Linda McMahon: The NY Times/Emanuel Family approved Republican!

We've learned more this week about liberal Republican wrestling promoter Linda McMahon, a/k/a "the Wild RINO"

 ... _&_Linda_McMahon_WWE.jpg

For one thing, we've ascertained that she must be the Pinch Sulzberger approved Republican in the field of candidates in Connecticut. On Sunday, the New York Times decided to put its candidate profile of Mrs. McMahon on page A1 

A Senate Candidate Accustomed to Being Thrown in the Ring

“I don’t think anyone should ever question Linda’s resolve or tenacity,” said Dick Ebersol, the chairman of NBC Universal Sports, who has collaborated on projects with the McMahons. “If anybody thinks she is the little woman, they are out of their minds. She put the business together.”

OK, any question who the MSM is in the tank for in this race, folks?

 New York Times Hits Obama

Jeez, you wonder what's going through Rob Simmons's head about now. All he did was spend a career in the CIA and on Capitol Hill, a decade in the CT Legislature, won a Democrat congressional district three times, and he's been obscured by someone who produced a soap opera on steroids.   

What is not going through Republican minds in Connecticut is much respect for this stuff. Just this week, a legislator from McMahon's  home town endorsed the thoughtful conservative in the field,  State Senator Sam Caligiuri

 “Representative Camillo’s endorsement is very humbling. As a relative newcomer to the political scene, Fred brings the fresh perspective of an outsider who is very much in touch with the people he represents. The Greenwich community is fortunate to have such a bright, rising star representing them in the General Assembly, and I am honored to have his support,” said Caligiuri.

And McMahon's trouble extend to the stump. Here's what a Hartford Courant political reporter said of her appearance this week in Windsor. "her delivery is about as interesting as listening to an assistant principal read the morning announcements"

ben stein in ferris bueller ...

On the other hand, Caligiuri's performance won praise

 I'd give Caligiuri a B+ for his engaging, lively stump speech, which told us about how he snatched Waterbury from the jaws of corruption and reminded us of his immigrant roots. He's a proud Reagan Republican and he earns points for at least mentioning the achievement gap.

State Sen. Sam Caligiuri and ...

One of the reasons that McMahon is having problems on the stump is she keeps having to explain why she claims to be a Republican today despite having done little in the past to demonstrate a modicum of interest in the party's agenda or principles.

Here's another story about McMahon's painful performance in Windsor.  

The tens of thousands of dollars given to the Democratic party and Emanuel is simply the cost of doing business, McMahon said Thursday night following a meeting of the candidates at a Windsor restaurant.

“I’ve been the CEO of a publicly traded company, which has given money to both Democrats and Republicans,” McMahon said.

McMahon said it had nothing to do with politics or personal beliefs. She said she has known Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ari Emanuel, for years.

Ari Emanuel runs a talent agency in Hollywood, California, which does business with WWE, she said. She said he called up and let her know his brother would be in Stamford and “may do a little arm twisting.” She said when she gave money to Emanuel, he was still a Congressman from Illinois, not the current president’s chief of staff.


OK, a billionaire who thinks throwing cash at liberal Democrats (Emanuel was getting Pelosi elected House Speaker at the time) is just a "cost of doing business" Now THERE'S a committed principled conservative if I ever heard one. Or perhaps she's a plant by her good friends the Emanuel family sent to muck up the Connecticut primary and save Chris Dodd's sorry keester.   

While we are on the topic of Rahm Emanuel and his brothers, maybe we could elicit an opinion from the Wild RINO on the topic of "death panels"....then again, she might think it's a new form of steel cage bout 

Maybe subsidizing leftists makes friends for Linda in Hollywood, the White House and with the New York Times, but it most certaintly is not endearing her to her opponents,


"For me it’s not just business,” former U.S. Congressman Rob Simmons said.

Simmons said McMahon’s donations undermined his efforts in 2006 and allowed his opponents, who are now expanding government to win elected office.

Simmons wasn't done

“If donating tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats was ‘the cost of doing business’ for Linda McMahon and her professional wrestling empire, one wonders what she aimed to get in return for her generosity. This sort of influence peddling would not make her ‘a different kind of Senator.’ It would make her exactly the same as the one we have.”

Sam Caligiuri wasn't very pleased with this lame effort to defend the indefensible, either. His spokeswomen issued this statement.

“What we’re hearing from Republicans as we travel around the state is that they are insulted by Ms. McMahon working against their efforts to elect Republicans, then trying to sweep these personal contributions under the rug as if no one would ever notice.  Pro wrestling might be fake, but this practice of choosing expediency over principle is the very real way in which Washington currently works, and is exactly what Sam is fighting to fix.  If McMahon is already a part of the problem, it is hard to believe she can ever become part of the solution,” said Grossman

Linda McMahon says she'll be a "different kind of Senator", but if that means she'll be a liberal glad-handing gazillionaire there's quite enough already, don'tcha think?  We need someone who cares more about folks in Hamden than Hollywood.

There's nothing "different" about hypocrisy in politicians, Linda


In this morning's' New London Day, a columnist suggests that McMahon will run a third party bid for the Senate similar to that of her political mentor, former liberal Connecticut Governor and WWE Board member Lowell Weicker

If this wouldn't be a premeditated sabotage of the effort to oust Chris Dodd, I don't know what else would be

Your rating: None


Only a RINO could possibly win in CT

> I'd give Caligiuri a B+ for his engaging, lively stump speech, which told us about how he

> snatched Waterbury from the jaws of corruption and reminded us of his immigrant roots.

> He's a proud Reagan Republican and he earns points for at least mentioning

> the achievement gap.


Um...for all MacMahon's flaws (real and imagined), it would seem that only a RINO like her could possibly win in Connecticut which is one of the most Blue states of all. So Blue that in a three-way race for an open Senate seat three years ago, the lone Republican candidate had no chance of winning despite Lieberman & Ned Lamont stealing votes from each other. Heck, Barry trounced McCain 61%-39% last fall. All six CT Representatives and both Senators are Dems (the last GOP Senator -- Lovell Weicker, elected in 1971 -- was the archetypal liberal Rockefeller Republican). And the Dems hold veto proof majorities in both chambers of the Connecticut assembly too. And you think nominating Sam Caligiuri is the best way to defeat Chris Dodd!


Eventually, Blue Dogs such as Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and others will face reelection. It makes sense to nominate "full spectrum" conservatives in those cases & places, but Connecticut is not one of those.



Beware of the liberal urging us to vote for a Republican In Name Only, because what the liberal wants is a reliably Democrat vote either way.

Au Contraire, chemjeff...

This particular liberal would very much prefer that you nominate Caligiuri (and Marco Rubio in FL-) for Senator, that "Tea Baggers" strongly support  renegade "spoiler" conservative candidate Doug Hoffman instead of GOP-sanctioned Dede Scozzafava in New York's  23rd district etc. etc.! In virtually all cases this will make it easier for the Dems to win, e.g. Charlie Crist is both experienced and popular in Florida and has real crossover potential.


Like I said, there are solid conservative pickup opportunities ... e.g. those 40+ mostly rural and Southern House districts that went for Bush & McCain in the past two elections yet are currently represented by a moderate/centrist Democrat. But you'll have to be pragmatic in places such as CT and NY if you want to regain your national majority.



You might want to be careful with what you seek...

If Rubio wins the primary he is going to demolish Meek and probably be a national candidate by 2020.

BTW, the Courant reporter who praised Caligiuri is no ally of conservatives. Sometimes a guy comes along who just is a good enough candidate to overcome the usual party identification. 

If we wanted an electable moderate

We already had Rob Simmons running for the seat.

Given the mood in the electorate, I think that a populist conservative candidate could do a lot better in '10 in Blue States than many people expect. Caligiuri won an open state senate seat in 2006 previously held by a Democrat; it's not like he has no background getting elected in a challenging environment.

RE: 2006. The GOP was basically giving Lieberman a pass from day one. That's not a relevant point of inquiry except to point out that the Kos-approved candidate only managed 40%



> Given the mood in the electorate, I think that a populist conservative candidate

> could do a lot better in '10 in Blue States than many people expect.


It's impossible to tell, this early. I certainly expect the GOP to do better than in the past two elections since there are so few vulnerable Republican seats left (=only 15 GOP Representatives come from districts that trended Democratic in the 2004 & 2008 presidential elections while the Dems have to defend 66 seats in GOP-friendly territory). The state of the economy and Obama's performance will determine the full extent of those losses. Another point in the GOP's favor is that younger voters tend to be less interested in midterm elections.  However, I regard it as unlikely that the House will flip next year for the following reasons:

*Unlike 1994, there are very few Democratic retirements. 22 out of 54 GOP pick-ups in the 1994 elections were open seats versus just four today in districts regarded as even vaguely competitive by the Cook Political Report. More recently, 13 out of 21 Democratic gains last year were due to Republican retirements.

*Before 1994 the Republicans were still underrepresented in the South and the Dems had been in control for decades. The "ideological sorting-out" had not yet been completed. The 1994 "Republican Revolution" was made possible by large GOP gains in the "Southern whites", "White men" and "White born again Christians"/"White protestant" segments. Apart from self-described "independents", all of those 1994 groups are already safely in the GOP column. And there isn't much evidence that non-whites, Hispanics and women are starting to like the GOP better yet.

*Unlike 1994,Republican  favorability ratings remain abysmally poor. House Democrats may be unpopular but they still fare better than the GOP in opinion polls. And the opposition was much better organized back, some "Tea Baggers" may actually make it harder for credible GOP candidates to win as the movement sometimes attacks Republicans too.