Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Video Interview: Astronaut Rick Mastracchio Reflects on his 6 Month Mission to the Space Station
May 20, 2014 10:22 am
NASA granted CTTechJunkie the opportunity for a short interview with Astronaut Rick Mastracchio, who is readjusting to...more »
ANALYSIS | Connecticut Astronaut Arrives Home on Russian Soyuz to Uncertain Political Environment
May 13, 2014 11:40 pm
Astronaut and Waterbury native Rick Mastracchio landed safely aboard a Russian Soyuz capsule at 9:58 p.m. EST Tuesday...more »

Our Partners

˜

Personal Attacks Again Overshadow Taxes, Afghanistan

by Christine Stuart | Oct 11, 2012 9:37pm
(11) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012, Town News, Mansfield-Storrs

Christine Stuart photo

Linda McMahon in the post-debate spin room

STORRS — The U.S. Senate candidates struggled to focus on the issues at their second televised debate as each scolded the other for the personal attacks regarding their personal finances and accused the other of not talking about the issues.

But for all the bluster about sticking to the issues, the two never really got to the issues in their second hour long debate.

Republican Linda McMahon told the panelists they need to ask Democrat Chris Murphy about his attendance record in Congress and “special loan agreement.”

“I think you asked Mrs. McMahon if she was going to stop the character assaults,” Chris Murphy said as the crowd at the University of Connecticut’s Jorgensen Theater burst into applause. “That was just more of them,” Murphy said playing to the audience.

“C’mon let’s talk about what people really want us to talk about, and that’s the issues,” Murphy said.

McMahon countered that there have been plenty of negative attacks coming from the Murphy campaign.

She said the Hartford Courant published an article about how one of Murphy’s television ads misrepresents her position on Social Security and Medicare. The ad is paid for by a Super PAC, not Murphy’s campaign.

“Congressman Murphy you need to be honest with the people of Connecticut,” McMahon said. “Come clean with them about your loan, come clean with them about your attendance record.”

Murphy alleged McMahon was being hypocritical because she waited 36 years to pay back her creditors from a 1976 bankruptcy.

“Well, I did eventually pay,” McMahon countered. “But I did it with my money — you got a special loan from the bank. You got a special loan.”

The comment received cheers from McMahon supporters.

“Linda McMahon is addicted to personal attacks,” Murphy said. It’s a line he repeated in the post-debate spin room.

McMahon said Murphy could easily put the argument to rest by releasing his mortgage documents. She added that only a congressman could be absent from 75 percent of his public hearings and still want a raise to work in the U.S. Senate.

“I just think public integrity is an issue and only in Washington could you miss 75 percent of your job, get paid $170,000 a year, and you want to get a promotion,“ McMahon said.

So where do they stand on the issues of the Bush tax cuts and the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan?

Christine Stuart photo

Chris Murphy in the post-debate spin room

On taxes, Murphy said he would make the Bush tax cuts for the middle class permanent, but allow them to expire for upper income levels.

“I just don’t think this country can afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,” Murphy said.

McMahon would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone, including the upper income levels.

“I would vote to continue the Bush- which is now the Obama tax plan,” McMahon said. “Except that I would decrease taxes on the middle class. I’d eliminate the 25 percent bracket. The rest of the tax law that’s in place I would continue.”

If she had to make a choice about extending only the Bush tax cuts, McMahon said she wouldn’t increase taxes on anyone.

“I don’t think now is the time to raise taxes on anyone,” she reiterated.

When it comes to the ongoing fight against the insurgency in Afghanistan, McMahon and Murphy differ.

Murphy, who ran for Congress for the first time in 2006 when the Iraq War was a deciding factor in many elections, said he’s a believer in wrapping up the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan.

“I think we should bring our men and women home,” Murphy said.

McMahon disagreed with the creation of a timetable for withdrawal set by President Barack Obama, but was okay with bringing the troops home.

Asked to explain the difference, McMahon said she doesn’t believe Obama should have set a timeframe.

“I don’t agree that the President of the United States should have announce a timeframe of withdrawal when you’re in a conflict, but since he’s said it let’s go ahead and move our troops out,” McMahon said.

“I just want to make sure we get them out no later than that timetable,” McMahon said.

Murphy said he’s in favor of a multilateral approach anytime the U.S. is deciding to get into a conflict.

“I don’t think the United States should be involved in another country unless a vital U.S. interest is at stake,” McMahon said.

She said a “strong foreign policy” is important for the state of Connecticut where the economy relies heavily on defense spending.

She said Murphy has voted twice against defense spending that brought funding back to the state for jet engines, two nuclear submarines per year, and tens of thousands of jobs.

Murphy said he’s proud to be part of a delegation which was able to secure the engine for the joint strike fighter and the expansion of the submarine contract, but he doesn’t support an open-ended commitment to spending $2 billion a week overseas in Afghanistan.

“I rather see us spend our money here in America,“ Murphy said.

Tags: , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(11) Comments

posted by: MGKW | October 12, 2012  8:34am

Went to the debate last nite…Mcmahon was like a Barbie doll…pull the string and you get tape pre-recorded,answers. She is wooden, stiff and runs her debates like she runs her campaign,from a manual.
Her charge about Murphy getting preferential treatment mortgage treatment is a lie. The CEO of Webster Bank wrote a letter the other day to the Republican American and categorically denied it. Jim Smith is one of the most credible business execs in the state. For 30 years he has done yeoman’s charity work for Waterbury and the surrounding communities…he is well respected…his credibility is beyond reproach… it is obvious who you should believe.
Murphy again showed why he is more qualified…a good grasp of knowledge and verbally capable…two more of these and it is over. Senatorial competencies matter…intellectual stamina and curiousity, being a quick study, public speaking, and being able to integrate and fashion common sense answers…Mcmahon does not have them, Murphy does.

posted by: MGKW | October 12, 2012  8:37am

When asked if they can stick to the policy and issues she personally attacked yet again…it is obvious that she loses on policy…she does not have the brain, patience or intellectual curiousity for it. At some point, she has to realize that.

posted by: CitizenCT | October 12, 2012  9:32am

Murphy can only make personal attacks because he’s accomplished zero in six years in congress.  Funny he touts the Buy America stuff even though he voted against it.  Murphy was the only CT member of congress to vote against the Defense appropriation act in August, critical for CT defense sector jobs.  CT deserves better than a lazy follower as our senator.  Linda is a better option.

posted by: kenneth_krayeske | October 12, 2012  10:05am

Linda McMahon may be smarter than the average bear, but she is not as quick as Murphy nor as learned as Blumenthal. $70 million in marketing may hide blemishes, but cash cannot buy brains.

posted by: joemanc | October 12, 2012  11:05am

“Jim Smith is one of the most credible business execs in the state. For 30 years he has done yeoman’s charity work for Waterbury and the surrounding communities…he is well respected…his credibility is beyond reproach.”

Are you friends with Jim? Because I do recall Webster Bank took a $400 million bailout from the Feds during the financial crisis. Smart execs don’t bankrupt their companies and then go hat in hand to the Feds looking for taxpayer, ugh, printed
money to bail them out.
As for Linda not doing a good jobs with the debates - hey, the average person wouldn’t either, including me! The problem is, when your a career politician, you know how to smooth talk your way in these situations. Linda is not a career politician. Your right, she is scripted…and so is Murphy, except he, like all politicians, know how to smooth talk…she should probably talk from the heart, but then she might run off script. :-o

posted by: stellathecat | October 12, 2012  11:16am

i agree McMann appers to be talking from a script while Murphy appears to be more at home at the podium

posted by: MGKW | October 12, 2012  12:38pm

JoeManc,

Politics is a career just like other fields of endeavor—if you don’t know that by now…then I have a Bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale…command of the English language matters…so does intellecutual capability…to trust her with ethically challenged past, her blood money financed campaign and her scripted answers is a joke..something that you conveniently ignore…he is 6 points up with Rasmussen…by the end of these debate he will increase his lead….kenneth kreyseke is right—-money cannnot buy brains.

posted by: NoNonsense2012 | October 12, 2012  4:50pm

To joemanc: You are so wrong. First, Webster was not “bankrupt”. According to the CT Post, “As part of the bailout, Webster received $400 million in preferred stock, which was ultimately repaid with a profit to taxpayers of $57 million, according to the bank…. Webster, according to the bank, had not initially sought funds, but when it accepted the assistance was among about half-a-dozen Connecticut banks to do so. “Our board was reluctant to accept it because any time you get involved in government, there’s unforeseen consequences—like Linda McMahon’s charges,” Guenther said.”

Second, “the average person” doesn’t have to do well in a debate. Unless they are running for U.S. Senate. Then one would expect them to know the issues and be able to talk about them without a script.

Chris Murphy can talk about the issues because he has knowledge, something McMahon hasn’t been able to acquire since the last time she tried to by a U.S. Senate seat.

posted by: Christopher55 | October 13, 2012  7:26pm

How can Murphy have “knowledge of the issues” when he never shows up for work, and votes with Pelosi 98.0% of the time?  The man needs to go…and go now!!!

posted by: MGKW | October 14, 2012  10:02pm

christopher55…you actually believe McMahon who peddled porn, violence and moral depravity…her ethics are questionable…she is financing her campaign with blood money…and her intellectual capability is questionable…go back and actually read and research the two candidates….you many learn something…

posted by: Noteworthy | October 15, 2012  8:59am

Peddled porn? Blood money? That sounds like a movie trailer and is too shrill by at least half. There is a difference between barely holding a real job, being a poorly paid attorney and spending all your time behind a podium pontificating and blowing smoke and actually in the trenches building a successful company. The reason Murphy is fighting so hard for this senate seat is because Congress and the public teat is the best paying gig he’s ever had - his car and office are paid for and he doesn’t have to worry about bouncing the check or getting hauled into court; his car in DC is paid for too and all those staff people and others kissing up and sucking up so he doesn’t have to go to those damnable hearings.