The article below is making the rounds in tea party circles being sent out by email. I am not sure who wrote it, but they did an excellent job. Feel free to share. I will point out one detail that many pundits already proclaiming victory for Spender Ralston is that they are obvious to the fact that outside groups can make expenditures and they dont have to report as long as they dont use the magic words vote for or vote against. Without going into detail, I can assure you it is extremely foolish to proclaim Spender Ralston the victor...Extremely foolish, but hey, please keep assuming it will be a cakewalk for Spender Ralston. I will encourage you to do so. I figure the least that will happen is that the negative campaigning will make him too toxic to be re-elected Speaker . What was Zoller thinking? Many consider the manner in which Martha Zoller is supporting David Ralston, the principal advertiser on her website ( zpolitics ), to be appalling. She recently wrote two hit pieces on Sam Snider who is running against Ralston. Her first, entitled 014’s big flop”, is available here: zpolitics/2014sbigflop/ Her article focuses on the vast differences in their respective war chests, $850,000 for Ralston, a mere $4,000 for Snider. This reflects Ralston’s large corporate donations, versus Snider’s grassroots support coming from the poor and struggling voters of the 7th District. She concludes that there is no contest in this “David and Goliath” spending mismatch. Then oddly enough, while declaring Snider to be virtually dead in the water, she felt it necessary to follow up with yet another disparaging piece on Snider entitled “NEW POLLING AND TEA PARTY ENDORSEMENTS FOR RALSTON”, available here: zpolitics/newpollingandteapartyendorsementsforralston/ The theme of her second article is that with Ralston enjoying an alleged 61% to 26% polling lead, Snider is “diverting” Ralston’s attention, and “hurting” Ralston’s ability to help other Republicans. Anyone with rudimentary skills in arithmetic, which presumably includes Zoller and Ralston, or at least someone on his staff, ought to be able to calculate that with such an alleged commanding lead, Ralston can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to help whomever he wants, or just relax on a beach. It was not necessary for Zoller to demonize Snider or his supporters as “hurting” the GOP’s efforts when all that Snider has done is try his best to exercise the very essence of the American system, and present a choice for voters in electing their Representative. That is where many feel that her article for Ralston became offensive and repugnant. Millions of Americans have given their lives to protect our freedoms and our electoral process. There are thousands of brave young men rotting away in VA hospitals from which they will never emerge, who would wonder “What was it all for?”, if the exercise of our freedom to elect our leaders is going to be denigrated by the mouthpiece of a incumbent who is ahead 61 to 26. There are people who consider her article to be a disgrace. Now as if that weren’t bad enough, Ms. Zoller then went on to proclaim a Tea Party endorsement for Ralston by THIS guy: gilmer.fetchyournews/archives/4044TeaPartyMeetingGetsViolent. html#.UZEEq5evYf8.facebook The full Incident Report citing “Terroristic Threats/Intimidation” and “Simple Assault” is readily available. Every other Tea Party in north Georgia, especially those in Ralston’s district, is actively working to defeat Ralston because they don’t believe he’s a conservative and that he blocks grassroots legislation. Questions: ● If Ralston actually has the polling lead that Zoller presented, then why on earth was it necessary to do a second hit piece on Snider? Was Snider not dead enough after her first article? ● Why would she demonize and demean Snider as “hurting” the State GOP merely because he is running an honorable, lowbudget, door to door, grassroots campaign against the Deal / Ralston machine that is financed by wealthy lobbyists and large corporations? ● Does she understand that such support of Ralston attacks the very foundations of our Constitution, our Rights, and that it mocks the fallen and wounded who gave all to defend those Rights? She ought to be ashamed of herself. ● Why won’t Ralston debate Snider? Who on earth believes his excuse, that he’s too busy? ● In her second article’s title, why did she use the plural “endorsements” when referring to the single TP endorsement that Ralston has received? ● Does she understand that her use of THAT particular Tea Party chapter, run by THAT individual, as Ralston’s “endorsement” reeks of deception and frankly, desperation to imply that Ralston has conservative TP support? Prominent Democrat leaders have made it clear that they intend to destroy the TP by depicting them as violent lunatics and terrorists. By publishing THAT person’s endorsement as the “Tea Party,” she has handed the Democrats a gift on a platter. Does she have an understanding of the calamitous consequences of her articles, not just on the Deal /Ralston machine, but on all Georgia races including Governor and Senate, as well as national races? What was she thinking?
Posted on: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 22:50:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015