¶¶
12450 I AM STEVE KOTCHKO.
WELCOME TO ANOTHER EDITION OF ON THE RECORD.
FIRST A LOOK AT THE HEADLINES, STAMFORD MAYOR DAN MALLOY LEADS RIVALS IN CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING, CAN HE WIN THE NOMINATION THAT ELUDED HIM?
WE WILL ASK HIM, HE'S OUR GUEST IN THE NEWS MAKER SEGMENT.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE VOTED TO BUTTON UP SAKE SEX LAW ON MARRIAGE, AND IN THE PROCESS, FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
25,000 PEOPLE TURNED OUT HONORING THE UCONN WOMEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, AND NEGOTIATIONS TO REWRITE THE TWO YEAR BUDGET AND ERADICATE A BILL DOLLAR DEFICIT.
THOSE ARE THE HEADLINES.
PLEASE STAY WITH US.
MY GUEST THIS WEEK IN OUR NEWS MAKER SEGMENT IS STAMFORD MAYOR, DANIEL MALLOY, NOW RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR, AGAIN.
I WANT TO ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HISTORY.
2006, YOU LOST THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IN A CLOSE PRIMARY FIGHT WITH NEW HAVEN'S MAYOR, JOHN DE STEFANO.
HE ULTIMATELY LOST TO GOVERNOR RELEVANT.
DE STEFANO OPTED NOT TO RUN AGAIN, BUT YOU DECIDED TO RUN AGAIN, WHY.
>> THIS IS THE EXPLORATORY PHASE.
THAT'S THE PHASE I AM IN.
I AM ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THE PEOPLE OF CONNECTICUT WANT A CHANGE IN DIRECTION.
WE ARE TIRED OF BEING DEAD LAST FOR JOB GROWTH IN ALL 50 STATES, AND OUR PROPERTY TAXES TO PAY FOR EDUCATION, AND I KNOW THAT 70,000 PEOPLE IN CONNECTICUT WERE WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE AT SOME POINT IN 2007-2008.
WHAT I REALLY THINK PEOPLE IN CONNECTICUT WANT IS LEADERSHIP.
AND AS THE MAYOR OF A MAJOR CITY FOR THE LAST 14 YEARS, I KNOW THAT YOU CAN BALANCE BUDGETS AND DELIVER SERVICES AND MAKE A PLACE BETTER AND STRONGER, AND I HAVE THAT KIND OF TRACK RECORD.
SO I AM GOING TO GET AROUND THE STATE AND TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT THAT AND SPENDS TIME MAKING A DECISION.
I CAN TELL YOU PEOPLE ARE MORE READY FOR CHANGE THAN YOU MIGHT IMAGINE-IF YOU JUST SIT AROUND HERE AT HARTFORD.
>> WE SAY YOU ARE RUNNING AN EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE.
I KNOW THE RULES HAVE CHANGED WHAT THAT MEANS SINCE PUBLIC FINANCING CAME ALONG, ANY DOUBT YOU WILL BE IN THIS RACE?
>> IT'S A DECISION PROCESS, I WOULD SAY I AM HIGHLY LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN A CAMPAIGN.
I WILL MAKE THAT DECISION SOMETIME AFTER THE CURRENT ELECTION CYCLE.
BUT I AM ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THAT THE PEOPLE OF CONNECTICUT WANT AND NEED CHANGE.
SO I AM GOING TOO ROUND TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT THAT CHANGE SHOULD BE.
TO BE DEAD LAST IN JOB GROWTH OF ALL 50 STATES IS QUITE REMARKABLE.
I AM NOT SURE YOU COULD ACCOMPLISH THAT IF YOU SET OUT TO DO IT AND HERE WE HAVE DONE IT IN CONNECTICUT.
THAT'S DURING THIS GOVERNOR'S TIME IN OFFICE.
THIS DEBACLE THAT WE ARE WITNESSING PLAY ITSELF OUT IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE LARGELY BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR HAS FAILED TO GIVE THE KIND OF LEADERSHIP NECESSARY TO ADDRESS A CRISIS.
WE ARE IN A CRISIS, A FINANCIAL CRISIS, AND, YET, SHE CAME ALONG AND PROPOSED A BUDGET THAT, ON ITS FACE WAS NOT BALANCED, BUT THEN WENT AROUND AND CLAIMED SHE BALANCED THE BUDGET BY NOT RAISING TAXES.
IF YOU IGNORE BILLIONS IN DEFICIT, ANYBODY CAN BALANCE A BUDGET.
>> IF YOU WERE GOVERNOR RIGHT NOW WITH THIS BUDGET CRISIS FACING YOU, WOULD YOU GO ALONG WITH THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE BUDGET PUT OUT THERE, IT DOES HAVE TAX INCREASES, WOULD YOU BUY INTO THAT OR WOULD DAN MALLOY AS GOVERNOR BE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT?
>> THERE'S A DISTINCT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE GOVERNOR, I WOULD HAVE PRESENTED A BUDGET THAT'S BALANCED TO START THE DISCUSSION.
>> WOULD THAT INCLUDE TAX INCREASES.
>> IF TAX INCREASES ARE REQUIRED, ABSOLUTELY.
I THINK EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ON THE TABLE.
THE UNIONS HAVE HAD GIVE-BACK DISCUSSIONS.
THERE ARE EFFICIENCIES TO BE IDENTIFIED AND CREATED.
I THINK WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE REVENUE.
AND RAISING REVENUE, WE HAVE TO DO THAT IN AS FAIR A WAY AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
IN SOME SENSES IT'S HARD FOR A POLITICIAN TO SAY THIS, SPREADING THE PAIN AS EQUALLY AS POSSIBLE.
>> SO WOULD YOU BE GOING ALONG WITH THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE BUDGET OFFERED, OR WOULD YOU HAVE DONE THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
>> IN PRINCIPLE I WOULD HAVE GONE ALONG WITH THE DEMOCRATIC BUDGET.
NOW I DON'T LIKE EVERYTHING IN THAT BUDGET, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, BUT IF YOU ARE ASKING DO I BELIEVE IN PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, YES.
I AM THE ONLY CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR WHO IS ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.
NOW, HOW FAST DO YOU GET TO YOUR HIGHEST RATE?
DOES YOUR HIGHEST RATE MAKE YOU UNCOMPETITIVE, DO YOU NEED TO ADJUST THAT, ARE THERE OTHER WAYS TO RAISE REVENUE?
THOSE ARE ALL REASONABLE QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED AND WILL CONTINUE TO ASK.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR.
IT'S IMPORTANT POLITICIANS SPEAK DIRECTLY TO PEOPLE THIS IS A CRISIS.
IT REQUIRES LEADERSHIP AND IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A LEVEL OF SACRIFICE TO GET THROUGH IT.
WE ARE GOING TO GET THROUGH IT.
WHAT IS CONNECTICUT GOING TO BE LIKE AFTER THAT?
ARE WE GOING TO RECOVER OUR STRENGTH?
ARE WE GOING TO BEGIN TO GROW JOBS?
IN THE LAST 60 DAYS, CLOSE TO 20,000 PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS IN CONNECTICUT.
IN THE LAST SIX YEARS ALLOW LOAN, OVER 60,000 PEOPLE HAVE LOST JOBS.
THE BASIC GOVERNOR'S RESPONSE IS IT'S BAD EVERYWHERE.
I WANT IT TO BE BETTER IN CONNECTICUT.
>> YOU MENTIONED THE GOVERNOR SEVERAL TIMES NOW.
DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO YOU AS A DEMOCRATIC CONTENDER FOR GOVERNOR IF JODI RELL RUNS OR NOT, HER NUMBERS ARE VERY GOOD.
DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO YOU IF RELL IS A CANDIDATE OR SHE DECIDED TO CALL IT QUITS?
>> IT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO ME.
I AM A DEMOCRAT.
I BELIEVE IN DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.
I BELIEVE IN EXPRESSING LEADERSHIP AND BALANCING BUDGET AND PROTECTING THOSE WHO ARE MOST DEPENDENT ON STATE SERVICES.
IT'S REALLY NOT IMPORTANT WHO THE REPUBLICANS PUT FORWARD.
AND WE HAVE RECENT HISTORY.
YOU KNOW, BARACK OBAMA, HE'S NOT PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW THAT, RIGHT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY HE COULD WIN.
>> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, RELL'S POPULARITY REMAINS HIGH.
IT WAS HIGH IN 2006 WHEN YOU AND DE STEFANO WERE RUNNING AGAINST HER.
SOME OF THE SAME THINGS WERE SAID ABOUT CONNECTICUT BEING NEAR THE BOTTOM IN JOB GROWTH, ET CETERA.
IT DIDN'T SEEM TO FLY WITH VOTERS.
SHE IS VERY POPULAR WITH VOTERS.
HOW CAN YOU CONVINCE VOTERS THAT THERE'S A BETTER WAY.
THEY SEEM TO BE HAPPY.
AND I TALKS TO ONE POLLSTER WHO SAID WHEN A GOVERNOR HAS A POPULARITY RATING AS HIGH AS RELL IT BASICALLY MEANS VOTERS AREN'T EVEN LOOKING AROUND FOR AN ALTERNATIVE.
DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET THEIR ATTENTION FIRST, AND THEN, AS YOU SAY, CONVINCE THEM THERE'S A BETTER WAY?
>> THE 60,000 PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR JOB THE LAST YEAR ARE LOOKING FOR CHANGE.
THE NEARLY 800,000 PEOPLE WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE LAST TWO YEAR, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR CHANGE.
THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN TOWNS AND COMMUNITIES WHERE TEACHERS AND FIREMAN AND POLICEMEN ARE BEING LAID OFF ON A DAILY BASIS, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR CHANGE.
ARE THEY CURRENTLY HOLDING THE GOVERNOR RESPONSIBLE?
THE ANSWER IS, NO.
BUT POLLS ARE REALLY ABOUT POPULARITY AND NAME RECOGNITION, IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH THE WAY CONNECTICUT IS, OR HAPPY WITH THE REPORT TAXES, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ME.
BUT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE DEEP DOWN PEOPLE WANT CHANGE AND TO RECOVER WHAT CONNECTICUT ONCE WAS, A LEADING STATE IN THIS NATION WHEN IT CAME TO EDUCATION REFORMATION, JOB CREATION, TECHNOLOGY CREATION.
WE LOST THAT.
RECENTLY, I WAS DOWN MEETING --
>> HOW MANY CHAPTERS IS IT.
>> IT'S PRETTY QUICK, BUT IT PERTAINS.
I WAS RECENTLY DOWN WITH THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, ONE OF EIGHT MAYORS, SCHEDULE TO SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT HOW TO GET MORE MONEY OUT INTO COMMUNITIES AND BUILD TRANSPORTATION CITIZEN TEMPERATURES.
FINALLY IT GOT TO THE MAYOR OF DES MOINES, IOWA, AND HE TALKED ABOUT HOW MANY PORK BELLIES ARE SHIPPED THROUGH AND CORN AND AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT AND FINALLY HE TURNED TO THE SECRETARY AND SAID, AND WE ARE THE INSURANCE CAPITAL OF THE WORLD.
WHEN I GREW UP, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT WAS THE INSURANCE CAPITAL OF THE WORD.
IT'S BAD LOSING THAT TITLE BUT WHAT HAVE WE REPLACED IT WITH?
THE REALITY IS WE HAVE HAD ADMINISTRATION AFTER ADMINISTRATION ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH WHEN IT COMES TO BUILDING JOBS.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION, KIND OF A BUGABOO FOR DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES.
THIS STATE HAS HAD EITHER A REPUBLICAN OR INDEPENDENT GOVERNOR SINCE 1991.
AND PRETTY MUCH DURING THAT WHOLE TIME PERIOD, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN IN CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE.
SO IT SEEMS THAT VOTERS, CONSTANTLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY SEEMS TO LIKE BALANCING OFF THE GOVERNOR WITH ANOTHER PARTY.
HOW DO YOU COUNTER THAT?
HOW DO YOU TELL THEM, YOU HAVE ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE THE NEXT TIME AROUND, AND A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A FREE-FOR-ALL FOR DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS?
>> I AM GOING TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT.
THINGS ARE PRETTY BAD IN CONNECTICUT BASED ON HOW WE HAVE DONE THINGS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.
ON TRANSPORTATION, ON INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.
THIS SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK.
LET'S TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
>> YOU KEEP SAYING THAT, BUT THE VOTERS KEEP -- ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THESE THINGS WERE SAID IN THE CAMPAIGN AND THE GOVERNOR SILL WON HANDILY AND IS STILL POPULAR TODAY.
HOW DO YOU CONVINCE VOTERS THAT, AS YOU SAY, THERE IS A BETTER WAY.
>> FIRST OF ALL, LET'S TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT, A GOVERNOR WITH LEADERSHIP ABILITY.
LET'S TRY A GOVERNOR WHO WOULD ACTUALLY GO TO THE LEGISLATURE AND PRESENT A BUDGET THAT IS IN BALANCE.
LET'S GET RID OF GIMMICKS.
NOW, THE AUDITORS HAVE ISSUES REPORT AFTER REPORT AFTER REPORT, SAYING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO STOP WASTING HUNDREDS AND MILLIONS IN THIS STATE, AND THIS IS A GOVERNOR WHO HAS NOT TAKEN TO HEART THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.
JUST RECENTLY THEY ISSUED A REPORT ON D.S.S.
THEY WENT BACK -- AND BY THE WAY.
D.S.S. IS THE LARGEST EXPENSE PORTION OF OUR BUDGET.
THEY LOOKED AT A REPORT ISSUED THREE YEARS AGO AND FOUND NONE OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
THAT'S NOT GOOD GOVERNMENT.
CONNECTICUT IS GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND DECIDE WHETHER THEY ARE HAPPY HAVING A TERRIBLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, LOSING JOBS, HAVING PEOPLE WITHOUT HEALTH CARE, OVERRELIANCE ON -- IF THEY ARE HAPPY, YOU ARE RIGHT.
WE WON'T ELECT A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR, BUT WE ARE GOING TO ELECT A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR.
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
IT'S PERSONAL.
YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.
YOUR SON IS CURRENTLY FACING FELONY CHARGED TIED TO AN ALLEGED ROBBERY OFFENSE THAT INVOLVED WEAPONS.
IT'S A SERIOUS FAMILY ISSUE AND YOU HAVE SAID YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE PRIVACY WHAT THIS WORKS ITS WAY INFLUENCE THE COURTS AND VOTERS UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS FAMILY ISSUES, BUT HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO VOTERS?
SOME VOTERS MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT UNCOMFORTABLE AND SAY, MAYBE THIS A TIME FOR DAN MALLOY TO FOCUS ON FAMILY, RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON ANOTHER STATEWIDE CAMPAIGN, WHICH CAN BE ALL-CONSUMING, AS YOU KNOW.
HOW WOULD YOU ANSWER THAT?
>> MY WIFE AND I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE GREATEST JOYS OF LIFE, ONE OF THE GREATEST FRUSTRATIONS IN LIFE AND THE MOST PAIN YOU SUFFER IS IN RAISING CHILDREN.
PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU HAVE A CHILD WITH EMOTIONAL ILLNESS AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS.
WE WILL DEAL THAT.
I LOVE MY SON VERY MUCH AND MY WIFE AND I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO GET HIM THE KIND OF HELP TO ALLOW HIM TO LIVE AS NORMALLY AS POSSIBLE.
ALL I WOULD ASK IS FOR PEOPLE'S PRAYERS.
>> LET ME GO BACK TO THAT 2006 RACE.
YOUR TWO CHALLENGERS THIS TIME.
SUSAN BYSIEWICZ AND JIM AMMAN ARE GOING TO ARGUE DAN MALLOY HAD HIS SHOT, HE DIDN'T WIN THE PRIMARY.
TIME TO LOOK AT SOMEBODY ELSE, TIME YOU TO TRY A FRESH FACE FOR GOVERNOR.
HOW DO YOU ANSWER THAT?
>> I HAVE SPENT 14 YEARS AS MAYOR OF A CITY THAT HAS ADDED 12,000 PEOPLE IN A STATE THAT'S LOST POPULATION, THAT HAS ADDED JOBS, THAT BUILDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
TAKEN A CITY BUDGET THAT WAS ONCE DEVOTING 44% OF THE LOCALLY RAISED TAX REVENUE TO EDUCATION AND IT'S NOW 63%.
I DON'T COME TO HARTFORD TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES.
I HAVE BEEN IN STAMFORD DOING THINGS, BUILD A CITY THAT IS ACTUALLY A MODEL OF SUCCESS.
IF YOU WANT PEOPLE WHO CON IDENTIFIES TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE WITH RESOLVING AN ISSUE, YOU MIGHT WANT TO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.
IF YOU WANT SOMEBODY WITH A TRACK RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT, OF GETTING THINGS DONE, OF MOVING THE CITY FORWARD, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK AT MY POTENTIAL CANDIDACY.
I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
>> TRADE YANK SLIP.
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THESE ARE GOOD DEMOCRATS.
IF I WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL, I WANT A DEMOCRAT TO WIN.
BUT I BELIEVE THE EXPERIENCE OF GOING THROUGH THE 2006 CYCLE, OF BEING A MAYOR AND PRESENTING BALANCED BUDGETS YEAR THIS, AND YEAR OUT IS ACTUALLY A PLUS, NOT A MINUS.
AND OUR REFERENCE TO 2006, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LARGER RACE AT THAT TIME.
WE ACTUALLY HAD A REPLAY AND POOR JOHN DE STEFANO HAD TO LIVE WITH A REPLAY IN THE PRIMARY ON THE SENATE SIDE WHICH MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
I THINK WE WILL HAVE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION IN CONNECTICUT ABOUT WHERE CONNECTICUT IS.
THERE IS A GROWING TROUBLE OUT THERE, AND IN THE COMING MONTHS AS THE LEGISLATURE GRAPPLES WITH THIS BUDGET AND AS THE GOVERNOR CONTINUES TO FAIL TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP, THAT DISCUSSION IS GOING TO BECOME MORE ACUTE.
>> YOU ARE THE MAYOR OF STAMFORD AND FAIR FIELD COUNTY.
WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE ANIMATED AND MANY ARE ANGRY ABOUT WHAT WENT ON, ON WALL STREET.
WHAT IF PEOPLE SAY, LOOK, MALLOY RUNS WITH THAT CORPORATE CROWD DOWN IN STAMFORD AND FAIRFIELD COUNTY.
THEY ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ECONOMIC MELTDOWN WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW.
WE DON'T WANT SOMEBODY LIKE THAT TO BE GOVERNOR.
>> WE ARE SITTING IN HARTFORD, DOWN THE STREET FROM MAJOR INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAD JUST AS LARGE A ROLE TO PLAY AND I AM NOT SURE YOU WOULD ASK SOMEBODY FROM THIS PART OF THE STATE THE SAME QUESTION.
I AM NOT BEING UNFAIR YOU TO.
THE REALITY IS I DON'T HANG OUT WITH SOMEBODY ON WALL STREET.
>> YOU SAID A WHILE AGO, YOU ARE DOING ALL THESE THINGS IN STAMFORD.
EVERYBODY KNOWS SOME OF THESE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS DOWN THERE USED TO BE IN NEW YORK CITY.
>> AND YOU KNOW PEOPLE WHO WORK IN INSURANCE COMPANIES.
SO WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY TO YOU IS, THERE ARE BIG ISSUES OUT THERE, TREMENDOUS MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE.
LET IT BE VERY CLEAR THAT MOST OF THOSE MISTAKES WERE MADE UNDER THE WATCH OF GEORGE W. BUSH.
THAT THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO HIS PRESIDENCY WAS SUBSTANTIALLY STRONGER THAN IT IS TODAY.
IT WILL BE STRENGTHENED.
BARACK OBAMA IS DEMONSTRATING UNBELIEVABLE LEADERSHIP AND HE'S ASSEMBLED AN UNBELIEVABLE TEAM AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE BARACK OBAMA HAS A PARTNER IN CONNECTICUT FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS THAT HE'S PRESIDENT.
>> WE DON'T KNOW IF HE'S GOING TO RUN, AGAIN, EITHER.
>> OH, COME ON.
LISTEN, I WILL PUT FIVE ON IT.
>> WILL YOU PUT FIVE ON WHETHER YOU ARE GOING TO RUN.
>> YOU SURE COULD.
>> OKAY.
LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION.
WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE OR SO LEFT.
BUT YOU ARE LEADING IN OUR HEADLINES IN THAT FUNDRAISING EFFORT, $130,000 IN THE FIRST REPORTING PERIOD, SUSAN BYSIEWICZ, 30,000, JIM AMMAN, 40,000, SHOULD DEMOCRATS TAKE NOTE OF THAT, SHOULD THEY SAY HERE'S A GUY WHO KNOWS HOW TO RUN AGAINST RELL RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX?
>> NO.
THIS IS A CAMPAIGN OF IDEAS, MEASURE MY IDEAS.
YEAH, I HAD A GREAT QUARTER.
I OUTRAISED EVERYBODY AND OUTRAISED A PERSON WHO HOLDS STATEWIDE OFFICE.
BUT THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT.
WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS PEOPLE ARE LOSING JOBS.
PEOPLE HAVE NO HEALTH CARE.
PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF THE FUTURE OF THE STATE.
BEFORE WE GOT HERE WE TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC IS A LITTLE LIGHTER, YOU KNOW WHY?
BECAUSE PEOPLE IN CONNECTICUT ARE LOSING JOBS.
WE ARE MORE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THIS NATIONAL ECONOMY.
WE HAVE BEEN RATED AS ONE OF THE FIVE MOST EFFECTIVE WHEN YOU MEASURE DEFICIT OF SPENDING.
>> WE ARE OUT OF TIME.
MAYOR, THANK YOU.
WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK WITH OUR REPORTERS ROUND TABLE.
MY GUESTS THIS WEEK IN OUR REPORTERS ROUND TABLE ARE KEN DIXON FROM HURST CONNECTICUT NEWSPAPERS AND SUSAN HAIGH FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS.
WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SAME SEX MARRIAGE CODIFICATION BILL.
A BIG TITLE, BUT THIS WAS A BILL TEMPTING TO INSTALL THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING LEGALIZING SAME SEX MARRIAGE, MERGING THE CIVIL UNION LAW INTO EFFECT FOR A FEW YEARS, AND TURNING THAT INTO MARRIAGE.
HOW DID THIS, HOWEVER, SUE, TURN INTO A DEBATE, AS I SAID IN OUR HEADLINES ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
>> THERE'S SOME OLD LANGUAGE THEY DECIDED TO TAKE OUT OF THE BILL.
A LOT OF THAT HAD TO DO WITH A 1991 LAW THAT PROTECTED HOMOSEXUALS FROM DISCRIMINATION.
AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THERE WERE A LOT OF FOLKS WORRIED THAT THAT MIGHT BE SOME SORT OF INFRINGEMENT UPON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN CONNECTICUT.
THERE WAS A LOT OF NEGOTIATIONS BEHIND THE SCENES, AND A LOT OF CATHOLICS WERE CALLING LAWMAKERS SAYING THEY WERE CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT THEIR INSTITUTIONS WOULD BE FORCED TO RECOGNIZE SOMETHING THEY DON'T AGREE WITH.
SO THEY DECIDED TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF AMENDMENT TO APIECE THEM, TO ASSURE THEM THE LEGISLATURE DOES RECOGNIZE THE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
>> HOW DOES IT DO THAT?
OR DO YOU THINK IT DOES DO THAT.
>> I WONDER WHETHER IT INCLUDES SOMETHING THAT ISN'T ALREADY IN THERE.
I THINK IT WAS A LOT OF P.R. THAT WERE ANGRY AND FOR MAYBE REASONS THAT THEY COULDN'T ARTICULATE OR INCORRECTLY ARTICULATED.
>> THE LEADERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WERE SAYING THAT, THAT IT ALREADY PROTECTS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, BUT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO PUT LANGUAGE INTO A BILL TO SATISFY.
>> TO GIVE PEOPLE ENOUGH COVER TO GET OVER TWO-THIRDS MAJORITIES ON THE VOTES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE EVERYBODY 214 COUPLES MARRIED SINCE NOVEMBER.
SO, AGAIN, IT'S A CASE OF THE LEGISLATURE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON SOMETHING.
I MEAN, MASSACHUSETTS HASN'T CODIFIED IT AND PEOPLE ARE GETTING MARRIED UP THERE, AND WE HAVE A BIG DEFICIT THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO BE TOO CONCERNED ABOUT.
>> SOMETIMES, THOUGH, AS WE SAID ON THIS SHOW, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A DECISION LIKE WE SAID ON THE BUDGET YOU FILL THE SPACE ON OTHER THINGS.
OFTEN THEY TURN NOON EMOTIONAL DEBATES LIKE THIS ONE.
>> I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THEY DECIDED TO DO IT IN ONE DAY.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S HIGHLY UNUSUAL.
JUST TO EXPLAIN TO VIEWERS, IF A SENATE PASSES A BILL, IT USUALLY GOES DOWN TO THE HOUSE EITHER THAT NIGHT OR THE NEXT DAY.
SITS ON THE HOUSE AGENDA FOR TWO OR THREE DAYS, USUALLY SO PEOPLE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
SEE IF ANY AMENDMENTS WERE ADDED, DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO ADD AMENDMENTS, AND THEN IT COMES UP IN THE HOUSE, BUT THIS WAS DONE ALL IN ONE DAY.
WHY?
>> FOLKS I TALKED WITH SAID THEY JUST WANTED TO GET IT OVER, BECAUSE THEY WERE GETTING INUNDATED WITH PHONE CALLS, BUT ALSO TO GET THIS BIG ISSUE DONE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE BUDGET NOW.
NOW THIS IS THE ONE LAST HANGING CHAD AVAILABLE OUT THERE SO THEY CAN GET TO WORK ON IT.
IT DID COME AS A SURPRISE TO ESPECIALLY REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL LIKE AN HOUR OR SO BEFORE.
>> BUT IT WASN'T A LONG DEBATE, IT WAS THREE HOURS IN THE SENATE, THREE IN THE HOUSE, THEY COULD EASILY HAVE A SIX-HOUR DEBATE ON THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA.
>> IF REPUBLICANS WERE THAT MAD ABOUT IT, THEY COULD HAVE DEBATED IT ALL NIGHT.
BUT LOOKS AS IF THEY WANTED TO GET RID OF IT, TOO.
>> MINORITY LEADERSHIP VOTED FOR THE BILL AND A COUPLE OF HIS DEPUTIES, ALSO.
>> WE KNOW THERE WAS A CONTROVERSY SEVERAL WEEKS AGO ABOUT A BILL THAT TRIED TO -- NEVER REALLY GOT ANYWHERE, BUT WAS GOING TO PUT RESTRICTIONS, NEW GUIDELINES FOR HOW CATHOLIC PARISHES WOULD BE MANAGED FINANCIALLY.
THAT CREATED AN UPROAR IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
THOUSANDS MARRED ON THE CAPITAL.
DO YOU THINK THAT GOT TRANSMIGRATED INTO THIS BILL?
>> DO YOU THINK THE CHURCH WAS LOOKING TO MAKE THAT ENERGY KEEP GOING.
>> I KNOW THERE WAS TALK ABOUT IT, BUT YOU DIDN'T SEE THE SAME OUTPOURING.
I SORT OF NOTICED EARLIER IN THE DAY, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE FAMILY INSTITUTE, WHICH IS A GROUP VERY ANTIGAY MARRIAGE.
HE HAD A GROUP OF PEOPLE AROUND HIM AND HIS TROOPS TRYING TO MOBILIZE THEM TO PUSH FOR THAT AMENDMENT AND THERE WERE ABOUT 20 OF THEM WHICH WAS A STARK COMPARISON TO THAT BILL YOU MENTIONED WHERE WE HAD THE LEGISLATURE JUST INUNDATED WITH FOLKS THAT CAME UP.
REALLY ANGRY.
>> ALSO, WHERE DOES THIS BILL STAND ON THE ISSUE?
IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE DEBATE OF WHETHER PEOPLE WHO WERE FLORISTS, OR PHOTOGRAPHERS, WHO DEALT WITH WEDDINGS, WERE THEY GIVEN THE SAME TYPE OF, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, RELIGIOUS PROTECTION AS CHURCHES AND CLERGY WERE, ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD SAY, YES, OR, NO, IF A SAME SEX COUPLE CAME IN AND SAID WE WOULD LIKE TO BUY YOUR SERVICES FOR A WEDDING.
>> A LOT OF THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.
I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO HURT THEIR BUSINESS.
>> IN THIS ECONOMY?
>> YEAH, BY TURNING DOWN BUSINESS.
GOVERNOR RELL BECAME THE FIRST GOVERNOR TO SIGN A SAME SEX MARRIAGE BILL, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY COOL, OR AT LEAST ARGUABLY PROGRESSIVE FOR CONNECTICUT.
>> BUT WHERE DO THINGS STAND RIGHT NOW.
IF THERE WAS, LET'S SAY, A ANOTHER RIFT WHO HAD OBJECTIONS TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE, DOES THIS LAW GIVE THEM PROTECTION TO SAY, NO.
>> THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, THE AMENDMENT THEY PUT OUT THERE ONLY DEALT WITH RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, LIKE THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS SAY, THEY MAY AFTER A HALL THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO USE, BUT THEY AREN'T REQUIRED.
>> BECAUSE THEY ARE CONNECTED.
>> RIGHT.
THEY ARE A RELIGIOUS GROUP.
BUT, STILL, I DON'T SEE HOW SOMEONE COULD, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REFUSE SOMEBODY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RACE, SO THERE COULD BE CHALLENGES TO THIS.
THIS IS WHAT SOME OF THE LAWMAKERS DID BRING UP.
AND I KNOW ONE SENATOR PREDICTED LOTS OF LEGAL CHALLENGES, SO MAYBE IT'S TO BE SEEN.
>> THE K OF C HALL WITH RENT TO MY HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION CLASS AS A PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION AND YOU COULD HAVE A LAWSUIT THERE IF SOMEBODY GOT TURNED DOWN FOR A RECEPTION, YOU KNOW.
T.R. ROSE FROM TRUMBULL IN THE HOUSE SAID IT'S SOMETHING WE WILL HAVE TO REVISIT, PROBABLY.
>> THAT'S TRUE OF ANY LAW.
YOU WRITE A LAW, IT GETS TESTED IN THE COURTS AS TIME GOES ON.
IS THIS THE END OF THE GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE AT THE LEGISLATURE, NOW THAT GAY MARRIAGE HAS BEEN LEGALIZED, PUT INTO LAW, CODIFIED.
>> THE CO-CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE SAID HE THOUGHT THIS WAS IT, BUT THEN YOU LOOK AT T.R. ROW AND OTHER OPPONENTS, THEY THINK WE MAY HAVE TO REVISIT IT AS TIME GOES ON.
>> WHY WOULD YOU REVISIT IT?
>> WELL, WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING ABOUT THESE LEGAL ISSUES AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY MAY HAVE TO TINKER.
>> YES, GOING BACK TO 1991.
>> DO YOU THINK IT'S THE END OF IT, ESSENTIALLY?
HOW MUCH MORE DOES THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO DEBATE THERE?
>> IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE END OF IT, BUT THEY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK.
THERE ARE SO MANY LAWS.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE LAW ABOUT THE CHURCH ORGANIZATION EXISTED THAT DATED BACK TO 1866.
THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT UNTIL A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
>> WE WILL SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.
WE KNOW THIS, THIS IS THE END OF THIS DEBATE BECAUSE OUR TIME IS UP.
WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK "ON THE RECORD."