Northup For Congress?

Interesting how Anne Northup's website trying to take John Yarmuth's comments out of context has this humdinger, "Millions of Americans will go to the polls next week and cast clueless votes.”

The implication is that ultra liberal John Yarmuth thinks voters are stupid sheep. But Anne once again excerpts his quote like a bad movie review without any context (although she does attach the article). In the article, found here, John Yarmuth says that voters go to the polls ill informed, but that both the news media and the candidates themselves do little to improve the situation. He essentially saying that voters, candidates and the media all do themselves a disservice by not pursing the truth behind the positions candidates hold.

Is it really possible that Anne DISAGREES with that statement? Does she think it's better to have voters going to the polls with as little information as possible beyond some saturation bombing of negative ads by her campaign?

The answer is obvious. Of course she does. After all, a voter who fears that the liberal Democratic candidate is going to open up the borders to every bomb toting terrorist, allow people to marry farm animals, and sell the country to the UN is one that will vote for them. As Bush shows us every day, ignorance is bliss.

I also have to wonder why Anne doesn't highlight Yarmuth's comments in the editorial about Jim Bunning, the Kentucky elected Senator for Cincinatti who doesn't pay any attention to the news. Does she think it's okay for a Senator to not read newspapers or pay any attention to news sources except for the ones that are favorable to his own positions? Maybe she herself is guilty of ignorance when it comes to the news.

And why not highlight the comment about her friend in Indiana, Mike Sodrel? Does she truly believe that labor friendly Democrats are more likely to support jobs going overseas than her Republican brethren who are so deeply in the pockets of big business they are covered in lint?

The truth here is that Anne likes cluelessness. The truth is the biggest thorn in the side of Republicans these days.

Another issue that Anne makes about Yarmuth is that he supports removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

First, it's out of context. Yarmuth essentially says that he doesn't have a problem with the phrase "under God" being in the pledge, but that he sees in the context of the Constitution (surely the Republican's remember that document, it's the one they keep on a roll in the bathroom), the phrase has no place in a pledge recited in public schools, especially when it is being taught and students are required to say it.

Some history of the Pledge of Allegiance courtesy of Wikipedia. A socialist(!) Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy created the pledge as an advertising campaign for a kids magazine in order to sell flags. As Yarmuth points out, the phrase "under God" was nowhere to be found in the original pledge. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on December 28 , 1945. The words "under God" were not added until 1954.

The issue at hand that Yarmuth was discussing is detailed in the following excerpt from wikipedia:

In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism. The majority of Americans opposed this ruling, and it was denounced almost unanimously the following day by both houses of Congress. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard an appeal of the ruling and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on whether the phrase was constitutional (see Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow).

Given Anne's unflagging support for President Bush's misguided war on Iraq, and the reasons being given (this week, anyway) for going there, you would think Anne would also support this Supreme Court decision. After all, stepping on religious freedoms (including freedom from it) is something evil doers like Saddam Hussein do on a daily basis. Maybe she just didn't take the time to read the whole article. After all, she's busy doing something. Maybe if she ever gets around to printing her own record, we'll find out.

Anne's latest commercial criticizes John Yarmuth for his stance on SUVs as an attack on the workers at our local Ford plant, where some SUVs are created. On TheYarmuthRecord.com, a website that Anne's heavily financed campaign created to take John's opinions out of context and to crticize the fact that he actually is an independent thinker, the best they could come up with was this quote: “The single most significant thing I could do as a Member of Congress would be to try to promote a tax on larger engines.” (SUV's and pickup trucks)

I find it hard to believe that a person with such big pocketbooks supporting her campaign and has probably ridden in many luxury cars has never heard of the Gas Guzzler tax. Since 1978 this tax has been applied to CARS that don't meet certain gas mileage standards, which today consists mostly of luxury and sports cars. Trucks are exempt.

Does Anne really have a problem, in this day and age of record gas prices, of supporting measures to increase pressure on raising gas mileage standards in all vehicles?

And if Anne wants to have us believe that Yarmuth desires to hurt the autoworkers in the area, maybe she could explain her own voting record in regards to issues supported by the United Auto Workers. From vote-smart.org:

Representative Northup supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 21 percent in 2005

Representative Northup supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 13 percent in 2004.

Representative Northup supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 7 percent in 2003.

Representative Northup supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 8 percent in 2002.

Representative Northup supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 8 percent in 2001.

Representative Northup supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 0 percent in 2000

She's been in Congress for almost 10 years, so surely she has more to say about her own record then telling us about some future projects that may see the light of day in our lifetime.

Instead, she's used her vast campaign war chest to attack John Yarmuth. Anne did a lot grandstanding about her inability to get copies of all of John's LEO articles since he created the publication years ago. Her campaign paid to make copies of hundreds of issues of the newspaper, and apparently has had her staffers going over it ever since. Her commercials publicize these editorials, using the fact that she can take quotes out of context of either the editorial itself or the situations on which they are based to try and portray a negative picture of John.

But ask yourself.... who would YOU want representing you? Do you want a person who can't find anything of note in 9 years of public service to put in her own ads? Do you want a person who has spent most of those 9 years in blind service to her own party while ignoring the greater good of her state or her country? Do you want a person who thinks that putting opinions into print and occasionally changing your mind are bad qualities? If so, then vote for Anne Northup. If you want positive change for this community, then consider a vote for John Yarmuth.

Anne has spent 9 years bashing her opponents with all the money that the Republican Party can give her. She's a bully because she can be. Send her a message and vote for John Yarmuth on election day.

Yes, attack ads work, but only if you let them. Before you take Anne's ads to heart, consider that John's never been afraid to get his opinions and ideas to the public, and unlike the blind follower of the architect of the Iraq war (which was planned months before 9/11), isn't afraid to admit when he's wrong.

Anne claims that John will say anything to get elected. The truth seems to be that Anne will say anything about John to get elected. Anne. Why don't you grow up, accept some responsiblity, and become a leader, not a follower.


City Strobe: Please, enough with the negativity
By LEO Weekly

A screen capture: of the Anne Northup political advertisement that criticizes John Yarmuth for his stance on the gas tax and the Senior Prescription Drug Program.As surely as the leaves turn in fall, Republicans in Louisville’s TV market have begun anew their negative campaign offensives. 3rd District U.S. Rep. Anne Northup launched an ad last week attacking Democratic contender and LEO founder John Yarmuth (who no longer has ties to the newspaper) for what her campaign calls a change in position on the gas tax and the senior prescription drug program. The ad ends with this contention: “Either John Yarmuth doesn’t know his own positions, or he’ll say anything to get elected,” and it compares Yarmuth’s most current TV ad (he has released two so far, both focused on issues and neither of which mentions Northup) to his LEO editorials.

The Northup ad offers no context and, as a result, is misleading.
The first examines Yarmuth’s position on the federal gas tax. The LEO editorial referenced in the commercial is from May 22, 1996. In it, Yarmuth argues that cutting the federal gas tax would not solve the problem of a temporary spike in gas prices, and if the federal tax were to be cut, raising the state tax could be necessary. At that time, the federal gas tax was 4.3 cents per gallon.

Now, more than a decade later, the federal gas tax is closer to 20 cents a gallon, the price of gas has almost tripled, and even President Bush is publicly questioning America’s dependence on foreign oil. Clearly much has changed on this issue in the past 10 years.

The second point Northup’s ad asserts is that Yarmuth opposes the Senior Prescription Drug Program that he supported in a June 26, 2002 editorial. A quick read for context reveals again that the ad is misleading. In the editorial, Yarmuth called for a bipartisan approach to creating and passing a plan that works for senior citizens, which ultimately did not happen: Medicare Plan D, as it is now, significantly benefits the 10 largest U.S. drug companies while disallowing the government to negotiate price with drug companies. In reality, that leaves such decisions to insurance and drug companies to negotiate, which Yarmuth’s editorial contends should not be allowed to happen. Republican or Democrat, that’s simply not a change in position.

On a related note, Yarmuth has signed the League of Women Voters’ 2006 Ethical Campaign Pledge, which aims to keep such smearing and negativity out of this year’s campaigns. Northup did not sign it, nor did 2nd District U.S. Rep. Ron Lewis (R).

The pledge covers federal and state legislative races, the mayoral race, Metro Council races, and many municipal races. A majority of those who signed are Democrats, though several Republicans in state and local races also pledged not to smear. —Stephen George