Posted on 08/15/2010 3:37:15 AM PDT by Zakeet
Of this season’s crazy, contentious, wide-open Senate races — in Ohio, Florida, California, Arizona, Nevada — none is as wild as what’s going on in Connecticut. In one corner: Democrat Richard Blumenthal, 64, state attorney general since 1991 and favored to win, up by over 40 points in the polls until this spring, when he was caught lying about having served in Vietnam. In the opposing corner: Republican Linda McMahon, 61, until last fall the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), billionaire and political neophyte.
Since spending $22 million of her fortune, McMahon beat out GOP contenders Peter Schiff (campaign slogan: “Schiff Happens” — seriously) and former congressman and decorated Vietnam vet Rob Simmons, who’d been drafted by the party to run. Ultimately, he lost the party’s backing — to McMahon — for the primary. Simmons suspended his cash-poor campaign in May, then re-entered a few weeks ago, showing up at Connecticut commuter hubs and passing out potholders, a sadly literal example that, for him, there was no issue “too hot to handle.”
McMahon won Tuesday’s primary with 49% of the vote and has since shrunk Blumenthal’s formerly capacious lead to 7 points. She spent three hours on Wednesday morning, beginning at 6 a.m., sitting in front of a camera, doing interviews via satellite with outlets nationwide. She has suddenly become a political supernova, one to watch, and she has done it by positioning herself as the quintessential outsider, sick of politics as usual, quid-pro-quos, the ever-expanding reach of the federal government.
[Snip]
What’s the key difference between her and Blumenthal? “He’s clearly liberal big-government,” she says. “I’m clearly conservative small-government. It’s a real clear choice in that regard.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“I talk to my sixty-five year old sister who is a savvy, intelligent voter. She’s watching the commercials and she believes Rick Scott is what he says he is and, because of the advertising blitz, “ No offense, but you call someone who “believes” what commercials say “a savvy, intelligent voter?”
I respectfully acknowledge your position, but realize that, like most people, my sister is dealing with a lot of life-concentrating-events. She has just had surgery and constantly hurts. When she is up, she’s taking care of our 94 year old parents. She spends several hours a day on the phone straightening out medical billing issues, making appointments, etc. The point is, she’s intelligent. She’s educated. She spent 20 years as an AF OSI agent carrying a gun. She is probably a cut above the average TV listener.
Still, if all you ever see are commercials for candidate A and candidate A is bad, she isn’t likely to find that out. She reads the paper, but what good is that when the paper is essentially a Democratic party field office? If serial killer Ted Bundy had millions of dollars and a slick advertising company, and he was running as a Democrat, he’d probably get 51% of the vote.
The idea that my sister, with literal lives depending on her, or a mother of young children, is going to spend “a few minutes a day” learning about the candidates is a non-starter. We have a representative government. I believe that even the Democrats (socialists) of my parent’s generation believed they were truly representing the people. Now that we know socialism doesn’t work, who are they representing? They cloak themselves under so many euphemisms (progressivism, liberalism, etc.) and they use such wonderful sounding language such as “sustainable, green and environmentally sound” that a few minutes a day isn’t going to smoke them out.
I had to get help with my ballot from a Catholic, conservative (not the same, anymore) lawyer in the state judicial system. How would anybody be able to find out if somebody running for judge, for example, is a total nut-job? Their literature and positions all SOUND the same. But, listen to somebody who has brought cases before them and you get the real story.
You can’t even trust organizations like the NRA, which I’ve read has twice backed anti-gun candidates. Maybe the opposition was the worse of two evils, I don’t know.
You and I and probably most Freepers are genuine cynics to the core. We can spot the codewords and we look at who else is backing a candidate. But busy people simply don’t have enough day left to do the kind of research is necessary to ferret out the truth. (I should probably say “apparent” truth, as I’ve picked a few lemons in my day.)
So you want to regulate what a person can spend their money on? Who decides what I can spend my money on? You or obama?
IMO, the fact that someone can “buy” an election with large amounts of money says a lot more about the electorate than the candidate.
Money buys 30 and 60 second media slots of very simple slogans. It buys signs and billboards of the same.
With the access to information that the average member of the electorate has and thus the easy ability to accurately determine where a candidate really stands, there is no good reason for 60 second media slots and billboards to carry the election. EXCEPT that the average voter is lazy, stupid and has no desire to put out the effort to get real facts.
Obama is a good example. We all know that everything people are now “discovering” about his true beliefs was out there during the campaign. But people choose to believe $800 million in signs and “change” slogans because it required to effort or reasoning.
Blame it on the voter, not the $22 million.
“I am split here. Has it become so that only the godaweful rich can run?”
Yes.
Quit bating me and putting words in my mouth. Take your garbage somewhere else.
Please, don’t fall for the MSM change of ‘Rat color to blue. They are red through and through. Don’t let them define your thinking.
Great graph. Thanks!
I guess voters should ask this when mulling over McMahon:
"How could she possibly be worse than Chris Dodd" ?
I think the Main Stream Media is concentrating on this race because it is the one race they figure the Democrats are sure to win. They don’t want to report on Boxer, Reid or any other stars of the ‘Rat firmament falling down, so they will report on the one race where the ‘Rat starts out with a 40-point lead, and try to horse-race that one.
dont even compare these douchebags to the greatest people that ever walked this great land.
The Founding Fathers were wealthy, but they also had vision. They wanted the best for the people without any regard for their own fortunes. Most went into hock supporting the war, so paid with their lives.
Can you point to anyone in gov that had the sand that these great men had?
Due to her WWF background, she faces some of the same PR problems that Al Franken faced, though McMahon is much more conservative than Franken is. Hopefully, McMahon can play down their importance.
I’ve heard rumors that Blumenthal has used his office to prosecute people for political gain. Is this true?
we were discussing the wrestling audience.
|
|
I have said none of the things you accuse me of. You are making things up and trying to say I said or think them which is completely untrue.
You are still trying to bait me. Take it to another forum.
Yep and perhaps a troll.
“Why is it you think the Clintons are worth 100 million dollars?”
The voters.
What did I say that was untrue? All I said was that I thought a person should be allowed to spend the money they earned on what they want. I got the impression you do not feel they should be allowed to spend it on their own campaign if they want. What words did I put in your mouth? What did I make up?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.