The Bird's Eye View - State Rep. Frank LaGrotta E-mail

Update of August 24, 2004

I felt I had to update this page after I witnessed the following on a talk show. On a show addressing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a person in the audience asked a question of the Democrat strategist. When the strategist dodged the question, the audience member pressed him. Again the strategist tried to dodge the issue. Why? The audience member caught the strategist in an indefensible position and the strategist knew it. Finally, out of frustration, the strategist said, “You don’t want to debate me on this because you’ll lose.” This is almost exactly what Mr. LaGrotta wrote in one of the e-mail notes below. Apparently this is the current strategy when you know your “goose is cooked.”

An article¹ in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette claimed Republicans were attacking Teresa Kerry. Mr. LaGrotta sent a letter² to the Post-Gazette defending Ms. Kerry. On March 21, 2004, I sent the e-mail note below to Mr. LaGrotta in response to his letter to the editor.

“Thank you for the entertaining letter in the Post-Gazette (Mar. 21). Just as kids, career politicians say the darnedest things.

“You come to Ms. Kerry’s rescue as if she were St. Teresa. When organizations to which Ms. Kerry provides support -- either directly or indirectly -- take political stands, she is open to criticism as are we all. The op-ed piece you referenced also made this point. Because money is fungible, you can’t say ‘I gave Bob $x to use only for what I said.’ The $x simply allows the dollars previously allocated for the project to be used for something else. Just because someone says they didn’t give money for a particular cause, it doesn’t mean that wasn’t the net effect.

“You wrote, ‘I was not surprised to find Teresa Heinz Kerry on the Bush-Cheney hit list’, ‘I am saddened by George Bush’s obvious attempt to trample on such a legacy for political advantage,’ and ‘Bush ... will stop at nothing to retain power, even if it means lying about the widow.’ The op-ed piece you referenced specifically said, ‘To date, neither Bush nor his campaign has spoken publicly about her.’ I can’t wait for the next allegations you make up so you can criticize someone for them.

“Where was your letter when Ms. Kerry likened National Guard service to evading the Vietnam draft? She was speaking to a Kerry rally in Wisconsin during mid-February.³

“Finally, it might have been useful for readers to know you once received the John Heinz Memorial Young Person of the Year Award, just so they knew there was no conflict of interest, other than being a fellow socialist.⁴ As I said, you folks are a hoot.

“PS: When I went to your web site to get your e-mail address, I saw your faux press release seeking to deny public workers the right to a secret ballot in union certification votes. The press release entitled ‘LaGrotta supports increased bargaining power for public employees’⁵ should have read ‘LaGrotta supports increased union management power over public employees.’ In reality, all your bill does is encourage even more intimidation by labor union management because it eliminates the secret ballot. I’m sure this capitulation had nothing to do with union management being two of your top three industry contributors during the 2002 campaign.⁶

“You wrote, ‘This is an outstanding proposal and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make Pennsylvania workers a topmost priority during the nation’s job recession and show their support for this amendment.’ First, there is no job recession. During the Clinton years, you folks referred to 5.6% unemployment as ‘already low.’ Anyway, if you truly support workers, as opposed to union management, you would introduce or support right to work legislation for Pennsylvania workers.”

“One thing you do NOT want to do is engage me in a debate about George Bush, Dick Cheney the lies they have foisted upon, as well as the danger they present, to the United States of America, as well at [sic] the world. Mr. Cox….again: You do not want to do that - unless you are prepared, as I am, to document every claim you make.”

It went downhill from there. Perhaps I was to blame. Was my note to Mr. LaGrotta too sharp? You decide.

Because I didn’t tell him there was potential for his reply to be published, I won’t publish the rest of Mr. LaGrotta’s reply unless he requests me to do so, for now. In summary, though, Mr. LaGrotta didn’t address the topics in my e-mail note but instead went into an anti-Bush diatribe and again challenged me to a debate. It says a lot when a politician won’t respond to the original topics but instead changes the subject and issues challenges.

I found Mr. LaGrotta’s response eerily similar to meltdowns by fellow Democrats Howard Dean (“You sit down. You had your say. Now I’m going to have my say.”) and John Kerry (“That’s none of your business.”) when they encountered voters with whom they disagreed.

“As an award-winning career politician with 17 years of experience, I’m sure you are an accomplished debater and public speaker and quick on your feet.

“So I have half a chance, the ‘debate’ will take place on the Internet on our respective web sites. To keep it simple, you will present your opinions on your site, in op-ed pieces, in speeches, etc., as you do now. I’ll present my positions on my site and in op-ed pieces. I believe this forum allows us to address a larger audience. It should also foster quality thought and facilitate accurate documentation of supporting facts.

“In the end, Beaver County readers will have a clear choice between what I believe are differing economic, political, and social views of the world.

“PS: I need to write more clearly. In my first note to you I meant you and Ms. Kerry were socialists (Democrats), not those who presented the award.”

“Robin – I do not have a web site.⁷ I want to INFORM people, I don’t want to debate them.

“Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” [The emphasis (typeface, size, red color) was Mr. LaGrotta’s.]

“Robin – that is a direct quote from the briefing gave to President Bush at his Crawford, Texas ranch 35 days before 9-11.

“If you were the president, would you have done something – anything – or would you have gone out and watched your dog, Barney, “chase the armadillos in the flower patches – which is what the President’s daily activity schedule indicated that he did.

“It must be another State Rep. Frank LaGrotta at http://www.pahouse.net/LaGrotta/. Whether you consider it ‘your’ web site or not, it serves as a platform for your economic, political, and social messages as long as you work for the citizens of Pennsylvania.

“Regarding the sentence you cited below, I heard that excerpt during the 9/11 Commission testimony so it’s not new. So what? Everyone knew terrorists wanted to strike inside the United States. In your quest to ‘INFORM,’ you omitted the previous sentence which identified "that time" as 1998. Therefore, the statement doesn’t identify a new specific threat. It’s saying this activity was observed over a 3 1/2 year period, three of which were during the Clinton administration. You also conveniently omitted the paragraph following your excerpt which said, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives." It sounds to me like a lot of agents were pursuing leads, though obviously they didn’t bear enough fruit to stop the attack.

“The following will sound harsh, but I don’t mean it to be. Mr. LaGrotta, you don’t inform people. Most politicians don’t regardless of party, so I’m not picking on you. As nearly all career politicians and pundits, you pick out and pass along what supports your agenda and ignore the rest. Your taking that one sentence out of context is an example. When quoted outside the context of the entire declassified PDB, it sounds bad. When read as part of the whole PDB, it tells another story. This trick didn’t work for Richard Ben-Veniste when he tried it on Dr. Rice on Thursday.

“FYI, I don’t dump the blame on former President Clinton either. He had far more time to deal with terrorism than did Bush, 8 years vs. 7 months, but terrorists are responsible for 9/11, not the U.S. government. I wasn’t a Clinton fan, but I didn’t blame him for the actions of terrorists. Blaming President Bush for 9/11 would be equally irresponsible.

“Your complaint about President Bush living a life -- as in playing with his dog -- in the month prior to 9/11 is as silly as Republican activists were when they made fun of the way Sen. Kerry ordered and ate a Philly cheesesteak. Even if President Bush did have actionable intelligence, which all evidence gathered so far shows he didn’t, did you expect him personally to track down the terrorists? Was he to stay holed up in the White House doing exactly what terrorists want? Why didn’t Clinton stop the first WTC bombing? After all, he had been in office for over a month! What was he thinking taking jogs thorough the park with Secret Service agents in tow when he should have been personally combing the streets of New York and New Jersey for the bombers? <g> Ignoring his polio for a second, why wasn’t President Roosevelt flying a fighter in the skies over Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41? Did he dare live a life during the month prior to the Japanese attack? Was FDR responsible for Pearl Harbor?

“Let’s look at one aspect of your response to 9/11, attacking the Patriot Act. Everyone agrees the legal obstacles in place that prohibited by law the CIA and FBI from exchanging information was a long-term hindrance to attacking terrorism. This problem dated back to at least the mid 1970s. The Patriot Act fixed a lot of that. In a faux press release you wrote, ‘The Patriot Act may contain provisions that those interpreting it may use to defy the Bill of Rights. This is something that is characteristic of White House politics under President Bush and his attorney general, John Ashcroft.’

“You didn’t mention 98% of senators voted for the PA. In the House, 83% of representatives voted for it, including 69% of Democrats. You also didn’t provide a list of examples showing abuse of the Patriot Act, hiding behind the use of ‘may.’ Is the PA perfect? No. As any legislation, it has the potential for abuse and we need to be vigilant. Using the PA as a vehicle to bash President Bush and John Ashcroft merely politicizes a key response to terrorism, however. If you want to issue a press release bashing the administration, fine. Just don’t hide behind the PA. If you want to review the PA, fine; there’s nothing wrong with that. Just don’t cheapen the request by turning it into a bashing op.

“Were mistakes made before 9/11? Of course, by every administration going back to Jimmy Carter and the taking of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and our inability to do anything about it. 9/11 wasn’t the result of less than eight months of Bush administration action. You can’t fix long-term systemic problems overnight, and President Bush kept the Clinton counterterrorism teams (CIA and FBI directors and Richard Clarke and his team) onboard in an attempt to minimize transition gaps. The 9/11 attacks were the culmination of at least 25 years of less-then-stellar attention to terrorism by everyone, including Congress. To try and dump the full responsibility in the lap of the administration that had the least time to deal with it is pure partisanship. Repeating what I wrote above, terrorists are responsible for 9/11, not the U.S. government.

“If we want to keep terrorists on the run, keeping President Bush and his team in office is an important part of the effort. I can guess for whom the terrorists would vote.

“The PDB was talking about August of 2001. And the FBI testified they knew nothing about domestic threats investigated. The president is a liar. I know it, the majority of America knows it, and I thinl [sic] you know it. And if you want to debate me - get a partner. Get two partners but we do it in a public venue in front of real people who can be educated by the truth

It’s interesting to know Mr. LaGrotta believes he can read my mind. If he plans a career in this area, he might want to change his mind.

“Don’t debate me, debate me, don’t debate me, debate me.” With flip-flopping like that, Mr. LaGrotta could be a Kerry campaign advisor. <g>

Mr. LaGrotta doesn’t seem to understand that he doesn’t set the rules. In fairness to Mr. LaGrotta, he probably represents the majority of politicians in this regard regardless of party. As fellow Democrat Stevan Drobac, Jr. , wrote, “THE VOTER IS THE EMPLOYER.” The debate will continue on my terms.

3. “[Kerry] did volunteer to go to Vietnam at a very difficult time when the issues weren’t very clear, because he believed he owed it to his country to do so. His father had done so himself, and he was the first person to say that he would never chastise or in any way point a finger to anyone for wanting to go to Canada or who went to jail, or who was a conscientious objector or who went to the National Guard.” – Teresa Kerry to a Wisconsin Kerry rally; February 16, 2004.

4. My intent was to note that Ms. Kerry and Mr. LaGrotta were fellow travelers and that someone who won a an award named for John Heinz may feel obligated to defend the former Mrs. Heinz, thus my reference to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. LaGrotta incorrectly thought I labeled as socialist the groups (Ellwood City Area Chamber of Commerce and the Ellwood City Area Jaycees, according to Mr. LaGrotta) that gave him the award.