During Tuesday night's gubernatorial debate, when GOP candidate Tom Foley alluded to my mentioning on my afternoon radio show, how his opponent had cut deals with government sector employee unions, Dan Malloy bristled, claiming no arrangements had been made. Had Foley pulled from his suit coat pocket a copy of the union questionnaire I had in my possession, you would have had even more TV fireworks. The Foley campaign has since come into possession of the same documents and released them to the media.
At issue is the "Election Year 2010 Endorsement Questionnaire" submitted to the Malloy campaign by the "Administrative And Residual Employees Union Local 4200." The Malloy camp was asked 13 questions, including several that led to Foley's accurate portrayal, during the debate. For example, on question 4, when asked, "Will you support state employee layoffs, after the gubernatorial agreement ends in July 2011," the Malloy campaign answered "We've been very clear that we have no interest in laying off state employees."
On question 2, when asked about privatization, the Malloy campaign's answer: "We are against the privatization of public services currently performed by state and municipal workers and believe that many services currently done by private contractors could be done publically at less cost and with improved results. As Mayor of Stamford, Dan de-privatized services such as garbage collection and recycling and they performed at greater savings and efficiencies."
In the same questionnaire, the Malloy campaign also came out in support of binding arbitration. When Foley also challenged Malloy on the promises he made to the Connecticut Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union, during a recent teleconference, Malloy angered again, attacking Foley as being anti teacher. It was one of the oldest attorney tricks in the books, by the long time lawyer: don't acknowledge the charge and turn the tables on your opponent. At last check, Malloy, who like Foley is a millionaire but doesn't want you to know that, still hadn't answered the question. To do otherwise, would have had required an admission that during that conference call, Malloy pledged to teachers his support for binding arbitration and underwriting the teachers' pension fund, while opposing merit pay.
Foley's point is that taxes will skyrocket under Malloy and government will grow, off of the promises Malloy has made to the unions. The former Stamford mayor knows that, which is why he's denying the existence of these deals. His platform stands in stark contract to Foley's "no tax hike pledge." It is probably why Malloy adopted his hard boiled, some might say bullying demeanor, during Tuesday's debate. Better to deflect the charges of your opponent, before a large television audience, than explain what promises have really been made, even if it makes your opponent look more statesmen like in the process.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
McMahon Never Said It
Certain members of the media, miffed at their limited access to Linda McMahon, during Connecticut's contentious U.S. Senate race, have opted to take poetic license with her comments today at an impromtu press conference in East Hartford. Fresh off an appearance at a small business event, where she received the endorsement of the National Federation of Independent Business, the GOP candidate seemed to embrace the group's stance opposing a hike in the minimum wage.
At the news conference, Ted Mann, reporter with the Day of New London, asked her if the minimum wage should be reduced. McMahon, who is in a statistical dead heat with the "overwhelming" favorite, Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal, in the latest polls, refused to answer the question. Other reporters followed with similar questions and McMahon wisely would not be trapped. The media then ran with a very liberal interpretation, that McMahon supported a lowering of the minimum wage, something she never said. Thus, these journalists have placed themselves smack in the middle of the story, instead of reporting it, while seemingly demonstrating a bias favoring Blumenthal, who has also limited his media accessibility since his Vietnam fiasco.
Needless to say, the Democratic Party operatives, expending resources in a race they thought was a slamdunk, are now heating up the blogosphere with "comments" McMahon never made, the surest sign of desperation, just four days before the first debate between the two candidates.
In the 32 days leading up to this all important election, Democrats will attempt any manuever to take the electorate's eye off the ball, namely the party's poor performance. In Connecticut's case, their strategy is to motivate their liberal base to vote on Nov. 2, while hopefully picking off some independents, who now favor McMahon over Blumenthal. Their manufactured minimum wage issue, heightened by a media desperate to be a part of the story, will fail, simply because McMahon's comments ring true with so many.
Small business, the backbone of this country's economy, as we were reminded by President Obama just the other day, is flailing, especially in Connecticut, handcuffed by an anti-business state legislature, controlled in veto proof numbers by the Democrats, and an anti-business state attorney general, who just happens to be McMahon's Senate opponent. The goal is to divert attention from Blumenthal's record, because his testimony doesn't square with his record.
As the man, who lied about his Vietnam military service now boasts of lowering people's electric bills, the public witnesses rates climbing higher and higher. As the man, who claims to be the workers' best friend, embellishes how he has helped the economy with his activist approach to the position, jobs are leaving the state in droves, while the unemployment rate climbs, especially in urban areas, where double-digit jobless rates are the norm. Meanwhile, the man, who claims to be a "Washington" outsider, embraces the help of Obama and Senator Chuck Schumer. These are the questions that should be asked of the Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal.
In reality, today in East Hartford, Linda McMahon brought up concerns and issues of small business, which deserve exploration. It's an approach that obviously appears foreign to those who mistakenly believe government is the answer to all their problems.
At the news conference, Ted Mann, reporter with the Day of New London, asked her if the minimum wage should be reduced. McMahon, who is in a statistical dead heat with the "overwhelming" favorite, Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal, in the latest polls, refused to answer the question. Other reporters followed with similar questions and McMahon wisely would not be trapped. The media then ran with a very liberal interpretation, that McMahon supported a lowering of the minimum wage, something she never said. Thus, these journalists have placed themselves smack in the middle of the story, instead of reporting it, while seemingly demonstrating a bias favoring Blumenthal, who has also limited his media accessibility since his Vietnam fiasco.
Needless to say, the Democratic Party operatives, expending resources in a race they thought was a slamdunk, are now heating up the blogosphere with "comments" McMahon never made, the surest sign of desperation, just four days before the first debate between the two candidates.
In the 32 days leading up to this all important election, Democrats will attempt any manuever to take the electorate's eye off the ball, namely the party's poor performance. In Connecticut's case, their strategy is to motivate their liberal base to vote on Nov. 2, while hopefully picking off some independents, who now favor McMahon over Blumenthal. Their manufactured minimum wage issue, heightened by a media desperate to be a part of the story, will fail, simply because McMahon's comments ring true with so many.
Small business, the backbone of this country's economy, as we were reminded by President Obama just the other day, is flailing, especially in Connecticut, handcuffed by an anti-business state legislature, controlled in veto proof numbers by the Democrats, and an anti-business state attorney general, who just happens to be McMahon's Senate opponent. The goal is to divert attention from Blumenthal's record, because his testimony doesn't square with his record.
As the man, who lied about his Vietnam military service now boasts of lowering people's electric bills, the public witnesses rates climbing higher and higher. As the man, who claims to be the workers' best friend, embellishes how he has helped the economy with his activist approach to the position, jobs are leaving the state in droves, while the unemployment rate climbs, especially in urban areas, where double-digit jobless rates are the norm. Meanwhile, the man, who claims to be a "Washington" outsider, embraces the help of Obama and Senator Chuck Schumer. These are the questions that should be asked of the Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal.
In reality, today in East Hartford, Linda McMahon brought up concerns and issues of small business, which deserve exploration. It's an approach that obviously appears foreign to those who mistakenly believe government is the answer to all their problems.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
JARJURA TO SERVE OUT TERM
Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura told me on the radio this morning, that he will serve out his term. "Oh absolutely, absolutely," he answered, when I asked him it appeared he was trying to escape Waterbury, by seeking elective office this year. The Mayor flirted with running for governor, then Lt. governor, before getting trounced in Tuesday's Democratic primary for state comptroller, by convention endorsed candidate Kevin Lembo.
The mayor said he ran for state office because he is "fearful for the working people of this state." He sees a pending financial crisis, with the state facing a $3B deficit next year and he wanted to take a conservative, fiscal approach to fix the problem. The Mayor also called the proposed paid sick leave bill, supported by Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dan Malloy, anti-business.
As for reports Waterbury State's Attorney John Connelly may be under a grand jury investigation, that some are calling "explosive," Jarjura told me he was "saddened" by the story, but that is all he knows about it. He called Connelly an "extremely effective prosecutor in Waterbury for a very, very long time." He also said his administration has nothing to hide. He will open up the city's books to anyone. "In 10 years as mayor, there has not been a whisper of impropriety," he said.
The mayor said he ran for state office because he is "fearful for the working people of this state." He sees a pending financial crisis, with the state facing a $3B deficit next year and he wanted to take a conservative, fiscal approach to fix the problem. The Mayor also called the proposed paid sick leave bill, supported by Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dan Malloy, anti-business.
As for reports Waterbury State's Attorney John Connelly may be under a grand jury investigation, that some are calling "explosive," Jarjura told me he was "saddened" by the story, but that is all he knows about it. He called Connelly an "extremely effective prosecutor in Waterbury for a very, very long time." He also said his administration has nothing to hide. He will open up the city's books to anyone. "In 10 years as mayor, there has not been a whisper of impropriety," he said.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Governor Owes Us The Truth
Can somebody explain to me how Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez can be convicted on five counts, including bribery, and be allowed to return to his office for a week, with unfettered access to his files, while State Department of Transportation Commissioner Joseph P. Marie is summoned to the Capitol for an emergency meeting, tenders his resignation, and then is locked out of his office and his email and access accounts? If you ask me, there is more to the Marie departure story than meets the eye.
I don’t buy the explanation put forth by Gov. M. Jodi Rell that Marie, just two years on the job, wanted to leave to spend more time with his family; not when he had a full schedule for the remainder of the week.
By all accounts, Marie had been doing an outstanding job as commissioner, improving morale in a rivalry-torn department, while attempting to promote state officials’ desire for more mass transportation, a Marie specialty. In fact, the state is preparing to apply for a federal grant to help underwrite it’s much coveted New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail line, with Marie guiding the effort. Now, all of a sudden he’s gone? He has a week’s worth of appointments, yet on a moment’s notice, he’s called to see the governor, tenders his resignation, then is locked out of his office? If he wants to return to pick up any personal items, he must be accompanied by a guard? And we’re supposed to believe it’s because he wants to spend more time with his family, while pursuing other employment opportunities? I don’t believe it for a New York minute.
I also don’t believe, he left because of a rocky relationship with the governor’s Chief-of-Staff Lisa Moody, or because that Virgin Airlines plane was stuck on the Bradley International Airport tarmac for four hours, following last week’s emergency landing.
The governor’s office is telling us, at a time when Connecticut’s transportation issues are at a critical juncture, the man she brought to the state to head the rejuvenation effort, suddenly wants to say adios, even as he’s receiving praise from both sides of the aisle? I just don’t believe it.
Such an abrupt departure, suggests to me, he was called to the governor’s office and for whatever reason - maybe a complaint was filed? - was told to resign. The entire story smacks of a cover up, by among others, an administration that promised a different, more open style of government, when it assumed the reigns of power, after the Rowland scandals, six years ago.
The administration and legislature have bombarded us with stories on how Connecticut’s outdated transportation infrastructure needs a major facelift, and now the savior of this endeavor suddenly resigns? And isn’t allowed back into the office unless accompanied by a guard? And both he and the governor are tight lipped about his resignation?
I don’t buy Gov. Rell’s or Commissioner Marie’s explanations. My instincts tell me there is plenty to this story, that we are not being told. Gov. Rell owes us the truth. That is what she promised, six years ago. The General Assembly’s transportation committee needs to call a special hearing to rout out the truth. The taxpayers of Connecticut are at least owed that much.
I don’t buy the explanation put forth by Gov. M. Jodi Rell that Marie, just two years on the job, wanted to leave to spend more time with his family; not when he had a full schedule for the remainder of the week.
By all accounts, Marie had been doing an outstanding job as commissioner, improving morale in a rivalry-torn department, while attempting to promote state officials’ desire for more mass transportation, a Marie specialty. In fact, the state is preparing to apply for a federal grant to help underwrite it’s much coveted New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail line, with Marie guiding the effort. Now, all of a sudden he’s gone? He has a week’s worth of appointments, yet on a moment’s notice, he’s called to see the governor, tenders his resignation, then is locked out of his office? If he wants to return to pick up any personal items, he must be accompanied by a guard? And we’re supposed to believe it’s because he wants to spend more time with his family, while pursuing other employment opportunities? I don’t believe it for a New York minute.
I also don’t believe, he left because of a rocky relationship with the governor’s Chief-of-Staff Lisa Moody, or because that Virgin Airlines plane was stuck on the Bradley International Airport tarmac for four hours, following last week’s emergency landing.
The governor’s office is telling us, at a time when Connecticut’s transportation issues are at a critical juncture, the man she brought to the state to head the rejuvenation effort, suddenly wants to say adios, even as he’s receiving praise from both sides of the aisle? I just don’t believe it.
Such an abrupt departure, suggests to me, he was called to the governor’s office and for whatever reason - maybe a complaint was filed? - was told to resign. The entire story smacks of a cover up, by among others, an administration that promised a different, more open style of government, when it assumed the reigns of power, after the Rowland scandals, six years ago.
The administration and legislature have bombarded us with stories on how Connecticut’s outdated transportation infrastructure needs a major facelift, and now the savior of this endeavor suddenly resigns? And isn’t allowed back into the office unless accompanied by a guard? And both he and the governor are tight lipped about his resignation?
I don’t buy Gov. Rell’s or Commissioner Marie’s explanations. My instincts tell me there is plenty to this story, that we are not being told. Gov. Rell owes us the truth. That is what she promised, six years ago. The General Assembly’s transportation committee needs to call a special hearing to rout out the truth. The taxpayers of Connecticut are at least owed that much.
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.
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
QUESTIONS FOR LINDA
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.
-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
FAMILY VALUES?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
