That’s a provocative title, to be sure – but after reading this Weekly Standard article that’s the only conclusion that you can draw. Between lying about his opponent’s stance on the stimulus, lying about how he’s not checked out on the Solomon amendment (in NY-20! That’s like not knowing about the CBC in MD-07, or corrupt machine politics in IL-05), and – coming to the conclusion that being anti-gay is also racist? That one was a little incoherent – we’re seeing quite the flailing.
The stimulus one is the easiest one: you can stop using that talking point, Murphy. Tedisco’s against the stimulus:
“My position is: yeah, I worked as hard as I could have to get those amendments in and to get them passed. I realize now that people don’t understand that if they didn’t get passed, I would have voted no,” Tedisco said. “I’m going on the record now to say I would have voted no, because what we should have done was go back to the drawing board, get a stimulus package that truly creates jobs, invests in infrastructure and the economy.”
He was asked if his previous position may have hurt him.
“The only way it’s hurt me is that it’s allowed him to get a free ride in answering a whole bunch of questions. What’s his public service record? Who has he ever stood up to in government? And who he has he ever stood up to for? What is his credentials?”
And that settles it. Have fun running on supporting the debt bill, Murphy. And find the staffer “who didn’t keep you updated on your candidate’s position” and fire him or her. Wouldn’t want another embarrassing lie obsolete talking point like Monday’s, right?
Moving along, regarding the Solomon Amendment… “I haven’t looked into it. I’ve got to do some more research,”? Did you really think that that one would work? In NY-20? That’s what Rep. Jerry Solomon is remembered for, in this country, and there’s no excuse for you not to be completely checked out on that topic. And, I don’t think that you’re not completely checked out on that topic. You just don’t want to say that you’re against the Amendment. Even if that means pretending that you haven’t read the NRCC’s own dedicated website opposing you, which helpfully spells it out… yeah, yeah, another falling-down-on-the-job staffer, no doubt. Better fire him or her, too.
And now we go to whether you stand by your virulently anti-military stance from college. Let us recreate the quote in question:
The military not only discriminates on the basis of sexual preference, but on the basis of sex and race. Women are not allowed to serve in combat even if they are physically superior to males who do serve in combat. And, while there are not explicit rules discriminating against minorities, the Congressional Black Caucus has found that “racism has become institutionalized at all levels of the military. Black and other minority service men are victims of discrimination from the time that they enter the services until the time that they are discharged.” Will Harvard choose to ignore this discrimination?
His response now? To quote the Weekly Standard article, “Yesterday, Murphy said of his 1989 editorial: “That was, I said that at the time, and I have changed my opinion, in part because the military’s moved its position” on gays in the military toward Clinton’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.” In other words, the less restrictions you put on gay people, then the less racist and/or sexist that you are. This is great news for me, personally: since I am in favor of permitting same-sex marriage (Murphy isn’t) and letting gays serve openly in the military (Murphy refused to give an opinion when asked point-blank), this means that I am even less racist and sexist than the Democratic candidate for NY-20, which means that I can still rake him over the coals for either.
Alternatively, it just means that Scott Murphy is a lying weasel who’s trying to warp the public perceptions of his fairly left-wing stances for just long enough to win the election. And, judging by the somewhat lame way that he’s going about it, he doesn’t really respect the average intelligence of the average NY-20 voter, either. Such behavior is sadly typical of those who think that there are two Americas, and they’re from the one that actually matters.
Why, yes, there is a way that you can demonstrate your disapproval of this particular elitist.
Moe Lane
PS: The Weekly Standard article mentions that Murphy got a whole hour and a half with Obama’s advisers about this race. You know what might save Murphy? The President coming up to stump for him. Just like Obama did for Martin in Georgia… oh, right. Well, Carmouche in LA-04… oops, sorry, forgot. How about Jeffer… what do you mean, the White House has never heard of William Jefferson of LA-02?
Gee, if I didn’t know better I’d think that your mojo was a non-renewable resource, Mr. President. Peak Popularity, maybe?
Crossposted at Red State.
5 thoughts on “Scott Murphy (D) thinks that the voters of NY-20 are stupid.”
Comments are closed.