Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Why Ned Lamont Could Be Our Next Governor

Why Ned Lamont Could Be Governor

It is not inconceivable that Ned Lamont could be Connecticut’s next governor. We keep hearing about the November elections being a game changer. That could happen nationwide, but it is going to take a Scott Brown-like eruption to turn around deep blue Connecticut, and that bodes well for Lamont.
For starters, Lamont must defeat Democratic Party convention endorsed candidate Dannel Malloy. With six weeks to go to the Aug. 10 primary, Lamont has a sizeable lead in the polls. Malloy’s candidacy didn’t resonate with the public four years ago, when he was endorsed by the convention and lost to John DeStefano in the primary, and it is not resonating now.
Lamont has two big advantages, name recognition and his own money. In fact, of all the gubernatorial candidates on both sides, polls show Lamont has the name recognition, a major advantage. The casual political observer will remember Lamont in a positive way, “as the guy who ran against Joe Lieberman.” Lamont will continue to pour money into political ads across the media spectrum. Combined with what I predict will be a major turnout of union members on election day, a Lamont victory is very possible.
And do not underestimate that union turnout. Feeling threatened by a possible Republican take over of state and federal offices, the public employee and private sector union leadership, will rev up its base. The thousands of union employees, combined with their family members and friends, should translate into votes for Lamont and U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, despite the AG’s Vietnam flap and Linda McMahon’s millions, if she is the GOP Senate nominee.
Currently, some Democratic operatives are predicting gloom and doom for their party, because of the party infighting over Lamont and Malloy, but this is not unusual. The Democrats’ history is to unite around their candidate, after the primary vote, while Republicans tend to not vote in the general election, if their candidate doesn’t win the primary.
Finally, Lamont will appeal to unaffiliated voters and even some conservatives, despite his liberal leanings. He can point to his business success, even though the Malloy camp is claiming Lamont laid off workers, while taking a salary for himself. Malloy will also be hurt by the tried and true liberal comment made by his campaign consultant Roy Occhiogrosso. As Lamont tries to portray himself as the outsider with a business background, Occhiogrosso says Lamont is “fundamentally wrong in his belief the state should run like a business.” With Connecticut facing huge budget deficits, that is a statement, which won’t play well with moderates and Democratic leaning conservatives.
Although I believe Connecticut needs a good dose of conservative government to right its course, the reality is, as you examine the voter registration rolls, Lamont and Blumenthal could very well have public sector jobs, after Nov. 2.

Friday, June 18, 2010


Here's a primer for people, who call radio talk shows, the next time U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon appears on a call-in show. They might want to ask the Republican party convention-endorsed candidate these questions:

-As CEO of the WWE, how did you justify steroid use by your wrestlers?
-Did you ever take steroids and if so, how did you obtain them?
-Why did the WWE take videos down from the internet, that included skits that appeared to be public sex in a wrestling ring and simulated rape?
-How do you justify the WWE skit of two female wrestlers stripping down to their underwear, "making out" in the ring, and then being beat up by two large men, as being entertainment?
-As CEO of the WWE, how did you justify the WWE Lingerie Contest, where women strip down in the ring, and then rub their body parts against the sensitive areas of judge Randy Orton?
-Explain to us the reasoning behind the skit, where a scantily-clad female wrestler enters the lockerroom, and starts making out with a male wrestler?
-Describe to the audience the WWE character Eugene?
-Have you read "Chris and Nancy - The True Story of the Benoit Murder- Suicide and Pro Wrestling's Cocktail of Death," by Irv Muchnick.
-Where do you stand on the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
-Why did you donate to then congressional candidate Rham Emmanual's campaign?
-Why did you donate to groups, who funneled campaign contributions to liberal PACs supporting, among others, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?

And if you are told these questions aren't relevant to the current campaign, just counter by saying that would seem to dismiss family values issues and discussion of a candidate's resume, when deciding for whom to vote.

Thursday, June 10, 2010


I've met U.S. Republican candidate Linda McMahon a couple of times and interviewed her twice on my afternoon radio program. She seems like a nice person. I don't know about her personal family values nor does anyone else, unless you actually exist in the McMahon family environment. But I do know the business she headed until last year, WWE, has made its millions off of anything but family values, regardless of how many donations have been made to the troops or Get Out The Youth Vote campaigns WWE has funded.

Put it this way, the fake wrestling matches promoted by WWE, which score high television ratings, are not the wrestling matches your grandparents watched on TV or witnessed at the Hartford Civic Center and New Haven Coliseum. The steel-caged matches of Andre the Giant and George "the Animal" Steele are a far cry from the sex and abuse that passes for today's WWE. This is the same sex and demeaning of women that McMahon's campaign supporters legitimize by calling such presentation "entertainment."

Abuse? We will never know how extensive the drug and steroid abuse was among WWE "independent contractors." But it would be a legitimate question to ask the GOP endorsed Senate candidate, whether she used steroids. Don't expect the query in the friendly forums, where she chooses to appear. And don't expect the friendly talkshow hosts to bring up the family value issue either, the next time she appears as a guest.

We do know the business on which she has made her millions - used to underwrite this Senate campaign - promotes women in a wrestling ring, stripping down to their bras and panties, while engaging in a lengthly liplock, in front of millions watching on TV. Afterwhich, two big men then enter the ring to beat them up. And did I mention the WWE Lingerie Contest judged by Randy Orton? That's the event, where women strip down to their underwear in the ring, then walk over to rub against Orton's more sensitive body parts. Let's not forget the scantily clad female wrestler who walks into the lockerroom, to give her male counterpart a long kiss, before he enters the ring.

Entertainment? I ask you, would you want to sit down with your granddaughter or grandson to watch this? Most men wouldn't sit down with their wives to watch this garbage. Yet McMahon, who was the CEO of the WWE, promoted this programming genre. And now her supporters legitimize such programming by saying she's a great businesswoman. Some even say they will campaign for her.

I say check out You Tube, before WWE pulls down even more controversial videos, and watch what passes for family values these days, before deciding on which candidate you will cast your vote.