Posted on 03/24/2010 11:09:55 AM PDT by smoothsailing
by David Croyle
Harrisburg is talking about last night’s cable show in Kittanning where the Republican candidate for the 12th Congressional District accused the state Republican Party chairman of collusion.
Bill Russell ran two years ago against John Murtha in his last election in 2008, raising $3.6 million and earning an impressive 42 percent of the vote. Following his loss, Russell announced he would run against him again.
Since Murtha’s unexpected death on February 8, a special election will now be held simultaneously with the Primary on May 18. However, while Russell is already on the Republican ticket for the May primary, Republican insiders rejected him as their candidate to run against Murtha staffer Democrat Mark Critz of Johnstown in the special election. Although Russell already has a district-wide organization in place and excellent name recognition from his last campaign, the GOP conferees voted by a 2-1 margin for Tim Burns from Eighty Four, Pennsylvania in Washington County to run in the special election.
Russell, appearing on Family-Life TV’s Talk of the Town, criticized state Republican Chairman Rob Gleason.
“Unfortunately we’ve got a state Republican chairman who has a direct conflict of interest and really had no interest in, one, either defeating Jack Murtha when he was in Congress or, two, in taking that seat,” Russell said, referring to Gleason’s ownership of an insurance agency. “His direct personal interest is in keeping that the status quo. The direct financial interest is the fact that his insurance company writes the insurance policies for many of the companies Mr. Murtha used to bring in, and he has a vested interest in keeping the status quo for that. It is really unfortunate because, one, he has a vested financial interest in going against the Republican party, two, in a recent news interview, he attacked me for doing too well in the 2008 election because that caused Jack to bring out the Democratic forces including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton for six robo calls,and Barack Obama. With the turnout of the Democratic electorate to save Mr. Murtha’s seat, he says that actually led him to lose a state legislature seat. So he was angry with me for doing too well against Mr. Murtha.”
D. Patrick Mahoney in The Washington Times yesterday also criticized Gleason and conferees, alleging Burns’ financial fortune that tops nine figures will enable him to self-fund his campaign and also contribute to other campaigns as well.
“It’s an unfortunate reality of what’s going on. As unhappy as people may be about what is going on in Washington, we can’t change things in Washington if we don’t first change the way we do things here in Pennsylvania. With the populist support I have had, I was 30 points ahead in the polls in the Republican running, I’m the largest non-incumbent fund raiser in the nation, but yet they chose somebody else with a 7% name recognition.”
Because the special election will be held at the same time as the state’s Primary election, it will be possible for Burns to actually win and occupy the seat from May until November while Russell wins the Republican nod in the Primary. If Russell wins the Primary and also the General election in November, he could still become the 12th Congressional District’s choice.
Russell, a retired 82nd Airborne officer and Iraq War veteran, seemed undaunted by the politics surrounding the special election.
“My focus right now is running in the Primary and winning the November election,” Russell said.
My apologies to Huey.
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.
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:46:47 PM by smoothsailing
FR Russell Search
If there’s any truth to Russell’s annoyance, I completely understand why in light of the noise we’re seeing here.
Read your own post to me if you need an example of hostility.
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.
Hey, don't forget Duey and Luey!!!!
Thanks for the perspective - it makes complete sense.
Excellent post and exactly on target but I doubt the Burns partisans will be satisfied with that.
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.
>> Maybe Gleason wants to keep the “status quo”
The GOP needs new blood, or the Country will die - well, you know what I mean.
Done screwing up your state already?
(btw, spell check is your friend)
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.
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.
I insinuated nothing. You take it anyway you like. Don't buy a word I say. I couldn't care less.
Agreed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.