David R. Busang – 6/6/06

This page was last updated on June 10, 2006.

We’ll remember; David R. Busang; Beaver County Times; June 6, 2006. This letter is no longer on the Times website.

This is the second letter from Mr. Busang in five days.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The U.S. Senate passed its version of immigration reform that will do virtually nothing to secure our borders as the vast majority of the legal voters want.

“U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum voted against the bill, but you can be sure he sought President Bush’s permission first. I can see Bush saying, ‘Sure Rick, I know you’re in a tough re-election campaign this year, and the voters in Pennsylvania are more interested in secure borders. Besides, the House will never let the Senate version see the light of day.’

“This is a typical example of our elected representatives lacking the will to vote independent, preferring instead being told how to vote.”

[RWC] This is another example of an author employing what I call the “fantasy tactic.” In this approach, the author dreams up something that hasn’t happened and for which he has no evidence and then bashes the target for the author’s fantasy.

The fantasy might be believable except for a couple of things. First, if Mr. Santorum had sought President Bush’s “permission” to vote against Senate Bill 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006), it’s safe to assume Mr. Bush would not have OK’d Mr. Santorum’s active campaign against the bill. Quieting voting against a bill is one thing. Leading opposition is another.

Second, if Mr. Santorum got “permission” from President Bush to vote against the Senate bill, so did 31 other Republicans. In fact, 59% of Senate Republicans voted against the bill while 91% of Senate Democrats voted for it. Does anyone believe Mr. Bush would give 59% of Republicans “permission” to vote against a bill he supported?

The bottom line is Republicans can do nothing right if you’ve followed Mr. Busang’s letters. When Mr. Busang actually agrees with a Republican’s vote, he feels compelled to come up with a reason why the Republican is still wrong.

Did you note Mr. Busang didn’t attack Sen. Specter, despite the fact Mr. Specter voted against Mr. Busang’s apparent wishes? You’ll also note Mr. Busang didn’t attack Bob Casey, Mr. Santorum’s Democrat opponent in the fall election, despite the fact Mr. Casey said he would have voted for the bill had he been in the Senate.

“Want another example? Try the following local issue.

“‘OK, Vince, I know you’re a freshman state representative and we don’t want to get the folks mad at you, so I don’t want you to vote for the obscene illegal pay raise we’re going to give ourselves.’

“‘Thanks, Mike, but you know I would vote anyway you want me to regardless of what the voters of my district wanted.’

“November is just around the corner guys. We’ll remember.”

[RWC] There are big differences between Mr. Busang’s Santorum fantasy and his pay raise example.

First, Mr. Busang couldn’t bring himself to mention the names Biancucci (Vince) and Veon (Mike). Could it be that’s because they are Democrats?

Second, we have a Times news report stating, “he [Veon] advised Biancucci and Rep. Sean Ramaley, D-16, Economy, who are both fairly new to the Legislature and susceptible to election challenges, to vote against the bill. He said it was better to let more established legislators take the political flak.”¹

Did Mr. Biancucci vote against the pay raise because of Mr. Veon’s advice? I don’t know, but at least we have evidence suggesting Mr. Veon may have influenced him. In the Santorum “example,” all we have is Mr. Busang’s fantasy.

1. Lawmakers: Pay increase was justified; Bob Bauder, Times staff; Beaver County Times; July 8, 2005.