The King's Marquee

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

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

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.  



This original blog entry can be found at

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

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

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. 


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. 



Monday, October 29, 2012

Hartford Crime Fighter Rico Dence

Still think crime isn't rampant in Hartford? 

Then watch this video featuring Hartford Assembly District 4 GOP Candidate Rico Dence who discusses his most recent experience in Hartford's South End on Franklin Avenue.  Seems Rico was riding his bicycle home from a Breast Cancer Awareness event around 9pm on Thursday when he witnessed a man assaulting a woman; he stopped to help the lady, and the assailant and his friend's attacked him - giving him a shiner for his trouble. If that wasn't bad enough, the mugger's accomplice smashed his cell phone and then made off with Rico's bicycle.


And just to think - Hartford used to be called New England's Rising Star.  Now, you can't even get a slice of pizza in the Italian section without getting punched and robbed.  And city leaders wonder why suburbanites flee for their lives when the workday clock strikes five.

Thumbs up to Rico Dence for having the courage to stick up for the young woman.  We hope Hartford residents take a good look at this upstart Republican who cares deeply for the residents of Assembly District 4 (which includes all of Downtown Hartford), and puts other's safety ahead of his own.



This original blog entry can be found at

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

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

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.



This original blog entry can be found at

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

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

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)


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.  




This original blog entry can be found at

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

Monday, October 22, 2012

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. 



This original blog entry can be found at

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

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

The King's View: Review of the first CT Senate Debate

It can't get any worse than this. Can it?
I realize that this post is considered old news by now, but the piece I published yesterday regarding John Larson’s unwillingness to debate his GOP challenger John Henry Decker was a far more interesting story to communicate, so I opted to delay my review of the first Connecticut Senate Debate by a day or so.

As usual I haven’t read other authors’ opinions of the debate before drafting my own.. And it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if my conclusions fly 180 degrees in the face of conventional wisdom or the thinking of the usual talking heads who lurk out in CTGOP-land. Readers know that just like a Salmon, I run upstream, and against the roaring current. I’m sure this post won’t disappoint in that regard. After all, I’m in the business of changing opinions, not selling the same-old, insulting crud dished out by Party insiders to its gullible thongs.

I tuned-in to the debate with no ill-conceived notions of what to expect. I knew going in that after a stellar performance earlier in the week by Mitt Romney that the only place for the GOP to go was down. Mitt Romney did much better than even I expected - articulating his points with great enthusiasm, and in great detail in what one television personality deemed, “an economist’s dream”. Of course, President Obama helped out by acting as though he didn’t want to be there, or that he didn’t want the job. Having watched Linda McMahon for two years, I anticipated that she would conduct herself in the same manner we’ve all witnessed over the course of the previous election and primary cycle - emotion-less, scripted, and a flat. This isn’t a dig on Linda - it’s simply her personality and presentation style. I had no illusions that she would suddenly launch into song and dance and capture the audience’s imagination with her “charismatic personality“. So, my only hope was for Chris Murphy to bomb. And in my opinion he sort of did just that.

The format for the debate was good. Dennis House is about as fair a political reporter as you can find. As usual, he picked a good group of panelists to ask the tough questions - the ones that he generally avoids. Connecticut politicians are fortunate that Dennis House moderates Face The State. It’s said that if you can’t get your talking points across on Face The State, then you can’t get them out anywhere. Thus, his show is geared to providing the public with useful, unfiltered information as opposed to the “gotcha style” found on other networks. It’s just as well because I’m not sure trying to embarrass or scream over guests before they finish a thought has ever served the public interest very well.

So the panelists were Mark Pazniokas of the The CTMirror, Angela Dias of WTIC, and Fran Schneidau of CBS Radio. Fair enough.

The opening statements set the tone for what was an empty, and bitterly personal debate. McMahon started off well shaping the scope of the problems causing the lack of job creation, and pushing her usual boxed qualifications, and asked if voters were better off electing someone who’s created “millions” of jobs or someone who’s pushed the economy off a cliff. Ouch! Murphy retorted by trying to make himself the champion of the middle class, and ending his statement by claiming that Linda stands up for herself and her profits at the expense of the people who work for her and at the expense of the State of Connecticut. I’m not sure how she’s taken advantage of the State of Connecticut, but fine, I’m moving on. After the opening statements, it was pretty much all downhill from there.

Besides a hum-drum performance by both candidates, the only bursts of excitement came as a result of assorted personal attacks that each candidate continued to level against the other. Aside from this, I didn’t learn anything new about either candidate. I watched the debate twice - my first impression was rather negative of the entire affair, my second impression was much like the first although I tried to parse the points made to see if anyone truly came out the winner. I was disappointed in the lack of detail of plan specifics, and the pettiness of the candidates. I was particularly disappointed in Chris Murphy, who never seemed to get on message or his plan for the future - at times he blurted out several unconnected thoughts as if to try to ram through talking points while avoiding the question posed by the moderator. If Linda was scripted and stoic, Murphy was disorganized and antagonistic. In such a close contest where there was no knock-out punch (it was more like a cat-fight between two women) I fully expected Partisans from each Party to declare victory.

Still, whether fair or not, a young, arrogant Chris Murphy didn’t come off well attacking an older, more reserved Linda McMahon. As Chris Shays learned, its very hard to come out with both barrels attacking Linda McMahon and not be perceived as a bully. it’s particularly difficult when Linda just sort of stares back at you with her eyes and mouth wide open, playing the role of assaulted victim - “shame on you“ seems to work. Murphy’s performance was opposite that of Richard Blumenthal who respectfully managed the situation quite well in the last election cycle by coming across matter-of-factly, and never sinking to the crass level that Chris Murphy did on Tuesday. I’m not sure how the polls will resonate but Murphy’s performance couldn’t have played any better than Chris Shays’ did only a few months back.

Angela Dias asked a fair question about why Connecticut residents should put their trust in either candidates as it seemed that both has had problems putting their own financial houses in order (bankruptcy, late payments, what-have-you). Murphy ignored the question and used the opportunity to slam Linda McMahon for having not paid back $1 million dollars in debts owed from 36 years ago. It’s ironic that Murphy repeatedly said he wanted to make the campaign about issues, but on nearly every occasion he sunk the level of the debate by raising personal attacks against McMahon.

Congressman Murphy missed
87% of his meetings. That's
nothing a good Rolex couldn't fix

McMahon retorted by defecting the question by seemingly referring to her problem as an occasional financial slip (at least that was the perception), she then open fired on Murphy’s poor attendance record. This point remains a slight mystery to those in the cheap seats, either he has a 97% attendance record as he claims, or has missed 87% of the votes as she claims. It can’t be both, and it’s not likely to be either. But what is believable is that Murphy’s attendance record is fair game if it turns out he’s been AWOL instead of representing his constituents.

If there is one area where Linda McMahon has the upper hand, it’s where she claims that Chris Murphy doesn’t have a plan. You can tell there is obvious truth to the point, since everyone knows that he doesn’t have a plan published or available, and Murphy counters about the specifics of her plan because he can’t cite detail from his own (because it doesn’t exist). This hurts Murphy for two reasons. First, for a guy that is serving in Congress at the moment, he should be extremely familiar with the day to day affairs, problems, and potential solutions that should drive a plan that he should already have in place and trying to implement while serving. It’s more than a little awkward, and should be alarming to his constituents that he has talking points, and no plan.
Read my Lips, Linda! I don't have an &*#ing Plan, Ok?
Now let's get back to talking about yours!
Murphy looked rather foolish trying to claim that portions of McMahon’s plan were plagiarized or copied from Republican Party talking points. A petty point to make during a Senatorial Debate. Fact is that since this is largely an ideological debate anyway, one would expect both candidates to have large portions of their plans tailored toward one’s Party’s platform. Ironically, if there is a candidate who's more likely to have difference between their plan and the national platform its likely to be Linda McMahon and not Chris Murphy - who for all intents and purposes is 100% in-step with his Party’s very liberal agenda. By his own admission, he made it clear he is unwilling to entertain the Ryan Plan, and he is adamant in his desire to raise payroll taxes to keep social security afloat, and he also made the omission that he would not repeal even unpopular, anti-business sections of ObamaCare. From this debate we learned that Murphy supports the Democratic platform - hook, line and sinker, and his election to office would not provide an Independent voice, but rather the perfect choir member for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. If there is one thing that truly surprised me out of this debate - it’s the unconditional loyalty that Murphy has for the Democratic Agenda.. Murphy’s ads in which he’s claims to be an independent thinker is a work of fiction. And the accusation that Linda’s 20-page full color plan is a plagiarized one likely won’t resonate with the public.

Mark Pazniokas asked about both candidates lack of transparency. Both candidates seemed to imply that Pazniokas was from another planet and they grant plenty of access. While I don’t know much about Murphy’s level of transparency or publishing of schedule, and availability to the press, I do know that this has been an ongoing public relations nightmare for Linda McMahon. Her war against the press is coming back to hurt her - thankfully, the Murphy camp has a similar lack of transparency problem which slightly offsets her perception problem. I think the question that people are asking is why? And what will this mean for either the Press or Public when either Senator McMahon or Senator Murphy are in office. They are quite of the opposite of Senator Blumenthal who (whether you agree with or not) will come right up to you and stand there and talk your head off about any issue you might raise. Trust me. I’ve been there. Paz’s look of “what the hell are you talking about” when Linda said that he and her have had a good time spending time on the trail together was priceless. The look of disgust on his face spoke volumes, and was downright comical.

Fran Schneidau asked a very basic question which should have been a homerun for both candidates had they done their homework and been familiar with the material being discussed; she asked about discretionary spending, and particularly referenced a $1.9 million dollar water taxi expenditure. Given this specific, and outrageous example of gross negligence, it was unfortunate that neither candidate jumped on the provision or offered to revoke funding for this initiative, if elected. Further, precise examples weren’t offered by either candidate for what they would reduce, and worse - Chris Murphy called eliminating loop holes for oil companies a discretionary cut. Huh? This is evidence that he either spews traditional Democratic talking points (ex. Republicans give tax breaks to the wealthy, hate the elderly and children) or he doesn’t understand what a discretionary cut is. Again, not to be understated, Congressman Murphy is actively serving in Congress, he should be able to rattle off dozens of specific bills that he could eliminate, if he’s even slightly paying attention to what’s going on around him while Congress is in session (of course that pre-supposes that he’s actually in attendance).

The sniping between the two candidates continued during the remainder of the questioning. When Angela Dias asked about how Linda McMahon would keep social security solvent for future generations, she talked in generalities about wanting to be a member of a bipartisan committee to solve the problem (my guess is that she is hoping that someone else on that committee has the answer because it was clear to anyone watching that she didn‘t). When it came time for Chris Murphy to respond, he took liberty to demean Linda by saying, “that was a minute and thirty seconds of I’m not going to tell you what I’m going to do if I get elected.” That response was both crass and rude, and his answer - a commitment to raise payroll taxes on everyone probably didn’t win him much support. And it all but guaranteed that his response will probably end up in one of Linda McMahon’s commercials in the near future (much like her misstep on the famed Watertown Meeting where she mentioned having a sunset provision for social security which Murphy is airing via commercial every 20 minutes).

For the Democrat side, the big win of the night came as a result of Mark Pazniokas question regarding Roe v Wade and the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. And I will get to why that mattered in a minute. Now as a practical matter, both Linda McMahon and Chris Murphy are pro-choice candidates, and neither is more pro-choice than the other per se - either you are or you’re not pro-choice. Period. The difference is that Linda McMahon said she wouldn’t vote in favor of a Supreme Court Nominee on the basis of a single issue, but the plurality of the positions for which the Justice adheres to. Chris Murphy on the other hand, clearly stated that he does support a Litmus test for a Supreme Court Justice and would never support a Pro-Life nominee what-so-ever. So much for thoughtful, individual thinking - seems more like another lock-step allegiance to the Democrats very liberal agenda. Murphy’s mind is made up based on ideology rather than an examination of the whole picture, and all the facts.

As for the Blunt Amendment, the issue here deals with the protection of religious institutions from being forced to provide coverage of certain medical procedures and birth control mechanisms which go against the grain of the religious organization’s root faith. For example, why on Earth would Congressman Murphy demand the Catholic Church accept and fund abortion coverage if it goes against Church teaching? It seems that if someone wanted that kind of coverage they would need to go elsewhere to find it - and not demand it from a faith-based organization. That’s an example where a little common sense might be in order, and a little less overzealous liberalism should be abandoned by Mr. so-called Independent thinker, no?

Hear that sound, Jerry?  It's the rumble of
an angry group of  Conservatives feeling
like they've been sold out. You might want
to look into it, and help quell the brewing storm - before its too late!
The reason I mentioned that the Roe v Wade question was a big win for the Democrats was not based on the exchange, or Linda McMahon’s confusion about an assumed national law protecting gay marriage (which Congressman Murphy smugly reminded everyone, doesn’t exist) but because of the post-debate fail-out that the issue has caused within the Republican Party which includes some groups now vowing to not support Linda because of her position on DOMA. In fact, the damage is so bad that the Family Institute of Connecticut’s Peter Wolfgang was forced to retract his endorsement of McMahon the following day as her post-debate comments exacerbated the problem for conservative Republicans. Reports were that his phone was “ringing off the wall”. Whether this issue is enough to sink Linda with the Conservatives in the Party to the point where they will walk away from her is still yet to be determined. I will deal with the matter in more detail in a future post. Whatever one thinks of who won the debate, the devastating blow was not dealt by Pazniokas or by Murphy’s response, but via a self-inflicted wound caused by Linda. Given that the CTGOP alliance is already being held together by masking tape, this situation has deepened the divisions which already exist. From that standpoint, the Democrats couldn’t have asked for more.

Although I believe that most of the questions asked from the panelist were quite fair, I felt that Fran Schneidau sort of got a away with a biased question which was meant to put Linda McMahon on the spot. Schniedau referenced 9.1% unemployment, and a few other negative economic statements and then asked rather coyly, “How has this recession affected you, Mrs. McMahon.” It’s fair to say that Linda was caught flat-footed. Now there were plenty of options for her had she been quick on her feet… such as talking about rising gasoline prices, food prices, insurance premiums, and a host of other impacts to her personal expenses. She could have even pulled out her trump card and talked about the rising expenses on her family business - in fact, she could have dominated the discussion for a good five minutes, going on and on about the negative implications of this recession on WWE. Instead she ignored the question and gave a brief explanation of how business works. Lucky for her, Chris Murphy ignored the question too. Although he gave some ridiculous statement that his family had to go without Healthcare. Are you kidding? Sitting members of Congress have the BEST healthcare benefits for exceeding what any regular citizen’s plan entails. Linda let him get away with that insane answer, and I’m sure she wished he could have that one back.
Fran Schneidau meant to ask: "Mrs. McMahon
isn't it true that since you have a billion-zillion dollars
that you aren't really suffering in this recession?"

The next softball question came from Mark Paziniokas who asked about inequity and poverty - an area that generally tends to favor Democrats. Linda McMahon was first up and again she missed an easy spot to talk at length about her and her company’s rather generous contributions to the less fortunate over the years. I would gather that Linda McMahon has probably contributed millions to charity in comparison to what Chris Murphy has contributed. Lucky for Linda, Chris Murphy also flubbed the question. He gave a rather awkward response about building more low income housing which “brought veterans out of the woods in Waterbury, and out from under the bridge in Stamford.” A sort of bizarre visual that both the panelists and Linda McMahon let slide.

When it came to Angela Dias’ question on each candidate’s position on ObamaCare (or the Healthcare Affordability Act), Linda announced that she was for “Repeal and Replace” which is stark contrast to Chris Murphy’s whole-hearted support for ObamaCare. Personally, I’m disappointed in the “replace” concept because it goes against the grain of our Republican agenda which states that we do not support any form of National Healthcare scheme. We support the 10th Amendment and believe that its up to individual States to decide how to manage Healthcare law. By choosing the language of “Repeal and Replace” it supposes that Linda might support some other National Healthcare provision which could equally as detrimental to taxpayers. And once you go down the road of Replace, you open a Pandora’s Box by being required out explain the “replace with what” question. Good luck.

Linda further went on to bless portions of Obama’s plan and specifically pointing her support for allowing young adults to remain on their parents plan until age 26 (a ludicrous position), and not excluding coverage for pre-existing conditions. Murphy seized the moment by saying that Linda wants to keep the some of the provisions she favors while throwing out the ones she doesn’t, and he added that it doesn’t work that way.
Linda McMahon is against Death Panels
Chris Murphy voted for them, and must support them since
he never submitted legislation to remove them from the bill
Regarding the concept of “Death Panels“, Linda made a strong argument that decision of this nature aught to be between the physician and patient/family and not left to an inserted Government mandated third party panel. Chris Murphy on the other hand didn’t reject the notion of these panels but only offered that family members should be consulted. This is an issue worth following up on in a future debate, for certainly - as a sitting Congressman, Chris Murphy has not proposed or co-sponsored any legislation removing the Death Panel concept from the Law. Perhaps Linda would do well to remind the voters of this important matter next time around.

The most absurd comment of the night came from Chris Murphy. Interestingly enough the media nor Linda McMahon jumped on it either during or after the debate. Chris Murphy went on a tirade not once but twice in the same segment accusing Linda McMahon of producing “personal attacks against me, my wife, and my family.” Now, several of us went back to try and identify what Congressman Murphy is referring to and to be honest none of us where able to come up with anything substantial where the Congressman’s wife or family fell pray to serious criticism.

What is problematic about the exchange is the way that Linda McMahon failed to address such a blatant lie. Unless the accusation was true, she should have IMMEDIATELY fired back that the accusation is flatly untrue. As I thought about it, the fact that she allowed the Congressman to repeat the accusation and failed to respond to it, gave me the impression that perhaps Linda did in some way attack his family and wife. If I felt this way, then neutral viewers must have also assumed that Linda had made such personal attacks. If the McMahon campaign is in their right mind, they won’t allow this to go unresponded to for the perception left of Linda is quite negative based on her lack of outrage, or a counter-statement.


OK, I’ve written quite a bit here. Granted it’s a tough read. For the most part, the debate was a draw since neither candidate made a big enough splash to knock the other one out. The Democrats will claim victory on the basis that this is a blue state, and given that reason, the onus is on Linda to give Independents and some Democrats a reason to move right to support a Republican. On the other hand, Chris Murphy didn’t exactly come across Senatorial by any means. His disorganization, lack of details, lack of plan, and general rude demeanor made him appear unfit for the Senate.

Given the overall impressions left by this debate, I believe Linda McMahon came out slightly ahead. She wasn’t dynamic or articulate, but she seemed more prepared and organized in her responses. She also came across more moderate than Chris Murphy who is clearly liberal and not independent in his thinking. The only question left to figure out is the impact of Linda’s DOMA gaff. One thing appears true… Democrat moderates appear to be able to support Liberal Democrat politicians, while on the other side of the fence Conservative Republicans can’t seem to suffer Republican Moderates very well. If that is the key to the race, then Linda McMahon could be doomed before the first vote is cast.

One thing is for sure, the next two debates aught to be very interesting.

Here are a few side points that need to be driven home regarding the debate:

1. The debate was downright ugly and disappointing. All things being equal, the participants didn’t conduct themselves with the respect and dignity which the office truly requires. The candidates must show that they have more to offer than what the Constitution minimally requires of a Senator Candidate - years of attainment, and residency. Americans expect much more of a candidate for an office of this importance.

2. The candidates both appear to have a superficial understanding of economics, provisions, laws, and government process. In some cases, not being able to properly cite the laws of the land, executive orders, or in Murphy’s situation be able to quote the specific legislation that he’s either passed or voted against. This is more a disappointment of Congressman Murphy who is actively serving in Congress. He couldn’t provide a list of planned discretionary cuts he supports, or even produce a plan for economic recovery after serving during President Obama’s Presidential term. Nor could he suggest specific places were spending cuts could be made. For an active Congressman, he’s comes across very disengaged.

3. Linda McMahon would do well to move from applying general, superficial responses to questions and begin to provide pointed, and specific, or detailed answers. This beating around the bush for a minute and half is unnerving for her supporters. Given the wealth of technology, tools, and manpower at her disposal, she should be able to comb through Congressman Murphy’s extensive 6-year voting record and provide specific examples where the Congressman has cast votes that have let his constituents down.  By this point, she should be able to outline the dozens of votes that Congressman Murphy has made to increase taxes on the Middle Class, or created regulatory burdens for business. It’s no longer enough to just claim that he has increased taxes on the middle class -- its time to start saying where… and using bill numbers.

There is no foul in going after some one's voting record (although at one point it was curious that Chris Murphy said he wanted to discuss Linda's???).  If Murphy's record is so bad Linda should be able to be able to figuratively grab him by the hair and throw him from turnbuckle to turnbuckle without anyone being able to cry foul.  Six years is plenty of time to get a handle on voting trends on taxes, foreign policy, and whatever else there is. Time to get cracking and raise specific grievances!

Hint: Go back and watch the first Romney v Obama debate and notice how articulate and prepared Mitt Romney was on every issue. He presented facts, figures, and details. This is a sign of showing respect for his audience, and the position he wishes to earn. Connecticut is one of the most educated states in the union, please afford our residents with the proper respect they deserve by living up to the standard, and rising to the occasion. I’ve seen fourth graders debate with more accuracy and detail than the two candidates we saw on Tuesday.

4. The candidates must stop going tit for tat over meaningless dribble. Bankruptcy, late payments, attendance records, and endless personal attacks only muddy the waters and do little to educate voters on where they stand or would vote on the issues. Despite their personal flaws and failures, either one or the other is going to wind up in the Senate (so much for Connecticut’s brightest and best). The commercials you are airing (even post-debate) are annoying. How about a few commercials telling people what you are going to do, not what your opponent has or will do. Shame on both of you!

5. Both candidates should make themselves available to the press, conduct press conference, openly field questions, and give the transparency that the office should and will require. Hiding behind an impenetrable wall of paid political insiders reeks of misplaced celebrity self-adulation. Look to Senator Blumenthal for a good example of how to conduct oneself in the public light, and on the campaign trail.

6. Linda McMahon should stop claiming she’s in this race for her Grandchildren. Her Grandchildren will want for nothing, and the continued claim that they might one day be at a financial disadvantage because of Democratic policies is insulting to the audience. (Of course, if she continues to spend $80 million dollars per campaign, I guess their inheritance could be at risk)

7. The candidates should answer the questions being posed. There is a reason there is a panel and moderator at the debate - let them do their jobs. Too many times, both candidates wanted to disregard the valuable questions being asked by the panel in order to get the last word on a previous insult exchange between each other. Wouldn’t it be nice if our candidates just answered the questions being posed instead of going off on a tangent or providing an answer to a question that wasn’t asked? Or dragging the debate down a never-ending rat hole of petty personal attacks?

8. Linda McMahon must figure out her next step regarding how to handle social issues, and try to patch up the new problem within fragile CTGOP alliance. God knows that the media is dying to ask a new round of social issue questions knowing all to well that conservatives are already on the fringe just waiting to jump off the bandwagon. The idea that you can win without the right wing of the party in a close race like this is a fool’s suggestion. Patch it up now before its too late.



This original blog entry can be found at

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


Monday, October 8, 2012

Did Congressman Larson Lie to "The Gov" on WTIC about the CT-01 Debate Schedule?


This afternoon during the WTIC Program State and Church hosted by former-Governor John Rowland, First District Congressman John Larson was asked about whether or not there will be debates between himself and his Republican challenger John Henry Decker.  Larson replied that there are four debates scheduled.

The King's View has learned that Congressman Larson was dishonest in his response.   There are no official one-on-one debates between John Larson and John Decker scheduled as of this post.  The Democratic Congressman was cleverly trying to pass off candidate forums as formal debates.  During candidate forums it is common practice for a candidate to make opening remarks which is usually followed by a few questions from the audience, time permitting. 

Again, there is no formal one-on-one debate scheduled between Congressman Larson and John Decker. Any report to the contrary is misleading and false!

Source: Twitter: John Decker writes:  "@RepJohnLarson Just announced there will be four debates  I respectfully ask that he contact me so that I may add them to my calendar #ctpolitics"


Why is Democrat John Larson Afraid to Debate?

Larson: Too busy, or too afraid to debate John Decker?

Before I communicate my thoughts on Sunday's disappointing, and anti-climatic debate between our two Connecticut U.S. Senate Candidates, The King's View thinks it's far more important, less than a month out from Election Day, to call attention a true travesty being made against residents of Connecticut's First Congressional District by Representative John Larson.

We suppose it's every candidate's right to run their campaign by avoiding confrontational questioning about their voting record, or by making carefully scripted speeches in fabricated environments filled with cheering partisan supporters, but that unfortunately leaves an entire constituency left on their own to ponder the merits of each candidate's qualifications.

John Larson is the fourth highest ranking Democrat in Congress, and he spends plenty of time bragging about his stature and level of influence to Democratic colleagues and Washington Insiders. What The Hartford Courant and other media outlets have failed to report is that this also means that for someone in his unique position, he has an even greater accountability for Washington's failures on everything from a massive expanding deficit, to staggering unemployment, to what's clearly a downward spiraling economy.  And while we're at it, would he dare take a question or two what about what his role was when President Obama's blew $90 billion dollars on Solyndra and and other Green Fuel companies, many which have gone belly-up? Particularly since he touts himself as a bigwig on the Subcommittee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

It looks for now that Representative Larson has it made.  He doesn't need to answer to anyone - because everyone is beneath questioning someone of such incredible self-importance.  It's bad enough that things are the way they are, but it's even worse that John Larson has ignored the dozen or more requests for a public debate with his Republican challenger John Henry Decker.  Decker has requested multiple debates across the First Congressional District, and was rebuffed by Larson who claims that there is "no time on the schedule."  But what Larson fails to see is that it's not about making time for his rival, its about making time for the public who deserve answers for his failures as their representative in Washington which have had a direct negative impact on their daily lives.

Our local press is quick to print carefully contrived photo-ops and feel good stories on Mr. Larson's behalf.  Everyone looks so nice wearing an expensive suit and a bright smile - but does such shallow coverage serve the public interest?  Since when did meeting face-to-face with your opponent become an unnecessary hindrance to a public servant's schedule?  We can see where it might interfere in his designs to help other Connecticut Congressional and State Candidates win in their races, but it does nothing for your own constituents who want answers or reassurance that you are doing the expected job on their behalf.

It's funny that while John Larson can't find time on his schedule to participate in a public debate, he can find plenty of time to host a $30,000 a plate fundraiser with Nancy Pelosi and the 1% in Hartford. And by the way, how many of those donors sit on Boards that were involved in that Obama $90 billion dollar green energy bonanza?  It must be nice to be Obama's number one bag man.

Going back to my main point, we believe there's a intentional, secondary strategy at work here.  Surely the reason that neither John Larson, or Rosa DeLauro (in CT-03 against Wayne Winsley) want to debate their opponents on television is out of fear of losing their races, but more likely they fear public scrutiny of the role they've both played in crafting and funding the failed Democratic Party agenda which would help tip the balance of statewide support toward Mitt Romney, and possibly even Linda McMahon in such tight races.

The King calls on Rep. John Larson to find enough courage and respect for the public political process to debate his GOP Challenger John Decker, and allow the public to appropriately vet their positions and records in order to make an educated decision.   And moreover, The King calls on the Connecticut Press to not endorse any candidate until the public via the Press has been afforded an opportunity to watch our candidates deliberate in a public forum.

It's a sad commentary that not only have tens of thousands of constituents in the First Congressional District  lost incomes, jobs, homes, and their dreams because of John Larson, but given the present course of things - it seems that they've lost their true Congressional representation as well.



This original blog entry can be found at

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

Saturday, October 6, 2012

An Appeal to Heaven: Please support Hector Reveron

The King's View is passing along a request from our Connecticut First Congressional District Republican Candidate - the selfless and personable - John Henry Decker, and GOP Activist Joe Visconti.
Hector Reveron deserves
 his Party's support to get over
the threshold
John Decker writes:

I have met a lot of great people and wonderful candidates during my campaign. We have such a candidate in East Hartford that would help our entire ticket. He's a true conservative, and a leader in his community. We can't let people like this fall behind. So, before anyone else contributes to me, please consider contributing to Hector Reveron The max is $100/person and it has to be done by Monday. He's not that far away and he has already qualified for the signatures! 

Mr. Visconti writes:

Friends, it is imperative we get Hector Reveron for Connecticut State Senate fully funded to receive his $85,000 grant from the State of Connecticut Citizens Election Program. We have until next Wednesday and we are not that far away.

For all the reasons in the world Hector is behind in his fundraising so I am working with a few great Republicans like Congressional Candidate John Henry Decker who is so busy on his own campaign to help Hector reach his goal.

Folks, what does it say about the Quality of our GOP Candidates when it comes down to an underfunded Congressional Candidate like John Henry Decker fighting that arrogant and evil John Larson and in the heat of battle he reaches out to help another Republican in harms way on the field of Political Battle?

If I wasn't so angry I would cry, that's how great I feel about John [Decker]. Just last night when we were out for a drink regarding his campaign and the subject came up about Hector and what did John do? He forgot his own needs, he forgot his own campaign and said "It's not impossible, it's not a lot of money, we can do it".

Well from 11pm-1 am at Max's Burger we wrote names of folks across the state on the back of a napkin we thought could donate to save Hector, and help him obtain the financial power he needs to assist the GOP ticket in district one including Linda McMahon and Mitt Romney at the top.

"It is not impossible" - words that John Henry Decker said to me keep ringing in my ear, it's not impossible, it's not impossible. Right now I have a call into Senator John McKinney who is our minority leader in the CT Senate, he returned my call quickly but I missed it as did Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action. Chairman Labriola is also aware of this dilemma and is on board to help but it is going to take all of our effort today (Saturday) through Wednesday October 10th to get this done. It doesn't matter where you live in America,you can donate up to the maximum of $100.

The possibility to take the Connecticut Senate and help stop the insanity that has been happening in our State Legislature is up to us and within striking distance. If it wasn't that important I wouldn't be panicking and begging everyone for help, but it is and I am.

Please Please Please get to Hector's website and donate up to $100 no at

Please Share this note and find the inspiration to believe, we are so close, PLEASE BELIEVE and DONATE NOW.  Go to: !!!

Adhering to the call for CTGOP Unity, The King joins the chorus in sounding the alarm for our Party faithful to support this bright and decent young man.  Please give liberally to Mr. Reveron and help him meet, or even surpass, his goal.  State Republicans must understand that in order for the CTGOP to turn the corner in Connecticut, we must take the good fight to those cities and districts that we appear to have abandoned. Further, we must support candidates like Mr. Reveron, who bring diversity and renewed spirit to our Party.

Please support our Appeal to Heaven, and help shepherd Hector Reveron across the finish line.  So we ask: Brother, never mind the dime - can you please spare a couple dollars?  As to whether or not the contribution has to be in by Monday or Wednesday - I'm hoping someone can shed some accurate daylight on the precise timing.  Whatever the case may be - please act now!  Thanks!



This original blog entry can be found at

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