Nothing against Bill Russell but why do people keep repeating this about the Murtha/Russell race? Murtha beat Russell by 17%, hardly a nail-biter, yet I keep hearing that Russell "almost" beat Murtha.
For all the money Burns had, he ran a crap-ass campaign. Never answered deceptive yet effective ads run against him by SEIU about his support for the Fair Tax, and never challenged Critz's claim that he was a pro-life, pro-gun conservative.
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’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.