Healy Hyperbole Over Public Broadcasting Reaches High Point

by John Dankosky – It’s been another bad week for NPR.  A top fundraiser gets caught in an “ambush” video.  The CEO resigns. Jon Stewart mocks the network, and not just for the gaffe that fuels the fire of those who want to de-fund public broadcasting, but for not “fighting back” against those who want to take it down.

The whole episode has left some of the network’s top journalists “appalled,” and many of us at member stations embarrassed – and answering a lot of questions.

But, as much as NPR seems to be doing to mess up on its own, many of those who “pile on” seem to think it’s just fine to make up numbers and facts completely to prove their case.  For instance, here’s a Facebook post by Connecticut Republican Party Chairman Chris Healy:

Really?  First of all, the local NPR station is called WNPR, not CPTV.  CPTV describes a television station, and it’s actually pretty easy to tell the difference.  (Hint: The letters “TV” give it away)

So, what is our subsidy?  According to WNPR and CPTV’s parent company Connecticut Public Broadcasting, Inc., WNPR gets no state operating funding at all.  CPTV gets an average of about $500,000 in bonding money from the state.

That’s pretty far short of $3.3 million, Chris.

But I’ll be charitable.  Perhaps he meant to reference all of our funding, y’know the enormous chunk we get from the federal government and the under-siege Corporation For Public Broadcasting.   Well, turns out that number for CPBI is around $1.9 million, and almost all of that is to support our television operation (which is quite a bit more expensive enterprise than radio).  WNPR itself gets only about $300,000 of that CPB support.

But really, who wants the facts?

By the way, I found the good chairman’s comment embedded in a blog post by our friend and occasionally grumpy NPR lover/hater Rick Green.  Rick is a devoted listener and paid member, and never shies away from speaking his mind about the station he supports.  And that’s what it’s all about.

But I do have some bad news for him.  When he writes: “I can’t stand their constant fundraising” and later writes “I also agree with the bloggers out there who are saying NPR would be better off without government funding” he sets up a little quandry for himself.

If he gets his second wish, I can almost assure you that gripe #1 isn’t gonna get better soon.

I do appreciate that he’s got the checkbook out once again, though.  Mug or totebag, Rick?

Some Candidates “Explore” Carefully, Others…Not So Much

by John Dankosky – In his latest story, The Connecticut Mirror’s Mark Pazniokas “explores” the convoluted concept of political “exploration.”

Mark Pazniokas - photo by Chion Wolf

It’s something we’ve blogged about here before.  Paz explains the reason why Dan Malloy and others have to be so careful about whether they say they’re “running for Governor” or “exploring a run:”

As an explorer, Malloy can legally accept donations of $375, raising money that will keep his campaign going until he qualifies for a Democratic primary. The earliest that can happen is May 22, the day of the nominating convention.

Once he declares as a candidate who intends to seek public financing, Malloy will be limited to $100 donations and must live off a budget of $250,000, which is the amount candidates must raise privately to qualify for public funds.

So, in this pettiest of political seasons, we get a fun new political tactic: Wait for “explorers” to slip up…then pounce!  Pazniokas reports that Chris Healy, the state Republican Party Chairman filed a complaint against Malloy for one of these slip-ups (it was dismissed).  Pazniokas then recalled one exchange on Where We Live with Malloy at the very end of the show, where the “explorer” seemed to make sure of his footing:

Dan Malloy on Where We Live - photo by Chion Wolf

“He is running for governor,” host John Dankosky said to close out the show, then he caught himself. “He is exploring a run for governor. Let’s say it correctly.”

“You can say it any way you want,” Malloy said, laughing. “I have to be careful.”

This reminded me of an earlier conversation…waaaaay earlier, in fact, with Secretary of the State, former Gubernatorial “explorer,” and aspiring candidate for Attorney General, Susan Bysiewicz. On this show from March 19th, 2009, Bysiewicz joined me in studio to talk about – well, about her candidacy – fresh off a Quinnipiac Poll that made it seem tough for anyone to beat incumbent Jodi Rell.

My first question?  ”Why are you running for Governor?”  In her answer, she talks about her three teenagers, and the “brain drain” in Connecticut that’s forcing young people to leave.  She talks about the state’s bad job market, high housing costs and sprawl.  Then, at 1:51 into the program (listen here) she says:

“We need to make Connecticut a place where young people, my daughter, will want to

Susan Bysiewicz - photo by Chion Wolf

come back and raise a family.  And that’s why I’m running for Governor.”

Oops.  Well, nearly one year later, there’s at least one big problem with that statement: She’s not running for Governor anymore.  While I don’t think we need to re-analyze her motivations for dropping that bid while leading in polls, we might want to think about what it means to be in a nearly perpetual state of campaigning that must be couched in ridiculous “butt-covering” jargon.  It’s not like any of these “explorers” are fooling anyone.  It does, however, give them a chance to gauge our collective interest, through free media coverage – until they finally decide, like Ned Lamont, that “now’s the time.”  In Bysiewicz’s case, this lack of official commitment may have left the door wider open for her to ditch one race in favor of another.

About twelve minutes later in that episode of Where We Live (at 17:00 for those listening at home) Bysiewicz took the first opportunity to correct her misstatement, but only after a savvy aide popped into the room with a whisper and a note during a break in the show.  She and I began the segment, listening to the question of a caller, Dan, who asked what she’d do as Governor to help someone like him – a baby boomer stuck without health insurance.  She thanked him for calling, but before giving an answer, she said this:

“I should also take this opportunity to say I have not declared for Governor yet.  I have formed an exploratory committee, and I am getting ready and organized to run for Governor.”

I then jump in, trying to be cute: “We thought maybe you were getting ready to declare today on the program…we were kinda excited.”  Bysiewicz, less amused than I would have liked: “Well, I just wanted to clarify that, John.”

If the person in charge of overseeing state elections doesn’t know when it’s okay to say she’s running for an office, it’s not just a “quirk” in the new public financing system.  Let’s come right out and say it: It’s a pretty dumb rule.

Curry Likes Recall Option; Calls Lieberman Health Care Flip-flop “Deceptive Practice”

Joe Lieberman Makes His Point - photo Chion Wolf

It was 2000, and I was doing a story for NPR’s political desk about Senator and Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.  It seemed everyone in the state was in love with Joe.  A Quinnipiac poll at the time had him at 80% approval among Democrats, and it was almost that high with Republicans and Independents, too.

Well, the decade’s up, and he’s down to about 30% among Democrats, and he’s got some in his former party calling for punishment, or even recall, over his stance on health care reform.   While some have teased Rosa DeLauro for talking about recall while it’s not allowed in Connecticut, it seems like a pretty good idea to others.  That would include Bill Curry, a regular Where We Live guest, two-time Democratic nominee for Governor, and a close advisor to President Bill Clinton.

Curry’s been quoted widely in the press since Lieberman filibustered the health care “public option” to death in the Senate.  He served in the state legislature with Lieberman, has worked to get him re-elected, and back in 2000 did something he kinda wishes he could take back.  ”I regret to say, I wrote a memorandum to Al Gore, arguing for putting Joe Lieberman on the ticket,” Curry told us today on Where We Live. Curry said he was disappointed in Lieberman’s debate performance that campaign against Dick Cheney, and his role in the Supreme Court decision that handed the race to George W. Bush – but, many in the party were still bullish on Joe until 2004.

Bill Curry Makes His - photo Chion Wolf

“I truly believe that 2004 was a turning point,” Curry said.    ”His resentment against liberals generally. His blaming the people whom he felt should have agreed with him.  And, most importantly, his beginning to question sometimes even the patriotism of people who dared to suggest that the war in Iraq might have been a mistake.”

Curry says that after losing the Democratic nomination to Ned Lamont in 2006, he shifted his position on the Iraq war to win more votes – which he did – enough to winthe general election.  He calls that “a form of lying.”  Now, he says it might be a good idea to have a law like California’s that would allow voters to recall an elected official.  Too late for Curry’s sake – he was pushing for a recall of Governor John Rowland – but not too late for Lieberman.  Curry said Lieberman engaged in ”a deceptive practice” by hiding his true position on the war, health care reform, and his support for President Obama.   “If this were a consumer transaction, he coulda gone to jail,”  Curry said.  ”Well there ought to at least be the right to revoke the contract in a Democratic process.”

Lieberman a Republican? "Not an option" yet says Chris Healy - photo Lauren House

Curry says Lieberman’s flip flop on health care may be an attempt to secure a Republican nomination for his Senate re-election campaign in 2012, ”And he knew that the price of admission to that club was in fact to filibuster the very policy that he had  been supporting since he entered politics until the day he announced the filibuster.”

But state Republican Party Chair Chris Healy says that to run as a Republican, Lieberman has to first become a Republican – and he says the Senator is still a mainstream liberal Democrat on most issues.  Healy told us that on “seminal issues” to Republicans, like safety and security and health and welfare, he’s “opposed Democratic party orthodoxy” and “shares a couple of core convictions” with the GOP.  ”But, unless he takes the pledge, and starts caucusing as a Republican, I don’t really see that as an option,” Healy said.