Russell Accuses State Republican Party Chairman of Collusion (PA-12)

The Kittaning Paper ^ | March 24, 2010 | David Croyle

[HonestConservative]

My apologies to Huey.

[HonestConservative]

Oh, and by the way, I thought of this offline and got myself all wee weed up;

Gleason is complicit in the attempted false imprisonment of our soldiers, becauses he was an agent for Murtha.

When I figure out which state to go to, I’ll go there.

[Gene Eric]

>> Gee Dude , am I intrerferrng with your smaer campaign.
>> Gee Dude why dont you stop the lies and astroturfing Dude.

LOL, the one that's doing all the smearing around here is you!

Your relentless hostility is damaging your pathetic cause.


For Russell, 'change' means new thinking, not just new congressman
Washington(PA) Observer-Reporter ^ | 8-8-08 | Jon Stevens

Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:46:47 PM by smoothsailing

FR Russell Search

[Gene Eric]

If there’s any truth to Russell’s annoyance, I completely understand why in light of the noise we’re seeing here.

[ncalburt]

Read your own post to me if you need an example of hostility.

[smoothsailing]

If there’s any truth to Russell’s annoyance, I completely understand why in light of the noise we’re seeing here.

Initially it was an understandable strategy on the part of Burns and Gleason partisans, but on just a cursory examination their argument falls apart.

If the Primary Election were held a week before the Special Election and Russell defeated Burns in the Primary, he would have a sound political motivation to endorse Burns in the Special. It would unite the Russell and Burns camp in the effort to defeat Critz. In turn, the Burns camp could announce it's intention to come out for Russell in the November Election.

But when both the Special Election and the Primary Election occur on the same day, such a scenario becomes impossible. For Bill Russell, such an action would be tatamount to political suicide. It's the equivalent of offering your concession speech before the polls open.

To give an example; what if Russell spoke these words publicly tomorrow;"I endorse Tim Burns in the Special Election".

Now what would happen? Burns partisans would start repeating it, the media would report it, and Gleason would congratulate Russell for uniting the GOP. And then, inevitably the headlines would scream; "Russell Endorses Burns". The two elections would be blurred in to one. Russell supporters would become disallusioned by the headlines. Burns would have co-opted the Primary and would be free to run against Critz as a "moderate" Republican (the new but better Arlen Specter!).

Bottom line, Russell has been magnanimous and quite gracious in wishing Burns luck in the Special Election and I would expect nothing more and nothing less from any man of Col. Russell's integrity and character, the Burns partisans should be more than satisfied with that.

[smoothsailing]

My apologies to Huey.

Hey, don't forget Duey and Luey!!!!

[Gene Eric]

Thanks for the perspective - it makes complete sense.

[jazusamo]

Excellent post and exactly on target but I doubt the Burns partisans will be satisfied with that.

[smoothsailing]

From the Penn Patriot

Bill Russell Slams State Chairman Robert Gleason. Says Gleason Has A 'Conflict Of Interest'

Randy Potter, 3/24/10

12 Congressional District Candidate, Bill Russell, is now confirming a lot of the things that concerned many GOP supporters when Robert Gleason was first chosen to head up the Republican State Committee. He is accusing Gleason of collusion in regards to Gleason's insurance business dealings with Murtha.

I remember reading of Gleason openly admitting that he supported and voted for Murtha in the past. According to Russell, Gleason never supported his campaign in 2006 when he ran against Murtha the first time.

I think Russell has some great points. Why would Gleason push for Tim Burns who is relatively unknown outside the political establishment over Russell? Especially, in a political environment that is trending ever more hostile towards establishment candidates and is being heavily influenced by the Tea Party movement. Supporting Burns just doesn't make any sense to me considering he has less than 10% name recognition in a special election that will end in May.

Does Gleason want former Murtha Chief Of Staff and Democrat Mark Critz to win the special election? Maybe Gleason wants to keep the "status quo". It wouldn't surprise me.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"You either know nothing, or are just making it up as you go along."

Would you like to explain that statement or are you just interested in throwing jabs at me?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Honestly, I think this is another example of Republican elites that would rather lose with a “moderate” than win with a conservative."

I don't know much about Burns but what I've gathered on the internet and he appears to be a solid conservative. So we're talking about a conservative vs. a conservative.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Russell clearly wants Burns to Lose so he does not have to face the incumbent Burns in the real primary in just a few months."

That doesn't make any sense. Burns and Russell are running in the primary. Burns only is running in the special election. They are both to be held on the same day (our primary day). If Burns wins the general election against the Democrat he fills out the rest of Murtha's term. If Russell wins the primary he wins the Republican nod to run against the Democratic opponent in the fall.

[Gene Eric]

>> Maybe Gleason wants to keep the “status quo”

The GOP needs new blood, or the Country will die - well, you know what I mean.

[airborne]

As a lifelong PA resident, I'm curious why a California resident is so worked up over our local primaries.

Done screwing up your state already?

(btw, spell check is your friend)

[HonestConservative]

We’ve been on the ground with this for years.

I’ve seen these antics happen and have spoken frequently with those involved.

Rob Gleason has been back- slapping buddies with Murtha for decades. His so called leadership has kept Murtha in the seat that allowed him to call our soldiers, our sons, our brothers and our neighbors COLD BLOODED KILLERS and attempt to send them to prison for LIFE.

Gleason was complicit in these and all actions of Jack Murtha.

According to Gleason, this makes Murtha “a good man” who made things happen in PA.

Mr. Gleason uninvited Col. Russell from the Palin Rally DAYS before it happened, a rally at which approximately 20 thousand people would attend. Is that the action of a man on our side?

Gleason cancelled a fund raiser at the 11th hour for Diana Irey weeks before the election with a bs excuse that “we’ve asked our contributors for enough”, like that was ever a thought in a politicians head. Again, is that the action of a guy on our side?

How can anyone justify Republican’s back slapping friendship and business association with such a man?

No man who allows the persecution of our soldiers who did nothing but what they are trained to do to protect us is someone who has my support to put it mildly.

Gleason recruited Burns. In no way can I support him. Gleason was complicit in persecuting the men of Haditha, that alone is reason for me to dispise him.

For this, I can never forgive him. Apparently some people can not only forgive him but jump on his bandwagon.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"For this, I can never forgive him. Apparently some people can not only forgive him but jump on his bandwagon."

Let me explain something to you. I was a Marine!! So to insinuate that somehow I support Murtha's actions I'm calling you out. Through organizations I belong to, we contributed to Justin Sharratt's defense fund.

You come on here making wild accusations about this Gleason that can't be substantiated and then by implication lump Burns in with him as if he's complicit in the Haditha accusations of Murtha. I've been on here many times in the past condemning Murtha for his wild accusations against the Haditha Marines. You're just as bad making your wild accusations against Gleason and then by implication Burns.

You want to claim I don't know anything. Then again, I didn't ever claim in here to have inside info on the goings on of the Republican party in Southwestern Pa. You did. Only you have never substantiated anything you have ever said. We just have your word to take for it. What you say about Gleason may be right, I don't know. However, I do know that he's not the whole Republican party down here. I know he's not some puppateer pulling the strings as you make him out to be.

I can read. I know that I went out to Burn's website and then it clicked in for me. I had seen his face before. I had read his literature in the past at my gun club. I've read his stances on the issues and they are all conservative. I've read about Bill Russell and heard him speak now for several years. He's a solid conservative. Unlike you, I have no axe to grind. I just want to see a solid conservative win this seat and it looks like both men running are solid conservatives. I never claimed anything else in this post. Unlike you who claim to have all of the insider information and we are supposed to take your word for it that Gleason is a bad character and by implication so is Burns.

The main point that I have tried to make in this thread is that everything I've read the process to select Burns for the special election was done above board and by Pa state law. Unlike NY-23, it was not done in some backroom with a bunch of hack party bosses who chose a liberal. Both candidates are conservative and we will have a strong conservative to run against the Demorats in November. If the newspapers have mischaracterized Russell's statements then I apologize to him. However, he has come off as whining and tearing up the Republican party down here just because he was not selected to run in the special election. The stakes are too high in November to split the party down here and deny a conservative victory here. I'm not sure who I'll vote for in the primary yet, but the crap you pull on this thread has not helped. For all I know, you're on Russells staff. If you are, shame on you.

[Crichton]

If Burns needs Russell's help to win, why did he get involved in this race in the first place?

You could turn that back around and ask why Russell and his followers whine constantly, saying that Gleason didn't support him *enough*.

Russell won't even say he'll VOTE for Burns in the special election, won't even say he'll support him over Critz.

Come to think of it, you've also refused to support Burns over Critz in the special election.

Campaigns don't run on spite, little guy. Grow up.

[HonestConservative]

I thank you for your service. I am glad you have supported Mr. Sharratt’s defense fund.

I insinuated nothing. You take it anyway you like. Don't buy a word I say. I couldn't care less.

[ZULU]

Agreed