I see via Inside Politics that Zell Miller will be the keynote speaker, so I just wanted to make a quick update of the talking points on the status of several legislators so all of my Democrat friends are up to speed:
Sen. Zell Miller, (D-GA)- DINO Traitor.
Sen. Jim Jeffords, (formerly R, now I-VT)- Courageous hero.
Rep. Rodney Alexander (formerly D, now R-LA)- Traitor and ‘Confused Politician’
Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NE)- Courageous hero.
Sen John McCain (R-AZ)- Depends on the day and whether cameras are present.
I hope thishasbeen helpful. Now back to our regularly scheduled ranting.
Yeah, except that nobody on your page except Alexander and Miller are frauds.
Alexander lied in an election filing so that he could kill any chance for democrats to put up a candidate against him.
Miller calls himself a republican when he’s not. Look, if Miller wants to engraft an extra chromosome and return to his pro-Jim Crow roots, more power to him so long as he doesn’t become the next Eric Rudolph. But he shouldn’t be calling himself a democrat when he caucuses with the republicans and is the keynote speaker at the republican convention.
People like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms aren’t democrats anymore, and people like Jeffords, a moderate-to-liberal, non-southern republican from the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act days, aren’t republicans anymore. Nothing traitorous about that. The parties moved, not the politicians.
McCain is a maverick who I’d probably hate if I was a republican, but that’s just the way he is. He’s not another Miller, he’s another Lieberman, but with charisma.
Bereuter is leaving politics and felt it necessary to speak the obvious truth. I’m sure he’s still a republican in all respects. He just acknowledged his mistakes.
I didn’t know Jesse Helms ever WAS a Democrat.
But I *do* know that Robert Byrd still *is* a Democrat.
Please explain to me the logic that makes Alexander a fraud and Jeffords not a fraud for switching party.
Other then He is now on your side.
The difference, of course, is that Alexander lied about his intent to switch when he was asked about it and Jeffords didn’t.
Of course, flagrant dishonesty seems to be okay when he is on your side.
(And please spare me the “But, but…Jeffords isn’t giving voters a chance to elect him as a Democrat. ” Polls from Vermont suggest that two thirds of Vermonters support what he did and sparing the state the costs of an election that is all but a formality doesn’t seem to be such an unreasonable thing to do.)
Of course, flagrant dishonesty seems to be okay when he is on your side.
“I did not have sex with that woman…”
Speaking as someone who has downs syndrome in their family, let me ask you to educate yourself before you decide to play with the latest left-wing talking points.
It’s not cute.
Seriously, either read up or grow up.
Reading for content doesn’t appear to be your strong suit, Sinbad, so let be help you out. Why don’t you reread John’s post, in which Clinton is not referred to either implicitly or explicitly. Now go and read Paul’s question and note that it asks what the difference is between Jeffords and Alexander. Pay close attention to the fact that Clinton’s name again does not appear anywhere in his post. Now look at my response, in which I explain how the actions of Jeffords and Alexander differ. Notice that I don’t reference Clinton either. Also pay special attention to the fact that I don’t condone dishonesty at all, on any side. Now perhaps you can go try again to say something that is actually relevant.
And what is up with all this “Clintion did it” stuff that conservatives always use to justify any and all bad behavior on their part. Isn’t there a statute of limitations on this justification or are we going to hear this whining into the middle of the 21st century. If you can’t come up with something more substantial than this, shouldn’t I conclude that you have nothing intelligent to say about this or anything else?
What? Media Bias? You don’t say… Seriously, this is why so many of the MSM outlets are dying on the vine, e.g. inflation of circulation by daily newspapers. Oh, and did I mention Walter F.N. Cronkhite was pissed about bloggers capturing market share… Meltdown anyone?
1. “Isn’t there a statute of limitations on this justification or are we going to hear this whining into the middle of the 21st century.”
Note year, 2004. Note continued liberal meme of “Bush stole election”.
2. “The difference, of course, is that Alexander lied about his intent to switch when he was asked about it and Jeffords didn’t.”
However Jeffords didn’t give the state’s GOP an opportunity to offer a different candidate. So your example is hardly sufficient.
3. “Reading for content doesn’t appear to be your strong suit, Sinbad, so let be help you out.”
I’d suggest that pomposity is your strong suit.
4. ” Pay close attention to the fact that Clinton’s name again does not appear anywhere in his post. ”
Irrelevant. Clinton’s dishonesty is both well documented and legion. Including him as an example of dishonesty in a discussion about dishonesty is perfectly acceptable. Don’t like it? Tough.
5. “And what is up with all this “Clintion did it” stuff that conservatives always use to justify any and all bad behavior on their part.”
Does this really need to be answered? I’d suggest you consider that it’s because, in comparison, anything that conservatives have done is small beans.
And no, it’s not about the sex. It’s about perjury. The whole current liberal meme about “Bush lied” is directly tied to Clinton’s legion of lies. So if you’re going to point a finger at people who can’t let things go, then I’d suggest you start pointing that finger at liberals.
I’d smack you around some more, but I’m busy.
Gosh, I get a lot of insults from people who don’t seem to be willing to even address my point.
Jim Jeffords, when he ran for election to the Senate as a republican, had no intent to switch parties. He ran as a republican, he voted for the republican leadership in the Senate, he voted for W’s tax bill in the spring of 2001. But Rove, in a major miscalculation, tried to intimidate Jeffords, causing him to renounce the republican party and become an independent that votes with the democrats.
In contrast, Alexander was asked to fill out a form declaring his party and to file it. At the time, he had already planned to run as a republican, but he filed the form as a democrat. So he lied on the form to prevent the dems from putting together a response to his switch. Two days later, he filed as a republican. No intervening event explains his switch two days later. It was an orchestrated fraud.
That’s why he’s a jerk and Jeffords is not. Jeffords was not planning to switch when he ran as a republican. Plus, the only republican who could be elected to the senate from VT is Jim Jeffords.
Oh, and Dean, Jesse Helms was a democrat until 1970, when Nixon opened the republican party to the racists that the dems were kicking out. He was elected to the Senate in 1972, so was never a democratic senator, but he was a member of the democratic party until his late 40s.
One more point. Sinbad, its “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Face it Jay, the dim-witted Dems are the party of pathological liars and those who support pathological liars…
On the Senate floor on March 27, 1986 (Congressional Record, page 6422), Sen. Kerry said:
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khme Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; The troops were not in Cambodia
“The difference, of course, is that Alexander lied about his intent to switch when he was asked about it and Jeffords didn’t.”
When was Alexander asked about his intent to switch?
When was Jeffords asked about his intent to switch?
“No intervening event explains his switch two days later”
Is it possible that he switched at the last minute because that was the deadline and he realized it was now or never.
How did Rove try to intimidate Jeffords?
I will believe that the republician leadership put pressure on him.
It was not about intimidation, Jim Jeffords switched bcause he got a better deal from the democrats.
“The larger point is and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. AND WE GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO ALLOW THE INSPECTORS IN, AND WE WOULDN’T LET THEM IN. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power …” (George W. Bush as quoted in the Washington Post on July 15, 2003.)
Russ, now THAT’S a pathological lie, the standard against which all others should be measured.
And, Ed, at the risk of leaving myself open to your devastating response, the idea that Clinton’s lying, even under oath, about a personal peccadillo somehow casts all Democrats as liars who are forever precluded from pointing out Republican lies is, well, stupid. Admittedly, though, by your (cough) logic, it does make some sense, for if Clinton personifies the Democrats as “the party of liars,” then Bush has rendered the Republicans “the party of idiots.”
“Does this really need to be answered? I’d suggest you consider that it’s because, in comparison, anything that conservatives have done is small beans.”
Is “small beans” in comparison to what Clinton did the new standard for behavior?
“And, Ed, at the risk of leaving myself open to your devastating response, the idea that Clinton’s lying, even under oath, about a personal peccadillo somehow casts all Democrats as liars who are forever precluded from pointing out Republican lies is, well, stupid.”
Congratulations. You’re irrelevant.
“Is “small beans” in comparison to what Clinton did the new standard for behavior?”
No the new standard of behavior is benefiting from $195,000,000.00 worth of anti-Bush political advertising while bitching about $550,000 worth of anti-Kerry advertising.
I hope that helps.
“Russ, now THAT’S a pathological lie, the standard against which all others should be measured.”
Really? As that statement is fully supported by the facts, it’s interesting that you characterize it as a lie.
Well. Not that interesting.
“It was not about intimidation, Jim Jeffords switched bcause he got a better deal from the democrats.”
Yup. That about sums it up. Without Jefford’s switch the Democrat’s wouldn’t have controlled the Senate like they did.
“In contrast, Alexander was asked to fill out a form declaring his party and to file it. ”
Yes. Because a loyalty oath should be binding. lol.
2. “Oh, and Dean, Jesse Helms was a democrat until 1970, when Nixon opened the republican party to the racists that the dems were kicking out.”
That’s true because, after 200+ years of rabid vicious racism, sometimes you need a change. Funny isn’t it? And it wasn’t Nixon, it was Goldwater.
But it’s not like the DNC isn’t still racist. Sen Byrd has never denounced the KKK. Byrd and Lt. Gov Bustamante, of CA, still regularly use the “ni**er” word to describe black Americans. And let’s not forget that racism is still a big issue for Democrats.
It’s interesting in a vaguely strange way. Republicans nominate black Americans to positions of stature and power. Then the Democrats call them “Uncle Toms” or “Oreos” or even “House Ni**ers”.
Evidently you can take some of the racists out of the DNC but you can’t take the racsim.