The Ultimate Caricature
On Tonite’s Card—Crude Reds :: Prissy Blues
Scene: Connecticut
Opponents: WWE CEO Linda McMahon -vs- AG Richard Blumenthal
Prize: CT Senate Seat
Issue: future of CT future of US economics/taxes/spending WWE stunts
The group calling itself “Mothers Opposing McMahon” put together a montage of clips showing female wrestlers being humiliated and objectified from 2001 through 2003, including Linda McMahon slapping her daughter in the ring. However, no clip more notable than when [Vince] McMahon made Trish Stratus get on her knees and bark like a dog.
ASIDE: Trish Stratus ... voted her Top Choice for Business Woman of the year“Everybody hates an arrogant boss – not that I’m like that in real life. A lot of people could relate to that. Was that a little bit over the top from time to time? No question,” McMahon told the Connecticut Post. “I think a lot of our environment in the past is held up as who we are today, which of course is just not the case. It’s just politically expedient to do so."
Apparently that was the schtick in WWE aaaaall those years ago… in 2003. Now, it’s an issssue in CT politics.
No one reported on the end of that skit bout: did the woman turn around and kick the crap out of that “wrestler?”

And—of course—WWE is “real.”
Speaking to ABC’s Christiane Amanpour, [why?!? why would you speak to that ...person?] McMahon wouldn’t condemn an act where her husband ordered a woman to “bark like a dog."
[Amanpour:] “As a Senator, if you could stop it, would you stop that kind of depection against women on the public airwaves? Would you at least lobby or campaign against it?”
[Video here]McMahon responded, “I do believe in the First Amendment rights.”
“So you don’t think there’s anything wrong with it,” asserted Amanpour.
“Well, content providers are clearly creating scenarios from an entertainment point of view. I think you either elect to go to a movie or elect to watch a program so I’m a strong proponent of First Amendment rights. At the same time at WWE, women really are powerful women, and the programming content as I said has changed from TV-14 to TV-PG. It’s—I much prefer it today,” said McMahon.
Now, let’s look at AG Richard Blumenthal. Remember the whole kerfluffle over the AIG executives, many of whom live in CT? AIG got gubbmint money. The execs took nominal salaries plus a promise of large “bonuses”—their actual salaries. It was a contract.
Richard Blumenthal advocated state confiscation of the “bonuses.” Beck interviewed him:
[GB:] Under what law are you going after the AIG bonuses?
Blumenthal hemmed and hawed for a painful six minutes [as Beck repeated the request to cite the Law under which Blumenthal proposed to confiscate the “bonuses"] before coming up with this:
“Because they are undeserving of it.”
“Undeserving”? That’s how the gubbmint decides whether you get to keep a contract-driven payment?
Swell…
So there’s your pretty clear choice, CT: a guy who thinks the gubbmint gets to choose who is “deserving -vs- a woman who believes she has the right to produce some pretty creepy entertainment contend and you have the right—and the ability—to not watch it if you so choose.
I know what *I* choose.
Full Beck Vid:
OR *clicky*clicky*
Next entry: oooooo - Look: The Catch
Previous entry: Throwing... Burning...
