Monday, April 26, 2010

Linda McMahon Pledges NOT To Accept Senatorial Pay


At the Waterbury Tea Party Forum hosted by the CT Grassroots Alliance Saturday, I asked Linda McMahon, since she is a self-made millionaire who constantly tells us all regarding her Senate bid how she's not a career politician and doesn't need a job, if she would therefore refuse the six figure Senatorial pay. Without hesitation in answering that question, Linda McMahon said she would refuse any Senatorial pay if elected to office.

Now that's news.
I did not see that printed in any papers though.
But I am making it public here.
It can be verified on video that was taken at the forum. (go to 2:08 of the video for my question and her answer)
It was an admirable move by McMahon, but I was not impressed by any of her other answers.

So really, her answer begs the question, what's she in it for?
Why spend her tens of millions of dollars for a Senate seat?

She wastes millions of dollars on multiple pointless mailings to households across Connecticut; and while she triumphantly proclaimed at the forum that it's her money to spend as she pleases (no one is really begrudging her that point at all) - it really makes you think about how she'll spend OUR tax money if she gets elected (she never really answered that question in the video). Her actions of how she throws around her own money doesn't look like the actions of a true fiscal conservative.

And by the way, in this same video, Tanya Bachand asks some pointed questions (at 4:08 into the video) about the $5 bounty McMahon's campaign placed on registering new Republican voters... Linda McMahon seemed to imply she knew nothing of this plan, and has since stopped the practice, but that the campaign person who concocted and implemented this idea would not be fired.

And if she is indeed convincing Connecticut voters to support her and her policies, then why wouldn't she be gathering financial support from "the people" to send her to Washington? It seems she really doesn't need them at all - except to vote for her of course. Sure, she says anyone can donate up to $100 towards her campaign... but really... self-funders pretty much tell the People, "I don't need you", except for your vote in the Convention, the primary, and the general election. Beyond that, she won't need any of these constituents after the election is over either, I imagine.

Is she in it for the power?
The prestige?
To pad her resume?
Is this some sort of vanity run?
Is there some legislation she is looking to help pass to help WWE or any of her other interests?
One can only guess her true intentions.

And what about the much bigger question of her electability?
Clearly there is enough video footage on the Internet regarding her company and the raunchy garbage that is peddled by WWE to viewers, including children, that the Democrat machine is already salivating over it. She has made millions off of the "soap opera" raunchy garbage that permeates WWE, some of which she and her husband Vince have actively participated in. In this clip, Linda kicks a guy in the groin and shows us what an actress she can be. How does this enhance her credibility?

Stuff like that will make Blumenthal look like a choir boy; the champion over Internet porn and MySpace and Facebook, and all things that some say are polluting the minds of young people. Interesting too, is that someone had enough power to tell YouTube to remove damaging videos regarding McMahon from public view. Now isn't that interesting? (read more here) Oh yeah... it's all because of "copyright infringement".

Given all that, how can Linda McMahon, with WWE's questionable programming, possibly be the standard bearer for the CT Republican Party? Does CT want a senator who participates in this stuff?





And what about her donations to Rahm Emanuel's campaign, that she basically shrugs off as being a donation to Rahm's PAC as a favor to his brother? (look at 4:24 into the video) Is that the type of cronyism we are to expect from McMahon in Washington? How does one donate to support a campaign without knowing anything about who and what you are supporting? That's another questionable matter of judgment.

There were many good questions asked at the Tea Partiers forum, and I applaud McMahon for coming into the lion's den, but honestly, at times it looked like she watched a few Peter Schiff videos in preparation for fielding questions from the crowd, especially when it came to Constitutional questions or questions about what federal agencies she might consider dismantling. She named only two that Schiff previously spoke about - the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, beyond that she couldn't think of any others on her own.

Interestingly enough, there are at least 4 other Republican women running for Senate seats
1) Former New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte,
2) Former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton of Colorado,
3) Business executive Carly Fiorina in California (running against Barbara Boxer)
4) Former state Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden in Nevada.


Funny how all these women espouse the now popular mantra of "smaller" government, but in many ways have either supported policies like stimulus spending, or supported moderate Republicans like John McCain, or even helped to fund tax and spend Democrat campaigns.

Can we have some real honest Liberty minded - smaller government Republicans running for office please? Can we have someone who isn't an actress who kicks people in the groin, or who makes millions exploiting perversions?? Please???

Well, there is one that comes to mind.... Peter Schiff.

2 comments:

Ryan J Gill said...

There are some superb real liberty-minded candidates running in the races you mentioned, but they're not the millionaires and they need your help. These are people with long and sterling records to back up what they say. In California, it's Chuck DeVore, Reagan appointee, Army reservist and assemblyman, and in Nevada it's another republican woman, Sharron Angle, storied tax fighter and former assembly minority whip.

mccommas said...

You made some interesting points.

On the issue of her paying a bonus for registering Republicans in Denise Merrill’s district, I don’t really have a problem with that unless it involves fraud.

– Which it might lead to but from a legal angle, I don’t see why it should be made illegal as Secretary of the State candidate Denise Merrill has suggested.

I think what Merrill had a problem with was that Republicans were springing up in her old district like dandelions. She certainly didn’t sound the alarm while ACORN was doing that kind of thing.

That was an interesting video to say the least (the one with her kicking her son). I saw a video of Dick Morris and he said that once that stuff was aired on TV it would be all over. I had until now seen any of it. He called her an unelectable checkbook.

You said that no one is begrudging her for self-funding but that is not true. The liberals in the press hate her for that. They see it as cheating ( at least when Republicans do it that is). I think it is fine if it is a good candidate.

I am a delegate to the convention and I think Rob Simmons is that man who can defeat Blumenthal. I am more conservative than he is but for Connecticut he is a good fit. I have no idea who the other guy is.

Simmons can win.