Skip to comments.Simmons and Schiff: We were better Senate candidates than McMahon (Connecticut)
Posted on 11/08/2010 8:26:59 PM PST by Qbert
When a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate sinks $50 million into a losing campaign, it's natural for the less-monied runners-up for the GOP nomination to wonder if they would have performed better.
Neither uttered the specific words "I told you so," but in separate interviews former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons and economist/radio host Peter Schiff maintained they were better candidates than wrestling executive Linda McMahon.
"There are a number of issue areas where I simply would not be subject to the kind of attacks that (Democratic foe Richard Blumenthal) leveled against Mrs. McMahon," said Simmons, who had criticized McMahon's background running World Wrestling Entertainment and knew Blumenthal would capitalize on it.
"When I look at the results of this race today and realize Richard Blumenthal expended around $6 million and I had raised $3 million and was certainly in a good position to raise at least $3 million more, I just wonder why my party chose the way they did," Simmons said.
But Schiff argues the very fact that McMahon needed to invest so much money to craft a positive image about herself and WWE further hurt her chances.
"Spending all that money became a negative in and of itself," Schiff said. "Then the impression was she's just buying the election. And that gave Dick Blumenthal his one winning issue -- `It's an election, not an auction.' "
Conservative writer Ann Coulter, whose family lives in New Canaan and who had urged the GOP and conservative media to support Simmons, agreed in a column.
"Republicans had the ideal Connecticut candidate in Rob Simmons," Coulter wrote. "He had won in liberal districts before, was a graduate of Haverford College and Harvard University, was an Army colonel who served in Vietnam and teaches at Yale. He also never kicked a man in the groin for entertainment...
(Excerpt) Read more at ctpost.com ...
He also never kicked a man in the groin for entertainment...
Well, hell, that’s my guy !!!
Never could understand why Coulter wouldn’t endorse Schiff.
And Linda McMahon, wasn't even a tea party candidate, this made nooooo sense.
You are not a better candidate if you can’t win the primary.
“You are not a better candidate if you cant win the primary.”
Don’t tell that to Karl Rove...
Yeah it did. She could self finance. As a rule The big boys at the GOP love candidates that can sink millions of their own into a race. The only exception I can think of right now just became Govenor of Florida. In his case he had a contagion though. The Tea Party backed him. They’d have loved him if not for that.
I don’t mind Linda’s past. Elites take exception to it but I see no shame in the wrestling business. I just find it amazing the GOP because of their unquenchable thrist for filthy rich self financing candidates would overlook they were running a white women connected to a blue collar sport/entertainment in a northeast state. If the Tea Parties had rallied to her banner she’s have been splashed all over SNL and denounced by the establishment as an embarrassment. yet silence from the same establishment that wants to focus on O’Donnell. No word at all about their brilliant choices.
All candidates who have a lot of baggage from their previous life are going to get drawn off message and have to spend way more time playing defense and talking about that crap than they would like. Some manage to win despite this handicap but we’ve seen others who could not.
Primaries are for the little people, you know, the voters. Honestly, how could anyone have won in CT? They voted for a guy who out and out lied about serving in Vietnam and was an absolute dud in every debate. Bottom line, if Blumenthal had died in the middle of the campaign, he still would have won.
CT is populated with old money lib elitists, entertainment types who work in NYC and Wall Street bailout babys.
The demographics of the state make it hard for a Repub to win no matter what the circumstances.
Says it all, right there.
If Simmons or Schiff were better candidates, one would've won the primary.
If Castle were a better candidate, he'd have won the primary. Same goes for Norton, Lowden, Tarkanian, et al
You can even go one step further: If Romney or Huckabee were better candidates, they'd have beaten McCain in the primary. And, since they couldn't defeat the weakest candidate the GOP has offered since Alf Landon, they've got no business mucking up the field in 2012.
“The demographics of the state make it hard for a Repub to win no matter what the circumstances.”
Yep- although Malloy only won the governor’s race by 6,000 votes.
Schiff would have been one of the best in the Senate. He’s the kind of person we need in any office right now.
The GOP should stay away from celebutainment candidates... like Donald Trump
Yes, one constant with all the loser Senate candidates - COD, McMahon, Fiorina - they never held elective office... and Ken Buck held only a minor office.
The winners - Toomey, Rubio, Kirk, Portman,etc. - all held office before.
Given that, we were more likely to win with Simmons in CT, Mike Castle in DE, and ... Chuck Devore in CA. (!)
Interesting point- definitely is a strong correlation there. (Although Angle held office before and lost).
Anyone can toss their hat into the ring in 2012 and probably will. Reagan lost to Ford in 1976. He took another shot in 1980.
Rand Paul is an exception.
They are both useless for statewide office in Connecticut.
Simmons = NARAL
Schiff = comedy hour
“in a hierarchy, everyone tends to rise to their level of incompetence”.
She simply wasn't a good candidate, and well before she ever even hinted at running for office, I honestly didn't think she was that smart.
She was a bad choice, I knew it then, but your right, if she had been a tea party person, she would have gotten the same bad wrap as O'Donnell.
How about dispensing illegal drugs like steriods. No shame in that I guess. Lets not be like Democrats and ignore our mistakes. The truth is she was a terrible candidate that came out of a sleazy business. The WWE does not have to worry about pensions thou. A lot of their employees do not make it to their 40th birthday.
“Rand Paul is an exception.”
His father gave him experience. He learned what to say, what not to say, how to raise money and organize an election campaign. These other ‘newbs’ don’t know what they are in for and that is why they lose. They might be able to benefit from their other experience after they are elected but first things first.
In my estimation there are only 3 possible outcomes for the next few decades. In order to maintain some semblance of rights under (albeit strained) constitutional law, we either split the minority vote or white democrats moderates completely break from their liberal overlords. The third and seemingly more likely option is that vast numbers of Americans stay stuck on stupid and our country becomes a despotic banana republic within our or our childrens’ lifetimes.
It just seemed comical.
What’s next? “Hi, I’m the CEO of Trojan Condoms and I’d like to be your senator.”
“Hi. My name is Ozzy Osbourne. I’m a famous rock star with many hits and awards and I’d like to be your senator.”
“Hi. I used to appear on SNL wearing diapers and I’d like to be your senator. I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, People like Mme!”
OK that one only works in Minnesota.
One of the things that have taught me in this Conn election, was never brag that I was born there.
CT people never deserved Nathan Hale.
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.