Posted on 09/17/2009 6:37:09 AM PDT by DecoyJames
Then she should stay in business and out of the Republican party.
Shouldn’t that read ‘czargasm’?
Why don’t the repubs register as dems and run in those slots?
Why do the republicans play by a different set of rules?
You can’t win a game if one team has one set of rules and
the other team has a different set of rules.
If they all are on the same team, it's not a game, it's a scrimmage.
Heel move.....
It’s coming
Cheap entertainment. He’s an a-hole but they were damned good at what they did
Any Repub that gives her a vote is crazy.
Well it still stinks!
and I love your screen name CharacterCounts
According to some perfect conservative freepers, you would be considered a liberal or RINO.
Why don’t we judge based on her whole record, not just a tidbit?
Cause "perfect" conservative freepers are always correct, and never EVER get anything wrong. What they say goes, because well their "perfect"
Hypcrites on our side ? .... Never!!! haha
TO ALL: ANY CANDIATE IS BETTER THAN DODD.
No, I think she is running to infiltrate the R party.
Looks like the demrats are sending hard leftists into GOP to make sure the RINOs behave. Interesting turn of events.
I think it just proves what I’ve been saying for a year now—the GOP has been coopted by the Demrat Party (aka left).
It’s not enough that CT is a Democrat state to begin with. Now the Democrats have to run on the Republican ticket also.
“McMahon has stated publicly that she is willing to spend $25 million of her own wealth on the race”
I’m coming to the conclusion that a political campaign is merely an expensive hobby for the wealthy.
Arlen Specter, is that you?
Kentucky is a different matter. That's a conservative state and the GOP could do a lot better. Does the “Clinton supporter” you are talking about have opposition?
You can’t be serious.
Sounds more like a dem mole.
Linda McMahon puts on contrived "fights" where the outcome is already preplanned.
So maybe she knows a thing or two about how the political game is played.
I couldn’t be MORE serious.
As a business person, she may have been in a position to need to support both sides, in support of her own best interests. Monetary support of both sides is not a clincher with me in terms of worthiness of support.
Instead of shrilly decrying what MAY be isolated incidents, I propose that the entirety of her record - including donations, activities, annunciated positions, etc. - be considered before deciding is she is someone worth supporting against an opponent like Chris Dodd (and THAT is a low bar, to me).
If she is too much a RINO after the entirety of the evidence is considered - so be it. But to fail to consider the entirety of the evidence - in a state like CT, in particular - is dereliction, IMO.
Is there some reason why a measured judgment is inappropriate in this case?
(Note: I have not said anything in support or against her - I have merely called for deliberation in forming opinion.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.