We Love Kratovil – The Hypocrisy of Maryland’s “Independent” Blogosphere

Liberals believe in something.  Unfortunately, the policies that they believe in have proved a failure.  That said, at least self-identified liberals (or “progressives”) are willing to stand up for what they believe in.

However, liberal Democrats can’t get elected by admitting what they believe in, so they claim to be “independent” or “moderate”.  Some members of the blogosphere have decided to take a page from the Barack Obama / Frank Kratovil playbook and claim to be promoting “a different kind of politics” while in reality peddling the same old socialist solutions.  ShoreIndie has become the Maryland blogosphere’s leader in this re-packaged hypocrisy.

ShoreIndie attacks conservative candidates for myriad sins and claims that they practice deceptive advertising.  Fair enough.  Unfortunately, ShoreIndie is incapable of distinguishing statements of fact from opinion.  He doesn’t even appear capable of distinguishing a baseless opinion from an informed one.  Of course his pals, like liberal congressional candidate Frank Kratovil, NEVER say anything that isn’t gospel.

Case in point – a series of videos ShoreIndie posted on YouTube of the first Salisbury debate between Andy Harris and Frank Kratovil.  It’s important to remember that ShoreIndie did not post these until last week, long after the debate occurred.  Therefore, he is unable to claim that he is unaware of subsequent statements of, or actions by Kratovil.

We’re using his video on “the Bailout” as an example.

Let’s note that during Kratovil’s answer, he hems and haws without taking a definitive stance once way or another.  He starts by stating, “The bottom line, of course, is that the bailout did not go through”.  Kratovil makes it sound as if he supports the bailout, IF.  He’s opposed to it IF.  Kratovil finishes up his answer by attacking Harris, making the claim that Harris was “the benficiary of over a million dollars of a Wall Street special interest group.”

ShoreIndie, and his “independent” pals wail about Andy Harris’ use of primary footage (despite the fact that the individuals gave their permission to be used again) and claim that Harris is deceiving voters.  Yet, when Kratovil and his DCCC masters make claims of Harris receiving millions from “Wall Street” it’s perfectly OK.

It should be noted that this supposed “Wall Street special interest group” is the Club for Growth.  I’m a member and I definitely don’t work on Wall Street.  CFG doesn’t lobby for Wall Street.  They organize support for that evil all evils – pro-economic growth, free market policies.  The Club for Growth is simply a grassroots lobby that bundles contributions from tens of thousands of individuals and sends the money to particular candidates.  The problem is that the Club for Growth supports such “evil” ideas as low taxes and pro-growth economic policies.  You know, the things that create jobs.  Lord knows, we can’t have any of that.  As Frank Kratovil has told us about health care – government, not individual responsibility and initiative, is the answer to all of our problems.

A point of additional disclosure.  CFG also has a political action committee.  This PAC makes independent expenditures promoting candidates that CFG supports.  The money for these independent expenditures comes from voluntary contributions, usually in small dollar amounts.

Unlike union money, of which Kratovil is a huge beneficiary, Club for Growth contributors pick which candidates to support and write $10, $25, or $100 checks to individual campaigns.  We just stick them all in one envelope and let CFG distribute the checks.  Kratovil is receiving money from folks that are literally extorted.  These folks have to pony up to the union in order to keep their jobs.  They also don’t get any say how that money is spent.  Technically, they can request that their money not go to political activity,  However, members who do are routinely victims of abuse and intimidation.

Back to FrankTV …

Let’s assume for a moment that ShoreIndie is being truthful that, “All three of the 1st District candidates said that they opposed the $700 billion bailout plan.”  This is actually true if you take out the parts of Kratovil’s answer about why we need the bailout.  So let’s assume that Kratovil actually took a stand.

A few days later, in the very same building, Frank Kratovil stated that he supported the bailout.  Granted, he stated that he supported the bailout bill that passed after this debate.  We should also note that the biggest difference between the plan that ShoreIndie states Kratovil opposed and the one he clearly supported was $140 billion in pork.  OK, we know where Kratovil stands on wasteful government spending.

But wait!  Less than 36 hours after stating that he supported the bailout, Kratovil claimed that he opposed it.  (In case ShoreIndie wants to claim this isn’t true, the sources are linked to.  Check the Daily Times and PolitickerMD.)  Why do you think that Kratovil will only provide an edited copy of the audio for his SU appearance on October 6th?

By now, you’re asking “So what?  It’s politics.”  You’re right.  It’s just that certain things get my goat.  ShoreIndie claims that Andy Harris is sooooo evil and that Frank Kratovil is soooo wonderful.

As is typical of a leftist, it’s OK to “bend the truth” (if you are a lefty) because “it’s for the children”.  Conservatives are evil.  They stand for evil things like free enterprise and individual responsibility.

It’s OK for this new breed of leftist posing as “moderate” to “fudge” because voters are too stupid to grasp the real issues, and they need help from the left wing elites (to which ShoreIndie appears to aspire).  Even when conservatives are 100% truthful (a difficult standard in a subjective area like politics) they are still lying because their motives are evil.

No, I am not claiming that two wrongs make a right. 

When a candidate does something and the lefty blogosphere cries foul, they have a right to their opinion.  They can make their argument as to why it’s wrong.  I can defend or decry the action.  Again, I make an argument as to why my opinion is correct.

That’s not what the left does.  They have a tough time defending their point of view.  The empirical evidence is almost always against them.  They argue from the heart.  They appeal to emotion.  However, in a fallacious attempt to bolster their argument they resort to claiming that the opposite side is somehow evil.

Given that the “evil” committed by the right is often merely a mirror image of their own actions, doesn’t it seem a tad hypocritical?

Sphere: Related Content