Tuesday, October 03, 2006

More Wimpy Walsh

So Wimpy Walsh did manage the courage to debate Dan Maffei, but he's added a cowards caveat:

The Maffei campaign also noted that Walsh insisted on the condition prohibiting any future use of the contents of the debate.

"Contents of campaign debates are commonly used in campaign communications across the country. They are, after all, public statements made by candidates in a political campaign," said Whyland. "Dan Maffei will stand behind every single word he says in this debate -- we only wish Congressman Walsh would as well and it is unfortunate that he has chosen to pursue this condition. This is a fundamental free speech issue, and for a news organization to agree to this kind of condition is truly disappointing."

Some one needs to pick up Jim some courage...


At 2:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He doesn't want to get caught lying again... or at least doesn't want to get attacked for it

At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim is an unqualified piece of shit.

He is hoping he will sneak in for another term the way he has snuck in the last 18 years to CNY's regret.

Lets hepe enough people watch Maffei kick his sorry ass and get out and vote so we can put him into retirement good.

At 10:57 PM, Blogger TLB said...

Its not just the usage of debate material.

A second problem is Clear Channel Communications moderating the debate. The company has donated 1000s of dollars to Walsh. You may remember they were the only station that pulled pro-Maffei commercials of the air.

So having them as moderator is a conflict of interest which Maffei rightfully objects to.

At 11:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree about the Clear Channel thing. It's an obvious case of conflict of interest.

I have to say though, I'm more concerned about not using what he has said in the future. How can they do that or demand that of the Maffei campaign? Not a Constitutional scholar, but this seems like a 1st Amendment issue to me.

On the other hand, I didn't see anything about US (as in the voters) using his words. I hope someone tapes this and posts a transcript.

At 10:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Walsh can't stop Majority Action from using his words

At 12:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Walsh is a decent man. Walsh Watch is the wimp here...not Mr. Walsh. Walsh Watch is too cowardly to ever use his real name as he so cavalierly bashes Walsh and bows to Maffei. I would rather vote for Walsh than Maffei any day.

At 11:47 AM, Anonymous Mal said...

Sorry anonymous 5 (funny you attack Walsh Watcher for being anonymous, but where is your name?), but this is not about Walsh being a nice guy. Walsh is a lazy MC who, like so many, has become more interested in retaining his job than contacting and communicating with his people. Walsh votes with Bush 9/10, but runs a commercial bragging of 4 votes that he voted against Bush? Why not be proud of the support for the president as his voting record indicates? Because he knows his votes are not reflective of his district; but rather the 30% that might show up to vote for him. But in an election year, he tells those watching he stands against Bush?

Walsh's website is further evidence of his inability to stand by his record: NOTHING about Iraq? Which he has blindly supported? OK, I guess Walsh makes up for this by his contact with the district? So let's look at how many events he has around here so I can go see and talk to him or ask him questions...oh look: ONE event (his family picnic back in August!). When he does come here, he does so with events he only advertises to the media and supporters. Why can't I, his constituent, go see him and ask him challenging, but respectful questions? Must you only hear from those who blindly support you? Because he takes his job for granted and feels that actually campaigning...making the case every two years for why you should be sent back to DC...is beneath him. He is endemic of a fundamental problem with this Congress.

So, Anonymous 5 (what was your name again? Oh yes, you decided not to include it as a way, I guess, of highlighting your criticism of the Watcher) what are we left with for a reason to vote for Walsh? Because he is a Republican? Sorry, I care less about this label and more about having an MC that looks out for all of us in his district and is not myopically concerned with his next election...who votes his conscience and then has the strength to come home and explain that vote to his people, whether they agree with him or not (and not only make such votes when it is convenient to do so...such as the fluff piece in the Post Standard that highlighted Walsh as a Republican leading the way against the president on torture, when he was just jumping on a bandwagon already in full speed thanks to real leaders like McCain, Collins, and Graham...only to sign onto a bill that still allows for the very torture Walsh had a conscientious issue with before)?

And if we send Maffei to Washington and he follows the Walsh model, will I send him back 9 times because I like his party? No. I will be the first to lead the way to send him home. It HAS to be about more than a party. It has to be.

At 12:10 PM, Anonymous J said...

Hey Anon 5... stop by my site for a minute... you can listen to your "decent man" lying about his voting record to me on a local radio show.


Is it "decent" for a Congressman to lie to his constituents about his voting record?

At 1:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course it's ok to lie....as long as you are a Republican. As we all know, theirs is the party of "morals" and "family values".

Interesting that WW is getting trolls. Must be getting worried over in Rubberstamp Land.

At 3:12 PM, Blogger The Watcher said...

Ah, so someone posting anonymously is critizing me for being anonymous? I guess you can't spell Republican without hypocrite.

At 8:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our Republican "guests" who show up from time to time are probably not rich. Therefore they are fools. Because unless you are rich, the only reason you would vote Republican is if you are a fool.

Theres is no talking sense into such people as anonymous 5. You saw the strength of their debate. Great arguments, eh? I only wish such peole would simply sign over their bank accounts to the wealthy, rather then forcing the rest of us to transfer our taxes from roads and pension and education, into the rich's pockets. It would be a much more straightforward way to go about things.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home