Is Catherine Amos a Secret Agent for Perriello?

I have been surprised with the level of coverage for the election in Virginia's 5th District this year, especially the low regard for both democracy and its readers that the Danville Register & Bee has been showing. The most recent article from their new reporter Catherine Amos is making me question if Amos, and perhaps the entire Danville Register & Bee paper, are actually secret agents pushing to get Perriello reelected. As we all know, Perriello was swept into office in 2008 through a combination of factors. But one that cannot be forgotten is the endorsement by the Register & Bee and their biased coverage of the election. I had thought that the paper was trying to make amends with their failure to fact check and giving Robert Hurt the benefit of the doubt throughout the primary. But now I'm worried that they are handling this election so badly they are actually trying to get Perriello reelected.

Today's debate about the debates article from Catherine Amos has the headline "Hurt attacks Perriello for declining one-on-one debate." With such a clear statement in the headline, I expected the article to justify the claim that Perriello has declined the one-on-one debate. Instead, the article notes that Perriello's campaign claims they have not declined the debate and the one objective source of information, Lynchburg Regional Chamber of Commerce President Rex Hammond, was not available for comment.

Will the Danville Register & Bee be publishing these headlines?

"Hurt attacks Perriello for being secret Muslim terrorist."

"Hurt attacks Perriello for being a Martian lawyer."

I guess Amos never learned at journalism school that her job is to be objective and neutral in these fights, trying to find the truth to hold politicians accountable. A headline like today's imparts on the reading the sense that Hurt is right and that Perriello has declined the debate. The truth, that there is disagreement between the camps, isn't mentioned until later in the story. Why couldn't Amos come up with "Hurt claims Perriello is ducking debates" or something like that?

At first I was going to blame this on lazy reporting, which it clearly is. Amos was in such a rush to come up with a story for Friday she ran with something she hadn't fully checked out. Would it have killed her to wait a few days to verify from Hammond the truth? I don't think so, but I guess there's so little to report about in Danville the paper was putting pressure on her to come up with a story--fast! Fill that space!

But then I also realized that so far Amos has been focusing on the debate debate between the two candidates. She can truthfully say that she's been covering the election and the battles between the two candidates. But she's ignored, for over a week now, the demand from Robert Hurt that Tom Perriello announce his position on President Obama's attempt to nullify Arizona's anti-illegal immigrant laws. Amos is silent on a real, substantive issue of disagreement between the two candidates. Robert Hurt, like Virgil Goode, believes that we need to end illegal immigration and take back the jobs that immigrants have stolen from Americans. Tom Perriello welcomes them with open arms. It's that simple.

The Register & Bee has already covered that many farms in the area depend on immigrant labor instead of Americans. I want to know why these farmers are hiring immigrants instead of Americans despite the high unemployment across Southside. Perriello is fighting for cheap labor for farmers that puts Americans out of work. I know that Goode supports an immigration moratorium, which would end these programs like H2A that bring in cheap immigrant labor to take jobs away from Americans. I'm sure Robert Hurt does as well. The Register & Bee is silent on this issue because the don't want to hurt Perriello's reelection. For shame!

I also want to know where Jeff Clark, the "conservative" candidate in this race, stands on ending immigration. If Hurt is going to win he is going to need to show that he's as conservative, if not more conservative, than Clark. Does Clark support Goode's immigration moratorium? Why hasn't Amos asked these questions, instead of focusing on this silly debate debate?

Will Register & Bee Call for Ending Unemployment Benefits for Danville?

Just a few days ago the Danville Register & Bee wrote a selfish editorial outlining their stance on extending unemployment benefits during the Obama-recession: we want ours, don't give it to anyone else! The editorial board drew a line in the sand and boldly said that some localities that were struggling deserved extended unemployment benefits, but not localities where the economy has started to rebound.

With all we know about labor markets in this country, can’t we come up with a solution that helps people where they need help — and pushes them off the dole when their local economy is strong support them?

Like Robert Hurt, my heart goes out to those unemployed workers who can't find a job because of the failures of President Obama and the Democrat Congress. It's not fair to punish them for the job-destroying agenda coming out of Washington. But as a good conservative I also oppose welfare programs that discourage workers from finding a job. That's why I've decided to agree with the Register & Bee. Once a locality shows job growth their unemployment benefits should be cut.

So will the Register & Bee now join me in calling for unemployment benefits to be cut for Danville and Pittsylvania?

Of the twenty-two localities in the great 5th District of Virginia, all but FIVE have higher unemployment rates than when President Obama was sworn into office in January, 2009. Two of the exceptions are Danville and Pittsylvania. That's right. The area that the Register & Bee covers is at lower unemployment rate than when Obama started destroying our economy with taxes and debt. This just shows how strong and resilient the hard working folks in Danville are. Since they have a recovering economy, shouldn't the Register & Bee do the right thing and call for kicking off the dole the lazy bums who refuse to go out and get a job?

Doublethink in Politics

Yesterday, the Charlottesville Daily Progress posted a letter to the editor online criticizing independent candidate Jeffrey Clark. That's all well and good, but the letter started off with:

Congressional candidate Jeffery Clark and his campaign strategist Chris LaCivita are either absurdly uninformed or confirmed egomaniacs, or both. Or maybe just incredibly naive.

There's a clear problem here. Chris LaCivita isn't Clark's campaign strategist. He's Hurt's. This person, a Hurt supporter who is opposed to Clark, is so stupid he doesn't even know that LaCivita is the strategist for his guy, not Clark! Walter F. Johnson of Albemarle County, #FAIL!

But the problem is that the Daily Progress published the letter anyway. This is at least the second time so far this year that the Daily Progress has published a letter that was either critical of Perriello or Clark that didn't get its facts straights. A few months ago they published a letter claiming that the health care bill exempted members and their staff (it doesn't!) and was passed using the "deeming" method (it wasn't in the end!).

This isn't just picking on the Daily Progress. The Danville Register & Bee has had problems with reality too, such as claiming that Perriello would win easily if Goode ran as a third party candidate this year despite a poll showing him tied with Perriello even if Hurt was still in the race.

Why can't these Media General newspapers show even a basic level of competence?

The Daily Progress has corrected the letter to the editor online, but it didn't post a disclaimer or correction. And it begs the question as to who is checking these letters in the first place.

Just a few days ago, Bruce at Southside Central said that Robert Hurt's campaign "immediately" backtracked from Hurt's statement that he would debate Clark. That was entirely wrong and, after I noted reality, Bruce corrected himself and published an explanation. He was wrong, but after being corrected he not only fixed the mistake but did so in a way that kept public the fact that he was originally wrong. Good man!

The problem seems to be that these "mainstream" newspapers don't want to admit that they were wrong. They are like minions in 1984 going back to "correct" the past with no admission that an error was made.

This Orwellian approach to politics is being replicated by many Hurt supporters online. For example, I notice that Garrett Watson is angry that Jeffrey Clark supports a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. That's a fine position to take, but back in 2008 Virgil Goode attacked Perriello for supporting gay marriage because Perriello opposes a federal amendment for the very same reasons Garrett outlined! Will Garrett bash Hurt when the coming attacks on Perriello's stance on gay marriage hit?

Elsewhere, a Hurt supporter has been claiming that Hurt polls very well against Perriello and we know Perriello is in trouble because he hasn't released a poll he conducted a few weeks back. That's a fine claim to make, but we also know that Hurt conducted a poll a few weeks back too! Hurt has the same polling firm as Rigell in the 2nd, where Rigell is showing a commanding lead against Glenn Nye. Why hasn't Hurt released his poll? How far behind is Hurt?

It's obvious that Perriello should be polling under 50%, which is a sign of vulnerability for an incumbent. No matter how far ahead of Hurt he won't release a poll showing him under 50%. But Hurt should be willing to release any poll that shows him tied or ahead of Perriello. He could even use the margin of error to argue that he's tied even if he's behind a little bit. My only conclusion is that Hurt's own polling shows him significantly behind Perriello. That's just a fact and any Hurt supporter who claims otherwise is full of hot air.