What is a “staunch Republican” to the Chicago Sun-Times?

Posted by: ST on July 25, 2007 at 9:08 am

One who overwhelmingly gives more to Democrats than Republicans, as Brit Hume explains:

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jennifer Hunter is taking heat for a recent story headlined “GOP Lawyer Sold on Dems.” She wrote that after watching the top Democratic presidential candidates speak —one “staunch republican” lawyer said he will not vote for anyone from the GOP in 2008.

But federal election contribution records show the so-called “staunch republican” — Philadelphia attorney Jim Ronca — actually has contributed overwhelmingly to Democrats since 1994 — giving them more than $10,000 — to $1,250 for Republicans.

Hunter — who is married to the publisher of the Sun-Times — subsequently blamed the headline writer for emphasizing the Republican lawyer angle and critical readers for making the contributions an issue.

Here’s the piece in question. Patterico was on top of this story back when it was first published last week and has a link up to recent campaign contributions for Ronca.

Isn’t it telling how Hunter blames the headline writer when “staunch Republican” is nowhere in the headline? The article also notes that the lawyer is not just any lawyer, but a trial lawyer, which was a dead giveaway to eagle-eyed readers of the Sun-Times who know that trial lawyers are the bread and butter of the Democratic party.

This guy is about as staunch of a Republican as I am a staunch feminist.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 Responses to “What is a “staunch Republican” to the Chicago Sun-Times?”

Comments

  1. PCD says:

    Hunter, is just a staunch propagandist, not a journalist, and may not have a job if not for who her husband is.

  2. Wry Mouth says:

    If it were me, I’d have blamed the author of the definition of the word “staunch.”

    It’s such a cool-sounding word; how could it mean something other than what I wanted it to mean?

  3. Ryan says:

    Say it by itself…

    Staunch

    Sounds kinda funny

    Staunch

  4. Lorica says:

    What is the definition of the word “is”. =)) What is it with these libs?? Can’t they figure out that words do have meanings, and they can’t blame the Websters everytime they get caught in a lie. Yet they wonder why newspaper sales are down. Keep on this course ya morons, and everyone will be getting their news from Fox. – Lorica

  5. Great White Rat says:

    Here’s an update…the Sun-Times published a letter from Ronca under Hunter’s byline today, still trying to make the controversy go away.

    He’s still trying to claim he’s a Republican:

    Let me assure you I am a lifelong Republican. I have been registered Republican since at least 1975

    But as he warms to the subject, the true colors begin to bleed through:

    Even though I am a long-term Republican I am not a fool. Naturally I opposed candidates like George W. Bush and Rick Santorum who have vilified plaintiffs trial lawyers.

    Translation: I only back candidates who suck up to the litigation lobby…and as we know, that means mostly Democrats. In fact, the organization whose meeting he attended is basically the trial lawyers’ lobby and is solidly Dem, as ST said.

    And here’s how he closes:

    This campaign against you and me is ridiculous and I think evidence of how the Republican Party works. They make an effort to pressure journalists to print what they want and avoid what the Republican Party does not like. No free thinking or free press is allowed. They smear everyone who opposes them from big fish like Joe Wilson to small fries like me.

    Oh yeah, that sounds like a “staunch” Republican, doesn’t it?

    Case closed. The “staunch” part of the story has a stench, and Hunter’s upset because the bloggers uncovered her bias.

  6. forest hunter says:

    ……and Joe Wilson is no big fish, more like what we call Bay Shrimp aka Garbagemen of the Sea.

  7. Lorica says:

    GWR that last block quote clearly shows this man’s communist/dem qualites for transference. If this was a true quote about no more free press, then why is the NYT still around. Infact, if GWB had destroyed the WTC towers, why didn’t he hit Times square too. This quote clearly shows this man has never been a Republican, if he is registered as a Republican, it is due to a devious nature or social expediency. This man is probably about to get kicked out of his country club. – Lorica