Post-Gazette Editorial – 10/25/06

This page was last updated on November 18, 2006.

Altmire for Congress: Melissa Hart must account for her party’s failures; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; October 25, 2006.

11/18/06 - Below, the PG seemed hesitant to concede Mr. Altmire was a lobbyist. Now that the election is past and Mr. Altmire won, it appears the PG no longer has a problem labeling him as a lobbyist. In a November 18^th piece entitled “First things first for Altmire,” the reporter referred to Mr. Altmire as “a former lobbyist for UPMC” with no qualifiers on that label.¹ It’s funny how “news" outlets say one thing before an election and something different after, isn’t it?

This editorial takes a different approach than the endorsement editorial for Bob Casey, Jr. While that editorial practically portrayed Sen. Santorum as the spawn of Satan, this editorial takes a softer approach to opposing Rep. Hart.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Melissa Hart, the three-term incumbent in the 4th Congressional District, is painted by her opponent as a sort of female Rick Santorum. Both of the Republicans are conservative followers of President Bush, but that comparison goes only so far.

“True, her political views are similar to Sen. Santorum’s, but Ms. Hart, 44, of Bradford Woods doesn’t have a contemptuous sneer or attack-dog persona. Although she has some steel in her character, her manner is friendly and engaging.

“She sought funds to clean up brownfields and bring old sewer systems into the 21st century; she helped to save local military facilities. Her work ethic explains why she has been successful in politics, first in the state Senate for 10 years and now in the 4th District, which includes northern Allegheny County, all of Beaver and Lawrence counties and parts of Butler, Mercer and Westmoreland counties.

“Ms. Hart has also had the advantage the last two elections of not being seriously tested by a Democratic challenger. This year is different, and it may explain why she has ducked various invitations to debate her opponent.”

[RWC] As I noted in a previous critique, Rep. Hart isn’t the first person to refuse a debate, especially when your opponent has no record and thus can say whatever he wants without fear of being challenged. That said, if Rep. Hart is a good debater, I’d like to have seen her debate Mr. Altmire. If his campaign website represents his positions, Mr. Altmire’s campaign is based on the same old talking pointing we’ve heard from Democrats/liberals for years. As a result, a debate of issues and real solutions would favor Rep. Hart.

“The Democrat is Jason Altmire, 38, of McCandless, who is willing to debate without reservations. Although he has never held public office, Mr. Altmire is no stranger to Washington, D.C. He was a legislative aide to former Rep. Pete Peterson of Florida and later worked for the Federation of American Hospitals. In 1998, he returned to Western Pennsylvania to work for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. He was the acting vice president for government relations and community affairs at UPMC.

“For this, Mr. Altmire is called a ‘lobbyist’ by the Hart campaign, which is real chutzpah, considering that the Republican Party has lately been a great friend of lobbyists to the detriment of the nation (as in the Jack Abramoff affair). The challenger says that lobbyist is an accurate description for only part of his duties at UPMC. Anyway, the reason he was inspired to run was to reform the mess he saw in Washington.”

[RWC] The PG wants it both ways regarding lobbyists. The PG wants us to believe Republicans are the only people who speak with lobbyists and all lobbyists are dishonest. When someone reminds us Democrats also speak with lobbyists and there are both Democrat and Republican lobbyists, that’s “real chutzpah.”

“As his background suggests, Mr. Altmire’s No. 1 issue is the health-insurance crisis, which has left 46 million Americans without coverage. His remedy involves a three-point plan that includes paying doctors and hospitals for quality of care, not quantity; taking millions of people who are privately insured and putting them into a large pool so that risks are spread out and individuals are not penalized for becoming sick; and allowing people younger than 65 to buy into Medicare, thus getting them affordable coverage and invigorating the system.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. The “solution” to the current healthcare problem is to let more people buy into a program (Medicare) set to become insolvent by 2018? Are Mr. Altimre and the PG serious?

Regarding “individuals are not penalized for becoming sick,” that’s feel good talk intended to elicit an emotional response and get us to ignore common sense. If insurance premiums are not based on claim experience, that means individuals are penalized for being healthy.

Note: As of the writing of this critique, the Altmire campaign website doesn’t mention this “plan.”

“Ms. Hart’s prescriptions include getting more Americans to buy into health savings accounts and getting laws to curb malpractice lawsuits and damages -- the sort of initiatives that can help, but that are far from being a comprehensive solution.”

[RWC] Once again, letting more people buy into a program set to become insolvent in 12 years is “a comprehensive solution?”

“We also find Mr. Altmire more convincing on his support for a higher minimum wage and for ending tax cuts to the wealthy, particularly at a time of war and growing national debt. With guns and abortion largely neutralized as issues in this race because of common ground between two socially conservative candidates, the contest is for many a referendum on the performance of the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. Rep. Hart is the smiley face on some unsmiling policies -- and none more so than the growing disaster in Iraq.”

[RWC] A Democrat believes in paying a person more than the economic value of a job and in increasing taxes, and the “more conservative on economic issues” PG concurs. Gee, what a surprise. While I’m not an economics expert, I did take a few classes in economics from high school through graduate school. Oddly, none of those classes taught increasing taxes and overpaying for goods/services were good for an economy.

“Melissa Hart is the good soldier who doesn’t depart from President Bush’s marching orders. She is glad that the administration is talking about a change in tactics, but gives no hint that Iraq was a mistake or a miscalculation. The job must be finished, she says, or else calamity will ensue.

“Mr. Altmire is for taking the president at his word and getting out, now that the Iraqis have an elected government and training from the U.S. military. He may be too glib about leaving; Ms. Hart is too unrealistic about staying.”

[RWC] Can someone explain what was meant by “Mr. Altmire is for taking the president at his word and getting out?”

“The problem for Ms. Hart is that she must shoulder the failures of the GOP. As a member of the ethics committee she may be upright herself, but her party has ruled a swamp. She and her colleagues blindly follow a president who is out of new ideas and who stands over an administration lacking basic competency.”

[RWC] “[H]er party has ruled a swamp?” Without supporting examples and evidence, it’s just another drive-by accusation.

“She and her colleagues blindly follow a president?” This is the old line we’re supposed to buy that Republicans in Congress should blindly oppose President Bush’s proposals or they aren’t doing their duty. The PG seems to forget we elected President Bush based on his positions on issues. If Republicans blindly opposed President Bush’s suggestions, that would be the equivalent of ignoring the presidential election. If Republicans blindly followed President Bush as the PG suggests, we’d have an amnesty program for illegal aliens, Dubai Ports World would have been running some port operations, and we’d have no plan to build a fence along the Mexico/U.S. border.

Note: “[N]ew ideas” is PG-speak for liberal/progressive/socialist ideas.

“Voters in the 4th District deserve better in Washington, and 2006 is their chance for change. Jason Altmire is the one who can deliver it.”

[RWC] I wonder why the PG doesn’t tell us how a liberal representative is better for us than the nominally conservative Rep. Hart.

1. First things first for Altmire; Jerome L. Sherman; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; November 18, 2006.