Linda McMahon

Chris Dodd has a polling profile reminscent of NJ Governor Jon Corzine. He's behind, he's been behind for a long while, and the poll internals indicate he's likely to stay behind.

Given that the election is less than a year away, how could Dodd eke out a victory?

Have an opponent with high negatives. Thankfully for him, one is already in the race.

Five Republicans are in the race now. Former Congressman Rob Simmons has yet to run TV ads, but has residual name ID in central and eastern CT from his days in Congress. He is leading  Dodd by 11 points.

Former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley has run TV ads . He is leading Dodd by 7 points.

The other three candidates--Linda McMahon, Sam Caligiuri and Peter Schiff--all are in effective dead heats with Dodd in the 43-41% range.  So they are equal, right?

No. McMahon is the weakest of the lot.  Neither Caligiuri or Schiff have spent dime one on TV ads, while McMahon has blanketed the state--even running ads on NYC TV. Yet she fares no better than the more frugal candidates in the race.

The secret here is while McMahon is buying name recognition, much of it is already negative. 

According to Quinnipiac Simmons's image is now 40% favorable , 10% unfavorable. His rating with unaffiliated voters is 42% favorable- 7% unfavorable.

Linda McMahon did not make such a good first impression.    She rates at 20% favorable to 13% unfavorable.  14% of unaffiliates and 15% of men already have a negative impression of the wrestling mogul.

Amazingly, more people in CT dislike Linda McMahon after a few weeks in elective politics than dislike Rob Simmons after nearly 20 years at  the trade.

The rule of thumb is that a challenger's early numbers usually have to run 2 to 1 favorable to have a shot at an incumbent. McMahon's slick campaign ain't getting the split she needs. And Lord knows what's going to happen if and when Dodd unloads some negatives on her. Sure she'll have plenty of cash to respond, but methinks Chris Dodd will enjoy the mudfest. It's not like his numbers can go much further down.

Now one would think Dodd's dream---a rookie opponent with high and rising negatives--couldn't come true. But it might due to the quirks of the CT GOP and our geography.

Rob Simmons is very well known in eastern CT, which does not have many registered Republicans.  But he is not well known in heavily Republican Fairfield County, which is served by NYC TV.    McMahon's been on those stations; Simmons never has.

I suspect the reason the ballot test for the CT primary is now 28% Simmons - 17% McMahon is heavily due to Simmons having low visibility in the southwestern part of CT.

So all of McMahon's millions got her the same ballot test as the candidates not spending money, and the highest negative ratings in the Republican field.

I suggest CT Republicans take a long hard look at these poll internals. When a candidate makes a tepid first impression, it usually doesn;t improve by just pouring resources into the same suboptimal message.

And if Linda McMahon isn't ahead of the weakened Dodd now after spending millions, why would she be when her negatives inevitably rise?

Let's not do Chris Dodd any favors, please

The Latest Quinnipiac poll is out, and Dodd is still down.

Former Connecticut Congressman Rob Simmons has an early lead in the Republican primary race for the 2010 U.S. Senate contest and runs better than any other challenger against Sen. Christopher Dodd, topping the Democratic incumbent 49 - 38 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.  

He loses as well to Linda McMahon and Tom Foley, and is in a dead heat with Sam Caligiuri and Peter Schiff

Why?  Because CT voters don;t find him trustworthy and don't think he cares about their issues.They also don;t think he's doing a a good job on the economy.

Support for the Democratic health plan, although higher here than most places, is slipping.

The good news for Dodd, if any, is that Simmons does face a primary challenge of significance from the "Wild RINO". But in a matter of weeks she's raised her negative rating almost as fast as her positive rating. Oops!

Chris Christie had a primary too, Didn;t help Corzine. And the pattern of Q polls on Dodd is looking more and more like the pattern of polls on Corzine before his failed re-election bid.

In the wake of NY 23  all eyes pointed to the Club for Growth to ascertain where they would jump in next to promote fiscally conservative candidates. And in light of this article, one wonders if they have CT in mind as one of their next venues  

Beyond Florida, other establishment Republicans may be looking over their shoulders. Chocola, a former House Republican from Indiana, noted that he served with Rep. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and former Rep. Rob Simmons (R., Conn.), both running for the Senate.

“They’re both good guys, but they don’t fit the bill as Club for Growth candidates,” he said.

Before his organization decides to jump in, however, he said the group has to see how those races develop, and whether a clear “Club” alternative surfaces.

“The best Kirk and Simmons can expect is that we leave them alone,” Chocola said.

So, Simmons, who has had to revise prior positions on cap and trade; as well as card check, and recently made a rather conciliatory statement on the public option, might find himself not just  overlooked by the fiscal conservative masterminds, but even challenged by a serious committment of time and resources by the Club.  The Club may not always succeed, but their targets are always aware the Club tried.

So, who would the Club for Growth think would be a viable opponent for Chris Dodd?  Who is fiscally conservative enough to warrant their support, a candidate capable of actually winning against Dodd in the general election, and a candidate who actually could use their support?.

There are four other Republicans in the U.S. Senate race besides Simmons. I believe we can write off two names.  Linda McMahon is , of course, "the Wild RINO". Besides, why should the Club send some of its limited money to CT to subsidize a self-funding billionaire? 

Peter Schiff, the former Ron Paul advisor, is certainlly in favor of limited government, but his agenda is so doctrinaire as to make him a very poor investment of Club resources. Perhaps Idaho is ready for 180 proof libertarianism; CT, not so much. Besides, his campaign to date has just done moneybombs and has no traction on the ground.

That leaves Tom Foley and Sam Caligiuri. Foley has been running cute ads with babies, but he's never run a political campaign and whether he can win an election is an open question.

There's one candidate running in CT right now who a) has a proven record of fiscal conservatism and b) has a proven record of winning elections. That's Sam Caligiuri.

2010 might be exactly the year to run a state senator who stood up against a Governor in his own party to vote "no" on an ultimately disasterous state budget. And that made Sam Caligiuri the only CT State Senator to oppose a budget that left the state in a huge deficit. 

It might also be a good year to run a candidate who won a formerly Democratic legislative seat in the Democratic tsunami of 2006.      

And given the issue environment, it might make sense to run a candidate praised for his ability on the stump and described as a "proud Reagan Republican"

I have no idea what the decision making processes at the Club are. Certaintly Rob Simmons is a far cry from the elasticity of Charlie Crist--Simmons is a good guy and generally helpful to other Republicans.  But the Club is looking for alternative to the "Certified Pre-Owned Candidates".

Sam Caligiuri is the sort of guy they would be looking at in Connecticut. And, they did sound like they wanted to play, now didn't they?

It's Mischief Night tonight, and I hear the "Wild RINO". Linda McMahon has picked out her Halloween costume for tomorrow evening.

(Try not to scare Rahm Emanuel!, Linda)

One thing that Ms. McMahon is eager to portray is being the self-reliant hardscrabble businesswoman who rose to billions solely through single minded hard work and perseverance.

And just like the sport: Wrestling's fake. And so is the WWE's true committment to free enterprise.

That is, unless your definition of "free enterprise" includes sinking one's snout deep, deep into the public trough guzzling corporate welfare.

From the Journal-Inquirer.

A top aide to Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Linda E. McMahon today defended her company’s acceptance of millions of dollars in state tax credits, as both Republican and Democratic opponents pilloried her for what they called McMahon’s “stimulus package” and “taxpayer-funded bailout.”The attacks by former 2nd District Congressman Robert R. Simmons, the leading Republican seeking to unseat U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, and by a Dodd surrogate, state Democratic Party spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan, came after the state subsidies to World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. were reported Thursday by the Journal Inquirer. 

The newspaper cited state records that show WWE has collected nearly $3 million in digital and media tax credits, most of which were issued just eight weeks before McMahon resigned her position as its chief executive officer to run for office.

Yep, Linda McMahon's immensely profitable wrestling empire gets subsidized by the Connecticut taxpayer, who are watching the income tax raised on the top bracket, public services reduced, and the state try and borrow its way through the recession. Indeed, unionized state employees even agreed to concessions, which is more than can be said about the state's would-be entertainment titans.

The apologists for the state's highly subsidized entertainment industry accuse McMahon critics of "jumping the shark" .  You see, it was other politicians who wrote these lucrative credits into the law.

Sorry, none of them are spending millions denouncing bailouts when they run a profitable corporation that takes them themselves.  It's "Happy Days" alright for the McMahon family, but the average CT taxpayers feels like they are in remake of "Jaws" 

So the news media has concluded that Ms. McMahon, whose family controls the vast percentage of the WWE's stock, converted tax credits from the state into funds available for her campaign. Maybe this is a form of "public campaign finance"

But it gets worse.

Despite the fact that the WWE was very profitable notwithstanding the recession, shortly before she left her CEO post  at the WWE Linda McMahon went on a frenzy of layoffs and cost-cutting intended to raise profit margins.

Jan. 9, 2009, 9:38 a.m. ESTMcMahon & Co. has announced that it is cutting 10% of its staff, which should result in annual cost savings of approximately $8 million. In exchange for that, the company will take a one-time charge of $3 million. WWE also noted that the company has completed an evaluation of its operating and capital expenditures and has identified "additional efficiencies." In short, more cost cuts are on the way. The company's ultimate goal is to trim $20 million from its expense structure in 2009. 

I'm the last person to lambaste a business that cuts costs to stave off competition, or to stockpile cash, or to pay off lenders and creditors.  And we are going to see a lot of very necessary cuts like that in Corporate America. But the WWE is essentially a monopoly in pro wrestling, they have consistently earned a profit and have $200 million in cash with virtually no long term debt..     So why the urgency to cut costs?  Well, as I noted the McMahon family owns 70% of the WWE  Let's apply 70% of the $20 million in cut costs; well that means $14 million inures to the McMahon family..

So,does the Wild RINO gets to finance most of her U.S. Senate campaign with "new money" without having to dip into the family fortune? Sure looks it.

McMahon's campaign has run a TV ad telling folks how tough it was for her and Vince starting out, even having to declare bankruptcy and losing their house starting their business.

Hey Linda, like that's special. Please.

What really sickens me is it appears she is paying for this ad using the extra profits she earned after firing over 60 Connecticut employees.  

How many of those 60 WWE's employees are going to lose their house so their old boss can finance her U.S. Senate bid without dipping into the accumulated family fortune?  In 2006 Joe Lieberman eviscerated the campaign of Ned Lamont after running this ad.    

It's tough wearing a costume as a free market Republican and expecting people to believe you; Linda.

Especially when you destroy jobs, not create them . And collect subsidies. Not cut them.

We're onto the trick, Linda. You already got the treat.

I went through some mail that accumulated on a chair in my foyer and found the latest glossy missive from "Republican" Senate candidate Linda McMahon (a/k/a "the Wild RINO')

It had a stone wall full of blocks wherein she claimed a bunch of principles were the "foundation" of her campaign.

Stuff like "integrity", "fiscal responsbility",  "honesty"----yadda, yadda, yadda.

This is a hoot coming from someone who subsidized Nancy Pelosi's takeover of the House in 2006.

And isn't it a bit odd to have a wrestling promoter running on a ticket of telling the truth?

She's a "Blue Moon" candidate alright. Madison Avenue has decided that being a conservative is fashionable this season, and so Ms. McMahon, like any good Greenwich gazillionaire, follows fashion

It's just not cool to be Rahm Emanuel's favorite Republican even in a CT primary. So her huge stable of Republican establishment hacks and flacks are doing an extreme makeover; much like Newt Gingrich is trying to do in NY 23. 

Linda McMahon is the "stealth Scozzafava". The RINO from upstate NY was easy to spot; her legislative record and history of endorsements made clear the Republican Party was a matter of convenience to her, not conviction.

McMahon is no different.  Much as Scozzafava played ball with the Left, how else is one to explain McMahon's persistent financial support of liberal Democrats.

And why is it when one finds her supporting Republicans, they are among the most liberal in the entire party...even adamantly opposed to conservatives.

Linda McMahon may put blocks of granite on her glitzy mailers. But her Republican credentials are tissue thin.  

There's little doubt that there's been a groundswell against the traditional leadership of the Republican party. Efforts by party insiders to anoint one of the "usual suspects" have fallen incredibly flat.

And there's plenty of reason to believe that the types of people motivated by the "tea party" movement against the Obama Administration are not going to be automatically enamored of the "Certified Pre-Owned candidates" the Beltway brain trust are eager to promote this cycle.

I note that James Carville, who may be as partisan as they come but surely not dumb, noticed how little respect the Republican voter base has for its elected leadership.  

So what are the political insiders to do with a bunch of voters looking for something completely different? Well, it's simple. They have stolen a page from the world of product marketing.

Make something sold by Corporate America look like it's from some new fresh upstart business by putting a new, different label on the product.

I predict 2010 will be the year of the "Blue Moon" candidates.  We will see many candidates who are products of the world of political insiders, but relabelled and rebranded as anti-establishment candidates expressing populist resentment.

Why "Blue Moon"?. Because that's exactly what we are dealing with

Seems one of the good ole macrobrews, Coors, wanted to start selling some different flavors of beer. But if they put the Coors label on it, people would think it wasn;t like those nice quaint microbrews and imports; it was just a spinoff from the billion or so cans of Silver Bullet quaffed every year by the masses.  So guess what.: Coors decided to sell a beer that pretended to be new, quaint and from an independent brewery.

Coors does not actively advertise the fact that the brew is owned by Coors on the belief that being associated with a major national brewery would diminish its credibility among aficionados. Blue Moon is instead branded as being brewed by the "Blue Moon Brewing Company." [5]

My local example of a "Blue Moon" candidate is liberal wrestling tycoon Linda McMahon, who will probably do something useful for real conservatives a lot less often "than once in a blue moon"  

There are some in the media who are going to be honest enough to see through the charade that people like the "Wild RINO" are trying to pull off. But in this economy, plenty more in the media will simply go along with the carnival as long as the well funded candidate buys print ads and air time from their employers. Take this example of circular reasoning.

Some Republicans wonder if McMahon’s message of an outsider is a mere contrivance. After all, she criticizes business as usual, but is often seen with veteran lobbyist Patrick Sullivan.

Nevertheless, McMahon showed she may indeed be something different when explaining at an event in Windsor that her generous campaign contributions to Democrats were “the cost of doing business.” It’s not a truth we like to hear, but it rings with authenticity.

Perhaps there's some form of "truth in advertising" herein. But I would submit that this makes Ms. McMahon's political compass much more closely aligned with that of Heidi Fleiss than that of Barry Goldwater.

Yep, we will see tycoons accustomed to buying favors from career politicians go and buy the allegiance of other career politicians.  But they will try and insist with a straight face that they will be "A different kind of Senator" when all objective indicia suggests they will be a carbon copy of the Capitol Hill lifers they seek to replace.  They'll just take their calls from Rahm Emanuel in the Republican cloakroon instead of the Democratic cloakroom.  

Much as Blue Moon beer is really dressed-up Coors, all these various rebranded political insiders are ever going to be are the campaign version of trick-or-treaters, dressed up to play the role of angry commoners. 

The worst aspect of all this is that we have a real opportunity to build a new Republican party that Middle America can once again have faith in. But that will require hard work finding and promoting new candidates for statewide office and congressional races.

 What it appears much of the political establishment thinks it can do is simply play make-believe; instead of doing the work to win a worthwhile victory.  This will fail for two reasons. First, the voters are probably going to figure this out long before the election. The resulting loss of volunteer energy and voter turnout is going to doom us.  In a low turnout election, a true-believer lefty is likely to outpoll someone who appears only to give lip service to what he claims to be running on.

One thing the various poseurs also may underestimate that even if the media lets the party roll on, the Democrats will have a full dossier of every insider deal and favor these folks got before they put on populist airs, and will simply wait to drop the hammer after they get nominated. Oops!

And if the "Blue Moon" candidates do skate through to election then what are we left with? A bunch of personality cult officeholders with a cadre of paid retainers, committed to no political agenda more important that gaining re-election. Hmmm; isn't that why we got shown the door in 2006? 

Douglas MacArthur said that in war, there is no substitute for victory. I believe in the election environment of 2010 there is no subsitute for authenticity. Either you have it- or you don't.

Republican candidates in 2010 who think they can excuse away their phoniness by massive media blitzes or slick PR tactics will find out that there is a subsitute for victory: defeat.  

Can a U.S. Senate campaign double as a reality show?

The befuddled Republicans in Connecticut are asking this question tonight?

First, this morning, the Wild RINO, Linda McMahon is called out by the Hartford Courant for "an extreme makeover"

Her "outsider" campaign will soon have 16 paid staff and has spent more than $2 million, just in the first weeks. She has hired top political operatives, including the consummate insider lobbyist in Hartford, Patrick Sullivan. There is a "new media" director. The wife of the state GOP chair will be her press secretary and David Cappiello, a prominent former state senator, will run the campaign.McMahon tells us that Dodd has been "right in the middle" of the bailouts, trillion-dollar debt, government-run health care and the "banks and special interests." Yet this former CEO is no stranger to ethically challenged situations.She presided over a business where, according to investigators from the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, " steroid use is pervasive" and the "organizations involved have not taken adequate steps to address this problem." 

Sadly, I know one of the new McMahon staffers. I can only presume she is in dire financial straits, as signing up for this lounge act was like when members of the Blues Brothers fronted as "Murph and the Magic Tones" at the Armada Lounge.

I'm not going to belabor the point, but back in 1776 the good guys were the volunteer citizen soldiers; the bad guys were the Hessian mercenaries. I note America's renaissance in the late 20th century coincided with the all-volunteer military...hmmm..   a political lesson herein?

In any case, by the time she starts she's going to be fully engulfed. First, in late morning the McMahon family did what they do so well, mix family melodrama and business; as McMahon's son quit the WWE management. A British tabloid said dad Vince was "saddened"

But methinks this is a lot like the various plotlines where Linda's been cheated on , sent to a santorium, been slapped by her daughter, kicked Vince in the groin, yadda, yadda and yadda. I strongly suspect that Shane will return to the WWE in very theatrical fashion soon enough, probably battling the Undertaker to resume his executive post or something in that vein.    

Of course, by midafternoon the CT Democrats had made like the Supreme Court under Justice Potter Stewart and examined WWE footage for obscenity. Sure enough, they claim to have found it.

Colleen Flanagan, spokeswoman for Connecticut’s Democratic Party, said as CEO of the WWE, McMahon “presided over programming that showed simulated rape, public sex and necrophilia.”

“People across this state, not to mention the millions of women who are the victims of sexual violence every year, would be horrified and embarrassed to know that the person who seeks to represent them condones this kind of behavior,” she added

The Politico is having some run with the hypocrisy of the DC Democrats, who are basically libertines "Bible Belting" McMahon over these turgid videos

Guess this was all before the PG-13 version of the show.

By day's end the WWE made the offensive videos disappear from YouTube.

I dunno about the necrophilia; maybe that's some kind of twisted commentary on the death tax.

But what the Wild RINO can't put in the cybernetic round file is the cold hard truth that at a time when we desperately need a strong voice to challenge the excesses of the Obama Administration, she is Rahm Emanuel's  favorite Republican.  

Yep, that might be even more skeevy than shlupping a stiff.

Guess being outed as Rahm Emanuel's favorite Republican isn't helping the wrestling tycoon( a/k/a "the Wild RINO")  win the hearts and minds of real CT voters.

So what's a candidate with cash and no qualifications to do? Well, one can hire some flack as a well paid "new media" director to start spinning furiously

Here's the rather lame response from McMahon, Inc., picked up appropriately only by a fansite for pro wrestling fanatics

Linda McMahon's "director of new media" issued a press release today responding to criticism of former WWE CEO Linda McMahon for her recent campaign contributions to the Democratic party. McMahon is running as a Republican in the 2010 Senate race in Connecticut."Linda has helped elect far more Republicans than Democrats, but they didn't bother to tell you that," said director Jodi Latina in response to other Republican candidates criticizing McMahon for helping elect Democratic politicians."Linda refuses to play the old game in which politicians divert attention from their own records with non-stop negative attacks. The career political insiders started going this negative so early because they're obviously terrified of Linda's candidacy."Latina turned the negative press against Linda McMahon into a rallying cry to tell supporters the other Republican candidates are "concerned about her candidacy" well before the primary elections in 2010 even take place.McMahon's campaign is using the classic rallying cry that the insiders want to keep her out and will "play the old game in which politicians divert attention from their own records with non-stop negative attacks." 

Too bad the facts get in the way here. I'll let lefty commenter "AndersonScooper" explain why, posted on CTLocalPolitics.net

Linda McMahon is Floating a Big Lie!

On her blog she tries to make the argument that she’s given twice as much to Republicans than Democrats over the years, $70,700 to R’s, and $34,100 to D’s.

The only problem is that if you subtract out the $40,900 Linda’s given this year, (only to Republicans of course), her lifetime donations take on this picture:

donated to R’s — $29,800donated to D’s — $34,100

She must think ya’ll are stupid. And I still want to know why she gave all that $$$ to Senator Mark Warner (D-VA).

So, boo hoo, we're supposed to feel sorry for poor old Linda. This tough rich woman has been in the race for a couple of weeks and the moment someone raises legitimate criticism of her she cries victim. Maybe that stunt worked for Monday Night Raw, but the U.S. Senate is not some soap opera on steroids.

Let's peel this back a bit more. The only CT Republican whom Linda's bothered in the past  to support financially was Chris Shays, who: a) was her own Congressman and b) was among the most liberal of Republicans. (Evidently Rep. Simmons and Rep. Johnson were unworthy of her financial support, then again Danbury and New London are soooo far from Greenwich) This doesn't prove any committment to conservative Republican values considering the tons of cash she tossed at Rahm Emanuel.

And please, a cursory look at the Simmons and Caligiuri websites indicates their long proven records of positive achievements.  The idea that either is hiding their record of public service due to the McMahon campaign is frankly, delusional.

But, one more thing. remember how I told you McMahon was the MSM approved Republican candidate for the Senate?  Well, guess what...her "new media" director is someone who spent the last 15 years working in...old media.  

I'm sure Linda McMahon will sign up a different high priced hired gun every day of the week. She cannot so readily buy the ability to campaign, or a credible agenda for her campaign, or the authenticity that comes from actually participating in the public policy arena.

If Mrs. McMahon thinks the voters of Connecticut are raring to buy an agenda of glitz, gloss and amnesia, well, maybe she really was conked on the head too hard by one of those folding chairs.   

We've learned more this week about liberal Republican wrestling promoter Linda McMahon, a/k/a "the Wild RINO"

For one thing, we've ascertained that she must be the Pinch Sulzberger approved Republican in the field of candidates in Connecticut. On Sunday, the New York Times decided to put its candidate profile of Mrs. McMahon on page A1 

A Senate Candidate Accustomed to Being Thrown in the Ring

“I don’t think anyone should ever question Linda’s resolve or tenacity,” said Dick Ebersol, the chairman of NBC Universal Sports, who has collaborated on projects with the McMahons. “If anybody thinks she is the little woman, they are out of their minds. She put the business together.”

OK, any question who the MSM is in the tank for in this race, folks?

Jeez, you wonder what's going through Rob Simmons's head about now. All he did was spend a career in the CIA and on Capitol Hill, a decade in the CT Legislature, won a Democrat congressional district three times, and he's been obscured by someone who produced a soap opera on steroids.   

What is not going through Republican minds in Connecticut is much respect for this stuff. Just this week, a legislator from McMahon's  home town endorsed the thoughtful conservative in the field,  State Senator Sam Caligiuri

 “Representative Camillo’s endorsement is very humbling. As a relative newcomer to the political scene, Fred brings the fresh perspective of an outsider who is very much in touch with the people he represents. The Greenwich community is fortunate to have such a bright, rising star representing them in the General Assembly, and I am honored to have his support,” said Caligiuri.

And McMahon's trouble extend to the stump. Here's what a Hartford Courant political reporter said of her appearance this week in Windsor. "her delivery is about as interesting as listening to an assistant principal read the morning announcements"

On the other hand, Caligiuri's performance won praise

 I'd give Caligiuri a B+ for his engaging, lively stump speech, which told us about how he snatched Waterbury from the jaws of corruption and reminded us of his immigrant roots. He's a proud Reagan Republican and he earns points for at least mentioning the achievement gap.

One of the reasons that McMahon is having problems on the stump is she keeps having to explain why she claims to be a Republican today despite having done little in the past to demonstrate a modicum of interest in the party's agenda or principles.

Here's another story about McMahon's painful performance in Windsor.  

The tens of thousands of dollars given to the Democratic party and Emanuel is simply the cost of doing business, McMahon said Thursday night following a meeting of the candidates at a Windsor restaurant.

“I’ve been the CEO of a publicly traded company, which has given money to both Democrats and Republicans,” McMahon said.

McMahon said it had nothing to do with politics or personal beliefs. She said she has known Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ari Emanuel, for years.

Ari Emanuel runs a talent agency in Hollywood, California, which does business with WWE, she said. She said he called up and let her know his brother would be in Stamford and “may do a little arm twisting.” She said when she gave money to Emanuel, he was still a Congressman from Illinois, not the current president’s chief of staff.

OK, a billionaire who thinks throwing cash at liberal Democrats (Emanuel was getting Pelosi elected House Speaker at the time) is just a "cost of doing business" Now THERE'S a committed principled conservative if I ever heard one. Or perhaps she's a plant by her good friends the Emanuel family sent to muck up the Connecticut primary and save Chris Dodd's sorry keester.   

While we are on the topic of Rahm Emanuel and his brothers, maybe we could elicit an opinion from the Wild RINO on the topic of "death panels"....then again, she might think it's a new form of steel cage bout 

Maybe subsidizing leftists makes friends for Linda in Hollywood, the White House and with the New York Times, but it most certaintly is not endearing her to her opponents,

"For me it’s not just business,” former U.S. Congressman Rob Simmons said.

Simmons said McMahon’s donations undermined his efforts in 2006 and allowed his opponents, who are now expanding government to win elected office.

Simmons wasn't done

“If donating tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats was ‘the cost of doing business’ for Linda McMahon and her professional wrestling empire, one wonders what she aimed to get in return for her generosity. This sort of influence peddling would not make her ‘a different kind of Senator.’ It would make her exactly the same as the one we have.”

Sam Caligiuri wasn't very pleased with this lame effort to defend the indefensible, either. His spokeswomen issued this statement.

“What we’re hearing from Republicans as we travel around the state is that they are insulted by Ms. McMahon working against their efforts to elect Republicans, then trying to sweep these personal contributions under the rug as if no one would ever notice.  Pro wrestling might be fake, but this practice of choosing expediency over principle is the very real way in which Washington currently works, and is exactly what Sam is fighting to fix.  If McMahon is already a part of the problem, it is hard to believe she can ever become part of the solution,” said Grossman

Linda McMahon says she'll be a "different kind of Senator", but if that means she'll be a liberal glad-handing gazillionaire there's quite enough already, don'tcha think?  We need someone who cares more about folks in Hamden than Hollywood.

There's nothing "different" about hypocrisy in politicians, Linda

====UPDATE====

In this morning's' New London Day, a columnist suggests that McMahon will run a third party bid for the Senate similar to that of her political mentor, former liberal Connecticut Governor and WWE Board member Lowell Weicker

If this wouldn't be a premeditated sabotage of the effort to oust Chris Dodd, I don't know what else would be

As expected RINO wrestling promoter Linda McMahon ( a/ka/ "the Wild RINO")  has blanketed Connecticut with a media blitz announcing her candidacy against Chris Dodd

Now, local blogger Authentic Connecticut Republican has gotten a glimpse of her next ad, which shows Mrs. McMahon as a woman of action.

Enjoy!