The crawling, creeping lie of Critz/Altmire

"It's kinda like . . . it's kinda like a mass. It keeps getting bigger and bigger."

Somebody has to stop this argument that Blue Dog Democrat Jason Altmire lost to Mark Critz on Tuesday because Critz is more liberal. We've seen that said three times in the past couple days (starting at the National Review: "Liberals Unseat Moderate Democrats in Pa Primary"), and while that's a neat way of wrapping a bow around the Altmire and Tim Holden losses, it's not true.

Republicans (as previewed today) have every right to make the case this fall that Critz is too far left for the district, pointing to his deep ties to labor and votes siding with the Obama administration (including one against repeal of Obamacare). But 51% of the 12th District's Democratic voters didn't line up behind Critz on Tuesday because he's liberal. He won because of bad turnout in Allegheny County, great turnout in Cambria and the hard GOTV work of his campaign and organized labor. On the issues he and Altmire were very much alike, and in fact Altmire pushed to show that Critz was too conservative. (How many liberals voted against Dodd-Frank, Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal or funding for Planned Parenthood?)

Before mob hysteria sweeps the city and the nation, it's time to throw this look at the race into a deep freeze.