Tag: John Stirrup
In contrast, it looks like it was a "rough week" for crazy, raging homophobe, former Delegate Dick Black - my personal favorite for the Republican nomination, because he's a complete wackjob and thus the least electable (although probably not unelectable these days) candidate - who raised just $22,339, spent $22,467, and had cash on hand of $60,525.
Finally, apparent non-factor Bob Fitzsimmonds raised $2,825 (plus $30,000 he loaned himself), spent $15,048, and had cash on hand of $28,279.
Meanwhile, the Democratic nominee for this district, Shawn Mitchell, raised $20,854, spent $5,924, and ended the quarter with a cash-on-hand balances of $14,929. Clearly, that fundraising's going to have to pick up a couple notches in coming months if he hopes to beat John Stirrup, the increasingly likely Republican nominee for this Senate seat. To learn more about Shawn, click here, and to donate to his campaign, click here. Thanks.
P.S. Mitchell's campaign manager, Dominic Gabello, says, "Shawn brings the right mix of experience and background to this race. As a combat veteran and a small business owner, Shawn understands the challenges that families and businesses in the 13th are facing from sitting in traffic to balancing their budgets, or trying to spend more time with their loved ones. Residents of the 13th want someone who understands those challenges and will work to improve their quality of life."
Why does this qualify for a "right-wing hypocrisy alert?" Very simple. Here are the problems with China, particularly (but certainly not only) from a conservative perspective: 1) China performs abortions like wild, as many as 13 million in 2008 alone; 2) China persecutes Christians; 3) China is...ruled by a bunch of Commies, as in REAL Communists, not the people (Democrats, liberals, progressives) who Teapublicans claim, in their crazy/overheated rhetoric, to be "Communists." How does John Stirrup reconcile being proud of pushing for "normal trade relations" with an abortion-crazy, Christian-persecuting, Communist regime? Ah, human psychology.
By the way, it's also interesting that this anti-immigrant tough guy (aka, "bully") brags about having "served as a political appointee in the Reagan Administration for seven years." Recall that Reagan "did the A word" ("In 1986, Reagan signed an immigration reform bill, the first in 20 years, that legalized the status for 1.7-million people.")? We could also get into the fact that Reagan raised taxes multiple times, "nearly tripled the federal budget deficit," "grew the size of government tremendously," and - as governor of California - "signed a bill to liberalize the state's abortion laws that 'resulted in more than a million abortions.'" So, it's lovely that John Stirrup's proud of his service in the Reagan Administration, I just wonder which parts of Reagan's legacy he disowns? Most of it or all of it?