|
The Case for Linda McMahon December 10, 2009 Connecticut’s right-leaning voters once stood before a buffet of candidates who sought to unseat Chris Dodd. The choices included Rob Simmons, ex-fedpol, once-proud porkster, and extreme social liberal; Sam Caligiuri, neoconservative state senator; Tom Foley, businessman and George W. Bush buddy; Peter Schiff, libertarian investment guru; and Linda McMahon, deep-pocketed wrestling mogul. Caligiuri is out of the race, off to campaign in a crowded field for the GOP nomination in the 5th Congressional District. Foley withdrew to run for governor. In an alternate universe where ideological purity is the sole determinant for selecting candidates, Connecticut’s freedom-lovers would line up behind Schiff. The nation is broke, taxes are outrageously high, excessive regulations strangle economic growth, and dozens of welfare programs sap the citizenry’s work ethic. Only sweeping rollbacks of Big Government -- i.e., the libertarian agenda -- can rescue America from permanent, European-style stasis. Clearly, Schiff would bring smart solutions to Washington. What’s not clear is whether he’s willing to do what it takes to make the trip. To be blunt, Peter Schiff has a fire-in-the-belly problem. On his website, www.schiffforsenate.com, the candidate posts upcoming speaking engagements. Between now and the end of March, nine appearances are listed. If Schiff wants to be a contender, nine speeches a week are needed. In addition to a light touring schedule, the campaign has shown little willingness to reach out to the leaders of the constituencies that comprise the GOP core: small businesspeople, family-values conservatives, taxpayer activists, etc. Even if Schiff’s handlers built alliances with the base and injected their boss with Bill Clinton’s hand-shaking and rubber-chicken-consuming skills, Connecticut isn’t the most fertile soil for the libertarian message. With Ron Paul garnering only 4.1 percent of the 2008 GOP presidential-primary vote here, perhaps nothing can boost Schiff into viability. While keeping its fingers crossed for a Schiff miracle, political reality means Connecticut’s right must pick: Team Rob or Team Linda. First elected to Congress in 2000, Simmons served three terms. In those six years, he was on the wrong side of nearly every consequential federal issue. He supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He backed the Bush administration’s Medicare prescription-drug entitlement. He voted for McCain-Feingold. He opposed drilling in the mosquito-infested wasteland that is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He voted with Planned Parenthood on human cloning, partial-birth abortion, and stem-cell research. Rob Simmons makes Arlen Specter look like Jesse Helms. Simmons portrays himself as a teabag-carrying opponent of “reckless spending plans.” Curious words from a man who used to boast of his ability to transfer dollars from the federal treasury to Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional District. “I go to schools, I go to factories, I deliver checks,” he told New London’s The Day in 2004. “I like to go out and deliver the money … . I just find that this becomes second nature to me.” Linda McMahon’s emergence as a serious challenger to Simmons remains something of a stunner. But her rising poll numbers, combined with a multimillion-dollar warchest, have unquestionably made her candidacy legit. As someone who has created jobs in the private sector, McMahon doesn’t have the usual pedigree for a high-profile Connecticut pol. Say what you will about World Wrestling Entertainment -- critics don’t seem to understand that no one is forced to watch its broadcasts or buy its video games -- the company provides a livelihood for over 500 employees. McMahon’s rhetoric has been refreshingly pro-capitalism. A recent mailer averred that “a government takeover of health care, trillions in new spending, and a shocking expansion of bureaucracy will end up crippling our economy and put America on a dangerous course away from the free market system on which it was founded.” In a statement issued December 9, she bashed the notion of a second “stimulus,” since “we cannot spend our way out of this recession, certainly not with money we don’t have.” Her alternative? “[R]educe taxes on small businesses, which create 70 percent of jobs, and … reduce impending federal regulation that makes it difficult to impossible for small businesses to plan.” McMahon is far from perfect. Her past contributions to leftists (Joe Lieberman, Rahm Emanuel) and her corporation’s receipt of corporate welfare are disturbing. But when compared with the liberal votes of Simmons, and the pork he gleefully secured while in Washington, they don’t look as bad. “Linda McMahon is the best option left” isn’t high praise. But to dump Dodd in 2010, it’s a consensus Connecticut’s right-wing community needs to reach, and soon. D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and lecturer. His website is www.dowdmuska.com. # # # # #
|
