Prosecute the torture.

November 2, 2006

Melissa Hart: What does she know that she's not telling us?

This morning, there were two things I found at the P-G website that, when taken together, made me go, "huh?" First there's this.
U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart called yesterday for an end to "negative ads" by both her re-election campaign opponent, Democrat Jason Altmire, and by outside groups trying to help both candidates.
However, even she can't stop the attack dogs of the RNCC.
But a request her campaign manager said he made in the morning to the National Republican Congressional Committee to stop running ads criticizing Mr. Altmire was dismissed by day's end by that committee's spokesman.

"We will not allow Jason Altmire to go through the next week hiding his push for higher taxes and government bureaucracy-controlled health care from the voters," said Ed Patru, spokesman for the NRCC, which is barred by law from coordinating strategy with congressional candidates.
Now there's this from the November 1 edition of the P-G's "Early Returns" column:
... Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Bradford Woods, is capitalizing on the Kerry flap by demanding that her Democratic opponent, Jason Altmire, return the money Mr. Kerry helped raise for him.

Good luck on that.
Well, yea. Has Missy returned the $15,ooo she received from Tom Delay's PAC? He's actually under indictment for corruption, you know. Or the $21,000 from Bob Ney? He's on his way to jail. Or the $1,000 she received from Duke Cunningham? He's already in jail.

Hmm, but John Kerry's blown joke about Bush is spun into something that it's not and now Missy's "demanding" that Altmire return any money Kerry raised for him.

Now that's balls.

But all this raises an interesting set of questions for me. Why would Missy ask "everyone" (meaning, of course, "Jason Altmire and his supporters") to stop negative campaigning?

First off it's nothing but a feint. "Negative campaigning" to Missy Hart may indeed be something very different to anyone else. Is focussing on her close connection to her President's failures (to date unacknowledged by him) in Iraq a "negative campaign" tactic? She probably thinks so.

No one else would, of course.

This part probably shows the feint for what it is:
With her own party higher-ups not going along with Ms. Hart's request, chances of Mr. Altmire urging his supporters to withdraw from the battle were nil, though it certainly would have been unlikely to begin with. If they were competing one-on-one for attention of television viewers, Ms. Hart would appear to have a decided advantage in exposure, as she reported having more than $500,000 in the bank as of Oct. 18, and Mr. Altmire had less than $55,000.
So if Missy "succeeded" in ending all outside ads, she'd have a 10-1 money advantage. Ah, that Missy. So altruistic! She wants a "fair" campaign - one where she'll have all the monetary advantages.

How Republican of her.

But anyway the idea of someone from party of Karl Rove and Rick Santorum asking everyone to "play nice" is absurdity purified. And one would think that if she actually believes the 12-point advantage her recently released poll seemed to indicate, it wouldn't matter to her what Altmire was doing. Right?

So she must've been, well, maybe a wee-bit deceitful by releasing that poll. Doncha think?

But beyond that. Missy must be running scared if she's now asking her opponent to campaign the way she wants him to campaign. The (non-Hart released) polls show Jason Altmire still slightly behind. Why all the trouble from someone in the lead - someone who's got way more money than her opponent?

What does know that she's not saying?

3 comments:

John Schutrick said...

I'm sure she's just doing it so that she can run negative ads saying that Jason Altmeyer is running negative ads.

I just heard a local radio story about it, spun her way. More "liberal media" coverage.

Whigsboy said...

The polls didn't really come up during the debate this morning, but Altmire, while his performance was uneven, had the line of the debate, in the context of a discussion on taxes.

"I support tax cuts that will help parents send their kids to college. Melissa Hart supports tax cuts that help rich parents send their kids to Europe for the summer."

Don't know if that's original, but it was well done.

Mike McNally said...

"I support tax cuts that will help parents send their kids to college. Melissa Hart supports tax cuts that help rich parents send their kids to Europe for the summer."

This quote cuts to the heart of the matter. Of course, we are all for lower taxes. But who gets the tax cuts, and what do the taxes pay for?

Melissa Hart joined President Bush and Rick Santorum in their wild spending spree from 2001 to 2006 (a spending spree that had little to do with the war and much more to do with pet projects and pork barrel spending like the bridge to nowhere that for which Sarah Palin voted for before she voted against it),

and so while we all want lower taxes, lower taxes require lower spending, which the Republicans have NEVER ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED. Only the Bill Clinton Whitehouse actually sent surplus budgets to Congress.

And anyone who looks objectively at the current Congress can see clearly that moderate Democrats like Jason Altmire are trying not just to do the easy part of cutting taxes, but also the hard part of cutting spending that Melissa Hart's shopping spree that middle class Americans will pay for decades never addressed.