Linda McMahon asks that we connect the dots. I do and I see:
A candidate offering innuendo instead of fact. She opines that "maybe" her opponent was in the gym? I guess maybe he wasn't. She says he was "taken to court" twice? I conclude he wasn't convicted, but she's guilty of attempting to mislead with wording. Fundamentally dishonest.
A candidate misrepresenting herself as a fiscal conservative. After record-setting spending in her failed campaign, she is again spending liberally to buy my vote, which is still not for sale, no matter how often she floods my airwaves and mailbox with her full-color, glossy ads. Financially irresponsible.
A candidate whose contrived image is just one more attempt to manipulate the middle class she aspires to represent: McMahon is to benign, cookie-baking grandmothers as Westport is to Bridgeport.
She lives in luxury because she grew a business founded on illusion and the promotion of sex and violence; exploited the health of her workers; and used her marketing machine to target children for her adult-themed entertainment. Morally reprehensible.
Connect the dots: fundamentally dishonest, financially irresponsible, morally reprehensible and not getting my vote.