October 16, 2007
Oct 16 01:38 Hewitt Quickly Joining Agenda Media Oct 16 02:51 Hannity Interviews Justin, Darryl Sharratt Oct 16 14:29 Confusing Respect With Like Oct 16 19:29 What's Wrong With This Picture? Oct 16 20:14 Is the Unthinkable Happening?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
Hewitt Quickly Joining Agenda Media
It grieves me to say this but it's becoming incredibly obvious that Hugh Hewitt is quickly losing credibility with GOP voters. MOBsters know that Hugh's had a serious blind spot about Mitt Romney ever since he wrote a book about Romney. When Hugh expresses his opinions towards Romney, we know that Hugh will say that Mitt walks on water or something appropriately glowing. I didn't expect him to ignore information that isn't flattering to Mitt Romney, though. Based on this article in Politico.com , that's what he's done. Over the weekend, here's what Mitt Romney said:
The former Massachusetts governor, trying to regain his footing, went on the offensive Friday in Sparks, Nev., saying: "Conservatives that have heard me time and again recognize that I do speak for the Republican wing of the Republican Party," Romney said.Here's how Sen. McCain responded:
In New Hampshire the next day, McCain uncharacteristically dumped on Romney by packing many of Romney's vulnerabilities into one brutal paragraph: "When Governor Romney donated money to a Democratic candidate in New Hampshire, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. When he voted for a Democratic candidate for president, Paul Tsongas, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. When he refused to endorse the Contract with America, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans."This hasn't been a good week for Romney. He got hit hard by Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in the Detroit debate. His saying that he'd "let lawyers sort it all out" about taking action against Iran was a pathetic response. He tried being cute with Fred Thompson late in the debate, saying "Thes debates are alot like Law & Order. There's a big cast...And Fred Thompson shows up at the end." Sen. Thompson effortlessly swatted him aside, saying "And to think that I thought I was the best actor on stage", a clear dig at Romney's image makeover and flip-flops.
On Monday, McCain's campaign released a statement from former Rep. Chuck Douglas (R-NH) saying: "Mitt Romney actively worked to defeat the Republican candidate trying to reclaim my old congressional seat. Therefore, I'm amazed that Romney would claim to represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party, because when Romney had a chance to contribute to a New Hampshire Republican, he chose to fund a liberal New Hampshire Democrat instead."
It's been a worse week for Hewitt. Why didn't he even mention Politico.com's article? That's a pretty harsh smackdown of his candidate. You'd think at minimum that he'd attempt to defend his candidate. Instead, he hasn't uttered a peep about this.
I hope that Hugh will revert back to his usual self once Romney is run out of this race. It's sad seeing him omit important facts like this.
The meat of this article is that this is really damaging to Romney. It's bad enough that he attempted to go on the offensive, only to get slapped with the fact that he voted for Paul Tsongas. It's far worse that he contributed to a Democrat in a New Hampshire House seat. Those certainly aren't the type of things that'll endear you to GOP primary voters, especially in South Carolina and throughout the South.
Couple that with his gravitas deficit and you can pretty much stick a fork in Hewitt's candidate. Mitt was never anything more than a moderate pretending to be a conservative. It was time for that masqerade to end so we can get down to the serious business of electing the next Republican president.
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:40 AM
No comments.
Hannity Interviews Justin, Darryl Sharratt
Last Friday, Sean Hannity interviewed Justin Sharratt, one of the Haditha Marines, and Justin's father Darryl. Follow this link to read the transcript of the entire interview. Here are the first portion of the interview that jumped out at me:
SEAN HANNITY: Why don't we bring everybody back here-Mr. Sharratt, good to see you, sir, thank you for being with us. You actually wrote in your blog at what point because you were defending your son, you said, we knew that our son was innocent. You said our family had to endure the accusations that our son was a murderer. And we knew, and certain powers within our government, knew that those charges were false. Why do you think that's the case?I know from talking with Darryl that his inability to tell people what he knew frustrated him to the Nth degree. It also left him heartbroken and angry. If not for the support of a group of determined former Marines, especially Tim Harrington, Darryl might well have felt abandoned and alone.
DARRYL SHARRATT: That's what was so frustrating about what happened with our family, Sean. We had information, we had the truth about Haditha, and we had to endure what John Murtha said on May 17 [2005] when he called my son a cold-blooded murderer. We had the information and we were just frustrated and in disbelief that Murtha uttered these words because as a US Congressman he was telling us that he had the information from the higher ups. And he is giving false information.
Understand this: The Sharratts couldn't turn to his congressman because John Murtha is their representative.
How do you ask the man who called your son a cold-blooded murderer for assistance in getting the charges dropped? For that matter, why would anyone think that Murtha would lift a finger when Murtha knew that playing to the anti-war left was his shot at finally becoming the House Majority Leader?
That leads to another portion of the interview that ties directly into this portion:
DARRYL SHARRATT: And we had the evidence, but, again, as an individual it was frustrating because, first, I couldn't reveal most of the evidence we had because it was classified. I did not come out and be an anonymous leak. I couldn't do that. I had to hold this information although I wanted to come out with my son and proclaim this.This demands answers to some troubling questions. Here are the questions that America demands be answered:
In fact, two months after the Haditha incident Justin took a polygraph. Seven questions he was asked by the NCIS and he passed the polygraph. I had this, I had this information, it was stamped "NCIS eyes only". I couldn't get it out. But my son passed his polygraph.
- Why wouldn't the NCIS drop the charges against Justin if they knew of this exculpatory evidence?
- Why did John Murtha continue with his accusations against Justin and the other Hadith Marines when he knew about this exculpatory evidence?
- Why didn't the media dig for the facts in this incident with the same vigor that Tim Harrington and others did? (Whatever happened to America's right to know?)
SEAN HANNITY: The dismissal came after an investigating officer found that Sharratt acted appropriately when he shot a group of armed men while searching a house in Haditha hours after other members of his unit killed numerous women and children in an alleged killing spree through two other houses.In other words, Lt. Gen. Mattis didn't just say that Justin wasn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Lt. Gen. Mattis said that Justin did what his Marine training told him to do in that situation. Mattis said that Justin followed the Rules of Engagement despite his facing a life and death situation.
"Operational, moral, legal imperatives demand that we Marines stay true to our own standards and maintain compliance with the law of war in this morally bruising environment," [Lt. Gen. Mattis] wrote. "With the dismissal of this charges, you may fairly conclude that you did your best to live up to the standard followed by US fighting men throughout our many wars in the face of life or death decisions made by you in a matter of second in combat."
To me, that translates into Mattis essentially calling Justin a true American hero.
After all that, you'd hope that Rep. Murtha would issue a short mea culpa, wouldn't you? That isn't what's happened. It isn't close to what's happened. Here's what's happened:
JASON MATTERA, YOUNG AMERICAN FOUNDATION: [tape from September 18, 2007] Now that murder charges against LCpl. Justin Sharratt and Stephen Tatum have dropped in the Haditha incident, or are in the process of being dropped would you like to issue an apology for saying they killed innocent civilians in cold blood?I give Jason Mattera credit. Each of the times that I called Murtha's office, his secretary said that Rep. Murtha didn't have a comment "until after all of the investigations" were finished. In other words, Murtha's working his hardest to avoid taking responsibility for his injurious, inaccurate statements.
JOHN MURTHA: Is the trial still going on?
JASON MATTERA: Justin Sharratt
and Stephen Tatum, two men you accused of murdering innocent civilians in cold
blood--
JOHN MURTHA: Is the trial still going on?
JASON MATTERA: The charges are in the process of being dismissed.
JOHN MURTHA: Are they still going on? Out, out!
JASON MATTERA: Do you like besmirching our troops, sir?
JOHN MURTHA: Have you ever been in the service? I enlisted in Korea, and I enlisted in Vietnam!
JASON MATTERA: Sir, you accused them of murdering innocent civilians in cold blood. That's something that would come out of Al Jazeera, not a congressman, sir.
It's also obvious that Nancy Pelosi won't drain that swamp of unethical behavior because Murtha is a friend and important ally. Last year, Democrats campaigned against the Republicans' "culture of corruption." Why shouldn't these Democrats be rated on their willingness to eliminate every bit of corruption, whether that corruption is from a Republican or Democrat?
Democrats won't even consider debating a censure resolution against Murtha. If they won't stiffly reprimand Murtha for his baseless accusations, then it's time to return these Democrats to minority status. It's also time to force Rep. Murtha into involuntary retirement. There's even great news on that front:
SEAN HANNITY: You're twenty-three years old. But you know what? You have the strength and maturity, you know, if you can go out in Iraq and the streets of Haditha and withstand multiple IED attacks and sniper gunfire on a daily basis. You've proven you have the character, the toughness, the strength, to take on John Murtha. And I can promise that this audience will back you up. And support you in every way imaginable: financially, everything they can do, I'll give the maximum donation I can if you decide to do this.That's the good news. The bad news is that the Constitution mandates that a congressman must be at least 25 years old. The great news is that Darryl told me that he'd campaign for whoever ran against Murtha. Knowing Darryl, he'd gladly tell everyone who'd listen that his son's Constitutional rights were trampled by Rep. Murtha. Don't think that that wouldn't be riveting.
It's time that John Murtha answered Justin's questions. It's time Justin and Darryl got justice. It's time Democrats did the right thing and reprimand John Murtha for unjustifiably sliming these brave American heroes. It's time that We The People told our 'employees' what we expect of them.
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:55 AM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 16-Oct-07 08:56 AM
Gary,
Other members of the armed forces also know what it's like for their members of Congress not to listen to them or represent their interests.
Like these 12 former Army captains who called for Congress and Bush to remove the American military from Iraq in today's Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html
"While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.
There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.
America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice."
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Oct-07 10:16 AM
Other members of the armed forces also know what it's like for their members of Congress not to listen to them or represent their interests.
It'd be nice if those captains would based their opinions on facts. It'd be nice if they weren't pursuing an agenda that's based totally on politics rather than on what's best for stabilizing the region.
Comment 3 by Winston Smith at 16-Oct-07 12:43 PM
Gary,
Are they "fake soldiers"?
How about the seven soldiers who wrote this NY Times column about why they thought the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are - an army of occupation - and force our withdrawal."
BTW - Two of them died since that column was published in August, and another suffered traumatic brain injury while it was being written.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 16-Oct-07 01:17 PM
Are they "fake soldiers"? That's the best argument you can make?
They are real soldiers. They're just basing their opinions on information from 2005-2006. As such, they're basing their opinions on the policy that didn't work. That aren't basing their opinions on Gen. Petraeus' successful Surge strategy.
Confusing Respect With Like
Hillary's foreign policy op-ed is a great example of the Democrats' mistaking being respected with being liked. It's also a glimpse back to the so-called good old days of the Clinton administration.
To lead, a great nation must command the respect of others. America has been respected in the past as a powerful nation, a purposeful nation, and a generous and warm-hearted nation. In my travels around the world as senator and as first lady, I have met people from all walks of life. I have seen firsthand how many of our past policies have earned us respect and gratitude.The biggest tragedy in Hillary's thinking is that she accepts as fact the opinion that the world was a quiet place throughout the Clinton administration. That's seeing the world through rose-colored glasses. Hillary's opinions don't have a connection with reality. When she says that the Clinton administration built new alliances, is she talking about the Clinton/Carter/NoKo giveaway program that gave North Korea the ability to build nuclear reactors?
The tragedy of the last six years is that the Bush administration has squandered the
respect, trust, and confidence of even our closest allies and friends. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the United States enjoyed a unique position. Our world leadership was widely accepted and respected, as we strengthened old alliances and built new ones, worked for peace across the globe, advanced nonproliferation, and modernized our military. After 9/11, the world rallied behind the United States as never before, supporting our efforts to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan and go after the al Qaeda leadership. We had a historic opportunity to build a broad global coalition to combat terror, increase the impact of our diplomacy, and create a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.
As for her statement that her husband's administration "advanced nonproliferation", that's spin of the highest order. Signing toothless treaties with maniacal dictators that had no intent on honoring the treaties isn't advancing nonproliferation. It's settling for a photo-op instead of pushing dangerous people into trust-but-verify treaties that were vigorously enforced.
Another disturbing part of Hillary's op-ed is her goal of creating a world "with more partners and fewer adversaries." Our enemies today aren't interested in reaching a compromise. Al-Qa'ida wants Western civilization destroyed or submissive to their demands.
Our nation has paid a heavy price for rejecting a long-standing bipartisan tradition of global leadership rooted in a preference for cooperating over acting unilaterally, for exhausting diplomacy before making war, and for converting old adversaries into allies rather than making new enemies. At a moment in history when the world's most pressing problems require unprecedented cooperation, this administration has unilaterally pursued policies that are widely disliked and distrusted.Our nation paid a heavy price because Jacques Chirac was more interested in grandstanding than he was in getting rid of Saddam. Ditto with Gerhard Schroeder. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is a flaky liberal who caved into the terrorists only to have them demand more after he capitulated.
Had Sarkozy and Merkel been in office when President Bush first took us to war with Iraq, the dynamics would've been totally different. Mrs. Clinton wants people to believe that Chirac's and Schroeder's grandstanding are President Bush's fault. That's absurb thinking. Chirac and Schroeder were idiots who weren't popular at home so they tried keeping their power by criticizing President bush.
This isn't anything new. The French weren't great friends to the US during the Clinton administration, though Mrs. Clinton would like you to believe that.
Yet it does not have to be this way. Indeed, our allies do not want it to be this way. The world still looks to the United States for leadership. American leadership is wanting, but it is still wanted. Our friends around the world do not want the United States to retreat. They want once again to be allied with the nation whose values, leadership, and strength have inspired the world for the last century.That's some chutzpah. It wasn't the Clinton administration that forged a vital relationship with Pakistan. It wasn't the Clinton administration that forged vital relationships with 'the Stans' either.
The strawman argument that our friends don't want us to retreat is laughable. It's the current Democratic Party that won't ratify agreed-upon free trade agreements. President Bush hasn't been the free trade warrior that Bill Clinton was but he's hardly been an isolationist either.
Furthermore, it wasn't the "first black president" that insisted on reforms as part of his aid to Africa. It was George W. Bush that did that. It was President Bush's initiatives that were applauded by Bono.
At the end of the day, Hillary's arguments are straw man arguments that have little to do with real life. They're more about focus group-tested than they are serious policies for a serious world.
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:30 PM
No comments.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
A dozen captains have written an op-ed in this morning's Washington Post. Of these captains, Jeffrey Bouldin served in Al Anbar, Baghdad and Ninevah in 2006 while Josh Rizzo served in Baghdad in 2006. These captains haven't served in Iraq during the Anbar Awakening or any other part of Gen. Petraeus' Surge offensive, aka Operation Arrowhead Ripper . Nonetheless, they state things with a certitude that can't be based on current events. Here's an example of that:
Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet, moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.I'd love asking these captains these few simple questions:
- What official reports are their opinions based on?
- Have they taken into account the four-month long trend of decreasing violence?
- Have they noticed the Anbar Awakening?
- Did they know that we're crusking AQI in Sunni provinces like Anbar?
A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year's surge of American forces.
A month later, there isn't much room for such debate , at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006 , according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43, down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.I'm thankful for these captains' service to our nation. However, that doesn't mean I'll trust everything they say. I'll examine their opinions through the available information on the internet. I'll also ask whether I'll trust these officers' opinions in a Washington Post op-ed or Gen. Petraeus' testimony in front of Congress while under oath.
During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say, so far, with stunningly little success.
Frankly, that isn't that difficult of a decision.
Everyone who's paying attention to the news reports from Anbar and Diyala and Baghdad knows that conditions on the ground are changing. Here's a portion of the Roundtable's discussion on Iraq:
What's particularly impressive about Bill Kristol's comments is that he's basing everything on the briefing he got three months ago from Gen. Odierno and his stating that things are working out pretty much as planned.MORT KONDRACKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, ROLL CALL: General Petraeus is not declaring victory over Al Qaeda and, I think, the CENTCOM commander is not either, and there are two good reasons why. First, Al Qaeda might stage some sort of catastrophic spectacular and discredit any claims of victory.
And the second thing is that Congress might say OK, if we have defeated Al Qaeda, let's pull out. And we do not want to do that because there is still work to be done there, not least of which is the fact that the Iranians are still aiding Shiite militias that we still have to suppress.
But good things and great things are happening there, not least of which was that Washington Post story, for the two biggest critics of Iraq war policy, Tom Ritz and Karen De Young -
HUME: Reporters for the Post.
KONDRACKE: Reporters for the Washington Post, to come out even with a reported Al Qaeda crippled is a major development that should have political consequences.
BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: I was in Iraq the last week of July, and General Odierno in the briefing that he and his staff gave us, a very long briefing of where things stood, said they were cautiously optimistic that they were on the verge of breaking the back of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
They did not want to say it publicly, and they did not want us to say that they were saying that publicly they didn't want to get ahead of themselves, but they thought they had...the flip in Anbar, obviously, with the tribal Sheikhs coming over to our side has been very important. They had them on the run in Diyala and elsewhere.
They really thought that they were on or two major operation way from breaking Al Qaeda. They have conducted those operations.
The real brilliance of the plan and strategy that Petraeus and Odierno carried out, which I was impressed to see on paper at the time, to see it actually carried out according to plan. They had done this very systematically, very thoughtfully, and they have really broken Al Qaeda, and now they need to take care of some additional problems with the Shia. But they're working on that too.
Now it's no longer a matter of 12 captains vs. a general. It's now a matter of 12 captains vs. the in-theater commander of MNF-I troops, whose testimony is verified by the reports coming out daily about the success of the surge.
This doesn't mean that I think it's inevitable that we defeat the terrorists, though I now think it's likely. Here's one last observation that I think is noteworthy:
KRAUTHAMMER: It referred to the initial stage of the war, which we assumed at the time was the end of the war, which was deposing Saddam. That was a mission accomplished. But the problem was a second mission arose afterwards, and it was this insurgency.There's an old saying in the Middle East that says "Nothing wins like winning." Simply put, people in that part of the world respect winners and ignore losers. Al-Qa'ida staked its reputation on defeating the US. Now they're on the verge of losing. That'll deflate their image immensely. It's important to remember an overlooked portion of the Baker-Hamilton Report :
But is has several moving parts. Al Qaeda is one of them. The importance of this event, as Mort indicated, the real new news is not the defeat of Al Qaeda and the flipping of the Sunni insurgency, but the arrival of that news in Washington and the consciousness of the liberal media and in Congress and in these debates.
That is news. It is a change in the perception here, which is extremely important. And of course it is on a tape delay of about six months. Events happen in Iraq, and six months later people wake up and realize it has already happened.
But the importance in the context of the war on terror is, apart from its effect on the war in Iraq, which is it would help us in defeating insurgency on one side, and then we turn our attention to the Shiite side, in the war on terror itself, to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq after Al Qaeda had declared that it would be the central front against America, is a seminal event.
Apart from its influence inside Iraq, it means that Al Qaeda stake a lot on this war, and if they are defeated, it sends a message around the world that the Americans can actually defeat Al Qaeda on foreign territory, difficult to ground, in a sea of opposition, and succeed. And that is an amazing development.
Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.Following these captains' advice would be a crushing defeat for the US because Al Qaeda would claim an historic victory over the Great Satan. If liberals think that our being in Iraq is helping terrorist recruitment, which it undoubtedly helps at times, they haven't seen anything yet.
Finishing the job, which is now in sight, would be a crushing defeat for bin Laden's boys. They'd be defeated throughout the region, though they'd undoubtedly receive safe haven somewhere.
I'm sure that these captains had legitimate concerns. I'm equally certain that the victory that's finally within our grasp is worth pushing on despite their suggestions. After all, nothing's better than defeating al-Qa'ida after they've declared Iraq the central front in their war against the US.
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:34 PM
No comments.
Is the Unthinkable Happening?
Who in their wildest dreams thought that Jim Ogonowski would be leading Niki Tsongas with 50 percent of MA-5's precincts reporting? According to this report , that's exactly what's happening:
5th U.S. Congressional District Special ElectionStay tuned for more updates.
Massachusetts Fifth U.S. Congressional District
Candidate Votes Percent
Jim Ogonowski (R) 29,105 51%
Nicola Tsongas (D) 26,454 46%
Precincts Reporting - 96 out of 195 - 49%
UPDATE: Bad news this time around
Candidate Votes Percent
Jim Ogonowski (R) 41,508 46%
Nicola Tsongas (D) 46,542 51%
Precincts Reporting - 168 out of 195 - 86%
UPDATE II: Boston Channel.com has called the race for Tsongas.
UPDATE III: It's final. Niki Tsongas defeated Jim Ogonowski 51%-45% :
Jim Ogonowski (Republican) 47,770 45%
Nicola Tsongas (Democrat) 54,363 51%
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:49 PM
No comments.
