I usually try to stick to Hartford issues, but this one has been bugging me.
When we saw the "Boston miracle" to fill Senator Ted Kennedy's seat, I think most people were pretty surprised. How does a Democratic candidate in a Democratic state with a comfortable lead in the polls implode and see the Republican surge ahead to win?
Are we headed for a Connecticut miracle November 2nd? Six months ago I doubt there was anyone that thought Richard Blumenthal's decisive lead in the polls would steadily slide to the point that the race is essentially now a dead heat in the polls. The only person who probably would have believed that prediction would have been Linda McMahon herself.
I think there are probably several reasons that have come together for the perfect storm to add wind to McMahon's campaign.
A few that have made a difference to me seem to be bothering others also. The biggest one to me is the number of career politicians who seem to be so out of touch with the average person that they have no grasp on reality. I doubt that Blumenthal has ever wondered where his health insurance is coming from or how he is going to make that payroll for his small business next week.
We know Blumenthal hasn't had major concerns for how he is going to afford the insurance or gas for his car. All of his transportation needs have been taken care of by the people of the State of Connecticut in his government provided vehicle with his driver shuttling him back and forth from his Fairfield County home.
I also find it hard to believe someone who claims to not be a political or "DC" insider, yet the President of the US has no problem jumping on a plane to come campaign for Blumenthal. And former President Bill Clinton is willing to make a quick stop for his buddy on the way to a Barney Frank fundraiser.
I do think one of the biggest things I find offensive though are the claims that Linda McMahon is trying to buy the Senate seat by spending her own money. Can anyone in the Democratic Party flash back to 2004 when the bar was set by another candidate trying to buy the Senate seat? The name Ned Lamont might be familiar to some in his challenge to Joe Lieberman.
I guess it is alright for a Democrat to do it, but when a Republican does it to challenge the "heir apparent" to the seat it somehow becomes unconscionable and disgusting.
The Vietnam issue also bothered me, but I was somewhat surprised by those who didn't see it as a big deal. And the WWE being such a bad thing also is surprising to me. I can understand the issue regarding the use of steroids, but do we now condemn football owners, baseball owners, cyclists and who knows who else.
If the issue with McMahon is that she has put forth a product or entity that harms others, I think those using that against her are two faced and wrong. If I remember correctly, the Kennedy family made their fortunes off of the tariffs for every bottle of Scotch coming into this country. Several southern Senators made their fortunes off of tobacco which I'm pretty sure kills more people everyday than any steroid ever has.
If we could get politicians to focus on issues that directly affect their constituents , we might actually have some interesting campaigns. I actually would tend to vote for someone who has built their own business and has an extra $50 million kicking around to throw at a campaign as opposed to someone who has taken from and lived off the government just about everyday of their adult life.
15 comments:
And Lamont lost -- both times -- along with a bunch of other candidates who tried to run on their own money this year. Why do you think some rich person is more "in touch" with the problems of common people than a politician is? You think Linda McMahon has to make a choice between new clothes for her kids or gas for her car? You think she worries about how to make ends meet? Sorry, "wrestling millionaire" does not understand my problems any better than Blumenthal would.
Unlike say Ned Lamont, Linda McMahon and her husband actually made their fortune. She is from a pretty middle class background and the WWF as it was known in the old days was hardly a successful business. Besides, after she got married the business tanked, she lost her house, and they had to declare bankruptcy (while she was pregnant or just after one of her kids was born, I think). I suspect she faced the choice of clothes for the kids or gas for the car at some point during that time.
I see -- so the business was so badly mismanaged that it tanked? Interesting. And it will also be interesting, if she does get elected, when the inevitable federal probe into widespread steroid use in the WWE happens ... what did she know and when did she know it?
As I recall, Eddie Perez started out poor before making a "success" of himself as mayor ... didn't make him less of a thief and more aware of the problems of Hartford's poor, who he proceeded to rip off. Like they say, once you start eating filet mignon, you forget what hamburger tastes like.
I am not a big Blumenthal fan, but criticizing him based on the fact that he has been in public service and therefore doesn't have the common touch basically condemns you to constantly having novices in these jobs. By the time they learn the ropes, oh no, they are politicians, time to kick them out.
Rich....you are wrong about Lamont..while it is true that he is a "trust fund baby" it is also true that he and his wife enjoy non-passive income in the tens of millions a year.
On another note which I believe explains the dismal polling for democrats.There is a huge and very active anger out there against big anything...government,corporations,churches,etc...fueled by populism and typified by the appearance of the tea -party activists and their fringes.Notice the reassurgance of the John Birch Society, where they were an endorser of the nation conservative convention the other month...the convention was called by CPAC.The right wing has very adroitly catured the populist anger and has bent it against the democrats who in this state usually are incumbants.
I suggested to Malloy and Blumie that they incorporate some populist rhetoric within their speeches.And while they do not have to pretend to be William Jennings Bryan,they should be able to blunt some of the anger with those revamped speeches.
Malloy has an additional problem.He came out against the death penalty.I will bet you that Foley and Healy are focus grouping right now a firm pro death penalty stance,given the trial of Hayes in Cheshire right now,which is on page one every day.My advice to Malloy was to cut back from his stance and agree to the death penalty for anyone who kills a cop,correction officer and someone commiting multiple murders....Bruce
Bruce, as for Neddie Lamont, I give him credit for not sitting on his $ss and wasting away the family fortune like many trust funders, but it's really hard to equate the work it takes to get from 0 to $500,000,000 to the work it takes to parlay millions into more millions. As the saying goes "the first million is the hardest." You are right on, however, about Malloy. He is going to get hit over the head with Hayes and Cheshire and that is totally fair game. As for populism, the D's are getting thumped with it because they are in power, but also because they have become a party run by East and West Coast elites. Look at John Kerry blaming his party's problems on the stupidity of the voters - hardly the stuff of William Jennings Bryan.
Rich...you dont get the point here...Lamont may have "taken out" 500k..but could have taken out much more...and his wife makes ten million a year also....he is realy a bifurcated type...part trust baby and part not.
I thought the original question was how could someone with a lot of money understand and show some concern for the problems of people who are living paycheck to paycheck. My point was that Linda McMahon doesn't come from money and was in fact broke at one point in her adult life and was thus a lot more likely to understand and sympathize with the problems of someone right on the edge than say Ned Lamont, who comes from money. Bruce then pointed out that Lamont may come from money, but he has worked hard to make a lot more money. I then pointed out that starting out with nothing and becoming very wealthy is very different (and much harder) than starting very wealthy and parlaying that into an even greater fortune and that the person who starts out with nothing and makes a fortune is more likely to at least understand and probably have sympathy for the problems and concerns of ordinary people than the person who starts off rich and makes even more money.
I'd like to agree with you, Rich, but I can't. People who started out with nothing and wound up rich are often the first to say, "I got mine, screw the rest of you." People who fled povery to emigrate to the US are often the first to want to close the borders now that they are here. And while Linda touts her history of job creation, CT needs green industry, it needs to hold onto its white collar jobs .. she and her husband run a freak show. The only way that lunchbox she keeps waving around is going to come into play is if one of her steroid-fueled brutes eats it on camera.
As far as the midterms go -- I expect the GOP to have a successful night, and then in turn get booted out in two years. Americans want everything to be a sitcom where problems get solved in 22 minutes. They want the deficit to go away, but not have any of their favorite programs cut or their taxes go up. They say they don't want government-run health care, but God help you if you touch their Medicare check. Until we as a nation grow up, every election cycle will just be "kick out whoever is in now" and nothing will get accomplished.
Rich...your argument rests on shakey ground in my view.No one can say what upbringing makes one have more concern for the average person.Your argument about Linda having more concern about average folks over Lamont because of her backround at first makes sense until one thinks about it more.Look at FDR for instance, he came from even more a storied backround then Lamont and he did all those wonderful New Deal things for the common person to safeguard our wonderful country.
There probably is no objective way to analize correctly "who cares more for the common person", especially since alot of the caring remains in the human heart and thus is sujective.In addition, both republican and democratic ideals and policies posit that they care more for the common person.Two different but good faith approaches seem to me to be legitimate and the one a person chooses is based upon subjective critera and vague variables.
all those wonderful New Deal things for the common person to safeguard our wonderful country
-------------------------------------
Right.
But, where in the constitution was authority for those things?
And, by the way, most prominent of those things, social security, a ponzi scheme. No personal account, no money in a lock box.
Don't give a crap about how much money Dick's wife might have, or how much Linda may, neither the country nor the common man can afford what is going on in DC. Blumenthal seems not aware of any problem.
Peter...much of the new deal was challenged in the Supremem Court and most was found to be constitutional.What wasnt constitutional was thrown out and the rest survived and stood us well.
Peter are you considering a run for office here in Hartford in which the major issue of your campaign is ending social security ? I suggest then you run for a federal office since only the Congress can end it.
Bruce:
Realize the Supreme Court ruled. I don't suppose you'd want to try to convince me that the states that ratified the constitution believed it gave the feds the power to impose social security on us. And, yes, I realize it is a federal issue. That's my point. We had a federal government once upon a time that had limited and enumerated powers. It is my hope that there are enough folks on the Supreme Court who will stand by the remnant of the constitution, and throw Obamacare out. In the mean time, no I'm not running, but am voting like hell for the Ma McMahahon.
stood us well
------------
Regardless of constitutionality or whether we desire such programs Obamacare, etc., the fact is we simply don't have the money, and won't have the money for all of the unfunded liabilities these programs represent. Dodd's heir knows this, but he considers Obamacare merely a "good start."
Well, today we found out that Linda "came up from poverty" McMahon doesn't know how much the minimum wage is (but is opposed to increasing it), and doesn't know if anyone at her own company is making minimum wage. Yeah, she is really tuned in to the problems of the poor.
Post a Comment