Democrats take issue with Young's retirement explanation
A consultant for Charlie Justice, Mitch Kates, and Pinellas Democratic Party Chairman Ramsay McLauchlan chided the explanation U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young gave for decideing whether to retire today. Young told the Times he had decided to retire, but sustained too many attacks and changed his mind.
Except, as Kates notes, the comparisons Justice made with Young and Abramoff -- one Politifact gave a "Pants on fire" false ruling -- came in April, after Young's decision. The other attack, comparing Young to the mobster, appears to have come Feb. 16, less than a week before Young announced his plans, but within the period when Pinellas politicians began counting him in the race.
It's also important to note that Justice and Democrats did begin criticizing Young after Justice announced in 2009 he would run.
"I don't think I can ever remember someone running for office because somebody else was mean to them. Is that really a good reason for someone to run for a very important political office when the stakes right now are so high? Shouldn't it be about the voters and the major issues affecting their lives and not about feelings? Last time I checked this wasn't an episode of Oprah!" Kates wrote in an email.
"I am very concerned to read that some company has offered Rep. Bill Young, what appears to be a very high paying job. I think it is important for Rep. Young to disclose who has offered him this position to reassure the public that there is no possible conflict of interest with his position on the Appropriation Committee and this potential employer.
"I am sure Ray Sansom wouldn't see anything wrong with that type of deal. Come to think about it - didn't Rubio get a nice deal from someone he got an appropriation for?"
Young's office didn't return a message seeking details of the job opportunity.