22 November 2005

A Response to Schmidt's Statement

In her statement, Schmidt sticks to the pattern of prevarication that has already come to characterize her in just a few months on the job. After reading it, I can't help but recall the previous post, "Jean Schmidt Helps Toe Party Line." A closer look at her statement:

"Since that moment I have been attacked from across the country by the left."
The definition of “left” is not “everyone who disagrees with me.” The people who have been criticizing Schmidt since before the election come from across the political spectrum. Cincinnatians are aware of how unpopular she has been among a significant portion of conservatives and Republicans, but perhaps the rest of the country is not.

"I never meant to attack Congressman Murtha personally."
It’s clear from Schmidt’s statement that her remarks were (a) insulting and of a personal nature, and (b) directed at Rep. Murtha. Therefore this is a lie. Moreover, she violated House rules as well as her own pledge of personal conduct.

"But this story has been way too focused on me, my conviction and word selection. Instead this story should be focused on the extremely poor policy the minority now propose."
Such attempts to divert the public’s attention from failed policies and constant attack-style politicking are not working as well as they have in the past. Schmidt is hardly in a position to call anything else “poor policy” as the lowest ranking member of Congress and a member of the party that has done little else EXCEPT fail.

No, the focus should not be on how all your Party's failures are the Democrats’ fault; that’s classic narcissism. The focus should be on the outrageous corruption behind the neocon war plan.


"I have been attacked very personally, continuously since Friday evening."
Schmidt’s campaign personally attacked Marine Paul Hackett just a few months ago. Now she has made a personal attack upon another Marine, John Murtha. And she pledges blind loyalty to the party that trashed veterans John McCain, John Kerry, and Max Cleland—all of them decorated soldiers.

Mrs. Schmidt will not get any sympathy for receiving personal attacks. Certainly not in this case, when she herself opened the door with invective and partisanship.

"First and foremost I support the troops."
I don't believe Schmidt is lying; however, it's a false statement. In my opinion, Schmidt does not know what this really means, and she really does believe that her blind ideology is pro-military and patriotic. So it's not part of the pattern of prevarication, but it is part of the ancilliary ignorance that allows people to draw conclusions without critical analysis.

"I strongly oppose withdrawing our troops until we give them a chance to do what we sent them there to accomplish. They haven’t failed us. We must not fail them."
You have already failed them.

U.S. troops were sent in to establish a corporate-run state (“democracy” to neocons). That is the goal of Iraqi occupation. Had the neocons not been such idiotic war planners, they might have pulled off the boondoggle quickly and no one would have noticed the scam.

Most Americans are ignorant of the corporate takeover and the media is still too lazy and corrupt to report it, but they will notice that soldiers keep dying and money keeps bleeding and nothing seems to be getting better. Eventually they will ask why and demand answers.


- - -

Rep. Schmidt's statement reveals what 'damage control' means to the GOP. To those who hold principle and personal integrity in high regard, the damage done here was to the honor of a respected U.S. veteran and member of Congress. To the GOP, the damage was to the party.

If Schmidt was a person of honor and integrity, she would have ignored the political considerations and taken full personal responsibility for her words. That would have been a non-partison statement from an official to her constitutents. But that is not what she did. Instead, she chose to lie about her intentions and EXACERBATE partisanship by putting forth divisive partisan rhetoric.

Rep. Schmidt's statement falls short of apologizing or explaining her behavior. She does not even suggest that she will do better. It is unclear whether she even understands that she did something wrong. If her statement signifies anything, it is that the GOP stands by their doctrine of failed policies and personal invectives against those who demand better.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget when Jean Schmidt criticized Senator George Voinovich (from her own party) for getting teary eyed when he thought about the legacy being left for young Americans. Jean is mean and what's worse is that she does it under the cloak of being prolife as if that gives her the automatic moral high ground. Prolife and prowar doesn't seem compatable to me.

I listened to her on Bill Cunningham's radio show today. She essentially said that she regretted her words but not her intent. That sounds awefully close to Clinton's definition of the word "is" arguement.

Markus said...

Schmidt's actions slams Ohio financially.

I've followed Jean Schmidt's way to the congress since I started to look into the 2nd district congressional election with Hackett vs Schmidt. Since I'm from Sweden Europe I have no clue of how things are in Ohio but I can say this:

Schmidt even before the election looked like a very strange person, with strange ways of behaviors and moral values. She already back than said things that left my girlfriend with tongue out and rolling eyes. She is a disgrace to Ohio.

Hackett looked to be a much better choice to represent the second district of Ohio and today I still wonder what actually happened in Ohio during this election.

How can I, sitting in Sweden, halfway across the world from Ohio, make the choice of which candidate is the best when you people from Ohio voteing for Schmidt can't.

Maybe it is just because of that...my distance to the political history and culture in Ohio that makes this possible. I see the candidates in cold hard facts and can't tie any political history or culture to it.

The election of Jean Schmidt to represent the second district of Ohio is a shame and a disgrace to that district. When you elect a person to represent you, your choice will backfire on you if you make the wrong choice. Look here now...I will just take an example of what happened in this distance far from you. I happen to know a speechwriter to a top politician in our government's trade department . He said that this trade politician had seen the video clip on the internet site Daily Kos and he said spontaneously "what a mean person, that's how a typical American politician act in politics".

See now what consequences that gets when our larger companies are thinking to invest in Ohio. For a company to invest largely in a district need contacts with local politicians. Who in God's name do you think dare or even want to take a contact or planning a long term action that request contact with such a politician that even viciously smears a veteran and than later blames another guy for it and this guy are telling the media that he had nothing to do with it and regret even been named in the process.

Come on guys, this really sends the wrong signals for the people that decide to invest in Ohio.

You people from Ohio that sent this woman Jean Schmidt to the congress look at yourself in the mirror and tell me what you see and tell me now if you made the right choice for Ohio and the people that get their living and feed their family from working.

Markus Fors, Sweden, Europe

Mark said...

Markus, as someone living and voting in Ohio, I can't explain it either.

Schmidt was only on the ballot because three bigger names fought each other so viciously that she pulled ahead.

I know two people who know her personally and think about her in a good light. Beyond that I cannot explain why a voter would pick her over Paul Hackett.

Usually this region votes for Republicans by landslides. This time it was close. Some voters will go for the Republican without thinking. . . and now everyone is paying for it.

Anonymous said...

Markus,

We don't count all the votes in Ohio. There was more funny business in Clermont county.

After the stolen election in 2000, we thought the demorats would have to stand up for voters rights, but that didn't happen. Congressman John Conyers did a report on all the anomilies in Ohio's 2004 election.

Please send troops to liberate us from a messianic militarist, facist dictatorship.

Markus said...

I read about voting machines took a blow due to MOIST??! in the election this summer. Is that correct? Do you have jungle climate over there?

Troops? LOL..I think the people of Ohio are going to correct things by themselves. The Ohio GOP are pretty good in slashin up themselves (DeWine Noe DeLay Ney). whispering hope... You got a lot of good canditates comming up on the 2006 election. At least from what I can read on their websites.

The engine of the world's economy is coughing righ now. War and American domestic corruption is getting to us too. Your fight is noticed worldwide.
Good Luck to ya'll. And keep your spirit up. Don't give up.

Best Regards

Markus Europe