Connecticut regardless of where they are from,” Foley said. “How can people outside of Hartford know you won’t just look after Hartford and your friends here?”

Griebel, a former Bank of Boston executive, said his experiences working in offices in New Haven, Stamford and Waterbury, as well as his time chairing the Transportation Strategy Board, helped him to establish good relationships with business and political leaders around Connecticut and he will “represent all 3.6 million people extremely well.”

Griebel’s first question was to Fedele and, like Foley, he wondered what the lieutenant governor will do differently if he is elected to replace his current boss, noting Rell is leaving her successor to deal with an estimated $3 billion deficit and high unemployment. Fedele also said he believes Rell recently mismanaged the now well-publicized departure of Transportation Commissioner Joseph Marie.

Fedele said as governor he will have more power to execute his plans and craft budgets. But he also made a comment that could be taken as a shot at Rell and/or Lisa Moody, her powerful chief-of-staff.

“I will have commissioners that will have the ability to make decisions, to execute on decisions,” Fedele said. Critics have long charged that with Moody as part of the administration commissioners have had little freedom to do their jobs. And Fedele and Moody have not had the best relationship.

Griebel then turned to Foley and asked whether he believes it is important for the candidates and the next governor to be transparent. Griebel and Fedele pounced a few weeks ago on published reports that Foley was twice arrested – once in 1981 and once in 1993 – and demanded the candidate provide additional details about the incidents. Neither was prosecuted, and in one case the court sealed the records. In the other records are no longer available.

The arrests came to light because Foley’s ex-wife a few years ago cited them in a letter to then-Republican Gov. John Rowland as reasons her estranged husband should not be appointed to a state commission examining Connecticut’s divorce and child custody laws.

Foley told Griebel the issue has been “overblown” and resulted in “ridiculous and sundry accusations, by your campaign in one case.”

“I really didn’t expect unfortunate and highly personal matters such as a difficult divorce would become cannon fodder to be used against me, particularly by opponents of my own party,” Foley said. “In both instances these were things that were dropped and eventually came to nothing … One of the things I hope to bring to Connecticut politics is a more constructive, positive discourse and avoid personal attacks on opponents.”

That’s great, Tom. But I hope more debate sponsors allow candidates to question each other, be it over policy or personal matters.