The Man Who Could Topple Jack Murtha

AikiRooster

Tube Monkey USMC
The Man Who Could Topple Jack Murtha
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, July 23, 2008

A jaw-dropping political miracle may be on the horizon. No, I'm not talking about the second coming of the Obamessiah. I'm talking about the long-deserved comeuppance of troop-smearing, pork-feasting, scandal-tainted Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania.

The 18-term congressman's challenger, staunch conservative Republican newcomer William Russell, raised nearly $670,000 in the second fundraising quarter. Earmark king Murtha scraped together a measly $119,000. Russell's underdog campaign bested Murtha without the perks of incumbency, national name recognition, big PAC donations or mainstream media support.

Even more amazing: The 45-year-old Russell, a Desert Storm veteran, former Army lieutenant colonel and Army reservist who survived the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon, was not even publicly campaigning during the quarter. He is on active duty with the Army until after Aug. 1 and is barred from actively campaigning until then.

If all that didn't make this enough of an inspiring David and Goliath story: In February, a Pennsylvania judge ruled that Russell had failed to collect enough signatures to make the primary ballot. But Russell refused to give up on his goal of permanently redeploying Murtha from his entrenched seat of power in Washington. The GOP neophyte persevered on a shoestring budget and won more than 4,000 write-in votes in the spring to earn a spot on the general election ballot. According to Russell's campaign manager and veteran GOP activist Peg Luksik, the bulk of contributions from about 16,000 donors in the second quarter were less than $50.

Russell's clear on where he stands. No doubt Barack Obama would label him bitter and clingy. "I am a Conservative," he says in his defining campaign statement. "I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty. … I believe that no one owes me anything just because I live and breathe."

The excitement and buzz around Russell stand in stark contrast to grass-roots disgust on the right with Beltway Republicans who continue to push the party to the left in a brain-dead attempt to "rebrand" the GOP. He has united pro-troops families, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Reagan Democrats and Independents fed up with Murtha's culture of corruption dating back to his Abscam days in the 1980s. Murtha was not indicted in the infamous bribery probe, but he was videotaped entertaining a $50,000 bribe from undercover FBI agents posing as emissaries for Arab sheiks trying to enter our country illegally.

"The incredible story about Bill's campaign is that the $15 and $25 contributions are coming in from all over Pennsylvania and every corner of the country," Luksik noted on the Russell Brigade website (www.russellbrigade.com). "This is K-Street versus Main Street. These are patriotic families expressing support for soldiers, sailors and Marines, and people saying they've had enough of the old 'pay-to-play' culture in the Capitol. That's what's fueling this campaign."

Russell decided to enter politics after hearing Murtha's slanderous 2006 accusations that Marines in Haditha "overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." As I reported in June, seven Marines have been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq war incident Murtha recklessly adjudicated in the court of public opinion -- with willing mainstream journalists at The New York Times, MSNBC, and in the world press swinging their nooses.

Perhaps that complicity explains the great media wall of silence around Russell's upstart campaign. Republican Bill Russell offers ethical, freedom-enhancing, pro-responsibility, anti-retreat, unapologetically conservative change they don't want to believe in.
 
He seems like a good man.
But we need to know if he's got a plan for the economy. A plan for education. A plan for health care (which totally blows). Something about the redundant policing. What he'll do about ILLEGAL immigration.
 
I'd rather have him than piece of poop Murtha that made false accusations against US Marines and their leaders in combat.

BigLincoln.jpg
 
Just noticed that article was written by Michelle Malkin.
I hope the article is close to the truth because if it isn't, it'll hurt the Colonel. Being of a Lieutenant Colonel rank, I still think there's a good chance that he is a good man (anything Colonel and up, I assume he's a pile of s*it unless he can prove himself otherwise) but extremist writings with the type of language that Ms Malkin uses doesn't help anyone.
We need articles, arguments and views that are constructive rather than destructive. I'm really tired of things that tear at others. It's the reason why the best aren't running for any kind of office. Might be the reason why General Powell changed his mind about running, but probably got pressured into helping out President GW Bush (which turned out to be real bad for him).
 
Just noticed that article was written by Michelle Malkin.
I hope the article is close to the truth because if it isn't, it'll hurt the Colonel. Being of a Lieutenant Colonel rank, I still think there's a good chance that he is a good man (anything Colonel and up, I assume he's a pile of s*it unless he can prove himself otherwise) but extremist writings with the type of language that Ms Malkin uses doesn't help anyone.
We need articles, arguments and views that are constructive rather than destructive. I'm really tired of things that tear at others. It's the reason why the best aren't running for any kind of office. Might be the reason why General Powell changed his mind about running, but probably got pressured into helping out President GW Bush (which turned out to be real bad for him).

Michelle Malkin that little darling of Radio that encourages neighbors to spy on each other for "unpatriotic" activities and who suggested that democrat politicans opposed to the war should be shot for treason. Yeah there's a good endoresement for you...if someone is interested in resurrecting the Third Reich.

BTW, Jack Murtha's a decorated Marine Combat veteren himself, so whatever he said (even if you disagree) he has earned the right to say it.

AikiRooster:

Lincoln was wrong, as are you. Lincoln's actions in supressing constitutional rights during the civil war was ruled UNCONSTITUIONAL in 1866. Read the decision Ex Parte Milligan.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with its shield of protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of men that any of its great provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of Government." [/FONT]

In other words, the USSC ruled that the Constitution and its protections are the LAW, regardless of circumstances and that NOTHING can do can supercede it.

Furthermore, the only people that ruthlessly crackdown on free speech movements evening during war were Communists, Nazis, and other Dictators. Not an example I would be following if I were you.
 
Last edited:
Refer to President Lincoln, Post #3.


Furthermore, the only people that ruthlessly crackdown on free speech movements evening during war were Communists, Nazis, and other Dictators. Not an example I would be following if I were you.

You ought to tell that to your liberal media people.
 
Refer to President Lincoln, Post #3.

1. I did. That's exactly what I was referring to. Lincoln was ruled by the USSC in 1866 to be illegally violating the constitution. You think that just because he was a great president he didn't make mistakes or was occasionally wrong. I'll restate what the court stated: War isn't a justifiable reason to suspend the Constitution, nothing on earth has that power.

2. They already know that, as do most people in America. Its the fundamental difference between Democracy and Fascism. You're the one who seems to have trouble understanding the concept.
 
Last edited:
Many of those people had mixed feelings on the outcome of the war, President Lincoln was not well liked by many Confederates who were mostly democrat BTW. One of the few Union folks who was, was Custer. His wife's Dad didn't want him to marry her because he (Custer) was brain damaged politically. The Justices that claimed President Lincoln was wrong were probably similar to the freaks that voted to try terrorists in American courts a month or so ago.
 
Last edited:
You can still be in the right while breaking the law, mmarsh.

Rarely, it's a very slippery slope your climbing. Most of the time breaking the law is to be wrong. John Brown was a abolitionist (a good cause) but his methods of armed insurrection...very bad. Most of the times causes are a matter of opinion, take abortion many people are against it and think the ends justify the means. I'm pro-choice, so obviously I don't.

Take this case, Lincoln was a great president but his suspension of the Constitution was totally illegal. Lincoln arrested and jailed Northern politicians and journalists who dared criticized his administration or the war.

There isn't a single Historian or Constitutional Lawyer today who would argue the legality of what Lincoln did. Any Lincoln statement is against the very fabric of any modern democracy.
 
Many of those people had mixed feelings on the outcome of the war, President Lincoln was not well liked by many Confederates who were mostly democrat BTW.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Democratic party of that time almost the polar opposite of what it is today? They believed in a weaker central government, much like the Republicans of today.
 
The main reason they wanted the weaker Feds was because they wanted the states to be able to choose whether or not to ban slavery in their individual state. So, as usual, just like today, the dems were in silly season.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Democratic party of that time almost the polar opposite of what it is today? They believed in a weaker central government, much like the Republicans of today.

Exactly Correct.

Its absurd to compare the Democrats of 1860 to the Democrats of today.
The reason is because of a rash of population migrations that took place at the turn of the 20th century. The California Gold Rush, the Industrial Revolution, etc...

Lincoln political views were more in step of todays democrats than of the Republicans.
 
The President is not over the constitution, period.
If the ends justified the means back then, fine, but it better not become a habit.
 
The President is not over the constitution, period.
If the ends justified the means back then, fine, but it better not become a habit.
--------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunatly the problem with that is that EVERY leader out there thinks he knows better than the law. George Bush still thinks he was right to spy on Americans without warrents was justified even though it violated the law.

Unfortunately for him, most Americans disagreed as did Congress.

Thats why the law is the law no ifs, ands, buts, or exceptions. If you are a country leader and you dont like a particular law, then change the law. But never break it.

If a president decides to ignore the law what kind of message does that send to the public?
 
President Bush did what what he thought was needed to protect Americans, I say he's a damned good man for that and deserves an award. At least he had the almonds to do what was right at the time to accomplish the mission. If he didn't do it, all the little whiners that claimed he was wrong might not have been alive to belly ache about it.
 
President Bush did what what he thought was needed to protect Americans, I say he's a damned good man for that and deserves an award. At least he had the almonds to do what was right at the time to accomplish the mission. If he didn't do it, all the little whiners that claimed he was wrong might not have been alive to belly ache about it.

I guess you would consider the Founding Fathers to be whiners then...

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Benjamin Franklin 1759..
 
Not a chance, I would assume the founding fathers smart enough to adjust with the times as President Bush did.

Funny how people like you want to throw this up bet yet when it comes to firearms for the citizens they wanna question the authenticity of what the founding fathers meant.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top