Hoping many voters have tired of Republican U.S. Senate nominee Linda McMahon’s summer-long ad blitz, Democrats yesterday launched a new website – trashtalkinglinda.com – featuring ways they can vent their frustration.
On my desk as I type this are 16 different mailings McMahon’s self-funded campaign (she has pledged to spend $50 million if necessary) sent out over the past several weeks.
Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal cannot hope to match McMahon’s war chest so he needs to foment anger at her considerable resources.
Last week, for example, Margaret LaCroix, one of a handful of Republicans who, on behalf of Blumenthal, issued a public letter explaining why they are voting for him over McMahon in November, told me she resents the latter candidate’s “constant, constant, constant, constant contact.”
I broached the topic with McMahon today.
“I’m against a candidate who has had a 20-year head start,” she said, referring to Blumenthal’s two decades as state attorney general. “He’s gotten a lot of press coverage and still, today, sends out a press releases from the attorney general’s office that get picked up and covered around the state.”
A review of my e-mail showed Blumenthal’s office issued at least 16 press releases in August. And as I type this another press release from Blumenthal, lamenting a water rate hike, just arrived.
(It’s all that free press which has Republicans grumbling about Blumenthal’s decision to run for Senate while holding down his day job. They would have liked nothing better than for him to have resigned as attorney general. And of course he would have been a fool to do so and given up all that publicity in the midst of a hard fought campaign.)
Citing LaCroix, I asked McMahon if she is at all concerned about turning voters off through over exposure.
“I certainly think the campaign has been effective,” she said. “We listen and monitor the reaction of the public. But pretty much the response I am getting is, ‘We enjoy hearing from you. We enjoy seeing what your stands on the issues are.’ … I haven’t in any way felt it’s over exposure.”
And this from the candidate who denied health and pension benefits to her own employees and their families. She then took the money she saved to finance her own campaign (And this mailing). One of the express purpose of the health care reform act is to help protect the public when employers such as the WWE deny them basic heatlth care coverage.
Add to this the fact that she spent the bulk of her printing budget out of state and on New York markets.
Comment by Dempsey Dem — September 8th, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
Those of us who follow politics closely often overlook the simple fact that many people just don’t pay much attention to politics. The relatively low turnout among registered Democratic and Republican voters in the recent primary election is one indication of that fact. And the largest segment of voters in CT, those are unaffiliated with a major political party, were unable to vote in the primary at all.
I’ve made telephone calls on behalf of candidates this cycle, and walked door to door as well. And I can say there are many, many people remain undecided about this election, and in some cases, are not even clear as to who is running in the various races.
So, Mrs. McMahon, is right. She is competing against a 20-year incumbent who, if Mr. Lockhart’s August tally is any indication, sends out a press release four out of every five days. (It almost makes you wonder why he isn’t sending out a press release every day of the work week!)
Political campaigns are dynamic and must reflect changing circumstances. Campaign messaging should mirror those changes. Just because a voter may be inclined to vote for a candidate like Mr. Blumenthal in January does not mean that voter will feel the same way in October. After all, Mr. Blumenthal had an insurmountable 40-plus point lead in the polls in January. Today, he is ahead by only seven points with eight weeks remaining.
The harsh truth is Mr. Blumenthal is on a track to loss this election. He and his supporters are desperate to divert attention from his lackluster campaign, and his dearth of ideas to address the pressing issues that are important to voters, namely jobs, the economy, and the mess in Washington — including Obamacare, the bailouts and the mind-boggling deficits — that his party has created.
Comment by George — September 8th, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
Dempsey Dem keeps runnng the same tired accusation and half truths on any blog he can. He will not face the truth or own up to his own biases. Apparently, he has been drinking the free Blumnethal Kool-Aid for so long he’s having a toxic reaction. He and Blumenthal will just have to face facts, Linda is the real deal. She, unlike Blumnethal, made her own money and she is spending her own money.
As Linda points out, she faces the disadvantage of 20 years of name recognition Blumnethal has gotten on the public dime. Lockhart says Blumnethal “would be a fool” to resign and miss out on all that (free) “publicity”. This appears to reveal a lack of moral underpinning in both Lockhart and Blumenthal. Blumenthal is taking the tax payers’ money but is not giving the job his full attention and that is cheating his employer, namely us. Any press release, statement and action taken bt The AG is tainted as dirty political action. The sort of thing Chicago democrats do all the time. But then, when have we seen Blumenthal do what is right and ethical?
Comment by Paul G. Littlefield — September 8th, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
If it all wasn’t all so sad, our current state of affairs such an immediate pressing challenge and threat to democracy, it would all be a great read in the ole’ sunday funnies.
Hard to make this stuff up. One cannot imagine this all happening and a reader to really believe it. But alas, here we are.
Is there no respect left, anywhere? How did we get this far off target? Have we really sunk that low, to even consider putting a buxom blond with zero education or legislative experince, heck any exposure at all to our legislation process or even a clear understanding of the structure of government, besides dodging investigations? We put a blond bomber, for a United Sates Congressional seat, to run against the guy who is a former Marine, a highly educated mind with decades of legislative experince with in depth knowlegde of law, demonstrated and documented record of his actions and knowledge?
And we put him up against a triple d, as in dumb, dumber and dumbest, blond entertainer?
Are we insulting ourselves?
Comment by molly — September 8th, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
Although I did not vote for McMahon in the primary, I very much LIKED her mailings. They were very thoughtful and professional. Her approach to campaigning has made her strongly in touch with the concerns of the voters. It’s a LUXURY for voters to receive her high quality mailings.
Comment by Barry Haines — September 9th, 2010 @ 12:49 am
Get real. Of course the Democrats wish that Linda didn’t send out any mailings. Duh! Blumie’s numbers have been dropping consistently since he announced his candidacy. Linda’s have been rising consistently since she announced her candidacy. Brian, you’re a smart guy. Does this indicate to you that people are annoyed with the literature they receive from Linda or that they identify with her and her message? Please, be honest.
Comment by Vincent — September 9th, 2010 @ 3:25 am
Dempsey Dem must be a union employee. Let me tell you about the “real” world of at will employment, my friend. Health care benefits, if offered at all, require the overwhelming number of those employees to pay 50% of premium and pensions are a thing of the distant past in alomost every small to mid-size business. If anything even remotely resembling a pension is offered, it’s a 401K or something similar. Using the word “deny” is misleading, at best, and oh so typical of someone who understands nothing at all about business. As for the so-called health care “reform” act, please. The only thing that will reform is quality of care for all and it will destroy that and the businesses who will be required to participate in it. There’s where the word “deny” is appropriate. Care will be rationed and denied by the government but you can bet your bottom dollar (which is pretty much all any of us will have left) that the payments into this bogus “plan” will keep right on being made.
Comment by Scarlet — September 9th, 2010 @ 6:17 am
Linda McMahon is a highly successful businessperson and a fresh face on the scene. She is not a career politician. All around the nation, businesspersons are trumping career politicians as people come to the obvious realization that people like Linda McMahon know a lot more about the economy and job creation than career politicians, such as Richard Blumenthal.
This criticism of McMahon funding her own campaign is a distraction from the issues, which only she has addressed and which Dick Blumenthal steadfastly refuses to comment on. He prefers to rely on the fact that he is well-known in this state and that he is the hand-picked successor to Christopher Dodd – a Christopher Dodd Part II, if you will.
Many candidates have spent far more money on their campaigns than Linda McMahon, such as Michael Bloomberg in New York, Jon Corzine in New Jersey, and President Obama, who shattered all records for campaign spending. Where was the criticism then? It’s rather odd. The only criticism I hear about campaign spending is when women, such as Linda McMahon and Meg Whitman, do it.
Let’s focus on the issues that affect us most: the economy and jobs. I personally have read every McMahon mailing I have received (and I don’t receive the exaggerated number of mailings you people suggest). Each mailing describes in detail where McMahon stands on the relevant issues. So far, the only advertisement of any sort I have seen from Richard Blumenthal has been a TV commercial where he has promised to go to Washington and sue people. That really ought to help the economy and creat jobs here in Connecticut.
Comment by Rick M — September 9th, 2010 @ 6:36 am
Why didn’t she spent the $4.4 million in CT?
Comment by Dem — September 9th, 2010 @ 9:11 am
Linda McMahon clearly has money to burn, yet she’s most worried about the coming expiration of the Bush Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy?
If anything she’s a poster child for the Democrats!
Comment by Anderson Scooper — September 9th, 2010 @ 10:13 am
Brian Lockhart – thank you for recognizing that Blumenthal has “a 20 year head start” and the benefit of a readily handy press release media stream at his disposal. Most columnists ignore such facts and I expected you to do the same. I was pleasantly surprised.
As for the first commenter:
To only state that the McMahon family “denied healthcare and pensions” to their WWE employees is outright false. WWE employed over 500 people at their Stamford headquarters and offices around the world ASIDE FROM the entertainers you see on TV.
The McMahon family offered healthcare, 401K’s to their non-wrestling employees as well as stock options to executives.
To boot, the “independent contractor” talent contracts that people are criticizing are the industry standard for talent contracts. The wages paid through those contracts were, are and will continue to be INCREDIBLY higher than the industry standard.
WWE pays for FREE substance abuse rehabilitation for ANY current or former employee – regardless if they work for WWE’s direct competitors or not.
Comment by T — September 9th, 2010 @ 10:25 am
I suppose I need to clarify. First, as to my owning up to my ‘biases’, my very name should clear that up. Second, as to Linda McMahon earning and spending her own money, If she throws the money around in Washington as much as she has in this campaign, we are truly in trouble. Third, I am unfortunately not a union member, but would wear the union label proudly if offered. As to contributing to a company policy, be it a 401K plan or medical. it would be virtually impossible for a wrestler to purchase a health plan during or after his career based on accrued injuries or pre-existing problems. Only those in management are offered plans, those ‘contract workers’ are left to fend for themselves as to their families or future. As soon as the plot changes they are cut. Stock options line only the pockets of those in charge.
…And as Linda has pointed out, once they are gone, ‘she hardly knows them’
Comment by Dempsey Dem — September 9th, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
End Attack Ads
Enough! I have lost count of the number of attack ads that Linda McMahon has sent to my mail box. Is it just politics as usual? Absolutely not. Her claims are not verified by the facts, but she makes them anyway. The crude, shameful implications of her mailers indicate that there are no limits to her efforts to destroy the truth, good taste, and fair play. Even if you are willing to ignore her unsavory connections to the WWE, which created the billion dollar profits that allow her to try to buy a United States Senate seat, McMahon’s tactics are not Connecticut worthy.
She claims her opponent is a “liar”—even in a professionally produced 2 x 6 foot magnetic sign that covered the back of a truck I followed down the street the other day, a sign that read: “A vote for Blumenthal is a vote for a liar.” Her unfounded accusations are based on the fact that her opponent said “in” instead of “during” Vietnam. That is all she has. Maybe that logic will resonate with low information voters who don’t bother to research the facts, but Dick Blumenthal has worked to support veterans and their causes for 20 or more years. That is a fact.
Armed with her WWE multi-millions, McMahon has turned making false claims into a cottage industry. So the relevant questions every voter should be asking: Do those who have never served in the military have the right to criticize those who have? Dick Blumenthal continues his support of veterans’ causes in health care and job training—Do Linda or Vince McMahon, beyond mere lip service?
McMahon claims that there is a liar running for the U.S. Senate in 2010; that may be true, but it is not Richard Blumanthal. Even former Congressman Rob Simmons acknowledged that McMahon falsified her own resume in order to eek out a seat for herself on the State Board of Education. She was looking for some credibility to prop up her less than impressive credentials. She ultimately had to send Governor Jodi Rell a letter retracting her notarized resume and confessed that she had made “an error.” Oops. Who forgets the college degree they received? Nobody! Then she resigned from that seat when it was no longer useful to her “claiming a conflict of interest.” McMahon falsified her resume to get something she wanted. Ironically, that is her exact accusation against Dick Blumenthal.
I believe the voters are sick to death of attack ads that say anything to win, whether true or not. As voters we should never tolerate unsubstantiated attack ads or empty promises candidates can never deliver—McMahon has used both. We deserve better—way better.
Comment by Pat Saddlemire — September 10th, 2010 @ 9:45 am
At the end of the day, is there any financial ceiling that the McMahon campaign will impose? My vote can’t be bought, and it certainly doesn’t carry a price tag equivalent to near-daily glossy mailers. McMahon’s dubious executive record does merit scrutiny, and no amount of money can mask it.
Comment by Connecticut Voter — September 14th, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
By now I think many CT intelligent voters are starting to see through McMahon’s phony propaganda and negative attack ads…she really has nothing to offer and it becomes so clear when she is asked detailed questions, like specifically what kind of jobs is she going to create, given the structural unemployment CT is facing?…not only does she not have an answer, she is totally clueless about what structural unemployment even means.
Throughout history, successful propaganda has depended on an ignorant, lazy, or fearful voter and now her propaganda seems to be appealing to just such a voter.
Also, to get an idea of her character and how she may not listen to her constituents, try calling the campaign office and ask to be taken off the mailing list…good luck with that…you will likely be completely ignored.
Just imagine what some of that $50M could have done for early-detection pancreatic or lung cancer research.
Former Republican voter totally disgusted with McMahon.
Comment by pajo — September 15th, 2010 @ 2:55 pm