The Connecticut news media had a group orgasm last week when retired news anchor Janet Peckinpaugh announced that in relatively short order she had decided to become a Republican and then would save the party from itself and run for Congress in the state's Second Congressional District!

All before breakfast apparently.

The gushing from her former colleagues was sickening, literally, but it didn't appear to impress 2nd District Republicans as much as it did the media. Response from within the district delegation to the May 21 convention where a candidate will be selected to face incumbent Democrat Joe Courtney was less than enthusiastic. Whatever enthusiasm might have initially been generated by her "name recognition," was quickly dampened when delegates learned that Peckinpaugh has been a Republican for only a month or so.

Then word began to circulate that some of Peckinpaugh's so-called "supporters" who have been "urging" her to get involved actually aren't supporting her at all, or at least won't say so in public. That sure didn't help.

While there is a growing refrain within the GOP locally, statewide and nationally that the party should have more women and minorities in elected and leadership positions - a viewpoint I share, by the way - there already is one woman in the 2nd District race, Daria Novak, a former State Department employee. According to polls, delegate counts and money raised, Novak is trailing front-runner Matthew Daly by a substantial margin.

Interestingly, according to scuttlebutt and Connecticut Superior Court records, Novak and Peckinpaugh have at least three things in common - they both are divorced, they both have gone through recent foreclosure proceedings on their homes, and they both are broke. The first issue isn't likely to matter at all to the voters, the second and third are likely to matter a whole bunch.

Peckinpaugh has acknowledged her desperate financial situation, while it takes a little digging to find where Novak stands.

Online court records show that foreclosure proceedings by Wells Fargo Bank against Novak's home were finalized just this March. A summary of the court filings in the case shows it was a lengthy process that began in January 2009, and was ongoing even as she was touring the 2nd district over the past year meeting Republican Town Committee members and assuring us that she is the perfect person to straighten out Washington's financial transgressions.

Late last month another lawsuit was initiated against Novak in Milford Superior Court by the Cohen and Thomas law firm from Derby, which court records show represented Novak during her divorce. The new case is filed in the collections category, indicating perhaps that she owes them or someone they represent some money. Hardly the kind of situation you want to be in when you are just days away from the GOP convention.

I don't know the details of the cases and I don't care to other than for curiosity sake. But the fact that they exist is unsettling.

(In the interest of fairness, I got a voice mail message from Novak after this column was posted. She said it has "inaccuracies" specifically that she has "never had a mortgage in the state of Connecticut" and that "there is an ex-husband involved." I don't intend to get into a pissing match over the nuances of lawsuits here so I'll just invite you, the reader, to do what I did.

Go to this website: http://www.jud.ct.gov/jud2.htm That is the Connecticut Judicial Branch website where you can look up cases that are or were active in Connecticut's courts. Click on the link that says Civil/Family Case Look-up. On the left side of the next page there is a very user-friendly menu that gives you numerous options. Select Party Name Search. That brings up a form. In the section labeled Party Last Name, enter Novak. In the section that says Party First Name enter Daria. The sections for Location and Type of Case are set to All so just leave that alone. Click Search.

Up will come four cases in which Daria Novak is or was a party, three times as a defendant, once as a plaintiff. Three were in New Haven, one, the current case in which she is a defendant, is in Milford. Their docket numbers are: CV-10-6003007-S which is the collections issue; CV-05-4016578-S in which Novak was a defendant in a collections case brought by UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Attorney: TOBIN & MELIEN, 45 COURT STREET, NEW HAVEN, CT 06511. That case was filed in November 2005 and resolved in November 2006 with the judge granting a Plaintiff's motion for an Order For Payments against Novak; FA-07-4025423-S, the divorce case I mentioned earlier in which Novak was the Plaintiff and her presumably ex-husband RAYMOND PICQUET was the defendant; and CV-09-5025992-S, the foreclosure action in which the parties are listed as P (Plaintiff)WELLS FARGO BANK, Attorney: CROOG, MARTHA LAW OFFICE LLC(419166)740 NORTH MAIN STREET, SUITE N, WEST HARTFORD , CT 06117.

and (Defendants)

D RAYMOND PICQUET Self-Rep:1404 NORTHGATE SQ, APT 21,RESTON, VA 20190,
and
D DARIA NOVAK Self-Rep: 51 HAMMONASSETT MDWS RD.,MADISON, CT 06443
and
UNIFUND LLC.

As I said in the first place, I don't care about the specifics of these cases, I care that they exist. I am not about to let this column descend into a he-said, she-said review of Ms. Novak's divorce. I am sure it was unpleasant and has caused her hardship, as most divorces do. I do care that the outfall can have an impact on the race for the 2nd Congressional District. That is why I wrote this column. Now, back to our previously written article.)

Peckinpaugh also is no stranger to the court system. First, in 1999, she won a huge sexual discrimination settlement against the former owners of the WFSB television station in Hartford where she worked as a co-anchor. The award originally was more than $8 million, but according to news reports, when the station said it would appeal the verdict, Peckinpaugh settled for $3.7 million - that's Three Million, Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars.

Even after attorneys' fees she should have been left with about Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars, or thereabouts. Peckinpaugh is 59, nearly a senior citizen in the eyes of the Social Security Administration, and frankly, I think most of us would have been able to do quite well going into our dotage with that kind of money in the bank.

But Peckinpaugh also faced a foreclosure action on her home by Wachovia Bank last year, although she apparently got out from under it by selling her house. The matter was settled just before Christmas in 2009.

Of at least equal interest is a lawsuit that Peckinpaugh filed about six years ago in what appears to have been a business dispute, that has been hanging around the Connecticut judicial system forever. According to the online accounting of the case, it was filed in May 2004, and after six years of activity, inactivity, claims and counterclaims, Peckinpaugh suddenly withdrew it on February 8, this year!

Then in March she signed on as a Republican. Then in April she started getting the word out that she decided to run for Congress. Now in May, she intends to go to the GOP Convention for her coronation. This lady lives in the fast lane!

But in an email to Glastonbury Republican Town Chairman Bill Finn, who is Daly's campaign manager, Peckinpaugh said she also went through her entire savings, her retirement, and now is having a difficult time putting food on the table - and presumably paying the bills too. She told Finn in that email that people will identify with her financial plight in these tough economic times.

I'm not certain on that one. I think it actually could backfire on her since most out-of-work or underemployed people didn't start out the last decade with a cool two million plus.

So why on earth are these ladies running for public office, on platforms that include fiscal responsibility in Congress? Is it just me or is there some form of hypocrisy afoot?

No one in the political arena has touched either woman regarding their finances, but you can bet the farm that if it took me a total of five minutes on the Internet to find out about these cases, Joe Courtney knows all about them too. And while Republican males seem skittish about attacking their female counterparts on issues that would be all over the papers if the situation was reversed, believe me, Courtney, or at least his campaign staff and supporters won't hesitate for a split second.

Democrats, even white male Democrats, are allowed to attack anyone on the other side for any reason, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, race, national origins, height, weight, religion or belief in the 2nd Amendment. White male Democrats are allowed to raise issues with absolute impunity that would generate a media cacophony of BIAS claims if the same issues were raised by white male Republicans.

There is an obvious bias here and frankly I am sick of it. I support a plethora of Republican candidates who are categorized as minorities, of both genders, and will continue to do so as long as they share my values and vote in accordance with them.

But I am sick to death of this attitude that issues that would keep a Republican white male from even thinking about entering a race for elective office are off limits (or fair game depending on your viewpoint) for everyone else. I have myriad friends representing virtually all the major races, religions and ethnic groups, and they are my friends because they are likable people not because of where they or their ancestors were born.

I will tell people if I think they would make a good candidate for public office, and why, and I will tell people if I don't think they would make a good candidate for public office, and why. My reasons always are related to their stances on issues, ability to get their message across in public, and matters that could derail a campaign, such as felonies in their personal backgrounds. My reasoning never has had and never will have anything to do with gender, race or religion.

So even though no one in the Connecticut GOP leadership wants to ask these questions, I will. How do these ladies expect us to enthusiastically support either of their campaigns, when fiscal responsibility is such an issue and both are in the midst of enormous financial strains? They both may be very nice people and they both may be working as hard as possible to straighten out their financial issues. But isn't that where they should put their focus, on their own affairs, not on running for Congress?

I guess this is too touchy a subject for people who are running for office. But I am not running for office. In fact, I am a delegate to the GOP convention and I am not going to vote for anyone who can't stand up to scrutiny. As is the case here. So what gives?

The Obama Administration's assault on individual freedoms and liberties has opened a new front, this time aimed at personal nutrition and the amount of sodium - salt - we ingest as part of our daily diets.

Obama wants the feds to develop regulations governing the amount of salt that food manufacturers can use when they package food, whether it be frozen, canned, vacuum packed or whatever. If you package food and sell it to the public the government wants to say how much salt you can use as a preservative.

This is a response to, and an escalation of, concerns that too much salt in our diets can cause high blood pressure, hypertension, strokes and heart attacks. On one level this may not seem to be such a bad thing, as long as you don't mind the federal government looking over your shoulder at meal time - each meal, every day.

As those of you who have purchased my latest book Granny Snatching, How A 92-year Old Widow Fought The Courts and Her Family to Win Her Freedom are already aware, insufficient salt in our diets also can have adverse impacts on our health. (You can get a signed copy on this website or at www.GrannySnatching.com if you'd like to learn more.)

I was confronted with this issue when my then 91-year-old mother moved in with us in December 2008. She was in good health for the most part, but suffered some nutritional deficiencies due to imbalances in her daily diet, which were corrected by proper nutrition. These included low potassium - hypokalemia - which can cause a plethora of physical and mental problems, and hypothyroidism - an underactive thyroid gland. More on that in a minute.

Salt intake is an issue because in the last 60 years or so, our eating habits have changed drastically. Until the 1950s American families ate far more fresh food, and table salt was a mainstay at mealtime. In addition to providing us with our daily requirement of salt - in the form of sodium chloride - it also was a primary source of iodine, which is an essential nutrient that helps regulate metabolism.

Much of the salt we put into the salt shakers was 'iodized' meaning it had iodine added to it. Canned food, which used salt as a preservative, was common, but as refrigeration became more dependable and efficient - and as more families needed two adults in the workforce, thus limiting the amount of time available to prepare food for dinner - frozen foods, TV dinners, and other forms of packaging took over increasing shares of the market. The salt content went up, but not necessarily the iodine supplement.

In addition to seeing increases in diseases related to blood pressure, doctors also saw spikes in thyroid disorders, as families took the iodized salt off the table in an effort to reduce sodium in their diets.

Metabolism, the means by which our body turns food into energy, can be too fast or too slow depending on the operation of our thyroid glands, and our thyroids operate at optimum efficiency when we ingest trace amounts of iodine.

If the thyroid is not doing enough to regulate our metabolism we can develop hypo-thyroidism, and if it is doing too much we can develop hyper-thyroidism. These are two entirely different conditions and only hypothyroidism is directly impacted by iodine. Hyperthyroidism requires medication, a doctor's care and has far reaching symptoms that aren't the subject of this article.

Symptoms of hypothyroidism can include extreme sensitivity to the cold, dry skin that also is itchy, and a bloated or puffy appearance around the face and neck. Soon after my mother moved in with us I noticed that she complained a lot about the cold, and that she also was complaining of dry, itchy skin. So I looked up the symptoms on the Internet and found everything you could ever want to know about hypothyroidism.

Like many American families we took the salt shaker off the table years ago. I figured we got enough salt, probably far more than we needed, from processed foods, and since we take a multi-vitamin mineral table each day we still were getting enough iodine and other trace elements.

That was not the case with my mother. So we brought back iodized table salt and started her on a multi-vitamin mineral tablet too, one that is specifically for older adults. Within a matter of days her symptoms disappeared.

The government is right to have concerns about what is in the food sold to the American public. I have long believed that there are far too many ingredients that we can't pronounce, much less understand, in the packaged food we purchase. I go to great lengths to avoid prepared foods as much as possible, using the harvest from my garden to supplement our meals during the summer, and freezing as much as possible for the winter.

When I absolutely, positively have to buy packaged food I take an extreme measure that I recommend to everyone else in deciding which brands pose the least potential harm. I read the labels.

I would much rather see the Obama Administration initiate an across-the-board education program that encourages people to read the packaging, and understand the meanings of the ingredients. I would rather see the Obama Administration require all food manufacturers to spell out exactly what all that scientific mumbo-jumbo means, in understandable English, and what impact it could have on our health if we eat it.

Most nutrition experts say that two grams of salt a day is sufficient for the average diet. I use considerably less, about half that much actually and it doesn't seem to have had a negative impact on me. But I encourage people to see their doctors, get an annual checkup and ask the mundane questions, like "How much salt do you recommend for me, at my age, weight and body composition, Doctor?"

How hard is that? Do we have to have a government program for everything? Especially one that focuses on one aspect of our nutritional life while ignoring another that is equally important?

Education and a little individual effort will go a long way here, while avoiding another increase in the size of the federal bureaucracy and the taxes needed to support it.

A new poll by Rasmussen Reports shows Democratic US Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal's supposedly impenetrable ratings among Connecticut voters dropping dramatically, and support for at least one GOP challenger soaring.

While Blumenthal's popularity is dropping like a rock, former US Congressman Rob Simmons is surging, narrowing the gap between his campaign and Blumenthal's to an entirely manageable 14 points. The Rasmussen poll shows Blumenthal at 52 percent to Simmons' 38 percent, a 6-point drop for Blumenthal and a corresponding 6-point increase for Simmons in the last month.

This is bad news for Blumenthal, currently the state Attorney General and arguably the best known politician in the state, because thus far Simmons has not been advertising to the general public at all. Rather, he is focusing his efforts on the local Republican Town Committees and convention delegates who will be selecting their preferred candidate for the US Senate race at the state convention in May.

This also is not good news for Simmons' main GOP opponent, Linda McMahon, co-owner of World Wrestling Entertainment, who is five points behind Simmons in the Rasmussen poll, with voters giving Simmons a significant edge in his ability to defeat Blumenthal.

McMahon's unfavorable ratings also are climbing dramatically. Her overall unfavorable rating now stands at 45%, with 27% "very" unfavorable. Pollsters and campaign professionals say the "very unfavorable" number is key in terms of measuring the intensity of opposition to her, and how many voters she has little to no chance of winning over. Her "very unfavorable" number has been marching upward steadily from 14% in February, to 21% in March, to 27% now.

What's worse, especially from the standpoint of the McMahon camp, is that her campaign's first-quarter 2010 financial report shows that she has spent $14 million dollars thus far, $8 million of it in the last three months, in a massive advertising blitz to convince Connecticut voters that she is a viable GOP candidate.

McMahon's campaign seems to be heading in the direction of the vast majority of other self-funded candidates who throw millions upon millions of their own dollars into vanity campaigns, only to lose on election day. In Connecticut, Democrat Ned Lamont's woebegone campaign against Sen. Joseph Lieberman comes to mind.

Simmons meanwhile, is raising considerably less, but is using it far more effectively and his money is coming from more than ten thousand individual voters who certainly will be there for him in November.

Despite her lavish spending, however, McMahon also has increasingly come under scrutiny from the mainstream media. In fact three issues that could certainly have an impact in future polls surfaced in state newspapers last week. These included allegations of interfering with a 1990's federal investigation of World Wrestling Entertainment which she owns with her husband; inaccurate answers to a questionnaire she filled out for Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell before Rell appointed her to the state Board of Education last year (including getting her college major wrong); and lesser issues of hypocrisy in her claim to be a political outsider when she has spent millions on top-of-the-line Washington lobbying firms to press her issues in the nation's Capitol.

McMahon also is the object of continuing ridicule over the name of her luxury yacht the Sexy B**ch! I use the asterisks, but the second word is spelled out on her yacht.

It would seem that McMahon's inability to buy the hearts and minds of Connecticut's voters is weighing heavily on her campaign. This was apparent considering the haste with which she issued a press release touting a fluff piece done on her by the New York Times this week, two days after the Rasmussen Report was issued.

The Times article, which primarily discussed Blumenthal's gaffes and weaknesses, also anointed McMahon as the GOP candidate who will face him, not mentioning Simmons even though he leads her in the latest poll.

However, considering The Times' reputation among many conservative voters as a despicable left-wing rag and propaganda tool for far-left national Democrats that delights in exposing our armed forces and intelligence agents to potential harm, McMahon's decision to promote the Times' back-handed endorsement may not have been a smart move.

It is far too early to make any predictions about where all this is headed. We are talking about politics after all and many things can and do happen with great haste and frequency.

But I will point out that of the three front-runners for their respective party's nomination, Simmons, McMahon and Blumenthal, only Simmons has regularly been through the wringer of voter examination and emerged with his career intact.

Blumenthal has not had a serious challenge to his status as Attorney General in more than a decade, possibly two. Linda McMahon has never run for public office and there are strong indications that the media has only scratched the surface of issues that could further erode her support among likely voters.

As the polls are showing, Blumenthal is not invincible. But if the New York Times is successful in pressing McMahon as its chosen candidate, he at least will be able to counter any charges she lodges against him, with counter-charges of his own against her. It is unlikely that she will be able to overcome his long-term popularity, even if his margin is slipping.

Simmons on the other hand, has been through a series of brutal campaigns, winning eight out of nine, despite Democratic voter registrations that always favored his opponent in his district.

If Simmons faces Blumenthal, the campaign will have to focus on real issues, which would be great for the voters, but not so great for Blumenthal. Then again, the New York Times and other liberal news outlets already know that.

If it was any other politician in any other race, Linda McMahon would be holding her head in her hands, contemplating withdrawing her bid to be the Republican nominee to fill the Senate seat now held by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd.

"Any other politician in any other race" are the operative words here.

First, the Hartford Courant revealed that McMahon had - how can we say this nicely - lied on her sworn application form when she asked Gov. Jodi M. Rell to appoint her to the state Board of Education last year. That appointment apparently was to give McMahon some form of government experience credibility.

But the form, obtained by Courant reporter Jon Lender through a Freedom of Information request, revealed that McMahon apparently doesn't know what she studied in college, she didn't know that she testified before Congress on the highly charged issue of steroid abuse in sports and her World Wrestling empire, nor that she had ever written anything for public consumption. She has a degree in French, but she thought it was English; she wrote for her corporation's fan magazines under a pen name but didn't think to mention it; and if you don't know that steroid abuse is controversial - even if your company hasn't been investigated by Congress and brought up on charges by the Justice Department - then you really aren't paying attention.

One would presume that an applicant for appointment to the state Board of Education would be paying attention, at least some of the time.

McMahon abruptly stepped down from the State position after receiving a call from the Courant asking about the discrepancies in her sworn answers, but she said her resignation had nothing to do with the Courant's investigation.

Hard on the heels of the Courant's revelations was an article in the Connecticut Post showing that while McMahon's ongoing television ad blitz portrays her as an outsider who wants to go to Washington to put things in order, she actually has been paying big, big bucks to powerful insider D.C. lobbying firms for years when she needs to get her point across to Congress. Hardly an outsider looking in; more like an insider dressed in outsiders' clothing.

Scarcely had the ink dried on the Post story than the New London Day ran an article at the end of the week revealing that McMahon had tipped off a WWE doctor that he might be might be a target of Justice Department investigators looking for evidence that he provided steroids to WWE "wrestlers." The Justice Department probe of steroid abuse in McMahon's company fell apart when it couldn't provide documentation to prove its allegations.

So in one week we have false sworn statements on a public document, followed by revelations of hypocrisy in campaign ads, (OK, so what's new; this is after all politics) and then revelations of witness tampering in a federal probe.

Three strikes? Up to bat and back to the dugout? Big whiff?

Is she? Considering the potential impact of these stories in the GOP race for the Senate nomination you'd think they would be Page One news all across the state. You'd think that state GOP leaders would be calling McMahon to headquarters for intense, hushed, private discussions about how she is making a mockery of the candidate selection process and how it would be better for everyone if she took her $50 million and went back to Greenwich, or for a cruise on Sexy B**ch, her luxury yacht.

But the articles received scant attention outside of their originating newspapers' circulation areas. I didn't see the Post article until a friend sent me a link to it; I didn't see the Day article until I found a version of it buried in the Journal Inquirer's inside pages Saturday; and I didn't see Jon Lender's blog article reproduced anywhere except in his blog.

What gives? Is this all part of what really appears to be shaping up as a conspiracy to get McMahon the nomination so the likely Democratic nominee, Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal, will be a shoo-in?

Have the millions of dollars - mostly to be spent in campaign advertising - promised by McMahon totally corrupted not only the Republican nominating process, but the alleged "journalism" practiced by many of the state's most influential newspapers too? Are the advertising departments now totally in control of the newsrooms?

Let's take a look. The reporters are obviously doing their jobs, yet my experience in the world of print journalism - nearly two decades as a reporter, editor and columnist - indicate that while one or another of these stories might be temporarily ignored by competing news outlets until they could confirm the details on their own, the totality of this week's revelations should have created a huge buzz by now.

But I don't see anyone anywhere talking about it on the local or national political shows. McMahon's candidacy has definitely caught the attention of national Republicans who believe her opponent Rob Simmons can beat Blumenthal. At the national level McMahon is regarded as a joke or even a Democratic plant who will gladly use her millions to prevent the Republicans from winning a crucial tenth Senate seat this year, needed to blunt the Democrats' rush to "European socialism, aka, Communism light."

So why is there a big HO-HUM amongst the wider chorus of political pundits? That McMahon has succeeded in splitting the GOP is obvious. She is paying her campaign manager a reported $300,000, and her communications manager (who is the wife of GOP state Chairman Chris Healy) a reported $125,000. Both salaries are well above the going scale for that work in this state. She has co-opted Healy whose objectivity is being questioned across the state, despite his protestations that his wife can work for anyone she wants at any salary she can command and it won't have any impact on his actions.

McMahon has attempted, successfully in many cases, to buy good will from local Republican Town Committees with donations of $250 and $500, ostensibly to help elect local Republicans 18 months from now, but realistically considered to be for securing convention delegates who are chosen by the local RTCs.

Her millions will certainly help the bottom lines of newspapers, and television and radio stations that run her ads. But have we become such a coldly cynical state, and more to the point such a coldly cynical party, that we will continue to allow our country to be sold down the drain in Washington for the chance to be in line for some of her political welfare?

From this vantage point it is increasingly clear that while Chris Dodd decided not to run because the voters didn't like the appearance of conflicts, cronyism and corruption that erupted in recent years, he is looking like a choir boy when compared to Linda McMahon.

Some on the national level are saying McMahon's campaign is a joke. But if the real story on her background continues to be relegated to political blogs and the deep inside pages of local newspapers, the joke won't be on Linda McMahon, it will be on the voters, and we won't think it's all that funny when we finally see the truth.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Connecticut Republicans received some welcome news from their national colleagues Wednesday night - "We need to recover 10 US Senate seats, Connecticut is definitely in play, and only Rob Simmons can win!"

The message was delivered by national Republican strategist Dick Morris to an enthusiastic crowd at a jam-packed, high-end fund-raiser for Simmons at a private home in Greenwich. Surrounded by couples and individuals who made significant contributions to attend - the minimum suggested donation was $1,000 - Morris waxed prolific on the status of national politics and how Connecticut fits into the overall puzzle.

But Morris really caught the crowd's attention when he delivered the welcome news that on the national level Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is considered not just vulnerable, but beatable - if Simmons emerges as the GOP candidate. Otherwise, the country will continue its downward financial spiral that will result in annual deficits in the trillions of dollars within a few years.

Referring to the current health-care debacle, which ultimately will cost tens of thousands of jobs nationally, many of them in Connecticut, as well as other out-of-control spending initiatives forced on Americans by Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, Morris said it is not enough to win back nine Senate seats.

"Joe Biden will just keep coming down to break the tie," Morris noted. But by recovering 10 Senate seats, a Republican majority can hold the line on any further efforts to turn America into a European-style socialist government (or for that matter a Chinese-style communist government), and halt the Obama Administration's headlong plunge into financial ruin.

Morris also displayed an in-depth knowledge of Blumenthal's political history and especially his weaknesses. Simmons noted that Blumenthal has not run a seriously contested campaign in well over a decade, but that will end this fall if Simmons wins the GOP nomination.

On that issue Morris made no effort to hide his disdain for the campaign of Simmons' main opponent, Linda McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, who took a leave from her job last year to run for the Senate seat. But that was when incumbent Senator Chris Dodd was still thought to be the Democrats' candidate. Dodd has since announced his retirement and Blumenthal - considered much tougher to beat than Dodd - has emerged as the front-runner for the Democrat nomination.

Until last year McMahon also was considered a major contributor to Democratic candidates and Political Action Committees, including Rahm Emanuel who was working for Obama's election and now serves as his White House Chief of Staff. But McMahon now says she will spend as much as $50-million of her vast fortune to convince voters that she should be a Republican Senator.

If the reaction of the Republicans in Greenwich Wednesday night is an accurate barometer, McMahon may have had some success in fooling the general public with her millions of dollars worth of mass mailings and television commercials, but not Republican leaders and especially Republican contributors.

Many in the crowd discussed McMahon's contributions to Democratic causes, which helped eliminate all Republican Congressional representatives in Connecticut, giving Democrats just enough votes to pass Obama's nationalization of the health care insurance industry.

Other comments focused on McMahon's most recent headlines involving the name of her luxury yacht - The Sexy B**ch! When questioned by reporters on the name of her yacht, McMahon's campaign initially responded that Sexy B**ch is OK with the US Coast Guard which approved the name, thus it should be OK with everyone else. That statement was followed by a clarification that the name Sexy B**ch came from McMahon's husband Vincent, presumably meaning if it is OK with him it is OK with her!

The upshot of the evening's commentary was that a McMahon candidacy would be a disaster, leading to a certain Blumenthal victory, but that Simmons' extensive experience in economic issues, national security, and foreign relations would give him the edge over Blumenthal. The message was received with an enthusiasm that has been lacking in Connecticut's GOP ranks in recent months.

Some GOP insiders, buying into the Democrats' propaganda that Blumenthal is invincible, have been saying they should just nominate McMahon, even though she is a sure loser, to take advantage of - and presumably get their hands on - some of the millions she will spend on her campaign.

But with national Republicans supporting Simmons, and spreading the message that Blumenthal can be beaten - and must be beaten - the defeatist strategy of conceding the Senate seat to Blumenthal while separating McMahon from a large chunk of her wrestling fortune loses whatever minimal credibility it may have had.

Simmons still has a long way to go, first by winning the nomination at the May GOP convention, and then beating McMahon in the primary that she threatens to wage in the summer.

Some of those who seem willing to throw the state and the nation to the dogs just to line their own pockets also are claiming that Simmons needs to match McMahon dollar per dollar to win the nomination. That isn't necessarily true. He will have to spend more money on advertising to the wider party membership of course, but so far his battle is within the party, and particularly with those who will be delegates to the May convention.

McMahon meanwhile has been advertising to the general public and spreading some of her funds around to Republican Town Committees in the state, apparently hoping it will bring her some goodwill and delegates. (Officially the donations to RTCs - typically in the range of $250 to $500 - are to help elect municipal candidates in the November 2011 elections 18 months from now - not to attract votes for the 2010 convention, primary and election. Oh, and McMahon gave $500 to the chairman of my local town committee last month, but this month the committee voted unanimously to give it right back!)

Nonetheless if Wednesday's gathering in Greenwich is an indicator of things to come, Simmons will be on the receiving end of some serious assistance from national-level Republicans if it comes down to a primary battle, and beyond if he emerges victorious.

McMahon, despite her tens of millions of personal wealth to spend on a job that pays $174,000, can't even begin to compete with Simmons on the numbers of people who have supported their campaigns. She apparently will go it alone, with the vocal backing of some Connecticut Republicans, especially those on her payroll, but little in the way of meaningful support.

In case you missed it, there is a new You Tube commercial in Connecticut's US Senate race for the Republican nomination, produced by the Rob Simmons campaign, targeting his opponent, Linda McMahon, CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment until she temporarily stepped aside to run her campaign.

After you watch it, I have a question for you.



World Wrestling Entertainment, The WWE, - better known as the McMahon family - is charged in many places far and wide with making hundreds of millions of dollars from the sacrifices, blood, and in some cases deaths of its employees, as shown in the video above.

Linda McMahon also was known as a big donor to Democratic candidates and causes until last year when she got into the Senate race, as a Republican, and ponied up more than $30,000 in one shot to the national Republican Senate committee so she could say she gives equally to both parties.

Now McMahon is handing out thousands of dollars in relatively small amounts to Republican Town Committees, claiming her political welfare payments are intended to help elect local Republican candidates.

Well, the municipal elections actually were LAST year, and her money usually came too late to help. The next municipal elections are in 2011, a year after the vote for a new US Senator and we'll just have to wait and see if Ms. McMahon will be shelling out money to local town committees for that election.

But even though I believe these $250 and $500 donations make the point that she thinks the local Republicans can be bought, and bought cheaply at that, some people are lapping up the money like a thirsty dog at the water dish. Some are even turning on Simmons, forgetting everything he did for them in years past and stabbing him in the back, presumably in hopes of getting a permanent spot on the McMahon welfare line.

I find this insulting. In my community McMahon donated $500 - last month - which comes to about thirty-three cents per registered Republican, or nearly fifteen dollars per member of the Republican Town Committee - if in fact wealth distribution was her intent.

In years past when I was a reporter covering the police beat in Hartford I often worked with the vice squad. Checking with some people who still have a working knowledge these matters, I was informed that in certain red light districts fifteen dollars will get you a wink and a nod from a streetwalker, but not much more. Which pretty much tells you what Linda McMahon thinks of my community and the Republicans who live here.

That then raises this question. Given what has happened to other, far better paid WWE employees in the past, what makes the people who are kissing up to McMahon think they will be treated any better if she can really buy this election? History repeats folks. And history in this case reflects a lot of people being crippled or dying after working for the McMahon's.

From that perspective, history doesn't look very good. But hey, at least the wrestlers got to live their fantasy lives for a few years before they died young, leaving children, families and debts. They did, didn't they? Maybe?

So maybe the people who are sooooo happy that McMahon tossed them a few bucks, like alms to a beggar, will have a few fantasy moments of their own before their political careers come crashing down to a premature, untimely end. Hope springs eternal.

Seriously, are you unhappy with Congress passing this debacle called Universal Health Care and Obama gleefully signing a law that fundamentally changes the United States of America?

If you are, you can thank Linda McMahon, the alleged "Republican" now running for the GOP nomination in Connecticut to replace Chris Dodd as US Senator!

I bet that right now you're saying Why, how can that be? She's a Republican, isn't she? She's a successful businesswoman even if she does deal in gratuitous violence, soft porn, and debasement of women and the handicapped! How could she possibly be linked in any way, however tenuous, to passage of the Democrats' bill to take over America's medical insurance industry?

Simple. Money. That's what she pursues, that's what she has tons of and that is what she uses to get her way, both in business and in politics. And that is why she is linked to passage of the medical insurance takeover legislation.

McMahon sends her campaign staffers out to Republican Town Committees around the state where they regurgitate the mantra that she donates equally to both political parties as part of "the cost of doing business." I personally heard this from a McMahon staffer a couple of months ago.

But is this mantra true? Well lets take a look at how her "equal donations" favored Democrats during election campaigns, as opposed to during off years when no one was running a federal race.

First, we should note that in Connecticut, where McMahon is running, the GOP lost its last Congressman in 2008 when moderate Republican Chris Shays was defeated in the 4th Congressional District by Democrat Jim Himes. Two years earlier Republican Rob Simmons lost to Democrat Joe Courtney in the 2nd District by 83 votes, and simultaneously Nancy Johnson, the long-time Representative from the 5th District was soundly defeated by Democrat Chris Murphy.

That means that the Connecticut Congressional delegation is totally Democrat. Connecticut has five districts, including the aforementioned 2nd, 4th and 5th, plus the 1st where Pelosi Puppet John Larson has ruled for decades, with ultra-liberal Democrat Rosa DeLauro representing the 3rd.

Every single one of these Democrats - five in all - voted for Obama's misnamed "health care reform," which coincidentally passed by five votes. Aren't all the independents and cross-over Republicans who voted for these guys proud of themselves now? Think about this for a moment; if Simmons, Johnson and Shays were still there, I wouldn't be writing this column because that bill would never have had a chance of passing.



So where does McMahon come in? Let's take a look at information I found on the McMahon for Senate website.

In 2006 when Republicans Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons lost to Democrats who ultimately voted for the health care bill, McMahon gave a whopping $500 to Nancy Johnson, nothing to Simmons, and $1000 to Shays who won that year. But she gave Ten Thousand Dollars to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee which was waging all-out war against Connecticut's Republicans!

As noted, that year Simmons lost by 83 votes, and only Shays survived the Democrat onslaught that was funded in part by McMahon. She also gave two grand to Joe Lieberman, listing him as an independent although he is now safely ensconced back in the Democratic fold. McMahon actually donated as much to a Republican running in Massachusetts - $500 - as she gave to Nancy Johnson.

In 2007, an off year for national elections, she gave $1,000 to Shays, presumably for his 2008 race, but FIVE THOUSAND to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Two-Thousand Five Hundred to Rahm Emanuel's Our Common Values Political Action Committee.

In 2008 she gave Shays another grand and a measly five-hundred-dollars to the Republican National Committee. But she easily topped that total with an additional $2,300 to Rahm Emanuel, who was working to get Barack Obama nominated, then elected. Emanuel is now Obama's chief of staff and a major architect of a socialized American society.

As a reminder, 2008 was the year Shays lost to Himes, and GOP candidate David Cappiello got his head handed to him on a silver platter in Murphy's 5th District, despite a campaign visit from President Bush and a big fund-raiser at Henry Kissinger's estate in western Connecticut. That also was the year Connecticut went totally Democratic, which set up Sunday's travesty posing as a restructuring of America's health care system.

(Note, we still have the best health care in the world, and the "system" could have gone a long way toward being "fixed" if Congress had merely opened up inter-state bidding for health care policies.)

Now, McMahon was a big noise in Democratic donations going back to the 1990's, but in 2009, wonder of wonders, McMahon announced that she was running for the US Senate, as a REPUBLICAN!

To pave the way for her campaign, in April 2009, McMahon gave Connecticut's GOP State Central Committee $2,000, which certainly endeared her to the party leaders. (She later hired Cappiello as her campaign manager at an unheard of $300,000; and the wife of Connecticut's GOP state chairman to do her campaign communications at $125k!)

Then on August 4, 2009, just before the official announcement that she was running for the US Senate, McMahon made a donation to the National Republican Senatorial Committee for THIRTY-THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS!

That in turn suddenly transformed Linda McMahon from a Democratic donor to a Republican donor as well as a US Senate candidate! That one massive donation, that was nowhere to be seen when Republican candidates in Connecticut really could have used it, gives McMahon the wiggle room to make the claim that she donates to the GOP as much as or even more than to the Democrats!

On an effectiveness scale, however, the Democrats come out way, way ahead. Her donation history, as far as the GOP is concerned, is akin to arriving at a house fire after the building is destroyed and spraying water on the cold embers for a few hours.

So there you have it. From the WWE to McMahon's pocket, to the Democratic PACs and candidates, to the US House of Representatives, to the just-passed health care travesty. Thank you Linda McMahon, may we please have another?

Oh wait, there is "another!" The Second Amendment! Are you an NRA supporter? Does the right to keep and bear arms mean something to you? Then take a look at how Connecticut's Democratic delegation, funded to a large degree by Linda McMahon, fares on the NRA ratings.

District 1: JOHN LARSON - F; District 2: JOE COURTNEY - D+; District 3: ROSA DeLAURO - F; District 4: JIM HIMES - ?; District 5; CHRIS MURPHY - D. Not a single grade over D+, and one question mark, which means the candidate "refused to answer the NRA-PVF candidate questionnaire, often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners' and sportsmen's rights." The section in quotes came straight from the NRA website.

To date, Linda McMahon has spent more than $6 million of her own money to buy the GOP nomination, with another reporting period ending soon. That has given her a temporary edge in the public opinion polls, but literally no movement against presumed Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal.

I say temporary because now that she is the GOP front-runner, we can expect the media to take a much closer look at her, what she stands for, and whether she really is the best Republican candidate in Connecticut. Stay tuned.

The Obama Administration is pulling out all stops to pass, by hook or by crook, its takeover of the American medical insurance industry - under the heading of "health care reform."

The tactics now being employed, which forced the whore-like position switch by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich earlier today, include wholesale disregard for the dictates of the US Constitution, a model document that has served our country for more than two centuries. This includes the so-called Slaughter Rule named for Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y, (a New York Democrat, what a surprise) who wants House members to vote on a procedure that will enable the Senate to pass the bill, without the House actually voting on its provisions.

Slaughter's Dean-like Scream? Thanks AP.

So much for the US Constitution which requires that the House and Senate both pass legislation before it goes to the president. Under the Slaughter Rule the house would "deem" the bill passed without actually voting on it. Find the word "deem" in the Constitution regarding passage of legislation, would you please?

It's easy to see that Obama never served in the military, never actually "served" anywhere that he didn't get a fat paycheck for his "service." He obviously doesn't care one whit about the troops serving under him, nor how they will fare under his dictates. I mean this guy doesn't even know that Marine Corps and Corpsmen are pronounced CORE, not CORPSE!

These tactics have aroused the anger of the American public to a level that I have never seen in my lifetime, and are certain to seal the ouster of dozens of Democrat Congressmen in the elections this fall. But it is obvious that the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrat leadership - Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate - could care less how many rank and file troops are killed off in the battle (figuratively speaking of course) as long as they get what they want.

Reid has already passed the thin ice threshold with voters in Nevada, and in fact is flailing around in frigid water as far as his re-election chances are concerned. Pelosi is hoping she can survive in her liberal California district and Obama is certain that the average American voter is so stupid that by 2012 when he is up for re-election we will have forgotten all about this. Which says far more about Obama than it does about the average American voter.

The Obama Administration's scorched earth tactics are reminiscent of communist attacks going all the way back to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. The Bolsheviks (communists) and numerous other political entities were united in overthrowing the autocracy run by the Romanov Czars. A major unifying factor was the Russian Army's estimated 8-10 million deaths in World War I fighting due to incompetent leadership.

But once the Czar was overthrown, the competing parties turned against each other and civil war broke out. Estimated deaths before the Bolshevik's ultimately prevailed? Another 10 million! But it wasn't an issue then because they got what they wanted.

Then we have Stalin murdering another 10 million Ukrainians in 1933 by sending the Soviet Army in to rob all their food at harvest time, causing starvation of Biblical proportions.

Then we have the Spanish Civil War where some 3,000 idealistic American communists went to Spain to fight on the side of their communist brethren and two-thirds of them became casualties - as usual due to inept leadership - but didn't achieve their stated goal.

Then we have World War II where the Russian Army was so poorly led and equipped that the communists suffered an estimated 24 million deaths with about 14 million occurring in the civilian population, including 1 million Jews, and the remainder in the military. That is 300 percent higher than German casualties in the same period.

In the Korean War the communist north and China combined lost an estimated six hundred thousand troops with about a quarter-million from the North Korean Army and the remainder from China. Another 1.5 million northern civilians were killed, in addition to nine hundred thousand civilians in the south when the North initially overran virtually the entire country.

In Vietnam, once again, the entirety of the the 70,000 Viet Cong guerrilla force was wiped out, and an estimated 1.5 million northern communist troops were killed, far in excess of the losses in the south. But as in Korea and Russia before that, the communist leaders hung on, regardless of the cost, as long as they got what they wanted in the end, and they personally weren't affected.

Has anyone else noticed that the Obama Administration and its propaganda arm, The American Terrorist Media, have stopped talking about casualties in the War on Terror now that a communist is in the White House? How did a communist get nominated anyway? Isn't communism illegal in the United States? If somehow it became politically acceptable, it certainly is time to make it illegal again, with accompanying punishment for its proponents.

We can start with Kucinich who claims he is now voting for a bill that he doesn't agree with - he said it doesn't go as far as he'd like but he will vote for it. He says that it should provide the groundwork "Hopefully for comprehensive health care reform." What a liar.

Even with Kucinich defecting, which isn't hard for someone like him, it is nowhere certain that this takeover of the medical insurance industry will succeed. No one even knows what is in this so-called bill, or even if there is one. And many people know it will not reduce costs, certainly not as much as they would come down if we could just shop across state lines for medical insurance like we do for homeowners and car insurance.

But Obama, Reid and Pelosi don't care what happens to their troops as long as they somehow hang on and they get what they want. What they want is total destruction of the United States of America as it now exists, and what is really funny is that they eventually will go down the tubes along with everyone else, even if they are successful.

Because while they think they are in charge they aren't. They are just the most visible of the "useful idiots," and once they are no longer useful, they will find themselves on the outside looking in too.

It would be a classic example of poetic justice if Pelosi, Reid and Obama were ousted by their superiors in the Comintern, and then had to face trial with the former legislators who lost their positions under these tools serving as the jury.

Yeah, I'd like to see that if this travesty passes. I'd like to see that anyway. I'll even volunteer for jury duty.

This is just too good! There is no way I was going to restrain myself from passing it along. Thanks to YouTube and PJTV for a few moments of levity - and political prognosticating!

A friend sent me the following video and asked that I help spread it on the Internet. I am doing as he requested. Watch it and you will understand why.

Earlier this month I wrote a post noting that Linda McMahon's World Wrestling Entertainment operation was coming under sustained media fire for a long history of "skits" that include violence to women, simulated sexual acts inside the ring, and mockery of people with mental disadvantages.

McMahon, co-owner of the WWE, is running as a Republican for the US Senate seat being vacated by Democratic Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd. To overcome her myriad political deficiencies - including supporting Barack Obama's chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel with cash donations last year, and working against Republicans to keep them out of office - she is pouring up to 50 million dollars of her vast wrestling fortune into the campaign.

Nonetheless, McMahon is running behind former US Congressman Rob Simmons for the GOP nomination, who has nowhere near her money but still is considered to be far more likely to beat Dodd's replacement, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Anyway, the focus of my Feb. 10 article was a You Tube video of a WWE production, showing two very lovely women stripping down to their very skimpy underthings and proceeding to fondle and kiss each other until two very ugly male wrestlers beat the crap out of them. I used a headline that came from the video, wherein the WWE boasted that "sex and violence always sell."

Wrong! Really wrong. At the end of my article I noted - with a wink and a nudge - that the video and headline probably would generate tons of hits on my website, maybe more than ever before. That is where I was wrong, and presumably so is the WWE. I got a bit of a spike, but frankly, it was more like a blip.

I check my website analytics every day to see what readers are interested in, and where they come from, and I have had many, many far more active days. Which, as I think about it is a tribute to my readers, because they obviously didn't forward the link on to very many other readers.

But what, we must now ask ourselves, should we think about the WWE business model? Do sex, and violence and bullying the weak always sell? Is that really what most people want to see?

Linda McMahon told MSNBC recently that 16 million people tune in to the WWE's productions every week. That accounts for only about five percent of the American public, which isn't really all that much. Many other forms of entertainment have far more regular viewers. So, is the WWE correct in exploiting women and the disadvantaged?

There is a bigger reason for asking this question, that being China and the WWE's presence there.

As astute observers of the international scene you probably are aware that China holds about 1.4 trillion dollars in US debt, more than any other country, and could shut us down in a heartbeat.

You also are probably aware that in the past three years China hit one of our weather satellites with a laser beam, just to show that they could do it; that China was given access to banned electronic software during the Clinton administration that provided it with a massive leap in missile guidance technology; and that it stole our sonar and stealth aircraft technology. You probably know that two years ago a Chinese submarine surfaced in the Pacific Ocean not just within torpedo range of one of our aircraft carriers, but actually within sight! And the US Navy didn't know the submarine was there!

Late last year another American ship, towing a sonar "sled" crammed with our most advanced underwater locator technology, pulled it right across the bow of a Chinese submarine north of the Philippines and again didn't know the sub was there.

Then when President Obama announced that the US was going ahead with a sale of defensive weaponry to Taiwan (the "other" Chinese who are allies of the US,) Red China's military started openly discussing calling in the US debt and bankrupting us.

So what does this have to do with McMahon?

On February 6, the Vernon, Connecticut Republican Town Committee sponsored a Lincoln Day breakfast and invited both McMahon and Rob Simmons to speak. McMahon, with zero foreign relations experience, tried to pull a "gotcha" on Simmons by telling the audience that she personally opened the WWE Shanghai China office in 2007, and therefore she has an inside knowledge of the communist Chinese culture.

Bad move. Because when Simmons got up to speak he noted that as a CIA operative for a decade after he served in Vietnam, he was sent on many difficult and dangerous missions, including in China! Then he thanked McMahon for bringing up the subject - in fluent Mandarin Chinese! Here, take a look for yourself.



This raises several issues for me, the first of which is that McMahon and/or her staff presumably did a lousy job of reviewing Simmons' background or she never would have challenged him on China expertise in an open forum. Are they that sloppy on other issues too?

But more troubling is the position McMahon would put us in if she is elected to the US Senate while her family corporation is trying to expand its business inside Red China.

Remember, regardless of the Chinese government's edging toward Democracy, it still is a totalitarian country with a state-controlled media. Obviously, the McMahon family corporation, WWE, wants access to the vast markets available in that country. Consider this: the WWE reaches 16 million people each week in the United States, but with only 25 percent penetration in China it would reach the equivalent of the entire US population with each broadcast!

The WWE sponsors a monthly pay-per-view show that costs approximately $50 for those willing to tune in and part with their hard-earned money. If every single one of the 16 million weekly viewers bought the monthly pay-per-view package the WWE would gross about $800 million each month. Trust me, they don't get anywhere near that many viewers - but they still do very well, considering that McMahon and her husband Vincent are supposed to be worth a half-billion dollars or more.

But in China, using reruns of old US pay-per-view events to save on production costs, the WWE could do a pay-per-view event each week, charge as little as the equivalent of $4 US, and with only 25 percent penetration, gross more than a billion dollars with each show!

Think of the implications of making that much money that quickly without incurring any extra costs for equipment, locations and talent. Think of the possibilities if the WWE was given the go-ahead to develop Chinese "talent" and put on shows that are produced there!

But how do you acquire that access? Remember, this is a totalitarian country with a state-controlled media, where access is not a factor of free enterprise, but rather of the government granting permission.

Now think about the leverage the Chinese government would have over Linda McMahon, her family and her corporation if she was a US Senator. This would be a national security risk - no, it would be a national security nightmare.

Considering that McMahon is throwing money around the state to buy delegate votes in the Republican Town Committees - oh, sorry, it's to help the RTCs get Republican candidates elected, wink, wink, nudge, nudge - I don't think she would be averse to taking some direction from the Chinese Communists if she stood to reap billions from the WWE's Chinese operations.

Even if you are a Linda McMahon backer you have to admit she would have far more than the appearance of a conflict of interest. She would have to recuse herself on any vote that had even the slightest impact on China.

She wouldn't even have to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, or make an overt vote, to both have influence and to be influenced. Remember the words of the late Deng Xiaoping, one of China's most influential Communist Party leaders who helped moved the country toward a market economy in the years after Mao's murderous purges, when he said that China should "disguise its ambition and hide its claws."

It would be very easy to influence important legislation if a member of the United States Senate was under the control, overtly or tacitly, of the Chinese government. Linda McMahon may think that taking an occasional trip to the Orient and watching the Chinese culture streaming past her office window gives her unparalleled insight on foreign relations matters.

I disagree and I'll repeat what I said above. This would be a disaster, a national security nightmare.

This is making the rounds on the Internet and I certainly think it's worth putting up for comment, what with numerous lawsuits having been filed claiming that our president isn't OUR president at all.

Now, maybe it is photo shopped or maybe those words in another language don't say what the English letters say - how would I know after all. What with a "transparent" summit currently taking place on the government's grab for the health care insurance business, and everyone's eyes otherwise on the Olympics, why shouldn't we have an opportunity to get some relief from the day to day, run of the mill grist out of the media, Congress and the White House?

Well, anyway, take a look for yourself.


Tell me now, do you think the White House is going to get someone on this right away? Is the sign really posted outside Nairobi? Can the State Department get authorization to redirect some of the Central Intelligence Agency's satellites from watching for signs of Global (b.s.) Warming to home in on Kenya and find out if this really exists?

Can the military dispatch a highly trained team of Special Forces Operatives to wrap explosives around the signposts and send it into oblivion? Can they do it without collateral damage to the indigenous civilian population? (My bet is on the military.)

These are major issues and these questions should be answered. Oh, and what are we doing about our crushing debt with China, what is Russia up to - Russia is always up to something when we aren't hearing anything out of Russia, which we haven't for a couple of months now, so watch out - and is Mr. Obama, President of the World going to do anything about Iran getting ready to launch a nuclear strike against everyone else?

I don't have the answers, but I certainly have the questions!

The Republican US Senate campaign war between former Connecticut Congressman Rob Simmons and World Wrestling Entertainment founder Linda McMahon has gone around the corner in the mainstream media.

Simmons first nailed McMahon last week during the uproar over White House chief of staff Rham Emanuel calling some of his fellow liberal Democrats "F'ing retards." He actually filled in the letters where I put the apostrophe. McMahon also made direct donations to Rham Emanuel's efforts to defeat Republican candidates in the last few years but no one seems to care about that.

Sarah Palin who has a son with Downs Syndrome called for Emanuel to step down or be fired. President Obama was satisfied with apologies all around.

Simmons then produced a series campaign news releases with links to videos produced by WWE of its character "Eugene" who played a person with Downs Syndrome regularly getting demeaned and brutalized by the McMahon family and other wrestlers. McMahon responded that the character was actually "inspirational and heroic" as her husband and son poured paint over him, stuck his head into a toilet bowl, and repeatedly showed him being beaten or described as possessing "retard strength."

Now the Hartford Courant/Fox 61 News notes that a new McMahon campaign flier is obviously aimed at the women's vote. But the Courant also is questioning whether the flier might just be hypocritical when you see how women are treated around the WWE or at least were until McMahon decided to run for public office.

Simmons pounced on this one in a heartbeat, as a good candidate should, because the Courant is now questioning McMahon's judgment and whether she would be any different in Washington than outgoing Senator Christopher Dodd whom they are seeking to replace.

The unspoken question is whether McMahon, should she get the Republican nomination, could survive the expected onslaught from presumptive Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal. There is far more in the WWE closet than has emerged thus far, and it is a certain bet that Blumenthal or his supporters won't ignore it.

I will leave you to form your own opinions as to whether this video glorifies violence to women and forces them to commit demeaning acts to keep their jobs - that is, if you consider beautiful women kissing and fondling each other demeaning. And from there you can form your own opinions as to whether it matters in the race for US Senate.

Either way, I bet this is one of the best read columns I have ever posted! ;-)

It has been a bad week for the Linda McMahon US Senate campaign and things appear to be going downhill fast, with more media disclosures on her company's finances, questions arising about her stance on the plight of mentally disabled, and dissention in the ranks over the state GOP chairman's personal interest in her campaign.

First it was disclosed that some of McMahon's "hard-earned money" that is funding her $50 million campaign for the Republican nomination is available due to generous state tax breaks and federal bailout funds for her firm, World Wrestling Entertainment. McMahon and her husband Vince own the WWE and until last September she was the CEO. She stepped aside from that position when she declared her candidacy but still is involved in the WWE in other capacities.

Then, in the middle of the media uproar over President Obama's chief of staff Rham Emanuel calling other liberal Democrats "retards," numerous videos surfaced of the WWE showcasing the beating and otherwise demeaning of a character who plays the part of a Downs Syndrome afflicted wrestler. (The media seems to be overlooking that McMahon made financial donations to Emanuel prior to Obama being elected.)

But worse, once the videos surfaced, the McMahon camp issued a news release saying the character named Eugene - played by the nephew of a former WWE executive - who wears a costume with a backwards E on the front - was actually "heroic and inspirational." No contrition, no apology, but rather an in-your-face response. This as videos show members of the McMahon family pouring paint on him, sticking his head in a toilet bowl and other wrestlers repeatedly beating the living daylights out of him both in and out of the ring.



When McMahon's Republican opponent, former Congressman Rob Simmons blasted McMahon for the WWE's choice of characters, she retorted that Simmons doesn't understand the difference between soap operas and reality. I see. In the following video there are repeated references to "retard strength," and "a mental deficient's elbow." I fail to see how such commentary enhances the lives of people with developmental disabilities whether in real life or a script.



On the financial front the Journal Inquirer newspaper disclosed in November that the WWE was eligible for millions in film tax credits to offset the cost of its lucrative film production activities. It further reported this week that World Wrestling Entertainment Inc., the company controlled by Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Linda McMahon and her husband, expects to benefit from changes in federal tax law inserted into the government’s massive bank bailout program by the Democrat she sought to unseat, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd ....

McMahon, who has taken a hard line against government bailouts and made much of her experience of building a company "without the help of big government," was pilloried by her opponents after the Journal Inquirer reported in October that the company had been handed nearly $3 million in state tax credits.

The incentives were awarded eight weeks after she stepped down as WWE's chief executive officer in September to challenge Dodd, a five-term Democrat who has since said he won't seek re-election.

State records later released to Journal Inquirer showed that WWE actually was in line to receive $7 million more of the tax credits, and the company's spokesman, Robert Zimmerman, said WWE would apply for more of the incentives based on its production costs in Connecticut over the last year.

Zimmerman, moreover, last week confirmed that WWE also plans to benefit from an amendment Dodd - the chairman of the Senate banking committee - attached in October 2008 to a tax extension bill that was folded into the federal government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

But what I found especially troubling in the report was a comment from Zimmerman that even though the WWE has laid off workers in the past year, the corporation was eligible for this tax credit because it supposedly is creating jobs. "We shoot a lot down in New Orleans now," he said. "So we're actually doing what this is supposed to do, creating jobs."

Zimmerman initially dismissed questions about how WWE might benefit from the controversial government bailout, saying its state film credits had nothing do with TARP and suggesting that McMahon's political opponents were attempting to stoke a bogus news story. But the spokesman later said that after checking with the company’s accountants he had learned that the company could benefit from the tax breaks Dodd had inserted in the bailout package.

Exactly how are unemployed workers in the state of Connecticut benefitting from the WWE, based in Stamford, getting tax breaks and TARP funding, and then hiring people in New Orleans? No slam to New Orleans intended here, but frankly, we need the jobs in Connecticut.

McMahon has hired some people here, at high rates, including her campaign communications manager, Suzan Bibisi, wife of Connecticut's Republican Party Chairman Chris Healy. The JI reported that Bibisi, a competent and experienced journalist and communications professional, is paid $125,000 per year by McMahon - good for her - but Healy has been accused of helping his wife's employer to the detriment of the Simmons campaign, a disclosure that is causing substantial criticism within the GOP rank and file.

Healy denied to the JI that he has helped McMahon, and said he has not participated in a whisper campaign inside and outside the party that seeks to undermine Simmons. But it sure doesn't look good for the party chairman's wife to be the communications manager for McMahon when there is a battle for the seat about to vacated by Chris Dodd - even though she has the absolute right to select where and for whom she wants to work. And there has been plenty of commentary between party members that Healy will benefit at least indirectly, as long as McMahon is in the race and his wife continues to be paid by her.

There is plenty for Republicans to worry about regarding a potential matchup between Linda McMahon and Democrat Richard Blumenthal, the designated replacement for Dodd. Much of the media is giving her a pass on this controversy, and it could be argued that this is because the media is left-leaning, pro-Democrat and she would be a far easier opponent for Blumenthal than Simmons.

McMahon has a compelling history, and by all accounts is a very nice person who presents herself well. But before November this race is going to be about the economy, national security and foreign relations - especially our debt to and trade deficit with China. Simmons, the former Connecticut Business Advocate, decorated Vietnam veteran, retired US Army intelligence officer, and CIA operative who speaks fluent Chinese, has far more experience on all three of those issues than anyone else in the race, regardless of their party.

And should McMahon become the GOP candidate, the media will suddenly grow fangs in an effort to help Blumenthal. You can take that to the bank. The murmurs heard about the WWE finances, handicapped "talent" and other, more egregious issues within the professional wrestling business will become a deafening roar, and it will continue throughout the fall, right to election day.

McMahon might have had a chance against Dodd, but with what is going on now and what will arise in the future, she has little to no chance of beating Blumenthal. I say that objectively and with no rancor. That's just the way it is.

McMahon has spent more than $6 million of her own money on this campaign, and raised only about $10,000. That speaks volumes because if people aren't willing to donate even a token amount for the cause, then they aren't going to vote for her either. And she hasn't been able to overcome Simmons' lead in the polls. Convention delegates should take a close look at that issue.

Meanwhile, members of the party hierarchy are supposed to at least give the appearance of objectivity and neutrality, regardless of how they may feel personally. The decision on who will represent the Republican party in the November election is supposed to be made by the delegates to the party convention or, if there is a primary, by a majority of Republican voters.

It would be naive to think that the GOP State Central Committee or for that matter, even the party leadership, is really neutral. But there is at least supposed to be an appearance of neutrality. Unfortunately, that no longer exists in this race.

Did you ever notice how when you wake up some mornings the world just seems to be a better and brighter place?

Today is one of those days. Scott Brown, the Republican Senate candidate from Massachusetts who only a month ago was given literally no chance of winning, rope-a-doped the Democrats and won a stunning victory yesterday.

He not only wasn't supposed to win, he was supposed to get crushed by the Massachusetts Democratic machine, rivaled only by the Chicago Democratic machine. But Brown didn't just win, he did so with a major margin of victory.

The Dems just took things for granted and even kept making the point that they were entitled to keep the Senate seat because the late Senator Ed Kennedy was its occupant until last year. But Brown did win, he won with a lopsided margin, and what's even better, he said he is ready to get down to Washington, D.C., and get the Dems' handpicked yes man who has been keeping his seat warm out of there.

Ed Rendell, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said on Fox and Friends this morning in response to Brown's victory, that the Dems just haven't given a good enough explanation of what is in the alleged "health care" bill that we all should be only too happy to let pass without so much ado.

Rendell mischaracterized the Republicans as not having an alternative - they do, they have tried to get it up for discussion but the Dems, with an overwhelming majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, have rebuffed them repeatedly. Now that the GOP has enough votes to stall Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's attack on America, Rendell said he will be happy to see the GOP put the brakes on runaway legislation that most Americans oppose.

"Call their bluff. Let them filibuster. Let them speak endlessly," Rendell said of the GOP as if doing so would hurt them. As I noted, he actually thinks that more Americans will fall in love with this effort if we could just see what is actually in the bill!

OK, we don't know what's in the this so-called "Health Care Reform" bill that actually is just a government takeover of the insurance industry? Check this video out.

It's 10 minutes long so be forewarned that you may want to reheat your coffee before you start, and one or two items mentioned in it are included in one version of the bill and not another. But the final version will be put together behind closed doors and you can bet there will be people advocating for taxpayer funded abortion and the so-called "public option" requiring participation by everyone. So this is definitely worth your time.



Not only have the voters in Massachusetts spoken and given us a chance for some reprieve on this but if you haven't noticed, FOX television has launched the 8th season of "24" and it has started off with plenty of action and a winning plot. Kiefer Sutherland is back as Jack Bauer and despite an initial attempt to place him in retirement, it didn't take long to get him back in the saddle.

I forget how many bad guys - and good guys too - have been shot or blown up so far, but let's just say this is an action packed series and I know exactly what I will be doing when it airs for the rest of the season. Isn't it interesting that we cling to a show like 24 in hopes that our country will not be destroyed from without or within, and for the 8 years of the Bush Administration we were exactly that safe?

Now we're all worried and scared about our country and the attacks on it from without and within once again. It sure has been a great year under the Obama Administration! Does he have any accomplishments to speak of on this the first anniversary of his reign?

I bet by now you are asking how all this relates to Rob Simmons.

Well, allow me to elucidate.

Rob, former Republican Congressman from Connecticut's 2nd District, is running for the US Senate against Connecticut's long-time Democratic Attorney General Dick Blumenthal, and just last week was given no chance - in some quarters - of winning in November. Sound familiar?

Rob was way, way ahead of Senator Chris Dodd - as well as the GOP field of challengers which has dwindled considerably in the past month - but then Dodd quit and Blumenthal stepped up, giving Connecticut Democrats a temporary reprieve.

But Blumenthal has no real national or international experience and while he has been a strong consumer advocate - suing damn near everyone who even thought about stiffing the public - he doesn't have any real world business experience. The issues that concerned voters in Massachusetts will continue right through the summer and fall and they don't favor Blumenthal - they favor Rob Simmons.

Rob is a Vietnam veteran, retired US Army Reserves Colonel, with a career in the intelligence field, including a decade as a CIA operative - crucial in the War on Terror.

Rob is an expert on Chinese affairs, and speaks Chinese fluently. China owns a huge chunk of US debt, and we have a terrible balance of trade ratio with the communist giant, which must be rectified for the good of the American public. Blumenthal has no expertise here.

People first and foremost are worried about the economy. Rob was Connecticut's business advocate after narrowly losing his Congressional seat in the 2006 Democratic juggernaut. He is definitely the one candidate on the Connecticut Senate scene who can do what is necessary to recover jobs both in his state and nationally.

The current political and economic climates require candidates who can move seamlessly from state to regional to national and international issues without facing a learning curve. Rob Simmons is the only candidate in the Connecticut Senate race who can do that and as Scott Brown showed in Massachusetts yesterday, no party has the right to assume it is entitled to any political position. Blumenthal's poll numbers are much higher than Dodd's were, but he has yet to be tested. What goes up, comes down.

So stop for a moment to look around you, take a deep breath and remember what you were doing at this moment. All in all, this is a good day for Massachusetts, America, Rob Simmons and especially for fans of 24! Enjoy it.

The race for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts is down to the wire, and Republican Scott Brown has pulled ahead of presumed Ed Kennedy replacement, Democrat Martha Coakley in weekend polling.

So President Barack Obama hurried up to Boston Sunday and instead of pulling out all the stops, proceeded to put a wooden stake right through the heart of Coakley's campaign. That may not have been what he intended, at least consciously, but that is exactly what he did in a speech at Northeastern University Sunday afternoon that is getting damn little Mainstream media attention, and probably because they know how badly it went over.

We can start with the fact that four minutes into his speech Obama still was talking about matters other than the Senate race and what's her name was not even mentioned yet. It appears that the real reason you invite Obama to give is speech is still to give him an opportunity to speak about himself.

Now, let's go back a week when the Democratic candidate mocked Brown for campaigning outside Fenway Park the legendary home of the Boston Red Sox.
That didn't exactly go over well with loyal Red Sox fans, and it got even worse when the Democratic candidate referred to former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling as "a Yankee fan." OOOOHHH, that had to hurt.

But our erstwhile President, in his opening remarks turned to the gaggle of college kids and party minions standing behind him to obligingly clap, cheer or smile on cue, and said "I almost wore my WHITE Sox jacket!" When the kids groaned in unison, obviously not the reaction the campaign was looking for, Obama turned to them and said "You want a guy who's loyal to his hometown team!"

Oh yeah baby! That at least should show that your candidate will never go off to Washington D.C. and forget the folks back home! Um, except someone like Coakley I guess. How can we trust someone who now wants to claim she is loyal to the RED Sox and by extension Red Sox fans, after bashing Fenway Park and calling Schilling a Yankee fan?

Back to Obama, he is still talking about himself nearly five minutes into his speech, still hasn't mentioned the Democratic candidate, but then he mentions Ed Kennedy at about 4:50 and gets only a smattering of a response! He finally does bring up the Democratic candidate at 4:57, but then blows right past her and launches into a tribute to the late Sen. Kennedy.

Did you see the news clips of the debate between Brown and the Democrat last week when one of the Democrat's handlers or handlees called it "Ted Kennedy's seat?" The Republican candidate, Scott Brown immediately pointed out that it is not "Kennedy's seat" it is rather "the people's seat." Well Obama brings that up, even though it was a major score for the Republicans, and then says that the first person who would have agreed with that statement is Kennedy!

Wow! And double Wow! since Coakley got her head handed to her on that one. That's almost as bad as her saying there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan and today, one day before the election, a major battle has broken out between free forces and terrorists right in the heart of downtown Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan!

When Obama finally did get around to talking about the Democratic candidate he tried to portray her not as the remote, aloof, arrogant elitist seen by many Massachusetts voters, but rather as a true representative of the middle class, whose dad owned a small business. Now, let's face it, her Dad's small business would go right out of business under the leadership of the Obama administration which has been solidly in place for a year and has driven the country down into the abyss. But he still claims she understands the plight of working families!

But here is where it got to be fun. When Obama finally does start actually talking about the Democrat rather than himself or the late Ed Kennedy, at about 8:30 into his speech, he gets interrupted by a heckler! A college kids starts yelling something that isn't clear on the audio, but it is so effective that Obama stops talking and keeps telling the audience "We're okay." But he wasn't because Obama loses a full two minutes of his speech to the heckler - and to the audience that then attempted to stifle the heckler by chanting the Democrat's name.

President Obama even left the podium briefly, and it was obvious that he was not happy. But get this - as soon as the male college student is removed, he is replaced by a woman heckler who starts up with her issues as soon as the first one is ushered out!

Not exactly a positive appearance.

Obama admitted that he doesn't know Brown, and doesn't know anything about Brown's record, and then reminds people that the economy stinks - thanks to his failed "economic stimulus" bills. Acknowledging the failures of his administration, and hoping to save the day by using his time tested audience hypnotizing skills - moving his gaze back and forth, back and forth, hoping to lull the crowd into submission, Obama said, "Progress is slow (right side profile) and it can't come fast enough (left side profile) for people who need help right now."

"At times like this (right side profile) there are always some (left side profile) who are eager to exploit that pain and anger (right side profile) to score a few political points. (Left side profile.) There are always folks who - you know - (right side profile) think that the - (left side profile) the best way to - solve these problems are to demonize others (right side profile.)"

Talk about demonizing campaign ads, remember Obama on his own campaign trail, "would you take you child to the hospital for an asthma attack ...?" When you consider the viciousness of the attack ads the Democrats ran against Brown in Massachusetts this weekend it is amazing that Obama would even mention the subject.

I swear I can't figure out whether he loves the sound of his own voice more than he loves seeing film clips of himself in profile or vice versa.

Coakley, the Democrat, is spending her last campaign day whining that "right wing extremist groups" were the first to do negative advertising, which is why she decided to hit back with below the belt, offensively inaccurate negative ads of her own.

"They're distorting my record," she complained, apparently believing that gives her the right to lie about Brown's. And let's not forget that she lied about not seeing a journalist attacked right in front of her by one of her own staff members in D.C., last week.

When Schilling was asked on FOX News today what he would say to her if she was in the room with him, Schilling responded, "Good luck on your next job."

Coakley seems to like the D.C. night scene. I bet she gets hired as a lobbyist. Unless, with a stake through her heart and no national health care to pay to remove it, she turns to dust.

A subplot of the movie Office Space involves three programmers inserting a computer virus into their firm's accounting system to surreptitiously transfer fractions of a penny to a secret bank account hundreds if not thousands of times each day.

Their theory holds that in any transactions resulting in balances figured down to fractions of a cent, which is common in their firm, the accounting department rounds down for simplicity sake, leaving daily balances that no one notices. What the accounting department doesn't need certainly wouldn't be missed, especially if the virus took only a little bit each day.

The conspirators figured that after several years they would be rich and no one would be the wiser. Movies being what they are, the chief code writer in the group misplaces a decimal point and the results are not at all what they expected.

I bring this up because all the polls in Massachusetts, which rivals Chicago for corruption in politics, are showing a very, very close race for the US Senate seat that opened up after Democrat Ed Kennedy died.

Scott Brown, the Republican candidate, is smart, clean, articulate and swarming all over the once insurmountable lead in the polls no longer being enjoyed by the Democrat's handpicked successor to Kennedy, Martha Coakley. Coakley is on the ropes for being a puppet of special interests, and a status quo Democrat who will continue to tax and spend with no regard to the wishes of Massachusetts voters.

The special election is next Tuesday and both sides are working to get the win. Brown is surging while Coakley hopes she can hold him off for a few more days - but the spread is razor thin, well within the margin of error. The race is considered a toss up and could go down to the wire. So what will be the deciding factor in which side wins?

Considering that we're talking about Massachusetts, perhaps the vote counters will determine the race. Not the people - the machines. What with the movement away from mechanical voting machines to optical scanners that operate based on commands from computer programs, it would be wise for Republicans who are making a massive effort on Brown's behalf to keep a very close eye on the scanners on election day.

How can pre-programmed computerized vote counters change the outcome of an election you may be asking?

Well, you start long before election day, by writing what amounts to a virus into the program that gives instructions to the software that in turn gives instructions to the hardware that displays the counts.

Say for instance that you have a precinct in which about 5,000 people vote in one day, at a polling place that is open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. That is 14 hours, times 60 minutes per hour, or a total of 840 minutes. That means that 6 people per minute have to vote in that precinct, every minute of the day, which further means that a vote has to be cast every 10 seconds from the instant the polls open at 6 a.m. until 8 p.m.

There should be massive lines at the polling place ALL DAY LONG because 5,000 people voting in one spot is one hell of a lot of people - even when they are spread out over 14 hours.

Now, let's say that on election day the polls are dead even - and the other polls, where you actually cast a vote, are manned by loyal Ed Kennedy Democrats, working like they should, bantering with their Republican counterparts, but knowing they may not have a public trough patronage job tomorrow unless the handpicked Kennedy successor wins. They'll probably be pacing back and forth all day long, really working for a change, calling in all registered Democrats. They'll be hoping against hope that the Independents, Tea Party supporters and Republicans didn't see a video proving that the handpicked Kennedy successor lied about not seeing a crime take place right in front of her in D.C. the previous week, or another showing her saying something really stupid about the status of terrorism in the world. Such people might be worried about the outcome of the race.

Unless the race is in a state where the vote scanners have a virus in the program that automatically advances the count for the "appropriate" candidate 3 percent of the time. Meaning each time 100 votes are cast, the counter "slips" and adds three votes on the Democrat side.

If you have ever been at a busy precinct, and remember a precinct with 5,000 people voting in one day is a very, very busy precinct, you'll know that the poll workers are far too busy checking off names, handling questions and dealing with problems to stand next to the scanner all day making sure the counts don't mysteriously skip ahead.

In fact, considering that a precinct where 5,000 people vote can have no down times, and I mean none if that many people are to go through in one session, everyone will be too busy all day long to check the count after each ballot is scanned. What really will happen is that there will be lines getting in, starting probably at 5 a.m., then lines at the check-in desks, then lines at the tables where the ballots are filled out, then lines at the scanner(s) as people submit them before leaving.

There should be lines of cars coming in - ALL DAY LONG - and lines of cars waiting to leave - ALL DAY LONG. There should be a poll worker standing near each scanner, making sure that if there are problems or questions they can be handled quickly to keep the lines moving. But it is not likely they will be watching the counters.

In fact, the media, which can successfully be used to assist in this scenario, is very helpful in that reporters like to know what the count is at certain milestones - say at 9 or 10 a.m., and again after lunch, just before the dinner hour and of course at the end of the night. Poll watchers are very helpful to the media in that they only have to glance at the counter on the machine that tells how many votes have been cast at any point in the day. The reporters will report long lines before the polls opened, give a count at mid-morning, then disappear until early evening when they'll come back to get the results.

In their absence, voters should have been moving steadily through the process at a rate of 6 per minute all day long, until all 5,000 have voted. If the media asks about the final tally, the head poll worker will just give the number showing on the the scanner and that will be that.

The only way to find out if the number registered by the scanner counter is accurate is to go through the check-in logs and manually count each person who was logged in. The chances of this happening on a widespread basis are virtually zero.

Want to know why?

Because if the program for either the scanner, or the counting system if it is separate, is tweaked to give a 3 percent preference to one party over another, in a precinct where 5,000 votes were cast, the counter would add three extra votes every time 100 ballots were scanned, or about once every 15 minutes. The final outcome would be 2,584 to the winner and 2,416 to the loser if 5,000 votes were cast. (I realize these numbers are approximate, so don't get all squirrely with me. It is the principle I'm talking about here.)

If that number, or something close to it, came up - and was mirrored across the state - the pundits and pollsters would all go "SEE, it was within the margin of error just like we predicted. But the Republican just couldn't pull it off in such a Democrat leaning state."

And while the results would be within the margin of error that the polls predicted, they would be way outside the margin where a recount is required - usually if the results are closer than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes. If they aren't within that percentage, the challenging party usually has to pay for the recount, which is quite expensive and usually discouraged, especially in the absence of serious evidence of chicanery.

The chances of poll workers coming back in to spend days going through the manual check-in logs, and more days going through the paper ballots are highly unlikely unless ordered by a judge or required by law. Again, everyone would be saying "close but no cigar" and telling the loser to buck up and stop looking like a spoil sport.

Do I think this could happen this Tuesday in Massachusetts? I don't know, what do you think?

As far as possibility, political bosses who prefer to rule through power and manipulation rather than reason and performance have been finding ways to steal elections ever since Democracy first came on the scene.

I suppose a stolen election can happen anywhere, including Massachusetts this Tuesday.

But to see that it isn't stolen, at least through a scenario of this sort, the Massachusetts GOP chairman should order the Republican committees in every community to check the scanners at every polling place in their jurisdiction. (This is done by running a known number of test ballots, with a known number of votes for each position, through the scanners - and the backup scanners - before the actual voting starts.) I would use more than 100 ballots, maybe 500 would be better, and I would do the test between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., just before the polls open.

Then I would keep GOP poll watchers stationed near the scanners all day to discourage tampering. Then I would run another test right after the results are announced, but before the machines are moved out of the polling place.

Excessive? Unnecessary? Well, not if you consider that the fate of the free world hangs in the balance. I'm not kidding. Americans need to know that their government is responsive, and if it isn't that they can change it. What better place for that to be shown than in Massachusetts on Tuesday?