by Charles A. Monagan
Sep 28, 2012
07:27 AMOn Connecticut
Chris Murphy's campaign is all fired up today over a statement his opponent, Linda McMahon, made not long ago about Social Security. The Murphyites are loudly claiming to be "stunned" by what McMahon said. They say it means she is in favor of phasing out the massive entitlement program at some indistinct point in the future. I don't think that's the case, and they probably don't either. In any event, here's the quote in question:
"And I do believe that, that there are ways to look at, you know, what we're trying to do when we put Social Security in place," McMahon said. "We didn't go back and review it. In other words, I believe in sunset provisions when we pass this kind of legislation, so that you take a look at it 10, 15 years down the road to make sure that it's still going to fund itself."
Isn't this quote indicative of McMahon's inability to answer a question in a clear, authoritative way more than it reflects her particular views on Social Security? Her longstanding avoidance of questions and conversations about real issues puts her in a terrible spot when it finally comes time to discuss them - or even just to wing an answer. If she is unable to articulate a sensible response to a question about Social Security - one of the few issues she does seem to care about - how in the world will she answer tough questions about climate change, North Korea, Iran's nuclear threat, federal banking policy, etc.?
A good number of Connecticut residents appear ready to cast votes for her blindly, without knowing anything about her except that she's for a "middle-class tax cut" and the creation of jobs. But unless she's better prepared to give good, concise answers on a number of topics at her upcoming debates with Murphy, she stands a chance of blundering herself right out of contention.Loose-Lipped Linda