From The McMahon Campaign: Another Conservative Disavows Linda

Ω
Strangely enough, this information was sent to me by the McMahon campaign!

Here's the report:

Popular conservative columnist Ann Coulter, has found her candidate for the United States Senate, and he supports card check, cap and trade, and partial birth abortion. Two weeks after former Connecticut congressman Rob Simmons suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate, Coulter unveiled a plan to revive the three term congressman’s dormant campaign: send in Sarah Palin.

I guess the McMahon campaign feels that Coulter's embrace of Linda's opponent makes Linda look better. I'm not sure they realize that true conservatives are so repelled by her business background that they are willing to support a more progressive (at least in the past) candidate with a sterling background and reputation.

Ann Coulter's column:

HUMAN EVENTS: Sarah Palin: Please Endorse Rob Simmons

...Connecticut Republicans have done nothing to deserve this gift. All they need to do is field a candidate who isn't inextricably linked to professional frigging wrestling.

Instead, last month, a majority of Republican caucus-goers favored professional wrestling impresario Linda McMahon, based on her offer to spend "up to" $50 million of her own money on the campaign.

McMahon would be a fantastic choice if money were associated with electoral victory. But it's not...

In 1994, Michael Huffington spent $30 million in his bid for a Senate seat from California against Democrat Dianne Feinstein. He lost.

In 2002, Tom Golisano spent more than $74 million of his own money running for governor of New York. He received 14 percent of the vote. That same year, Democrat Tony Sanchez spent $60 million of his own money trying to become the governor of Texas -- and lost to Rick Perry.

In 2004, John Kerry spent $6.4 million of John Heinz's money on his presidential race, and still lost.

Last year, Jon Corzine, then-governor of New Jersey, spent about $24 million of his own money trying to hold onto his job. Despite outspending Republican Chris Christie 3-to-1, Corzine lost 49 percent to 44 percent. (Corzine also out-slimed Christie in that race by an whopping 106-to-1.)

In all, 20 candidates for the House or Senate in 2002 spent at least $1 million of their own money on their campaigns; 19 of the 20 lost, generally to more experienced candidates.

Even in the rare cases when the deep-pocket candidate wins, it's not a novelty candidate -- unless it's Minnesota. Michael Bloomberg, the sitting mayor of New York City, spent an astronomical $100 million last year just to win his own office back, outspending his opponent 15-to-1. He squeaked in with 51 percent of the vote -- and that was only after Bloomberg passed a massive new tax on voting for his opponent.

So Republicans better have a more impressive reason for picking Linda McMahon than "She'll spend up to $50 million of her own money."

But they don't.

Any half-wit knows Connecticut will not vote for a professional wrestling "impresario" for the U.S. Senate. So unless Republicans have secret information that Blumenthal does enjoy dressing up in diapers, Republicans are forfeiting a Senate seat for no reason.

By contrast, Rob Simmons, who recently suspended his primary campaign against McMahon for lack of money, is a Haverford College graduate, a former Yale professor and an Army colonel. Unlike fantasist Blumenthal, Simmons really did serve in Vietnam, coming home with two Bronze Stars...

More information here:

NBC CONNECTICUT: Sarah Palin, Help Simmons: Coulter


DAILY MAIL: Coulter: Beat the fake vet with the real one


BLUE STATE BLUEZ: Ann Coulter Asks Sarah To Endorse Rob Simmons
Ω

Lamont Makes Sense

Ned Lamont unveiled his "Plan to Renew Our Cities" at a press conference with his running mate Mary Glassman, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, New Haven State Senator Toni Harp, and Hartford City Council President Pedro Segarra.





Lamont outlined a comprehensive strategy to revitalize Connecticut's cities and grow the state economy by improving transportation and education, focusing on smart development and bringing the jobs of the future to the state's urban centers.

"Connecticut's cities were once the hubs of our economy, but over the years they've fallen behind," said Lamont. "As governor, I will fight to revitalize our cities and make them places where people are proud to live, work and raise a family. By focusing on smart development, improving education and giving Connecticut families the tools to build a better life, we can renew our cities and begin a new era of prosperity for the entire state."

"Ned is the leader our state needs right now. He understands the challenges facing our cities and he has the right plan and the right experience to meet them. As a businessman and an educator, Ned has a proven record of bringing people together to solve problems and he is going to bring that results-oriented leadership to Hartford. I'm looking forward to working with him here in New Haven and across the state to create jobs and move Connecticut forward," DeStefano said.

As governor, Lamont will:


• Transform urban education from cradle to career by pulling together teachers and administrators, students and parents.
• Focus transportation strategy on our urban train and bus hubs, revitalizing downtowns, liberating commuters from rush hour traffic, and creating thousands of jobs.
• Ease the property tax burden on city residents by making PILOT payments a top priority, and making it easier for cities to redevelop brownfields, turning yesterday's industrial sites into tomorrow's high-tech facilities
• Help families succeed by increasing access to child care, financial literacy training, job placement assistance, and implementing a state Earned Income Tax Credit
• Foster transit-oriented development by encouraging public-private partnerships and providing incentives for higher-density affordable housing near public transit

Lamont released his Business Plan for Connecticut in April, which outlined the steps he will take as governor to create jobs and help businesses grow. Today's announcement elaborates on the strategy for achieving these goals in Connecticut's urban centers.

Blumenthal On The Uptick

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s recent dip in the polls, owing to his multiple lies concerning his service in Vietnam, is now bending in a more favorable direction for him.

Analysts are busily interpreting the uptick in a recent Rasmussen poll.

National commentators still insist that Blumenthal lied rather than misspoke when he said, addressing some veterans groups in which media presence was light, that he had served in Vietnam.

After the single questionable reference in a New York Times front page story had spurred other papers to search their archives, other Blumenthal misspeakings soon surfaced. The multiple instances in which Blumenthal asserted he had served in Vietnam threw into doubt the attorney general’s assertion that he misspoke.

In a June 3rd story in the National Journal.com for instance, Jamie Shufflebarger wrote:

“Blumenthal said or implied on numerous occasions that he had served in Vietnam during the war. He most famously said in '08 that "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam." There are at least 5 other direct quotes from Blumenthal stating that he "wore the uniform in Vietnam" or "returned from Vietnam." His campaign material and official bio all clearly state that he was in the reserves during the war and never served abroad.”

While heavily criticized in the national media, Blumenthal appears to have gotten a pass from the state’s media. Following a week of heavy criticism, the attorney general, having consulted with some Beltway fix-its provided by President Barack Obama’s administration, said via e-mail:

“At times when I have sought to honor veterans, I have not been as clear or precise as I should have been about my service in the Marine Corps Reserves. I have firmly and clearly expressed regret and taken responsibility for my words.”

In an editorial, the Hartford Courant said Blumenthal’s “apology” had sufficiently “cleared the air,” and when former Courant Watchdog George Gombossy, a veteran, questioned the attorney general’s apology, he was denounced by a Courant commentator. Gombossy is suing the paper for having improperly discharge him, but he has been unable to question the attorney general, who has been adroitly avoiding him.

Blumenthal’s continuing reluctance to admit he lied about his service has earned him a place on the national psychological couch.

The New York Times followed up its initial story, citing other instances in which Blumenthal lied about his service record. The Times' editors also opened its pages to commentators Mark Maslan, an English professor, Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law, Bella DePaulo, a psychology professor, and
Henry Mark Holzer, a co-author, “Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing, and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service.”

“It’s not uncommon for people — even public officials — to lie about their military service, The Times pointed out and asked, ”What’s behind this kind of deception?”

Mark Maslen, now writing a book titled “False Witness: Counterfactual Testimony and Postmodern Truth,” quoting Blumenthal telling one audience “I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse” he presumably suffered as a result of his service in Vietnam, suspects that Blumenthal’s “fabrications concern humiliation more than heroism.”

Blumenthal’s lies, Maslen commented, “cannot be explained by a hunger for glory, but by a need to be part of a traumatic past that we all share. In this, he resembles the fake Vietnam vets, whose stories more often concern harm suffered and witnessed than bravery proven.”

Turley, a columnist who writes on legal and policy issues and blogs at jonathanturley.org, is convinced Blumenthal is no Walter Mitty. Blumenthal already had been leading in reality the Walter Mitty life that the character in James Thurber’s short story could only dream of. The Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University thinks the temptation to claim unearned military distinctions is sometimes irresistible among politicians:

“Politicians thrive on symbols and rhetoric that create bonds with the public. Military service is perhaps the strongest such self-authenticating qualification. It recasts a politician in a new light — not some self-serving egomaniac but a selfless public servant. Blumenthal’s comments about the trauma of returning home to a hostile nation would resonate with anyone and elicit universal affection.”

However, there are dangers in the pursuit of universal affection:

"For the state’s top prosecutor (and a senatorial candidate), such claims are particularly problematic. Blumenthal’s office routinely prosecutes fraud and false statements in various contexts. Moreover, federal law makes certain false military claims a criminal matter. (Under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a person claiming specific military decorations or medals could be sentenced to a year in jail)… Of course, the terrible irony is that reinventing oneself in this way can wipe away years of well-deserved respect and trust. In the eyes of many, Blumenthal has joined the ranks of the ‘semper frauds.’ While he told crowds that he still remembered “the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse” following Vietnam, he is now experiencing that very reaction from citizens.”

Visiting professor of psychology at the University of California Bella DePaulo, who has written extensively on the psychology of deceit, remarks that those who “are fond of the liar, or feel indebted or invested in the liar, will rush forward to defend their friend. Their public show of support only makes it harder for the liar to come clean, since a confession would hurt and humiliate the very people who stood up for the liar.”

Professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School Henry Mark Holzer, co-author of “Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing, and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service,” uses the term “fake warrior, to describe a person, overwhelmingly male, who lies about having had military service or, having served, embellishes his record.”

Public officials especially “want to be seen (whether they are or not) as tough, disciplined and patriotic. Those characteristics inhere in no calling more than the military, which is why public official fake warriors don’t claim to have invented a cure for gout or once caught the largest shark. Instead, they almost always fictionalize their military service.”

Part of the corruption of absolute power may be traced to the insularity of powerful people. Told often enough that a man is a saint, the saint soon gives himself permission to sin. And when the watchdogs sleep, the only restraints available to the sinner are those he lays upon himself.

The New York Post On Linda McMahon

Ω

The NY Post is pretty much right wing:



Here's what a Post columnist has to say about Linda:

(L)ast year, after pro wrestling matriarch Linda McMahon was nominated to Connecticut’s State Board of Education, she claimed, as proof of qualification, her degree in education.

Her degree, it was soon revealed, was in French...

Mrs. McMahon’s self-serving fabrication — one designed to prove that she has formal training to serve the best educational interests of the state’s children — made no such noise.

And, now that she’s running for the U.S. Senate — and she’s no more a family-values Republican than Hulk Hogan’s muscles were the result of drug-free weightlifting...

Vince and Linda McMahon and their WWE (née WWF) have, for the last 25 years, provided America the lowest forms of public disservice. They’ve played Pied Piper to young TV audiences, instructing them in the gutter art of becoming crude, crotch-grabbing, profanity-shouting creeps.

The McMahons’ raunchy TV shows, their stewardship of a drug-reliant death mill of an entertainment form, their ever-changing wink-and-nod “drug policies,” their knowing employment of sexual predators and even Mrs. McMahon’s (and her son and daughter’s) participation in sexually charged and perverse prime-time shock skits, make it nearly impossible to believe that Gov. Jodi Rell selected her to serve children.

And now, because money can do what money can do, she is the GOP frontrunner to become a U.S. Senator from Connecticut.

How is it possible that anyone noble enough not to do dirt to kids, smart enough to read, write and vote, and wise enough to consider the uncontested leaders of a profession that produces early-death performers — so many of them in the employ of the McMahon’s — could even consider Linda McMahon for any public office is beyond comprehension.

The National Review on Linda McMahon

The National Review is the bible of Republican conservatism:



And yet, here is what it has to say about Linda McMahon:

...The Republican, Linda McMahon, is the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, which is to the popular culture what the BP spill is to the Gulf of Mexico — a relentless gusher of pollution.

....Linda became head of the company when Vince got indicted in a steroids scandal (most charges were dropped; he was found not guilty on another)....

The WWE blends elements of Jerry Springer’s show, the Victoria’s Secret fashion show, Ultimate Fighting, and soap opera — except it makes all of those forms of entertainment seem elevated by comparison....

Mr. McMahon makes one female wrestler crawl on all fours and bark like a dog for betraying him, before urging her to strip for her sins...

In another episode, Mr. McMahon has his leather-skirt-wearing daughter — his real daughter, playing herself — dragged from the ring kicking and screaming by security. In yet another, he chokes her with a pipe. The animating spirit of all this is Hustler...

Linda McMahon says that she was primarily involved in the business, not the creative, side of the enterprise... Linda herself appeared in some of the skits, although — in her defense — in a relatively restrained role that only saw her kick men in the groin once or twice.

She can’t deny any foreknowledge of the pipe-choking incident, since she participated in the skit. Asked whether she’s proud of that charming moment in “sports entertainment” history, her campaign spokesman repeatedly refuses to answer. All he’ll say is that there are “parts of the program that she likes more than others.” We’ll have to guess whether she liked, say, the episodes with the insulting depictions of a mentally handicapped man more or less...

The Etymology Of Church

In a decision prohibiting public school graduation ceremonies at First Cathedral in Bloomfield, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall ruled that “Enfield schools sends the message that it is closely linked with First Cathedral and its religious mission, that it favors the religious over the irreligious and that it prefers Christians over those that subscribe to other faiths, or no faith at all.”

The case was brought to court by the by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of two high school seniors and three parents, all anonymous complainants.

"In addition to the character of the forum,” Hall determined, “the history and context of the decision to hold the graduations at First Cathedral also support the conclusion that, in doing so, Enfield Public Schools has endorsed religion."

The suit was filed, we are told in a news account, because the parents of the students “alleged that using the church was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by government. The plaintiffs wanted the graduations held in a nonreligious setting.”

Following the decision, lead attorney Alex Luchenitser said “We are thrilled, of course, with the ruling. We're thrilled the students will not be coerced to go to church at the price of attending their own graduation.”

The decision involves both legal and etymological concerns.

For instance, the judge ruled that in allowing a non-religious secular ceremony to occur in a building in which religious ceremonies are held, the Enfield School system “sent the message that it is closely linked with First Cathedral and its religious mission.”

Since the school system in Hall’s judgment is linked “closely” with the “religious mission” of a church, it is vitally important to know: 1) What is the mission of First Cathedral church? 2) What is a church? 3) What is a mission? We all know, with apologies to former president Bill Clinton, what “is” is.

Without delving very deeply into the matter, it is possible to suppose that the “mission” of First Cathedral church  – a church being the body of the faithful, including ministers and lay people – is to spread the good new of Christianity and, whenever possible, to make conversions to the church.

Atheists rightly object to both points; other Christian faiths may object to conversion; and other non-Christian faiths may object both to conversion and the promulgation of a message with which they cannot in good conscience agree.

Since the ceremony involved was secular in nature, it seems rather implausible that the non-clerics who officiated at the ceremony would be able to effectuate the mission of First Cathedral.

Part of the problem in interpreting whether a graduation ceremony, entirely secular in nature, occurring in a church building “endorses” religion lies in the meaning of the word “church,” which is used, depending upon the context, to indicate both a building and a religious congregation assembled for a religious purpose, such as a mass or a baptism.

Certainly if prayers were recited at the secular ceremony, one may imagine that a line separating church and state had been impermissibly crossed. In such a case, it may reasonably be said of students attending a graduation ceremony, particularly were they atheist by inclination or believing members of a different faith, that they had been “coerced” to participate in a religious event.

Under the circumstances cited by Hall, it is a bit of a stretch to conclude that anyone participating in the graduation ceremony at First Cathedral would have been engaged in an unconstitutional religious event. And only neo-pagans who believe in homeopathic magic could assert with some reason, assuming homeopathic magic is reasonable, that buildings are inherently religious, or that religious objects -- crosses on Catholic Church buildings, for instance – posses some magical quality that may bend those who see or touch the objects to a certain purpose. Buildings, by themselves, are not magical structures, and one need not fear that persons who come in contact with them will be, so to speak, religiously polluted.

Judges who review Hall’s decision should take care they do not fall under the influence of pagan or neo-pagan ideas in their interpretation of the religious clause of the First Amendment; nor should they fear they will be religiously polluted by such words in that amendment as prohibit the U.S. Congress and other lesser legislative bodies from making laws establishing a national church (not really a building) or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The words “religious establishment” in the amendment, though somewhat ambiguous, are not magical incantations, and judges should not fear religious contamination by coming into contact with them, no more than atheists passing under the crosses attached to Catholic church buildings should fear conversion under their shadow.

Only neo-pagans – not that there’s anything wrong with neo-paganism – believe in homeopathic magic, the practice of which would not be allowed, one hopes, in graduation ceremonies or in, as some may think, wildly implausible interpretations of graduation ceremonies in which buildings serve as carriers of religious infections.

Martha Dean Unmasked

A great post by Meghan Freed at Connecticut Law Blog:

...Although running as a Republican, Martha Dean is almost a Libertarian. (Although I have no idea whether Dean would agree with my “Libertarian” connotation of the positions described on her website, the description is no less apt.) Dean’s version of Libertarianism shocks in two ways – first the “almost” and second the “Libertarian.” The “almost” involves Dean’s second pillar, “faith,” which we’ll return to later...

Here’s the thing about the type of Libertarianism inherent in Dean’s positions. It’s pretty darn batty. It’s pretty darn close to anarchic. Any political philosophy taken to its extreme is dangerous, but, as Rand Paul and his bring-back-the-segregated-lunch-counter-in-the-name-of- free-enterprise brand of wacky has taught us, Libertarianism tends to hang out much closer to the precipice than America’s brand of Liberalism, or even Conservatism. So now, please indulge some discussion of Martha Dean’s Libertarianism, beginning with the Second Amendment.

Agree or disagree, it is not surprising for a Republican candidate with Libertarian tendencies to support the rights of gun owners. Dean takes it a whole lot further, though. On her campaign site, Dean links to a video of her speaking at a second amendment march in Hartford on April 11th...

In this video Ms. Dean is standing in front of a banner for the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc... Ms. Dean opens her speech by calling the Second Amendment “the greatest of all the amendments,” and she’s just warming up. At minute 3:40, she proclaims that as attorney general she will “oppose all efforts to create nonsensical distinctions that are nowhere supported by our constitutions between different types of firearms,” because “nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government gets the effective firearms and the people the ineffective ones,” and “nowhere in our constitution does it say that the government gets the modern firearms and the citizens only get the antiquated ones.”

....(A)n attorney general candidate opposing any restriction on any type of firearm is pretty outside the Connecticut mainstream. And it’s definitely outside the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. (In District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-2817 (U.S. 2008), the Roberts Court noted that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court stated that there is a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and further noted that it would be permissible to ban “weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like . . . .”)

In her speech Ms. Dean also advocates for in-school firearms training for boys and girls. So, you know, at least Junior will be safe with the family uzi.

...But the “faith” pillar of Dean’s platform triumvirate is when she swings off the Libertarian road. Dean “believes in a higher duty owed to God’s law when it conflicts with the laws of government...” Is Connecticut okay with an attorney general who would put her version of God’s law above Connecticut’s laws? Golly, I hope not. Apparently, Dean is so fond of the Second Amendment that she forgets about the First Amendment...