October 24, 2006 Posts
02:47 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Duplicitousness 13:12 Disenterested GOP?
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Duplicitousness
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette officially endorsed Bob Casey Jr. over Rick Santorum. Here's the opening paragraph of their hit piece:
There was a time when conservatives ran against Washington, DC, but Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, in fighting the challenge by state Treasurer Bob Casey this year, has a problem doing that. He is Washington, DC. More precisely, the 12-year incumbent is the sort of calculating politician who has made the 109th Congress the out-of-touch and ethics-challenged institution that has added to the store of public cynicism.This hit piece isn't based on anything factually verifiable. Calling Rick Santorum "calculating" isn't just disgusting; it's intellectually insulting. He's the ultimate straight shooter.
It's obvious that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette doesn't have much integrity. If they did, they couldn't have endorsed the ultimate calculating politician in America not named Clinton: John Murtha. Murtha got the itch to be famous instead of giving a damn about the military that he says he loves. In his quest to be Majority Leader, he threw away the things that he used to hold dear.
Murtha's quick to point out that he visits Walter Reed on a regular basis. It'd be nice if he visited there without having to walk past the parasites known as Code Pink. He doesn't seem to mind, though, since they 'honored' him as their man of the year.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette didn't mention that Murtha had become "Washington, DC." Instead they said this:
"In any other year, a vigorous challenge to Johnstown Democrat John Murtha, who has represented the 12th Congressional District for 32 years, would be a welcome wake-up call for the too-long-secure incumbent."Why does the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette think that having an ancient, calculating, scandal-ridden incumbent like Murtha is a good thing but having a straight shooter like Santorum serving in the Senate is a negative thing? It's obvious that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's 'logic' is because Murtha's liberal like they are and they'll do anything to badmouth a true conservative. It's obvious that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette will ignore a liberal's unethical behavior and his voting record against anything that would improve our national security tools to endorse him.
I'll guarantee that the voters of PA-12 won't ignore Murtha's obvious shortcomings. I'll further guarantee that Murtha's duplicitousness will be 'rewarded' with an involuntary 'retirement notice' this November. While we're on the subject of guarantees, I'll guarantee that Pennsylvanians will reward Rick Santorum's straightforward approach to the important issues of the day with another term in office.
Whatever may be said about his politics, when he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990 and won his Senate seat in 1994, Mr. Santorum was the brash and reform-minded upstart. Today all that can be fairly said is that he is still brash, but the upstart now has settled into the role of a big man in the ruling establishment.I guess the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette doesn't consider his vote on the Border Fence Act to be a reform of our immigration system. I guess they didn't mind John Murtha's voting for the broken immigration system because Murtha's their kind of status quo kind of guy. Anyone who hasn't noticed the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's arbitrary double standards in the name of liberalism is either ignorant or a moonbat liberal.
The sinister political forces who have come out of the woodwork to support Ms. Irey are unnerved by something else: Mr. Murtha's stand on the Iraq war.That's the line that liberal idiots have peddled from the day that Murtha scandalized the Haditha Marine incident. It's just as untrue today as it was then. I'm not a "sinister political force". I'm an activist who thinks that a calculating congressman shouldn't throw away the Constitution in his attempt to score cheap political points. I took it damned personally when John Murtha tried to convict a group of Marines without even learning firsthand from the investigators what actually happened. I took it damned personally when John Murtha tried and convicted these innocent men in the court of public opinion before the investigation had even reached any conclusions.
At the 1996 GOP Convention, J.C. Watts said that the definition of character is "doing the right thing even when no one is watching." John Murtha won't do the right thing when people are watching, much less when they aren't watching.
PA-12 can't afford a character-bereft, scandal-ridden congressman who doesn't share their values representing them in Washington. They need someone who's in touch with their values, who'll fight for their best interests, especially in the arena of national security. They need someone who exudes integrity. They need Diana Irey.
Likewise, Pennsylvanians can't afford a legacy lightweight like little Bobbie Casey littering the Senate's hallways and voting whichever way Chuckie Schumer and Harry Reid tell him to. They need an advocate like Rick Santorum to fight for them in the Senate.
That's why Santorum and Ms. Irey will be sworn into the 110th Congress next January.
Posted Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:47 AM
No comments.
Disenterested GOP?
With all due respect, I'm sick of hearing how dispirited, disinterested and disengaged Republicans are. This weekend, Fred Barnes pointed out some statistics that "aren't nothing." Here's what I'm refering to:
A memo circulated by the RNC Friday says Republican volunteers who are very, very important have contacted more than 14 million voters this year, seven million since Labor Day alone and they have made one million voter contacts each week for the past five weeks. Mort, that is not nothing.Those contacts are the result of hours of doorknocking and phonebanking by volunteers committed to winning and preserving Republican majorities in both houses of congress. These aren't 'robocalls'. They're done by real people making real contact with people. If people were disengaged, we wouldn't be making this many contacts. PERIOD.
My question to Republicans everywhere is simple: Will you believe these statistics or will you trust the Agenda Media's reporting? That answer shouldn't take more than a split second for anyone to the right of Joe Lieberman.
Fred had this observation that's right on:
Another advantage for Republicans, the two Ts, terror and taxes. Both issues rile up the base favorably and also many voters. Here is a brand new RNC ad hitting the terror theme, Mort. Watch. I loved it. But here is President Bush on Thursday on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania hitting the taxes theme. Watch.The clip that Fred's refering to was President Bush's campaign visit to Don Sherwood's district. I was fortunate to see that entire speech on C-SPAN. President Bush was passionate about the two T's. I'll try to paraphrase his main points:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, U.S. PRESIDENT: When the Democrats had a chance to deliver tax relief for the American people, they voted no. This is a party that is genetically hostile to tax relief. With every vote they have cast they make clear to the American people, higher taxes are a part of the congressional Democrats' DNA.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Democrats say that they love tax cuts but they voted against ending the marriage penalty. Democrats say that they love tax cuts but they voted against ending the Alternative Minimum Tax. Democrats say that they love tax cuts but they voted against increasing the per child tax credit. Democrats say that they love tax cuts but they voted against eliminating the death tax.Watching the President rattle off those points was a thing of beauty. His face was flush with color, his facial expression that of pure grit and determination, his fists clenching and unclenching.
Then he started talking about 90% of House Democrats voted against the NSA intercept program; that 80% of House Democrats voted against the Military Commissions Act; that 80% of House Democrats voted against Border Fence Act; that 80% of Democrats voted against final passage of reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.I'll guarantee you that the people in the audience left that room prepared to run through walls for Rep. Sherwood after that stemwinder. Disengaged? Not hardly.
That's what led Bones and I to predict that the Beltway pundits will be embarassingly wrong this Election Night. If you're looking for demoralized Republicans on Election Day, it's my opinion that you've got better odds finding tax-cutting, pro-war Democrats.
And we both know what those odds are like.
Posted Tuesday, October 24, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment 1 by Thomas at 25-Oct-06 10:59 PM
Tell me, if there was a poll out there that showed Republicans leading in this election cycle would you print it? I think you would. In fact, I think that all the abundant skepticism you have for current polling would disappear, I think you would suddenly become a great proponent and believer in the statistical science of polling. Also, the statistics you threw out about door knocking and voter contacts made this year; how does that compare to 2004? I find it particularly telling that you give no comparison of those numbers, perhaps you even looked those numbers up, but you and I know that they don't compare, so you didn't print them in hopes you could dupe us with your dishonest incomplete picture. The fact is, compared to 2004 Republican grassroots activism is down and the numbers show conclusively that Republicans are out of steam and their arrogance and incompetence are catching up with them. Iraq, terrorism, the budget, Americans can clearly see that the utter failure of the government on these fronts is totally the fault of the Republicans. They had four years of total control of all branches of government, and today we have more problems then when we started, why exactly do you think the Republicans are an attractive option this year? If the Democrats take the House in November will you admit you were completely wrong, or will you yet again brush reality aside?
