The King's Marquee

Election Day is finally here! Let's get out there an seal the deal for Trump and the American people! And don't forget to support the CTGOP under-ticket!

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Will the Real Brian K. Hill Please Stand Up?

I've toyed on and off with how to write this piece without coming across offensive to Republican Senate Candidate Brian K. Hill, or his energetic supporters. I have to admit that at times I  find Mr. Hill's comments on many issues quite engaging. When Mr. Hill attends a Town Committee Meeting, or addresses a small gathering, he speaks without hesitation on the issues of the day, and fearlessly takes tough questions from the audience, no matter how hostile. I don't agree with everything he says, but at least he has the courage to stand up and speak his mind; it's refreshing considering that so many others spew canned rhetoric prepared by their staffs.

Brian K. Hill's patriotic service to our Country is first rate, no doubt.
But he's too sharp a guy to claim he was "hoodwinked" into voting
for Barack Hussein Obama.  If you believe that, then I have a bridge
in Healyville that I'd like to sell you at a reasonable price.

Also to his credit, Mr. Hill doesn't insult people's intelligence the way that Linda McMahon does when she repeats the same-old boring lies about being a "proven job creator" - fact is that she's made her money from an company, which she inherited, that neither manufactures products, or creates jobs readily available to the non-pro-wrestling public in Connecticut.  (How many WWE wrestling jobs go out on 

And whether she realizes it or not, Linda McMahon's number one selling point about "not being an insider or career politician" is greatly diminished by the fact that she's worked long and hard to buy long-time veteran political insiders, career politicians, and State Central Members to add her list of endorsements. It's hard to be considered an outsider when you surround yourself with insiders. It's ironic that the mainstream media has ignored the trail of McMahon's donations to RTCs to the Endorsements she publishes on her website.  

Only a fool would ignore the obvious connection.

Moreover, her political director,  former Independent Candidate Tom Scott, has spent significant time on the phone whining to everyone who will listen about the Ethics Resolutions currently being considered by CT Republican State Central.  The Resolutions, by the way, have been modified by the appointed Sub-Committee and are scheduled to be placed before State Central for a vote next week (pending their placement on the agenda by Chairman Jerry Labriola, Jr.). And when it comes to the Resolutions, Linda McMahon has talked out of both sides of her mouth.  On the one hand, she's said she would support any changes to the rules that State Central Members would make, but then on the other hand, her surrogates have worked around-the-clock to squash the Ethics Resolutions, or poo-poo them, and have said they will embarrass people over their support for them.  It's believed that they have also gone so far as to coordinate activities between other candidate's campaigns who would be equally embarrassed by exposure of the extent of collusion and pay-offs associated with their campaigns. 

If Linda McMahon were truly interested in fair play, she would support the Resolutions in a direct public statement, regardless of who might be exposed by her generosity.  After the evening of March 13, the CTGOP will be sharply divided into two camps - those who are honest, and care about transparency, and ethics, and those who are corrupt and have been bought, and/or threatened through McMahon's intimidation machine.

Or we can all live peacefully, pass the Resolutions, wear the badges, come what may, and fight for our respective candidates through the Primary.  It's up to Linda (and also Lisa Wilson-Foley - who's Campaign Manager is apparently knee deep in everything these days).

Back to Mr. Hill...

So out of the gate, I'll state the fact... this is not a hit piece on Mr. Hill  In my view there is some unsettled business that, at present, would make me uncomfortable casting a vote for Mr. Hil in a Primary. 

We can start by Brian Hill's admission that he voted for Barack Obama in 2008.  This is a particularly troubling admission to behold.   When I read the Greenwich Time article I was stunned. And many conservatives and moderates wrote me wondering if this was a misprint or another false rumor started by a competing campaign.  If I hadn't heard Mr. Hill confirm it with his own voice, I would have taken it as just more political fodder.

What's more troubling is that Mr. Hill was further quoted as saying that he is a "life-long Republican."  I have to stop here.  There aren't too many life-long Republicans that I know who voted for Barack Obama.  And most of my friends who are serving or who have served were big advocates of Senator John McCain, for if nothing else - their steadfast loyalty to him as a fellow soldier, a heroic POW, and for his unwavering support for the Troops of this Nation, including his support of the Veterans Administration.

Moreover, being a life-long Republican would imply having a full comprehension of the issues - economic, geopolitical, domestic, judicial, and social.  Which position of Barack Obama's other than his anti-war policy did Mr. Hill find so appealing to get him to pull the lever for liberal Barack Obama.  Was Mr. Hill truly hoodwinked, as he claims?  From where The King stands Mr. Obama's hundreds of televised interviews, speeches, and his own political literature, background, and even the friends he kept time with spoke honestly about who he was as a person, his left-wing policies, and his plan to put his socialistic agenda into action. 

Now Mr. Hill did make a compelling argument about his perspective that Senator McCain might expand American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to win the war, but if one were to take the broad notion of expanding the U.S. Military's role into account outside of just the Middle East, you'd have to include all of the other non-military roles (nation building, humanitarian efforts, etc) that our military is engaged in across the world at the direction of Mr. Obama.  I was dismayed at Mr. Hill's use of the images of injured soldiers in medical hospitals as his primary rationale for voting "against McCain".  I thought that the use of these images was a rather shameful, and disingenuous; and it's a weak argument at best.

No one wants to see our fighting men or woman injured, maimed or killed.  But no one wants to see their sacrifices marginalized by a candidate seeking political office either. Let's not forget the real reason that we are engaged in military action in the Middle East and elsewhere - to destroy the terrorists, to wipe-out or contain our enemies who would do us harm, and to proactively ensure that another 9-11 does not occur, and I'll grant you - for other elements of our National Interest.  Of course, there are other geo-political strategies that are too complex to spell out here in this entry.

Mr. Hill knows it was not John McCain or George Bush who put our soldiers in hospital beds; it was Taliban fighters, al-Queda operatives, and others enemies of Democracy.  I can understand that Mr. Hill may not have liked his tour under "Bush W" as he's referred him, but it is what Mr. Hill signed up for, and it's also what helped put him through Law School and to be the man that he is today.  So, while I can recognize Mr. Hill for his outstanding service to our country, I really cannot forgive his vote for Barack Obama - particularly given where this country is today.  Mr. Hill gets no mulligan from The King.

Mr. Hill purports to run against the man, and the very policies which he supported when he cast his vote in 2008.  And just for the record - there is no such thing as voting against someone.  When you walk into a voting booth, you vote for the individual shown, period. Or you obstain. Any other rationale for supporting Barack Obama in 2008 is smoke and mirrors. 

Another concern that has been brought to The King's attention is that witnesses have claimed that Mr. Hill has on two separate occasions (Hartford Lincoln Dinner and Durham RTC) asked audiences to support whoever wins the State Convention.  If this is true, then it implies two things - first, Mr. Hill is not a serious candidate for U.S. Senate because a serious candidate would be planning to collect signatures in order to fight to be placed on the Primary ballot.  If Mr. Hill intends to endorse the winner of the State Convention, then we can be well-assured that he's already written a letter of Endorsement for Linda McMahon, and that a check is in the mail made out in his name. 

Second, the implication would be that Mr. Hill was in the race for the sole purpose of serving as a rouse or distraction to bring down Christopher Shays, or any other Republican who would dare oppose the Establishment's chosen candidate - Linda McMahon.  It's noteworthy that Mr. Hill's public criticism and damaging attacks have been directed at Mr. Shays and NOT Linda McMahon.  And when he does mention Mrs. McMahon he is quite reserved in his comments. Trust me - I read every story that is printed from legitimate news sources.  I'm still trying to find the one article where Mr. Hill takes Linda McMahon to task for anything tangible.  Next time, he speaks to your RTC - squeeze him on McMahon.

Now, I know I've created a bit of a conspiracy theory here. And I will quickly point out that I'm open to the idea that Mr. Hill had a mere slip of tongue (even if twice), and didn't actually mean what he said.  But you'd have to ask him whether he's in it to win it through the end, or if this is just another temporary campaign meant to clutter the field, nab a few delegates to offset the totals, and that he's banking on a big pay day at the end like a large number of other well-known politicos.

I don't expect a response from this.  I never do.  But I'd like Mr. Hill to take one lesson from Senator McCain, whom he seems to have despised enough to support liberal Barack Obama in '08, and that is - take a ride on the Straight-Talk Express.  You'll find when it comes to this issue - it may do you some good.  Because right now, people who considered supporting you are abandoning you like rats off a sinking ship.

Hey, does anyone know if Wayne Winsley voted for Obama in '08?  Just wondering. I bet NOT!



This original blog entry can be found at
Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment. 


Anonymous said...

The Dean-Visconti resolutions will be voted down, no matter now much lipstick they try to put on that pig. Brian Hill is indeed a nice guy who is well spoken but he's not a serious candidate for US Senate. I'm glad you brought up the fact that he's critical of Shays but not McMahon because I never realized that until you mentioned it but now that you've put it out there, you're 100% correct.

The King said...

Anonymous: That's funny. Last week someone actually said to me, "Linda McMahon will never be elected to the Senate, no matter how much lipstick you try to put on that pig." Intrigued by the coincidence.

Anyway, the "Dean-Visconti Resolutions" have fallen by the wayside. The new Resolutions contain many of the same elements but are much expanded. And they are good for the CTGOP's image heavily damaged image as a Party of corruption.

If the CTGOP doesn't pass these resolutions in some form, the media and our opponents will have a field day exposing the fact that we cannot even regulate ourselves or take measures to remove the "pay to play politics" which govern our conventions. Since Linda McMahon likely has a commanding lead in the delegate count (although many haven't been yet chosen) and will likely win the Convention, it doesn't make a shred of sense for her to oppose what would be a win-win situation - supporting ethics, and taking the majority of delegates while doing so.

So there must be some other concern echoing out of their legion of inside supporters that has them worried. Gee, I can't imagine what?

Lastly, not passing these resolutions will be a train wreck for Chairman Jerry Labriola, Jr. who is playing neutral, but would like to see us clean up our house. A convention without these reforms in place would turn his convention into another circus. He remembers all too well, that former Chairman Chris Healy was brought down not only by an exceedingly poor CTGOP performance at the polls, but by the record of Shananigans which occured out of his State Convention. Labriola doesn't want the same thing to happen to him.

Offending a few big money insiders is far preferable than having members of the Tea Party run their own candidate or rally toward an independent candidate or sit at home which would kill the rest of the GOP ticket (where its possible to take a seat) and would have a negative impact on other state races. Again, I can't stress it enough - not passing these resolutions will have a far more detrimental impact on the CTGOP than you can imagine.

My advice for those who don't like it to tell Tom Scott to STFU and hold their noses and support the resolutions. They really are a good thing. Seeing the corrupt among us squirm is worth the effort alone.


The King said...

To the people who have tried to post comments questioning the legitimacy and depth of Brian K. Hill's legal experience (as outlined on his website) - I cannot post your comments despite how interesting they are.

I try to avoid approving posts with that much vulgarity in them. You don't need to use the "c word", "f word" etc, when making your point. You can be just as clever without the colorful metaphors. :)

Notwithstanding, I cannot comment on Mr. Hill's legal career. If he's said he's said he's done all the things listed, then I'll have to take him at his word until someone can provide factual evidence to the contrary. This gets a bit tricky, but it borders on a personal attack, of sorts.

Again, Brian K. Hill is a good person. I just have a hard time reconciling his vote for Obama with his love of conservativism and the Republican Party. And I'm concerned about any potential role he may be playing to aid Linda McMahon take out Chris Shays. Everyone should play their own game. If you've noticed in the Presidential Contest - most candidates attack the person in the lead, and not the guy in second place while leaving the person in the lead alone. Methinks, I'm onto something here, but I hope not for the integrity of the Party.


Anonymous said...

Thank you, King, for bringing out some points that this Hill supporter had not considered.
I was willing to give him a pass on voting for Obama due to his age, as many of our young people were caught up in the HopeyChangey slobbering campaign rhetoric. Also, I wholeheartedly believe that many of us, especially the young who have never been politically engaged prior to '08, did not truely understand how important their votes are or what kind of personal political slot they fit into prior to their awakening. This fact has been presented to me many times in the course of my own discoveries. It continues to this day. With that said, I will be seeing Mr. Hill shortly and I will ask him the questions you suggest.
On the subject of the resolution for the GOP, the powers-that-be better it get it done and get it done fast. There are many true conservatives out here waiting for that day - if it never comes, there will be a reckoning.

Anonymous said...

Vince McMahon won't get involved in her campaign, King. He thinks the whole damn thing is a huge waste of time and money. Everybody in the biz is laughing at her behind hee back.

Anonymous said...

I hope you're not supporting Mitt Romney - for the exact same reasons you're not supporting Linda McMahon:

"And whether she realizes it or not, Linda McMahon's number one selling point about "not being an insider or career politician" is greatly diminished by the fact that she's worked long and hard to buy long-time veteran political insiders, career politicians, and State Central Members to add her list of endorsements. It's hard to be considered an outsider when you surround yourself with insiders. It's ironic that the mainstream media has ignored the trail of McMahon's donations to RTCs to the Endorsements she publishes on her website."

That describes Romney to a T. Just thought I'd point that out as I read through your post, this paragraph jumped out at me as an exact description of Mitt Romney.

The King said...

The key difference is that Mitt Romney is electable whereas Linda McMahon would place a distant second to any candidate the Democrats nominate. As for insider status, three of the four candidates are long-term entrenched politicians. Ron Paul for example has been in Congressional politics since 1976. Newt Gingrich since 1978, Rick Santorum since 1991 (Senate through 2007). Mitt Romney served as Gov of Mass for only four years and has no Congressional resume. Its hard for anyone to characterize Romney as a Washington Establishment Insider - especially considering his opponent's backgrounds.

Anonymous said...

"King" you are right on the money with your assessment of Mitt Romney. I disagree with you on some things but I applaud your stance on Mitt Romney, thank you.

Anonymous said...

Looks like McMahon's morons were here. WWE referee job in their futures since they are excellent at turning a blind eye to blatant and obvious campaign corruption.