While Reidy is hopeful that Lamb could be that check, Hughes sometimes worries his supporters are being unrealistic, that their excitement about flipping the 18th could be distorting their view of the former federal prosecutor’s chances.
“We’re well-aware that we live in the bubble of the suburbs of Pittsburgh in our district,” Hughes reflected
I know people get a little cranky on here if I post something that you don't agree with. Or is this trash too?
Update 9:27 PM How about from NBC News today?
14 comments:
Hughes is at least being cautiously optimistic. Reidy, who is a member of Hughes' organization, is among the most clueless of the blue-haired biddies backing Lamb. She has no idea what she is talking about. Poor Conor.
WESA should know that Reidy has no credibility. She likes to pose, though.
If the chart is correct the Lamb ad I just watched is a complete lie.
You realize that the Lamb money is less than the Saccone money in that chart? All this proves is that Lamb can raise money while Saccone takes his from PACs
12 PM,
and your point is?
I'm confused about the point of this post. I can't speak for Democrats. However, I don't think there are any Democrats that are the least bit confident that Conor Lamb will win this election. The 18th District has been so severely gerrymandered to make it nearly impossible for a fair election, or any chance for a Democrat to compete let alone win. This kind of gerrymandering isn't good for our representative democracy, i.e. incumbents end up representing special big money interests and not the people in the district w/o concerns of being removed and replaced. If Conor Lamb does wins it will be a miracle, i.e. the 18th District is Trump country.
A vote for Succone, i.e. Trump Mini-Me, is a vote for:
* Allowing horse slaughter plants to reopen.
* The slaughter of over 90,000 wild horses and burros that's being debated in congress right now.
* Removing Endangered Species Act protections for grey wolves in the great lakes.
* The approval of a house bill that blocks implementation of a federal rule to prevent inhumane and scientifically unjustified hunting methods on National Preserves—a category of National Park Service land—in Alaska. These practices include luring grizzly bears with bait to shoot them at point-blank distance and killing wolf, black bear, and coyote mothers and their babies in their dens.
A vote for Saccone will support the ongoing damage that Scott Pruitt (EPA) is doing to our environment:
23 Environmental Rules Rolled Back in Trump’s First 100 Days
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/02/climate/environmental-rules-reversed-trump-100-days.html
And the damage that Ryan Zinke (Sec. of the Interior) is doing to our public monuments and pristine wilderness areas i.e. selling them off for oil drilling and strip malls. The Trump admin. and the Republican congress is trying to sell off our national monuments and pristine wilderness areas to private contractors for development.
7:23 PM, but you're OK with slaughtering deer in our densely populated community? We have gentle does and their fawns who are getting killed as they bed down for the night by Tony DeNicola? And you're OK with putting toxic turf over every green space in Mt. Lebanon?
Puleeze. If we vote for Conor Lamb, will all that stop? Weren't our local elected Democrats responsible for deer killing and toxic turf? Last I checked, I think so. What hypocrites. Just say that you're voting for Lamb because you are so anti-Trump. I can't stand how people spend more time worrying about everywhere else, but the moment I start talking about the environment or discharging lethal weapons here, I'm a crackpot.
Elaine
You know what, 7:23 PM, I think I am more Democrat than you are! I care about the environment.
Elaine
If Conor Lamb wins, it will be because of the luck of the Irish, and that can take an Irishman pretty far.
7:23 PM here. I am absolutely against slaughtering deer in Mt. Lebanon!!!!! And against toxic turf. Based on my post, how could you think otherwise?
BTW, I'm not a Democrat.
Were the Mt. Lebanon Democrats responsible for the deer slaughter? Ex-Commissioner Barbara Logan (D) was the main person who pushed for the deer slaughter and has continued to push for it year after year, and recruited and persuaded other Democrat candidates and commissioners to push and vote for it too. However, ex-Commissioner Carolyn Byham (R) has been just as fervent in pushing for the deer slaughter as Logan, and there hasn't been one Republican Mt. Lebanon Commissioner who voted against the slaughter over the last 10 years. I correct myself, i.e. D. Raja (R) and Dan Miller (D) both voted against the slaughter. So I'd have to agree that this handful of Democrats have been primarily responsible, but the Republicans were right there voting with them. You've been the only Republican candidate that has truly stood up and protested against this inhumane slaughter.
That said, you can't project the principles and values of the entire Democratic Party based on the Mt. Lebanon Democratic Committee and Party, i.e. the Mt. Lebanon Dem. Party is uniquely Mt. Lebanon, and has been under the control of toxic people for a long time now, but so has the Mt. Lebanon Republican Committee and Party. They're both horrible.
However, if you look at the votes on environmental and wildlife issues in the congress and senate, you will find an almost party line vote against environmental and wildlife issues by the Republicans vs. the Democrats.
The wild horse slaughter and wildlife issues mentioned above are urgent and are being debated in the congress and senate right now. If Saccone wins the election you know how he's going to vote. So if you vote for Saccone you will be complicit in the slaughter of 90,000 wild horses and burros. That's your decision. I'm just letting the readers of this blog know what's at stake.
10:10 AM, don't forget that Kelly Fraasch (D) has consistently voted against deer slaughter and toxic turf.
A couple other points to consider, based on the issues you have mentioned. Mt. Lebanon Democrat Conor Lamb has Michalina canvassing for him. You can bet she is taking this opportunity to push her toxic agenda too. Do you know for sure that Conor Lamb will vote against these issues? If I vote for Lamb, it scares the hell out of me that the most coldhearted witch is on the same side.
You know how people here criticize when you are a single issue voter? Maybe that just applies to those who disagree with your single issue.
I am telling my family that I will have my phone off the hook today. Yesterday was insane with Conor Lamb calls. Just one was for Saccone, VP Pence and I hung up on him too. In six months, it starts all over again!
Elaine
Saccone isn't against animal cruelty measures. At worst, according to his own statements, he misunderstood Libre's Law when he voted against it. That misunderstanding may be reason alone to be against Saccone. But, Saccone is NOT in favor of animal cruelty. Get a grip.
10:10 PM again.
Michalina's association with the Conor Lamb's campaign is disturbing to me too, and I'm concerned with the toxic influence that some of those associated with the Mt. Lebanon Democratic Party may have had on him too. However, we can't walk away and hand him over to them w/o our own fight for his soul. Conor Lamb will be on a much larger national stage and voting on these much larger national issues, that will decide on how we protect our environment, national parks, pristine wilderness areas, wild horses, and wildlife.
I can't give any assurances of how Conor Lamb will vote on all of these issues. However, I have been given assurances from a very reliable source that he is aware of the fate of the 90,000 wild horses and burros issue and would vote to protect them. And so that one issue alone is reason enough for me to vote for him. Plus, the fact that I believe he will protect social security, medicare, and medicaid for the elderly and disabled - and meals on wheels.
I also think that his calling Saccone out for his vote against Libre's animal cruelty law gives me hope that Conor will show compassion and mercy when it comes to animal cruelty.
With Saccone, i.e. Mini-Me Trump, you know how he's going to vote on the environmental and wild horses issues, and I don't believe for a second, that he will protect social security and medicare, etc. for the most vulnerable Americans.
So I think there's a night and day difference between these candidates. If you are pro-environment and against senseless animal cruelty, and want social security and medicare protected for the elderly and disabled, then you should vote for Conor Lamb. If not, then you should cast your vote for Saccone.
Let me get this straight, 10:10,
Are you saying that Saccone has already said that he will support the slaughter of 90,000 wild horses? I just want to get to the bottom of this. Thank you.
Post a Comment