Tom Foley Doesn\’t Want To Talk About Guns; Instead Wants To Talk on Conflicts of Interest

by Categorized: 2014 Election, General Assembly, Gov. Dannel Malloy, Gun control, Hartford, Tom Foley Date:

Tom Foley is tired of talking about guns.

The former Republican gubernatorial nominee made it clear Tuesday, after holding a press conference at the state Capitol complex, that he prefers talking about issues like the conflicts of interest by state legislators in their outside employment.

\”If I were governor, the gun bill would have been very different,\’\’ Foley told Capitol Watch. \”This case [in Newtown], the Aurora case, the Gabrielle Giffords case were all mental health cases, and I don\’t think there\’s nearly enough in the bill on mental health issues that lead to violence. There\’s no availability of institutionalization for a lot of mentally ill people, and families have a serious challenge. I have mental illness in my family. It\’s been a real challenge trying to find institutional support for family members who need it.\’\’

He added, \”The second thing – I don\’t think the bill did enough to address gun violence in the cities, where we\’re losing young people if not every day, then every couple of days. So, I was surprised that the legislature and Governor Malloy didn\’t address inner-city crime.\’\’

Saying that many guns that are used in inner-city crimes are stolen, Foley said the bill would not have done enough to stop that problem.

Two newspaper reporters asked Foley questions about the highly detailed gun bill, which took up much of the legislature\’s time and attention for about three months.

When asked by a New Haven reporter if he objects to the expansion of the assault weapons ban that was approved by the legislature on a bipartisan basis and is now law, Foley said, \”Enough on guns. Guns is over.\’\’

When told by the reporter that questions have been raised about his views on the new law, Foley said, \”Who is this? Roy and Nancy who are firing these questions? I don\’t answer questions from Roy and Nancy.\’\’

Foley was referring to longtime Democratic political operative Roy Occhiogrosso and Democratic state party chairwoman Nancy DiNardo, who have asked repeatedly recently if Foley would have signed the gun bill that Malloy signed.

\”Today, we were having a press conference on state ethics and Senate Bill 727,\’\’ Foley said. \”When I\’m governor, it\’ll be my bill [on guns], and I\’ll address it then.\’\’

Reached Tuesday night, Occhiogrosso said he believes the issue will not go away until Foley publicly says whether he would have signed or vetoed the bill. He said the questions were not simply coming only from him.

\”The questions are coming from the people of Connecticut,\’\’ Occhiogrosso told Capitol Watch. \”It\’s one of the most important issues in many years. … Republicans in Hartford took a position on the bill, and then Republicans in Washington, D.C. took a position [on federal gun issues]. It’s a pretty simple question. Would he have signed the bill or not signed the bill? He refuses to say whether he would have signed the bill.’’

He added, “I don’t think it will go away. I think there are parents across the state who have organized around this issue, and I don’t think they will let it go away. … Simple question: if you had been governor and this bill had reached your desk, would you have signed it? Yes or no?’’

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

25 thoughts on “Tom Foley Doesn\’t Want To Talk About Guns; Instead Wants To Talk on Conflicts of Interest

  1. Quinte West

    Mr Foley lost the election to Governor Malloy by some 6,000 votes. Honestly, does anyone think that we are better off as a result of the outcome of that election?

    1. johngaltwhereru

      I’d say if Republicans guarded the back parking lots of Bridgeport polling stations, and make sure no mystery sacks of Malloy votes miraculously appear from poll workers trunks after polls close, there might be a different result.

      Also, Malloy has developed a record. It is a pitiful, failure ridden record with heavy doses of enraging various swaths of the electorate. That may come into play.

    2. Sad Day for Connecticut

      Absolutely not ! I would not be surprised if Malloy takes a job in Washington and doesn’t run for reelection. What would he run on, his record ? He really has been a horrible governor, the state of the state is dismal.

  2. Ken Krayeske

    I want Mr. Foley to talk about war crimes and the privatization of public industries in Iraq when he was with the Coalition Provisional Authority. I want Mr. Foley to talk about what he did was legal under the Hague Convention of 1897. I don’t care that he thinks the Iraq War or guns or over. The quest for justice never ends, and for those whom Mr. Foley harmed while he was George Bush’s stooge in Iraq, we must continue to pursue the truth of how he contributed to an illegal, immoral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation.

    1. Patriot

      Ken: Just curious why you are so silent on these blogs when our governor is pushing his anti-gun agenda down the throats of honest citizens, or even passing a bill that was incomplete and will have the holes filled in AFTER its passage. Nothing wrong there, right?

      I don’t recall hearing from you on the ‘negotiations’ with the public sector unions during which the private-sector taxpayers took another hit in the form of guaranteed jobs for the state union workers.

      I’m sensing a pro-Democrat agenda. Or perhaps a vendetta against Foley which is clouding your objectivity? Say it ain’t so

      1. johngaltwhereru

        Oh no. No. Ken has clearly stated he loathes both parties, and is an Independent.

        That is why you always read Ken blasting the Obama Administration for his use of drones, continuing Bush anti-terror policies and the Patriot Act, his intervention in Lybia, his meddling in Egypt…

        OK. Maybe he hasn’t ever posted anything about any of those things. But I am sure as an anti-war “Independent”, Ken is thinking those things. I’m sure the fact that his posts only ever rail on Republicans is merely an oversight.

        1. Ken Krayeske

          The two party duopoly is the problem. I am sorry if I tend to focus on Foley’s war crimes here. It’s just that there aren’t too many Democrats in Connecticut running for governor who have as much personal responsibility for war crimes as Foley does. Nationally, there is a large swath of Democrats to choose from for prosecution of war crimes, from Bill Clinton’s bombing of civilian infrastructure in Serbia, and using depleted uranium on civilian water supplies there, to Madeline Albright’s justification of genocidal sanctions in Iraq. She thinks thousands of death are worth it, paving the way for a ground invasion and exploitation of Iraq’s oil (by a Republican administration, of which Foley counted himself in that number). The American imperial crusades are bipartisan, shameful and criminal.

          1. johngaltwhereru

            But there was a war criminal running for re-election as President of the United States in 2012. We didn’t hear a word from you on this topic.

            And when Hillary, who is eyebrow deep in American Imperialism runs in 2016, can we expect such a through rebuke? What if she runs against Rand Paul, who deeply opposes American Imperialism?

            It seems players on the National stage should be the focus of your ire, as Foley will have no say on foreign military operations as Governor of Connecticut.

  3. Curious Republican

    It is amazing how the CT press can dog a Republican to answer a question. When they refuse, the story is about the refusal. They then find clowns and hacks like Malloy buddy Ochigrosso to keep the story going. Roy will then call his buddies in the press down the road to bring it up again. At the debates, the left leaning hosts will ask Foley the democrat questions over and over and we will repeat the process.

    My question to the press in general is where was this incredible passion and desire to get an answer when it came to the Hewett ‘snake under my desk’ scandal? This involved the sexual harassment and discrimination of women at the CT Capitol and before any leaders were put on the record, Hewett himself pronounced the story as over and the press dutifully complied.

    Good for Foley! If you answer the question they will use it against you and if you don’t they will use it against you. Best to give them the ‘Hewett’ answer….this is behind us! Most of the public dislikes journalists about as much as they do politicians, so you’re safe.

    1. Quinte West

      Great point–good thing for Rep. Hewett that he didn’t say “I got a big old gun under my desk”– he would have been rebuked as a pro-gun zealot. Oh, wait —wrong political party…

    2. johngaltwhereru

      Curious Republican,

      You are slightly incorrect. You said the Hewett case involved sexual harrassment of women at the State Capitol.

      It was actually sexual harrassment of a teenage girl.

  4. Charlene

    The premise of Roy’s question is artfully posed. “Would you have signed the gun bill?” But the answer Foley gave that seems unacceptable to reporters is “If I had been Governor, the gun bill would have been very different.” Thus, there would never have been the bill in question. That’s probably too complicated for reporters and it plays right into the hands of Malloy and his Iago, Roy O.

    I think Foley’s answer “I would have crafted a different bill” makes sense. Of course Roy wants his boss talking about guns. Anything to distract from his pathetic record of failure, as CT continues to lag behind the entire country as it surges ahead with the highest taxes in the country. Who wants to talk about budgets when you can grandstand on an emotional issue? Malloy is good at one thing: politics — and bad at many things, including governing. That’s generally the case with puppets – you can make them talk – but when they do it’s generally a joke.

  5. Kim

    Roy and Nancy need to embrace their shame around this bill, for themselves and their boss the governor. Trying to drag someone else into sharing their shame is a non-starter. Foley is acting appropriately.

    The guv and his team are clearly desperate to keep the focus on something other than their inability to lead, their overspending, their umbilical tie to the public sector, and the stain of this gun control bill

  6. jschmidt

    The media is already lining up against Foley. They love Malloy just like the love Obama. So how stupid are the voters to re-elect Malloy? Newtown rejected their school budget. So the people have spoken, right Roy?
    Will Malloy have another last minute fly in by Obama,and bags of pre-filled out ballots. We will see?

  7. jschmidt

    I also appears Malloy will gladly give up a few thousand jobs if the gun manufacturers leave the state. He doesn’t care about jobs unless he can buy them for his first 5 program.

  8. mark

    Whatever. Its time to move on. Roy O is posturing for Malloy who’s budget and frivilous spending, tax hikes, and deficits will out weight this issue. Malloy wil have to answer his uncaring attitude towards job losses, specially the gun industry. Roy thinks he can say something and make it true. Not this time!

  9. Palin Smith

    Mr. Foley is delusional if he thinks “guns” is over. He must not be paying attention.

    Monday night in North Haven, 150 irate citizens, mostly gun owners, attended a town hall meeting hosted by Rep, David Yaccarino and Sen. Len Fasano, two Republicans who voted yes.

    If this series of videos is any indication, the gun-grabber debate has just begun. Those who disregard the huge number of of gun owners, Republicans, Democrats and Unaffiliated are at their political peril in 2014.

    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5wsVsNCEygrZs8IbR0J7b_PD8X3nMDM_

    1. jschmidt

      I don’t think Foley was referring to ongoing outrage of gun owners. He was referring to the Democrats using gun control in the election against Foley. The Dems don’t have a leg to stand on since nothing they did will prevent another tragedy. The schools are still protected by gun free zone signs.

  10. Smith&Wesson

    Who keeps dragging Roy out from under the rock he lives under? Nobody cares what Roy thinks!!
    As for the gun issue, let’s get that COLTSVILLE PARK funded. All the pols who danced on the graves of dead children in Newtown seem rather anxious to glorify Sam Colt. And Dan, while Cerebus has put Freedom Group (maker of Bushmaster) up for auction, why don’t you try offering them another million dollars to relocate to some of the empty office space you helped create in Stamford?

Comments are closed.