Robin Weirauch Takes Stealth Campaigning to the Next Level: Part 3 — The Issueless Web Site, and Campaign (See Update)
The left doesn’t have the guts to tell us what they believe. They don’t have the courage to be honest about it. They’re all about masking who they really are. – Rush Limbaugh
Part 2 dealt with Exhibit A — Democratic congressional candidate Robin Weirauch’s failure to disclose her endorsement by EMILY’s List (EL) on her web site, the true and horrific meaning of an EL endorsement (i.e., advocating the reinstatement of the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion), and Weirauch’s utter failure to discuss her position on abortion and life-related issues anywhere on her web site. That’s BizzyBlog Dealbreaker Number 1 for her candidacy. (A BizzyBlog Dealbreaker is “something that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your stands on the issues.â€)
BizzyBlog Dealbreaker Number 2 is simply stated but absolutely incredible to have to assert: Robin Weirauch’s web site does not reveal where she stands on any real issues.
None. I’m not kidding.
Not that Bob Latta has acquitted himself admirably in this regard, but as I mentioned in Part 1:
Though it takes more work than it should to pull it together, after a few clicks it’s obvious that he’s fiscally conservative (signing the Americans for Tax Reform “No New Taxes†Pledge; scroll to very bottom at link), prolife, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border security, does his job (100% voting record), and involved in the community.
That’s not exactly an A-Z recitation on the important issues of the day, but it beats nothing.
And that’s what Exhibit B, Robin Weirauch’s entire web site, has — nothing:
- Home page? Nope.
- The Ted Strickland ad, or the Tim Ryan pep talk? I challenge you to identify an issue mentioned. You won’t be able to.
- Meet Robin? Zip.
- The Blog? SOSO (Same Old, Same Old). Oh, she’s against toys containing lead (I’m soooo sure Bob Latta favors that), and there’s a real incoherent comment about how “Washington trade agreements like NAFTA cost us jobs and encourage a wave of illegal immigrants” (no, the lack of a fence that your party would NEVER build encourages illegals). The blog has generated so much interest it had four whole comments as of 12:30 a.m.
In the News? It’s all external links to articles that are Sound-bite and Cliche City — Complaining and complaining about kids’ health care and the SCHIP veto (what would you DO, ma’am?), health care in general, decrying the lack of good-paying jobs, demanding low fuel prices (or what, you’ll hold your breath?), wanting to see an end to the war in Iraq (who doesn’t?), standing up for the middle class, complaining about trade deals ….. zzzzzz …..
The closest thing I see to a real position on an issue in the News is her call for a moratorium on trade deals. Wow. Go back into the News archive and you see that she “support(ed) striking GM workers.” Now there’s some real Democratic courage.
But there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, on the web site itself about, oh, Iraq, the War on Terror, abortion, immigration (see Updates and Comments — Weirauch’s “position” on immigration amounts to a mishmash that nets out to nothing), education, Second Amendment rights, taxes, ….. (cue Zell Miller) ….. I could go on and on and on.
I’ve never seen anything as substance-free as this in a congressional race. Not even close. This is a new level of stealth campaigning not even Paul Hackett (more on that here) or Victoria Wells-Wulsin-Whatever dared to try. Robin Weirauch wants your vote because ….. well ….. just because.
One cannot help but conclude that Robin Weirauch doesn’t want 5th District voters to know what she really believes. In fact, I’d say she’s deathly afraid of that happening.
Robin Weirauch’s breathtaking lack of substance and issue positions constitute a slam-dunk Dealbreaker. Nobody deserves a vote unless they get past sound-bite platitudes and tell us where they stand and what they will do. Robin Weirauch is nowhere near that. If she won’t give the issues serious consideration, she herself does not deserve serious consideration.
_______________________________________
UPDATE: I am being taken to task in a comment because a Weirauch November 29 blog post (”AMERICAN STANDARD”) says, “Washington needs to enforce our immigration laws and hold employers accountable when they break them. We must secure the borders and make sure that illegal immigrants aren’t rewarded for breaking the law. That means absolutely no amnesty, no driver’s licenses, and no federal benefits for illegal immigrants.” (Note: Nancy Pelosi and other contributors don’t believe a word of that.)
Of course I saw that. The problem is that it follows the incoherence referred to above, which reads in full: “This is another blow to Northwest Ohioans –Washington trade agreements like NAFTA cost us jobs and encourage a wave of illegal immigrants. Making matters worse, Washington isn’t enforcing our immigration laws allowing big companies to hire illegal immigrants without fear of being penalized.”
Geez, Robin — Illegals aren’t entering this country in waves to work at closed plants. Non sequiturs aren’t issue positions. They’re incoherent non sequiturs. The issues position-free nature of Weirauch’s web site thus remains.
UPDATE 2: She’s not just incoherent on illegals, she’s dishonest, as the Latta web site News Page reveals (5th item at link; bold is mine):
Bowling Green, Ohio (December 6, 2007) — After trying to deceive voters into thinking she was tough on illegal immigration, liberal Congressional candidate Robin Weirauch admitted today that she supports a bill pending in Congress that would grant free healthcare to illegal immigrants.
….. Even the bill’s author, the ultra-liberal Rep. John Conyers of Detroit, admitted that his legislation would provide free, taxpayer funded health care to illegal residents of the United States.
The bill accomplishes this by prohibiting the government or other health care providers from requiring a Social Security number to confirm citizenship.
Weirauch can deny until the cows come home, but here’s the truth, as reported by the Toledo Blade:
Mrs. Weirauch refused to disavow a sweeping proposed national health-care act sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) that would extend benefits to everyone residing in the United States or its territories. She denied that’s a ticket to free health care for illegal workers.
“The bill refers to health care for anyone who resides in the U.S. Anyone would understand that to mean resides legally in the U.S.,” Mrs. Weirauch said. “Congress is not going to approve any bill to extend health care to illegal immigrants.”
But a statement from the National Republican Congressional Committee said, “The [Conyers] bill goes to great lengths to guarantee that illegal immigrants would not be denied complete health coverage.”
Based on Conyers’ record, there’s absolutely no reason to doubt that he would want illegals covered:
Representative John Conyers has voted in favor of giving illegal aliens further rewards and other incentives to come such as in-state tuition, educational benefits, welfare and health care services.
Sorry, Robin. No sale. You’re busted.
I’m still waiting for something constituting a real, coherent, and consistent (duh) issues position from Team Weirauch.
[…] BizzyBlog The closest thing I see to a real position on an issue in the News is her call for a moratorium on trade deals. Wow. Go back into the News archive and you see that she “support(ed) striking GM workers.†Now there’s some real Democratic courage.But there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, on the web site itself about, oh, Iraq, the War on Terror, abortion, immigration, education, Second Amendment rights, taxes, ….. (cue Zell Miller) ….. I could go on and on and on. […]
Pingback by NixGuy.com » Weirauch Hiding the Libereality* — December 10, 2007 @ 9:56 am
If you’re not finding Robin’s stance on anything at her site, you’re not looking. As a matter of fact, your diatribe completely skips over her unequivocal stance on immigration:
“We must secure the borders and make sure that illegal immigrants aren’t rewarded for breaking the law. That means absolutely no amnesty, no driver’s licenses, and no federal benefits for illegal immigrants.”
Sounds pretty clear that she does not support free passes for those who come into the country illegally. It might take a little reading instead of rifling through oversimplified bullet points, but you’ll also find that another key goal of Robin’s is to combat the major job losses the 5th has suffered. This plan includes tax incentives for companies that can keep manufacturing jobs in Ohio, as well as the moratorium on bad trade deals that don’t promote the best interests of the 5th district.
Bringing jobs back to Ohio, securing our border, and no amnesty or federal support for illegal immigrants. These are just two strong stances on issues I found from a cursory glance at her website. As a matter of fact, I didn’t see an “On the Issues” section on Bob Latta’s page, either. One could call this a “breathtaking lack of substance,” but for an informed voter, this shouldn’t be a “dealbreaker”.
Comment by Matt — December 10, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
#2, see the Update. Incoherence is not an issues position.
I mentioned the moratorium. Tax incentives for preserving jobs already exist.
I’m still waiting for something constituting a real issues position. “I support the creation of something that already exists†is not an issues position. It is ignorance.
Comment by TBlumer — December 10, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
#2, Heck, she isn’t even consistent on that. See Update 2.
Comment by TBlumer — December 10, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Well if Bob Latta’s campaign press office and the NRCC says something, then it MUST be true. I mean it’s not like Latta has a documented history of lying about his opponent in campaigns or anything!
Don’t be so obtuse, Tom. You conveniently failed to mention the portion of the Blade story that said Conyers plans on revising his proposal to make sure that it’s clear that it will not cover illegal immigrants.
And it’s not unheard of for a candidate to support a proposal with modifications, that’s what Congress does.
Quit playing the double standard and admit that you just don’t want people to vote for Weirauch because she holds positions different from yours.
Latta doesn’t have a single “dealbreaker?” Even after his vote for Taft’s taxes and his repeated lying about his opponent in the pirmary?
Comment by Modern Esquire — December 10, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
#5 ModEsq, this is what the Blade said:
A statement yesterday by Mr. Conyers appeared to admit the problem. A statement from the congressman’s office said he plans to “revise the legislation to deal with a number of issues that have been brought to his attention, including the issue of undocumented individuals.â€
That, sir, is a non-answer. Considering that it’s Conyers, who has never met an illegal-immigrant expansion idea he didn’t like, he could “deal with it” with minor, non-substantive tweaks. Heck, he could “deal with it†by making it MORE permissive.
If he had meant to make illegals ineligible, he would have said so. He didn’t.
Thanks for bolstering my Dealbreaking point. :–>
Comment by TBlumer — December 10, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Only in your own mind, Tom. You don’t revise the legislation to deal with issues unless you think those issues are problematic.
To take that quote and to try and make it sound like Conyers is going to make it MORE permissive (whatever the hell that means. Permissiveness is like pregnancy you either are or are not) is to torture the English language and blanch it out of all context until words have no meaning whatsoever. How anyone above an eighth-grade reading comprehension level could read that quote and assign ambiguity where none exists demonstrates an agenda and not critical thinking.
You can take your partisan potshots but how dare you do so under the guise of any independent thinking. Your response betrays that you are nothing more than an ideological hack who can only see what you want to see and have no interest in an honest debate on facts but nothing more than gossipmongering and rhetoric. Drop the pretense and admit that this is nothing more than a recycling of NRCC and Latta campaign talking points guised under “citizen journalism/commentary.”
Admit what this is, you taking NRCC and Latta talking points to create a controversy that does not truly exist. Now that you’ve been called on it, you want to play semantic games instead of admitting that your accusation is at best, highly misleading, or at worst, an outright lie. You say the left is afraid to let the people know where they stand.
From this whole diaologue I see it is Lyin’ Latta and his supporters who would rather distort and lie about what Weirauch does support rather than have to face his own tax raising/career politician ways.
And, of course, your entire article is premised on the absurd notion that your regular readership might have been inclined to vote for a pro-choice Democrat tomorrow until you revealed your precious lil’ “dealbreakers.” Dealbreakers that failed to stop the second worst Republican defeat in Ohio gubernatorial history.
Comment by Modern Esquire — December 10, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
#7 ModEsq, I guess never before in recorded history has a law gotten worse when it was expected to get better, esp given the sponsor. I said “could†make it more permissive.* Please read more carefully.
My interest is in getting stuff out there that isn’t. It so happens that the vast majority of what doesn’t get out there is from the left, because, as Rush noted, concealing their true views and motives is all too often their fundamental nature, and has been for at least 40 years. Weirauch’s stealth is so obvious, and so pervasive, that it is impossible to ignore.
You may have noticed that Mitt Romney, who I have been ripping quite a bit, is a Republican, as is/was Bob McEwen. You also missed the point that I considered the late Paul Gillmor’s lack of residency in the 5th District a Dealbreaker:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/30/dealbreakers-updated-list/
Oh, and that I have real problem with the possibility of a Republican state rep with a background in payday lending:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=5810
So how DARE you question MY independence. You owe me an apology, not that I expect you to have the class to provide one.
I suspect that you won’t let the facts get in the way of a convenient narrative, ModEsq — even though those “facts†are only in your own mind. How about surprising me for once?
_____________________________________
* - “More permissive†means that more illegals might become eligible in a revised bill, or their benefits might be made more generous. Doh — That’s “whatever the hell†permissive means.
Zheesh.
Comment by TBlumer — December 10, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Tom, you’re upset. I get it. Take a deep breath, now let it out. In the interests of trying to represent both sides of this independently written post, here’s a few “dealbreakers” of my own for Bob Latta:
1. Taking dirty money from convicted felon Tom Noe. (www.sos.state.oh.us)
2. Lying to Ohioans about taking said dirty money. (Latta TV ad)
3. Being hit by the Ohio Elections Commission for blatantly lying about his opponent in last month’s primary (Toledo Blade, 11/5/07)
4. Voting for the LARGEST tax increase in Ohio history (USA Today 2/9/04)
5. Pandering to special interest groups like big oil companies, taking $9,000 from the PACs of BP, Exxon Mobil, Valero and Marathon Oil. (Latta for Congress FEC Disclosures)
6. Supports NAFTA, which has lost 49,886 jobs in Ohio (NAFTA’s cautionary tale, EPI)
I would think voters in the 5th want someone to represent them in Washington who doesn’t need to lie about their opponent, who doesn’t work for big oil companies, and who doesn’t want to see more jobs leave the area. But maybe that’s just me.
Comment by Matt — December 10, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
#9, yawn.
These posts aren’t about Bob Latta’s qualifications, they’re about Robin Weirauch’s stealth campaign, which I note that you failed to attempt to refute, or even to address.
The “two sides†of this post would be “RW is running a stealth campaign†and “RW isn’t running a stealth campaign.†So I technically could have nuked your comment based on lack of relevance to the post topic. But, far from being “upset,†I’m in a benevolent, if sleepy, mood. :–>
Your criticism of Latta taking money from Marathon is interesting, given that their Refining, Marketing and Transportation headquarters is located in Findlay. I guess in your world there’s something wrong with a major employer taking an interest in who represents their area in Congress. CORRECTION: Findlay is not in the district, but its county is surrounded to the north, east and west by the district. Marathon’s interest in who represents an area where many of their employees live is valid within the existing campaign framework, though in an ideal world I would want to prevent ANY contributions from anyone not actually living in the District.
As to “special interest group†money, even a cursory glance at Weirauch’s FEC info, plus the EMILY’s List endorsement, show that she (and you) have no room to criticize Latta.
Comment by TBlumer — December 10, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
[…] person who at least had the courtesy to tell us where he stands on a number of issues, unlike the loser, who told us virtually nothing — and what little she did tell us wasn’t even […]
Pingback by NixGuy.com » Official OH5 Live Thread — UPDATE: Latta Wins! I call it at 9:05PM — December 11, 2007 @ 10:15 pm