Wrestling with the Connecticut Senate Race

Monday, September 21, 2009
By Mike

Chris Dodd is up for reelection next year and polls showing him vulnerable have swelled the ranks of Republicans prepared to challenge him. This week Linda McMahon, CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and wife of WWE Chairman and wrestling impresario Vince McMahon, threw her hat in the ring. A brief review of her background strongly suggests that she is jumping in too early and would be best served by waiting two years to establish her political bona fides and then challenge a very vulnerable Joe Lieberman.

I looked through McMahon’s website today and was extremely disappointed with what I found. Here are a few of the lowlights:

“Senator Chris Dodd has lost his way. It’s a sad day for Connecticut when we can’t trust our Senator because he puts his own personal interests before those of working families.”

“She is running for the United States Senate because she believes Chris Dodd has allowed special interests and his own interests to affect how he represents Connecticut.”

“I talk all the time about how important it is for people to vote. And it is. Yet, I haven’t always been the best example myself. I missed a general election vote in ‘06. I missed several local elections. I didn’t vote in the ’08 presidential primary after John McCain was the presumptive nominee. I regret it, I apologize, and I don’t make any excuses for it. I think it’s important that leaders be willing to step up and own their mistakes when they make them. That’s how I plan to run my campaign, and it’s how I intend to represent Connecticut in the U.S. Senate.”

“Linda is a fiscal conservative who is concerned about the massive deficit spending in Washington and the huge debt with which we are saddling the country and future generations. She knows how to manage a budget, create jobs, and stimulate our economy.”

In addition, the sum total of McMahon’s political experience is her appointment, in the spring of 2009, to the Connecticut Board of Education.

OK, let’s consider these statements starting with Chris Dodd. Dodd was weakened by two events in the past year both of which have proved false or inaccurate. The first was an extensive investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee of a mortgage Dodd took out with Countrywide Financial. Dodd was accused of having received, and failed to disclose, preferential treatment via extremely favorable terms on his loan – essentially a gift that went unreported. The Ethics Committee, a bipartisan group of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans, spent a year combing through a mountain of evidence (18,000 pages of documents) and hearing from numerous witnesses, before concluding that the terms Dodd received were widely available to thousands of other Countrywide customers and were not even among the best terms Countrywide offered. He received a minor slap on the wrist for not taking steps to “avoid the appearance that you were receiving preferential treatment based on your status as a Senator” but was otherwise completely and fully exonerated of all charges.

The second cloud hanging over Dodd was the accusation that he inserted language into the stimulus bill exempting executive compensation agreements entered into prior to February 2009 from the compensation limits imposed on firms receiving bailout funds. Dodd received considerable campaign contributions from executives of AIG and the spring payments of $165 million to many of those executives resulted in enormous public backlash. Republicans immediately targeted Dodd as the author of the amendment allowing the payments and the White House essentially left Dodd out in the cold. But the facts have proven Dodd completely innocent and Tim Geithner has fallen on the sword for imposing the language on Dodd. In fact, Dodd had inserted language that limited bonus payments to only one third of salary but he was overridden by Geithner and Summers and the new language exempting the large payments was inserted.

There may be other charges against Dodd that I’m not aware of but they don’t appear boldly in any news coverage I’ve read. So how can McMahon accuse Dodd of putting his own personal interests and special interests ahead of CT voters? The evidence doesn’t support that claim.

McMahon trumpets her experience in running and building a publicly traded company as credentials to show that she knows how to manage a budget, create jobs, and stimulate our economy. Frankly, I’d be more impressed by those credentials if she was running for mayor but I fail to see the direct connection to being a US Senator. I certainly see a very direct connection, however, between her failure to vote and her genuine interest in Connecticut politics. McMahon didn’t build a business to stimulate the economy; she built a business to make as much money as possible, and good for her. But let’s not pretend otherwise and let’s not pretend that failing to vote in the last elections (which included a 2006 vote for the Senate seat won by Joe Lieberman!) can be swept aside with a simple “I apologize.”

Currently I am undecided in next year’s election. I defend Chris Dodd not because I support him but because I don’t like to see a person unfairly attacked. Linda McMahon is almost certainly a highly intelligent woman and, given the world she has successfully negotiated, likely a tough and talented politician in-the-making. She has promised to finance her campaign out of her own pocket, she will accept no money from any special interests, and individual contributions will be limited to $100 – nobody will own Linda McMahon and she will owe no political favors in return. Her personal fortune gives her real political advantages. But her political background is even thinner than Sarah Palin’s and at this point we know nothing about her knowledge of domestic and global political issues. I’d like to see her spend the next two years making a name for herself, brushing up on national political issues, getting around Connecticut and understanding the various constituencies that make up the Nutmeg State, and getting ready to take on a very vulnerable Joe Lieberman in 2012. Oh, and don’t forget to vote.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments

7 Responses to “Wrestling with the Connecticut Senate Race”

  1. Laurie. Oregon says:

    Thoughtful post, Larry.

    The WWE enters politics…Strange times and all I can say is

    Let’s get ready to RUMBLE!

    Connecticut-the next Minnesota?

    • Larry says:

      I can see we are going to have to do something about this author business. ;) Mike actually wrote this post and did a fine job at that.

      I will have to see about making the theme insert the author’s name directly above or below the post content.

  2. Laurie. Oregon says:

    OK, egg on my face, as it actually DOES say “posted by MIKE” under the title. Hey, I may be able to handle the media but apparently am a skim reader. Qualifications for Congress if I’ve ever heard them…

    Mike-good job

  3. Larry says:

    Okay, now that we have the author of this post sorted out, let me comment on the post itself. ;)

    You make some very good points, Mike and something especially stood out to me. According to what you found on her website, Linda McMahon sounds like she is more interested in tearing down Chris Dodd than she is in telling how she will represent Connecticut in the United States Senate. I can’t help but get a little suspicious whenever someone starts off by telling everyone how bad their opponent is.

    As for Senator Dodd, I seem to remember being quite hard on him about the executive compensation language that was in the stimulus package. From what you have written, it seems that I was wrong.

  4. Mike says:

    Thanks Laurie, and thanks Larry for adding the attribution at the top — it will make it easier for the readers who may otherwise think you’ve gone off the deep end from time to time. :)

    Larry, your comment about McMahon “tearing down” Dodd goes further than I intended by my comments. The remarks I quoted above are the full extent of what she has to say about Dodd on the website. Negative yes but not overtly in attack mode. She does make her issues with Dodd the cornerstone of her campaign; but unfortunately not on the basis of his politics. So in general I agree with what you’ve said — she starts off by saying how bad the other guy is AS A PERSON and I definitely have a problem with that opening salvo. There is plenty to disagree about with Dodd’s politics. Let’s stick to that.

  5. Laurie. Oregon says:

    I’m not from Connecticut, so I really don’t know the issues well. Has Dodd served his constiuency well? It’s his challenge to make that case. Does any apponent have a better plan of action that will serve them better? Up to the new people int he race.

    I am, however, struck by something Mike highlighted. McMahon self-admittedly hasn’t been a regular participant, even as a voter. Really? That, to me, demonstrates a certain lack of repect for the entire political process and would give me pause if I were a voter.

    Anyone from Connecticut on the board that can shed some light on her and the other candidates?

Daily Popular