Murphy Ascendant

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

I’ve had bad things to say about the Murphy campaign in recent days, and I confess I wasn’t prepared for what I saw on Sunday morning. After a slightly wobbly first 15 minutes, Chris Murphy turned the debate utterly to his own advantage, won nearly every exchange and fanned the flame of the most significant suspicion about Linda McMahon: that when you take away the expensive media campaign she still doesn’t know her way around public policy, because she only started caring about it a few years ago.

Before I say anything else, hats off to Dennis House and his panel. This was everything Denver wasn’t in terms of structure and accountability. Angela Diaz deserves some special credit  for digging in and pressing when her questions weren’t answered.

Murphy deserves a lot of credit for being everything Obama wasn’t in Denver. Some of the same issues came up, and Murphy framed them energetically and explained some of his criticisms of McMahon without turning wonky.

McMahon was surprisingly bad. There are two ways to prepared for a debate. (1) You can really immerse yourself in the issues that and make sure you know how you want to talk about them.   (2) You can memorize answers.

McMahon had pretty clearly done the latter for at least some of her preparation. She had also been coached on a particular kind of “shame on you” scolding session she needed to do, intended for future use in commercials. (She went out of her way to do two takes, just in case.)  But that still left a lot subjects she just wasn’t ready for.

The debate slipped away from her exactly as she answered (or didn’t answer) a Diaz question about payroll taxes. Diaz pressed her a little more. Still no real answer. Then Murphy pounced: “That was a minute and 30 seconds of ‘I’m not going to tell you what I’m going to do if you elect me.’ ”

Murphy turned that into a refrain, noting several other occasions when McMahon either wouldn’t or couldn’t  come up with specifics — especially on a Pazniokas question about poverty. Just a little debating point there. You have to debate in the moment.  You have to talk about what’s happening in the debate right now. Murphy was very good at that today.
McMahon never quite recovered. Even so, nothing really explains her astonishing moment of blankness when asked about same-sex marriage. She stumbled through an answer in which she affirmed her support for “America’s same sex marriage law.” There is, of course, no such thing, unless she means DOMA, which is sort of the opposite. And then she just stopped, with probably more than a minute left on her clock. Nobody does that. If you’ve got a short answer, you pivot and talk about something loosely related with your remaining time. She seemed inexplicably rattled by this benign, predictable and routine question. (This is what happens when you spend your whole campaign dodging the press. You turn into the kind of candidate who can’t improvise.)
As the issue-based battles started slipping away from her, McMahon upped the ante on the personal attacks. If you’re a little tired of the way this campaign has been almost exclusively about attacks on character and very little about the issues, let the word go forth that McMahon was far more reliant on this strategy than was Murphy on Sunday. Paradoxically, late in the debate she unsheathed a new kind of negative rhetoric, claiming that Murphy had expected a coronation and instead found himself in a tough campaign with a serious woman.  The paradox: never before in this campaign had she seemed less like a serious woman. She seemed like a silly woman who had attempted to substitute recent study sessions for the years of immersion one might expect an aspiring senator to have had.   Even in her summation, when most candidates return to their biggest themes, she used the time to peck at Murphy about  a supposed sweetheart mortgage.
It was instead Murphy who seemed, for the first time in this campaign, like a serious, plausibly senatorial, fully prepared politician. Where has this guy been?
There are of course more debates yet to come, and things may change. Memo to Murphy: She keeps harping on the idea that she has “a plan.”  I’d question that.  In fact, it often seems that a plan is precisely what she does not have, if we can agree that a plan explains how you can make good on your promises.  She has a long list of promises, not so much by way of plan. So you say: “When I tell my kids we’re going to Disneyworld, that’s a promise. When my wife and I sit down and figure our how we’re gonna pay for it, that’s a plan.”
The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

137 thoughts on “Murphy Ascendant

    1. TJ

      Murphy sealed McMahon’s fate. No amount of her millions or “lipstick can make this pig” look pretty.

      She’s Palin-esque in her air-headness on issues.

      I highly doubt the good citizens of Connecticut want an airhead to represent them in US Senate.

      1. Todd

        Absolutely! As many have been saying..and it proved true on Sunday: a CEO is great for running a business, but the government is not a business, it’s GOVERNMENT.
        Murphy exposed Linda for being inept and ignorant of how to fulfill one’s role as an elected official in government. She showed a stunning lack of competency for being a Senator for our state. Just like the other recent gaffe of hers when she didn’t comprehend what sunset provisions mean. We can’t have someone who doesn’t know what they’re supposed to be doing representing our state. I must go with Murphy on this and advise Linda to go back to the ring and please stay out of national politics at this time; maybe start off on a smaller scale like state rep until she gets a firmer grasp of politics.
        Enough with the “Washington insider” attacks. Said another way, how would Linda feel if people said any junior high school kid could do her role as CEO? Experience counts.

        1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

          On the other hand, fortunate for us Liberals, she did win the primary because if Chris Shays had won, he might have won this battle. No, Linda McMahan, please keep running election cycle after election cycle. We need you.

          1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

            I agree Mike but there is no room for moderation anymore. I have no choice but to lean to the left. Dim-bulb for Senate. I wish Shays would change party affiliation so that I could one day vote for him. He is a practical-minded fiscal conservative and social liberal. But the radical tea party ding-bats of the Republican Party saved the day and sent lady Linda to the fore. If that party moved any further to the right, they would fall off the graft.

  1. Richard

    Courant Poll: Who Fared Better In The First U.S. Senate Debate?

    Linda McMahon (1404 responses) 67%

    Chris Murphy (696 responses) 33%

    2100 total responses

    1. Whalers

      Yes, a non-scientific poll (The Courant goes at lengths to say that) frequently visited by partisans and usually instigated by campaigns to vote on is ‘the’ proven method to decide on a debate victor…*facepalm*

    2. TJ

      Only cons would quote unscientific internet polls as based in fact whereas dismissing reputed, scientific reality-based polls as being “skewed.”

      As Clinton put it succinctly: They live in an alternate universe.

    3. Mike Robinson

      That poll has been manipulated. The fraud is so extreme it has the wrestling lady leading 2 to 1. This result is ridiculous when every poll has the race close to even. Note to vote stuffers: make the result a little closer and people might believe it. Courant: do the logs show the same IP addresses over and over?

  2. Jason Smilton

    I am a Republican who will be voting for McMahon. I watched the debate and agree that she lost it handily. She did however counter Murphy’s claim to be a centrist which has absolutely NO basis in fact. It seems to me the voters ought to know ahead of time that Rep Murphy is a lockstep liberal who could easily represent the Hartford or New Have Congressional districts.

    1. Yvonne

      By all means, tell the voters that Murphy is a liberal. He’ll win by an even bigger margin. This is Connecticut not Kansas, you know!

    2. oldmom

      Jason, if you are willing to vote for someone who is unable to articulate an actual position on any issue, has no real plan that she can share with voters, and has absolutely no experience with public policy, only because you’ve decided her opponent is a “lockstep liberal,” then you are clearly one of the non-thinking masses. I sincerely hope Connecticut voters reject the know-nothing in favor of someone (Murphy) who will actually work on behalf of our state.

  3. Rich

    McMahon has nothing to offer to Connecticut’s voters and it showed. Electing her to the Senate would make the Senate even less responsive to the people. Send more Republicans and get more of their approach to governing: “no, no, no, let nothing pass that would help the people because that wouldn’t be good for Republicans. She offers us more of that. We don’t need it.

    1. Palin Smith

      Murphy has more food stamps and free diapers to offer just like his auntie Rosa. Meanwhile, the economic disaster the two of them helped create is sinking Connecticut faster than Captain Dannel, Hartford’s Titanic Governor.

  4. Karen

    Wow. I wonder if the people who voted on the Courant’s poll actually watched the debate. McMahon really looked unprepared and as if she was ignorant of what was being asked of her.

  5. Morgan

    Wow! I’m an independent – or was! How stupid can one person be? McMahon made a fool of herself & embarrased her party. I never heard her speak before. What a silly, silly woman.

    1. Ron

      I agree with you with one exception. Instead of “silly, silly” I would prefer “stupid, stupid.” If her performance doesn’t make you vote Democratic nothing will. PS – I’m an independent. However, I think we are in agreement that voting for her would be both silly and stupid.

  6. Reader

    Colin, when you sign a mortgage or a lease and agree to pay it, is that a promise, or a plan? I’d say both.

    If you want to talk alternate universe, that’s where people who think electing Murphy to the Senate would be a good idea live. The American economy was thrown into the dump not long after he and Nancy Pelosi took charge in 2007, and only began to come around once Pelosi and the Democrats lost their leadership four years later.

    What has he done to earn your trust? I say nothing. His ideas are bad and have been slowly destroying the middle class, first in Connecticut and now across the country. He and his agenda should be stopped.

    1. Jim McCusker

      1) At least Murphy made good on his bills in the end and didn’t wait 35 years to clear it up.

      2) Reader, are you familiar with cause and effect? Causes, generally, precede effects. If they didn’t, then that might be some sort of clue that that “cause” might not have caused the effect. The housing crisis was well underway in the beginning of 2007, and nothing Pelosi or Murphy did had any impact on it. Further, if it was starting to turn around by the beginning of 2011, there is a possibility that that turnaround was helped by congress from 2007-2011. The stall in the economic recovery started, wait for it, mid-2011, right when the Republicans were able to hold it hostage after taking ove the house.

      1. Reader

        Maybe you missed the stimulus, “Cash for Clunkers,” Obamacare and every single other terrible act of legislation that came out of Pelosi’s Congress. These were downright awful and we will be paying for these for decades.

        Take a look at the jobs numbers during the Democrats’ rain of ruin in Congress. They are just plain terrible.

        I notice you didn’t say what Chris Murphy has done to earn your trust? Exactly how has he “fought” for the middle class, which is far worse off than it was before he ever showed up in Congress?

        1. Cotty Chbb

          Job numbers? You mean the approx 150,000 private sector jobs/month added over the last year while you’ve been complaining about Obama and the Democrats? Those numbers?

          1. Reader

            You know that the labor force is at its smallest size in nearly 30 years, right? Less than half of the country is working.

            Why can’t we blame our politicians for this? Again, I ask the question, which policy of Chris Murphy’s is going to change this, and even if he had such a policy, where has it been for six years? The man is without valuable ideas.

          1. Fred Fnord

            *snicker* I like the guy saying ‘less than half the country is working’.

            Yes, this is absolutely true! As long as you realize that about 25% of the country is below the age of 19 (and therefore not working yet), and 14% is 65 or over (and mostly retired).

            But let’s break things down a little more:

            – of the people who are between 18 and 24, almost 30% of them are in college at any given time. That’s around 3% of the general population. Most of them don’t work while they’re going to college.

            – of the people between 18 and 65, almost 12% of them are disabled in some way. A little over a quarter of those are sufficiently disabled that they are unable to work. (And a sizable number are currently working in jobs that are making their condition progressively worse, which will eventually make them unable to work.) That’s another 2% or so of the general population.

            So far we have 44% of the population covered under ‘kids, old people, people who are full time in college, and people who are unable to work for health reasons’. I am shocked — SHOCKED — that there might be more than 50% of the US population that aren’t part of the labor force.

            Of course, if what you’re talking about is the ‘labor force participation rate’, then it doesn’t count people under age 18. But it’s also well over 64%, and after some serious issues in 2010 and 2011, it has mostly stabilized, and the only reason it’s dropping now because is our population is aging (and 70-year-olds are still considered to be part of the ‘labor force’.) If the baby boomers weren’t starting to retire, the labor force participation rate would have gone UP this year.

            But don’t let me stop you from mouthing your talking points. Just so long as you KNOW you’re lying when you do so.

    2. urban legend

      Wow, talk about an alternate universe! I guess Pelosi kidnapped GW Bush so he couldn’t veto any of that horrible liberal legislation she ramrodded through. That was the Pelosi legislation, you know, that caused the housing bubble to pop, destroy the construction industry, and lose people a couple of trillion in wealth they thought they had. That would be the bubble that forced banks to issue gigantic derivatives based on the mortgages for those bubble-inflated properties — the derivatives, that is, that became worthless and caused the collapse of the housing industry to be reinforced by a gigantic world banking crisis.

      If you don’t know it was all Nancy’s fault, well you would know better if, like Reader, you got more information from Fox News, Glenn and Rush

      1. scott

        “couple of trillion” is too low, sadly. Page 3

        That’s American homeowners and mortgage lenders collectively hallucinating $6T before the bubble burst.

        That $6T was mortgaged against, and that cash was spent. Spent before it was earned, before it was created by work (rather than hallucination).

        That means it can’t be spent now, and the many unemployed workers aren’t at work because we can’t spend that money now, to hire them to make/do stuff.

        Is this the fault of the people who were running things during the hallucination, or the people who’ve been running things since we collectively woke up, and realized that $6T we spent wasn’t real?

    3. Roni

      Reader, can you tell me of one law or one legislative act that the Democrats passed and Bush signed between January, 2007, when the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate, and September, 2008, when the economy collapsed, that led to the financial meltdown of 2008? I would very much appreciate knowing this, since I can’t find anything myself and you seem so knowledgeable. Thanks.

      1. Reader


        One way for you to improve your level of knowledge would be to realize that the recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

        Another would be to take a look at factors like the Dow, the size of the workforce, and the average salary of the American worker when the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 versus when they ceded it to the Republicans in January 2011.

        George Bush made many, many mistakes in office, and most of them related to trading fiscal policy for Iraq votes with Democrats in Congress.

  7. Scott pempek

    Wow I wish I could change my response to the Q poll that called last week. I said McMann, after watching her “debate” today I am sitting here asking myself what were you thinking? I guess I got sucked into all her negative attack ads about Murphy. My answer to the Q poll and my vote on Election Day will be Chris Murphy! Linda did not have a clue

  8. SJay

    Did everyone miss McMahon’s claim that she created millions of jobs? Listen to her opening remarks, please. Not the sharpest tool in the R shed, Idon’t think.

  9. Chief Jay Strongbow

    Oh my goodness, Linda is an outright and thorough embarrassment to state GOP. National GOP is treating her warily given her failure to parrot the Rove/Koch/Norquist script in totality. State GOP is wishing they ran a different horse right about now. Linda will set back state GOP prospects for statewide, congressional and senate races for several election cycles. Murphy by double digits.

  10. Jim Houghton

    We kept Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman from buying elections in California. Good luck, Connecticut, doing the same. (Nothing against female candidates; we have two of the best female Senators in the world!)

  11. Fuzzy Dunlop

    Best Murphy rejoinder if Linda tries getting in that “I’m a serious woman” soundbite again in the future:

    “You know what Linda, this IS a serious race for a serious office, but you are NOT a serious woman. You are a circus master and pornographer who thinks a U.S. Senate seat can be bought.”

    Oh, and before people go quibbling about whether McMahon was engaged in pornography, let’s review the dictionary definition. From Websters:

    1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

    2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

    3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

    How can anyone reasonably argue that WWE does not fall within definition 1,2 or 3?

    The Murphy campaign needs to just start using that word with abandon when describing Linda: Pornographer, pornographer, pornographer. In fact, don’t even mention WWE. Just say “Linda McMahon made a fortune producing pornography” or, “Linda McMahon is trying to buy a U.S. Senate seat; how did she make the money she’s using? One word: Pornography.” Yes, there will be some righteous indignation over whether the label is accurate (again, I would posit it is), but if you say the word + her name enough times, it won’t matter.

    The Murphy campaign needs to pursue an advertising strategy, the goal of which is for people to associate the name “Linda McMahon” with one word: Pornographer.

    1. Rich

      Fuzzy, I’d be careful with the pornographer charge. It might help her. Pornography seems to be popular.

    2. Palin Smith

      But…but…but….Democrats love pornogrphy AND pornographers. Be careful what you say. Bill Clinton might be lurking nearby. The darling of pornogrphy in person and hero to the Democratic Party.

      1. Fred Fnord

        That’s so adorable. When everyone knows it’s the Republicans who create, fund, and consume the lion’s share of pornography in the US. They’re just utter hypocrites about it. Or I guess I should say ‘you’re’.

      2. Cynical Susan

        I wasn’t aware that Clinton was involved in pornography — do you have a link to some information?

        I think you’ll find that most Democrats who voted for and supported Clinton were appalled at his sexual behavior and felt betrayed. It’s unlikely that you’d have found any or many who were thinking “that-a-boy, Billy.” I imagine it was Republicans who were more thrilled because now they had a valid anti-Clinton stance to take.

  12. Deb Beckwith

    Thank God for Colin – you are right on! Hopefully Chris Murphy will continue his performance in future debates. His experience was evident – he actually answered the questions and intelligently.

  13. Susan Cole

    My thoughts exactly. Couldn’t have said it better. I saw a Chris Murphy I really liked. Also, let me join you in praise of the debate format, the questions and the panel members; made the National debate look downright amateurish.

  14. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

    My original thought was that during sex between the two, she would be the top but this debate proved me wrong.

      1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

        And Todd, you are a moron in no small measure. Would you like me to translate that to Italian?

      2. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

        And by the way, Todd, I guess supporting the loosing and regressive side of politics must hurt sometimes. do you wake up hurting?

        1. Todd Zaino

          Bill call me all of the names you like…but only a true loser would spell loser the way you did above. See you back here on November seventh…it should be a real hoot. Pretty easy to take your pathetic shots behind that psedonm you favor.

          1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

            My name is Bill DiMauro, dick face. How’s that?

            Anyone without a sense of humor must be conservative.

            November 7th it is. Don’t take breakfast. I’ll have some crow pie waiting for you to eat.

            Also dick face, spelling was never one of my fortes. (I’ll bet you mispronounce that word, too.) I suppose you won all your spelling bees.

            And last but not least dick face, you have gaul to tell me that I am vile after harassing Susan Campbell for years on her blog. No, you are the vile one, sir, I mean, dick face.

          2. Cynical Susan


            Are we talking about spelling here? Why? Everyone makes typos, even us current and retired teachers.

          3. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

            Cynical Susan: Hee. Hee… Why didn’t I see that? Because, of course, I am a rotten speller. Todd is easy to beat up on. I wish he would send forward an intelligent surrogate to battle me but perhaps he knows no one of greater capacity then himself. And if most people are stupid, then there is a 50% chance that he rates below that average.

            As you can see Susan, gone is the polite banter of the old Susan Campbell blog, LOL. Colin let’s us roll.

          4. Cynical Susan

            Bill – there was some not-so-polite banter on Susan’s blog which is why some commenters (who were given plenty of warning) were banished. I don’t think that’s a bad thing — it’s one thing to have strong opinions, it’s another to be a bully and/or to paint people who don’t agree with you to be of low character. I see that Todd said you were vile because you made a mild sexual reference, and yet he’s called his political opposites whores, sluts, etc.

  15. Alice

    Murphy has had the goods all along, but can’t compete with her funding and revisionist history- until now.
    He has shown himself to be knowledgeable and driven to work hard for the people of Connecticut. There is nobody else I would vote for for this seat.

    1. Palin Smith

      Murphy’s work has been to drive up inflation and drive down jobs. Thank him for draining your purse next time you fill up your tank.

      I never understand people who constantly vote against their own best interests. What’s it get you?

  16. JAMES

    Things are getting desperate. We need this Chris like we needed the last Chris. He has already proven his first loyalty is to the big banks.

  17. peter brush

    What we get here is a celebration based on Murph’s putting on a good show. Nothing wrong with that, but it is striking that of all the pro-Murph comments posted here there’s not a single reference to an issue. I didn’t see the show, but it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if McMahon did poorly. But, how would she vote on Obamacare?
    The financial melt-down not a result of legislation in the 2007-09 time frame, but a result of decades of perversion of the home finance markets by government activists hell bent on encouraging “affordable housing.” (Got to hand it to them; housing is a lot more affordable than it was pre-2008.) The best analysis I’ve seen is provided by Peter Wallison in his dissent from the Report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
    A good discussion with links to both the majority and dissenting views:

  18. olas

    As with the presidential debate, 1 thing is perfectly clear. You have career politicians, Obama and Murphy for those too emotional to identify, arguing with 2 people who have lived in, and negotiated their way through, the real world. The career politicians are the problem, they have never done any real work. For example, ask them where all the money in Social Security went? There are others. What you all saw was just another living in a fantasy world, in it for himself and the perks that go with it, Murphy vs. a career business woman who knows she wouldn’t last a minute in the real world with an attitude similar to her opponent.

  19. James J. Connolly

    McMahon simply does not care about issues, debates, policy or any aspect of government. Here is the simple reality: She will do and say anything and spend any amount of money to get elected to the US Senate. Her ruthlessness is more frightening than her complete lack of preparation for the job. In office, she would be completely lost, totally dependent on handlers that she would have to continue to pay for in the millions. Linda McMahon: RoboCandidate and Terminutter.

  20. Susan

    I watched the debate, and was shocked to see Linda McMahon actually much worse in person than I had already thought from reading about her and the TV ads. I do not believe business experience alone qualifies a person in any particular way to jump into successful public service. I think if she’s elected, which I sincerely hope does not happen, she would be between a rock and a hard place – having to kowtow to the GOP do-nothings on the one hand and then represent our fairly liberal state.

  21. Cabanaboy

    McMahon came across as an old,bristly,thinskinned,scolding elementary school teacher. Besides,there is only one issue that matters much to me this year in local or national politics: As a breast cancer survivor, my wife cannot get an individual health insurance policy at any price. So I have to vote for pro-Obamacare candidates.

    1. ThresherK

      Interesting characterization, but McMahon did not demonstrate knowledge in subject matter in the way a schoolteacher should.

      Seriously, though: If there’s anything a rich Republican needs to give off in a state like Connecticut in a year like 2102, it’s the slightest bit of Rooseveltian “noblesse oblige”.

      I don’t get the slightest whiff of that from her.

      (And all the other caveats about the media’s fetish for CEOs as elected officials still apply.)

  22. Jan

    Hahaha Linda – I knew all along those phony ads of her swanning around rooms full of suburban women in her oh-so-nice suit would bite her in the behind when she really had to talk issues. She has no experience, not even in town politics, and she thinks her millions gained from providing sleazy entertainment will buy her the Senate election. Finally, Chris Murphy showed her up. I hope he keeps going not that he seems to have started.

  23. Stephen

    Classic–Mr. Smith Goes To Washington vs. Angela Lansbury’s evil scheming mother in The Manchurian Candidate.

    1. Palin Smith

      Chris Murphy is “Chris Dodd Goes to Washington” for life. Too bad they are not serving together, 5-10 in Levenworth.

  24. Mitch Beck

    This was the shock of the week for me to read that Colin McEnroe thought that Chris Murphy won the debate.

    While I am supporting Linda McMahon, I’m not a huge fan and I certainly didn’t like the way that EITHER candidate conducted themselves.

    But Colin, If Chris Murphy had come out into the studio, pulled his pants down and pooped on the floor, you’d have declared him the winner and praised him for doing something so radical.

    Let’s be real here Colin. You’re a SUPER liberal and the more to the left the candidate is the more you like them. Linda is trying to sound more and more liberal and that bothers me, but Chris Murphy is two steps to the left of Barack Obama, if that’s even possible, so of course you’ll ring the bells and do a tap dance exclaiming his virtues.

    To me the saddest thing in ALL of this is how incredibly shamefully partisan the media is not only nationally which is bad, but in this state the media is an extension of the Democratic Party and has long forsaken it’s journalistic responsibility.

    You’ll call yourself a columnist and not a reporter, and feel you’ve justified yourself, but even a columnist has a responsibility, whether from the left or the right to judge things on their merits and you clearly didn’t and don’t ever intend to.

    It’s truly sad.

    1. cmcenroe Post author

      Mitch, if I was the guy you say I am — constantly trying to build up the candidate on the left whether he deserved it or not –would this post that upsets you so much have been immediately preceded by both a column and a lengthy blog post criticizing Murphy ad his campaign for failing to associate themselves with any major issue? While you’re at it, go back over everything I’ve written over this long, long campaign and show me one other positive piece about Murphy. (You won’t find one, but go ahead and look.) I’ve been balanced. I don’t think McMahon is qualified to be senator, but I’ve also insisted that Murphy need to prove himself more than he previously has. In light of that, your post seems a little childish. I’ve been tough on this guy for many many months. But the first time you read anything positive — in October — you fall on the ground screaming foul.

    2. Dr. Spock

      Independent voter here…..not a Colin groupie although he has more intellect than all of his “Conservative Detractors” combined, including yourself. The really saddest thing of all is a closed and “polarized” mind that you clearly exhibit.

    3. Palin Smith

      “But Colin, If Chris Murphy had come out into the studio, pulled his pants down and pooped on the floor, you’d have declared him the winner and praised him for doing something so radical”

      Mitch? You saw that behind the podium too? We both have splendid vision.

  25. Jim

    A debate for U.S. Senator at 11am on a Sunday? An “unscientific” poll in which the clear incompetent “wins”?
    ONLY in Corrupticut. I watched the entire debate and it was clear that Linda McMahon was not only a poor debater, but not fit to be on the hospitality committee, never mind one of two U.S. Senators from this state. Sadly, most folks will never see just how ill-suited this lady is to hold office.

  26. Wawogi

    I watched most of the debate. I was impressed with Murphy’s responses, and he didn’t let McMahon get away with anything. Perhaps he should be advising Obama on debate tactics.

    McMahon was shown to be the dishonest dimwit that she is. As she spoke, all I could hear were sentences from her campaign ads and whatever she has told her adoring fans at campaign events. Except for the question on gay marriage — deer in the headlights! Her answer was complete nonsense. And that scolding teacher persona might work in the WWE ring, but it doesn’t work in real life. Which, I guess, explains the difference between being a WWE CEO and a U.S. Senator.

  27. peter brush

    Nothing against female candidates; we have two of the best female Senators in the world!
    There was common ground as well. Both candidates promised to oppose cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Both favor a 1 percent cut in spending, although McMahon pledged not to touch the defense budget, while Murphy said he would support some cuts in defense spending. Both candidates said they would oppose cuts in federal food stamp programs.
    Mrs. McMahon could very well be as dumb as dirt. She could even be as stupid as Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer. Her positions on issues don’t make it easy, but I’ll still vote for her.
    Murphy “lifetime” rating by ACU = 2.4/100. Murphy 2010 ADA rating = 95/100.
    Speaking of females, it appears that Rosa Delauro Greenberg has decided that she doesn’t need to talk to the Courant, let alone debate. Elections in the 3rd, as in the 1st district, a waste of time and money.

  28. ThresherK

    At some point I’m a bit amazed that McMahon’s commercial-crafted tone was there in person.

    Colin has previously, almost continually, mentioned about how different media situations reward “hot” and “cool”. It seems that the “hot” tactics which are effective for a 30 second ad do not lend themselves to first-person reiteration, especially sans the other distractions (video montages, suggestive music, overlaid graphics).

    Doesn’t anyone at the McMahon campaign know this? This (plus the magic plan that Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl and James Inhofe can’t wait for a blue-state frosh senator to make into law) can’t be the only arrow they have in their quiver, can it?

  29. Susan

    Well “Peter Brush” and “Mitch Beck” (related to Glenn are you?) – you’ve done it! Convinced me to not just vote for him but donate to the Murphy campaign!

  30. David M. Moore, Esq.

    The debate shows what folks who have paid attention to the candidates over the last three years already know. Rep. Murphy can think on his feet, and Ms. McMahon cannot. Rep. Murphy has paid attention to the issue and the facts surrounding the issue, and Ms. McMahon has paid her handlers and the commercial creating folks a lot of money (she might want to ask for some of that back!). We are at a cross-roads in our political history. Trickle-down economics does not work in generating a healthy economy, especially during an economic down-turn, recession or psuedo-depression. The WWE is NOT a sufficient foundation to say that you are a job-creator. What creates jobs is working with folks in the private and public sectors to establish policies, plans and the necesary framework (be it regulatory, financial or otherwise) to allow the folks who REALLY DO create jobs to work. Nothin in McMahon’s “plan” addresses HOW she would do that. Promising to do away with “job killing regualtion and taxes” is NOT a plan, and does not address the fundamental problems we have faced in our nation’s economics. Supporting the “Blunt Amendment” does not allow for a blanket statement that one supports women’s rights. The REAL reason why McMahon avoided the press for as long as she has in this election is because her press interactions in the 2010 election were a big reason why she lost that election by over 100,000 votes, they were disasterous! Looks like we’e starting to see a re-play of that now. Is Murphy perfect? Nope. Will he work to continue to understand the issues and represent his constituents, if he is elected, to the best of his ability? Yes. Would McMahon, if she were elected? Not from what I have seen.
    Colin, keep up the great work that you are doing. You have been fair, balanced, objective and occaisionally funny (even though the race, and the election over all are VERY serious).

  31. peter brush

    Promising to do away with “job killing regualtion and taxes” is NOT a plan…
    Maybe not a plan, but a decent general description of good economic policy.
    Consider Murphy, Esq.’s plan, or part thereof: “Our economy can’t survive unless we make things here – and our government should support this effort…” No less vague than McMahon’s. To be fair, I presume what he’s talking about is investing taxpayer $ in manufacturing; e.g., Solyndra. I suggest you’re mistaken if that sort of thing is going to take us too far(in the right direction).
    Two years ago the leader of his party agreed that raising taxes by allowing the Bush rates to expire was a bad idea. Even little Krugman would agree in principal that the raising of tax rates, in itself, is not conducive to growth. But, now, for some reason not related to economic science, B.O. demands that the rich pay “their fair share.”
    Any bets on how the economy will be impacted as Obamacare is implemented? On how the economy will be impacted by fed spending at 25% gdp with trillion $ deficits as far as the eye can see? On how it will be impacted by EPA regs on greenhouse gas emissions or by a failure to exploit our energy resources?
    Murph and his party aren’t (primarily) interested in economic growth. Their aim is social justice, and some of them seem unaware that their social justice, such as it is, is dependent on a private economy that they are by their actions intent on stifling.

    1. equality 7-2521

      “Stifling the economy” is just a smoke screen across what is really happening. A magician’s misdirection. The fact is business will cut their costs any way they can and not reward the workers who have actually built the business. The janitor keeps the shop hygenic while the grunts bring in the machinary and the technical staff tunes it into a profitable enterprise as the executive corps oversees the operation and an eager sales staff keeps it going. Somewhere along the line a machine falls apart and injures a few employees and the boss grumbles about the expense and not the fact loyal senior employees’ lives have been ruined because of the CEO’s cuts in the plant’s equipment maintenance budget. It happens again and the man grumbles that this is costing too much and ships the production overseas where he dosen’t have to worry about decent labor laws. And besides, he dosen’t have to worry about taking care of the folks who work hard to give him profit.
      I come from the 1950’s where the rich paid their fair share and the middle class thrived because the m-c didn’t want the headaches of the rich but were willing to work hard for security, a car in every driveway and a BBQ.
      This benefitted all by providing a solid base of consumers to keep the process moving along. Nobody begrudged the rich because not everyone wanted the headaches of excessive wealth. The average Joe just wanted to be appreciated & knew that he was a cog in the overall machine which ran smoothly until those above him got greedy.
      Government exists to protect its citizens from the excesses of the military and business. In the 50’s a great many industries were regulated and had to be. Deregulation in most sectors has cheapened the quality of various products and escalted their costs. Its allowed institutions to run amok.
      Back than, I didn’t like Ike, but boy do we sure need him now!

      1. Patrice Fitzgerald

        “Government exists to protect its citizens from the excesses of the military and business. In the 50?s a great many industries were regulated and had to be. Deregulation in most sectors has cheapened the quality of various products and escalted their costs. Its allowed institutions to run amok.”

        Interestingly put, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard that said before. I agree, but I wonder what our conservative, Randian folks here think? That if government would only get out of the way, business would make this a beautiful world… workers killed by machines would get a nice flower arrangement, and complete freedom would allow them to manufacture everything at the lowest possible cost and make the maximum profit.

        1. Richard

          We don’t know how to sunset legislation. Take auto emissions as an example. There’s considerable research that catalytic converters worked like a silver bullet for smog reduction but inspection programs had negligible affect since 18 states don’t inspect. Mandating CCs was a brilliant use of regulatory power. Inspection programs was not so brilliant.

          The whole state union system is structured to prevent the sunsetting of programs and adopting new technologies and redeploying resources.

          As a taxpayer we are trapped between Scylla and Charybdis. Today’s Democrats would meanstest the First Class Stamp given the opportunity. Today’s GOP would never fund a useless extravagance like a postal system to begin with.

    2. David M. Moore, Esq.

      Peter- President Obama pushed for the extention of the “Bush tax Cuts” for everone but those in the top tax bracket two ears ago. When Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell refused to budge on that issue, the President conceded the issue, and let all of the tax cuts be extended. Our country, as well as our state, has a taxing and dpending problem. As for the country, we are still recovering from paying for two wars “off the books” (in other words, NOT accounted for in the budget), as well as for the annual increases of just about everything and it is obvious that we are still not bringing in enough income. The current tax set up has the burden smack dab on the middle class. This is neither fair, nor is it sustainable. The moderates HAVE to be listened to, compromise MUST be achieved and sanity has to prevail when dealing with our economic mess. It is clear from the debate that McMahon has an issue with thinking independantly when sh can’t coherently answer a question that wasn’t part of her preparation. It is also clear to me that she does not have a real grasp of the complexity that is our nation’s economics, nor is she capable of sufficient compromise to move the economic ball down the field.

  32. Lynne

    Wow. Well said, Colin!
    I have been repulsed by McMahon’s candidacy since day one. How she could defeat Rob Simmons AND Chris Shays for the GOP party’s nomination just proves the fact that money is the determining factor these days on EVERYTHING, politics included. McMahon made Sarah Palin look like a genius: I half expected McMahon to say “…and I can see Hartford’s North End from my house” during one of her interminably long pauses, when she clearly could not think of a thing to say that she had not rehearsed and memorized. If this woman wins the Senate seat she is trying so hard to buy, it will confirm that enough money can indeed buy anything today.

    Murphy, on the other hand, looked Senatorial and emitted a passion for the job as well as a command of the issues facing CT workers. Without spewing vile at his opponent, he took her down easily because it was clear she hasn’t a clue and cannot go off script.

    The good people of CT deserve a Senator who understands their plight and is willing to work with the Washington representatives who mostly believe they are entitled to the power they enjoy in spite of their constituents rather than because of them. Murphy “gets it”, and I believe he is willing to work for US, as he proved on Sunday.

    One month and counting. Keep it up, Chris!

  33. Fake Thomas Jefferson

    Question? Do you want to vote for someone who can answer a debete question but has problems remembering to pay his financial obligations and when to show up for his job in Washington?

    1. Mike Robinson

      Yes, I’m voting for Chris Murphy. Does not bother me that he struggled with his bills. He knows how to do his job and what meetings to attend. It is naive to think you can score-keep each meeting as if it were crucial. Both of these issues are a distraction created by the wrestling lady to try and hide her dreadful incompetence. She does not understand the issues and cannot even discuss them in an intelligent manner as shown in the debate.

      1. Palin Smith

        The “wrestling lady” McMahon versus the “job killer” Murphy. Sounds like a match for Monday Night Raw.

  34. Indepedent View

    Bliss and McMahon know full well that the criticism against her “plan” is that it’s not her plan. She’s like a student starting to write their term paper the night before it’s due and largely using someone else’s material. She can list as many citations as she wants, that doesn’t take away from the fact that her paper contains many sources; the ideas are not hers, they are those of her sources. And, when questioned in depth, she can only parrot the talking points of her sources, handlers, or paid economist. When a student submits a paper, the student is supposed to demonstrate their understanding of the subject matter, not listing one quote after another, one citation or reference after another. That doesn’t demonstrate mastery over the material; that simply demonstrates mastery of cutting & pasting! McMahon is a student buying information for $56,527, which is a lot of money to pay an economist to say, “hocus pocus dominocus, that plan works!” “Her plan” is largely “borrowed” from a plan written by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles which was overwhelmingly rejected by the President and both houses of Congress. That “Plan” was denounced by left-leaning Paul Krugman, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science and right-leaning Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform and promoter of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. More importantly, it’s not her plan! That’s the criticism and McMahon knows it, so her handlers should stop trying to employ crafty linguistic maneuvers to try to reframe and change into something else what she was legitimately called out on as a justification to resort to verbal soft-shoe back-peddling and petty, comical, haggard, hen-pecking, school-marmish, finger-wagging “shame on you” scolding routines. The only thing missing was the rolling pin.
    Bliss, McMahon’s campaign manager, knew strategically that McMahon’s best defense was an offense. And offensive she has been. Clearly, she cannot debate intelligently; she demonstrated that lack of skill in her debate with Congressman Murphy. She can only attack on an ad hominem level. She has built a career on people attacking one another, not attacking ideas but each other, physically and emotionally – just listen to some of the vitriol that’s been spewed in the WWE ring. In her debates, she came across as harsh, crass, and catty. She exemplified the stereotypical whiny cattiness unbecoming to women. I’ve been in the business world and academia for decades, surrounded by and observing strong, successful women. They don’t behave the way McMahon behaved; they reached their success with persevering dignity. McMahon started this “nyah, nyah”, pigtail pulling, name-calling, and now it’s backfiring – as it should. How she tried to define this race is beneath the political process of a democracy and the people of Connecticut. McMahon can’t stick to the issues because she doesn’t know the issues in depth and she won’t be able to take her paid Wizards of Oz with her to the Senate, the most deliberative body in the world, where intelligent Senate members think on their feet and their preparation is the wisdom that comes from being seasoned statesmen and stateswomen. The WWE Empress has no clothes.

  35. Richard

    70% of the 2,134 Afghanistan US military deaths were under Nobel Peace Prize winner Barrack Obama.

    Where’s the Democratic anti-war crowd of 2006?

    Last year was the highest death toll for Afghanistan civilian deaths with well over 3,000. More civilians in Afghanistan died under Obama than Bush. It was also the highest for air strikes conducted by coalition forces and drones conducting target pracice and weapons testing.

    Where’s the outrage from the Democrats over this? Instead we get smug satisfaction because now America gets free condoms, free pills, and an overwhelming STD epidemic among increasingly younger kids who are ditching safe sex for the pill.

    1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

      Richard: I don’t know what kind of drugs you are taking, but they are distorting your understanding of recent history. Iraq had far more casualties then the Afgan theater. 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in a war that was unprovolked and unnecessary. The outcome of this Bush family-inspired war changed forever the balance of power in the middle east. It added and aided Shia Iran. We lost over 4,000 American service men and spent and wasted a trillion dollars of your taxes for what? Because stupid ignorant selfish W Bush wanted to play toy soldiers for his father.

      We invaded Afganistan because rogue elements from Afganistan with government support invaded the United States. Whether they were justified as a reaction to our perennial need to exploit other peoples for out own greed is a different story. And we finally got the leader who ordered this attack – something Bush refused to do when special ops had bin Ladin and his fighters cornered up in the Tora Bora mountains thereby allowing him an escape.

      What a God-Dam fool you are; ignorant in everything around you. I don’t even know why I wasted time responding to your stupid statement. You are not even worthy to take oxygen out of the air that other living organisms need to breath.

  36. Todd Zaino


    Ignore William’s rant above. Earlier on this thread he commented on Linda McMahon and Chris Murphy having sex, writing about a grandmother and sex…that speaks volumes about Billy’s lack of maturity, lack of class, and lack of any sense. He called me a D!$%head twice…wow, I’ll bet all his sixth-grade friends must find him way cool! He’s clearly an unsupervised child who has access to his parents’ computer while they are both at work. Richard, Billy is one of those bitter CT Deep Blue liberals who knows that the days of Obama are quickly coming to an end. Billy perhaps your therapist can up your meds as we march towards Nov 6.

    Richard, have you noticed also how the media used to love to report gas prices while Bush was president…yet now we hardly hear a peep.
    Looking forward to Biden/Ryan this Thursday. Ask your mommie and daddie Billy if you can stay up past your bedtime to watch the debate.

    1. Cynical Susan

      “… writing about a grandmother and sex…”

      Um — Todd? I hate to disillusion you, but grandparents do have sex. Shocking, I know, but not every person who matures out of the child-bearing years becomes chaste.

      1. Todd Zaino

        That’s quite a stretch there ole Cynical. I never wrote anything about grandparents becoming chate…that’s all you. Writing a vile post about a married grandmother having sex with a married man-well if there’s nothing wrong with that according to you, then it’s not surprising that you little Billy get along so well.

        Cynical, while I have you here… any thoughts about the outstanding job the best, smartest, and most intelligent president performed last Thursday? Was it just me…or did President Obama look like he was off his game a little last Thursday? Funny how he performs sans the telepromter. Any thoughts on the Biden/Ryan tilt this week? I’ll bet David Axelrod and the rest of the anti-Americans out there are holding their breath wondering what Uncle Joe might step into vs. Ryan. It should be a real hoot! See you and Billy back here after that debate!

    2. Patrice Fitzgerald

      Bill’s comment way above:

      “My original thought was that during sex between the two, she would be the top but this debate proved me wrong.”

      I’m not even being smart here… I was surprised at Todd’s reaction. To me, the remark wasn’t particularly funny, but it wasn’t particularly shocking either. He wasn’t talking about LITERAL sex, of course, he was just talking about relative power. An old-fashioned way to say it would be who would wear the pants… or who has the cojones to push the other around.

      I have to say that such a quip was rather tame in connection with a woman who regularly promotes shows that include stylized violence and the humiliation of near-naked women. Including, of course, her own daughter, husband… and in which she herself took part. I guess she’s a grandmother. Not sure how old Murphy is… just looked, and I see that he’s 39. I’m quite sure that no one is suggesting or imagining they have actual sex. Unless Todd is.

      1. Cynical Susan

        Todd finds ways to become outraged when it fits his needs. It was clear to me that Bill was not being literal, but in the past Todd has had some interesting reactions about men and women and about older women especially — thus my response. I find it interesting that back in the day, Todd said that he thought Sarah Palin was hot — was that a proper thing to say about a married mother of five? 😉

      2. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

        Patrice: I could have rephrased it in a more humorous manner. You only get one chance as you hit the send key. But in my opinion, these folks are in the public forum and we all have every right to poke fun at them. I realize that many conservatives poked fun at Obama and many of us came down hard on account of the perceived racism involved in the remarks. Although I believe there are no sacred cows in the public and especially political arena, I still found much of it offensive. Call it a double standard or an exception to the rule. Ultimately, we (those of us who protested) put them on the run and it was used successfully for political gain for the left.

        I believe that in politics, there is no such thing as taking prisoners – especially Todd, who, if I had my way, I would rather see him bound but not gagged, and thrown into a snake pit. I would record the screams and make a rock ‘n roll record out of it.

      1. Cynical Susan

        As someone pointed out, McMahon’s business is about brutal men and brutalized women. I assume the women get involved voluntarily, but the whole business is a horrible type of “entertainment” — the young men who respond to the gist of “she deserved it” — do they really know what they’re saying?

        1. W Bush

          Cynical Susan; Wow, did I start this. We all know Todd is a piece of work. He is excitable as most Italians are. (Yes, I too am Italian but a good Italian boy not the perverted type that Todd is.) I don’t think that it was wrong that Todd was exhibiting sexual feelings about Sarah Palin. But Sarah Palin?

          Is he that hard up?

          Maybe he even secretly watched the court drama on Sandusky while harboring interest. Do you get where I’m going.

          He might just be one of the most perverted people around.

          1. Cynical Susan

            “I don’t think that it was wrong that Todd was exhibiting sexual feelings about Sarah Palin….”

            No, I don’t either. But he doesn’t seem to be able to connect what HE says or does or thinks with what he accuses OTHERS of saying or doing or thinking. He calls liberals some pretty bad names, sometimes sexual in nature (whore, slut), all because we don’t agree with him. His outrage or “outrage” sometimes seems pretty fake, just a means of mouthing off in a public forum. I also get a kick out of the way he picks a small item out of a statement, twists it, and then slams it, yet won’t answer serious questions directed to him.

            He reminds me of some European sports “fans” who hate fans of other teams, and who go into rages and tear things up when their own teams lose. It’s an odd kind of loyalty to a team (or party).

          2. Cynical Susan

            Also Bill, forgive me, but I think it’s counterproductive to label the opposition as perverted or interested in child abuse or whatever. It’s like someone here saying Democrats are pornographers or supported Bill Clinton’s dalliances.

          3. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

            Cynical Susan: I agree it is counterproductive. But on these kinds of forums, please tell me who should I try to win over? Answer; Nobody. No matter how erudite and intellectual I may opine, I will convince no one who does not already agree in principle. Hence, I am free to, as Mark Twain once remarked, warm my pen up in hell.

            And for Todd, who is all too familiar with that domain, I preserve my pen.

      2. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

        Patrice: I did quickly view and stop the WWE piece. They way I see it, Linda is a godsend for CT politics. Whenever she runs, we are assured of getting a democrat in. And her money spreads out to the media in advertizing thereby helping the employment situation in CT.

        Please Linda,run for something in the future.

  37. Morgan

    COLIN WE LOVE YOU!!! Thanks so much for being honest about the debate. A lot of the press is saying things like “Well they pretty much talked about the same things.”, or “It was a draw.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? He wiped the floor with her. And P.S. to people who think he’s a dim bulb. The guy graduated from Williams (try getting into that school!) went to Oxford University in England and studied Gov’t & political science for a year and then came home and put himself through UCONN Law School. He’s told us that because of all that he has a bucket full of student loans to pay, but at least he cared about learning the things he was going to work doing. Plus he’s been a lawyer and has spent time as a CT legislator, CT Senator,and US Congressman 3 terms. I think through all this he has learned just a little. Dim bulb he is NOT.

    1. Mike Robinson

      Morgan, since I’m the only one who had previously used the phrase “dim-bulb” on this page I need to tell you I was referring to the wrestling lady as a dim-bulb. Chris looked sharp and on the ball in the debate. You can tell that he lives and works the issues every day. He has the fluency born of 6 years experience. Political experience – a good thing – tell all your friends. Chris Murphy has my vote.

    2. Kristen

      thanks morgan!
      he did all that hard work knowing from an early age that serving his community is what he wanted to do and that it would not make him RICH or FAMOUS!!! Shame on Him??? She’s ridiculous.

  38. Todd Zaino

    Last night Bill from Susan’s blog wrote something garbage about me and Sandusky…which Colin has since removed. Earlier this week Bill made a crude post about Murphy and McMahon being in bed together, and I called him vile. After thinking about it for a while I need to apologize to Bill. Bill, I am sorry for calling you vile, I meant vile on steroids. Just because I don’t drink the Obama, Murphy, Malloy, Kool Aid…you want to lump me into the same group as Sandusky? You truly are a child. Billy knows that he write his tripe, then have me trying to disprove a negative. Two can play that game Billy…do you still beat your partner? Sandusky did get off lightly I believe-he should be made to rot in a small, dark, cold, prison cell for the rest of his life.

    Cynical, at the DNC women were proudly walking around that anti-American, anti-God convention wearing “Sluts Vote” or something of that nature. Sandra Fluke made herself a national figure by jumping up and down demanding enough birth control to fill the closet of a busy cathouse. I believe you have taken my “sluts” and “whore” comments out of context…an old liberal trick… Calling Sarah Palin hot…well I am guilty as charged…just look at her, you’d have to be blind not to find her attractive. Calling someone hot vs. having a grandmother being on top of her opponent in bed, well that’s a totally different thing…that’s Billy being Billy. He can’t help himself, he’s special.

    1. Cynical Susan

      ” Sandra Fluke made herself a national figure by jumping up and down demanding enough birth control to fill the closet of a busy cathouse.”

      Gosh, I wonder where you get your imagery. Oh right, probably that “entertainer” who was found with Viagra in his suitcase for a trip to The Dominican Republic with a bunch of guys.

      ” I believe you have taken my “sluts” and “whore” comments out of context…an old liberal trick… ”

      Um — you have from time to time called liberals these things, have you not? So how is that “out of context?” And yes, I’m an old liberal, I admit it.

      And what the HECK does McMahon being a grandmother have to do with your complaint about Bill’s comment?

    2. Bill from Susan's Blog

      The only thing I will admit to is crossing the line with a reference to Sandasky. That was in error. The rest I stand by. But don’t give me that crap about grandmother holiness. Only you would try and carve out a defense with that remark.

    3. Patrice Fitzgerald

      Todd: Just wondering. Do you know how birth control pills work? You don’t just take them when you feel like having sex. Like… meet hot guy, take pill, jump into bed. No. Birth control pills are taken ALL THE TIME (well, or sometimes you have a week of “blanks,” or only take them three weeks out of four… depending on the type). But you basically take them all month. You could have NO sex at all, but if you want to be protected when you do have sex, you have to take them all the time. The number of pills does not vary depending upon how many sex partners you have, or how many times you do it with your one partner, or whether she’s a grandmother, or who is on top.

      Todd said: “Sandra Fluke made herself a national figure by jumping up and down demanding enough birth control to fill the closet of a busy cathouse.” You’re either on the pill or you’re not. Quantity does not apply. Maybe you could explain this to Rush.

  39. Roland

    Great read, not only Colin’s column, but all the subsequent comments! I know that Chris Murphy and Linda McMahon have 3 more debates scheduled, one of them being tomorrow. Does anyone know if they will be televised? And if so, which channel and what time?

Comments are closed.