Linda McMahon

Tomorrow, a man true to himself calls it a day in elective politics. Joe Lieberman will announce his retirement at the end of this term.

Lieberman is an interesting case for many reasons. In 2006, when the Democratic Party adopted advocacy of military defeat as a campaign platform, Lieberman stood athwart history and said NO.  After his rejection by his party's voters Lieberman took his case to the entire electorate, and won a fairly convincing victory.

We don;t know what the corruptive effect on the Democratic Senate caucus the election of Ned Lamont would have caused. I do know that at a point when the George W. Bush adminstration seemed to have the communication skills of a stump and the fighting skills of Punch Out's Glass Joe. Lieberman carried the cause of seeing Iraq through loudly and proudly.

Now the ride is over. Supposedly Lieberman wanted to run again but found no path. The problem here is the voters may reward a candidate for breaking with one party for one reason, but will not reward zig zagging across the political landscape.   Lieberman's position on health care reform and "climate change" made him unsalable to a Republican primary electorate.

Now the successors are on the way. The persistant and fumbling Susan Bysiewicz has already announced, and the Eddie Haskell of the House, Chris Murphy, is almost sure to follow.  On the Republican side Linda McMahon may have never stopped running. Whether she can run a more focused campaign than one that veered into Vietnam during an economic crisis, and used Hermes clad muffies as spokespeople--well, remain to be seen. Tom Foley, who emerged well liked from the gubernatorial run, and old reliable Rob Simmons are giving the race some thought it is said.

Connecticut 2012 may be a wild ride. But when we're done we will probably miss the adult in the room leaving the stage tomorrow.

1. Evidently a "Blue Moon" candidate purporting to be an outsider runs better than a "Certified Pre-owned candidate" But it's still not as good as the real thing.

2.  20 years of relentless retail politics can enable even unsteady campaigners to withstand a credibility gap. Will there be a follow up?  It's pretty obvious to folks around here Blumenthal wasn't going to sink with one torpedo. Does McMahon has more ammo, or did they already use their best shot?  

3. The rest of the world is noticing Linda McMahon has high negatives.  Jeez,this was apparent in November 2009

4. Planting oppo with the press is a great idea. Bragging about it, not so much.  Maybe the McMahon campaign ought to start adhering to the sort of unsportslike conduct penalties the NFL has for excessive showboating. Reliving the XFL is not likely to work any better in politics than football.

5. Using ACORN style tactics to fight ACORN, well, I'm not so sure that works for me.

Retard-gate is growing, apparently, and it's coming to the Connecticut Senate race over the mistreatment of a developmentally disabled wrestling character that Senate candidate Linda McMahon's entertainment company created in 2004.

For those of you unaware, wrestling queen Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, is running for the Senate in Connecticut against conservative Rob Simmons.

As it happens, starting in 2004 McMahon's wrestling shows once featured what was presented as a mentally handicapped wrestler who was stage named "Eugene." Through the course of this character’s story arc he was savagely beaten in a "cage match," and was regularly verbally abused by other characters.

For her part, McMahon claims that the character was written as a "hero" that was supposed to inspire "other people with disabilities to strive to achieve their dreams."

However, McMahon's opponent Rob Simmons begs to differ. He thinks that the wrestling show mistreated what was presented as a developmentally disabled adult and used him as the butt of jokes. Simmons is calling for McMahon to be held to account for using the developmentally disabled story line.

Simmons might also have an even stronger case, though, if he focuses on the facts surrounding the "Eugene" character. The truth is, the man that played the character, Nicholas Dinsmore, is not developmentally disabled at all. He is just another actor involved in the wrestling scene.

So, not only did McMahon make a character based on a mentally handicapped person, she didn't even hire one to do the job! If someone wants to get outraged at the portrayal of a mentally retarded person as a fool, as a joke, and as someone that gets savagely beaten, I'd think that this "Eugene" character is ripe for causing outrage.

This wrestling character makes the off-the-cuff remark by Rahm Emanuel, the presidential advisor who called the strategy ideas he heard offered by his fellow Democrats a bunch of "f---ing retarded" ideas, seem mild. Compared to the treatment of the mentally disabled that McMahon perpetrated in her wrestling shows, saying something was “f---ing retarded” is nothing.

So, if everyone can get all upset over Emanuel's goofy comment, what will they do when they see that McMahon's shows had a "retard" being regularly beaten to a pulp and laughed at?

This could liven up the Connecticut race, for sure.

This isn't the last time that McMahon has courted controversy in this race, either. She came on strong early in the race claiming to be the prefect example of the conservative candidate. But it soon came to light that during her years as a wrestling magnate she gave lots of political donations to Democrats. In fact, speaking of Rahm Emanuel, he was one of the Democrats to which McMahon donated campaign cash.

I guess those bashers of the "retarded" like to stick together!

For your edification, here is a video of wrestler "Tripple H" beating "Eugene" senseless.

Also in the Connecticut Senate race... and who knows why... is one Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. and former adviser to Ron Paul. This guy can't get higher than 5% in the polls, though, so it's a wonder that he's not yet quit the race.

The sign is now indisputably true

Of course, if one of the most durable Democratic politicians of our generation can't defend the Obama Administration's policies on the economy and health care, how can we expect lesser politicos to do so?

Evidently we can't, as in the past 24 hours we've seen a pillage of Democratic candidates in Michigan, North Dakota and Colorado akin to the final scene of The Godfather.

We'll see how the CT musical chairs play out. But anyone who is pencilling in Dick Blumenthal's name ought to watch what happens to MA AG Martha Coakley very closely. I suspect the risk averse Blumenthal will as well..

Anyway, now the bittersweet feeling of a task accomplished.   

Throw it at Harry Reid?

The TLC match is a variation of a ladder match, which is modified to include two other weapons, tables and chairs. The TLC match usually pits three or more tag teams against each other, or more recently used for one-on-one matches. The goal is to acquire the item (usually championship belts) which starts the match suspended above the ring. A TLC match can be seen as a more complicated ladder match, where tables and chairs, along with ladders, can also be used as legal foreign objects. This, compared to the relative ages of the wrestlers involved, gives the match an atmosphere similar to that of a hardcore match.

The WWE's newest pay-per-view event for December 2009 is titled TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs where main events will be a table match, a ladder match, a match where chairs are legal as weapons and the last match on the card will be a TLC match. TLC IX will feature Chris Jericho and The Big Show against D-Generation X (Triple H and Shawn Michaels) for the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. This event is replacing WWE Armageddon on the PPV calendar.

Of course the problem would be is if Ms. McMahon threw some heavy object at another Senator, we'd all be wondering if Rahm Emanuel approved the script.

The decision of Governor Jodi Rell not to seek re-election and the response of the donor class to the millions already spent by senate candidate Linda McMahon has created a mad scramble in Connecticut Republican politics.

The first shot was fired by state Republican chairman Chris Healy in urging senate candidate Sam Caligiuri to change races from challenging Chris Dodd to Congressman Chris Murphy.  After some time to consider the summons, Caligiuri announced he was switching gears and taking on Murphy.

It's unfortunate that a proven, electable conservative failed to gain traction in Connecticut, but the entry of McMahon and her willingness to spend a virtually inexhaustable amount of cash appears to have closed checkbooks across CT.  Contributors simply thought a House race was a better investment of their resources than trying to outpace both frontrunner Rob Simmons and a human ATM; like it or not, the political marketplace has spoken.    

Another, better funded Republican Senate candidate appears to have gotten the same message,  Former Ambassador Tom Foley announced he was likely to quit the Senate race and throw his hat into the open Governor's race; where as of yet the putative candidate was Lt. Governor Mike Fedele.  Foley actually had a decent lead on Dodd in the last poll, and it may be harder for the Democrats to attack Foley's role in the Iraqi reconstruction effort in a state level race than a Senate race. 

It has been argued--and denied-- that all these maneuvers are being orchestrated by State party chairman Chris Healy, who insists he is not "moving chess pieces across the board".  Unfortunately for the Democrats, we have the political version of the "Deep Blue" program at work.

In the space of a couple of weeks, CT Republicans may have clarified their previously chaotic U.S. Senate primary situation--leaving a de facto two person race;  drawn a candidate capable of matching Ned Lamont dollar for dollar into the Governor's race; and turned up the heat early on Chris Murphy in the state's most conservative House district.

This is probably in sum good news for Rob Simmons; he probably faced greater risk of losing a multicandidate primary where many old-style Republicans would vote for Foley or Caligiuri; especially given Rob's moderate past.  The history of upstarts ousting frontrunners in New England GOP primaries isn't promising for McMahon, who would be well advised to shut down third party speculation by using her own lips; instead of hiding behind flacks.  One impediment to such a bid would be CT state law now requires would be aspirant to be in the process of filing third party papers in advance of a primary, (the Democrats were a bit chagrined by Joe Lieberman in 2006)

But while there may be method to the CT GOP's madness, the Democrats are facing simple chaos theory.  Ralph Nader may enter the Senate race against Dodd as a third party candidate.  No wonder the CT Democrats are left flailing away against the Q Poll....

maybe they just "can't handle the truth"

Chris Dodd has a polling profile reminscent of NJ Governor Jon Corzine. He's behind, he's been behind for a long while, and the poll internals indicate he's likely to stay behind.

Given that the election is less than a year away, how could Dodd eke out a victory?

Have an opponent with high negatives. Thankfully for him, one is already in the race.

Five Republicans are in the race now. Former Congressman Rob Simmons has yet to run TV ads, but has residual name ID in central and eastern CT from his days in Congress. He is leading  Dodd by 11 points.

Former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley has run TV ads . He is leading Dodd by 7 points.

The other three candidates--Linda McMahon, Sam Caligiuri and Peter Schiff--all are in effective dead heats with Dodd in the 43-41% range.  So they are equal, right?

No. McMahon is the weakest of the lot.  Neither Caligiuri or Schiff have spent dime one on TV ads, while McMahon has blanketed the state--even running ads on NYC TV. Yet she fares no better than the more frugal candidates in the race.

The secret here is while McMahon is buying name recognition, much of it is already negative. 

According to Quinnipiac Simmons's image is now 40% favorable , 10% unfavorable. His rating with unaffiliated voters is 42% favorable- 7% unfavorable.

Linda McMahon did not make such a good first impression.    She rates at 20% favorable to 13% unfavorable.  14% of unaffiliates and 15% of men already have a negative impression of the wrestling mogul.

Amazingly, more people in CT dislike Linda McMahon after a few weeks in elective politics than dislike Rob Simmons after nearly 20 years at  the trade.

The rule of thumb is that a challenger's early numbers usually have to run 2 to 1 favorable to have a shot at an incumbent. McMahon's slick campaign ain't getting the split she needs. And Lord knows what's going to happen if and when Dodd unloads some negatives on her. Sure she'll have plenty of cash to respond, but methinks Chris Dodd will enjoy the mudfest. It's not like his numbers can go much further down.

Now one would think Dodd's dream---a rookie opponent with high and rising negatives--couldn't come true. But it might due to the quirks of the CT GOP and our geography.

Rob Simmons is very well known in eastern CT, which does not have many registered Republicans.  But he is not well known in heavily Republican Fairfield County, which is served by NYC TV.    McMahon's been on those stations; Simmons never has.

I suspect the reason the ballot test for the CT primary is now 28% Simmons - 17% McMahon is heavily due to Simmons having low visibility in the southwestern part of CT.

So all of McMahon's millions got her the same ballot test as the candidates not spending money, and the highest negative ratings in the Republican field.

I suggest CT Republicans take a long hard look at these poll internals. When a candidate makes a tepid first impression, it usually doesn;t improve by just pouring resources into the same suboptimal message.

And if Linda McMahon isn't ahead of the weakened Dodd now after spending millions, why would she be when her negatives inevitably rise?

Let's not do Chris Dodd any favors, please

The Latest Quinnipiac poll is out, and Dodd is still down.

Former Connecticut Congressman Rob Simmons has an early lead in the Republican primary race for the 2010 U.S. Senate contest and runs better than any other challenger against Sen. Christopher Dodd, topping the Democratic incumbent 49 - 38 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.  

He loses as well to Linda McMahon and Tom Foley, and is in a dead heat with Sam Caligiuri and Peter Schiff

Why?  Because CT voters don;t find him trustworthy and don't think he cares about their issues.They also don;t think he's doing a a good job on the economy.

Support for the Democratic health plan, although higher here than most places, is slipping.

The good news for Dodd, if any, is that Simmons does face a primary challenge of significance from the "Wild RINO". But in a matter of weeks she's raised her negative rating almost as fast as her positive rating. Oops!

Chris Christie had a primary too, Didn;t help Corzine. And the pattern of Q polls on Dodd is looking more and more like the pattern of polls on Corzine before his failed re-election bid.

In the wake of NY 23  all eyes pointed to the Club for Growth to ascertain where they would jump in next to promote fiscally conservative candidates. And in light of this article, one wonders if they have CT in mind as one of their next venues  

Beyond Florida, other establishment Republicans may be looking over their shoulders. Chocola, a former House Republican from Indiana, noted that he served with Rep. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and former Rep. Rob Simmons (R., Conn.), both running for the Senate.

“They’re both good guys, but they don’t fit the bill as Club for Growth candidates,” he said.

Before his organization decides to jump in, however, he said the group has to see how those races develop, and whether a clear “Club” alternative surfaces.

“The best Kirk and Simmons can expect is that we leave them alone,” Chocola said.

So, Simmons, who has had to revise prior positions on cap and trade; as well as card check, and recently made a rather conciliatory statement on the public option, might find himself not just  overlooked by the fiscal conservative masterminds, but even challenged by a serious committment of time and resources by the Club.  The Club may not always succeed, but their targets are always aware the Club tried.

So, who would the Club for Growth think would be a viable opponent for Chris Dodd?  Who is fiscally conservative enough to warrant their support, a candidate capable of actually winning against Dodd in the general election, and a candidate who actually could use their support?.

There are four other Republicans in the U.S. Senate race besides Simmons. I believe we can write off two names.  Linda McMahon is , of course, "the Wild RINO". Besides, why should the Club send some of its limited money to CT to subsidize a self-funding billionaire? 

Peter Schiff, the former Ron Paul advisor, is certainlly in favor of limited government, but his agenda is so doctrinaire as to make him a very poor investment of Club resources. Perhaps Idaho is ready for 180 proof libertarianism; CT, not so much. Besides, his campaign to date has just done moneybombs and has no traction on the ground.

That leaves Tom Foley and Sam Caligiuri. Foley has been running cute ads with babies, but he's never run a political campaign and whether he can win an election is an open question.

There's one candidate running in CT right now who a) has a proven record of fiscal conservatism and b) has a proven record of winning elections. That's Sam Caligiuri.

2010 might be exactly the year to run a state senator who stood up against a Governor in his own party to vote "no" on an ultimately disasterous state budget. And that made Sam Caligiuri the only CT State Senator to oppose a budget that left the state in a huge deficit. 

It might also be a good year to run a candidate who won a formerly Democratic legislative seat in the Democratic tsunami of 2006.      

And given the issue environment, it might make sense to run a candidate praised for his ability on the stump and described as a "proud Reagan Republican"

I have no idea what the decision making processes at the Club are. Certaintly Rob Simmons is a far cry from the elasticity of Charlie Crist--Simmons is a good guy and generally helpful to other Republicans.  But the Club is looking for alternative to the "Certified Pre-Owned Candidates".

Sam Caligiuri is the sort of guy they would be looking at in Connecticut. And, they did sound like they wanted to play, now didn't they?

It's Mischief Night tonight, and I hear the "Wild RINO". Linda McMahon has picked out her Halloween costume for tomorrow evening.

(Try not to scare Rahm Emanuel!, Linda)

One thing that Ms. McMahon is eager to portray is being the self-reliant hardscrabble businesswoman who rose to billions solely through single minded hard work and perseverance.

And just like the sport: Wrestling's fake. And so is the WWE's true committment to free enterprise.

That is, unless your definition of "free enterprise" includes sinking one's snout deep, deep into the public trough guzzling corporate welfare.

From the Journal-Inquirer.

A top aide to Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Linda E. McMahon today defended her company’s acceptance of millions of dollars in state tax credits, as both Republican and Democratic opponents pilloried her for what they called McMahon’s “stimulus package” and “taxpayer-funded bailout.”The attacks by former 2nd District Congressman Robert R. Simmons, the leading Republican seeking to unseat U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, and by a Dodd surrogate, state Democratic Party spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan, came after the state subsidies to World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. were reported Thursday by the Journal Inquirer. 

The newspaper cited state records that show WWE has collected nearly $3 million in digital and media tax credits, most of which were issued just eight weeks before McMahon resigned her position as its chief executive officer to run for office.

Yep, Linda McMahon's immensely profitable wrestling empire gets subsidized by the Connecticut taxpayer, who are watching the income tax raised on the top bracket, public services reduced, and the state try and borrow its way through the recession. Indeed, unionized state employees even agreed to concessions, which is more than can be said about the state's would-be entertainment titans.

The apologists for the state's highly subsidized entertainment industry accuse McMahon critics of "jumping the shark" .  You see, it was other politicians who wrote these lucrative credits into the law.

Sorry, none of them are spending millions denouncing bailouts when they run a profitable corporation that takes them themselves.  It's "Happy Days" alright for the McMahon family, but the average CT taxpayers feels like they are in remake of "Jaws" 

So the news media has concluded that Ms. McMahon, whose family controls the vast percentage of the WWE's stock, converted tax credits from the state into funds available for her campaign. Maybe this is a form of "public campaign finance"

But it gets worse.

Despite the fact that the WWE was very profitable notwithstanding the recession, shortly before she left her CEO post  at the WWE Linda McMahon went on a frenzy of layoffs and cost-cutting intended to raise profit margins.

Jan. 9, 2009, 9:38 a.m. ESTMcMahon & Co. has announced that it is cutting 10% of its staff, which should result in annual cost savings of approximately $8 million. In exchange for that, the company will take a one-time charge of $3 million. WWE also noted that the company has completed an evaluation of its operating and capital expenditures and has identified "additional efficiencies." In short, more cost cuts are on the way. The company's ultimate goal is to trim $20 million from its expense structure in 2009. 

I'm the last person to lambaste a business that cuts costs to stave off competition, or to stockpile cash, or to pay off lenders and creditors.  And we are going to see a lot of very necessary cuts like that in Corporate America. But the WWE is essentially a monopoly in pro wrestling, they have consistently earned a profit and have $200 million in cash with virtually no long term debt..     So why the urgency to cut costs?  Well, as I noted the McMahon family owns 70% of the WWE  Let's apply 70% of the $20 million in cut costs; well that means $14 million inures to the McMahon family..

So,does the Wild RINO gets to finance most of her U.S. Senate campaign with "new money" without having to dip into the family fortune? Sure looks it.

McMahon's campaign has run a TV ad telling folks how tough it was for her and Vince starting out, even having to declare bankruptcy and losing their house starting their business.

Hey Linda, like that's special. Please.

What really sickens me is it appears she is paying for this ad using the extra profits she earned after firing over 60 Connecticut employees.  

How many of those 60 WWE's employees are going to lose their house so their old boss can finance her U.S. Senate bid without dipping into the accumulated family fortune?  In 2006 Joe Lieberman eviscerated the campaign of Ned Lamont after running this ad.    

It's tough wearing a costume as a free market Republican and expecting people to believe you; Linda.

Especially when you destroy jobs, not create them . And collect subsidies. Not cut them.

We're onto the trick, Linda. You already got the treat.