Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon’s new ad addresses the critics who say she’s trying to buy the Senate seat.
McMahon, who has spent an estimated $65 million of her own money so far on her two Senate bids, says she won’t be beholden to “special interests who corrupt so many career politicians.”
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
12 Responses to Linda McMahon’s New Ad: “I Can’t Be Bought”
About Capitol Watch
The Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch blog provides insightful and in-depth coverage of Connecticut politics... read more- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
NEW! CT Politics App.
Courant.com brings you the latest CT political news, blogs, tweets and photos, powered by the Hartford Courant and FOX CT.
Download it now:
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
Good for her. It is always interesting how one side will criticize for taking special interest and the other will criticize for spending their own money. Seems like no one is ever happy.
I am sure these same Democrats that criticize McMahon for spending her own money were out there criticizing Jon Corzine in New Jersey when he spent $63 million on his Senate race in 2000…of course the Democrats were not because it was one of their own.
You’re comparing Jon Corazine with the wrestling lady??
Smart ad
good ad for Linda McMahon
I’ve never seen Joe Visconti say so little in so few words. It usually takes a lot more.
I can’t be bought either, Linda, no matter how many TV commercials you buy.
Very smart Mike Robinson. We will not be fooled.
Who would you rather trust?
Someone who is financing their own campaign, and isn’t entangled with outside interests?
or,
Someone who’s received nearly $1M from Wall Street firms; many of which have received billions in bailouts using our hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and who has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to reposnsibly manage their own personal finances?
Easy choice.
The federal bank bailout was signed by George Bush in Oct 2008. Both Connecticut Senators and 5 Representatives voted in favor, including Chris Murphy. Webster bank was one of hundreds of banks included in this federal legislation that saved our banking system. No special treatment.
Webster Bank, based in Waterbury CT, was founded in 1935 by Harold Webster Smith. Only 24 years old, Smith borrowed from family and friends to found First Federal Savings of Waterbury. A homegrown success story. Today Webster bank employs 3400 people in Connecticut. That is spelled JOBS. If you want to attribute the bailout to Chris Murphy, then he saved 3400 jobs. Ten times more jobs than McMahon.
Vince McMahon spoke about so-called “responsible financial management” in a 2001 interview with Playboy Magazine.
“It was visions of sugarplums,” Vince McMahon told the magazine. “It was, ‘Look how successful I am! I guess I really am somebody.’
“I got involved with people who weren’t that bright and let them tell me that I needed tax shelters. There was a construction company, a horse farm, a cement plant, and it all went belly-up.
Chris Murphy missed a few payments, but was never as financially reckless as McMahon. Never went bankrupt. The bank foreclosed on McMahon for non-payment of her mortgage and seized her house. She went bankrupt and stiffed her creditors to the tune of a million dollars.
Simple question, Mike:
If Murphy is as innocent as you seem to imply, why does he continue to refuse to release the relevant documents that were associated with his rent and mortgage defaults, and his subsequent applications for a mortgage and a HELOC after defaulting? And why doesn’t he authorize Webstaer to release all of their related documents, including any internal correspondence (e-mails, memoranda, meeting minutes, conversations about his role on the House Financial Services Committee, etc.) bewteen Webster employees; e.g., the loan officer that handled his loans and the loan committee that reviewed and approved them?
This could all be over tomorrow if Mr. Murphy and Webster would agree to make a full and open disclosure of all of these documents and facts.
Why won’t he?
Rather than spending more money on more negative ads, why doesn’t Mr. Murphy just come ‘clean’ on all of the relevant documents and internal communications between Mr. Murphy and Webster so we can judge for ourselves whether there was (or still is…) any question of a quid pro quo between them?
There is an open and valid question given the sparse information provided by Webster, the timeline of Mr. Murphy’s dealings with Webster, and Mr. Murphy’s continuiing intransigence re: releasing his loan documents (those that he has possession of…) as to whether these two parties had any sort of agreement on how Mr. Murphy would vote on the legislation that ultimately awarded Webster with taxpayer funded $400 million bailout. We deserve an answer to that question.
Don’t spend more money on attack ads that voters hate, tell voters the truth.
The truth is ‘free’ and it could set you free.
Disclose the documents and communications – all of them.
Fed up over being dragged into the U.S. Senate race by Republican Linda McMahon, Webster Bank officials are demanding her campaign retract allegations the institution is involved in a sweetheart mortgage deal with her opponent, Democratic U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy.
The bank has pushed back against McMahon’s allegations, twice releasing information to the media that indicates Murphy and his wife received a middle-of-the-road deal. Experts have also told Hearst Connecticut Newspapers that, based on available evidence, Murphy does not appear to have received any special treatment. They argued Murphy’s credit would have been improved by the fact he paid his mortgage debt, married and greatly increased his household income.
Also, Murphy was among 72 House Democrats and 91 House Republicans — including GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan — who voted for the bailout, which was proposed by then-President George W. Bush and implemented by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Murphy, though a member of the financial services committee, had no role in determining the details of the bailout measure because it was sent straight to the full Congress for action.
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.
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.
from:
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Webster-Bank-demands-McMahon-retract-claims-3874927.php