Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Windows Laptops Now Under $200
Nov 1, 2014 11:00 pm
Microsoft, reacting to pressure from low-cost Chromebooks, now has its own low cost but fully functional laptop PCs...more »
Some Customers Say Transition From AT&T To Frontier Has Been Bumpy
Oct 29, 2014 1:26 pm
(Updated 7 p.m.) Customers who previously had AT&T Inc. landline, Internet, and video services were switched over to...more »

Our Partners

˜

Fiery First U.S. Senate Debate

by Christine Stuart | Oct 7, 2012 1:00pm
(4) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012

Christine Stuart photo

Chris Murphy and Linda McMahon take their podiums as the cameras start rolling

The fireworks started early during the first televised debate between Connecticut’s U.S. Senate candidates, Democrat Chris Murphy and Republican Linda McMahon.

McMahon accused Murphy, a three-term Congressman, of receiving a sweetheart mortgage deal and wanting the race to be a “coronation.” Murphy accused McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, of avoiding the issues and “parroting right wing talking points” in her economic plan.

“Linda McMahon doesn’t want this campaign to be about issues because if it is she loses . . . She can’t win because her economic plan is rooted in Republican national talking points,” Murphy said. “My economic plan is rooted in the people of this state.”

“Congressman Murphy, shame on you. You have just accused me of plagiarizing my plan,” McMahon countered. “You know very well that my plan is my own.“

On the eve of the debate the Murphy campaign accused McMahon of taking ideas from other right-wing conservatives and compiling them as part of her economic plan. But the plagiarism argument falls flat and the news media largely ignored the accusation because McMahon’s plan has always used citations, attributing various portions of her plan to other sources.

“Every word of that plan has been cited,” McMahon said.

Murphy said he didn’t know what to call it, if not plagiarism, but reiterated that the text in McMahon’s plan was identical to Republican talking points published elsewhere.

When WFSB host Dennis House tried to interrupt McMahon, she ignored him and said she was going to finish.

“When you got into this race as a Democrat in the state of Connecticut you thought this was going to be a coronation,” McMahon said. “But now you’re in a serious race with a serious woman and you have resorted now to these kinds of policies . . . it’s desperate.”

Murphy argued for more time to respond but House refused.

Murphy dismissed the next question instead and used it as an opportunity to respond to McMahon’s accusations.

He talked about how extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans “just doesn’t work.” He urged there to be a discussion about the differences.

The two candidates did agree to a 1 percent reduction in federal spending, but their cuts would be made in different areas.

Murphy would cut “discretionary spending,” while McMahon’s cuts wouldn’t touch defense spending or entitlements.

On taxes, McMahon argued that her plan is the only one with a “middle class tax cut,” while Murphy’s plan would simply keep the Bush tax cuts in place for the middle class.

Murphy countered that Fred Carstensen, director of the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, said “it’s a recipe to balloon the federal deficit.”

McMahon’s campaign has argued the economist is not taking into consideration the growth in the economy, which is assumed under her plan.

Flip Flops

McMahon revealed during the debate that she’s had a change of heart when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act. In 2010, McMahon favored DOMA, but said Sunday that she would vote to repeal it even though her answer on the air may have been confusing.

“I live in Connecticut and I absolutely support America’s law for same-sex marriage,” McMahon said during the debate.

Murphy caught the slip up and tried to capitalize on it.

“America doesn’t have a law protecting same-sex marriage,” Murphy said. “In fact it has the exact opposite.”

“I think the fact that Linda McMahon spent about 20 seconds answering that question tells you that she’s not going to stand up to her party in Washington when it comes to these issues that right now in Washington are being dominated by the social right,” Murphy said.

He said there is a war being fought against gays and lesbians and he’s been proud to stand on one side of that war.

McMahon said she will absolutely differ from her party, not only on the Defense of Marriage Act but on other issues as well, and would vote to repeal it.

“It doesn’t seem fair the folks in Connecticut have the right to be married and they don’t have the same rights as a heterosexual couple for federal benefits. I just don’t think that’s fair,” McMahon said after the debate.

McMahon admitted that’s she’s changed her position on DOMA and says her movement toward repealing it has “evolved.” She was unable to pinpoint an exact timeframe or incident for the evolution.

Media

Neither McMahon or Murphy seemed willing to budge Sunday when confronted about the lack of news media access each campaign seems to be allowing.

“Both of you have failed a basic standard of transparency and access in this campaign,” Mark Pazniokas of the CT Mirror, told them Sunday. “Neither one of you performs the basic task of letting us know where you are day-to-day.”

“I am out every single day,” McMahon said. “I’ve been in 150 living rooms around the state.”

But the media isn’t allowed to tag along.

Ignoring the difference, McMahon said she thinks the campaign has been very effective in communicating with the voters of the state. She even used the question as an opportunity to promote her website: Lindasplan.com

Murphy said the campaign is about the people of Connecticut and people want to know the difference between McMahon’s economic plan and his.

He bristled at the notion that there’s any similarity between his campaign and McMahon’s in regard to accessibility for news media.

“Linda has refused to meet with editorial boards, I’ve been very willing to do so. I can’t count the number that I’ve done in a very different manner,” Murphy said, ignoring the question as it pertains to his own campaign, which was criticized recently for refusing to appear on WNPR’s “Where We Live” with John Dankosky.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(4) Comments

posted by: JustAnotherTaxPayer | October 7, 2012  6:50pm

She said what she meant; she is in tune with current American law. That means she is against legal marriage for gay men and women who are lesbians. How is that hard to believe. And it allows her to not flip-flop on her position. She was never in favor of that, but the stronger issue for her is why she is wasting money in Connecticut, when her home state is North Carolina. That knowledge left me confused as to why she would spend all that money on a campaign, and fund the Connecticut State Republican Party, now at a total cost that has exceeded 100 million dollars? Something does not make any sense.

Oh, that is if you know that her “plan” does not exist. Those words that are publisized and spoken, are the end result of months of study and experiment from the think tank run by upper level republicans in DC. They are the refined science of manipulation of the minds of people who do not have the time, or ambition, to discover the real facts surrounding these ambiguous and outlandish statements. We are at the breaking point, and the strategists know that television is the perfect medium for lying to the public during a campaign, and once the votes are in, there is no coming back. Don’t trust her. Where are her former employees, 30 of which died prematurely from steroid abuse, with the adds telling the public how great she is? Where is her family? Why will they not be seen with her? Her family. She hides them. What else does she hide? And if her family is to be used, or abused, in such a manner where do the voters rank in her values? Careful, she is dangerous and not to be trusted with a public office.

posted by: MGKW | October 7, 2012  10:47pm

JustAnotherTaxPayer—-
Good post…your point about what we don’t know is a great observation…she is trying to have it both ways…and asking people to trust her with her past…let’s hope enough people are smart enough to see it.

posted by: NoNonsense2012 | October 7, 2012  10:58pm

McMahon scared me in 2010, and she scares me now. There’s something about her—and for me it has nothing to do with WWE—that makes me queasy. She cannot be allowed to buy a U.S Senate seat.

posted by: azrael | October 8, 2012  6:18am

Why wasn’t the Libertarian Candidate invited to the debate?