Thanks to Civil Beat’s Adrienne LaFrance, we now know a bit more about the men behind the smiling Linda Lingle that annoyingly graces the top of the Star-Advertiser’s online edition.
LaFrance reports that GOP Senator Roy Blunt, the same one who sponsored last week’s amendment that would have denied employees the right to health insurance coverage for birth control and other preventive health services, was the special guest yesterday at a Lingle fundraiser in Washington, D.C.
That event was followed by a fundraising dinner hosted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. And Lingle’s day started with an oil and gas industry fundraising business, with energy companies and PACs asked to cough up $5,000 to be listed as “sponsors.”
Lingle seems to be posturing as a moderate here at home, but happy to be just-one-of-the-reactionary-crowd back there in D.C.
The decision to have Sen. Blunt front and center, even while the ruckus over his push to undermine women’s health choices is still reverberating, is particularly damaging to Lingle’s attempt to position herself as a “moderate” interested in bipartisanship.
I’m old enough to remember when contraceptive services were restricted by law, and were denied to unmarried women in parts of the country. It wasn’t until 1972 that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the last of the so-called “Comstock Laws” restricting contraception.
Would Lingle have voted for the Blunt Amendment? It’s certainly an important question.
According to LaFrance: “The Lingle campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry from DC808 about whether Lingle would have supported the Blunt amendment. ”
Do you suppose Lingle could realistically say “no” in light of Blunt’s fundraising support? I doubt it.
And Blunt isn’t the only one to worry about. There’s quite a crowd of right wing interests behind Lingle’s campaign curtain.
Take Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, an aggressive booster of mostly-conservative Republican causes.
Harold Simmons, a leveraged buyout investor from Texas estimated to be worth $9 billion. You may not know him by name but you know him by deeds. Since the 1980’s, he has forked over big bucks to Oliver North’s Defense Fund; the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which ruthlessly and wrongly attacked John Kerry; and Simmons was the sole $3 million dollar funder of a group that that speciously tied Barack Obama to Bill Ayers in 2008. I’m sure you get the picture.
Here’s how the Texas snowball starts to roll our way. Two PACs controlled by Simmons, Contran Corporation PAC and DALENPAC, donated $5,000 each to Linda Lingle’s senatorial campaign in 2011’
Much more that, an article in Newsmax (2/21/12) states “In January, Simmons contributed $5 million to the Karl Rove-linked super PAC American Crossroads, or almost all the money it received last month, according to federal filings. And in 2011 he gave the PAC $7 million.”
Interestingly, American Crossroads, under the control of uber-operative Karl Rove, is the largest Republican PAC, not to give money to a Republican presidential candidate. They have some other targets in mind. Like us!
Lingle’s last report to the Federal Election Commission also disclosed a slew of other backers, including PACs controlled by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, and House Speaker John Boehner.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Lingle seems to be posturing as a moderate here at home, but happy to be just-one-of-the-reactionary-crowd back there in D.C.”
by any chance, could it really be the other way around?
Lingle seems to be posturing as a just-one-of-the-reactionary-crowd back there in D.C., but happy to be moderate here at home.
for some reason, if Lingle was elected US Senator for Hawaii (and I hope this does not happen), I don’t see her voting consistently with right-wingers.
vital question: where does she stand on abortion? it’s a deal-maker and -breaker for oh-so-many Repubs.
Lingle has historically been pro-choice. However, no one has asked her this week.
Time to stop bashing the horrible terrible greedy Republicans and see what the Democrats are doing to Hawaii nei.
http://www.civilbeat.com/posts/2012/03/07/15113-dirty-8-erode-three-decades-of-landmark-environmental-law/
http://www.civilbeat.com/posts/2012/03/08/15121-open-government-lock-down/
“…the smiling Linda Lingle that annoyingly graces the top of the Star-Advertiser’s online edition.”
Why annoyed about her photo? I’m not an LL supporter but I find her photo no more bothersome than any other. In fact, I can name at least 6 other photos that would make me urple into my Cheerios before Linda’s.
I’ll go Ian one, or several, better: I find the Linda Lingle visage staring out at me to be creepy, pandering, condescending, insulting, and, yes, revolting.
And now we have Mufi “right” below and to the “right”!
AAACCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!
Lingle’s (or Mufi’s) photo near the masthead is simply reflective of the newspaper that one is about to endure reading for reasons more of habit than necessity.
I’ll never forget her speech egging on the birthers prior to the 2008 election. “He says he was born here, but I’ve never met him,” to cheers from the delusional crowd.
I don’t care which version of Lingle is the real one. She can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
a lie or not, Lingle would have to nudge and fob and dodge and zob and frazzle and dazzle her way around U.S. conservatives re: this public comment:
“I SUPPORT A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. However, I oppose partial-birth abortions. I also support requiring parental notification. In addition, I believe we must work to ensure there are no more unwanted children – through education, prevention, and adoption.”
Source: 2002 Senate campaign website, LindaLingle.com, “Positions” , Oct 10, 2002
Even if Lingle is a moderate in her personal views, that is irrelevant. Anyone who cares about reproductive rights for women, for example, should not pay any attention to Lingle’s personal views on abortion. That is irrelevant! If Lingle is elected to the US Senate, she will vote to put Mitch McConnell in charge of the Senate and kick out the Democratic chairs of all the committees. A vote for Linda Lingle is vote for Mitch McConnell. A vote for Linda Lingle is a vote is to dump Senator Tom Harkin (strongly pro-choice) and replace him with Republican Senator Michael Enzi, who is strongly anti-choice.
National Right to Life rates Enzi 100% on their issues; NARAL rates him 0%.
National Right to Life rates Harkin 0% on their issues; NARAL rates him 100%.
Any pro-choice person who votes for Lingle based upon her personal beliefs on abortion is, frankly and bluntly, a fool. The more important question is, will she vote for a Democratic Senate President, likely to keep Harkin chair of the Health Committee or a Republican, likely to appoint the Republican in line for the chairmanship, Michael Enzi.
This is not just MY analysis. This is also the view of the national leaders of the anti-abortion movement, who have noted Lingle’s personal support for abortion rights, but asked their supporters to set that aside and view this in the context of control of the Senate. But let them speak for themselves:
“Linda Lingle does not consider herself to be pro-life, however ironically her election to the Senate aids the pro-life movement. A Lingle victory brings the Republican Party one seat closer to a majority. Republican leadership in the Senate, currently headed by Sen. Mitch McConnell, is solidly pro-life. While the Republican-controlled US House has passed pro-life legislation, the Democratic majority headed by pro-abortion Sen. Harry Reid, has consistently voted down pro-life bills or prevented them from reaching the floor for a vote. With Republicans controlling the Senate and setting the agenda, it will be much easier to block pro-abortion judicial nominees in the unfortunate case that President Obama is reelected.”
Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/24/lingle-faces-pro-abortion-mazie-hirono-in-hawaii-senate-race/
What is true about abortion is also true about the environment, energy, corporate domination, foreign policy, etc. No matter how “moderate” Lingle is (or pretends to be), her election will greatly increase the chance the Republicans will take control of the US Senate and put a hardline Republican in charge of policy in that area, not a “moderate.”
read my comments more carefully and less emotionally and see that we are on the same page.
feel free to show your anger and emotion if it makes you feel ….. better?
but seriously.
this is my exact comment above: “Lingle seems to be posturing as a just-one-of-the-reactionary-crowd back there in D.C., but happy to be moderate here at home.
“for some reason, if Lingle was elected US Senator for Hawaii (and I hope this does not happen), I don’t see her voting consistently with right-wingers.”
do someone who is on your side a wise favor here: Lighten up, please.
or at least pay better attention.
T,
Not sure if you are talking to me, as I am not arguing with you.
Maybe we all should read each other’s “comments more carefully and less emotionally”?
; )
my comment: “vital question: where does she stand on abortion? it’s a deal-maker and -breaker for oh-so-many Repubs.”
your reactive reply: “Anyone who cares about reproductive rights for women, for example, should not pay any attention to Lingle’s personal views on abortion. That is irrelevant!”
I stand by my conclusion: you over-reacted, even though we basically agree with each other. this is ridiculous.
Actually, I had no emotional response to your comment and did not feel like I was disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the hypothetical pro-choice voters who put too much emphasis on Lingle’s personal views on abortion rather than the real world effect her election to the Senate would likely have on the passage of laws restricting women’s reproductive rights or the confirmation of a pro-choice Supreme Court justice.
If you are attached to the idea I am arguing against you, I guess you have the right to find pleasure where you can.
Clarification. I meant to say:
” A vote for Linda Lingle is a vote is to dump Senator Tom Harkin (strongly pro-choice) AS CHAIR OF THE SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE and replace him with Republican Senator Michael Enzi, who is strongly anti-choice.”
You don’t need to know anything more about Lingle than that she is a Republican and that her addition to the Senate will likely enable the Republicans to take the majority. She could be the greatest person imaginable, a genuine progressive moderate, but in the current political environment individual virtue no longer matters. All that matters is which party controls the majority, and the Republican Party in control would be an epic disaster. So everyone must avert their eyes, hold their noses, steel their stomachs and vote for whomever the Democratic primary throws up. The Republican-led deterioration of American politics does at least obviate the need to know anything more about general-election congressional candidates than their party affiliations.
Well……all this Republican hate talk is quite interesting coming from a state that is entirely Democrat. So, I ask you, just what part of our great State of Hawaii politics should the rest of the nation emulate with Democrats being completely in charge?? Perhaps I’ve missed the great programs and the strong economic performance by our home grown Dems. Enlighten me….please. Seriously.
We must hate, hate, hate, Sarah Palin she’s a s*** and a w**** and that baby Trig isn’t really hers… And Rush Limbaugh is a massage therapist or a mysoginist or sumthin….
Signed,
Bill Maher, KPUA’s next radio talk show host
So much for today’s Hate-a-palooza. Not much light; lots of heat. Well, that was fun.
She is a Republican and will vote Republican when a SCOTUS vote comes up she will follow her parties line. Never, never, never vote for a Republican.
That’s as polite as I can state that reality.
Never vote Republican.
Black Kettle:
I tend to judge candidates by what they did to me in their last term, not on implied potential to do good.
Lingle was a flop for eight long years. She made many promises while campaigning against Cayetano and kept very few. She told voters she would be a Neighbor Island governor and wasn’t. (Maui did not even support her in one election and those voters knew her best.)
In office, she travel extensively to China and spent like a drunken sailor with her expensive French liqueurs. Her penchant for flying around with George W and that airhead from Alaska was well documented. She hurt education badly by shutting down public schools before one of her fights out of state and harming the university’s development. Her chief of staff (Awana) was found to be running a call girl operation in Manila before he resigned in a hush up deal still not fully vetted despite good efforts from AP.
And we are suppose to seriously consider this mess for the U.S. Senate?
my thoughts exactly!!! thank you for sharing them!!!
If Lingle wins a seat in the US Senate, this might give the Republicans a majority in that chamber, and so they will pull out all the stops to help her get elected, and she will then be beholden to some the most extreme elements in that party.
That’s what this post basically says, right? Basically, everybody already knows that, right?
The real insight that you might have talked about is the reason for the Lingle and Hannemann ads on the Star Advertiser’s masthead. They are not primarily advertisements. They are bribes. The newspaper not only does not criticize anyone who takes out massive advertising in their pages (and the home building and real estate industry has entire sections bought and paid for in the Sunday edition), but they suppress actual negative news about public figures whose patrons and sponsors take out ads or are otherwise rich and powerful.
When a farmer relies for his livelihood on milking an old, dying cow, he protects that cow in order to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible. (slightly edited)
“Lingle seems to be posturing as a moderate here at home, but happy to be just-one-of-the-reactionary-crowd back there in D.C.”
One central question that is being touched on is just who is the real Linda Lingle? I think you nail down how she postures herself, selling herself locally and nationally in different ways. I think that ideologically, she is a typical moderate conservative. She emphasizes the moderation when in front of some audiences, and the conservatism in front of others.
That explains who she is ideologically. But who is she as a person?
So the next question is, why she should posture nationally as a reactionary? She will get that funding anyway from the right wing in order to gain a majority on the Senate — there is no reason to posture as an extremist. In fact, even if she were hypothetically to present herself nationally as a liberal Republican (there were once such creatures, e.g., Nelson Rockefeller), the extreme right wing would still embrace her because gaining a party majority in the US Senate would change everything, and having one Senator who was a leftist Republican would be a minor compromise for them to get there.
So it’s not that she wants to be a Senator. For that, she does not have to posture as a reactionary. She is going to get Republican support from across the whole Republican ideological spectrum because they want and need power.
She seems to want to be a major national player.
I think that this might help to explain some very unfortunate legislation in Hawaii.
For example, agricultural inspectors in Hawaii have been cut in half since the last recession. This is absolutely unacceptable in a state that has 80% of the rare and endangered species in the US, and that is vulnerable to incredibly destructive species such as the Brown Tree Snake that has ravaged Guam, or the Coqui frog, which could cripple tourism. It’s a bit like cutting the defense budget in half during a war.
I do not think that Lingle is incompetent. She should know better. But I do not think that she wants to raise a special tax or fees to pay for ag inspectors because she wants to look good nationally to conservatives. The accusation that she is a “carpet bagger” who sees Hawaii as a stepping stone might have some validity in that light.
Of course, this label also might apply to all the other Congressional aspirants from Hawaii. All these politicians are motivated primarily by personal ambition.
I cannot therefore really irked by her for her ideology or various ideological postures, because all of these candidates in the Hawaii congressional races are inconsistent or selective ideologically. Moreover, all of these candidates from Hawaii — Case, Hirono, Hanabusa, Lingle, Hannemann, Gabbard — are primarily ambitious career politicians.
The only thing that bothers me about Lingle is that she is kind of preachy. She is probably the most preachy candidate I can think of. She never seems to pass up an opportunity to be self-righteous. For example, she gave a presentation on disaster preparedness. Wrapping it up, she stated that ultimately, although the government has a role, it is up to the individual to prepare for disaster. Of course, no one disagrees with that. So why would one even state that? Is there a need to tag a little sermon on to the end of every presentation? And then, despite this righteousness, to cynically cut ag inspectors, is disturbing. That is, she seems to have a personal habit of framing practical, technical issues in simplistic moral terms that don’t really apply — but then she seemed to engage in a few baldly unethical policies to advance her career.
One other issue might be emotional intelligence. It is often pointed out that while President Obama has highly developed analytical skills, he cannot “read” people. Likewise, with the school furloughs, Lingle seemed not to understand that emotionally, the public would be outraged by that and pin the blame on her. (Sometimes I wonder if she fell into a clever trap.) It’s not her policy that I disagree with here, but the fact that a professional politician could be so clueless about public perception. This might suggest that she should not aspire to be a national political figure, it’s too much for her, and that she should instead primarily stick to Hawaii.