Posted on 05/18/2010 6:54:11 PM PDT by Steelers6
Why would anyone allow a politician to claim he was “pro-jobs” like Critz did, without blasting the obvious response.
That being that all politicians are nominally “pro-jobs” and it is idiotic to claim such. If Burns wanted to win he should have pointed out how PA had been spending gov’t money for the last 40 years trying to decide who the favorite companies are. Instead, a rational answer for any economy is to be “pro-jobs” by having the gov’t get the @#$% out of the way by lowering taxes, regulations and union barriers to entry and change.
We will never get better in this state until some politicians start applying rational economics. It might not work in the first election, but keep pointing out that we are continually screwed by doing the same thing decade after decade, and maybe eventually the electorate will be desperate to try something different.
Like trying to attract business and new entrepreneurs by actually being policy-wise open to new business and entrepreneurs.
The sooner the GOP or SOMEBODY starts providing a choice, not an echo, the sooner we might actually be able to win an argument.
I had the same thought.
I’ve heard that the district is 2/3 Democrat (not unlike the entire state of Maryland). If Burns loses, that will be one of the reasons.
If it were 2/3 Republican, Burns could probably sit on his butt and still squeak out a victory, as far as bad campaigns go.
I suppose you could, but the reason that Djou will win this one is because the Democrat vote is split between 2 candidates who are both running as D’s. The district is heavily D, and Djou will probably enter his fleeting term as a lame duck-in-the-making.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.