jdw Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Some comments and links from David Nir of Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/21/1...ive-Digest-9-21 http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-mc...0,6309773.story Holy shit. After enduring a relentless barrage of negative stories about her million-dollare bankruptcy in 1976 (ignited by a story in The Day which uncovered previously-unseen documents from the filing), Republican Linda McMahon said late on Thursday night that she'll pay back the "individuals" she stiffed almost four decades ago! Here are my thoughts: 1. This whole issue must have polled disastrously for her. 2. McMahon and her husband are ultra-wealthy and have been zillionaires for years. Why didn't they make these people whole again before now? 3. McMahon previously said she didn't have any further information about which creditors were still owed what when her debts were discharged in bankruptcy. (The documents "simply do not exist," said her campaign manager.) The new documentation doesn't show that either. So how does she magically know whom to repay now? 4. No. 2 & 3 make me think that even this dramatic gesture won't make this problem go away for her. This reminds me of attorney Bob Loblaw's ad on Arrested Development: "Why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed?" Acting to right a wrong only after you've been caught stinks. The Murphy campaign also has its own list of questions: http://www.chrismurphy.com/news/entry/rele...tical-pressure- • Linda McMahon says that she will locate and reach out to all individuals that she stiffed. What about the small businesses? • Does she plan to pay back the taxpayers at local municipalities like West Hartford and New Britain? • Has she actually paid back the IRS and can she prove that? • When does she plan to pay these individuals back? Will she let Connecticut voters know when she does so they know this isn't one more Linda McMahon political campaign lie? • If she ends up paying anyone back, is she going to force them to sign non-disclosure forms or give up any other rights in return for being paid back almost four decades late? • Why did she suddenly decide to pay these people back now? She has long-claimed to not have records of who she owed, but is it really possible that Linda McMahon couldn't remember the names of just a few individuals? • Finally, shouldn't she have paid back the people she owed money to before going out and purchasing a power boat she named the "Sexy Bitch," a Vegas condo, a Boca condo, two Bentleys and an Aston Martin, three motorcycles, a $7 million Greenwich mansion, and much, much more with her hundreds of millions of dollars?" I agree with Nir's point #1: this must have quickly internally-polled horrible for Linda given their rapid, though half ass, attempt to say they'll pay back the individuals that they're able to locate. So bad that they had to come up with some answer fast. CT isn't an expensive state to roll out ads in. While Linda's money allows here to carpet bomb the place, if you have a really good ad on a potentially game changing issue, it's not hard at all to have it run in a way that will get it seen. Murphy isn't broke, so there was/is the potential he can exploit it... so Linda's team thought they had to come up with something fast. Not sure if it will diffuse the issue. Going BK and then blowing off creditors for 30+ years isn't really good when you're running as a Fiscal Conservative and a Business Woman. Of course it would be easy to be able to say the reality is that Vince was the business man at the time and it was *he* who blew off the repayment, but that also would cut against her Business Woman point. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 You are right John, the internals for her were disastrous. There are people inside her campaign talking about losing 5 plus points on this if they don't get in front of it. Of course the can't get in front of it no matter what they do now, but they can't ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 At the very best for Linda, it simply washes out with Murphy's "past-due" issues. That's the very best they can hope for, and they can move on from there. But the problem is that Murphy made good on his past-due issues, while Linda's festered out there as she & Vince made hundreds of millions of $$$. That's a bad optic. A worse one when Romney is out there on the top of the ticket bring a spotlight on Rich Folks Who Don't Give A Fuck about folks below them. Linda not gets tied to Romney, even as she was trying to distance herself from him... and CT just isn't a state where Romney is going to do well. Worse: it's so widely known he isn't going to do well that the GOP turnout might not be very inspired, and it's not like Linda is very inspirational down ballot. In turn, even though Obama is a lock to win, the voters who really like him strongly (or are simply just strong "we always vote Dems" like myself) are likely to turn out. 2012 was always going to be an uphill general election ballot for Linda to run on. The top of the ticket imploding doesn't help, and Obama again proving to be a reasonably good campaigner doesn't help. This story, so close to the election... it really helps refocus on defining Linda. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Linda McMahon reeling from a series of campaign controversies The latest is that she forgot to pay her property tax bill over the weeks she's been criticising Murphy for late payment of mortgage payments and taxes. There's also links in the article to the latest attack ads by the Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Linda McMahon Proposed Social Security "Sunset" At Tea Party Forum Not good for her. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 If she's so worried about bankruptcy, then why is she proposing a plethora of tax cuts for the middle class and businesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/28/1...le-for-Medicare Adding Medicare to SS, giving her opponent lots of room to attack on. She's completely fucked now. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 29, 2012 Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 Now, the unions are getting involved in the Connecticut election: The AFL-CIO union attacks Linda McMahon's treatment of WWE wrestlers To be fair the Daily Kos article is a bit disingenuous, as from the transcript of her remarks from the Huffington Post said: But I can tell you one thing I would not do, I would not vote on any rule or law that would take away the benefits that our seniors have today or those that are approaching retirement age. Because they're there, they're counting on those benefits. We have to find another way to pay for it other than impacting our seniors today, and I would not vote for anything that would do that. Linda: Well, I am not looking to end Medicare or Social Security by any stretch of the imagination, so I think we need provisions of time you take to re-look at it. Reporter: But she says she does not want to cut any budgets for those currently receiving benefits and says reform must be a bipartisan effort. Of course, she's a fan of privatising Medicare with the Paul Ryan voucher system, which would basically end Medicare as we know it in all but name, but this isn't an attack on seniors, but an attack on the next generation who would be expected to get by with a lot less government help. I agree though, this will play badly given her enormous wealth and gives Murphy a lot more ammunition to play with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted September 29, 2012 Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 To be fair the Daily Kos article is a bit disingenuous, as from the transcript of her remarks from the Huffington Post said: But I can tell you one thing I would not do, I would not vote on any rule or law that would take away the benefits that our seniors have today or those that are approaching retirement age. Because they're there, they're counting on those benefits. We have to find another way to pay for it other than impacting our seniors today, and I would not vote for anything that would do that. This is the gimmick the GOP does for two reasons: First to hold onto the Old White Voter Base. They have to initially keep them on SS/Medicare. Second to divide and conquer then turn those who have been cut off against those who still have SS/Medicare. Everyone under the cut off line will instantly become voters who will want to take away the benefits of those who have a better government deal than their own vouchers. It's brilliant evil politics. Mostly evil, but brilliant because people are too stupid to see the set up. And also too stupid to see that SS can be "fixed" easily: eliminate the cap (i.e. only the first roughly $108K of income is taxed), extend "payroll taxes" to Investment Income, and if needed increase the rate from 4.5 to 4.6 or 4.7 or 4.8. And of course lower the age back to 65. I'm at 67 or 69 as far as the age I have to wait to take SS to get the max. I'd be more than willing to pay 5% rather than 4.5% if it meant I could get the max at 65 and SS was fixed. But the obvious fixes are off the table, and instead folks want to destroy it. Frankly the easiest thing to fix... we can look at Northern Euro countries to make it work better than we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Moved from the omnibus thread since it fits in better here. The 80s and 90s are ancient history from a political standpoint. The Republicans who've traditionally done well in Connecticut are the moderate types that have been driven into extinction now that the teabaggers have taken over the nomination process at all levels. I'm guessing the part about the GOP holding the Gov's office from 1995-2010, a similar statewide race, flew by in that post. John It didn't fly by, it's just not that relevant. Republicans held the Massachusetts governorship from 1990 to 2006, one of whom is the current Republican nominee for President. It doesn't mean that Massachusetts isn't a solidly blue state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 There are plenty of states which have voters who are willing to experiment a little on the local level, but not in presidential elections. Tennessee had a Democratic governor for most of the last decade, but every four years the state's 11 electoral votes get handed to the Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Moved from the omnibus thread since it fits in better here. The 80s and 90s are ancient history from a political standpoint. The Republicans who've traditionally done well in Connecticut are the moderate types that have been driven into extinction now that the teabaggers have taken over the nomination process at all levels. I'm guessing the part about the GOP holding the Gov's office from 1995-2010, a similar statewide race, flew by in that post. John It didn't fly by, it's just not that relevant. Republicans held the Massachusetts governorship from 1990 to 2006, one of whom is the current Republican nominee for President. It doesn't mean that Massachusetts isn't a solidly blue state. MA isn't really applicable as their Senate seats weren't open elections in 1990-2006. Ironically, the first time a MA seat was open in nearly 30 years, a GOP candidate won the statewide office. Since Kerry won Tsongas' open seat: 1990 Gov: Weld ® 2003 Gov: Mitt ® 2007 Gov: Patrick (D) 2010 Sen: Brown ® So I'm not sure MA, given Mr. Brown, helps your argument. Is MA Blue? Of course. Is CT Blue? Yes, but less so. Both states have elected Republicans to major statewide offices in recent memory. Look: I wish those states were bluer, wish Brown never made it into the Senate and wish there wasn't even a 5% chance of Linda getting elected. I'm a DFH Democrat, so I have no love for her. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Linda McMahon and Chris Murphy clash in a feisty debate, both brand the other as dishonest Here's the key quotes from the debate: "Well, Linda McMahon should stop spreading this fiction that I have no plan to create jobs. I know she made her living making up stories in the wrestling ring, but it's not O.K. to make them up when you're running for the United States Senate." - Chris Murphy "Linda McMahon's economic plan is focused on giving herself a seven million dollar tax cut and just kind of hoping that eventually that money trickles down to people that need help.... Now, Linda does have a plan on her website, but as we've recently learned a good part of that is just lifted word for word, paragraph by paragraph from right-wing Republican sites in Washington. It's not a plan for Connecticut, it's a plan that essentially parrots a bunch of talking points that haven't worked for this country." - Chris Murphy "Congressman Murphy, shame on you. You have just accused me of plagiarizing my plan.... You know when you got into this race as a Democrat in the state of Connecticut, you thought this was going to be a coronation, but now you're in a serious race with a serious woman and you have resorted now to these kind of policies. But it's desperate to you, Congressman Murphy." - Linda McMahon "Well, I live in Connecticut and I absolutely support America's law for, you know, same-sex marriage. And, uh, I wouldn't pretend to try to impose my will or rights on others, I think everyone should have, you know, the freedom to make that choice." - Linda McMahon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Linda might actually have a chance in this thing if someone would just tell her to shut the fuck up. Every time she tries to state what are supposed to be her beliefs on the issues, she sounds like she's reading something at gunpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 You can't shut the fuck up in a debate. Another problem was whenever Murphy was speaking and the camera was on split screen, she didn't have a good poker face. Often times she looked pig sick, mainly whenever Murphy brought up her WWE record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Linda McMahon Campaign Leaks HuffPost Reporter's Emails To Bolster Its Ethical Bona Fides This is a hoot. Linda surrounding herself with assholes isn't a surprise. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Latest Rasmussen polling suggests Murphy is starting to open up a lead on McMahon: The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Connecticut Voters shows Murphy with 51% of the vote, while McMahon earns 46% support. Two percent (2%) favor another candidate in the race, and one percent (1%) is undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Additionally, Murphy’s lead is largely derived from “leaners.” These are people who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but indicate they are leaning towards one candidate when asked a follow-up question. Without leaners, it’s Murphy 46% and McMahon 45%. This is consistent with the notion that the state’s underlying Democratic tilt will help Murphy in the final analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 10, 2012 Report Share Posted October 10, 2012 Linda McMahon Creditor's Great-Granddaughter Upset Over Repayment Claims This is a hoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Second debate tonight in front of audience. Poorer performance tonight, the audience didn't help. Really brutal moment for Linda when she responded to Murphy's allegations about not paying her bankruptcy debts for 36 years, with "Well, I did eventually pay...", which the audience laughed at and booed. Almost as bad was when she was asked a question about how she would change the negative campaigning in the race to become more positive, she totally ignored the question and banged on about Murphy's special interest loans and poor attendance at Congress, and Murphy called her out for answering a question criticising negative campaigning with yet more negative campaigning, which brought laughter too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Expanded thoughts here: Linda McMahon booed and snickered by pro-Murphy crowd in her second debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 Local paper: Editorial: Murphy kills it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 McMahon camp tries to change narrative about Thursday night’s debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Ridge Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 I feel like I'm one the only person on this site who doesn't have a website/blog or podcast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 I feel like I'm on the only person on this site who doesn't have a website/blog or podcast. I was about to tell you I don't, then I remembered this is my board. Genuinely funny moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Ridge Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 I feel like I'm on the only person on this site who doesn't have a website/blog or podcast. I was about to tell you I don't, then I remembered this is my board. Genuinely funny moment. Yes, you are a bad example. I think I am the least knowledgeable wrestling fan on this site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.