Freedom’s Watch targets Hall
-
- May
- 16
The Conservative Group Freedom’s Watch, a staunch supporter of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, is criticizing Rep. John Hall for his recent vote against the $163 billion war funding bill.
“The very notion that a Member of the United States Congress would put politics ahead of delivering the hard-earned paychecks of America’s military is utterly disgraceful,†said Ed Patru, spokesman for Freedom’s Watch, in a press release.
“Failing to heed the request of our nation’s top military commander and do what is necessary to pay our troops is simply beyond the pale,” Patru said. “John Hall and those who joined him in casting this inexcusable vote need reconsider their warped priorities. The Congressman and his colleagues should be ashamed of this vote. They need to stop playing politics and pay our troops—and they need to do so immediately.”
This entry was posted
on Friday, May 16th, 2008 at 5:25 pm by Glenn Blain.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
| 
Email This
the bush adminstrations Iraq policy is what got John
Hall elected in the first place…..its one of the reasons
bush is at 28% approval…if the republicans want to take
back the seat they better cahnge the message..as can be
seen by the three recent losses by the republicans in
conservative districts in illinois, mississippi, and louisiana…
Freedoms Watch was also involved in that Mississippi race so im glad they are helping Hall out
Speaking of playing politics, why didn’t Minority Leader Boehner and 131 other Republicans cast a Yes vote for that appropriations bill, if it was so fricking important? Instead, they voted “Present.” If THAT ain’t playing politics, I don’t know what is.
How about the new GI Bill, while we’re talking about supporting the troops? The bill will cover the entire cost of a four-year public college or university, in addition to providing a monthly housing stipend and money for books and supplies. 256 Yeas on that one, including John Hall, while Boehner and his crowd cast 166 votes against. I’ll be waiting for “Freedom’s Watch” to protest those no votes, too. Hypocrites.
It was Sue Kelly’s fault she lost. The DCC and DNC put in almost no effort into the race because they assumed Hall at no shot. Kelly, ran a terrible campaign and tried to duck a debate. It is unfortunate because she was a good representative who previously had shown herself to be relatively savvy. Would she have won if Bush’s approval rating was say 60%? Yes. But she could have won easily anyway. Republicans need to stop blaming Bush for everything. It is getting a little old. He is not the reason that Congress went earmark happy from 2000-present.
John Hall, is terrible. I saw on the Colbert Report prior to the 2006 election. He has no personality, no sense of humor, and no real command of the issues. Just ask moveon and other liberal interest groups where they stand on an issue and you get Hall’s answer. He is beatable. Maybe not in this election cycle but definitely in the next if Republicans get a good candidate. I believe Ari Fleischer might be living in northern Westchester…
as long as the Iraq war is front and center and the republicans insist on attacking Hall for being against
bush..hall has the higher ground..once the republicans
do what McCain has done.ie look forward to a complete
withdrawal of combat troops by a date certain, in McCains
case 2013, and concentrate on republican core issues
like getting out of debt, ie reducing spending,
and protecting the national security here at home
they will have a much better shot at dislodging an
incumbant..the one area that republican still have the confidence of the American public is protecting the homeland
that is McCains edge and that will be the edge of the
republican in that district..which is why lalor is
a bad choice
Hall ran on change and hasn’t changed anything. I’ve been researching George Oros from Peekskill and I like him and will vote for him in November.
freedom watch has convincingly demonstrated they are a bunch of jerks. Congressman Hall has done all that can be expected from a representative, especially when it comes to the soldiers and veterans. how dare these blowhards use the word “disgraceful” when it comes to Congressman Hall. they should be made to walk the plank with their war criminal idol from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
v scott is correct about oros…who will put the emphasis
on restoring fiscal integrity to the congress rather
than on justifying the iraq war….in order to beat
hall you have to neutralize his anti iraq position
and return to the other issues that democrats are
weak on
excerpts from an interview with incumbant cong rick davis
REP. DAVIS: People want solutions. They want solutions to high gas prices, to the housing crisis, to the crushing economy, to the war. They want solutions, not rhetoric. We’ve been long on rhetoric; we’ve been short on solutions. And the Democrats at least are papering together some alternatives. They know they have no chance of getting implemented so they’re not really account – but we’ve got to come up with alternatives and there’s nothing coming out of the White House.
rying to negotiate with terrorists. It’s something that Republicans – REP. DAVIS: You’ve got to remember the reason people like McCain. I’m talking about independent voters because that’s what it’s all about. Party identification right now gives the Democrats a generic in double digits, 10 to 15 points somewhere. This is the largest generic Democratic advantage in at least 20 years. So, for Republicans, whose numbers are dwindling, it’s all about getting those independent voters.
You’ve got to remember, for McCain at this point, I think he has got to play to that. The Republicans will fall in behind at the end if only because the attacks from the Democrats and everything else will drive what the contrast is. He is positioned to do that because the things that are carrying him forward right now are the things that a lot of Republicans have not liked him for over the years. But that independence puts him in good stead in this environment. And rather than going back and catering to a shrinking base, he’s got to orient himself towards Independents.
MR. HUNT: And strike, as you said earlier, strike more distance from this president.
REP. DAVIS: Oh, he has to at this point. If he is seen as Bush III, he’s a 20-point loser.
MR. HUNT: Tom, he this week unveiled a major climate-change proposal and, yet, some Republicans, some of the political and financial base are complaining, boy, he’s gotten too green.
REP. DAVIS: That’s right. I mean, things change hard and when your base, by the way, when there is seepage and your brand name is going down and your party registration is going down, the people that are left tend to be the hard core. And it makes it harder and harder to change. But the public is way ahead of a lot of these Republicans on climate change. They recognize that the world is way ahead of us.
MR. HUNT: So McCain is right.
REP. DAVIS: Of course he’s right.
MR. HUNT: Immigration – should you go the McCain route on immigration, along party identity?
REP. DAVIS: Well, if you look at the polls, we’ve played the immigration card in other races and it has not been as successful as people had thought. There certainly is a wing of the party and a wing of the – I call it the Lou Dobbs wing at this point – that is upset about immigration. I think you can address that within that context, but John McCain speaks to the overall demographics and the overall issues and is probably the best person to carry the banner. I think he’s going to have to work with Republican leaders to get a message they can adhere to, but the other side is a long-term loss for Republicans because, over the long term, Hispanic voters are the fastest-growing class in the country and if you chase them all out and give them the finger basically, you’re in a long-term hole that you’re not going to pull out of.
would happen in the House elections in November? What would happen in the White House race?
REP. DAVIS: Well, if you did it today, I think we’d get swept.
MR. HUNT: How much – REP. DAVIS: I don’t know, 20, 25. But the election is not today.
MR. HUNT: Tom Davis, a fascinating document. Thank you so much for being with us this weekend. And when we return, twin tragedies in Asia, the response in China and Myanmar right after the break.
(END)


Mr. Blain:
Why are the statements of these sneaky little White House trust-fund junkies even newsworthy? Look them up. They represent no constituency; they have no expertise; they didn’t serve in the military. They’re just another bunch of Karl Rove Not-So-Young Republican suck-ups, GOP public relations types, being PAID to push the same Cheney foreign policy that got us into this mess.
Do your homework Glenn. You call this so-called “group” a “staunch supporter of the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy.” Dummy, that’s what they’re paid to do; it’s not like these mouthpieces believe anything, or, if they did, that it would be worth printing in a family newspaper. They have as much credibility as Baghdad Bob.
Shame on you for treating their press releases as news, instead of exposing Freedom’s Watch for the cowardly shills they really are.
Obviously, whoever these Freedom’s Watch people are, they’re not from around here, they know nothing of this District or Congressman Hall, and they don’t talk to veterans or speak for military families in the Hudson Valley. Otherwise, they’d know that Congressman Hall has been fighting—and delivering—for soldiers and veterans like no Congressman in this district ever has, and he’s paying attention to the stuff that matters. Even though this was just his first term in Congress, Mr. Hall has already passed legislation to improve veterans benefits and veterans care; he’s helped to cut the red tape that veterans face, and to see that our soldiers are honored by a Congress that cares enough to demand a realistic and honest plan from our President.
If Mr. Patru is really being paid to say these obnoxious things about our congressman, then maybe Gannett should perform a public service and find out who he is and who is paying for the ignorant insults that you’ve reprinted.
I noticed that your “Terms of Service” requires that persons posting do not:
“Use the site to post or transmit any … abusive, libelous, defamatory, .... vulgar … information of any kind…” ,
Sounds fair to me.
Doesn’t it occur to you that in publishing uncritically the vicious slurs that come from extremist attack groups like Freedom’s Watch, you’re violating your own terms of service?
would you republicans please tell the wannabe nominee lalor that littering the landscape with his signs is just so crass and presumptuous. another jerk to deal with.
publishing the comments of any group whether or not you
agree with them and i certainly don’t does not violate
the terms of service its opinion only…just like the
opinion that some have about politicians who want to hold
office, or are in office.or own or publish newspapers
its simply an opinion
George Oros serves chow to soldiers every Saturday at Camp Smith. He is a class act!
We don’t need another waiter. We need someone who will get a handle on the insane spending in this state. Oros, so far, seems to understand that a little better than anyone who has announced so far. He has to be more vocal and more effective.
John Hall is a disgrace. I live in the 19th and when people ask me who my Congressman is I’m so embarrased that I say “I don’t have one; he died in office.” I can’t wait for Lallor to kick Hall’s butt back to hippytown.
And “the consultant” doesn’t have a clue as to why Kelly lost. I live in the district, does he? Kelly ran a crappy campaign and was a squishy “moderate” Republican. She stood for nothing and lost. Hall was nothing but “the other guy” with plenty of cash from his celebrity friends.
John Hall was actually outspent by Sue Kelly in 2006 and the DCCC gave him no help. In a bad year for Republicans on the congressional level how will the Republicans win in this R+1 District? If they cant even win in MS-1 (R+10), LA-6 (R+7) & IL (R+5) how will they be able to win against an incumbent in a less Republican seat?
Kevin your point is well taken, it is debra that doesn’t
have a clue..ideologues rarely do…committed to one
party or the next instead of being able to objectively
weigh the issues that will determine the election
lalor not only won’t kick hall’s butt.he won’t be
the nominee
Sorry, Mike—you’re wrong on all counts. Kelly ran a totally ineffective campaign, and what money she did spend was spent too late and was totally unfocused issues. It had zero to do with the war.
And Kieran Lalor looks more and more like he will be the nominee. He keeps lining up GOP and Conservative committees and other endorsements. You’re predictions about this race will be proven to be just as wrong as your predictions about Giuliani, Hillary, et al.
[Please excuse the poor proofreading and editing in the above post.]
If it wasn’t for the war I don’t think Hall or alot of other Freshman Congressmen would be in office. The war was one of the main focuses of the Hall campaign and the message resonated with people since the contrast between Hall and Kelly was clear. Hall despite his lack of support from the DCCC was able to win against a moderate in a swing republican seat. Now Hall is an incumbent in a Democratic year so how will Republicans win back this seat?
I can only make predictions based on the facts at the time
of the prediction….Kelly ran an incumbant campaign
they usually don’t lose…98% of the time that is..
so to attribute her loss to an ineffective campaign
flies in the face of the statistics..Hall ran as
an anti war candidate..now 78% of the voters
think the war was a wrong decision….more in
the 19th….that;s why he won..that’s why she
lost…lawlor cannot get the nomination..and if
he does he cannot win the election on a pro
war platform…
and additionally lalor is running as a “true conservative” a la george bush..here are further commnets from a great
article that you should read
In its final year, the Bush Administration is seen by many conservatives (along with seventy per cent of Americans) to be a failure. Among true believers, there are two explanations of why this happened and what it portends. One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people. This account—shared by Pat Buchanan, the columnist George F. Will, and many Republicans in Congress—has the appeal of asking relatively little of conservatives. They need only to repent of their sins, rid themselves of the neoconservatives who had agitated for the Iraq invasion, and return to first principles. Buchanan said, “The conservatives need to, in Maoist terms, go back to Yenan.â€
The second version—call it reformist—is more painful, because it’s based on the recognition that, though Bush’s fatal incompetence and Rove’s shortsighted tactics hastened the conservative movement’s demise, they didn’t cause it. In this view, conservatism has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems. Instead of heading back to Yenan to regroup, conservatives will have to spend some years or even decades wandering across a bleak political landscape of losing campaigns and rebranding efforts and earnest policy retreats, much as liberals did after 1968, before they can hope to reëstablish dominance.
I have to respectfully disagree with the Consultant’s analysis. Sue Kelly, was not targeted for defeat by the DCC. Hall, only started gaining traction after a series of Kelly misteps. I am not sure where you got the numbers you are citing but a good deal of incumbant’s lost in the last election. Some lost, because their district had trended democratic i.e. NH and PA but others lost because they were in swing districts and ran bad campaigns. Chris Shays for example faced a much tougher opponent than Sue Kelly in a far more democratic district and won. He raced a lot of money, did a lot of town hall meetings, was willing to debate his opponent and generally avoided serious misteps. Kelly, did none of these things. A good incumbent can win even if their party leaders are unpopular.
Ian, I am fully aware that Kelly ran a horrible campaign
particularly when she refused to debate Hall on news
12..but as a long term incumbant who had a good environmental record, Hall leveragd the anti war
sentiment in the district…my point is that a pro
war nominee cannot win back the seat..that’s all I
am saying…even McCain has announced a timetable
for withdrawal in his own way…so a one trick poney
doesn;t beat Hall…see below
In its final year, the Bush Administration is seen by many conservatives (along with seventy per cent of Americans) to be a failure. Among true believers, there are two explanations of why this happened and what it portends. One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people. This account—shared by Pat Buchanan, the columnist George F. Will
and there is more:
The second version—call it reformist—is more painful, because it’s based on the recognition that, though Bush’s fatal incompetence and Rove’s shortsighted tactics hastened the conservative movement’s demise, they didn’t cause it. In this view, conservatism has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems. Instead of heading back to Yenan to regroup, conservatives will have to spend some years or even decades wandering across a bleak political landscape of losing campaigns and rebranding efforts and earnest policy retreats, much as liberals did after 1968, before they can hope to reëstablish dominance.
ANY CANDIDATE WHO EXPECTS TO BEAT HALL HAS TO BE A NEW
BREED CONSERVATIVE NOT A COOKIE CUTTER VERSION OF
BUSH, ROVE OR ANY CURRENT REPUBLICAN BECAUSE BY AND
LARGE THE PUBLIC IS BEYOND THAT..THEY ARE LOOKING FOR
REAL LIFE SOLUTIONS TO THEIR REAL LIFE PROBLEMS..NOT
A REHASH OF WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN INTO IRAQ..
Okay, just wanted to make certain that bloggers recognized that Sue Kelly ran a bad campaign and cannot blame her loss solely on the Bush administration.
Just to add my two cents, I don’t blame Karl Rove’s alleged shortsightedness for Republican losses. That is adapting the Democratic vernicalar and storyline and turning Karl Rove into a four letter word. Rove was not as responsible for Republican gains in 2002 or 2004 as the press made out but he is not as responsible for Republican losses as Republicans now claim. Karl Rove, is an above average political strategist but not a genius. This notion that he pursued the base of the Republican party and divided the country is a smear that has been repeated ad nauseum by Democrats, most recently on MTP by Bob Shrum. Who, I have met and read his book, and can say is one of the most partisan hacks out there. Most political consultants are fairly partisan but this notion that Rove is this diehard conservative is false image and at odds with his career. He has almost always supported the more electable and usually more liberal Republican in the primary. An example, would be supporting Mayor Riordan in the California governor’s race in 2002. I
As for Pat Buchanan, do we really want to take advice from a man who left the Republican party and made numerous quixotic presidential campaigns and is largely seen as a divisive figure by the vast majority of Americans? Pat Buchanan, is probably as socially conservative if not more than Mike Long. Republicans taking advice from Buchanan should be very cautious. Democrats don’t take advice from Nader because they realize he has his own agenda. I have news for you, so does Pat Buchanan.
Party dominance of the American electorate is a cyclical thing in this country and in most democracies. No party stays on top for too long. Once one party dominates, the other party gradually modifies their platform to incorporate the other party’s most popular positions and gradually the races became more competitive. The Democrats, for example, gave up on gun control and welfare in recent years and Republicans will probably have to eventually adopt some kind of universal healthcare proposal. Additionally, power corrupts. Even, if the opposition party has no ideas, the American public will throw out the majority party after they get tired of their corruption. The 2006 cycle proved this. Reading articles discussing what Republicans have to do to become the majority party is a waste of time. Republicans will regain the majority eventually after the public tires of Democrats or the Republicans modify their platform. Not really worthy of a lengthy article or discussion.
The consultant’s generalizations based on statistics in the face of the reality of what happened in the Kelly-Hall race show just how weak his arguments are. He cannot point to one fact supporting his wild notion that Kelly was perceived as pro-war or pro-Bush, and that Hall successfully portrayed her as a pro-war candidate. That simply wasn’t the issue. What I did hear, personally, over and over and over again within the district was, “I’m not voting for any incumbent. Throw ‘em all out.” That was the overriding sentiment in our district, not the war.
And Mr. Reed is right. The consultant’s parroting of the Democrat line on Rove and Republican “extremists” show just how out of touch Edelman is with his own party, and not just with reality.
I am not parroting anything I was taking the opinion of
a writer for you to see…these are national writers
of significance..but you can either accept or reject
their views…Hall won because of the war…no way
around it.,If we were not bogged down in Iraq sue
kelly could not have been defeated..its not only
new york, and hall didn’t have to do anything but
mention that her party started the war and she
was silent…it was the same all over the country
unpopular president..unpopular war…incumbant
party congressman looses in marginal congressional
districts…however this year you will find that
even in solidly republican districts as we saw
in mississipi, and indiana as well as new orleans
the republicans loose because now we have another
anti incumbant issue..the economy….the above opinions
are endorsed by conservative thinkers like david brooks
or don’t you like him either because he writes for the
times…you know where he started…national review!
This from a Michael Kinsley review of David Brooks’ book, “on Paradise Drive.”
“In the world of political journalism, David Brooks has been every liberal’s favorite conservative. This is not just because he throws us a bone of agreement every now and then. Even the most poisonous propagandist (i.e., Bill O’Reilly) knows that trick. Brooks goes farther. In his writing and on television, he actually seems reasonable. More than that, he seems cuddly. He gives the impression of being open to persuasion. Like the elderly Jewish lady who thinks someone must be Jewish because ‘’he’s so nice,’’ liberals suspect that a writer as amiable as Brooks must be a liberal at heart. Some conservatives think so too.
There is a prize for being the liberals’ favorite conservative, and Brooks has claimed it: a column in The New York Times.”
Kinsley is attacking Brooks because brooks is able to
explain conservatism in a way that even liberals can
understand and agree in many cases…this infuriates
kinsley..so he attacks brooks rather than his arguments
As other commentators have noted, this is getting ridiculous. When David Brooks or Pat Buchanan has a position that is similar to the Consultant’s, than that person is a genius but he coveniently glosses over that they disagree with him on at least 50% of the issues.
David Brooks, is basically a Joe Lieberman style Democrat as opposed to a traditional conservative. Hence, the reason he is every liberals favorite conservative, is Brooks is not all that conservative and he is the first person to admit to it. He is socially liberal, economically moderate, and a hawk on foreign policy. If you want him to be the standbearer for conservative journalism, than you can’t point solely to his liberal positions as evidence of his true conservatism while conveniently passing over the positions where he is in line with the conservative movement.
Actually, David Brooks did not start at the National Review. He started at a Chicago newspaper doing beat reporting. The publication where Brooks was the most influential was the neo-conservative Weekly Standard. The Consultant is taking information from a New Yorker article, which a very liberal publication, and citing it without doing any due dilligence. The article has already been panned by numerous publications and was written by an author, George Packer, who has donated to the Democratic Party and had every incentive to demoralize the Republican Party. The evidence that Brooks did not become the National Review successor to Buckley because of his religion is a crock of you know what. He, was never going to be EIC of the National Review as he never embraced traditional conservative principles and instead saw a more active role for government in the economy.
If people were voting for Hall because he wasn’t an incumbent, how come not 1 Democrat lost in 2006?
Actually, Kinsley is a friend of Brooks and was pointing out what is widely considered the reason Brooks got the NY Times position: that he is liked by liberals because he is not all that conservative. Do a google search and you will find similar sentiments. Brooks, freely concedes that he is was the most liberal editor at the Weekly Standard.
and why did william crystal get the times job…same reason
being the most liberal editor at the weekly standard
is like being the most liberal advisor to atilla the hun
..do you agree that crystal is liberal
as well…or did the times hire him because they wanted
a “real conservative” in fact a neocon…
and for your enjoyment go to realpolitics.com there
are a lot of great articles every day about all of this
from all points of view….
Last time I checked William Crystal was still doing comedy. Actually, Kristol was hired to give balance to the paper as many felt that having only Brooks did not provide enough balance. The Times public editor mentioned that Brooks was not all that conservative when defending the hiring of Kristol. I will be going to http://www.realclearpolitics.com and not realpolitics.com, which is an anti-Bush website.
Billy Crystal? The comedian? I think the Consultant means Bill Kristol.
The Republicans got into trouble when they forgot they were supposed to stand for something and instead began acting like big-spender Democrats. They have turned off their base, and many others who are on the moderate right.
Aw, did you have to go and deflate the myth that Brooks is a real conservative? It was so much fun watching Edelman shoot himself in the foot by pointing to Brooks as his go-to “conservative” time after time.
I stand corrected on the spelling..but you know conservative
thought has progressed beyond parochial 19th cd thinking
and if you refuse to change your message you will be out
of power for decades
“You” I thought it was “we” or do you no longer consider yourself a conservative? Funny, how pretty much every right-of-center and even many left-of-center political junkies have known about http://www.realclearpolitics.com for about 6-8 years yet the Consultant acts like by discovering the site in the past month that somehow he is really well informed and somehow above others on this blog.
knowing about it is one thing..reading all the articles is
quite another
Wow!!! The Consultant not only gets to go on a Newsmakers, a show with viewership of less than a couple of thousand where according to him he is not paid for his appearances and he debates really inconsequential issues with other hacks and he reads all the articles on realclearpolitics, which is incredible because no else reads, and he is in court all day!!! Amazing!!! He should pat himself on the back at every opportunity!!!
you know anonymous you can’t seem to stay away from
personal jabs…whats your problem ..oh and for the record
newsmakers reaches 400,000 households…maybe thats why
i also appear on wcbs radio affiliates across the nation