Thursday, November 15, 2007

Knollenberg Under Attack by Catholics

Now Joe is under attack from a group called Catholics United, who don't think Joe's vote on SCHIP is a pro-life position that they support. Finally, Joe is being held accountable by pro-life voters.

CLICK HERE to listen to the ad that is currently running

Press Release from Catholics United:
October 11, 2007

Chris Korzen
(202) 903-0856

Washington, DC - Catholics United will launch a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress whose opposition to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have compromised their pro-life voting records.

The ads, which feature a mother urging her Congressional Representative to support SCHIP, will primarily air on Christian and talk radio stations from Monday Oct. 15 to Wednesday, Oct. 17 as Congress approaches a critical Oct. 18 vote to override President Bush’s veto of bipartisan SCHIP legislation.

“Building a true culture of life requires public policies that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable,” said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. “At the heart of the Christian faith is a deep and abiding concern for the need of others. Pro-life Christians who serve in Congress should honor this commitment by supporting health care for poor children.”


Chet said...

Bruce, you made the Observer and Eccentric this morning and you're not even trumpeting that story?


Maybe because its details the way you treat your family.

MIKE said...

How about the family of man Chet? Bruce's family is none of my business - nor yours Chet. Same old tired Republican ploy - attack the messenger so you don't have to deal with the message. I say again - time for change!

Bruce Fealk said...

Chet, actually it's the top story on the blog. Did you miss it? I'm not totally happy with it and there are a couple factual errors, but I can live with it.

Chet said...

You put the story there hours after my comment, Bruce.

And Mike, I'm not the guy who made this news. Just commenting on the news.

While Bruce's mistreatment of his family is not a main issue in this race, it does put into context his obsessive tracking of Joe Knollenberg.

And as far as the "attack the messenger" argument you are critiquing as a "Republican" tactic, lets look at the history of this situation. Bruce started by attacking messengers, not issues. It began by his repeated focus on attacking a variety of Knollenberg's "messengers" - his staff - by posting irrelevant clips of them being nice to Bruce (the videos of Stu Foster and Shawn Ciattvone (spelling)) and by attacking Wisecup's mental illness.

And as far as "attack the messenger" as a "tired Democratic ploy" - look at the nasty ad hominem involved against MCRI. Ad homimen which Bruce and company here pick up and continue to throw against me.

And Mike, your right about my family being none of your business. But you don't hear members of my family complaining about me to my political opponents (and I'm not using my family members names without their permission either), and if I get a call saying I'm needed by the family, you can bet I'll drop politics to help them.

MIKE said...

Chet - I guess it all depends on the side of the looking glass we observe.
What you call "obsessive", I call "tenatious". You imply Bruce "attacked" first - I say it was self defense for being,ignored,berated & attacked first. A lot of of "news" left out perspectives that would have put a differant spin on this issue. You wern't there when we tried time after time to get an audience with Knollenberg. You wern't there when his staff wouldn't even allow Bruce or our peace delegation in his office. You wern't there when we were under serveilance by differant police departments - exercising our first amendment rights in a most peaceful manner. And you wern't there when Trent called Bruce unAmerican. It is so easy to be critical in the abstract.
As for family - I've no doubt you, me AND BRUCE would come to the aid of a family member should that be necessary. Your comment about Bruce's family feud "in the news" reminds me of the ploy the Bush administration used in outing Valerie Plane. Yellow journalism pure and simple. There was no "mistreatment" as you characterized. An honest error Bruce already explained. I'm sure there must be family members of yours who do not agree with your politics, as there are of mine. However you nor I would deliberately expose that differance in a public forum. As Shakespear would say, "therein lies the rub".

Bruce Fealk said...

Chet, what do you consider mistreatment of my family? My brother was the one that sent the letter to Trent. I never did anything directly to my brother.

Chet said...

Bruce, you used your brother's name, which was a direct attack on him and his character. I don't believe your explanation. Your story and evidence simply aren't credible. I suspect his belief as outlined in the fax isn't the reason you did it and also that you probably didn't commit a crime, but it was not a cool move on your part.

Mike, I'm sure there are members of my family that disagree with some of my politics. No two people agree on politics.

Bruce's brother doesn't even say he disagrees with his politics. He's non-partisan. He disagrees with Bruce's "embarrasing" tactics - with Bruce's use of his name - etc.

I've been under surveillance by police. That's not unconstitutional. Indeed, I feel pretty comforted by police presence, because I treat them with dignity and respect. I've had discussions with police at political events, and they are almost always doubly cautious and perhaps too lenient with people disturbing the peace precisely because they are mindful of the First Amendment. That you find any offense in police presence is disconcerting.

That you were ignored, and you believe you have a right not to be ignored, is also a misunderstanding of the First Amendment. That you think you deserve multiple hearings on your issue (your group has had at least one opportunity and the Congressman understands your position).

That you and MoveOn only target so-called vulnerable Republican Congresspersons - rather than all who have failed to "stop the war", is also indicative of something. For example, Bruce is also a constituent of Carl Levin, who even this year voted to allow extension of the war, in a move that some Democrats admit they didn't like. Yet, I don't see Bruce vigorously protesting his office? That means your just using the war as a political hammer to get your political way on a bunch of issues (the truth is you just want Democrats to win, which is fine - but be honest about it). If Hillary started a war, you'd be fine with it.

Bruce Fealk said...

Chet, I really don't care any more whether you believe me or not. I tried my best to prove to you that the use of Steve's name was not done intentionally. You win. I give up on that one. You are simply unable to grasp the concept of truth.

If Steve is embarassed by my activities, I can't help that. Knollenberg's 33% approval rating and the downward trend are proof that the voting public is getting the message that Joe is out of step with his constituents on the issues.

If Hillary started a war, I'd be out there protesting her too. Joe's continued assault on the middle class, war mongering, and lack of common sense when casting votes has earned him the targeting of his race. And by the way, if you hadn't noticed, that is exactly what Republicans have done in the past, they target the vulnerable races.

Trent sending out Steve's letter to try to discredit me was what was not cool and I tried to warn Steve not to deal with Trent, but to no avail. Now Steve is really suffering the consequences of having his name all over the media, not just in relation to me, but on his own accord.