After losing his party’s nomination in 2006, Democratic U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman formed his own third party and won the general election with the help of Republicans, unaffiliated/independent voters and some still-loyal Democrats.
So it makes sense that with Lieberman retiring and voters frustrated with gridlock in Washington D.C. the current Democratic and Republican nominees for his seat – U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy and ex-professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon – want to position themselves as independents willing to buck their party and get things done for the people.
McMahon’s even hoping her name appears twice on the November ballot as the Republican candidate and the Independent Party candidate.
Murphy has been touting his position as a chairman of the bi-partisan Center Aisle Caucus, a group aimed at promoting civility among members of the House of Representatives.
Murphy in late June hosted his co-chairman, U.S. Rep. Timothy Johnson, R-Illinois, at an event in New Britain.
That prompted a June 29 news release from McMahon that mocked the Center Aisle group as “a made up caucus” and a “political ploy” and alleged Murphy votes with Democrats 98 percent of the time.
It is hard to envision Murphy as some sort of bi-partisan statesman and independent thinker when he just earned the endorsement of MoveOn.org.
But will McMahon really be any different?
After I received McMahon’s release about Murphy’s voting record I emailed her campaign spokesman and asked for examples of how the candidate, who first ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2010, would have bucked her party over the past two years.
The question went into the McMahon campaign and took about two weeks to make it back out. I’ll be charitable and say there was a holiday and a switch in communications staff in the middle of that.
McMahon’s new spokesman, Tim Murtaugh, this week responded. He said she would have:
1. Voted with Democrats to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
2. Voted in 2010 for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s, D-Nevada jobs bill.
Murtaugh also said McMahon is pro-choice, although NARAL defines her as mixed choice.
“She’s obviously not a favorite of the ‘good ol’ boy’ network and going to Washington she’s not going to be able to be controlled or corralled by a particular group,” Murtaugh said. ”She will do what she thinks is best for Connecticut and the U.S.”
And that’s when the same alarm that goes off in McMahon campaign HQ whenever Murphy talks about bi-partisanship triggers for me.
McMahon is adored by the “good ol’ boy (and girl)” network that runs the state’s Republican Party. Just look at her list of endorsements. These are not the kind of people who think they’re sending anyone but a loyal Republican who will support their causes most of the time to Washington. In fact some of those folks likely cracked a “good riddance” smile when ex-U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate derided by some as a Republican In Name Only (RINO), finally lost a race in 2008. Shays is also running for Lieberman’s seat, challenging McMahon’s nomination for U.S. Senate in a primary in August. Why’s he in that position? ‘Cause those “good ol’ boys (and girls)” now have McMahon.
And, since as a political reporter my email is packed with press releases from various candidates, I’ll make another observation: McMahon’s don’t really stand out as particularly independent.
When gas prices were climbing and Republicans were pointing the finger at Democratic President Barack Obama and his party, McMahon was quick to hop on board.
And for someone who is tired of political stunts by career politicians, McMahon had no problem with the GOP-controlled House of Representatives’ recent attempt to again try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
“I applaud the House action in voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, and I urge the Senate to move forward so that we can begin discussions on common-sense reforms that the American people want and the economy needs,” McMahon said in a statement this week.
Now Joe Lieberman, there’s an independent. The one-time vice presidential candidate became so unpopular with Democratic leaders in the state that he lost the nomination in 2006.
After winning one last term (with support, by the way, from McMahon), Lieberman went on to further confound expectations, championing some Democratic causes while proving an impediment to others.
Oh yeah, and Lieberman campaigned against Obama in 2008.
It would be fun to cover a rogue McMahon who wins the race, heads to Washington, says “so long suckers” to Connecticut Republicans and proceeds to forge coalitions that pursue some sort of Repub-emocrat agenda that neither major party loves, but a lot of Democrats, Republicans and independents can live with.
It’s actually too bad McMahon didn’t decide to pursue the Lieberman path and form a third party or really take a run at the U.S. Senate as the true Independent Party candidate in the race.
From a reporter’s perspective it would have made for a really interesting three-way campaign. And having dropped $50 million of her own money on her 2010 bid, McMahon certainly could have afforded the challenge of carving a truly independent, bi-partisan route to Washington.
The good people that are left in CT deserve NEW leadership.
My neighbor wants to work,and support his family, as most people do.
Brian you do bring up a good point. I think Linda will probably vote with the Republicans 98% of the time when she is elected. But, I think that is just what we all need, to bring our country back to center. Go Linda!
Hey Small Bizz. If you’re asking me whether, as a reporter who because of my job has to pay far more attention to the political landscape than the average voter, I can tell a “true” Independent/independent from one who is attempting to use the label for political expediency, then yes. Yes I can.
why not Linda, everybody else has failed and we need someone new, not the same person that failed already, if they couldn’t get it done the first time what makes them think a second time would work? what personal gain other than a title of senator could she get out of this, she has money,friends,power to some extent, and I truly beieve she is willing to fight for Ct residents seeing all she has seen, she nows that continuing in the direction where going could also effect her as well. please come up with a better Idea or get off the “pot”
The real question is:
Can the Ct newspapers really be independent reporters of the facts or are they like the old gray lady – fading & irrelevant?
PS with the current national gov’t – my state sales tax revenue collected is 1/10 pf what it was before 2008. All my employees have been laid off. You need 3 people for a health ins plan – which I fully funded – without 3 – I was cancelled also. What a disgrace.
Geeze after listening to the chief executives recent speech – I have to agree the gov’t really has been responsible for what has happened to my 35 year old small – it’s in the toilet now !
That Ms. McMahon was endorsed by the the Ct.Republican Party illustrates just how pitiful this party has become.To be seduced by her deep pockets with little else to offer
as a candidate is disheartening to those of us who remember a party that gave us the likes of John Lodge, Stewart McKinney,Prescott Bush, Tom Meskill and Clare Booth Luce to name but a few. These were men and women who stood for their principles and made the Ct. GOP truly a “grand old party”…….how very sad the depths to which the party has fallen.
Go Linda! Connecticut needs a job creator like her. I’m sick of seeing an unchanging unemployment rate. We need to fix this horrible mess, and I believe Linda can do it. She has a plan and she will fight for the hardworking families of Connecticut. She is an outstanding woman and she truly cares about our country and it’s citizens. It’s time to get some new blood into Washington and a fresh perspective. I think everyone should get on board with Linda.