There is a narrative being pushed by some that opposition to State Senator Rob Hurt is unreasonable and that conservative activists like myself and Bill Hay are undermining the effort to go after Tom Perriello. But what is a reasonable response to Tommy Boy? Attacking him when he's wrong, or making shit up?
Recall that I offered very, very harsh criticism of Republican candidate Michael McPadden when he attacked Tom Perriello and tried to link our liberal Congressman to the Food Safety Enhancement Act and other big government policies to destroy agriculture in America. If there is anything I dislike more than liberals, it's knee-jerk Republicans who don't do their homework. But now someone else has inspired my wrath. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.
You see, my conservative brothers, a reasonable response to Tom Perriello would look at his actual voting record. So when attacking him on the out of control spending in Washington, you'd look to see that he actually voted against the Obama Budget.
When you argue that the budget resolution doesn't matter but appropriations bills do, you'd actually check before claiming "Perriello has not voted against any of the appropriation bills." Because if you actually did your homework you'd find out that he has voted against several appropriations bills. Is it enough to make him a fiscal conservative? Maybe, maybe not. But it's enough to show that whoever made the statement is wrong and undermine their credibility in attacking Perriello or anyone else running for any office, including dog catcher.
When you claim that Perriello only votes against the Democrats when it doesn't matter, and if he does vote against the Democrats the vote obviously doesn't matter, you are employing circular logic. Intellectual masturbation isn't going to defeat Tom Perriello. What makes a vote matter? If the Democrats fall seven votes short of passing a bill and Tom Perriello voted against the Democratic Party, is that a vote that matters? How close does it have to be for the vote to matter?
Or you could just make shit up. Like claim that Perriello voted for the extension of unemployment benefits that I have been bashing Forbes, Wittman, and other Republicans for supporting. In reality, Perriello voted against the bill.
You could attack Perriello for signing onto a letter to Eric Holder opposing gun control, or you could listen to the NRA (They know something about opposing gun control) and thank Perriello and the sixty-four other Democrats for their leadership on the issue. Or look at his votes and his co-sponsorships and realize that attacking him on guns is not worth the effort.
We all lose credibility if we make up attacks on Perriello and the rest of the Democrat Party. A reasonable response helps us defeat Tom Perriello. An unreasonable one will ensure his reelection. Sadly, it looks like a few Republican bloggers out there are on the Perriello for Congress bandwagon. How else can you explain their unreasonable responses?