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.

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.

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.

MELTDOWN CONTINUES

Under the spotlight of a high profile campaign, "Blumenthal For Senate" continues its meltdown. What is ironic about this latest development, is how much the defendant sounds like the many businesses and people he targets.

At issue is Blumenthal's military service and his comments, apparently on numerous occasions, that he served in Vietnam. According to Fox 61 News, the "McMahon For Senate" campaign fed the New York Times the story. Whoever was the source, it was a bombshell, embellished by a video clearly showing Blumenthal, claiming he served in Vietnam.

What's even more disturbing, are the numerous deferments Blumenthal received, before enrolling in the Marine Reserves. While American teenagers were losing their lives, serving their country, Blumenthal was leading the life of the priviledged, obviously using his friendship with the politically well connected, including eventual U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, in order to avoid service, until he couldn't pull off the ruse anymore. But even then, he managed to land a cushy encampment in Washington, D.C., after his Parris Island training.

Blumenthal's credibility has become so fractured, not even his days at Harvard can be trusted. According the NYT expose, numerous Blumenthal biographys stated he was captain of the Harvard swim team. In reality, he was never a member of the swim team.

Now he sounds like so many other politicians, who have wilted under the spotlight, from Nixon to Spitzer. "I may have misspoken," he said. "My intention was to be always clear and straightforward."

Nonsense. This is a man, whose huge staff has scrutinized his every word and appearance, to insure a carefully crafted image that casts Blumenthal in the best possible light. Of this, I can attest. His staff recently contacted my radio producer, on a story I was doing about the attorney general, before it even aired. Blumenthal, as he did with the MSNBC video about not accepting PAC money, intentionally allows ambigious statements to stand, if it casts him in the best possible light, despite the lack of credibility the story may have.

Now the Blumenthal defenders are out slandering the NYT, claiming the piece is a hatchet job. Laughable. The Blumenthal Democrats are sounding like Republicans, now that they face similar NYT scrutiny.

Sadly, the candidate who gets shutout here, is his opponent for the Democratic Party U.S. Senate nomination, Merrick Alpert. Denied from speaking about his candidacy, before half of the Democratic Town committees manipulated by the Blumenthal machine, Alpert goes into this weekend's convention a long shot. Articulate, with firmly entrenched convictions, Alpert served his country, nobly, in Bosnia. In light of this latest Blumenthal fiasco, Alpert deserves the first look he was never given by his party, this weekend in Hartford.

DOES HE WANT OUT?

Before all is said and done, Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura may be running for dog catcher in Podunk. First, he was flirting with seeking the Democratic Party gubernatorial nomination. Last week, at a sparsely attended news conference, he announced his candidacy for Lt. Governor. Now than Dannel Malloy has picked State Comptroller Nancy Wyman as his running mate, crowding the race for Lt. Governor candidates, word is Jarjura will seek to be the party's nominee for state comptroller.

What is becoming patently obvious is Jarjura wants out as Waterbury mayor, for whatever reason. His openly public search for a job, underwritten by the taxpayers, while currently being paid by taxpayers in the Brass City - try searching for a job in the private sector in this manner - leads one to conclude something is up in the center of the universe.

The Mayor has come under increasing criticism for advocating a major property tax hike to balance Waterbury's precarious finances. Furthermore, controversy seems to be swirling around his administration, from "Captain Blight," an obvious patronage job, to the mess enveloping school custodians. Combine this with the ever critical editorials about him, appearing in the Republican-American, and Jarjura may figure it's time to get out, while the going is good.

If the mayor gets shutout at this month's party convention, one must wonder if the self described wealthy entrepreneur might resign. One thing is for certain, Jarjura apparently doesn't want to be Mayor of Waterbury, by his continuous efforts to shop around for other employment.

DEMS WILL USE RELL FOR COVER

Make no mistake; Democrats in the state legislature are upset the Republicans walked away from any budget deal. They needed bipartisanship for the fall elections. So as they slap themselves on the back, offering congratulations for a balanced budget, that uses every gimmick in the book - some which would land the private sector in jail - they are drawing battle lines for the November elections.

"It doesn't play into a partisan narrative, that they (GOP) have been trying to portray that Hartford is broken, that there would be gridlock, that there would be no resolution of the deficits, that nothing would get done. That narrative has been blown out of the water. They have to find a new narrative because Democrats in the legislature worked with a Republican governor..." said Senate President Donald E. Williams, Jr., who apparently is in love with taxes and narratives.

In reality, there is no gridlock in Hartford, but there is partisanship. That's why the Democrats need Gov. Rell to sell the public that the Republicans are a part of this catastrophe. The Democrats dominate the legislature and have increased spending and added hidden taxes in this latest bill, all to balance a budget, which will fall under its own weight in due course, while handing a new governor massive deficits. But the Democrats' strategy is obvious; unable to find the bipartisan support they needed in the General Assembly, they will use Gov. Rell, a Republican In Name Only, as their cover.

The real story is how upset Republicans in the legislature are with Gov. Rell. In public and in private, they have expressed annoyance at her dismissal of GOP budgetary objectives in her negotiations with Democrats. That's why House and Senate Republicans walked out of the talks. Leadership believed Rell, not seeking reelection, had the perfect chance to take a stand against the tax and spend Democrats, especially in an election year. Instead, she has once again left her own party in the lurch. As Connecticut sinks under its unsustainable spending policies, legislative Republicans will be happy to say good riddance to a governor from their own party.

RATES WILL RISE

Less than an hour ago, the Connecticut House of Representatives passed SB 493, "An act reducing electricity costs and promoting renewable energy. The vote was 81-40, with 30 absent. Presumably, the absent ran for cover, for fear they could pay a political price in November. Late last night, the Senate voted 20-14 in favor of the bill.

Under repeated questioning from Rep. Sean Williams, R-Watertown, the co-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee, Rep. Vicki Nardello, D-Prospect, failed to answer pointed questions about the bill. And she is the one pushing hard for it. She could not even guarantee that electricity rates would drop, which is a promise of the bill. What the bill would do is crimp the electricity supplier market, just as the concept is beginning to resonate with the public.

The debate at 5:30 this morning was emblematic of how the General Assembly does business. under the liberal Democrats: pass a massive overhaul bill, friendly to the extreme left, without major public hearings, in the early morning hours, in the hope it might work, all the while raising our rates. Our only hope is Gov. Rell will veto the bill.