VoteVets Runs Ad Urging Congressman Charlie Gonzalez to Support Clean Energy

say what?? (1.00 / 1)

i find it hard to believe that charlie supports terrorists, dependence on foreign oil and not keeping america safe.

in fact, i know first hand that he does not support those things.

and wtf does "votevets" have to say about carbon credits???? shouldn't we be worried about the VETS that can't get the ptsd care they need? maybe the suicide rate among vets is an issue we should care about?

maybe you spend your time and money beating up on a repub in a swing district instead of pissing it away trying to embarass one of the most dedicated texas dems.

the only thing more certain than the sun rising tomorrow is charlie getting re-elected. such a distraction and a waste to attack him with a third party group that has virtually no affiliation to the issue at hand.

i'm wondering if votevets discloses where their financing for this attack comes from. now that would be interesting.

---

by: colin @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 21:33:13 PM CDT

You miss the point (0.00 / 0)

This is to encourage Gonzalez and others (there's a series of ads around the country) to support the Democratic agenda. Maybe you think Vets shouldn't comment on the fact that a significant portion of the defense budget is protecting oil. Maybe you think they shouldn't point out that the more we shift to renewable energy, the less funding the terrorists get - that whole supply and demand thing from econ 101. They should only speak about issues of care after the fact, rather than being pro-active about trying to prevent the wars that cause ptsd and suicide among their brothers and sisters. I disagree.

Gonzales and a few more Dems will likely be relected as long as they care to, but it would be nice if they got with the program so VoteVets could spend their money beating up swing district Republicans rather than having to pressure Democrats to vote with their party.

---

by: George @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 22:44:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

refer (0.00 / 0)

to the community guidelines or KT's bumper.

my post was not unproductive.

again, i'm not talking about a veteran voicing their opinion. i'm criticizing the tone and implications made by a PAC.

you think this vet wrote that script and developed the concept? come on, george.

votevets is using an american hero to attack a respected member of OUR party with totally irresponsible insinuations about gonzalez' value system.

i do see that we agree that the PAC's money is better spent in swing districts against the other party.

in congress a vote is a vote. if pelosi wants this vote, she'll get it. if votevets bothers to attack a swing-district repub and they change their vote...the vote counts the same value. furthermore, whether they change their position or not, it helps begin making the case for 10.

---

by: colin @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 13:50:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Geez, Colin (3.00 / 1)

1) VoteVets is a legit group -- they've been around a while. I worked with then in NH. They aren't some random group out to smear anyone.

2) Congressman Gonzales has a fairly influential voice on this issue, given his place on the Committee.

I think if a veteran fought in Iraq and wants to come home and talk about why new energy ideas are essential to our continued national security (something President Obama has said quite a bit, if you'll remember), then he has every right.

Congressman Gonzalez is so safe that he may only listen, as he said himself, to the "economic interests" in his district...unless others speak up. Giving away pollution credits is solely a move to help polluters. It is bad economics for the region, the state, and the country -- it only helps those businesses.

No cap and trade plan is going to entirely destroy businesses, but companies still have to grow and get better about what kind of energy they use and how much responsibility corporations should take.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 23:58:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

geez, phillip (0.00 / 0)

this is a smear that makes some very inaccurate insinuations about charlie's position on some major issues.

i never disputed a veteran's right to speak about whatever they wish, i simply dispute that this is a wise move and i question where the money came from for this call to action.

i don't disagree about the pollution credits.

the message makes some impressions about charlie's record that are crazy-inaccurate. and even if this ad changes his mind(and i don't think the ad will change anyone's mind), the ad, imho, plays dirty against a very popular and very team-oriented dem...and that is my problem with it.

if they want to make the case that charlie is on the wrong side of a big issue...okay, make it. but i think it is grossly inappropriate to make implications that charlie's position means he loves terrorists and wants to make our country less safe. it is bush-like rhetoric and is better utilized by the other side.

---

by: colin @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 13:44:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]