Wednesday, June 28, 2006

DeWine Update

Did you know that Sen. Mike DeWine has been caught up in the Abramoff scandal?


Me either.

But Bob Burnett of the Berkely Daily Planet thinks so...
In Ohio, Democratic Representative Sherrod Brown is running against embattled Republican incumbent Mike DeWine, who has been implicated in the Abramoff scandal. This race is a toss-up. Nice try though.

Okay, Bob...let me explain this to you. I know you're a "journalist" so I'll be sure to use "little words" so you can understand.

Mike DeWine has NOTHING to do with the Jack Abramoff scandal. If you have proof otherwise, please feel free to show it.

$1000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe is not being involved in the Abramoff scandal.

If $1000 is all it took to get Mike DeWine to take a position, I'll start a collection right now... I've been trying to get Mike DeWine to take a position on any number of things...

And let's not pretend that trying to get an endorsement from Grover Nordquist's organization ties DeWine to Abramoff either. Liberals are trying to do just that. David Sirotka gives it a shot in this post. Problem is neither of the two links he provides to "support" his false assertion actually makes the same claims that he does. This piece in the Washington Times details DeWine's failed attempt to get the Americans for Tax Reform to endorse him. This Washington Post piece doesn't even mention Mike DeWine.

I thought liberals were supposed to be good at propaganda...


Matt Dole said...

DeWine is also a Jingoistic Panderer for voting with the 66% of the senate on the flag burning amendment according to BSB.

It is amazing how little foundation in reality there is within the mainstream media and lefty blogosphere.

Matt Hurley said...

I dunno about jingoistic, but all politicians are panderers...there is nothing specifically jingoistic about Mike DeWine's vote on the flag burning issue.

I'm sure that to the BackStreetBoys, wanting to protect a symbol of America could be considered at least he's being honest about his commentary. But to really be convincing, he'd have to to think that burning the flag was he making that argument? If so, I think you already can position him fairly outside the mainstream of American thinking on this subject.

I'm not a supporter of an Amendment to the Consitution. I think that the flag deserves respect because of what it represents, not because there is a law. Of course, it would help if our teachers were on board with this and taught that America is good, but that might be asking too much.