OP-ED | The Oddity That Is Linda McMahon
by Terry D. Cowgill | Jun 29, 2012 3:20pm
(19) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
While the political goings-on in neighboring states are nothing to brag about, Connecticut has really stuck out like a sore thumb lately.
Last year, on my return from Cape Cod, I wrote of the Bay Staters’ dismay at Connecticut’s wretched budget fiasco. People were amazed that a crummy little state like Connecticut could rack up a $3.6 billion budget deficit and then pass a spending package based on $1.6 billion in labor concessions that hadn’t even been secured yet.
This year, some people wanted to know why there’s so much corruption in the Nutmeg State. I told them it should come as no surprise that Connecticut, sandwiched as it is between Tammany Hall and Beacon Hill, has more than its share of crooks and FBI investigations.
But to my surprise, the greatest interest was in two-time Republican U. S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon. How could a political neophyte who used to peddle the sordid side of popular culture possibly be taken seriously as a blue-state candidate for the august body that occupies the United States Capitol?
The answer, of course, lies in the ledger of McMahon’s checkbook. She spent a reported $50 million in her unsuccessful attempt to beat former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in her 2010 race for the Senate. From Groton to Salisbury, TV screens and inboxes were saturated with commercials, fancy emails and glossy flyers. Still, she wound up losing by 11 points to a political hack who was crippled by false statements he’d made about his military record.
It remains to be seen how much she’ll spend on the current campaign but I’d be shocked if it was less than she did two years ago. So, the Bay Staters wanted to know, why would anyone spend $100 million to win a job that pays $174,000 a year?
If I had to guess, I’d say she’s bored. After all, how many beautiful-people cocktail parties can you attend in Greenwich without eyeing an upgrade to Georgetown? But beyond that, can she possibly win? Yes and no.
If recent performance is any guide, McMahon will win the Republican nomination with a strong performance in the Aug. 14 primary. She has money to burn, won 60 percent of the delegates at the GOP convention last month, and enjoys the support of many in the party hierarchy. But can she win in November?
Her recent strategy of battling the news media has me perplexed. First off, the company that brought McMahon and her husband Vince their considerable fortune threatened last month to sue the Journal Inquirer after its managing editor, Chris Powell, wrote a column in which he opined that McMahon’s “practical qualifications for office did not extend beyond her fantastic wealth, and that wealth derived from the business of violence, pornography, and general raunch.”
The bluster emanating from the WWE rang hollow. It smacked of shutting down debate and sending a message to the media in general. All this over a columnist whose only sin was expressing an opinion about a product. Furthermore, it reinforced the ironic notion that a professional wrestling company would attempt to defeat an opponent through threats and intimidation. In other words, using the same kinds of tactics employed by the faux wrestlers in the WWE ring.
McMahon’s latest battle with the media centers on Norwich Bulletin editorial page editor Ray Hackett, who had the temerity to express his opinion about McMahon’s refusal to meet with editorial boards of state newspapers in advance of the Republican primary.
Team McMahon campaign manager Cory Bliss fired back, accusing Hackett of launching “outrageous” personal attacks on the candidate. Hackett’s response was exactly what mine would have been: What are you afraid of?
For anyone who has followed McMahon’s interminable quest for higher office, the answer is obvious. As someone who’s never even been elected dog catcher, McMahon isn’t exactly steeped in public policy. There was her famous gaffe from the 2010 campaign when she told a shocked pro-business group that a decrease in the minimum wage should be studied, but then could not say what Connecticut’s minimum wage was, nor whether any WWE employees were earning it.
More recently, while making a campaign appearance at Electric Boat in Groton, McMahon said she could support the decisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), provided she knew the recommended cuts in advance. Of course, as Hackett himself pointed out, that’s not the way BRAC works. The gaffe rightly prompted both Rep. Chris Murphy, the presumptive Democratic nominee, and former congressman Chris Shays, McMahon’s chief GOP rival, to bemoan McMahon’s lack of knowledge—with the latter branding her as “clueless” about the defense industry.
As I told my Bay State friends, picking fights with men who purchase ink by-the-barrel may sell in a GOP primary. But the independents and moderate Democrats whose support McMahon needs to slay the Murphy juggernaut will not be impressed. If she continues to avoid the Fourth Estate, they’ll view her attacks on the media as rooted in ignorance or arrogance—or both. And Sen. Murphy will move into a much nicer office in January.
Terry Cowgill blogs at ctdevilsadvocate.com, is the editor of ctessentialpolitics.com and was an award-winning editor and senior writer for The Lakeville Journal Company.
Tags: terry cowgill linda mcmahon ct senate race
(19) Comments
posted by: saramerica | June 29, 2012 8:35pm
Linda, and Meg Whitman, and, I will wager, Mitt Romney, are great examples of the fallacy of which the GOP keeps trying to delude itself and voters: that stupendously successful wealthy business executives make great politicians. Maybe it’s time to recognize that these are different skill sets. CEOs are used to deference. Politicians, at least in theory, are public SERVANTS. Clearly that’s not a role that sits well with Mrs. McMahon, even as a candidate.
posted by: Jesterr72 | June 30, 2012 3:26am
CT Republicans keep making the same huge blunder—they fall for the checkbook and not someone who can help get us out of the mess. Linda keeps spouting the same talking points about being a job creator, smaller government, blah, blah, blah. But she doesn’t have a clue of the most basic policy issues beyond them. The Convention was bought and paid for by a woman who is bored with WWE- if she wins the Primary, she will lose to Chris Murphy by 10 points and CT Republicans will be in the deep freeze for a couple of decades. They will have no one to blame for their stupidity but themselves.
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | June 30, 2012 8:25am
In general you’re correct Sarah, although you just can’t resist taking shots at the Republicans. Is it fair to single out the GOP for believing business people will be successful in the arena of politics?
Ned Lamont, Michael Bloomberg, Jon Corzine, Mark Warner and Herb Kohl come to mind as non-Republicans who cited their business acumen as reasons to vote for them. Any reason you didn’t mention them?
posted by: saramerica | June 30, 2012 10:11am
Fair point, Terry. Although Bloomberg ran as a Republican.
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | June 30, 2012 5:58pm
Jester, you’re spot on. Sarah, Bloomberg was a lifelong Dem who ran as a Republican only because he knew he couldn’t get the Democratic nomination for mayor. So I think it’s fair to call him a Dem.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | June 30, 2012 5:59pm
There is also the fallacy that Barack Obama had enough political experience to create a consensus and understood political bargaining after coming from a one-party state and putting in 2 years in the US Senate before campaigning.
Bill Clinton, hampered as he was by scandal, was fairly effective in his last 6 years after moving to the Center aand creating consensus.
Barack OTOH is largely ineffective.
We face the spectacle of a repeal of the purchasing mandate and for all puroposes Medicaid exapnsion and the Exchanges were repealed in states like Florida and Louisiana and Wisconin and Indiana.
This divide will not hold: States like Nebraska will not pay for CT’s Medicaid expansion.
McMahon is running an interesting campaign banking on her use of the paid television and mailers and debates to circumvent the paid press. It appears to be working. Why humor a group of people who want to paint the WWE as pornography outfit and get in a spitting match over the Courant’s long involvement with under age sex trafficking and the Journal Inquirer’s ads for XXX adult stores, etc?
McMahon is bringing to a head the hypocrisy of the established media and making a point: the Courant and JI can be bozo-binned as easy as not. They are irrelevant.
This irrelevancy is in part because they didn’t clean up their sex peddling when well advised to by the better parts of their own staff. Now the end game is looking ugly as the McMahon bozo-bin approach seems to be working and will likely get more traction this decade.
posted by: ... | June 30, 2012 6:05pm
Regardless of the content of her business, it is in general an entertainment industry. Linda’s business experience is solely based on that industry, and last I checked, the U.S. economy is not going to recover on that industry alone. I continue to doubt what she specifically got out of the business, especially in terms of job creation. The only way I could see her doing job creation is merchandising, but I have a good feeling most of the WWE’s merchandising is not ‘made in the USA’.
I’ve heard the term thrown around recently, titled ‘the three minute candidate’. You chat it up with him/her for a good three minutes, and you’ll feel good about them. They’ll mostly utilize talking points, side comments to give you a chuckle or feel at ease, and bring up local issues they were vetted on prior to arriving to meet with you and other potential supporters. But after that three minutes, if you’re a policy wonk or someone deeply involved in a particular policy issue, you’re gonna get deer in the headlight reactions. More likely though, you’re only getting the three minutes, and then it’s time he/she ‘saw more people’ and do the same schtick with the words jumbled for a new person.
Most elected officials do this in election years or at fundraisers. But from what has been expressed in the last election cycle, and even more this time around is that Linda is striving to perfect that role, almost like an actor would. Not surprising from a candidate who regularly acted in the WWF years to bet on entertainment/acting to validate her electability. But as was said, this is a world where entertainment is not the cure all. If she wants to be serious, she needs to release policy papers and at least try and show that she is serious about CT. Like someone else looking for statewide office…*cough* Tom Foley *cough*.
posted by: RJEastHartford | July 1, 2012 11:39am
“After all, how many beautiful-people cocktail parties can you attend in Greenwich without eyeing an upgrade to Georgetown?”
The author is correct, this is the candidate’s constituency. The author use a different label, but they are also known as Investment and Private Bankers, Private Equity Managers, Hedge Fund Managers, TV and Media Executive/Owners/Majority Shareholders etc. Make no mistake, which interests and issue advocacy she would serve. Invest $60MM? Take a hard look at how aggressively the Mcmahon’s pursue their business interests. No different from the other “beautiful-people.” Cui bono?
What is worth doing is doing for money.
posted by: Noteworthy | July 1, 2012 8:31pm
I really have to laugh at all the journalistas pontificating, huffing and puffing like big bad wolves over how they are treated by Linda McMahon. There is nothing in the 4th estate that requires political figures to kiss their collective rings are other bodily parts in what is a waste of time and effort. None of the writers mentioned in this column would have given McMahon a fair shake nor are they interested really, in what she has to say. They are interested in their bloated opinions and castigating a candidate they don’t like. Chris Powell’s relentless personal attacks were not necessary to make his point - namely that he doesn’t like her, the WWE or the tax revenues and jobs the company provides to Connecticut. His views are puritan and frankly, rather juvenile. The rest of the blather is not worth a single barrel of ink. If I was managing Linda’s campaign, I wouldn’t give a warm bucket of spit to sit down with any of those editorial boards or reporters. Fair treatment is for the favored - and she will never be that so why bother?
posted by: saramerica | July 2, 2012 12:44pm
“Bloomberg was a lifelong Dem who ran as a Republican only because he knew he couldn’t get the Democratic nomination for mayor. So I think it’s fair to call him a Dem.”
And the Republicans accepted him as their candidate knowing he was a lifelong Democrat who couldn’t get the Democratic nomination for mayor because….??
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | July 2, 2012 2:14pm
Noteworthy, I agree with you somewhat. Candidates are under no obligation to talk to editorial boards—or to the press at all, for that matter. And there is a certain self-serving tone—chest-thumping, perhaps—to some of the criticism McMahon has taken in the media on this matter.
That said, as political strategy, it’s not a smart move to avoid the press at every turn. It simply feeds into the notion that McMahon is a policy lightweight who is afraid to answer questions except in situations where she can control the outcome.
For some voters, McMahon’s TV commercials and glossy flyers will be enough. But for most of us who want to know where she stands, her media strategy is quite a turn-off.
posted by: mbuatti | July 2, 2012 5:03pm
Her refusal to talk to an editorial board is a prime example of her arrogance. Republicans think, no they are certain, that most people are apathetic about issues and government in general.
A representative democracy depends upon an informed electorate.
“What kind of government shall we have, Mr. Franklin?”
“A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
This isn’t a new problem, but today it seems downright scarey.
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | July 2, 2012 5:24pm
Sarah, the NYC GOP accepted Bloomberg because they thought they had a candidate who could win. As you know, NYC Republicans are hardly representative of the party as a whole.
posted by: CitizenCT | July 2, 2012 6:21pm
Linda is brilliant for not talking to editorial boards. She recognizes that newspaper readership is a fraction of what it was, and that an editorial endorsement carries little if any weight today. She recognizes editorial types have an inflated perception of what they’re opinion is worth. Time spent meeting voters is a much better use of her time and energy.
posted by: Reasonable | July 3, 2012 8:17pm
Terry Cowgill: I am not surprised that saramonica continues to dislike Linda McMahon—as she never liked Linda, and is a professed Democrat who continues to find fault in all Republicans. However, I am surprised that you raked McMahon over the coals—without touching Pres. Barack bama “deficit spending weak-link in Chris Murphy!”
You even gave Murphy a plug, Terry, when your predicted that he will be moving into a much nicer office in January.
However, you must have been joking, as Christopher Shays wiil be moving to the nicer office in January. Shays balanced our national budget for four years—while Murphy has been a leader in voting for Obama’s major deficit spending.
I like Sarah as I’m sure you do, Terry, but I cannot agree with her political views.
posted by: Reasonable | July 3, 2012 8:29pm
Jester72: Linda McMahon will not lose by 10 points to Chris Murphy, as she will lose the Republican primary to Chris Shays, who will defeat Chris Murphy by 10 points opn Election Day. But don’t count out Susan Bysiewicz yet. Susan isn’t bought and paid for by Obama, and could surprise Murphy!
posted by: Reasonable | July 4, 2012 10:08am
Terry D. Cowgill: Chris Murphy won’t need the office in Washington, you so generously provided him with, as neither he, or a fiscally irresponsible President Barack Obama will be elected to office on Election Day—so the need for Murphy’s role “as an Obama spending robot,” is eliminated by the voters at the polls.
posted by: MGKW | July 4, 2012 4:22pm
To all those wonderful Repubs who think that political office is for sale—-a few facts and truisms….
1) Linda Mc$$$ has gone on Fox and defended WWE as “family entertainment”...which no doubt endeared her to many women in CT…she has a “women” problem…now she is running commercials which portray her as ‘grandma” and caring about the family? Really? You have to have the sensitivity of wood not to see her as a hypocrite…
2) Oh yeah, she is not perceived as a policy lightweight she is one…
that will become very obvious when they debate…I don’t agree with some of Murphy’s positions but he has a lot more on the ball then her.
Last, if the party were smart they would nominate Shays to run….once independents find out that she cannot put two sentences together it is over. But I find Repubs to be just as arrogant as Dems in that they think they have the answers 100% of the time…No one is that good…
Unaffilitated
posted by: Reasonable | July 5, 2012 10:53am
MCKU: Don’t think the Republicans are “brain-dead!” The GOP will nominate Chris Shays—as he is the only candidate who will defeat “Pres. Barack Obama’s voting-robot, Chris Shays.” that is, if he can defeat Susan Bysiewicz—who is not “brain-washed by Obmaism.”