I Know You Missed Me...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you want to know what wins elections?

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

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

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

I AM

THE KING

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

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

Election Day! (Thank God!)

Hooray! Election Day is finally here!

For my own part, The King is glad that after two years of making hundreds of phone calls, conducting literature drops, and helping with generally campaigning across multiple districts that we will finally see, race-by-race, either the pay-off for hard work, or punishment for a comedy of errors.

I think we've said all we've needed to say about our political races in Connecticut.  We all know this is a pretty drab place to live if you're a loyal, red-blooded Republican.  But to underscore the point, I would urge readers to go out and vote for Republicans in all districts and races who you believe have conducted themselves with honor and dignity during this cycle.   

The King also urges voters to "Leave the Line Blank" in the Connecticut Senate Race.  Linda McMahon has lost The King's vote, and the vote of so many of the Party faithful for her betrayal of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan by supporting Barack Obama in her campaign commercials and literature.  Moreover, she has intentionally hurt several federal and local candidates by pushing the Independent line which has been detrimental for both federal and state Republicans.  Let's pray this is the last campaign that we will ever have to see Linda McMahon a part of in The Nutmeg State. 

Again, please don't sit out the election - go to the polls and vote for state and federal Republican candidates, but don't vote for Chris Murphy (obviously), and PLEASE go out of your way to NOT VOTE FOR Linda McMahon.  Leave the Line Blank.  Make this a teachable moment for Linda McMahon, and our spineless CTGOP Chairman Jerry Labriola.

And if old friend - Andrew Roraback takes the win tonight (as expected), everyone should recognize that he and his staff, and his army of tireless volunteers won the campaign the hard way - with hard work, elbow grease, and dedication.  Yes, there was a last minute infusion of cash from a strange source in New York, but the truth is that Andrew and his team have been changing hearts and minds since he won the State Convention earlier this year.  And we should all be grateful that Andrew stayed above the noise, ran a positive campaign, and that he didn't allow State Party incompetence damages his campaign.   Although a little presumptuous at this point on Election Day, let me offer congratulations to Andrew Roraback and his team for a job well done!

Above all else, this is the race that counts!

Now that we've got that off our chest, let's look at the race which is the single most important  contest this evening.

Here is what to watch regarding the Romney-Obama Race:

Virginia:  This is the first state to watch with 13 electoral votes up for grabs here.  This state will be an early indicator of what we might expect during the night.  If Mitt loses Virginia it doesn't mean it's game over, but there would need to be some serious surprises elsewhere to make up ground.

North Carolina:  This state used to be a lock for Republicans, but Obama managed to win it in 2008.  Sadly, the demographic changes have made this state more of a swing state which will remain in play for decades to come.  North Carolina boasts 15 electoral votes.  As of the last poll sample taken this week, Romney leads here.  If Mitt loses here, it will indicate that polling samples are nearly useless.

Florida:  The Gator State is a critical key piece of the puzzle with 29 delegates - the largest number of swing state delegates on the electoral map.  Romney has won seven polls, Obama has won four, and there was one tie.  This state leans Romney.

New Hampshire:  New England's last and only remaining red state (turned blue in 2008) will be interesting to watch, not because of its four electoral votes, but because the Presidential contest is in a dead heat.  If Mitt Romney wins in New Hampshire, it could mean a big night for the Romney camp.  Obama is expected to win New Hampshire given the demographic changes from the influx of MassHoles to the Granite State which has watered down Republicanism over the past 12 years.

Ohio: If you haven't noticed, the entire political universe has been rotating around Ohio over the last three weeks.  With 18 electoral votes in a state dubbed Main Street America,  pollsters claim that this state is a must win for candidates - unless neighboring Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) partially counter-balances an outcome in Ohio.    

Iowa: This state has 6 electoral votes.  Again, this state is not a deal breaker for either candidate, but certainly will help frame the night in terms of trending.

Nevada: This state is considered a swing state by the media, but The King sees this state as under control by Democrats - given the combination of the Latino community, the culinary community, and the gambling lobby.  The majority of these groups are reported to have already voted during the early voting process, so I'm not expecting a win for Mitt here, but a close voting percentage will be interesting for discussions on trending.

Pennsylvania: This state could be an interesting battleground state with 20 electoral votes - which I've always assumed would go to Obama since I don't believe Mitt Romney has won a single poll based on all results posted a RealClearPolitics.com.  What makes this state "in-play" is that the race has moved within the margin of error for the last few weeks.  A Mitt Romney win here would be an incredible upset, and would likely signal a landslide win for Romney-Ryan.

The King's Prediction:  Romney by a larger than expected margin.  The national media will be eating humble pie for months to come while our local media will likely gloat.

Realistically, you have to expect plenty of shenanigans along the way  - so be prepared to sit long in your seats, it could be a long night!

I AM 

THE KING

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

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

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 10^th 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.

SUMMARY

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.

I AM

THE KING

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

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


 

The Rotten Plank

I’m sure this piece may raise a few eyebrows with some of my more traditional friends out there on Republican Island. Read in the proper context, I expect that many of you might take it to heart and get the message, while others will leave here, red-faced, angry, and in search of an even larger hammer in which to nail that square peg into the round hole.

For years I’ve avoided writing about the abortion issue because it’s without a doubt the single most divisive issue within our fragile Party. The mere mention of it almost always results in bad feelings, and internal squabbles which seem to escalate to the point where it begins to tear the very fabric of our core – as it has for at least the last two decades. I going to put aside my own personal opinion about the subject with the hopes of addressing the larger implications the issue has had on our State Republican Party. And moreover, the impact it’s had on our ability to appeal to moderate Republicans, and Independents whom we desperately need if we plan to ever have a chance of winning key Congressional racess. Later on, I’m going to point out what I see as a bit of hypocrisy within our own CTGOP ranks which is burning a gaping hole through this so-called Move to Unity that everyone seems to be going on about. I’m going to call a spade a spade, and I can understand that some of you won’t like that very much.

Jack Kemp (NY-R) understood the value of coalitions
for the purpose of winning elections

Years ago, one of my personal heroes - Jack Kemp (R-NY) used to talk about the “Big Tent” that the GOP needed to construct in order to attract a diverse group of supporters to help us win federal elections. Kemp was a self- proclaimed compassionate conservative, who advocated several non-traditional Republican solutions including enterprise zones, and going into cities to extend GOP appeal to what the country-Club crowd considered mere undesirables. Kemp was also a Pro-Life advocate. While I concede that he never compromised his position, I’ll also point out that as a former Quarterback and a visionary, he understood the value of knowing his audience, so instead of sparking disunity with angry polarizing all or nothing rhetoric – he sought ways to build consensus – never losing sight of main goal which was of course - winning elections. Like his mentor Ronald Reagan, and having spent so many years fighting from a minority position under a Democrat controlled Congress, Kemp understood the value of coalitions, and plurality. A concept considered foreign to many within our GOP ranks.

You’ll recall through media reports that a few weeks ago at the National Republican Convention, several of our GOP delegates voted against including the Pro-Life plank in the Republican Party Platform. This sparked a wild protest from many who are a part of the Amen-corner of our State Party ranks. Our Chairman, Jerry Labriola, Jr., a pro-lifer, took unyielding criticism for allowing delegates to vote their conscience, or better put – for not stacking the deck with pro-life delegates, or strong-arming or intimidating delegates into voting against their respective positions. Labriola was correct to not bow down to the minority holier-than-thou crowd (or manipulate the process as previous Chairmen might have done). Had that been the case, one could only imagine the mileage the press would have gotten out of that story.

 

The extreme right went ballastic when CTGOP Chairman Labriola
didn't twist arms and break heads to support the Pro-Life Plank of the Platform

Much of the outrage back home came from confused individuals who see moral issues as the primary agenda for the Republican Party, and could frankly careless about economics, or jobs, or anything else. Over the years, I’ve had a hard time relating to the extreme far-right of our Party because I find that no matter how hard you try, you can’t reason with a group of rabid raccoons who become unhinged with spiraling eyes, and foaming mouths when it comes to certain positions. For all the important issues that the Republican Party stands – free markets, capitalism, strong foreign policy, interventionism, low taxes, individual responsibility, less government, etc. - You have to really question the conviction of someone who turns to you and says, “If it wasn’t for the Pro-Life plank in our Platform – I wouldn’t be a Republican.” Really? If that’s how you feel, then it doesn’t seem like you’re a Republican anyway. Could one be so shallow a person that s/he’d be just as happy with ObamaCare, high taxes, and a run-away debt as long as Abortion is outlawed? Here’s The King’s challenge - ask this crowd that very question the next time they utter a narrow-minded threat to bolt the Party if they don’t get their way.

Now I recognize that after last week’s clear attempt by Democrats to exclude God from their party platform that it certainly appears that Republicans seem to have cornered the market on God. Even wishy-washy Episcopalians and hippy-loving Congregationalists can see that! Frankly, I was amazed at how blatant Democrats were in their opposition to including God to the point where their leadership struggled to override (and ignore) the consensus of their represented constituency present. Without question the whole scene was certainly a C-SPAN moment for the ages. Surely, this imagery is one that Democrats will work tooth and nail to erase in the minds of Southern Black Christians who helped Obama win in 2008, and who he desperately needs to win in November. Republicans would do well to air commercial after commercials of Democrat delegates coming out of their chairs screaming their heads off to kick God out of their Convention. Whatever your religious preference, it’s pretty apparent that if God isn’t welcome, Jesus probably isn’t either. That’s ok – over in our imperfect world we’ve got plenty of room for converts.

What it all boils down to is that I’m trying to convince a few zealots in my Party is that being Pro-Life isn’t a litmus test for being either a real Christian, or an Orthodox Jew or Muslim for that matter, or for being a Republican. Nor is it a litmus test for being a decent human being. And as for as this writer is concerned – it’s not a litmus test for being our Party’s nominee at any level either.

It’s not often that within a few hours of my attending any social gathering that antagonists will seek to bait me into a political discussion. When I walk through the door, I can see them from afar - liberals gathered in a corner, peering over at me, smirking and scheming up ways ambush me at the dessert table in order to push my buttons. Even 10 on 1, I can usually hold my own against the most obnoxious gang of bedeviled Marxists - on most issues – and after all else fails when they see their in a losing battle, they almost always pull out the abortion card. They never use it for the purpose of winning the debate at large – that never works – they use it to expand sympathy to their cause from those observing us – mostly women - who tend to be more liberal on social issues.

It’s a no brainer to most of us that the abortion issue is a disastrous issue for Republicans – particularly Connecticut Republicans. Even my mainstream Catholic friends won’t touch the subject with a ten foot pole when pressed into service – and that’s because most of them are Pro-Abortion or Pro-Choice (take your pick). Oh, of course some of them will come up to me afterward and pat me on the back, but they won’t stick their necks out publicly. And again as for the women in the crowd – well you can forget it!

Last week, and taking a page out of the liberal playbook, Connecticut Governor Dannell Malloy gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention which invoked the usual Democrat themes – class warfare; hate of the rich, environment extremism, and of course – abortion. Malloy cleverly used the mother-daughter-wife theme to frighten viewers into delivering Barack Obama a second term. Sadly, this fear mongering resonates well with neutrals and the apolitical. And it’s hard to counter Malloy’s argument when GOP representatives go out of their way to include it as a plank in the Party Platform – a rotten plank at that.

"Republicans kill the elderly and eat small children. I've seen it myself!"

Women aren’t going to budge from the age old argument that they don’t need to surrender their reproductive rights to some guy in a polo shirt. I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve been told by women that they’d be inclined to vote Republican if it weren’t for the Abortion issue. And including it as a plank in the GOP Party Platform does us no favors – trust me. I’ve been through it a number of times. Ladies can agree with me on 99% of our positions, but when it comes to this one matter – they can’t stomach looking the other way. Not even for an instant. Not even for a single vote.

By now I’m sure some of you in the Pro-Life movement are reading this piece and turning beat read. Well, I got news for you. I can’t lie about the perception this issue has on our Party, and I can’t be deceitful about its impact. And I’m to the point where every time I see a Republican Candidate banter on and on about how important this issue is, or make the claim that it’s the most important issue - I see the imagery of a reverse debt-calculator subtracting votes from the GOP , and into the Democrats’ vote column.

To be clear, what I’m not saying is that our pro-life Conservatives need to abandon their viewpoint on Abortion, or modify their position. But what I am saying is that as long as you’re going to make this issue the center-point of your argument for whether or not you will support a candidate, or attack one of OUR Republican candidates running for office, then you are going to continue to aid and abed the enemy camp right up and through every election. You guys chase away more votes in five minutes with this religious demagoguery than the rest of us can muster in a week’s worth of door to door canvasing. Remember this next time you hem and haw about this issue in public, or issue ultimatums and threats. Remember how many Republican and moderate votes you just hand-delivered to Democrats. Sadly, a percentage of that group would rather have a moderate Republican lose so that a Conservative can possibly win next time. Indeed, we are our own worst enemy.

Listen, according to statistics there are somewhere between 23 and 25 million unemployed Americans out there (perhaps more if you include those who’ve just given up looking or applying for jobs or benefits). None of them are standing in a bread line worried about whether or not Sally Sue down the road should be allowed to have an Abortion. Most of them are worried about trying to put food on their tables for their families and themselves. They are worried about making the rent payment or mortgage payment, and they aren’t trying to weigh the importance of a great spiritual war going on in the Heavens or around us. I know it’s hard to make pragmatists out of extremists and zealots. But for the sake of our Party, can you please keep the religious pontification to yourselves? The rest of us are trying to win an election. Later on, after we take care of the basics, we can try to turn this nation into the world land of clouds and harps.

I have one more tale that I need to impart to you. I swear - this is a true story.

Back on Election Day in November 2008, my friend and I came upon a mutual acquaintance who told us that she was not planning to vote in the election. We imagined her to be somewhat conservative based on the many discussions we had with her over the years. After scolding her for a good thirty minutes about the need to do her civic duty, we convinced her to let us drive her to city hall so she could register on the spot and vote – presumably for John McCain. At that point, she said she was undecided on exactly who she would support. On the car ride, and while waiting in the endless winding line in the hallway, my friend and I ran the gambit on the issues – foreign policy, taxation, on and on; we thought we had done our work, covering the many reasons that electing McCain was the best choice for her and for the country.

Five feet from the room, she turns to us and says, “Ok quick… tell me the MOST important reason I should vote for John McCain.” For a moment I was filled with glee. Oh this is so easy I said to myself! I thought I’d make the tax pitch and deliver the vote for my side! But before I could get out the words, my friend turned around toward her and went into this three minute tirade about how Obama and Democrats want to kill babies, and stock the Supreme Court with Abortionists, and that the Pro-Life position was the single most important matter in the world, and on and on. My heart sank. The blood drained from my face, and I looked down at the ground in disgust. Her eyes squinted, her jaw tightened, and her fists became clenched - she turned her back on us and approached the registration table. I whispered to my friend, “You idiot! Of all the things to say! She’s Pro-Choice!” All he could muster was, “Oh.” He tried to come back with a few other items but the damage had been done.

After 40 minutes of brilliant discussion (not that it would have mattered) – Poof! My friend’s zealotry had pushed her to support Barack Obama for President. I don’t know whether I was more annoyed for the rest of the night about the land-slide victory achieved by Obama, or because my friend had spoiled a sure thing.

Again, this is a true story. It still irks me to this day. There are times when you can be so right, but at the same time – be so wrong.

Taking Issue with the FIC



I expect this part of my entry could ruffle some feathers. Now to start, I have to say that I love my friends at the Family Institute of Connecticut. I admire the work they do as activists in support of many fine and noble conservative and mainstream causes on behalf of Connecticut families. I admire that their leader, Peter Wolfgang, who leads by example by walking the walk to the point where it causes his distractors and enemies to spit flame and yellow bile. I don’t have to be in lockstep with the FIC to appreciate its dedication to conservative action.



"Sorry, Manfred - no jobs today, but enjoy your cold porridge courtesy of the FIC." 

But I have to say that I’m slightly disappointed in the way the leadership at the FIC is currently handling the Andrew Roraback situation. During the primary, The King took Senator Roraback to the shed for many of his left-leaning positions. But that battle is now over, and Senator Andrew Roraback is our duly elected nominee in Congressional District 5. I have to say I was quite perplexed at the haste in which Peter Wolfgang came out to endorse Linda McMahon (via Twitter to the CTpolitics community) – who, for all intents and purposes harbors nearly the exact social positions as Andrew Roraback – on abortion, on gay rights, and on a number of social issues. My goal isn’t to demean either Andrew Roraback or Linda McMahon (God, knows that I’ve taken issue with Mrs. McMahon) but to point out the incredible hypocrisy the FIC has shown by endorsing one candidate, and holding out against another when their social positions are virtually the same.

Now I’m not saying the FIC is expected to be front group for the CTGOP, and defend all its positions and candidates. What I am saying is that the lack of consistency on the part of the FIC is more than notable – and moreover, it’s hurtful in the grand scheme of things for them to engineer open dissent against an elected nominee of the Party - which by the way – encompasses the majority of supporters and donors of which the FIC is a mutual benefactor. Obviously, it’s true that Andrew Roraback has a voting record to scrutinize where Linda McMahon has none – that’s not a dig on Linda, that’s simply the case in fact. But honestly said, you’d be hard pressed to show where Linda would have voted differently than Andrew Roraback on many of the same bills had she held a similar public office.

But for consistency purposes, it’s The King’s View that it would have been better for Peter Wolfgang and his comrades to have remained silent and not endorsed either based on both candidates’ social ideology, instead of endorsing one over the other publicly when no reasonable difference between them can be found. Splitting hairs to support this thinking won’t accomplish much except to further fracture the fragile coalition within our ranks. We are hoping (and praying) that the endorsement of one candidate instead of the other wasn’t driven by undue influence of any kind – for that would be unscrupulous, indeed.

The King hereby calls on the Family Institute of Connecticut and its leadership to reinstitute fairness in their endorsement practices, and make the Call to Unity the promise from which all right-learning (and imperfect) candidates can equally benefit from.

As the primaries are over, and given the alternative, playing the hold out game for a pointless power-play isn’t in the best interest of everyone involved. If conservatives want moderate support at ballot time, moderates will expect conservatives to follow suit. If this concept is too hard to comprehend, think of Jack Kemp, or better yet remember the Reagan Coalition which led Republicans to successive victories in the early 80s, and delivered a decade of properity across our Nation.

I AM

THE KING

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

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

The Lisa Wilson-Rowland Scandal

Part of what we do at The King's View is to honestly size-up certain political situations, and assess the state of various races in Connecticut from a neutral Republican point of view.  The operative word - honestly - is what irks some readers who are unable to see beyond their own personal allegiances (or alliances)  - which includes some who've already been purchased through candidate gifts and favors, or others who've already placed their bets (via campaign donations) on a winning horse, and thus have a vested interest in the outcome. 

The Faces of Fear
Wilson-Foley could cost the CTGOP a Congressional
Seat if she's allowed to continue her scandalous practices

I've long held the belief that there is nothing wrong with backing the candidate of your choosing - so long as your decision is made without strings attached, or without cause for personal gain.  The King has plenty of friends who support candidates who aren't my cup of tea - but I also know that those decisions are based on a specific hot-button issue or perspective that's rooted in reason (in their own crazy minds, of course).  For those like that, we raise our glass, cheer with a smirk of ridicule, drink, and go our separate ways on Election Day.

Then there are those who we detest.  The real political opportunists among us who care more about their personal stake in the game then in the public interest.  Sadly, there are several candidates and political operatives within our own ranks who are multi-millionaires and see politics as a way of advancing their names and position in society (yes, yes - I know  they exist on both sides of the aisle).  Common sense tells you that a person with a net worth of $600 million dollars (or husband worth that) doesn't need a measly $125K a year Senate job to keep themselves afloat.  Nope. Many of these folks have been griped by boredom, or are inspired by advancing themselves to make up for that empty space in their lives - failed marriage, loneliness, personal drive for power and privilege, or to out-do their spouse -on who's success they've always relied upon.  These are the selfish ones among us who we can see coming  from a mile away with their merry band of bottom-feeding opportunists.

Obviously, we can't deny people a livelihood. Some people, like ex-Chairman Chris Healy for example, aren't capable of doing much else.  Their real jobs are merely a cover for their political aspirations.  And quite frankly, many full-time operatives don't need their real jobs because they're independently wealthy based on ties to old money.  Rehashing poor strategists like Healy has led to a string of losses that even Democrats can't take credit for. It's not a shock that King Tut is right, smack dab in the middle of latest campaign controversy.

The last few weeks have been pretty miserable for the overall CTGOP brand in the 5th Congressional District.  It wasn't a surprise to me that Chairman Jerry Labriola made calls last week to try and quell the shelling between waring camps.  It's also no surprise, that the media jackals latched on to every press release, and every word - at times - retweeting and blogging each missile as it exploded over each campaign.  It was not a pretty sight.

And like the rest of you, I've been watching all this with a smirk of amusement, but also with some disgust - opting to reserve comment until the dust settled.

First, I'd like to discuss my take on Former Governor John G. Rowland. His past and present situation, and how it impacts our Party.  Be warned - traditional supporters of this blog may not agree with this unique take on our former Governor; my perspective is a personal one; probably not in keeping with the majority opinion.

Over the course of time, I helped out on several of John Rowland's campaigns - some we lost and some we won.  I admired candidate Rowland for his straight-forward positions and adherence to Republican principles, which I find clearly absent from many of today's shallow, wishy-washy candidates.  And I admired Congressman Rowland for his commitment to his constituents and steadfast support of Republican opposition leaders.  This was back in a time when Connecticut Republicans could brag that they actually held three Congressional seats.  John Rowland's demeanor and perceived strength of character won him public support and successful promotion to the Governor's Office.  Few would argue that most Connecticut residents did pretty well under Governor Rowland - certainly better than under either Governor Rell or current Governor Dannel Malloy.  And the partnerships between himself and opposition leaders were cordial, and yielded progress on behalf of Connecticut on many fronts, and kept the public unions at bay - a stark contrast from today's Gubernatorial advocation from Dannel88.

But then something went wrong. Terribly wrong. Or had it always gone wrong and we just didn't see it?  To this day, I'm still not sure.  

The man - our man - who might have gone on to become Vice President , or even President was caught up in a slimy scandal that destroyed his reputation, ruined his legacy, and placed him behind bars.  For those of us who really liked John Rowland - we felt gutted.  We spent most days after his resignation in a state of denial; defending him, and cursing the liberal media, particularly The Hartford Courant for their relentless, politically-inspired conspiracy to remove a Republican office holder who they knew they couldn't beat fair and square (of course, Bill Curry was no daisy), and deny our Republican Champion an even brighter future.

But the truth is that although the Hartford-based media created the frenzy, the crimes Governor Rowland committed were wrong.  Like so many other politicians before him, the taste of power became his poison and led to his utter downfall.  And if you want to know the truth, that moment kicked off a downward spiral for the entire CTGOP that we've still not recovered from.

But time passed, and it was like Governor Rowland never existed.  He was part of a bad dream, pretty much forgotten.  Since Rowland's exit, the CTGOPs failures have been of our own making - mediocre candidates - including some on the fringe of Old Yankee Thinking, a string of clueless chairmen (current one excluded, of course), and the same old second place strategy which made Democrat held federal offices seem impenetrable to Republicans.

"$30K is the going price to buy
John Rowland; we can double
it! and triple our fortune!"

Then Rowland landed a job on WTIC 1080 as a talk-show host.  It was a clever gig - teaming up with Pastor Will Marotti under the name State and Church.  At first, I was concerned about how the public would take to our newly reformed Governor preaching ethical Government, and his new found faith in the Lord from a 10,000 watt transmitter (Can I get an Amen?).  My first impression was that Pastor Will's job was to serve as life size, on-air, Jiminy Cricket to former Governor Pinocchio.  I thought that perhaps Pastor Will had a special contract with the Blue Fairy to drive the wayward Rowland to and from the studio each day to make certain that he didn't accidentally bump into Honest John or Gideon on the way home, or worse - field a suggestive call from one of them on the air.

For a while the show seemed interesting, but has since trailed off into a tedious, 3-hour long union-bashing filibuster.  Praise God for Traffic and Weather. It's now to the point where the show is impossible to listen to - unless it's hosted solely by Pastor Will who is at least willing to discuss a diverse scope of topics.

But it seems that neither the conscience of Good Pastor Will, or Our Ever-living God could keep Governor Rowland out of trouble.  Just by way of timing, Pastor Will has suddenly become too busy to share the mic with the Ex-Gov.  Can you blame him?

As everyone is aware, we learned from Press reports that Governor Rowland recently found his way back into the world of Connecticut politics.  On the surface, seeing a successful political executive advising candidates from time to time is not unexpected.  But the problem for Lisa Wilson-Foley is that her connection to John Rowland damaged her campaign because of Rowland's criminal past (and possible criminal future); which further soiled her public image.

Lisa Wilson-Foley already has a negative image problem on the street.  The stories about how she acquired her wealth abound in political circles - they also fill my inbox to the point where I feel a need to take a shower after reading them.  It's true, the details are way to filthy for even this blog - and best left for The National Enquirer to exploit.  Sex, lies and scandal are just a way of life for the millionaire elite among us.  And gold-digging isn't a crime in itself, but hubby-hopping is not exactly on par with any respectable candidate that I know.  But maybe I'm just old fashioned, right?  In a day where might makes right - if you can steal some one's family fortune - more power to you.  Or perhaps not.  I don't know.  This is as far as I will go with this story.  Now everyone in the other camps stop accusing me of running cover for Lisa Wilson-Foley.

As we know from how the political game is played - the loopholes in the way something is done allows people to tell half-truths which in their own minds become full truths.  It's sort of like Lisa Wilson-Foley saying that John Rowland never worked on her campaign as a paid employee - well sure... not officially.... but by the miracle of coincidence it was learned that he was paid $30,000 by Apple Rehab which it just so happens that Lisa Wilson-Foley runs.  I'm going to go out on limb and guess that John Rowland wasn't emptying bedpans, or advising nurses on to train old ladies to use walkers. 

See, that's how the game is played.  Nothing to see here claims Chris Healy, time to move forward and send out emails with links to warm and fuzzy videos of Lisa Wilson-Foley as a loving mom and wife and Blah, Blah, Blah.  Lisa wants to create jobs -  Blah, Blah, Blah. Lisa wants to clean up Washington? Blah, Blah, Blah. Are you **itting me?  It's too late.  It's just too f'n late for that revisionist history. How about - cleaning up your own life, never mind Washington.

And you have to give credit to Mark Greenberg for having the courage to stand up and call Rowland out for suggesting that Greenberg pay Rowland through an animal shelter for political consulting.  Greenberg could smell a scandal brewing and had the decency to decide that he was going to run a respectable campaign - without help from the establishment and without controversy. 

"You won't believe who got
caught behind Door No. 2"

The biggest credit goes to Mike Clark who exposed Lisa Wilson-Foley's scandalous payments (via her husband) to John Rowland.  As everyone knows, the G-Man has a long history with John Rowland - after all, he was responsible for overseeing the criminal investigation of Rowland and sending him to prison for 10 months.  You would really have to wonder what went through the minds of Lisa Wilson-Foley, Chris Healy, and others to make such a blunderous mistake by engaging in a money laundering type scheme - and do it while in the midst of competing for a Congressional Seat against the very FBI Agent who put Rowland away?  Are they just THAT stupid??

And not that Mike Clark would ever cross the line, but don't you think that his old FBI friends are watching all of this with great interest?  If a well-grounded Mike Clark is expressing outrage then perhaps there is more to this than simply what is political?

Considering direct connection between Rowland's payoff and Apple Rehab, perhaps authorities might be keen to take a closer look at Apple Rehab's books to find out where else the money trail might lead to.  Let's not forget that Apple Rehab likely has government contracts which obligate them to strict adherence to certain federal laws.  This again begs the question as to why Apple Rehab would hire/pay a convicted felon in the first place.

If any of you think that after all that's transpired that federal authorities are done investigating the questionable practices of Lisa Wilson-Foley's campaign, then those associated with Scandal, Inc. shouldn't bother watching what you put in print or text, or say over phone.  

Keep talking; you've given everyone a reason to listen.

Want more? Did you hear the latest?  Yesterday, Candidate Ken Krayeske filed and Federal Elections Commission complaint against Lisa Wilson-Foley's campaign for "acceptance of valuable air-time as a contribution that benefited the campaign and for failing to report this contribution of air-time by CBS Radio Inc. and its agent John Rowland since it appears to have benefited her campaign." (from the article linked). 

The fact that Lisa Wilson-Foley continues to rack up endorsements from Town Committees and certain members of the establishment - even after her lack of judgment has been exposed in the press - goes to show EVERYONE just how deep-rooted the corruption is within the CTGOP.  If Chairman Labriola thought the shady tactics of the Linda McMahon camp were going to be his only problem, he was wrong.  But he has to stay awake at night wondering, what am I going to do with all of these self-sabotaging imbeciles? 

Don't you think Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of watching Lisa Wilson-Foley collapse under the weight of her own scandalous campaign?

You know with all the criticism that can be laid at Justin Bernier for trying to hijack the process, or at Andrew Roraback for his moderate positions, you'd have to hope that somehow, somewhere - the other candidates in the 5th District do everything in their power to combine forces at the State Convention to make certain that Lisa Wilson-Foley crashes and burns before she can embarrass the Party by receiving nomination by paid-delegates.   If not, you guys might as well just save time and endorse Donovan for Congress - because a nomination for Lisa Wilson-Foley all but guarantees that result.

Well, Lisa can always look on the bright side. She can always go back to donating to Democrats.

Stay tuned, there's much more to come...

I AM

THE KING

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

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