Sherman tweet: Thinly disguised concern over his $24/voter vs 22¢/voter by Mark Reed?

6:35pm Wednesday 6/11/14 Brad Sherman found the time to tweet. 

 His 140-character message was not informing people of his meanderings in DC, nor was it a word of encouragement to enlisted men and women, nor was it a word of thanks to the widows and orphans of soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice.  

 No, he decided to offer a snide remark about the Cantor loss and an inaccurate statement about the election process in California.  Brad Sherman thinks the California non-partisan primary system was initiated solely to guarantee perpetual re-election to an incumbent.  The tweet:  Eric Cantor lost to a very right wing extremist. This wouldn't have happened with California primary system #Cantor   https://twitter.com/BradSherman/status/476538203198214144 

 However, maybe the Congressman should be aware that there comes a point when his inattention to the district becomes irritating to enough people from EVERY party, nationality, faith, and age demographic so as to cause a reaction.

The irritation, by  his constituents, may not be enough for them to join an ultra-right-wing organization, or even serve tea.  No, but it may be the Congressman will find himself the subject of a unified district voting him out of office.  The incumbent spent $24/voter during the primary, in a district where he has a 50% advantage by virtue of voter registration.  The elected Republican candidate, whom he will face in November, spent 22¢/voter – a hundred-to-one spending ratio!!!  No wonder the Congressman is out of touch; he spends like a politician.

 Perhaps the Congressman could learn from The 1939 U.S. Army infantry training manual, page 39, where it inspires the citizens who face a formidable task:

 Chapter XXVI:  Miracles

" Time and again, numbers have been overcome by courage and resolution. Sudden changes in a situation so startling as to appear miraculous have frequently been brought about by the action of small parties.  There is an excellent reason for this.  The trials of battle are severe.  Troops are strained to the breaking point.  At the crisis, any small incident may prove enough to turn the tide one way or another.  The enemy has invariable difficulties of which we are ignorant.  To us his position may appear favorable, while to him it may seem desperate.  Only slight extra effort on our part may be decisive. "

NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS:  

The short version: don't bother reading Carl Peterson's comments.

The first amendment gives me (and you) the freedom to speak.. without fear of repercussions...harm..retaliation.  A reasonable expectation.  HOWEVER.  "ThePatch" views this as carte blanche for one CARL PETERSON to take my words..my expressions as an opportunity to buoy his posts..his blog..his career..his candidacy.  He is a democrat, and I suppose it is at the bequest of that lady running for State Assembly in the 45th district;  nevertheless, they find  it necessary to keep putting the same link to her website within their comments.  The link has many inaccuracies and quite frankly lies about the 2014 elected Candidate running for Congress against the incumbent, in the 30th district. (See Katherine Russ article for the facts:  http://www.citywatchla.com/8br-hidden/6658-california-politics-poison-email-causing-concerns-within-...   and the candidates words:  http://markreedforcongress.com/New_Generation_Republicans.pdf

So I must write, include, this disclaimer for each of my posts. Mr. Peterson will then retaliate and post my personal information (all which is public information but most people are not obsessed enough to post it repeatedly).  ThePatch declares this is all First Amendment protected, for Mr. Petersen.  So to what ever degree Mr. Peterson chooses to escalate this along with a couple of his co-writers on Patch,  I don't have the time or initiative to respond to each of his posts.