Comments on: Linda McMahon: I Will Spend What It Takes

By: Dee

Dee — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:40:55 +0000

Let the liberal naysayers concentrate on the wrestling industry and Linda Mcmahons involvement with the growth of the WWE. We need to focus on creating jobs in CT, eliminating the spectre of bailouts and uncontrolled spending, and reducing taxes. Linda’s plan is one of reducing the size of government and serving the people of Connecticut, and allowing the small business owner an opportunity to succeed and create jobs. We have already seen the current elected administration’s failure to address these issues.

By: stormerF2

stormerF2 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:42:35 +0000

Go get them,Linda. It is good to have a person who is not being paid for by a political action committee,or Union running for office. At least Linda you owe alliances to no one for your race. GM is contributing to Dimocrat campaigns again,and just spent 500,000,000.00 to expand a plant in Mexico where the jobs are.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:21:08 +0000

George hardly acted in the manner of a journalist. Would much prefer to watch someone that is fair and doesn’t insert personal political opinions and beliefs in every comment, question, and body language possible.

By: deadwrestler

deadwrestler — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:10:21 +0000

as her son-in law would say
it is time to play the game

By: alan kardoff

alan kardoff — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:56:45 +0000

Will this be the election that proves how wise the Court’s decision re:
unlimited corporate spending. Some say
this decision was horrendous.
This election will also show if big
money can beat good candidates. In FL
one shady millionaire is spending $$$
to get the GOP governorial nomination.
A seedy billionaire is throwing money
like water to become the Dem. Senate
nominee against a quality Congressman.
With Whitman and Fiona in CA, Scott and Green in FL and McMahon, will the
average person’s vote count anymore?
Nov. is a huge voting test for the USA

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:48:04 +0000

I guess one could consider the “candidate” a hypocrite for her very odd acceptance remarks that “your support can’t be bought” . Exactly what did she spend $24m on then ? Did she buy it, of course she did-

By: talmag

talmag — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:35:46 +0000

It seems that if you have the money you can buy your seat or job in congress or senate and even a mayor of New York. I think there is something wrong when someone has a lot of money to buy the job he/she wants. There should be a limit anyone can spend for any position in the senate, congress or mayoral positions. If this keeps up, only the rich will control us and that is something we do not need. Limits should be imposed and it would make it equal. No amount of money should be able to buy you your job as important as a senator/congressman/mayor.

By: Paulet

Paulet — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:18:03 +0000

How much of Connecticut voters actually voted for her?? 42% of a small portion — how many Dem voters vs. GOP voters and I already don’t watch any of her ads no matter that remote is very quick in my hand — looks like the mudslinging will start in CT that’s what did Nancy Johnson in a few years back — Linda will not be the Senator from Connecticut.

By: tillyerkt

tillyerkt — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:36:34 +0000

A person who spends their own money to get elected (after a successful private career) is more trustworthy than one who sells their soul to get elected. As can be seen by billionaires giving away at half of their wealth there is a point were you are not motivated by money! Those selling their souls are more likely to be motivated by power and wealth. (i.e., Ostentatious spending by the current first family or by tax cheating by Charlie Rangel)

By: Carol

Carol — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:26:55 +0000

As someone who labored in the vineyard of daily news coverage for 35 years, it was hard to mistake Stephanopolous’s opinion of Ms. McMahon during this morning’s interview. His body language alone (slouching with one arm draped behind his chair) was enough to convey disrespect without his interrupting her for pointed questions suggesting she had bought her victory against the Democrat. George was the loser in that interview. He looked more like Bill Clinton’s press secretary than an objective purveyor of the day’s news.