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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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. :–>

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?

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.

“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”.