23 thoughts on “Chief Spreading Bull”

1. I still can’t believe she, Charlie Crist, and Fluke were featured speakers at the DNC convention. Dishonest socialist, totally integrity-less ex-governor/ambulance-chaser, and the poster child for spoiled brats–this is the Democratic Party they want the world to know?

2. Spoke with a liberal friend last week and asked her if she is voting for Warren:

   Yes.

   But what about all the falsehoods, lies, scams…pretending to be indian to get preferred consideration etc:

   Don’t care – she will vote the way I want my Senator to vote.

   And THERE you have it. If you’re argument is that she lacks integrity you will lose. I think it’s really important to understand this about the voters on the left. You are shouing into the wind if yoru argument is integrity.

   Now the recently uncovered fact that she represented Travelers and got them off the hook for paying out to asbestos victims…….that *could* change some minds.

   1. Remember, this is the demographic that kept reelecting Ted Kennedy.

   2. With leftists, the only thing that matters is getting the desired end result. The Constitution and the law are mere impediments to getting their way. Anything goes: ramming through legislation in the dead of night, judicial nominees who disregard the Constitution, or counting dead people as voters.

      “The end justifies the means” is not a cliche. That really is how they think and behave.

      1. Is there something wrong with passing legislation at night?

         1. Yes. If it’s dark they can’t read what they’re voting on, and passing legislation just so they can find out what’s in the bills has become a serious problem.

            I’m sure if the Republicans take Congress and the White House you’ll scream bloody murder when they slip something through before the media has a chance to get people fired up about it.

            1. I’m sure if the Republicans take Congress and the White House you’ll scream bloody murder when they slip something through before the media has a chance to get people fired up about it.

               I haven’t done so in the past. I certainly won’t care whether bills are passed before or after sunset.

   3. Don’t care – she will vote the way I want my Senator to vote.

      That’s an uncommonly rational way to vote. Scott Brown will vote in a way that most of his constituents dislike, but they elected him (and may re-elect him) because he seems like a good guy. Warren should be reminding MA’s Dem-leaning voters that they aren’t choosing a friend to socialize with, they’re choosing someone to cast votes in the Senate.

      The most important vote cast by a Senator is for the majority leader, and MA voters greatly prefer Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell. So Brown will try to make the election about Warren’s heritage — anything to distract from substance.

      1. He’s not making it about her (fake) “heritage.” He’s making it about her lies and cheating.

      2. Jim writes:

         “That’s an uncommonly rational way to vote. ”

         CLEARLY you have not spent even 3 seconds considering the legion of negatives involved with installing into the US Senate (or any other legislative body), a known scam artist, congenital liar, cheat, and thief.

         Give it a try sometime….you might be surprised with what you come up with.

         1. Gregg, if we cleaned the Senate of scam artists, liars, cheats, and thieves, could they even form a quorum?

            1. Hi George,

               No they could not form a quorum…and this is a problem….how? 😉

         2. I haven’t seen any evidence that Warren is a scam artist, cheat, thief, etc. The whole thing comes across like a made up smear job attempt at distraction. But even if she were all those things, it is unlikely that anything she did in the Senate, for good or ill, would be as consequential as her vote for majority leader.

            If you want Republican policies, it is perfectly rational to vote for a scam artist Republican over a saintly Democrat. Scott Brown single handedly almost killed the Affordable Care Act; to a Republican voter that sort of consideration should outweigh any number of personal failings (see, for example, the GOP now rallying behind Todd Akin). Likewise, in the other direction, for Democratic voters.

            1. I’m sorry Jim, but if you are that much of a partisan to believe that a dishonest X (who can and will be bought off by some of Y’s special interests) is better than an honest Y, you really are seeing politics as just a sport.

            2. I haven’t seen any evidence that Warren is a scam artist, cheat, thief, etc.

               So you didn’t see her listing as “white” at the University of Texas? Why did she change her heritage for Harvard?

            3. If I was a MA Democrat and seriously thought that Warren would get bought off and vote for Mitch McConnell as majority leader, then you’re right, I wouldn’t have much reason to support her. But then I am 100% sure that Scott Brown will vote for McConnell, so how is that any better?

               Yes, we want our politicians to have ethics, and we hope that the primary process will weed out candidates who would be dishonest traitors to their supporters. But Brown isn’t arguing that Warren will vote with the GOP. He’s arguing that MA Democrats and Dem-leaning independents are better off with a likable Republican who will vote against their preferences than with a fishy-seeming Democrat who will vote for them. That’s a nakedly irrational appeal.

            4. SOME in the GOP (typically the right to life crowd, that has been itching for a reason to back him) have coalesced behind Akin, to their eternal discredit. I live in KC, and though I wouldn’t vote for his opponent, there is not the slightest chance that I would vote for Akin. Character does indeed matter.

               That you do not believe so says more about you than it does about the anonymous GOP that you are attempting to smear.

            5. So you didn’t see her listing as “white” at the University of Texas? Why did she change her heritage for Harvard?

               That’s her crime — not mentioning her fraction of Indian heritage at every opportunity? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!

            6. Character does matter. I remember as a kid after Watergate asking my dad who he’d voted for, and being surprised that he’d voted for Nixon (because at that point Nixon was obviously a bad guy, and why would my dad vote for a bad guy?). I asked him why, and he said something along the lines of “He seemed better than the other guy.”

               That was a case where, whatever one’s political views, everyone should have voted against Nixon, and spared the country Watergate. But of course it was only that obvious in hindsight, and Nixon was an exceptional crook. Bill Clinton is no saint, but Democrats are on the whole pretty happy that he was President. They certainly don’t wish they’d had Bush or Dole or Perot instead.

               It’s routine in political campaigns to attack the character of the opponent, but that doesn’t mean that every charge is true, much less that the existence of the charge should trump everything else. If MA voters agreed with Scott Brown about policy, he’d talk about that. But they don’t, so he tries to make the race about character attacks.

            7. Jim, Warren is not Native American and has zero Native American ancestry but she claimed to have it in order to get high paying jobs. Even if her story were true that in the distant past, one of her relatives was part native, she would not qualify as a native because the ancestor was too distant.

               It is shocking that Democrats would vote for a person who abused the affirmative action system, its like they don’t really care about minorities. Here is racism straight up, no dog whistle codes, and Democrats could care less.

3. I think Mark Thompson’s re-evaluation was just as commendable….

4. Jim History:

   >>Don’t care [ about her being ethically challenged] – she will vote the way I want my Senator to vote.

   To which Jim replied:

   That’s an uncommonly rational way to vote.

   But later Jim says:

   “Yes, we want our politicians to have ethics, ”

   and

   “Character does matter”

   Ok so BEFORE, Jim thinks that ethics be damned – the rational way to choose is whoever will vote the way you want then.

   But NOW Character matters. All in the space of about 4 hours.

   So which is it Jim? Does character matter or not?

   So you aren’t worried that she will vote with the GOP? Well you’re probably right. But of course, no one here said that’s the problem with a horrid character. Nice strawman you have there…

   But her help in getting Evyl Traveller’s off the payout hook ought to give you…….a little pause. It ought to tell you that she….

   lies

   when she tells you she’s for the little people.

   So what or who is she for Jim? Will you just go by her word?

   Well what good is that word eh?

   You see no evidence she’s a liar and a thief? Well you never will if all you read are lefty hack screeds.
   But if you widen your gaze just a little, you’ll find the rapid fire scandals that are being revealed weekly now.

5. “Warren should be reminding MA’s Dem-leaning voters that they aren’t choosing a friend to socialize with”.

   Oh that’s just rich coming from someone who was just pointing to Mitts favorability numbers as to why he’s going to lose. What? When it comes to senators we should elect based on performance, but presidents we should elect based on who we would rather have a beer with or is cool? Double standards much?

Comments are closed.