Gino Piroli – 11/13/06

This page was last updated on November 15, 2006.

Beaver Falls park was named in memory of Sahli; Gino Piroli; Beaver County Times; November 13, 2006.

Ignore the column’s title. This is about the portion of the column repeating the myth of Max Cleland. It’s the second time in just over two years a Piroli column has spread this BS.

Rather than do a point-by-point critique of the column, below is a copy of the e-mail note I sent to Mr. Piroli.

Dear Mr. Piroli,

First, by now you probably know the names of Max Cleland and Teresa Kerry were misspelled in today’s column.

Anyway, the purpose of this note is to address the myth of Max Cleland.

The myth goes something like this.

1. Cleland, a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran, was wildly popular in Georgia.

2. Cleland lost re-election to the Senate in 2002 because a Republican ad questioned his courage and/or patriotism.

Here are the facts.

1. Cleland was not wildly popular. Less than half of Georgia voters supported Cleland in his initial election in 1996. Cleland barely won the 1996 election with only a plurality of the vote, 49% to 48%.

2. Georgia Democrats are not Massachusetts Democrats. Georgians, including Democrats, are relatively conservative, but Cleland is very liberal. His lifetime Americans for Democratic Action – a liberal lobbying organization – voting rating was 83%, where 100% is purely liberal. This was far above the average even for the Georgia Democrat delegation.

3. As contrast to Cleland, consider the following. Bush defeated Gore in Georgia with 55% of the vote and in 2004 Bush defeated Kerry with 58% of the vote. In 2004, the other Georgia Democrat senator, Zell Miller, campaigned for President Bush. When Miller didn’t run for re-election in 2004, a Republican won his seat with 58% of the vote. Does this sound like a state that would support a liberal senator?

4. Cleland voted multiple times against formation of the Department of Homeland Security. Cleland ultimately voted for the bill, but by then it was too late.

5. Cleland opposed the bill because it did not guarantee a role for organized labor management. That was not a popular stand in a right-to-work state.

6. The ad cited by Democrats questioned Cleland’s domestic security voting record and his claimed support for President Bush’s homeland security initiatives. The ad was tough but did not question Cleland’s courage or patriotism in any way. Don’t take my word for it. You can see the ad here. You will need RealOne Player installed to view the ad.

7. Cleland’s opponent, Saxby Chambliss, was popular as evidenced by his four terms in the House.

8. Chambliss won the 2002 election 53% to 46% despite the fact Cleland outspent him by 36% ($2.7 million).

You wrote the ads were because Mr. Cleland “opposed the president’s policies in Iraq.”

Not exactly.

First, we weren’t even in Iraq during the 2002 campaign. That didn’t happen until March 2003.

Second, Max Cleland voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. You can check the roll call vote yourself. That doesn’t sound like opposing “the president’s policies [regarding] Iraq.”

The bottom line is, Cleland lost his Senate seat because his voting record did not represent the will of Georgia voters.

Finally, you failed to note how in 2003 President Bush appointed Mr. Cleland to the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States for a four-year term. President Bush made this appointment even after Cleland bashed Mr. Bush on a variety of topics, including the 9/11 Commission. At the time, the position paid $136,000/year. Boy, that divisive President Bush treated Cleland poorly. <g>

Yours truly,

Robin Cox

Here is Mr. Piroli’s reply.

Thank you for correcting the spelling of Cleland and Theresa.

My article didn’t deal with the popularity of Cleland and whether he would’ve won it dealt with the vicious and vile ads. The ad was so disgusting that senators Kagle and McCain both protested it. One ad morphed Cleland’s face into Saddam’s suggesting that Cleland was indifferent to the safety of the American people. The issue was civil service protection for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a department of Homeland Security bill before Bush did. Although the war began after the election it was clear that Cleland opposed Bush’s policies and was not a supporter and so he was attacked.

My point was that it was a typical political dirty trick attacks that were unwarranted and the main point was that the VFW shouldn’t have been involved in politics, especially against one of their own.

Thanks again

Gino Piroli

Here are my comments about Mr. Piroli’s reply.

Apparently spelling a person’s name correctly is not a priority for Mr. Piroli. I could find no Sen. Kagle. The only similar names I found were State Sen. Casey Cagle (R-GA) and U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). I have no clue which one, if either, Mr. Piroli meant.

Regarding “the ad was so disgusting,” either Mr. Piroli never saw the ad, saw a different ad, or is relying on what a fellow Democrat told him. On the other hand, it may just be the old liberal position that attacking a liberal’s position on an issue is the same as a personal attack. As I mentioned above, you can see the ad here and make up your own mind.

Regarding the comment about Mr. Cleland supporting the idea of a Homeland Security department before President Bush, who cares? If it was ever relevant, it became irrelevant when Mr. Cleland chose to vote against the creation of DHS unless DHS employees were required to join a labor union. As a reminder, President Bush was always for beefing up homeland security. He just felt doing so didn’t require a whole new department and a complete relocation of a bunch of departments under DHS.

“Civil service protection” is liberalspeak for mandatory labor union membership.

When he wrote, “it was clear that Cleland opposed Bush’s [Iraq] policies,” I believe Mr. Piroli completely ignores the fact Sen. Cleland voted for the Iraq War Resolution. If Sen. Cleland “opposed Bush’s [Iraq] policies” I assume he would have voted against the resolution.

The last sentence is a hoot. Mr. Piroli starts off by saying “the VFW shouldn’t have been involved in politics,” then immediately follows up with “especially against one of their own.” Make no mistake, when Mr. Piroli wrote “against one of their own,” he really meant “against Democrats.”

I could be going out on a limb, but despite what he wrote above, does anyone doubt Mr. Piroli voted for Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton over World War II combat veterans George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole in the presidential elections of 1988, 1992, and 1996? As a reminder, Mr. Dukakis served in the Army for two years in the late 1950s, most of the time serving in a UN liaison staff position and never came close to seeing combat. Mr. Clinton evaded (an illegal act) the Vietnam draft by deceiving an Army colonel into admitting him to the ROTC program. Mr. Clinton then ran back to school in England and actively protested the U.S. government. To make it even better – and after he was 100% sure he couldn’t be drafted, Mr. Clinton wrote a letter to the aforementioned colonel describing how Mr. Clinton duped him.¹

1. Clinton Letter to Colonel Holmes; Bill Clinton; December 3, 1969.