Dem group cuts back help for Teague

Comments

  1. artiofab says:

    As an addendum onto this, the DCCC bought $106k of advertising this week for Teague, $226k for Heinrich.

    So the DCCC hasn’t given up on Rep. Teague yet… there are still 12 days until the election, and Teague only needs 75% as many votes as he received in 2008 to do better than any GOP House candidate ever has in NM02 in a midterm general election.

  2. Thinker says:

    Harry is a marginally better candidate that Steve, but, If he loses, he gets what he deserves

    Possibly true, but we, the people deserve FAR better than Steve Pearce.

    The fact of the article is that DCCC has canceled a very important buy for Teague which isn’t a good sign for him.

    The DCCC didn’t just reduce spending in races it deemed were lost, it also chose races it deemed were relatively safe. Don’t be too sure that is not the case here.

  3. reagangoldwater says:

    WOW. Once again….REALLY?! First off, it’s obvious that the personal hatred of Steve Pearce definitely blinds y’all to reason. Second, all I can say is…….really?

    Hemingway, for the hundredth time, Pearce’s sell of his business was LEGAL and ETHICAL. The House Ethics Committee, which has an even number of GOP and Dem, cleared Pearce of any potential ethical and legal violations unanimously. The organization that accused Pearce is a left-leaning group. Just read their staff bios. They even admitted in writing, begrudgingly, that they messed up their own investigation.

    Seriously, find a new attack.

    Fred, what about this article isn’t fair? The DCCC is withdrawing some of their buys in the 2nd district. This fits with an article yesterday in politico.com of how nationally the Dems are giving up in certain seats so they can ‘re-trench’ to protect somewhat safer incumbents. Heath is reporting the facts. Do some of his articles upset me because they hit at my side? Of course, I’m only human. But Heath has always been fair and not bias. Personally, I think he can a bit too idealistic but he’s still fair. The evidence, via personal finance reports, exists to show that Harry personally benefited from his companies the same time he cut health care coverage.

    Moe, what are you talking about? This blog has done a ton of articles on CREWs accusations against Pearce for the sale of his company years ago. Of course, as I stated above, CREW’s accusations were disproved
    AND they were forced to admit their own investigation sucked. And so what if Republicans in Texas gave Pearce money? I don’t hear you complaining about the ‘influence’ of over $100,000 in donations from union interests. I don’t hear you complaining that Teague got money from Rep. Jim McDermott, aka Baghdad Jim, who went to Iraq to defend Saddam and who was made false accusations against American troops.

    I am sure I will soon hear the other same old attacks on Pearce. Like how he’s “a pawn of ‘evil’ business/corporations/oil”. Or how he was “Bush’s goon”. Or, how “he never cared about anybody else but ‘big oil’. And of course I am waiting for the accusations to start getting way out there, like, “Steve Pearce is the reason why there Katrina devastated New Orleans” or “Steve Pearce is the reason why Michael Bolton is still allowed to make music” ;)

    The fact of the article is that DCCC has canceled a very important buy for Teague which isn’t a good sign for him.

  4. Hemingway says:

    The Bottom line is Steve Pearce is totally corrupt! Key Energy gave millions to Mr.Pearce because he supported them. It is called goodwill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Moe says:

    Also, Heath, I’m disappointed that no one has reported that Steve Pearce took $4800 dollars from the same Clayton Williams that gave Susanna $20,000 (it was too dirty even for Swift Boat Susanna and she gave it to the rape crisis center here in Las Cruces). After Congressman Pearce has called Harry out for his contributions in the past, I find it hypocritical and awful that he would accept money from a guy who thinks women should just “sit back and enjoy” being raped.

    Second, I’m very bothered that you never took the time to look into Pearce’s own finances. Did you not think it was important to let readers know that he gained more personal wealth during his time in Congress than any other member? How did he do that? Or, did you even bother to look into what benefits Congressman Pearce offerred his employees and how many jobs were lost when he sold his company? Or, did you look into what other employers in Hobbs did during this economic downturn? How many employers just fired their employees rather than keep them on payroll like Harry did. Why is firing someone forgivable where as making a difficult choice about benefits not? I was hopeful that since main stream media doesn’t cover these important issues, you would. I’m disappointed in you for not doing better on this.

  6. Fred Fredericks says:

    Heath, two plus two doesn’t always add up to four. In an acadmic or statistical setting, the comments in this article might have more validity; however, so close to the election, to place this title on an article can be interpreted as partisan. Your facts are not complete; therefore, your analysis is flawed. Even polls only ask a few hundred people at a time. Are you favoring Pearce with this title? Are you implying that the National Democratic Party is giving up on Teague? What information are you truly trying to impart?

    When you go into Teague’s company’s losses, but not into Pearce’s company’s losses, are you being unbiased? Do you really not know that both men’s companies took an economic hit within the last two years? Have you forgotten that the entire world economy took a huge loss in the last recession? By not factoring that into this article, you need to add or change your reporting. I am disappointed in you!

    This is a very close race, in an unprecedented election year, with the U. S Supreme Court ruling in favor of corporations, “08-205 Citizens United vs Federal Election ‘Commission” allowing unprecedented monies from unknown sources to be used. Stating only what you said in this article is misleading. Either be comprehensive, fair, and thorough, or dont’ print partial or misleading articles so close to an election.

  7. Michael L Hays says:

    Incredible. Some months ago, some local Democrats arranged a local forum for Harry to address the concerns of interested citizens, mainly Democrats, about his record, especially his vote against health care. Speaking for myself, I found Harry’s answer entirely unpersuasive. The lack of sufficient controls on health care costs is a worry. But against the greater good of getting almost-universal health care on the books, it pales. As I recall, at no point did Harry come clean about cutting his employees’ coverage. As I have noted before, Harry is evasive in answering far less troublesome questions. But I would think that, by now, he would have found some way to explain himself or to admit an egregious error which, I assume, is within his power to correct. Though dissembling and callous, Harry is a marginally better candidate that Steve, but, If he loses, he gets what he deserves