Wed 27 Jul 2005
Weapons of Mass Discussion grabs the ball from Minamyer and runs with it.
They are bankrupt. They will say anything. They will do anything. What they can’t do is tell you a good reason to vote for Jean Schmidt.
Swing State Project notes that the bile is starting to seep out into the mainstream media.
July 27th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Oh boo hoo.
Minamyer came up with 8 without breaking a sweat, which is pretty impressive in this weather.
http://ericminamyer.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/25/1074300.html
Since your standard is one, you have to eliminate all eight or it doesn’t count. Good luck.
BizzyBlog
July 27th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Here in Canada, byelections often result in a victory for the opposition party as voters see it as a safe way to send a message to the government. I think that should be Paul Hackett’s final message to the voters:
Something like “If you are tired of the Republican negative, destructive campaigning, if you are tired of Republican’s focussing on issues like Teri Schiavo and gay marriages while issues of importance to your day to day lives like the economy are left to wither, now is your chance to send a positive message that we can do better.”
July 27th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
I haven’t heard you singing Jean Schmidt’s praises Bizster. I haven’t heard WMD either, not VikingSpirit. It took me to shame Eric into giving his eight, and we can dive into those if you like. (BTW, do they really count as 8?)
ProjectLogic’s big reason is that she backs ethanol, and if I remember correctly a certain special someone had doubts about that piece of porkbarrel nonsense.
Where are the lauds for Jean Schmidt? Does Eric Minamyer stand alone in singing her praises?
July 27th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
BTW, oh boo hoo LOL
That’s funny. I bet vets returning from Iraq think this whole thing is a real crackup. Why spit on the troops returning home when you can slime them from the comfort of your blog?
Keep it up. This is a real winner for your team.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Eight reasons still remaining……..
Min did a good enough job that I don’t feel compelled to supplement.
You should do better homework. Here’s a later comment on the same post that at least points to it being cheaper, which was my principal concern at the time:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/erickephas/112024465675695327/#13316
This article today says that if you can find someone selling it and if you car can handle it, it’s about 45 cents a gallon cheaper:
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050705/BIZ/507050314/1076
On the surface, it appears that the economics of ethanol have moved to the sensible range because of the higher cost of traditionally obtained gasoline, which was the core question behind the post you identified.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Now that’s the BizzyBlog that we’ve all grown to love.
Thank’s for pointing those out. Working up something for Ethanol and it would be good to have.
Who knows, it may even be a good idea. Studies have been negative lately, but we shall see.
If Schmidt is right, than Hackett should say so. I haven’t heard him attack her on that, but on other aspects of Bush’s energy bill.
I will say that when Schmidt talks about gas like she did in the debate you can see her days on the race track come out. It was a rare and interesting window into her past.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Your team bothers the families of the returning dead at funerals.
Classy.
I simply wonder why if a guy provably lies or deceives three times in a TV ad, how we are able to assume that a fourth item, which may never have been questioned in the absence of the first three lies or deceits, is automatically true:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=319
If you care, the “how dare you” arrogance represents a second and separate exception to the “no more blogging” rule.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Thankfully, my guest artists are making text blog entries unnecessary for the time being.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
> Your team bothers the families of the returning dead at funerals.
Like how you let that one float out there. Who? What? Were? When?
There have been plenty of stories about funerals that I haven’t posted on this site because they didn’t seem appropriate to talk about, and they weren’t about Hackett. I let the Whistleblower peddle that crap since he’s already sold his soul.
If you’ve got something, post it on your blog.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
I’ll have a list eventualy on why I support Schmidt…I haven’t made one because I was cool on Schmidt’s candidacy for a long time. As a DeWine backer in the primary, I was kinda pissed that DeWine lost. I’ve said on here before that I’m not terribly enthusiastic about Schmidt’s candidacy.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
BTW, don’t look for any knocks on Hackett’s service on my site…I’m not going to have any.
He served, let’s leave it at that.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Viking, you obviously have some integrity and arent plugged into the schmidt smear machine. I say good for you !
you dnt have to be a jerk to be a Republican, it never used to be this way.
July 27th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
The biggest crackup is that I’m getting angry emails from people saying that I’m being too soft on this whole thing.
July 27th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
My list of reasons I support Schmidt is up on my site.
July 27th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
http://ericminamyer.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/25/1074300.ht ml
The 8 reasons are a bunch of crap.
I like Republicans is not a good reason to always vote Republican. Then to say ” Given that Congress is run by majority rule that can be a very good reason to support your party in a House race” is crap. It directly contradicts what you say in number 5 ” I wouldn’t vote for a democrat if the majority changes”. So it does not matter what party is in power I guess you trying to spin???
Yes she is pro-life. Hackett believes the government should not control peoples lives. Correct me if I’m wrong isn’t partial birth abortion illegal already? Eric is trying to make wedge issues out of nothing.
Hackett wants to use the taxes to pay for the war. With the military being short on recruits, and supplies don’t you think we should pay for the war. After all he was there and knows what is happening. But your last line is fare ” only one will win and we won’t be able to compare”. This doesn’t really offer a reason to support Schmidt though.
Eric Minamyer contradicts himself again: Does experience matter or not??? I think it takes intelligence, and leader ship skills. Something Paul Hackett has plenty of.
See number 1.
Reflecting the values of the constituency is very important. From my understanding OH-02 would prefer some one who is fiscally conservative, again the choice would be Hackett. The Republican party in power is all about borrow and spend, borrow and spend. Leading America to some of the biggest deficits in history.
“Schmidt will work very hard to do a good job for OH2. She sincerely wants the job and wants to keep it once she gets it. I like that in a public official so long as she focuses on constituent’s needs which I believe she will.” — Change Schmidt to Hackett, and she to He.
Is the same as number 4.
July 27th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
His reasons are his reasons. I disagree with them, but I’m glad he provided them. I wouldn’t call them crap. They aren’t crap to him. Rather than name calling we need to provide sound reasons why they are wrong. Name calling only weakens your argument.
July 27th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
I read Minamyers 8 reasons. It doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement to me but rather, folks, we’re stuck with her and she’s the Republican so let’s follow and vote R. That’s about it. His “attacks” on Hackett are also so weak - “I’m just asking questions…” They do stir up a negative campaign opportunity for RW nuts, but it seems like he is trying to make a difference and help the R’s without his heart in it. I know he reads this blog. Eric - search your soul and just come out and say what the good angel on your shoulder is telling you and endorse Hackett.
July 27th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Sorry Editor, your right. My bad. I just got a little fired up.
Normally I am a calm guy! Honestly.
July 27th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Re-reading my post, I can see where there might be some confusion as to my motives, but let me assure you and your readers that my intention with that post was to clarify that Hackett was no desk jockey but rather someone who actually was in Iraq. I don’t think Major Hackett can lay claim to having “lead Marines in combat” as his ad has been interpreted to say though.
To me, it doesn’t really matter what Major Hackett did or did not do in Iraq…I do take exception with the ad because he portrays himself as being a supporter of the President nand his policies in Iraq…which should cause some problems on your side of the aisle as well. I am stunned to see that there is no comment on the fact that the Major failed to identify himself as a Democrat in the ad either.
The issue isn’t Major Hackett’s service, it is the ad.
To answer the question about the Democrat who crashed the military funeral…that would be the Lieutenant Governor of the state of Pennsylvannia…I forget her name, but I’m sure you can find it elsewhere…
July 27th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
WMDtvMatt - No Politician should take advantage of our soldiers in Iraq and most definitley none should be opportunisitic at one’s funeral. I don’t know all of the details about the L.Gov of Penn. But I do find it repulsive for any Pol to try and take advantage at such a personal, family event. That being said, why can’t the right quit nit-picking over “combat” for crying out loud…. He lead his troops in harms way, and in Iraq is there really very many situations where a soldier doesn’t find themselves in a “combat” situation???? Just respect him for his service and if you want to disagree with him on issues let that be your case. Don’t be little his service.
July 27th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
In comment 18, WMDtvMatt states “The issue isn’t Major Hackett’s service, it is the ad,” and he amplifies this point on his blog by saying “The fact of the matter is that Major Hackett’s ad implied something that is not in clear evidence.” I noted in the comments there (and note here) that our President asseted that:
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
… And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”
President Bush stated things for which the evidence was not clear at the time. Because the President started a war on unclear evidence, almost 1800 Americans are dead.
I googled WMDtvMatt’s site, but could not find any expression of his concern over this far more grave deception than any Paul Hackett could possibly have committed in his TV ad.
July 27th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
I have replied to Jim’s concern over at my site…in the comments section of the same post that has been linked here.
July 27th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Because the President started a war on unclear evidence, almost 1800 Americans are dead.
And 500 or so a week aren’t being fed into shredders or otherwise murdered by Saddam, and the rape rooms are closed. I’ll take it. More importantly, so will our servicemen.
BizzyBlog
July 27th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
“Fever Swamp Liberals” Is that a term that’s used by these people, or did he just make it up right now? I’m an acknowledged liberal, but I just can’t make the “Fever Swamp” thing happen. Any pointers? I feel like I’m missing out. Does this have some kind of racist Holy Roller stereotype connotation?
“I do take exception with the ad because he portrays himself as being a supporter of the President nand his policies in Iraq” NoNo. Lookee here- Hackett has stated over and over that he doesn’t support the President nand his policies in Iraq. He supports the statement that “There is no higher calling than service in the armed forces.” How do I know this? By the commercial’s title: “A Call To Service.”
You sound like a George Bush supporter - Paul Hackett exemplifies the highest calling George Bush represents - so just go ahead and support Hackett. What’s the problem? Just because he said “my Marines?” That’s a pretty petty hairsplitting quibble.
It all depends on what the definition of “my” is.
Is that the best you’ve got against this guy?
July 28th, 2005 at 1:19 am
BizzyBlog asserts that:
“And 500 or so [Iraqis] a week aren’t being fed into shredders or otherwise murdered by Saddam, and the rape rooms are closed.”
BuzzyBlog avoids the question at hand: Why should we hold sitting President George W. Bush to lower standards than we hold Congressional Candidate Paul Hackett?
When President Bush issued his “48 hours” ultimatum, he did not cite murder or rape rooms as the vital American interest that called for sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. Mr. Bush made the false assertion that:
“The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html)
“Rape rooms” and “Saddam’s murders” were never a reason for the invasion of Iraq until long after the invasion was done. So, BizzyBlog’s comments are irrelevant to the matter at hand, but do illustrate the bottom line, namely:
If the President were held to the same standards that OH-02 Republicans are demanding of Paul Hackett, Mr. Bush would not be in office today.