Posted on 05/14/2006 10:38:44 AM PDT by Badray
Honey, telephone. It’s President Bush.
Republicans in the 10th Congressional District who answered their home phones Friday might have heard the leader of the free world on the other line.
U.S. Rep. Don Sherwood’s re-election campaign enlisted Mr. Bush to record an endorsement of the congressman for an automated-call campaign to Republicans, said Jerry Morgan, Mr. Sherwood’s campaign spokesman. U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum made similar calls for Mr. Sherwood last week.
The president’s automated calls began Friday. Mr. Morgan declined to say how long they will continue, how many households they’ll reach or how he persuaded the president to do it.
(snip)
Money matters
Mr. Morgan said Mr. Sherwood will win because he has attracted government contracts for local defense plants and more Medicare money for local hospitals, and backed Mr. Bush’s tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug plans. The spokesman produced a 21-page list of accomplishments.
“He represents the people of the 10th Congressional District and he brings home the bacon,” Mr. Morgan said.
Mr. Sherwood, first elected in 1998, has faced token opposition in his last two elections, but national Democrats are beginning to consider him vulnerable because of his consistent support of an unpopular president and his admitted five-year affair with Cynthia Ore, who sued him last year, alleging he often abused her. Mr. Sherwood admitted the affair, but denied the abuse. The suit was settled in November under undisclosed terms.
(Contact the writer: bkrawczeniuk@timesshamrock.com
(Excerpt) Read more at thetimes-tribune.com ...
Values matter not. You can be Arlen Specter and still get their support.
Character matters not. You can carry on a 5 year affair with a girl less than half your age, like Don Sherwood, and they'll record a phone message for your campaign.
More than just the disappointment in Bush and Santorum, I am dismayed that the people of Sherwood's district couldn't (or wouldn't) find someone made of better stuff.
I know that some will say that it is a private matter between Sherwood and his wife, but is it really?
When Sherwood (then 58, IIRC) met this (then) 23 year old girl, did he take her home and introduce her to his wife? Did he tell her that she no longer needed to stress herself over not fulfilling her wifely duties while he was in DC on business?
Did he hold a press conference and announce to the nation that he had a new young thing for his ... whatever?
Or did he try to hide the affair for 5 years?
Which leads me to wonder, was it a secret? Are there any secrets in DC? Who knew about it? Did some just pat him on the back ang give him an 'attaboy'? (I'm sure some did or would.) If someone knew, was he blackmailed for his votes? Did someone approach him one day with an envelope full of pictures and ask him for his support on this issue or that?
So what makes a professed Christian like GWB endorse a man like Don Sherwood? Why would the moralistic and proudly Catholic Rick Santorum support an adulterer?
It's not values or character, apparently. It's not always even the willingness to vote the same way. Maybe it's just the "R" after the name.
Maybe it just takes being part of the club that rewards membership for maintaining the power of the club.
Sad. I would have hoped that two men who claim to base their decisions on moral standards and a belief in God and His commandments would be made of better stuff too.
May they some day be represented by the likes of a man such as Don Sherwood.
Better not let the Bushbots see this. You may be asked to leave your own thread.
WHAT in the HE__ is wrong with these idiotic, stupid, republicans in Washington????
Has something happened to the water they drink???
Is WINNING the ONLY thing these idiots, democrats, republican, and independent think about???
What happened to MORALS? When you go out into the public life, and you ask your base to vote for you, you are representing those people....Is this HOW I WANT TO BE REPRESENTED????? HE___ NO!!!!
I live in that moron's district...I recieved a mailing from him, him holding hands with his wife, looking down on her, and her looking up to him....it made my stomach turn....
I would no way look UP TO a moron like that....and ANYONE who votes for this jerk, gets just what they deserve....TRASH!!!!
will defend Social Security, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, education, and other programs which assist middle and lower income people
will support reallocation of tax cuts to middle and lower income brackets
will work to end deficit spending and decrease the $8.2 trillion national debt [kind of hard to do when you support high entitlement spending, maybe she wants to cut national defense?]
will pressure for quick delivery of enough quality protective armor for our troops and a plan to bring troops home sooner, not later
Badray, why do you support Sherwood's liberal challenger?
Allow me to continue this thought.
May they some day be represented by the likes of a man such as Don Sherwood.
That is my hope. My fear is that we will all be.
I am not supporting his opponent.
I am decrying the fact that the local GOP saw fit to back this POS for another term.
Don't you have any expectations from those who represent us?
Are you suggesting that there is no better person to represent the district?
Are you suggesting that he may be a POS, but he is "our" POS, so it's okay?
That's been done before, but I wasn't asked. ;-)
Sad, isn't it? And confounding.
Ping
You bashed Rick Santorum and George W. Bush.
Are you telling me they both live in Sherwood's CD?
You have some emotional issues you need to come to grips with.
Obviously a pork-barrel adulterer isn't the best representation one could hope for, but how many secret adulterers are in Congress? and there is no other option even a fraction as conservative as Sherwood in this election, primary or general. He has the 6th most conservative voting record of a PA US Rep. If you want to try to upgrade in the future, fine, but attacking Bush & Santorum for supporting the 85% conservative incumbent over the 85% liberal "Republican" challenger is just being bitter and vindictive.
Well, then, you'll be represented by the likes of a woman such as Kathy Scott.
I doubt you'll find her any less distasteful. Enjoy!
Yah, we Bushbots are sticklers for civility and common courtesy. We're funny like that.
You are exactly right.
Since when is reporting what Bush and Santorum did 'trahsing' them? They trashed themselves by doing what they did.
Yeah, I said local. That was in reference to the LOCALS not finding a replacement for a POS.
If the man had a one night stand with that girl, you might argue that he made a mistake. Ego and passion can make a man do stupid things. He conducted an affair for 5 years making conscience deliberate daily decisions to betray his oath to his wife. Should we believe that he had any more fideltity to his constituents? How conservative, and how moral, is that?
Because you missed the point of my original comment and hence need remedial education, how do two supposedly 'moral' and religious people support someone like him? What is the standard that allows them to support someone who doesn't take his vows (and oaths?) seriously?
Where did you get them impression that I said that? Not only do you have blinders on, you have them in the wraparound style.
You have some emotional issues you need to come to grips with.
Is this Amateur Psychology Day (APD) at FR? Tell me, what 'issues' must I come to grips with? Is it my moral standards? My political philosophy? My desire to live in a free country with its incumbent risks and rewards? Please, 'doctor', enlighten me.
Obviously a pork-barrel adulterer isn't the best representation one could hope for, but how many secret adulterers are in Congress?
Boy, I am surprised to hear you admit the first part. As to the 2nd, I have know idea. If they are all cheating on their spouses, does it become acceptable or is there some sort of percentage that clears the way for them? Maybe they can vote on the acceptability of infidelity and institute it as a House rule.
and there is no other option even a fraction as conservative as Sherwood in this election, primary or general. He has the 6th most conservative voting record of a PA US Rep.
The affair was known quite some time ago. Were there no challengers, or did the corrupt RSC crush the opposition in their rabid defense of incumbents, even the corrupt ones?
If you want to try to upgrade in the future, fine, but attacking Bush & Santorum for supporting the 85% conservative incumbent over the 85% liberal "Republican" challenger is just being bitter and vindictive.
When the affair was first uncovered, I wrote that he should be replaced in the primary so we (The GOP) wouldn't have this dilema in the general. What is bitter and vindictive about any of that? Are we having an extended APD?
Since you've brought up voting records, why didn't B & S (BS for short) support Toomey (98%) over Specter (43%) in that race? The answer is that it isn't about voting records or values or character. It's simply about the club and protecting the members against upstarts.
Gee, Badray, until I got on this board, and read posts written by you and others, I thought character WAS important to Republican elites. I am IN SHOCK, SHOCK I tell ya to find that it isn't. I was then and am NOW hardly a political neophyte.
Nevermind, that they've been supporting Specter for all these years over other conservative challengers, like Steve Friend for instance. My brother worked hard and sacrificed much for that campaign and I volunteered time and sacrificed much for it as well.
Long, long ago I met those who control the party in this state like Elsie Hillman, and I gotta tell ya, I found them so pitiful I cried laughing.
I had other shocking and eyeopening experiences as well.
I harbor NO illusions about the Republican Party and never have. There is much about the party I find offensive.
I've also had plenty of up close and personal experience with Democrats (like working closely with them for ten years) and they are FAR, FAR worse. Our illustrious Governor practices an open-marriage just like Clinton (one of the reasons they were such BUTT BOYS), and I was personal friends with a young woman he attempted to sexually compromise (I talked her out of it, at least so she told me) so I KNOW and KNOW WELL!!!
Character, values, the Democrats know not. In fact they deliberately seek candidates and party leaders who don't have them.
Returning power to their hands is NOT the answer. It has been tried before and was DEVASTATING to our country. So DEVASTATING that even if President Bush had been another Reagan, we would be unable to make up for that damage in two terms of such a Presidency.
What you advocate is sheer suicide. I have chosen to lend my energies to defeating the greater of my enemies which is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
I suggest you go see UNITED 93. Perhaps that will refocus your priorities.
Politics is about power and money. It is not about doing the right thing and being moral. Most politicians are amoral.
Returning power to their hands is NOT the answer. It has been tried before and was DEVASTATING to our country. So DEVASTATING that even if President Bush had been another Reagan, we would be unable to make up for that damage in two terms of such a Presidency.
How did Reagan accomplish what he did with a primarily and overwhelmingly Democrat Congress? He made his case to . . . . the people, right? And the people pounded their Democrat legislators to do the right thing. He delivered such a powerful message that he won in a landslide in his second run. Those people are still there waiting and hoping that someone will pick up the mantel and run with it. The GOP won't even look down to see it at its feet.
How did we get the many successes that we did when Clinton was president? The people saw an enemy within and we fought him. We, through Congress, forced him to sign a lot of good legislation and back off some of the bad and the Congress -- as a strong minority -- fought for us. When we gave them the majority that the GOP asked for and the POTUS that they asked for, they suddenly lost their way and their needs and their pork barrel, vote buying spending took precedence over principle. It seems that when they needed us, we got what we wanted. Now that they think they don't need us, we get squat. Maybe they need reminded that they do need us is all that I'm suggesting.
What you advocate is sheer suicide. I have chosen to lend my energies to defeating the greater of my enemies which is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
What I advocate is a battle for principle both within the Party and against the other party. It's a battle that we may or may not win, but it is a battle that must be fought.
Your preferred method, even if you don't recognize it, is surrender to the enemies within the Party who don't want to do battle with the other side and would switch to the other side if such a battle started. We've played the LoTE game for 40 years or more and all we have reaped was more and more evil, little bits at a time.
I suggest you go see UNITED 93. Perhaps that will refocus your priorities.
My priorities? I have supported him fully in the over seas WoT. I want the borders to be sealed. He doesn't. He's fighting half a war. Perhaps he needs to see United 93.
I just saw the traveling 9/11 Memorial on Friday. I know what happened that day. I know who did it. I know that we still let such people into this country every day, sometimes through the front door and sometimes through the back door -- our unsealed borders.
I wish that they would show the news footage of 9/11 every week to remind other people that we are at war.
Wars do have multiple fronts that sometimes must be fought simultaneously. We don't always have the luxury of fighting them one at a time. The overseas part and the borders both need to be done and done now and done right. There are many other domestic issues that need addressed. Sadly, neither this president nor this Congress seems willing to address them.
That means that fixing this Congress is part of our battle too. If we allow obstructionists to remain, we will not get any closer to victory on any front.
You got that right. When we do find one, invariably the party apparatus does what it can to ostracize them until they can be defeated. If they only gave up their moral standards and principles, they could have a job forever with the Party's help.
You consistently advocate "punishing" the more conservative candidate who failed to live up to expectations, so that the flawed conservative looses to his/her more Liberal opponent.
Reagan won by a landslide his first election as well. As you recall the MSM announced him as the winner somewhere around 7pm.
That we got more conservative legislation passed under Clinton as opposed to President Bush is highly debatable.
" What I advocate is a battle for principle both within the Party and against the other party. It's a battle that we may or may not win, but it is a battle that must be fought."
No, you advocate that the Republicans give up their majority status to minority status, because you believe they are more effective as a minority party. Would we have gotten what appears to be two conservative Supreme Court Justices, if the Democrats had been in power? No, two more Liberal appointees would be there instead.
This is not the Democratic Party of the 60's, but the nutso, whacko, abortion party of the new millennium. We cannot afford to return such a party to a majority party particularly when we are engaged in a war the Democrats now strongly oppose.
"Your preferred method, even if you don't recognize it, is surrender to the enemies within the Party who don't want to do battle with the other side and would switch to the other side if such a battle started. We've played the LoTE game for 40 years or more and all we have reaped was more and more evil, little bits at a time."
My preferred method is to get the most conservative candidates elected. Your preferred method, is to get the more Liberal candidates elected. And no your strategy was implemented before. It gave us 8 years of Clinton, and a strong possibility of 8 more years with another Clinton. Under him (it wasn't bit by bit) we reaped lots of evil in 8 years time.
We aren't surrendering to the enemies within the party, we are leaving some of that fight for another day. But you are surrendering to the GREATER enemies outside the Republican party.
Our TWO most prominent great enemies are the Democrats and the terrorists. And our second enemy has at times been most supportive of our first. Not a good idea to allow them to again become a majority party, particularly now for that reason alone.
In the American political context which is a two party system, it is better to fight one party at a time. I choose the Democrats.
"Wars do have multiple fronts that sometimes must be fought simultaneously. We don't always have the luxury of fighting them one at a time. The overseas part and the borders both need to be done and done now and done right. There are many other domestic issues that need addressed. Sadly, neither this president nor this Congress seems willing to address them."
Mostly everyone (except our leaders Republican or Democrat) is in agreement on the above. We the people, at least realize this is a two pronged fight and the borders must be sealed in addition to our battle overseas. But UNITED 93 reminds us that we are in a war against a common enemy, the terrorists and their Leftist supporters, and we must focus our energies against them not the Republican Party.
"That means that fixing this Congress is part of our battle too. If we allow obstructionists to remain, we will not get any closer to victory on any front"
There is so little maneuvering room in American politics, we can focus our energies on only ONE party,(and the WOT) or we will lose the battle against both. We can pick off a Specter-like Republican here and there, but if Republicans again become the minority Party we will lose everything.
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.