A final note on Rob Simmons

Like most of you, I was sitting at work on Monday when I heard the news that Congressman Rob Simmons had quit the race for US Senate. I think it took me by surprise because it seemed only forty-eight hours prior, that Rob was telling a select few of us in his post-convention war room that he intended to fight on to the bitter end. The shenanigans in the convention hall seemed to reinvigorate him to the point where he said he would not allow (and I'm paraphrasing) the night's backroom deals and payoffs to stand; that he would take his case to the voters through a primary. Out of respect, I leave his private comments at only this, since it was a closed door discussion and what I've posted here he also pretty much said publicly.

I have to say I'm not necessarily bitter about it. And I'm not going to belly-ache about the state of his campaign in this essay (that's water under the bridge now). But I do believe that at that moment, Rob did want to take his case to the voters and not give up the race. But whatever happened between Friday at 10pm and Monday at 9 am, altered his viewpoint and he reluctantly withdrew. I do not know what the main rationale was behind the decision, and I'm not close enough to the man or his family to ask. It very well could have been the complexity of trying to overcome the millions of dollars that Linda McMahon was willing to invest in her own campaign (she had already blown $16 million on the primary), or maybe it was the anger at betrayal by party kingpins who were busy colluding with McMahon cronies, and pulling strings behind the curtain, or maybe he just didn't have the energy or fire to go the distance in what clearly would have been a blood-bath of a primary. Maybe it was all three plus a number of other things that haven't been disclosed. I don't know.

In a way, you have to appreciate that Rob Simmons took the initiative to stop. Just stop. We know he could have gone the distance with a lackluster campaign and in a half-hearted manner just to make a go of it - but for what? That would have been far worse for him, his family and for supporters. He did the noble thing and made a call to end his campaign. By this gesture, Rob put the public first.

Rob Simmons spent a majority of his life in public service. He served his country admirably for nineteen months in Vietnam, continued military service and rose through the ranks through merit and dedication, and worked for years keeping American safe as an Intelligence Officer in the CIA. He has served as council to Presidents and leaders on foreign policy and military affairs directly and indirectly for most of his life. As a Congressman, he fought tooth and nail for Veterans. And was a relentless advocate for Connecticut, and in particular worked night and day to keep the Groton Submarine base open, and by that - keeping thousands of Connecticut residents and companies like Electric Boat who rely on projects and contracts - on the job. Linda McMahon may have created 500 wrestling jobs (so she says), but Rob Simmons saved 500,000 Connecticut jobs which is a matter of fact that cannot be denied. And the people in the second district, and in Connecticut are grateful.

I hope this isn't the last we hear from Rob Simmons, or his family. (One day I'm looking forward to working on fiery Jane Simmons' campaign!). Rob has the potential to offer so much more, and it would be unrealistic to imagine that someone isn't going ask a man of his caliber and experience, cares and says what he thinks, who isn't afraid to buck the trend or party line, to take part in some future public service endeavor. He's a brilliant resource just waiting to be tapped.

Congressman Simmons - Rob, if I may - thanks for your service and patriotism. Thanks for making Connecticut strong. History will show that you were one of our best leaders during some tough times. Until that next time, I wish you and your family Godspeed!

Anglican Crisis deepens: Schori consecrates a Lesbian to Bishop of Los Angeles

The crisis in the Anglican communion deepened further this past week as Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori (Satan's representative on Earth) pushed forward the homosexual agenda by consecrating open lesbian Rev. Mary Glasspool as Bishop of Los Angeles which has led to a further distancing of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) from the World-Wide Anglican Communion.

This act led to an outpouring of criticism from within the Anglican Communion including Bishop of the The Anglican Church of Peru, the Rt. Rev. Dr. H. William Godfrey - who condemned the action as "against all the teaching of Scripture and the Church." according to Virtueonline.org. Further, VirtueOnline.org published the following:

"The decision of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America to consecrate as a bishop a woman in a sexually active lesbian relationship is gravely concerning and wrong," he wrote to VOL."The Bishops of the Anglican Communion have consistently made clear the moral teaching of the Church in this respect, that practising homosexual and lesbian relationships, and practising heterosexual relations outside marriage, are incompatible with Christian teaching. (See Bishops' Resolution 1.10 at Lambeth Conference 1998.) With this clear discernment they have implored the Episcopal Church NOT to go ahead with the consecration of a person in such a relationship."Godfrey said God's purpose is for the gift of sexuality to be enjoyed in a life-long married relationship between one man and one woman, husband and wife.

This is not the first time ECUSA has pushed forward their agenda which dates back to the appointment of Gene Robinson, a homosexual activist, as presiding Bishop. Robinson's appointment reached a boiling point which started the Anglican Schism that is presently underway.

There is a bit of silver lining to the story. The intentional activist decision of Bishop Schori confirming another homosexual Bishops sets the stage for Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) to perhaps finally be recognized as an authentic Anglican Church within the Communion. Previously, there was fear that recognizing ACNA would be seen as an antagonistic action on the part of the Communion, however ECUSA's actions after repeated warnings may leave it little alternative that the the recognition is now necessary, else credibility of the Anglican Communion to take any measure to ensure a traditional legacy in the USA would be greatly diminished.

It is most conservative or traditional Episcopalian's view that the Anglican Communion is several years overdue in recognizing a separate traditional Anglican Church in the United States. The endless delays and calls for tolerance and discussion have led to a very weakened conservative constituency within the ECUSA. Thus, most traditionalist have already left the ECUSA for "higher ground" which was always the hope for the liberals within the ECUSA, and moreover hundreds of rectors have left the church in favor of other denominations, and are unlikely to return. Given such little response to years on inroads against the foundations of the Church, the ECUSA is nearly lost. With very little time left, the Anglican Communion must now look to assist the new Anglican Church gain respectability and ground through its formal recognition.

Anything less is unacceptable at this point.

A full reading of the ongoing cultural deterioration of the ECUSA via its recent Lesbian Consecration published by David Virtue can be found here and here.

Connecticut Convention Hell - Republicans should hang their heads low

The Republican Party boasts of being the party of principle and open process. Yet on Friday night at the 2010 Connecticut Republican Party Convention, I and many others witnessed behavior that brought shame on the party, its officials, and its Chairman - Chris Healy. The Linda McMahon campaign along side of State Central officials worked endlessly to threaten, intimidate, and force delegates to switch sides and support Linda McMahon over Rob Simmons. Many of these delegates switched from Peter Schiff to Linda McMahon after it was clear that Schiff was unable to barely get to a quarter of the support needed for a win.


Moreover, the behavior of the hack convention security team under direction from State Central Operatives were hawks about throwing Simmons election team members off the floor or impeding their ability to talk to delegates, meanwhile Linda McMahon herself and her army crawled all over the convention floor as convention security simply looked the other way. I watched one of the Simmons team members being harassed by the Chris Healy, pro-McMahon forces, and out of frustration he turned to the hack, pointed to the three McMahon team members standing behind the hack, and said, "*uck You, you're letting those [McMahon] guys run the floor and sending the Simmons team off. Your showing your biased support for McMahon's team! What the hell is this?"


Watching it all up front and close, I watched several people upset about being threatened that they would lose their seat on their town committee, and I saw one guy being told that if he switched his vote to Simmons that "he'd never be involved in politics again, and he'd live to regret it." If I hadn't had my wits about me, I would probably exploded and would've grabbed the guy threatening the delegate by the neck and thrown him against the wall. The reek of Stalinism, the smell of corruption, and the image of Chicago-style bullying filled the convention air. It was nauseating. Simply putrid!


As I watched people turn their votes over to McMahon's team, I also couldn't help notice the clear support and shrill of excitment in the voice of the announcer at the microphone. One delegate turned and said, "My God, they are cheering Linda on from the Podium. I've never seen anything like it." Yeah, well me either. The bias was clear - the crack security team pushing Simmons team members off the floor, at the podium with the wild cheerleading of switches to Linda, and in the itimidation by State Central stormtroopers. This is Republicanism?


As most readers know, I'm not a fan of Linda McMahon, and do not intend to support her even if she were to ever win the Republican Primary. During most elections, I support candidates who's positions either mirrors my own views, or supports a particular hot button position that I think outweighs the rest of the issues that may be on the table. Party hacks (and these people are on both sides of the aisle) believe that regardless of the outcome, we are simply supposed to fall in line with the Republican candidate at the end of the cycle and blindly support them in order to make sure that the opposition party doesn't take the seat. But does such an act of blind loyalty mean anything if the manner in which the Republican candidate violated the basic principles of Republicanism or fair play?


Connecticut Republicans are most known for being referred to as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) by the majority of Republicans in other states. Today, most of Connecticut's Republicans arrogantly believe that Conservatism - even common sense Reagan Conservatism is reactionary or out of touch with modern American despite the fact that its principles are built on common sense positions. I raise this because its was clear at this year's convention that the Republican Machine supported moderate and liberal Republicans over their conservative counterparts (trying to push Janet Peckenpaugh over Daria Novak is a perfect example). Many of these candidates don't even have a Republican record, or have a clear record of funneling money and support to Democrats in the past. And some, like Janet Peckenpaugh, who made the claim to not even remember who she supported in 2008. These are people that CT State Central pushes in our faces - unprincipled, convictionless, money windbags. Ideology means nothing to these Healy-types.


Linda McMahon, for example, gave thousands to Democrats over the years to defeat Republicans, including giving money to Joe Courtney to successfully defeat Rob Simmons last time around. Given this paradox, how on Earth could a Republican delegate even consider giving Linda McMahon their support? It's said that people have short memories, but I think they just lack principle.


Getting back to the results - I suppose some of it was the big checks Linda wrote to RTCs in need, and some of it was just people getting caught up in the frenzy of wanting to put a unknown entity who runs a wrestling business and promises "something different" in play as their nominee. But its the threats and intimidation that I can't go for. Now how much of each element comprised the nomination, we don't know right now. But any of the latter is shameful, and I witnessed enough of it to make me want to either work for Rob Simmons in a primary setting, or vote third party in the General. (something I've actually never done before).

There is a reason only thirteen states use this rediculous forum for nominating their politicians. Last nights jury-riging event is the reason why this concept should be stopped. It's time to go to the primary system and leave all the decisions to the general public; not a handful of grimy people pulling strings in the back.

Lastly, I do want to discuss the Simmons campaign. I'm sure I might get a few angry messages after this posting but as they say - it is what it is. I have to say that I agree with many delegate's criticism of the Simmons camp for its lack of organization and overall lack of activity on the floor of the convention. My own personal experience left me with a bit of a sour taste. On the day of the convention, I called and volunteered to come down and help out. I was told they would be happy to have me help in a variety of ways, just to come down. After arriving in the afternoon, it took hours to finally connect with people who were running all over the place trying to get organized. I spoke with several campaign folks who weren't able to find me ANYTHING to do. Then I was told to come back at six o'clock to help with the "running". Even during the chaos of the convention, when Rob Simmons needed his staff doing their part, they didn't find any work to do for a large number of us to do. There we were, about seven of us wearing Simmons t-shirts, standing against the back wall, and given absolutely nothing to do.

On the basis of pure organization, it probably would have been more unbelieveable if Rob Simmons had actually won. That would have meant that the Simmons camp had done their homework in advance of the convention, and the delegates were locked up. Well, I guess that wasn't the case. My thinking is that they were as disorganized on Friday as they have been all along. How much Rob Simmons knows about this the lack of eptitude and the overall mess is unknown to me. But an honest Simmons campaign staff can only point inward at itself for creating such a mess, and allowing Linda McMahon to run a veteran candidate into the ground on a night that based on experience and ability, should have been his victory to savor.

As for where Rob was during all of this. I'm not sure. If he was on the convention floor (like Linda McMahon was) I sure didn't see him. Sort of disappointing.

Linda McMahon's Face the State Appearance

Unprepared, unqualified, and uninteresting.

These three words came to mind as I watched Linda McMahon's lackluster performance on WFSB's Face the State this past Sunday.

I think people understand that I favor former Congressman Rob Simmons over Linda McMahon. And now, after her appearance on Face the State, anyone can see precisely why. Linda is playing far out of her league and some must be asking exactly why she is going to drag the Connecticut Republican Party and Congressman Rob Simmons through a bloody, expensive, and frivolous primary that is bound to damage the GOPs chance of taking the Senate seat in the upcoming general election.

It takes a great deal more than having $50 million dollars to spend to run for Senate. Part of me wanted to see a Linda McMahon who represented Republican issues, and values well; focused, articulate, and engaging. After all, this is a Republican primary race, isn't it?

Unfortunately, when it came to substance, Linda simply didn't have any. She was offered several opportunities to lay out a simple platform for Connecticut voters, and at best, all she could muster was that it was difficult to do business in the State of Connecticut, and she understands the bankruptcy process because she went through it in the 1970s with her existing company. Neither of these two points impact the majority of the roughly 3.5 million people who live in Connecticut, whom are neither business owners, nor involved in the sports entertainment industry.

Moreover, while the interview was fair, and the questions at times - somewhat pointed, it exposed her and her campaign as completely inept. When did you decide to run for Senate? What do you have in common with the average Connecticut resident? Why do you want to run for Senate? Why aren't there any policy positions on your website? What politician do you find yourself aligned with from an ideological standpoint? Folks, these are not tough questions. These are the kind of questions that politicians from any persuasion would die for. Linda should have hit a home-run on each of these, had she been prepared for the interview.

Instead, we learned that Linda just recently decided to run for Senate, she is still trying to figure out what she stands for, she doesn't really know why she's running, and she likes "Maggie" Thatcher. And then we learn that she voted for Joe Lieberman at the time for ideological reasons. Not very Republican. What ideological reasons? What positions did Joe Lieberman hold that your fellow Republican, Alan Schlesinger didn't? Isn't Joe Lieberman the kind of career politician that you claim you're sick of seeing in Washington? Or is there a set number of years that he must stay in to reach career politician status? Hello? Is anyone home? Is anything clicking? Is anything coherent?

Here's the thing, Linda. When you get a great opportunity to go on television for free and market yourself, you are supposed to take advantage of the opportunity to tell the voters who you are, and what you stand for, and how you intend to make their lives better by putting you in elected office. When the media asks you simple open-ended questions, you are supposed to hammer home a simple and clear message that resonates. Instead, we got nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Republican voters expect to hear more than she is walking around the state, and talking to people. That's not impressive. And by the way, most politicians formulate their political platform before they run, not at some point when they get around to it. The implication is that this Senate run is a quick grab at a position of power, and that details don't matter. But believe me, they do. They do on the other side of the aisle, and they do to us Republicans too.

And the two minute tug-at-your-heart-strings story about Linda's car being towed and going to the bankruptcy courthouse because the McMahons ran their company into the ground is not really compelling. In fact, Stamford Advocate's Brian Lockhart seemed a little miffed by her tale which didn't seem much connected to the question asked as to why Connecticut residents would feel compelled to vote for someone of her wealth and background. The bottom line was that her response was just bizarre.

But we also learned that Linda's big issue with Rob Simmons is "card check". To the residents of Connecticut, card check means absolutely nothing. They are just two words together that leave people scratching their heads. I'm sure Connecticut residents stay up to all hours of the night worrying about "card check". Oh, and let's not forget "cap and trade". Oh brother! Another phrase for Linda to fit on an index card that she can fit into memory and blurt out quickly before she forgets. If this lady is our nominee, Richard Blumenthal is going to have a field day grinding her into the ground on the issues. I came away wonder just who the heck prepped her for this show, anyway!

But I have to conclude my review of her appearance with the obvious, and probably more damning material on our would-be candidate - her opinions and thoughts on her own company. Earlier in the program, she made a point to say how proud she was of her company, focusing on the charity work it does and not the content of the product.

When asked about the deaths and drug use, Linda pointed to a roughly new, three year old Wellness Policy which seemed to come out of necessity as a result of a media pressure from questions arising from mounting deaths and injuries caused by drug abuse and accidents within her WWE company. At one point to skirt the issue, she directed the panel members to the website instead of articulating details like most CEOs are capable. I took this as a sign of trying to distance herself and deflect from what is a primary concern about Linda's background. It's hardly appealing to be seen as having a "you win some you lose some" attitude, particularly when we are talking about life and death. That seems to be a very cold and calculating position to take on such basic human issue. I didn't get the warm and fuzzy thought that I would want to be in Linda's employ, that's for sure. Talk about being just a number, or a sad statistic. I also found particularly damning, was her response to a later follow up question where she confirmed that her employees sign contracts that limit WWEs responsibility for injury or death under her employ, and that she doesn't provide Healthcare benefits for her employees.

If that wasn't enough to expose the strange hypocrisy of both her and her company, Brian Lockhart's final question where he asked Linda McMahon about a WWE show where her son in law was simulating sex with with a corpse must have been the iceberg that sunk the Titantic. Having not been familiar with wrestling storylines, even that question even caught me off guard. Understandably, Lockhart declared the episode to be personally offensive to himself, and others. Other than glancing a look in his direction, Linda didn't have much of an answer for such a damning question about the content from the company she has amassed her millions from, and the industry that produces such horrifying dribble.

Real United States Senate candidates don't field questions like this. The whole thing is just surreal.

Richard Blumenthal must be licking his chops at the prospect of debating complex issues with the likes of Linda McMahon. The prospect of facing off with an extreme amateur with little knowledge of Connecticut or National issues must be incredibly appealing. And then there is their career comparison, as she told us on Face the State - negotiating "wrestling contracts" versus Blumenthal's ten year experience as Connecticut's Attorney General, negotiating major contracts with international companies, states, and entities. Oh please, God help the GOP.

Knowing that Linda doesn't even know where she stands on the issues, must be a dream for a guy that probably wanted to be Senator since he was age two. If Richard Blumenthal had a choice, I'm sure he'd rather run against an opponent like Linda McMahon, rather than an experienced Congressman, and experienced intelligence and military leader like Rob Simmons. At least Rob Simmons can stand toe to toe with Blumenthal on the issues, without the event becoming an embarrassing spectacle for Connecticut, and in particular - Connecticut Republicans - as it would with Linda McMahon on the debate stage.

The McMahon Senate campaign has quickly become much like the Bob Backlund's bid for the Connecticut First Congressional District in 2000. Which I should add was spawned from Backlund's phony Presidential bid as part of a WWE storyline. With that unfortunate mocking of our political system created by Linda McMahon and the WWE, several people are still concerned that there is a professional wrestling tie-in with Linda McMahon's current Senatorial bid. Since its not unlike the McMahons use shock storylines to attract viewers, such as faking the death of Vince McMahon, some are waiting for the next shoe to drop which is nothing more than a chance for her to boast her ratings, and gain ground with the networks. I can distinctly remember how the Connecticut Republican Party, including the sitting Governor wanted nothing to do with the WWE or Bob Backlund's campaign. Connecticut Republicans wanted nothing to do with exposure and linkage to such unpopular and violent television programming.

From what I can gather here - the Linda McMahon tag-line is that she would like Connecticut to know her as successful CEO of a major Connecticut Company, an outsider who will come in and straighten out the good ol' boys club in Washington, and who will (somehow) bring jobs to Connecticut. Ok, sounds good. But the reality is quite different.

Linda McMahon is the CEO of a very controversial company which has made front-page news for work and employee related deaths, drug and steroid use, she claims to be an outsider who doesn't seem to know much about Congress let alone know the name of anyone who works there which will actually impede her ability to get anything done for Connecticut. In fact, she wants to bring jobs to Connecticut, then perhaps she should be running for the local statehouse where those decisions are made. In the end, the McMahon campaign is probably a great networking opportunity for her and the WWE. But for the people, of Connecticut - its a big embarrassment.

A few additional thoughts:

Although you can find a million articles online about Linda McMahon and World Wrestling Entertainment, I feel the need to make a brief mention here about this aspect of her background, because after all - if it weren't for the WWE, Linda McMahon most likely would not be running for Senate as this is the company from where she is claiming to have all of this business background which somehow qualifies her to be Connecticut's next U.S. Senator. Fair game, right?

In the 70s and 80s, wrestling seemed more cartoonish, which is what it competed with on Saturday mornings when it was run by Vince McMahon, Sr. After Vince McMahon, Sr. passed away, and Linda and Vince took hold of the WWE promotion, and molded into a new brand of entertainment which moved professional wrestling to never before seen low-brow form of entertainment that uses violence, sex, death, controversy, emotion, loud music and feigned physical competition to get the viewers juices going. The McMahon's succeeded in finding stations to carry the show at 8pm to compete with prime-time programming, and thus the new era of Pro Wrestling was formed. Do they get credit for a new brand of creativity and expansion of a once small time regional company? Absolutely. But that's not the point nor the concern here.

Simply put, parents find Professional Wrestling to be a very negative influence on their children. Besides the scripted in-ring fighting that goes on, and the fact that kids world-wide are emulating wrestlers by putting each other dangerous choke holds and and what have you, you also have storylines showing people trying to run each other down with vehicles, destruction of property, fire, and pushing the envelope on bad language and sexual content.

The McMahon's, who have profited handsomely from attracting people through their darkest vices, seem to take a very distant view on their responsibility for their creation. Linda McMahon wants to be the CEO of "creativity" but not be linked to its elements of sex, violence, drugs, and death. Well, it doesn't work that way. That's a lot like Dr. Frankenstein taking credit for his creation but not the murders associated with monster. It's hard to stand on the sideline and not claim for a smidgen of accountability for the hundreds of kids injuries, and even deaths associated with emulation of professional wrestling tactics used by children which are directly related to her product. A simple search on Google will find you plenty of news articles about wrestling related injuries.

Most people do not know or care about the internal workings of professional wrestling. I believe most people see it for what it is - more violent garbage on TV. And its a bit of a stretch for Linda McMahon to present it as if it were a mainstream company that produces clothing, or computer parts. And impossible to present it as a company that goes on day-to-day without episodes of deaths or injuries, and controversy. At the end of the day, people just don't like the Professional Wrestling that is on TV today. And Republicans, who tend to be the more serious types, aren't likely to support Linda McMahon on the the notion that she's just another CEO of a company. Sorry. It's just not going to work. Most Republicans would rather Linda McMahon take her $50 million dollars and reinvest it in some area of the economy that creates jobs.

Linda, for the good of the party and herself, aught to just leave well enough alone. Enjoy the experience she's had so far, save future embarrassment and just go back to her WWE desk. Let's leave the Senate race to qualified people like Rob Simmons.