NY-26: When You Have Nothing, Just Play The Bush Card
by Matt at Sep 16th, 2008
The netroots who are keeping an eye on the congressional race in the 26th district clearly are lost in the wilderness. Their golden boy Jon Powers lost in the primary after being dogged by the War Kids scandal and after getting caught up in a nasty battle of attack ads with Jack Davis.
So, now they have to settle for Sloppy Seconds Alice Kryzan… and from the looks of things, the enthusiasm they had for the substitute teacher was far greater than they have for the trial lawyer.
So, they’ve predictably chosen to attack Chris Lee. And can you imagine, with the economic slowdown we’re experiencing right now that this blogger at Rochester Turning not only finds fault in Chris Lee’s background in business, but his opposition to regulation?
You don’t have to be an economics major to understand that regulation hurts businesses. But, who would think that a left-wing blogger would understand something as simple as that?
The WNY netroots is really grasping at straws in their lame attacks against Chris Lee. This blogger predictably chose to play the Bush card by saying “Christopher Lee is more George Bush.” It’s the same line of attack Democrats are using all over the country. Democrats like Barack Obama have no record to run on, so it’s easier to blame the world’s problems on President Bush and couple Bush with their opponent.
That strategy hasn’t exactly worked all that well for Barack Obama, and it certainly isn’t going to work in the 26th district, a Republican-leaning district that went for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and reelected Tom Reynolds despite a rather toxic political environment for Republicans in 2006.
Playing the Bush Card is a weak strategy for the netroots. It is indicative of a major strategic problem they have in an election year where the economy is a top issue. Chris Lee’s background in business gives him a huge advantage over Sloppy Seconds Kryan’s experience as a trial lawyer.
UPDATE: Now isn’t this rich… After eight years of liberal bloggers calling President Bush things like “bushitler,” “bushit,” or “chimpy;” calling black Republicans “house slaves” or “Simple Sambo;” or new ones like calling Sarah Palin “Sarah Piglin,” somehow it’s Republican “old method of thinking” for me to refer to Alice Kryzan as the netroots’ sloppy seconds. Yet, for some reason, I am the one that should apologize for using offensive and “beyond the pale” language? Ain’t that a hoot.
And I guess finding humor in Hurricane Gustav is somehow appropriate.
Don’t you think referring to Alice Kryzan as “sloppy seconds” is a bit sexist?
I’m actually referencing CBS White House correspondent John Roberts when he suggested that Sam Alito was “sloppy seconds” after the Harriet Miers debacle. It may be crude, but when you consider the offensive treatment many Republicans have received from not only the press, such as the Roberts/Alito example, or by Democrat leaders (Reid calling Bush a loser, for example) its quite a red herring to make an issue over the words of a fellow blogger.
1. Why does John Roberts’ use of the term make it any more or less offensive?
2. Sam Alito is a man.
3. Why do the hateful words of whackjob liberals make it ok to call a woman “sloppy seconds”?