McMahon likely to keep after Murphy on mortgage through Election Day

If there’s one thing you learn in journalism, political campaigns are single-minded and persistent.

There are so many different ways to connect with voters nowadays that all the fact-checking in the world won’t keep a candidate and his or her team from sticking to a particular narrative if they think it’s got juice.

Democrat Susan Bysiewicz declined to yank a television ad containing factual errors during the summer primary for U.S. Senate against U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy.

Weeks later a Murphy ad aired against his Republican opponent, Linda McMahon, was declared “somewhat misleading” by The Hartford Courant.

And although our newspapers today and others earlier in the week (CT News Junkie and CT Mirror, for example) published articles that challenge the McMahon campaign’s recent ethics charges against Murphy, McMahon’s camp is out today with an easily digestible graphic reiterating the same allegations he got a sweetheart line of credit and then backed the 2008 bank bailout.

I like the McMahon campaign’s mixed messages about Murphy – how in some ads he’s portrayed as a slacker who skipped crucial meetings and wasn’t engaged in the 2008 financial crisis yet in this graphic apparently should be held responsible for proposing, crafting and passing the bailout…

Categories: General
Brian Lockhart

9 Responses

  1. Here is a letter to the editor of the CT Post from James C. Smith Chairman and CEO of Webster Bank published Oct 5, 2012.

    Standing up for Integrity of Webster Bank

  2. The charge above is ridiculous. There were hundreds of banks affected and a hundred people on the committee. The bill was crafted by national heavyweights including the Secretary of the Treasury. Nobody could even hear Murphy’s tiny voice.

    I salute Chris Murphy for saving 3400 Connecticut jobs that would have been lost if the bank had failed. This was a local CT bank founded and based in Waterbury. It was his *job* to see that Connecticut businesses be included in an important federal bill.

    So the bank gave him a crappy little $42,000 second mortgage at 4.99% interest. Assume this is a 10 year mortgage. Change the rate by 2 whole percentage points to 7.0 percent. The monthly payment rises just $42. How much consideration do you think you buy for $42 lousy dollars?

    The bank has pushed back against McMahon’s allegations, twice releasing information to the media that indicates Murphy and his wife received a middle-of-the-road deal. They argued Murphy’s credit would have been improved by the fact he paid his mortgage debt, married and greatly increased his household income.

    McMahon was able to get a mortgage less than 1 year after going bankrupt. How was that possible?

  3. Prudence Do Good says:

    Linda should pay back all the people she stiffed in her bankruptcy filing. $4 Million in today’s dollars and most of it owed to small businmesses

  4. Matthew Oakes says:

    What Linda is doing is fooling people into thinking their is something there, there isn’t. It is smoke and mirrors. A great example is me saying, well Linda and Vince dodged paying taxes for 5 years, why didn’t they do jail time? What favoritism did they get? Connect the dots.

  5. David Cooper says:

    The Facts of Mr. Murphy is that he is a friend of the Unions and he is tied to many special interest groups. Also I do not believe that many people who were sued for foreclosure in 2007 would have been able to get another mortgage for over $400,000 three years later with Mr. Murphys’ poor credit history?

  6. Vulture says:

    Still doesn’t make me want to vote for McMahon.

  7. Brian Lockhart says:

    Ah, the old “I don’t agree with what this reporter wrote so I’m going to question the objectivity of their reporting” argument.
    No, Mr. Logical, based on the available evidence he did not get a preferential rate. But if you want to keep repeating he did hoping it comes true, that’s your right.

  8. MrLogical says:

    Well, Brian, he DID get a preferential rate. Despite what Webster now claims, a rate of ~5% when most HELOC loans were market-priced at ~6.5-7.5% is a MUCH preferred rate – especially sor someone with 2 delinquencies on their record. Go ahead – see if you can find ANYONE with 2 delinquencies who would be able to land a mortgage or a HELOC at BELOW market.

    Here’s betting that you can’t.

    Quit flacking for Murphy – it strains your credulity as a purportedly unbiased reporter of fact.

  9. Mcllc says:

    I still can’t wait till I get the $500. A month Linda promised me !!