Strange Help For Pancake Joe

I never really quite understood what the phrase “almost made my head explode” meant until I read the Philadelphia Inquirer’s endorsement of Joe Pitts for the U.S. PA 16th Congressional District over Lois Herr this morning.

Joe Pitts for Congress in Pa.'s 16th District

This heavily Republican district covers the southern half of Chester County, all of Lancaster County and a slice of Berks.

The Case for Pitts

U.S. Representative
Republican, 67
Kennett Square

At a time when many are concerned about the image of the United States, Pitts works to show the character and decency of the American people. He speaks out for religious and political prisoners, pushes educational and professional exchanges with central Asian nations, and hosts biannual visits to his district for foreign ambassadors. The connections made between envoys and their 16th District hosts often result in school and medical supplies, even farm equipment, being sent where they're needed, from the Western Sahara to Romania to Pakistan.

I read that and was astounded, and here’s why:

I’m not even going to bother to investigate whether or not any of these claims are true. What is absolutely shocking to me is that, apparently, the Inquirer supports Pancake Joe without a whit of regard for anything approximating constituent service that Pitts either did or did not provide (the latter is more likely) during his term (the following is available from this link).

Does the Inquirer know that Pitts opposed a bill that directed the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and prosecute price-gouging by sellers of gasoline and other fuels?

Or that Pitts supported drilling in the ANWR?

Or that Pitts voted for a bill that would have disallowed illegal/undocumented workers from reporting crimes against them?

Or that Pitts voted against recommending a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq?

Or that Pitts voted against Amtrak funding and raising fuel efficiency standards?

Or that Pitts helped defeat a measure that would have ensured that Dubya conducted his domestic spying within FISA guidelines (the old ones that are about to be abrogated when Dubya signs new guidelines into law, including a 90-day period of spying without court supervision, courtesy of the Repugs)?

Or that Pitts voted for a provision that would have stripped a requirement that voting officials provide ballot information in multiple languages from the Voting Rights Act (with Pitts also voting for an amendment that would have allowed southern states to exempt themselves from pre-clearance requirements as specified in the act)?

From here...

Does the Inquirer know that Pitts had once pledged to serve only five terms in the U.S. House, but he’s now abandoning that pledge?

Or that Pitts once uttered some truly ridiculous (and racist, actually) sentiments about how kids in Lancaster County aren’t supposedly affected by video games the same way that kids in Philadelphia are (Pitts didn’t use those words exactly, but that’s what he meant).

Or that Pitts also supported Dennis Hastert amidst the Mark Foley controversy?

Or that Pitts basically was on autopilot throughout his recent debate with Lois Herr (though he did take the time to utter that stupid quote on what he thinks government should and shouldn’t do)?

And speaking of Lois…

The Opponent - Lois K. Herr

Scholar-in-residence, Elizabethtown College
Democrat, 65
Elizabethtown

The Case for Herr

Herr believes the United States was misled into the war in Iraq, and wants the occupation ended as soon as possible. "Leaving won't make it worse," she says. Herr wants Congress to take its oversight role more seriously, says the military tribunals act is a mistake, and would repeal the Bush tax cuts.

There’s more to Lois than this, of course, including her recognition of “the birth tax,” which of course is a legacy of the Repug Congress, and the fact that Lois is the first candidate in the whole country to sign a pledge to publish her calendar online for the constituents of her district to demonstrate accountability and provide the best possible service, in cooperation with The Sunlight Network. The Inquirer could have also mentioned Lois’ commitment to alternative energy sources, including her use of an electric car at campaign stops, but I guess it was too much trouble for them to find that out.

Experience/Credentials: Pitts

Pitts, a congressman since 1997, was a state representative for 24 years. Herr has held teaching and other posts at Elizabethtown College.

I don’t know how those two sentences add up to an edge for Pitts, but again, we’re talking about a newspaper owned by Bruce Toll and Brian Tierney of Philadelphia Media Holdings LLC, so since Pitts is a staunch conservative, I guess it makes sense to them.

Ideas/Issues: Pitts

Pitts says it would be wrong to withdraw from Iraq prematurely and wants more training for Iraqi security forces. Herr is less clear on when to withdraw.

Given my long “Does The Inquirer Know” list earlier, this statement is a joke.

Also, they quote Lois with the statement that she “wants the Iraqi occupation to end as soon as possible,” so I don’t know how the Inquirer could think she is being “less clear on when to withdraw.”

I’ll tell you what – here is Lois’ policy on Iraq from her web site; the authors of this bogus endorsement can read it if they have any questions.

Lois Herr’s Iraq Policy Statement

Lois Herr believes that the first step toward fixing the situation in Iraq is telling the truth about where we are. No partisan rhetoric, no rose-tinted glasses, and no spin.

Three years ago, President Bush declared the end of “major combat operations in Iraq.” Since that time, thousands of American soldiers have been killed and tens of thousands more have been injured in the ongoing Iraq war (not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths).

As the nation now knows, this White House did not plan effectively for the post-invasion aftermath. In fact, President Bush and his advisers did very little war planning at all. Instead, they cherry-picked intelligence, undermined the work of U.N. weapons inspectors, misled the nation about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and stiff-armed our allies in a headlong rush to war. In doing so, they diverted the nation’s resources from our true enemy – al Qaeda – and created a breeding ground for terrorists where none existed before.

Today, our military is stretched to the breaking point, caught in a complicated conflict between insurgents, militias, and Iraqi security forces. And despite the best intentions and valiant work of our armed forces, our presence in Iraq is creating deep suspicion and resentment toward America. (Even General Brent Scowcroft, the national security advisor to President George H. W. Bush, has said that the Iraq war is “feeding” terrorism.) Most Iraqis want us to leave, and most Americans want to bring our soldiers home.

It is time to bring them home. We must change our policy and change our course. With a top-level commitment to bring our troops home, the logistics can be worked out very quickly by our quite capable military leaders, and experienced and respected diplomats can once again be charged with the rightful task of international negotiation. Withdrawing from Iraq involves the complicated task of bringing personnel home safely and recovering weapons and materials. It would be irresponsible and financially foolish for us to allow our weapons to fall into the wrong hands.

While America must remove its military presence from Iraq, we still have a responsibility to aid the Iraqi people not just for their own future but also to avoid destabilizing the entire region and threatening our own national security interests. We must work with the international community to assist Iraq’s newly formed government in ensuring that all the major parties – Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds – feel well-represented, to refocus on providing training and technical assistance to Iraq’s newly-forming ministries, and to seek international aid for reconstruction efforts.

Making progress requires that our leaders put aside partisan attacks and face the facts. America has made great sacrifices in the past three years. Now to honor those sacrifices most fully, we must acknowledge that our men and women in uniform have done their job. It is time for them to come home and for a redirected policy to take effect for the future of our country and for the future of Iraq.

Back to the endorsement...

Character/Ethics: Even

Pitts disapproves of adding earmarks to unamendable conference reports. Herr wants a "completely transparent" earmark process.

Lois wins this automatically for no other reason that Pitts’ support of Dennis Hastert on the Foley scandal.

The Edge: Pitts
Strong: Clearly superior

I should explain this…the Inquirer has four contest rankings for candidates: 1) Close Call: Two Good Choices, 2) Weak: Two Disappointing Choices, 3) No Contest: Overwhelmingly Superior, and the fourth choice cited above. Again, their ranking of Pitts in this fashion is ridiculous.

Finally, I have only this to say: The Inquirer frequently rails against the power of incumbency and complacency on the part of voters pulling the lever for the same candidate over and over without investigating the person’s record. I agree that that’s a concern at times to be sure. However, lazy “reporting” such as this only adds to that process, and it is beyond disgusting that the Inquirer chose to publish this without investigating Pitts and his pathetic on-the-job performance, to say nothing of short changing a worthy candidate like Lois Herr; people like her are needed in local, state and federal government desperately, and that is no exaggeration.

(Sorry I forgot to add this earlier, but to help Lois, click here.)