Rep. Mollohan responds to Mike Myer's libel

by: WV26003

Sun May 09, 2010 at 14:09:14 PM EDT

To the editor:

For the past year, your newspaper has made little attempt to hide its opposition to my campaign for West Virginia's 1st Congressional District. That's fair enough --- analysis and opinions are a core function of any newspaper. What is disappointing is the lack of honesty and seriousness underlying your opposition.

Voters in the 1st District know what is important in this election --- jobs, economic diversification, health care, cap and trade. You owe your readers honest reporting and honest analysis of the candidates' work on these issues. You have chosen instead to ally yourself with a candidate who is running a campaign as remarkable for its lack of substance as for its dishonesty.

When your editorial writers do veer into the substance of the issues, they include information that is objectively false, or they offer up shadowy innuendo without a shred of supporting evidence. Recent examples:

• After the Justice Department exonerated me, your editorial darkly suggests that the probe ended "in January, just as President Barack Obama's administration was working to gain votes for its health care bill. Mollohan voted for it." the cynicism behind that suggestion is breathtaking. The U.S. Attorney's Office is staffed with highly professional and nonpartisan civil servants, which is why efforts by the Bush Administration to place political partisans in those career positions was such an outrage. Conspiracy theorists inclined to accept your insinuation should also remember that the Bush Justice Department, after three years, found no basis for any charges.


• I voted against cap and trade, yet your editorial writers claim that I did so "only... when released by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when she no longer needed his vote." That is absolutely false. I have told you that it is absolutely false, yet you continue to repeat it.


• You claim that I was "in favor of using our tax dollars to support (ACORN)" even though I voted three times for legislation that cut off federal funds for ACORN. The one motion you say I should have supported was so poorly written that it would have defunded no only ACORN but many companies and organizations on which the government depends. In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service concluded that it would be "difficult to identify such a broad universe of organizations" whose funding would be eliminated. Fortunately, that sloppy and potentially dangerous proposal was rejected in favor of the more targeted language that I did support.


• Your insinuation that the health care bill cuts Medicare benefits is equally specious. Once more, for the record: The health care bill includes no cuts in Medicare services or benefits. In fact, those seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare will see better benefits, including free check-ups and other preventative procedures and, over time, a closing of the donut hole for prescription drug coverage.

By ignoring these facts and continuing to publish falsehoods, you do your readers and your profession a profound disservice.