Words are powerful.

Words can be used to clarify; words can be used to obfuscate.

When perusing the daily newspaper, one should not need to parse. Sadly, when Brian “Lefty” McNeill is at the pen, every printed word must be run through an objectivity strainer, and the spaces between the lines, as well, must be weighed for veracity.

In an August 12, 2010 Daily Progress recapitulation of the Senior Statesmen’s 5th Congressional District “debate,” which featured Democrat Congressman Tom Perriello and independent challenger Jeff Clark, McNeill pushes journalistic integrity to its verge in this specious statement:

Clark spoke in favor of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s lawsuit to overturn the legislation. Perriello said he too supports Cuccinelli’s right to challenge the law but said it was poorly reasoned and will likely fail. [Emphasis added.]

He too? Too?

Jeff Clark did not speak in favor of Cuccinelli’s right to file a lawsuit; he spoke in favor of the lawsuit itself.

Congressman Perriello’s nugatory support of the “right” to file is nothing but political doublespeak from a phony, soulless politician attempting to distract people from his disastrous vote to socialize American medicine.

Anyone has a right to sue, and the Attorney General does not need the boy Congressman’s permission or support in order to perform the duties of his own office.

As for Tom Perriello, a fraudulent poseur holding Virginia’s 5th Congressional District Seat: Let’s be rid of him in November. Period.

As for “Lefty” McNeill: He comes off as a partisan Perriello patron pretending to be a press person. His holocryptic trickery in attempting to portray the congressman as a more moderate Marxist—by cunningly equating Tom’s position on healthcare freedom with that of Clark—is a criminal catachresis at best.

And, as for the Daily Progress: Read it very carefully and at your own risk. The words contained within may not be worth the ink they’re printed with.


  1. Golly, Rob, one would have to be a remarkably poor, unobservant reader not to note the difference you’re at pains to point out. I doubt this ignominious Lefty guy really thinks you’re that dumb.

    What’s more, contrary to what you write, Cuccinelli’s right to bring the suit was initially in dispute and went before a federal judge, which makes Perriello’s comment not “doublespeak,” but pertinent.

    Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nuthin’ but the truth.

  2. Ken,

    You missed the entire point of my post. But that’s understandable. You are reading only through your left eye.

  3. If I’ve really missed your point, Rob, I’m sure you can explain it to me, and you know from our private correspondence that, far from reading through a Leftist lens, I’m willing to concede a point (and gladly do so for the purpose of finding middle ground).

    My experience here and elsewhere arguing from the middle against true believers on both the Left and the Right is that the more extreme the charge, the less likely people are to defend it when challenged, and the more likely they are to dismiss it with an unsupported charge like yours.

    McNeill wrote that Clark supports Cuccinelli’s lawsuit while Perriello for his part recognizes the AG’s right to bring it — an important point because that right was disputed — but opposes its arguments. That is a clear and accurate description of their positions.

  4. The charge is not extreme, Ken. It is fully documented and explained in the original post. You don’t see Lefty’s bias, and I do. I’m certain that others will decide for themselves.

  5. The other tactic extremists and ideologues (people whose sentiments, however originally principled, determine their perspective on every issue regardless of the facts) take when challenged with specifics is to respond by claiming, not showing, that they have already answered the charges. In other words, they dodge the challenge.

    I’m certain that others will decide for themselves.

    We can agree on that.

  6. The other tactic that progressives and liberal apologists use, (people whose sentiments are informed by their feelings and emotions) is to ignore plainly stated information, and instead insist repeatedly on being given an “explanation.”

Leave a Reply