I Know You Missed Me...

It's good to take a break from things once in a while.  Everyone needs a chance to recharge their batteries, reexamine things, and determine what's next.

I'll be completely honest with you - after the complete shellacking the Republican Party took on Election Night, I wasn't much in the mood to discuss politics, let alone write about the results of the election; and I certainly didn't want to get into a squabble about the direction of the Connecticut Republican Party which seems to predominate the majority of Facebook Pages these days.  My prediction piece from earlier this year turned out mostly accurate with two major exceptions - Mitt Romney didn't win, and neither did Andrew Roraback.

With regard to Romney's loss, I'm still very surprised at the outcome.  It's hard to believe that America rewarded a failed politician who maintained a full-term of near double-digit unemployment, a stagnant economy, ran a inept foreign policy, and who had no plan on how to get us up and running again.  My guess is that the reason Obama won was that things are so bad that people were afraid to give up what they were clinging to in order to survive: aid, support, unemployment checks, and what-have-you. (The perception being that Mitt Romney would have taken all the safety nets away).  In short, for the first time that I can remember, we've become a nation that fears the future which is hardly the mindset for creative thinking, or finding solutions to our deepest problems.  Thirty days post-election, people around me are still in the mindset that if we just close our eyes - eventually our troubles will just go away.

As for the Republican National Committee, well - they certainly have their work cut out for them to regain respectability - at least in this writer's eyes.  Mitt Romney wasn't a terrible candidate, per se.  But the strategy to focus solely on key swing states was a big mistake in my humble opinion, and it had devastating consequences for our election chances beyond just the Presidential Race.  Abandoning loyal Republicans in states like Connecticut sent the wrong message to millions of voters; and in doing so severely damaged the Republican Party's brand nationally.  Mitt Romney was quick to come to Fairfield County and pick up millions in donations, but as a reward for our generosity -  he told our State Chairman to go purchase his own Romney signs and bumper stickers, if they wanted any Romney visibility around the state.  They didn't even bother to fake a presence here; not even so much as a closet space to give the pretend to give the impression that we mattered one iota.  I propose that anyone receiving a GOP donation card aught to scribble the words:  "F*CK YOU! CAMPAIGN HERE NEXT TIME ASSHOLES!" and mail it back to RNC, postage due.

A National Party that abandons it's constituents is not worthy of support.  Sorry. I don't want to hear any excuses that outline strategy and tactics, or hedging bets; you can tell all the overpaid, career campaign hacks that results count more than political theories - and so far our so-called experts have done us in, brilliantly.  You know, it wouldn't have taken that much to make a reasonable effort; and it could have helped the under ticket to some extent.  If Republican Nutmeggers feel abandoned, well - they should.

I don't have to tell you that in Connecticut our issues run much deeper. We have double the trouble. Here we have a crazy Governor, and a Legislature that spends far more than it collects, and has made the private sector the enemy of the State.  And Republicans aren't even on the radar except for the few media-whores who show up up on John Rowland's show to have a knee-slapping good time preaching to the small choir that commutes home from our dwindling Capitol.  Lately, the best part of that show is traffic and weather, for the rest is about as boring and uncreative as ever.

As far as the Connecticut GOP is concerned, things pretty much turned out as expected.  Linda McMahon torpedoed the ticket from top to bottom; her selfish last minute tactic to garnish her appeal by hooking her train to Barack Obama did wonders for poor Andrew Roraback in Connecticut's 5th District.  You'd have to be ignorant not to see how McMahon's strategy polarized the CTGOP in the final weeks of the campaign, leaving many to stay home or skip the Senate line all-together.  Andrew Roraback deserved better, but the rest of the GOP-field pretty much got what it deserved.  Many of our campaigns were manned by novice campaign staff and volunteers.  Serious campaigns require serious experience at the helm; and the State GOP did a huge disservice to many of our first time Congressional Candidates who put their lives on hold to try and make a difference by ignoring their requests for help and direction.

One high ranking CTGOP Official told me: "Every minute I spend in the First, Second or Third District, is a waste of my valuable time."  Boy, that aught to make our future candidate recruitment pool feel confident.

Notwithstanding, McMahon's army of well-paid, experience, career-favor collectors ran both her prospects and ours into the ground. This started with buying convention delegates and RTCs which is old hat by now.  Linda McMahon was and always will be a bad candidate - and GOP insiders decided long-ago that it was more important to cash-in and take from her treasure trove then it was to win the U.S. Senate Seat.  What a lost opportunity.  What a shame!

The saddest part of the whole thing is that there are still CTGOP State Central Members out there defending the choice.  Really?  You have to be kidding, us?  It's hard to look at some of these people with a straight face when they spew such nonsense. It's people like this who make me believe that the disease within our CTGOP Party leadership is both terminal and incurable.  And although there are a few bright spots where new seats may have been captured, they don't offset those that were lost.

So the big argument that's engulfed the CTGOP is whether or not we are too conservative, too liberal, or too idiotic (I happen to think its the third option). I've looked at all the arguments on both sides of the equation and actually took the time to compare it against the election results map.  On one side you have Peter Wolfgang claiming that all the right-wing candidates the FIC endorsed won handily - that's of course, if you discount people like Len Suzio or Bill Wadsworth, and other conservatives who lost.  On the other side of the equation you have the left of center crowd crowing that moderate Republicans picked up seats because of the popularity of social liberalism.  But this argument too is nonsense; where Democrats were involved in 3-way races, or faced a challenger from the independent line more closely aligned with their ideology, they lost. The results also show that this contrived argument that moderate positions are more appealing to Connecticut residents is equally as fallible as those made by my friends on the right.

Do you want to know what wins elections?

It's getting off your ass every-day, taking nothing for granted and knocking on doors, talking to voters, attending important events, distributing signs and palm cards and having a support team in place to help you get your message out.  There is no magic bullet wrapped in some ideological position which makes one more or less attractive to voters (that's just posturing and power-playing by certain political cliques and interest groups vying for control).  It's all about elbow-grease.  If you took your constituents for granted and campaigned half-assed, then you got the result you deserved.  If you went out everyday and worked like it mattered then you likely won.  I admit that demographics play a role in certain locations - I understand that.  And Republicans aren't likely to take Hartford anytime soon, but lighting does strike - if you're willing to put in the time and make it happen.

There's a lot on the horizon.  There is a massive effort underway to determine who the next leader of the CTGOP will be. Our current State Chairman is finally showing a bit of life after a disastrous election, and is now out campaigning for his survivability (which I'm not so convinced he deserves).  So we have our internal wars, listening tours, and feedback sessions - which are largely pointless bitch and gripe sessions - which are least productive in helping us rebuild our Party.  Then you have your early jockeying for the next big thing - the upcoming Governor's Race which at this point seems like it will be made up of the usual suspects which Democrats eager to run against based on CTGOP candidate appeal and perceived electability.

Still our problems persist.  And in the end we'll have to decide whether competency and electability will trump pay-offs and the favor-patronage system.  Honestly, I'm not that hopeful.  But there's always a glimmer of hope that the public will become fed-up enough of the status quo and replace the entrenched, self-serving saboteurs among us with those who will put constituents and the public interest first.

I AM

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com.

Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date.  All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment.  This article does not imply endorsement of any candidate, nor has it been solicited for publication by any political candidate, party, campaign, or PAC.

Unable to Justify Support, Visconti and Others Bail on Linda McMahon

Even The King and the members of his Court must recognize moral courage and conviction when we see it.  Below you'll  find a scathing email which we were requested to publish on October 29th.  Admittedly, we stalled on the request because we wanted to make certain that the author, Joe Visconti, was serious about his decision.  As readers know, The King's View hasn't directly called for Connecticut Republicans to withdraw support for Linda McMahon.  But that doesn't mean that not supporting her on Election Day isn't the right thing to do given how she and her campaign have conducted themselves during this season.

Here is the email in it's entirety:

Linda McMahon Lost My Vote- I'm Joe Visconti and I Approved This Message.

Just this morning I texted Justin Clark and asked him if the Obama Linda ads were still being aired, Justin texted back to me that they were down. Well I was just watching Channel 3 Eyewitness News with Denise and Dennis and almost fell off the damn couch as an “I’m voting for Barack Obama and Linda McMahon” ad came on.

Last Monday I went on the John Rowland show and asked Linda to take the ads down or I would not vote for her. Last Tuesday I went on Fox 61 with Laurie Perez (4, 10 & 11pm News) while keeping it cool to shield Linda and explained that folks cannot vote for Linda if the ads continue and again I asked for the ads to be taken down. Well today I’m not asking anymore, I’m telling Linda, you lost my vote as a Republican.

I will not vote for Linda McMahon and I will “ENCOURAGE” every Republican I know not to vote for her. Leave the line empty or write in the name “Benedict Arnold” it doesn’t matter to me, but do not vote for Linda McMahon or Chris Murphy (For those who think I would ever suggest voting for him).

Why not vote for Linda many will ask? For many reasons and the first one is our CTGOP Headquarters has fielded countless calls of outrage from Party Loyalists because of these ads and the damage is presently irreparable for which I concur.

Our Chairman is under siege for not calling out Linda while many of his foes stoke the fire of revenge fired by envy of his success for which I feel very sad about. Jerry and his staff have been put in a terrible position and I encourage him to demand the ads be pulled for the sake of the Party Faithful who are sick to their stomachs as I write this.

Also to the State Central Members who Justin Clark promised the ads would be pulled down by last Thursday I feel your pain as you have to continue receiving berating calls from those you represent.
Lastly I spent considerable personal time (as a volunteer) with other volunteers I recruited at the Bristol Victory Headquarters calling every Republican Town Committee Chair in the State (169 total) asking for financial support in the name of Chairman Jerry Labriola so that we (the CTGOP) could purchase thousands of Romney/Ryan lawn signs which were in high demand after the debates.
The response from the RTC Chairs was overwhelming and we raised thousands upon thousands of dollars in that effort. And for what, so that Connecticut Republican voters can be proud to display the Romney/Ryan signs on their lawns just to get laughed at by their registered Unaffiliated and Democrat neighbors who saw Linda join forces with Obama?

Never mind the Linda sellout of DOMA or during her ridiculous debates stating that she would not help her Party (The GOP supposedly) to overturn any Women’s Issues (referring to Roe) but now this financial support for an Obama Get out the Vote Effort?

To sit by and watch as Linda systematically and deliberately sells out the CTGOP for the hopes of gaining African American Votes would be unconscionable.

Does anyone with half a damn brain actually believe Connecticut African Americans by any margin will vote Independent and not vote the Democrat line in Connecticut?

Guess what Linda et al, this next week will be a teachable moment for you, and do you know why? Because your actions have caused the Party Loyalists to think, wait a minute, Mitt Romney is so good and can work across Party lines to get things done when he is President that we don’t need to win a US Senate seat, especially at the price of selling out our Party and what we stand for. And you know what? Many are starting to think America may just be better off and just might heal the divisive damage done by Obama if Democrats retain control of the US Senate. That’s right. This idea is now on all of the minds and tongues of the Party Faithful.

In the end Linda McMahon forgot who brought her to the dance and she also forgot that 30,000 Christopher Shays Primary Voters and I will never forget her betrayals come Election Day.

Vote for Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the entire Republican Under ticket except Linda McMahon.

Joe Visconti

The fact is that we're less than a week out from Election Day and most people have already decided how they intend to vote.  Those few who haven't yet decided will likely follow their inclinations based on what they've seen and heard via TV ads, debates, or what's being said around the water cooler.  Since neither Chris Murphy or Linda McMahon distinguished themselves on the issues, or gave the public any valid or overriding reason to disqualify support for their opponent, it's more than likely that Connecticut political demographics won't be upset, and Chris Murphy will wind up the victor.

It's The King's view that where Linda lost the election was not through her corrupt purchase of party delegates, lying about her mortgage/personal history, her phony war against the media to attempt to generate sympathy from independents, or even her betrayal of Mitt Romney in her most recent ad, but she killed her electability because of the totality of her candidacy, and the shallowness of her person - simply unfit for the job.  Her performance in the debates gave Connecticut residents all they needed to know about her lack of knowledge and comprehension of the issues - if you can't make basic ideological arguments by drawing from details after nearly four years of studying and campaigning, then you're just not electable.  How hard would it have been to do the work, and at least prepare for a series of debates and make coherent arguments in a thoughtful and convincing way?  Her performance reeked of laziness which we found more frustrating than anything else. 

And after all her time as CEO of WWE, the only mildly creative spark came last week in the form of an ad depicting multiple, black and white Chris Murphys surrounding a full color version of herself.  But beyond the short-lived giggle even that ad falls short of content. In truth, it's going to take only one Chris Murphy to defeat her on Tuesday. 

Funny, but pointless.

Through social media outlets, Linda's surrogates are doing everything they can to deflect her decision to move not to the middle, but to the left.  Most Republicans realize that Linda must secure the registered 420,000 GOP voters, and a large portion of the 950,000 registered unaffilated voters to win, so the McMahon campaign's intentional decision to abandon its base to reach out to Democrats is a fool's errand.  Democrats aren't going to trade all of something for half of who knows what in Linda McMahon.  Of course, her last minute get out the vote effort for Barack Obama is as amusing as it is offensive.  And now Republicans watching her change positions are embittered, and asking exactly what kind of Republican would Linda be - even if she were elected.  The simple answer is not much of one, I'm afraid.

Perhaps fate will see Linda McMahon losing by a small margin which will be attributed to losing a portion of her base.  Notwithstanding, future Connecticut Republican Candidates should see this whole episode as a Cautionary Tale, or a Teachable Moment, if you will - being independent-minded, selling out your Party, and abandoning basic Republican principles earns you nothing but scorn and defeat.  Despite what they may say, voters elect only confident candidates to go to Washington and unapologetically fight for a set of carefully-articulated and professed principles, not hem and haw, or appear lost in the fog of some vague notion of mediocre compromise, and ambiguity.  

At the end of the day, we can only hope and pray that Linda McMahon's negatives don't drown the entire Republican ticket ... for the rest of our CTGOP Candidates, particularly Andrew Roraback and Steve Obsitnik who after running solid campaigns on the issues - deserve so much better than that.  

I AM

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment. This article does not imply endorsement of the candidate mentioned above, nor has this article been solicited for publication by any political candidate, campaign, or PAC.

CTGOP Counsel Justin Clark Should Resign

As you'll recall, CTGOP Counsel Justin Clark addressed Republican State Central Members in Madison on last Tuesday on behalf of the Linda McMahon Campaign.

During his twenty five minute appearance he committed to two things:

1)  That the Linda McMahon ad known as "Independent" which indirectly endorses Barack Obama and Linda McMahon (and has the Republican base up in arms) would be pulled from the airwaves on Thursday. 

And...

2)  State Central Members would receive written confirmation from the Romney Campaign that Mitt Romney is in support/or gave their blessing of the airing of the political commercial.

Since both the ad continues to run on television non-stop, and no one on State Central has received any written communication from the State Party or the Romney Campaign or from anyone else indicating that the Romney camp supports the Obama-McMahon Ad then we can only draw the conclusion that Justin Clark was sent to try and placate State Central members who are being left holding the bag with angry constituents.

Since such clear and intentional betrayal cannot go ignored, we call on Justin Clark to resign from his post as CTGOP Counsel.  We also call on CTGOP Officers and State Central Members to support his removal.

We remind everyone that the McMahon Ad has had a detrimental effect on both the Romney Campaign in Connecticut, and Congressional Campaigns all across the State.  It is a disgrace that both the ad continues to run, and no one from the Connecticut Republican Party has had the moral courage to challenge the McMahon Campaign in public, and demand removal of the Commercial.  Democrats are laughing at our CTGOP leaders lack of courage and fortitude, and the Connecticut Republican base feels entirely abandoned. 

I AM,

THE KING 

The Plot Thickens

Just a short update today on the Linda McMahon-Obama ad scandal. 

Connecticut Republican State Central Members gathered in Madison Connecticut last evening for their quasi-monthly State Central Committee Meeting.  Given the state of emergency sparked by the new Linda McMahon ad (a cross-endorsement of Linda McMahon and Barack Obama), Team Linda dispatched every one's favorite errand-boy, Justin Clark, to the scene to quell the screams of the angry hordes. 

You can always count on Justin Clark to
 be on the side of the bad guys

For twenty-five or so minutes, the embattled Clark attempted to explain away the the ad as nothing more than a good political strategy to attract independent voters.  Clark claimed that Mitt Romney is too far behind in Connecticut to win the State, and that Linda is specifically using the Obama cross-endorsement strategy to attract [urban] voters.  The crowd, incensed by his nonchalant attitude, met Clark's sales pitch with angry boos, and groans.

As the minutes wore on, the scene turned ugly.  Two rival groups emerged in the room bantering back and forth; on one side you had those loyal to the Republican Party and it's Presidential Nominee, these whom we shall refer to as The Friends of Mitt, and on the other side - you have those who are (and always have been) in blind allegiance to Linda McMahon; we will refer to these people as Linda's Paid Minions. 

In the front of the room sat Chairman Jerry Labriola, Jr. who in typical fashion, sat wide-eyed, mouth-agape, observing the comedy with nothing to say.  He allowed Clark to ramble on incoherently as the crowd assailed him, and each other.  At a time when the Republican Party faithful is looking for answers and direction from it's State Chairman, Labriola seems aloof at the helm, preferring to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the whole nauseating affair.  "This too shall pass" - yeah, like a kidney stone.

Then Clark said something which surprised even some of the most veteran Republicans in the room. He said that Mitt Romney was not only aware of Linda's strategy, but endorsed the ad for airing.  One state central member asked for some form of written confirmation from the Romney Campaign as evidence that Romney supports McMahon's ad strategy, and in response - Justin Clark told the crowd that they would have an email in their in-box by the next day (update: no such email has arrived as of this writing). 

And if such a communication does arrive, let's hope that Chairman Labriola will live by the doctrine of transparency which he has so publicly advocated for in the past, and make it available to all Connecticut Republicans across the Nutmeg State.  (After all, State Central is not a secret society, but a representative body of all Connecticut Republicans).

When upset State Central members demanded that the ads be pulled, Clark dismissed the requests and said that the ads would continue through Thursday. He also mentioned that robo-calls would then begin which will include Mitt Romney voicing support for Linda McMahon. Whether or not Clark was making things up on the fly to quiet the angry crowd is uncertain, but whatever the case may be, the night was ruined - and any sense of Republican unity that had been fostered in the late summer has certainly abated.

As an aside, staunch McMahon follower, and RNC Connecticut Committee Chairwoman Patricia Longo has posted the following comment on her Facebook page: "Have it from  the highest sources that McMahon ad everyone is complaining about was ok'd by SRCC, Mitch McConnell, and the Romney Campaign."

If such a claim turned out to be true, Connecticut Republicans who've purchased Romney signs, bumper stickers, made phone calls, or attended, or hosted fundraisers, or even donated their hard-earned cash would certainly have a right to feel betrayed by both the Republican National Committee, and the Republican Party.  And sadly this could lead to a large scale defection not just on November 6th, but well beyond this year's election. 

The King's advice to Chairman Labriola, the Romney Campaign, Mitch McConnell, and the RNC is to set the record straight, set Linda McMahon straight, and give Connecticut Republicans a respectable brand they can be proud of.

I AM

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment. This article does not imply endorsement of the candidate mentioned above, nor has this article been solicited for publication by any political candidate, campaign, or PAC.

Linda McMahon's Connecticut Cluster?

Duke of Marlborough

There is a new development regarding the latest Linda McMahon ad "Independent" which I wrote about a day ago here.  Since what I'm about to impart is likely to add fuel to an already raging political fire - and cause additional inter-party stir, I would suggest readers proceed with caution before embarking on a witch-hunt of sorts for our court informant.  As with previous referenced material, I've agreed to protect this person's identity as a courtesy.  I can only offer that the information comes from the quaint town of Marlborough.

And before proceeding, this is a perfect opportunity to remind readers that this little crisis is not one of any particular group or individual Republican activist's making, The Tea Party's making, The King's making, or even Chairman Jerry Labriola's making (fact be told the McMahon camp has refused to acknowledge Labriola's existence since he tried to run an impartial State Convention earlier this year), but rather this nightmare is both owned and perpetrated by Linda McMahon and her desperate Campaign Team which unleashed a video that targets demographically-specific Obama supporters on her behalf while throwing Mitt Romney under the bus.

The King's View received an email which was distributed, and re-distributed widely to constituents - all over the state -  and even to a few select individuals in the media.  The pathetic action underscores the incredibly self-serving nature of the McMahon Campaign.  Moreover, it implies a possibly illegal cross-coordination of federal campaign activity which doesn't make a shred of sense because it assumes there would be no loses in her dwindling base support as a trade off for assumed independent voter gains. 

Here is the communication, as written (with errors), sans author's name:

Subject: Linda Mcmahon's Ad Courting Independent Voters

Hello all,

I have received several calls about Linda's latest ad regarding her spot on the Independent line and that she can "work with President Obama". I called the McMahon campaign headquarters and spoke to them about this. The response I got was that it was a stratigic move, coordinated with the Romney campaign, to court the urban vote. They claimed that the Romney campaign has written off Connecticut, which is probably true, and that this is an effort to pick up some urban voters who would be voting for Obama and may add Linda to their ballot with her being on the same independent line.

I can understand the strategy, but I will admit that this approach sticks in my craw! If you want to convey your thoughts to Linda's campaign headquarters please feel free to call her office in North Haven. 

McMahon Campaign Headquarters
556 Washington Ave.
North Haven, CT 06473
P: 203-691-8592

Again, is it a smart move? Maybe politically....but it is one that may turn off a number of Republican voters. Hopefully it will not turn off Republicans enough to vote for Chris Murphy, but perhaps enough to leave that column blank out of principle.

(End Communication)

Analysis:

First, it's The King's view is that it's highly unlikely that the Romney camp would ever agree to any strategy that would expose weakness of their candidate via any medium, let alone give approval for the distribution of a televised cross-endorsement of their opponent for the sake of electing a Senate candidate (particularly, the one in question). Second, and more important, it would be a violation of Federal Election Law to coordinate communication between two federal candidates unless specifically identified, and this includes the filing of required legal paperwork, and inclusion of appropriate disclaimers. The risk on both fronts wouldn't be worth the exposure.  It's more apt to be another fairy-tale from the McMahon Campaign. Or another expendable McMahon Staffer simply overreaching their perceived accountability (we all remember at least one loud Communication Director who became drunk and obnoxious in Hartford, and was subsequently removed weeks later).

It's widely understood that the Romney Campaign has been contacted regarding both the McMahon Television Ad and the email distributed above.   At this point, the Romney campaign is still working to determine an appropriate response to what has been referred to by some Washington Republican insiders as  "The Connecticut Cluster---k".  Oh, how charming! Thanks, Linda!

As to the author's reference to a "craw" and what that is... well, I don't know.  But to the question as to whether this is a smart move?  If the anger and outrage of the Connecticut Republican base is any indication, you would have to agree that so far, the McMahon-Obama strategy is a flop.  It's The King's only hope that Linda hasn't upset the party faithful to the point where other Federal and State Republican candidates suffer on Election Day because of her selfish motives.  

Developing...

I AM

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment. This article does not imply endorsement of the candidate mentioned above, nor has this article been solicited for publication by any political candidate, campaign, or PAC.

Linda McMahon: Unforgiveable

My friends, for the past four years under the policies of President Barack Obama, the United States has seen one of the worst economic periods in our nation's history:  skyrocketing unemployment as high as 8.9%, trillion dollar deficits, climbing gas and fuel prices, rising health care premiums (thanks to Obamacare), and businesses closing their doors in every city and town across this great land.  It's been painful to watch friends and neighbors suffer under this inept administration - particularly in Connecticut where the crisis is compounded by a Governor and Legislature hell-bent on driving businesses out of state.

Back in November 2008, we at The King's View understood the excitement and euphoria of a historical moment come true.  The rhetoric of hope, and allure of promise was more than enough to convince even some of our closest friends that a new day was upon us.  Knowing that Obama's ideology was nothing but a pipe-dream, Republicans accepted this loss as a unique, hopefully unrepeatable moment in history.  We shook our heads, folded our tents, but recognized the obvious sociological impact of the election which at the time outweighed sound reason, and substantive facts. 

As the dark clouds gathered our economy went from bad to worse, but there were high hopes that Connecticut's Old Yankee Spirit might be awakened by the steadily soured course upon which we were treading.  Early signs showed a re-energized Connecticut Republican Party which - although out of practice - might produce a slate of charismatic candidates who Party minions could work earnestly for and help catapult over the wall to victory. 

During the primary season, many Republican activists like Joe Visconti, et al fought long and hard to level the playing field, and elect their candidates of choice; the manner in which some candidates won was highly suspect (which as you know, has been long documented in this blog).  Notwithstanding, some of our picks won handily, while others went down in a fiery defeat. But let the record show that when all was said and done, in the races where our preferred candidates lost, we grumbled a bit, but quickly swallowed our pride and came together under the banner of a unified Republican Party - more than willing to compromise our personal convictions for the greater good of Party and Country.    

But there comes a point when you can be pushed too far.  It's the point when a candidate does or says something that is so incredibly contrary to the core of your political belief system that you can no longer support or stand with them. 

Before I go further,  please view this Campaign Ad by Linda McMahon which was televised during the New York Jets vs New England Patriots Football Game on Sunday entitled "Independent".  This ad is still airing and is paid for by Linda McMahon:

Independent or Insane?  Have you ever seen a Senate candidate throw

a Presidential Candidate from their own Party under the bus?

 

 

If you're like me, you aught to feel pretty gutted about now.  In the first place, certainly, no one in The King's circle signed-on to trade our real deal Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney for a lackluster, imitation Senate Republican candidate like Linda McMahon.  And second, and for God sakes, Barack Obama is more ideologically in opposition to Mitt Romney and the Republican platform than anyone else in our party's history.  If Linda McMahon is willing to hitch her cart to a President who has lost 23 million jobs, quadrupled the deficit, and raised the misery index to an unprecedented level - can you imagine how she would vote if she were ever elected?  She'd make Olympia Snowe look like a Snow White.

And you have to wonder how former First District Congressional Candidate Ann Brickley, seen in the last frame laughing and smiling in the background, feels about being used in the closing moments of the ad as a tool to help Linda McMahon throw Mitt Romney under the Bus? It begs the question as to whether or not Ms. Brickley gave permission to be used in an ad as contentiously divisive as this?  Certainly her father, John Miller, a well-respected and admired, former RNC delegate must be scratching his head at the notion of seeing his legacy tarnished by this blasphemy.

You also have to wonder if the popular Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who is expending his political capital and reputation to campaign for Linda McMahon is aware of this act of extreme treachery?  After all, as the RNC Convention keynote speaker, chosen by Mitt Romney, Governor Christie has been stumping all over the country.

There should be no mistake about what we're seeing because it's what we've already known to be true.  Slowly but steadily, Linda McMahon has moved from a pretended centrist moderate to a pretentious liberal over the past few months. Linda McMahon's operatives with a wink and a nod, politely begged conservatives to ignore her political rhetoric on homosexual marriage (DOMA), on Reproductive Rights, and even changing her position on Obamacare from Repeal to Repeal and Replace.  Even Peter Wolfgang had to scrambled to diffuse his outraged donors - not once, but twice. And moreover, Linda has hurt our GOP brand to the extent where other statewide Republican candidates will suffer because she's elevated the Independent Party by seeking placement on their line which in turn has caused additional independent candidates to gain stature. 

For now, one can argue rather strongly that Linda McMahon has been the Connecticut Democratic Party's most productive weapon.  After all, she deserves credit for single-handily taking out Nancy Johnson (via funding Rahn Emmanuel and DCCC), Rob Simmons, Chris Shays, and indirectly killing Tom Foley's gubernatorial race, and sinking our Congressional ticket in 2010, and now -  she's teaming with Barack Obama in her ad to to guarantee that Mitt Romney loses in Connecticut.  Where are the Boughtons? Markelys? Labriolas? Caferos? McKinneys? and Foleys, now?  

So now you ask, King, what are we to do? 

There is no lesser of two evils in this race.  Linda's quest to sell herself as an independent by damaging the Republican brand is clearly over the top.  And the emails I've received from readers have reached a red fervor pitch.  Yet, Chris Murphy is for raising payroll taxes on the middle class to continue social security, and is in lockstep with President Obama on pursuing class warfare, Socialized Healthcare, and pushing the rest of the Democrat Party's counter-productive agenda.  

While loyal Republicans like Joe Visconti have pulled their endorsement of Linda McMahon, The King does not feel comfortable telling Republicans to support either Linda McMahon or Chris Murphy, or any other U.S. Senatorial candidate.  Both candidates are equal, and neither is worse than the other.  And at this point, you can say that at least Chris Murphy isn't running any cross-endorsement ads featuring himself with Barack Obama. 

My friends, when it comes to casting your vote in this particular race, I'm afraid you're on your own.  After this week, no Republican hack would dare hold your decision against you.   

Part of me says that losing the U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut wouldn't be the most detrimental (or unexpected) outcome in this election.  It's far more important that we elect Mitt Romney to the White House to serve as our Chief Executive in order to restore a sound economy, and a credible foreign policy.  If it's Linda McMahon's decision to abandon the platform then I suppose that's one thing, but to abandon our Presidential nominee for her own self-serving interests is quite another.  And that is something, if true, is unforgivable.  Remember, Mitt has a track record of working across party lines to get things done, and we expect that after this election, it will be no different.

As an aside: we think there may be a Federal Election Commission rule that requires that if you mention another federal candidate in your ad that you must insert a disclaimer that there is no coordination with any candidate or candidate committee, etc.  The media can check this fact for federal election compliance. 

I AM

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com/

Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment. This article does not imply endorsement of the candidate mentioned above, nor has this article been solicited for publication by any political candidate, campaign, or PAC.

Clear and Articulate Reason to Support Chris Shays; Convention Shenanigans

If you haven't already watched this video, please take a few minutes to listen to Peter Schiff make the single best case so far for supporting Christopher Shays at the upcoming Republican State Convention scheduled for later this month, and the Connecticut Republican Primary scheduled for August:

Most people out in the political peanut gallery are aware of what's at stake - it's not just a simple six year term that we're fighting for, but rather a lock of 24 to 36 years of Connecticut Senate Seat occupation should Chris Murphy see election to the U.S. Senate in November.  

The Politicos working for Linda McMahon hate to hear the Electability argument.  Every time that word in mentioned they shutter because deep down they know that everyone knows that Linda is so unpopular a candidate statewide that she can't possibly win.  Many RTCs and delegates who haven already taken payments and promises for favors in trade for support will tell you off the record that they feel trapped in their commitment.  Many are fearful about reneging on their obligation to Linda because of the threat of exposure of their own part in the pay-to-play scandal; and these folks are bright - they even admit that Linda's nomination would mean cascading doom for the entire Connecticut Republican ticket in 2012 (and even hurt Mitt Romney's chance of winning the State).  You see, it's so much easier to close your eyes, look away, and hope it all passes quickly -  instead of standing up and doing the right thing.

You'll notice that when you pose the electability question to those who've endorsed Linda, they very quickly launch into a drama-filled tirade, or try to change the subject and try to poke holes in Christopher Shays' 30 years in Government Service.  Very rarely will they offer you an issue-based counter-argument for supporting Linda over Chris Shays.  The reason for this is that many of them do not even know where Linda stands on basic issues; she's made sport out of masking her positions, and deflecting questions when posed to her. 

State Convention Shenanigans

It's pretty clear that things are not all peachy-keen in McMahon-land.  The more delegates think about it, the more willing they are to recognize the hazard of following their RTC leadership's fatal course in rubber-stamping Linda McMahon as the CTGOP's nominee.  In fact, its clearly come to the point where delegates are calling CTGOP headquarters and sending in emails about how some delegates are being intimidated within their own RTCs by McMahon's political henchmen.

For example, The King received a scanned document on Connecticut Republican Party letterhead which was sent to all state delegates as a part of their State Convention package that reads:

To:  Chairman Jerry Labriola, Jr.
From: Robert H. Lutts, State Republican Party Administrator
Date: May 1, 2012
Re: Delegate Block Voting

Many questions have been asked regarding RTC delegate block voting.  I want to take this opportunity to address this issue.

Once delegates have been certified to the Town Clerk, the Republican Town Committee has no authority to direct a delegate's vote a the convention.  In other words, no delegate can be found or obligated to vote for any candidate pursuant to a RTC endorsement or otherwise, and said delegate shall be free to vote for the candidate of his or her choice.

Delegates also have the exclusive authority to chose their own alternative.

It's pretty clear to anyone who can read between the lines that there is a pretty big war going on inside the CTGOP regarding how this entire Convention is going to be conducted.  Block voting would have allowed RTC Chairman to undermine their own delegate's individual support for the candidate of their choice.  Can you imagine?  The very concept of trying to override a delegates personal choice goes against the very nature of our adhered to democratic principles! 

The King has also learned that the McMahon Campaign took issue with how roll-call votes are going to be recorded on the Convention Floor.  McMahon's team argued against recording individual delegate's first and last names, and for whom they were supporting during Convention voting.  Gee, you'd think you'd be loud and proud to stand up and scream your name and who you support for all too hear as a bold statement of conviction! No?  Well, perhaps if you have something to hide - like being on the take, or embroiled in some dirty scandal - then in that instance I guess you might want to keep your name and vote out of the limelight - if even for an instant.  (And don't bother denying it Corry, it's a damn shame!)

The bottom line is that since delegates are ELECTED OFFICIALS they should have some obligation to have their vote attached to their name as a matter of process transparency.

It's beginning to feel like 2010 all over again.

Big Story Coming Soon

Alas, there is still hope for the CTGOP Party faithful.  While Tom Scott and Linda's surrogates burn up the phone lines to keep antsy delegates from jumping from her sinking ship, The King is aware of a very big story about Linda McMahon that is finally close to breaking in the Connecticut Press.  It's believed that once published, it will reshape the political landscape and provide cover for delegates looking for legitimate cover to abandon Linda's suicide campaign run. Once exposed, several Party big whigs will also announce support for Chris Shays, too.  And we may seen a new alignment which may include some individuals previously tied to Linda.

Speaking of Tom Scott, rumor has it that he may have found an out in all of this silliness - post-State Convention, of course.  Scott is rumored to be considering another run for  State Senate.  Whether his association with Linda will be hurtful or helpful is still a big question, but with a few favors owed by his close friends - Suzio, Markley and others, he should be able to make a good run since he can count on their support.

Much more to come folks... stay tuned.

I AM

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com

Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment. This article does not imply endorsement of the candidate mentioned above, nor has this article been solicited for publication by any political candidate, campaign, or PAC.

Thoughts on CTGOP Senate Debate 2

I realize this piece is less than timely, but I thought I’d put something out at least for posterity’s sake, and if not for any other reason – for the fun of it.

General Thoughts on Debate Number 2

To begin with, I have to be honest that I’m not a big fan of the format used by WFSB-TV Channel 3 to host this second Senate debate. The 30 second sound-byte question and answer format might make for good television, but it’s hardly useful for those of us sitting at home trying to really learn a thing or two about the candidates in order to make an informed decision about who to vote for. If WFSB were serious about providing a public service – they would’ve hosted a 90 minute or 2-hour debate and allowed the candidates more time to explain their positions more thoroughly, and permitted follow-up questions by journalists that were of interest to viewers.

Most of us are less concerned about who the candidates think is their favorite Senator from Connecticut history, what the candidates think the price of milk is, when they last pumped gas, or what kind of car they drive. Anyone making decisions on who they’ll support based on frivolous questions like these should be banned from voting altogether.  That part of the show was full of play it safe or unoriginal answers anyway - once you hear the best answer, all you have to do is repeat it - it wasn't a surprise that 3 out of 5 Republicans chose Prescott Bush as favorite Senator with the annual Prescott Bush Dinner being held less than a day and half away! Duh!  Questions like those wasted both the candidates’ time, and viewers’ time. At least the two guest journalists weren’t left to embarrass themselves by being asked to pose such foolish questions.

For the most part, The Wall Street Journal’s Shelley Banjo, and the Connecticut Mirror’s Mark Pazniokas did a good job trying to squeeze the candidates for details, but moderator Dennis House seemed to push along the debate too quickly almost before the candidates could do any damage to each other, or to themselves. Don't get me wrong - the questions were good, but lacked the pointedness which led to fireworks that sparked in the debate moderated by Ray Hackett last week - so to that end, I was a little disappointed.  Ray Hackett set a high standard in the first Senate Debate and the Face the State version fell well below that mark.

I like Dennis House, but rarely if ever does he really challenge people with tough questions.  If you can't make it through a Face The State interview, you aught to quit politics.  It doesn't get any easier than FTS. It's like watching guests play an easy game of badminton with Dennis each Sunday.  Occasionally, he does have Bad-Ass Brian Lockhart on to ask a tough question or two, but Dennis always seems to pull on his leash so as not to allow for any of his guest to have a serious mental breakdown.  But I guess it works for WFSB, and no-one will ever accuse House of being a gotcha-journalist.  I still propose Shoot Out with Brian Lockhart as a viable option on a competing network: cowboy hats, six guns, and all - it would be a real hit! Think of the possibilities of seeing your favorite Connecticut politicians limping off the stage each week, figuratively bleeding and wounded at the hands of Sheriff Lockhart.  Oh man! We can still dream can't we?

Overall Performance Ranking

Last time out, I thought that Brian K. Hill led the pack with his stellar performance - original and refreshing, followed by Linda McMahon, Chris Shays, and then Peter Lumaj and Kie Westby pulling up the rear. This time around my rankings are close but somewhat different.  

One of the reasons for the delay in this piece is that I wanted to go back and re-watch the debate to make sure that my initial reaction wasn't off base - and I believe my gut feeling (reported out on Twitter) was supported by a closer review of the hour long exchange.  I’d say for the most part all the Republican candidates did very well presenting their positions and representing the GOP as best they could getting their points across under such limited conditions.  Chris Shays did extremely well and came out on top because he seemed more relaxed and truer to his usual form.  Linda McMahon was the opposite, she came across very stale, and at times looked very foolish trying to trip up Chris Shays on trivial matters that he easily dismissed as in accurate or misleading.  More so this time, Linda seemed to really lack tangible facts beyond her early unloading of memorized statistics.  This is where her overconfidence hurt really hurt her - a mistake she's made for three years now.

Brian K. Hill was once again quite good.  The reason that Chris Shays shined better this time around is simply based upon Shays' detailed references to his past-experience in Congress, and overall depth of knowledge.  Hill's outsider approach works well for him, particularly last time when he played referee between Shays and McMahon (while the others just stood there like mannequins).  This time, he didn't get that same opportunity, but sold his R-R-R plan as a believable strategy for the public to absorb.

Peter Lumaj is a bright guy, but his overall presentation and style is abrupt, rude, and confrontational.  Anyone watching Lumaj doesn't even want him as a neighbor never mind seeing him represent them in the Senate, or anywhere else.  Imagine what it would be like sharing an adjoining property with Lumaj and having a dispute about where the property boundary really lies.  Some people have a knack for being bright, but also have the ability to darken a room the minute they enter it - Lumaj is exactly that.  You just don't want to see him coming.

Kie Westby is a nice and knowledgeable guy, but he just doesn't have an ounce of charisma.  He's a lot like a going into a Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Shop, and ordering plain vanilla.  He's not wrong about what he says, it's just he's very dry and uncanny.  He reminds me of the guy who wants to talk about work when you go out for a drink after a long day's labor. After about twenty minutes you just want to slit your throat and jump out of the barroom window.  At this point, he's not really separating himself from the pack, and he's not even mildly amusing like annoying Lumaj.  He's a policy-wank who would be better off in the State Senate or elsewhere.  Again, Kie is a great guy, but this Senate deal is just not his gig.

Individuals Performance (Best to Worst)

Chris Shays



I'm back! Was there ever a doubt?

 Congressman Christopher Shays acquitted himself much better than he did during last week’s debate where he looked sort of off-balance, and disorganized.  I actually wondered if we were watching Shays' stunt double up on the stage in Norwich. His opening statement “My name is Christopher Shays, and I’m running for U.S. Senate because I want my Country back.” The comment was as direct an opening you can get, abandoning all the cutsie window dressing heard from others. He came across strong on issues, and looked the part of a statesman, and once he took command, her never looked back.

I was glad to see Chris Shays raise the electability question early during the debate since it’s  the only question that REALLY matters. It’s important to point out the objections that  many Republicans have to allowing Mrs. McMahon to repeat history and take another trouncing on Election Day. Pushing her through to November is what every Democrat is hoping for given her resoundingly high negatives with the public.  And today's debate performance sort of underscored the many reasons why people don't want to see Linda as their nominee in the Fall.

The winning strategy for Shays is the benefit of his Congressional experience: in-depth grasp of the issues, co-sponsoring legislation, being a key sponsor of the Contract with America, and underscoring the many areas in which he was part of the solution.  Those calling him part of the problem haven't spent a minute researching his background.  When it comes to spending at the Federal level, aside from cloture votes, Mr. Shays was pretty thrifty with our tax dollars.  This is a point that he and his surrogates can do a better job reminding folks of.

I do love Shays’ statement: “Linda McMahon isn’t a fiscal conservative because she wouldn’t spend $50 million dollars so recklessly, and she’s not a social conservative because she wouldn’t run the business she’s in. You really have to question what kind of Republican would donate thousands of dollars in ’06 to elect Nancy Pelosi Speaker [of the House], and then give thousands of dollars to keep her in as Speaker [of the House] in ’08. I’m not sure that’s the kind of Republican people want to send to Washington.”

Bravo. And by the way – Linda McMahon has never provided Connecticut Republicans for a rationale for her donations to Democrats over the years, but it seems pretty shady to simply ignore the fact when it’s raised. I like Shays’ comment about removing ObamaCare (not repairing it as others have suggested). Shays said, “And by the way, Obamacare won't get repealed if you don’t elect [someone] who can get elected.”

Shays was quite strong on domestic policy issues such as health care, reducing taxes on businesses, and tax reduction across the board, bringing back American manufacturing, and eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, dealing with Medicare, and Medicaid issues, etc.  When you look a Shays speaking on these issues, you cleary see that he's qualified to talk about them -  you simply don't get the same feeling when you listen to the other four candidates.  This is where experience counts over wishful thinking and funny cliches.

Shays would also deal with the matter of who are here illegally by having them carry a Blue Card. That seems to be a way in which they could work, but not vote, and certainly not be deported. I think I’d have to hear more about how this Blue Card would work before I would buy into this strange idea. Seems like lots of details would need to be worked out before the Government starts printing out Blue Bards to illegal aliens.

"The most important thing that we can do is focus on economic growth and provide opportunities for more American, and that’s called the American Dream"… reducing taxes. Home run!

Brian K. Hill

Sharp as a tack, Hill brings value
and common sense to the race

Once again Brian Hill’s performance was well above average. His masterful command of the issues and straight-forward answers makes him a breath of fresh air in-between a group of very predictable individuals. Hill used many of the same themes which he invoked during Debate One which made him both appealing and interesting. It might because he reused many of the same lines from last week so he didn't come off as fresh and original as he did the first time around. But it was still a great performance.

Hill’s statement that “We need new leadership in Washington” is an age-old theme usually spoken by politicians who’ve been around the block but just in a lesser role (this includes Linda McMahon whose 'newness' has long worn off). But the fact that it’s coming from someone who actually is new to the scene gives him some credibility on the matter.

As he mentioned last time out, Hill said, “We don’t need any more career politicians, and we don’t need any more self-funded candidates. Those are the type of people who are destroying this country.” Even though it makes for a great theatrical sound-byte, this is sort of a double-edged sword for Brian K. Hill who has the least amount of experience of anyone running on the GOP side. Having experience is valuable – whether it’s consistently practicing law for many years, or serving in Congress for 34 years – and to be frank - not everyone in Congress who’s been up there for many years has been a disaster. It really boils down to who they are,  or what their voting record shows - that truly matters.  The counter-argument to going with a novice might be the pitiful results of the last three years of the Obama Presidency - since his lack of experience has been a disaster of sorts.

A point that Brian Hill continues to make is the need for the CTGOP to expand its base, and by that he means – expanding gains by attracting minority voters; changing the hearts and minds of those folks who reside in our cities to whom Republicans do not appeal. The problem here is that this idea looks great on paper, but fact is that its not an easy nut to crack, and no-one including Brian Hill has a plan for making this happen (aside from him becoming the nominee and assuming that he'd siphon off a few votes with his minority presence). You'll remember that this tactic didn't exactly pay dividends for another popular African-American politician - Corey Brinson.  Although Corey is loved and admired, at the end of the day his minority status didn't exactly win him the election in Hartford. Corey Brinson was rejected by inner-city residents on the basis of his Republican principles, and their lack of appeal to Hartford residents.

I’m not sure that Brian’s attack on politicians residing in lower Fairfield County will win him a lot of support in the Southwest, but you have to admit his quip that “...nominating Linda or Chris is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It doesn’t matter what order you put them in the ship is going down. We need a candidate like myself who can navigate around that iceberg – Obama.”  is entertaining.  You've got to love his spunk and delivery.  But again, would being a new face help Connecticut in the Senate Chamber?  I'm not so sure.

But I should say this - of all the candidates, Hill’s R-R-R (Reduce, Reform, and Restructure) explained in simple terms as - Reduce spending, Reform entitlement programs, and Restructure the tax code to a flat tax. It seems pretty simple, and it is probably the most memorable and understandable plan of any of the five GOP candidates.

Brian K. Hill was also strong on the immigration issue. He said he would support a liberal guest worker program. Making the statement that he's wants accountability of people who are here, and to find a way to tax them for the services they are using. I agree with both of these ideas. He seemed to endorse Chris Shays’ Blue Card idea which is as he said a “fair compromise” to consider.

Hill also supports the Gold Standard. Which is a topic that always seems to come up now and then, but never seems to gain any real traction.

Again, great job.  It's The King's View that he's earned a spot on the ballot.

Linda McMahon

It's only $50 mil, just raise
ticket prices

Surprisingly, Linda McMahon came across very rehearsed and unnatural during Debate 2. She almost immediately blurted out numbers and statistics as a school boy does during a memory dump to jot down formulas on the inside of an blue book moments before the start of an exam. The phony presentation was clearly more visible this time, and by the end of the debate revealed itself in the form of the most remarkable answer to one particular question that you’d better believe that her handlers wish she could take back (and likely has her competition scurrying around to calculate their own statistics).

This Plan that Linda constantly touts is really not a plan at all, but a list of general ideas without any substance behind it. I read through it line by line, and although it has some good ideas - I'm not that impressed. A plan is supposed to outline how one gets from point A to point B; if you read Linda’s so-called plan you’ll see that there is no meat to it. Surely, it’s a nice color brochure, and great marketing, but it’s hardly a roadmap for “moving the ball down the field.”

One of the criticisms people have always had about Linda McMahon is her shallowness as a candidate. And with two additional years of preparation for this race, we haven’t seen any real improvement in the quality of her positions. I have trouble with a candidate who constantly hides their specific points of view from the public. She almost has to be put on the spot in a television interview - the few she grants - to find out where she stands.  Ask any of her surrogates what she thinks about this or that, and they can’t tell you. This debate did very little to help us know who the real Linda McMahon is. And that’s an unbelievable thing considering that she has the commitment of people who don’t seem to know, or care where she stands on the issues, either.  Everyone seems to only be interested in her money which as we've seen guarantees nothing.

One of the things that’s most surprising about this contest is the willingness of the other candidates to allow Linda McMahon to fool voters into believing that her her company is  some normal, run of the mill operation.  WWE is unique in its product and appeal and is not tied to the same economic indicators that most small or large business are - markets, exports, economic growth, etc.  WWE is tied to ticket sales which may do well based on the quality of the show she puts on, but have little or no realistic comparison to mainstream businesses.  And there is a big difference between making a lot of money off of the backs of entertainers, ticket sales, and -- forging and creating a legitimate business enterprise which consists of a product one can truly be proud of. P.T. Barnum made a bundle fooling people and committing numerous acts of a fraud in a business very similar to Linda’s. Yet the other candidates seem to shy away from questioning its legitimacy as a business, and the negative aspects of it – which go directly to her un-electabilty problem.  They even shy away from questioning the role she's really had in its creation, and success.  What a pity.

One of the lines that Linda often uses is to link Chris Shays to the famed Bridge to Nowhere, but the problem with this line of attack is that her attempts to inaccurately portray Chris Shays as a big spender is hardly his record in Washington. One thing about Chris Shays is that he was pretty tight with the penny. And to attempt to sell the Bridge to Nowhere as some stand-alone vote instead of what it was - part of an enormous package of domestic and foreign policy bills rolled into one ... is dishonest. Picking apart votes to serve your own interest is a long-time election tactic that is both disingenuous and misleading to the public.

Linda McMahon doesn’t like it when someone blames her for the death of her employee-wrestler Chris Benoit who murdered his wife and child, and then committed suicide while under her employ, but she will use the same kind of tactic – guilt by association – to try and make cheap points against Mr. Shays by tearing apart cloture votes. Not the brightest thing to do when there is so much filth, injury, and death in her profession which honestly begs the question – how much does she know about all the drugs, violence, and deaths? And as an industry owner, how much is she responsible for?  But she doesn’t like to talk much about her Professional Wrestling Empire for some reason - except to advance her job creation myth.  And the recent post-debate press release by the WWE is as ludicrous as it gets.

And Linda McMahon speaking forcefully on health care issues doesn’t make a shred of sense to me. As former Candidate Richard Blumenthal pointed out – her company, the WWE,  didn’t exactly cover her employees the way she pretends it did. For the most part, her employees were on their own when it came to health coverage. So how this makes her an expert in business-run health care costs, I’m not quite sure – and sadly, none of the other candidates took the opportunity to point out this clear irony. And it’s very true that McMahon donated quite a bit of money to national health care advocate Democrat Nancy Pelosi – and not just once, but twice. I’m just surprised at how quickly State Reps and State Republican Leaders are so quick to forgive such blatant treason, in the hopes that they too can peel off some of her cash for their own coffers.

Linda McMahon is also on the class warfare bandwagon. She inaccurately accused Chris Shays of being against a Middle Class tax cut when he had just got done saying he was for a tax cut across the board. Fact is that Shays was quite clear that he wants to lower the tax rate for everyone as he pointed out succinctly for a second time during his rebuttal. Once again, Linda McMahon’s attempts to take cheap shots at Mr. Shays seemed to backfire as he seemed more prepared to deal with her chicanery and twisting of facts. Even her accusation of that Chris Shays voted most of the time with Democrats is misleading when the records shows that he voted 75% of the time with Republicans (Chris Murphy voted 96% of the time with Democrats). Another example of how Linda is grasping at straws to try to earn cheap points.

When Mr. Pazinokas asked Linda McMahon is she could see any way for those who are here illegally to find a path to citizenship – she completely avoided the question, went straight to the memorized script, and spoke about preventing illegals from coming over the borders and uttered that she'd tell those who came here illegally to “get to the back of the line” – whatever that means. She wants to impose a penalty on those who don’t pay their taxes, which isn't outlined anywhere in any of her plans, but made for good rhetoric on stage.

On the immigration question, Linda further said that if someone commits a crime they should be deported. Personally, I think if they commit a crime they should be held, tried, and punished. And only if the punishment warrants less than jail time, perhaps then deport them. But unlike Linda, first and foremost, I would hold accountable any illegal person for a crime they committed, and if it means giving them due process, and such ending with them serving time in our jail cells - so be it. Linda’s idea advocates for illegals to commit crimes and get away with it. Very bizarre, indeed.

Her overall performance was mediocre to poor. But I think that Linda McMahon really did herself in by suggesting that Joseph Lieberman was Connecticut’s all-time best Senator. Does she understand that Lieberman voted with Democrats 85% of the time? Does she understand that on most domestic issues, Lieberman was always a hold out, but generally voted with his own Party against Republicans?  I hope this struck a cord with those who are curious about what to expect from a Senator McMahon who finds supporting Democrat position just fine with her.

Perhaps her support for Joe Lieberman is par for the course for Linda McMahon.  Her handlers did not prep her in advance for the question.  And as a result she went back to what she knew best, and what she believes in - which is probably why she donated to Democrats in the first place.

The one saving grace in all of this for Linda McMahon is that there are five candidates, and two of them performed far worse than she did.


Peter Lumaj

I will save America from Socialism!

There is no doubt that Peter Lumaj has a great refugee story to tell. His modern day Ellis Island tale is a fabulous one worth repeating, particularly - in this day and age when so many people who’ve been here much longer sit around complaining that opportunity is lost in America, and they need Big Government to save them from their penniless plight.  I have to admit that Lumaj is probably the most conservative guy in the race which would make him a shoe-in if he were running in Tennessee or someplace out in the Midwest.

Peter Lumaj’s problem is that he’s Peter Lumaj. He comes across as an arrogant S.O.B. On the question of compromise – and it seems pretty simple Lumaj is against it. His unreasonable approach to working with others would not endear him to anyone within his own Party never-mind the other side of the aisle. His overly negative approach to the last two debates underscores why he wouldn’t be a good choice for Republicans in August. As for his criticism of Chris Shays, he might want to go back and look at Shays’ record more closely – and note that Shays was well regarded as a fiscal conservative, and was a co-author of the Contract with America which brought about significant positive changes for our Country including wholesale Government reduction.  You'd also see that the Contract with America was well-principled and much of it supported by Bill Clinton in an act of compromise. The outlandish argument that Chris Shays is responsible for the poor state of the country today is totally unreasonable. This is the kind of thing that makes Peter Lumaj look foolish.  Lumaj seems to discount the work Shays just just completed to save taxpayers $60 million dollars within Government Military Contracting division.

Lumaj also ventured to call Linda McMahon an “empty suit who stands for nothing. Her policies are completely confusing. She doesn’t understand the role of a Senator. You’re not a State Senator.”  Wow! It’s not often that a male candidate makes such a nasty remark against a female opponent – sort of bold, and probably not well-received. Mr. Lumaj might be conservative, but I'm sure conservative champion Jack Kemp must be rolling over in his grave at the way he represents us.

Another point that makes Lumaj look outrageous is that he often invokes Ronald Reagan, but like many who do, he seems to have forgotten that Reagan was most successful because he compromised with Democrats on domestic issues (from taxation to spending) and managed to get things done through a give and take process. The revisionist history that portrays Reagan as some immortal God to whom Democrats cowered in fear is pure fiction. Lumaj should study his history before using Reagan as a campaign prop for his so-called absolute and unapologetic brand of conservatism.

We also learned that Peter Lumaj wants to eliminate the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Energy. While there may be some merit to shrinking the size of these federal agencies, I’m not sure how selling the elimination of these three (and more) helps Republicans win the election. Moreover, every time I hear the words Federal Reserve, I immediately become terrified and have visions of Ron Paul waving his fists in the air. This kind of talk is frightful to Independents and even moderate Republicans – who Mr. Lumaj doesn’t think we need as part of our majority to win elections. Mr. Lumaj's one view of the world is counterproductive to our goal which is after all - winning.

Lumaj challenging Medicare as likely unconstitutional probably won’t win him any votes either.  The King predicts that if Peter Lumaj ran today, he'd be lucky to gather 5% of the vote with his divisive attitude.

The one chuckle I got from Peter Lumaj was when he said, that “Linda's tax plan was misplaced. And the guys, who wrote if for her, do not understand….” I love the fact that he went out of his way to point out that Linda’s well-paid marketing firm put together her plan. Bold point, but also comical because it’s likely true - and he had the audacity to say such a thing on television. It is true that nothing that Linda claims to be her own creation is actually hers – not even her business which was long established before she and Vince took it over from Vince’s father after his death in the late 1970s. All of her experience is built on a false premise that she even built a business from the ground up – again, none of which is true.

Lumaj was outright rude when asked about Immigration Policy. He was trying to be coy by saying that the immigration issue could be blamed on Mr. Shays who served us – or pretended to serve us – a very classless comment to make during a Senate Debate. Does Mr. Lumaj really mean to imply that Chris Shays wasn’t diligently serving his constituents when he was in office? Really? And then to look over at Chris Shays and say, “Please don’t call immigration on me.” Is Mr. Lumaj just a big Wise-Ass?  We think so. 

The one thing we learned about Peter Lumaj (as if we didn't know it already) is that he lacks any sense of respect for his opponents, or the process.

Kie Westby

This may not be the job for Kie
Westby

This format wasn’t good for Kie Westby whatsoever. And to make matters worse, right out of the box his focus was The Constitution. I’m not sure about others, but when I hear a politician talk about The Constitution as his primary concern my blood pressure goes up about 75 points. The most important problem we need solved is improving the economy and figuring out how to reverse the incredible backward slide we’ve been on over the last three years under President Obama. Following The Constitution is not in itself - a plan! It’s politics. It doesn’t create jobs, it doesn’t put food on the table, and it’s not a motivating factor for anyone with half a brain to want to leap up and vote for you. There aren’t too many people standing around in bread lines with their heads down muttering, “If we had only followed the Constitution.” Nuts!

One of the positions that Kie Westby discussed was his idea to rewrite ObamaCare. I’m not sure he got the GOP memo that we aren’t looking for a revised national socialized medicine scheme of our own making which -  reserves more power to the states as he said - or anything remotely close to that. We want the whole damn thing scraped and forgotten about since no one goes without health care in this country except those who refuse to seek it.  Westby's position on health care is not conservative.  Heck, it may not even be moderate.

And although he didn’t say it implicitly, Mr. Westby seemed to be the only candidate who would deport people who are here illegally. That might have been his strongest point in the debate.  Other than that most of what Westby contributed for the hour was not very exciting or original.  That isn't to say he isn't a thoughtful or bright man - he is. But this Senate run just isn't his gig.  Given what we've heard so far - I'm very suprised that he's in this race at all.  I'm not sure he's even convinced he should be running.  It's The King's view that after the Convention is over, he should probably drop out and endorse someone.  This would save him from back to back humilations when it's truly not necessary.

Conclusion:

Yeah, I know this is too long.  I hear this all the time.  But what can I say? 

This race will come down to several factors outside of the rigged Convention that's  planned for next month.  Based on what these candidates are all saying - the CTGOP State Convention is merely a prelude to a five-way battle that will begin at the end of next month.  It may come down to whether or not those who shouldn't really remain in the race siphon off enough votes to give the victor the win at the time of the August primary.  With all five candidates remaining on the primary ballot for August, this likely means that the Party could end up with a nominee that nobody wants at all. 

It will be interesting to see if forces with in the Party come to their senses and merge camps to allow for the most electable candidate to take his crack at a seat Republicans haven't held since the time of Lowell Weicker.  And if Brian K. Hill's ominous foreshadowing comes true again, and we will set ourselves up for defeat before the election even takes place.

But one thing is for sure.  If the Connecticut Republican Party nominates Linda McMahon, she will guarantee the Democrat Party a Senate seat.  And she will have set a new record - for being the only Connecticut Republican candidate to have knowingly delivered a U.S. Senate seat to Connecticut Democrats twice in the modern age.

I AM,

THE KING

This original blog entry can be found at http://www.thekingsview.blogspot.com



Disclaimer: This entry and others will be modified/updated at a future date. All entries are for the sole purpose of entertainment. This article does not imply endorsement of the candidate mentioned above, nor has this article been solicited for publication by any political candidate, campaign, or PAC.