“I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would.”
A far Left cable TV host blabs what many libs are undoubtedly thinking to themselves about tomorrow’s special election in Massachusetts, but won’t say out loud, via Radio Equalizer Brian Maloney:
Related: Dems are pondering what to do with Sen. Paul Kirk, Teddy Kennedy’s hand-picked seat holder, if Scott Brown wins:
“Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys,” [Fred] Barnes, the Weekly Standard’s executive editor, wrote on the conservative magazine’s website Saturday night. “Based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period.”
So if Brown wins and Democrats vote on reform before he is seated, they will have to defend the rushed vote and, now, the legitimacy of Kirk’s clutch 60th vote.
Fearing a political backlash in the Senate, Democrats could try to pass the Senate bill through the House with no changes, sending it straight to President Barack Obama’s desk. But that is still considered a last-ditch maneuver fraught with its own perils.
Health care insiders see an even bigger problem should Brown win on Tuesday – nervous Senate Democratic moderates reconsidering their support for the bill.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
36 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
190 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
53 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
55 Comments
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsPalin officially endorses desperate, clingy Orrin Hatch; time to rally around Dan Liljenquist
May 22, 2012 11:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
83 CommentsGOP Senators question upcoming $1 million Hawaiian conference for Ninth Circuit Court
May 21, 2012 03:12 PM by Doug Powers
151 Comments
Categories: Politics
Nice Deb
» The Organized Left Now Stalking RomneyNice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNewsBusters.org
» Reuters's Freeland: 'Anorexic' Americans Think Tax Bite Too Heavy When In Fact It's Dangerously Thin
I know it is trite. I know it is over done. But lets look at a ‘what if it were. . . ‘ argument here.
What would these guys be saying if Bush and the Republicans were doing this? What would they say if we voted on going to war with this same kind of partisan divide – especially if Bush was still president.
“I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would.” MMMM, I think that should be:
“We do cheat, all the time, to get our way – hell we even have extra ballots for every state in case we need em”.
I’m personally not a Savage fan, but his line, “Liberalism is a mental disorder”, rings disturbingly and uncomfortably true more oft than not.
It is amazing that the MSM supports a socialist/marxist government that the present congress and president want. The last thing I would want, as an editor or reporter/commentator, is to have some government bureaucrat telling me what I can say or cannot say, while I struggle to figure out how to live on such a heavily taxed income.
I think we should “Annoint” Shultz as the Leader of the Democrat Party…
Follow up ever wacko video, or anyone on TV and Radio…refer to him as their leader… make the insanity and Democrat Party stick together at every turn.
Would you want this guy as your next door neighbor? He’d steal your garden hose.
To paraphrase the Dixie Chicks: “I’m ashamed to be from the same state as Schultz.” So there.
Communistas must go down. They must go down hard.
Make no mistake, the Democrat Party is controlled by Marxists. Moderates and Independents, I think, are finally accepting that truth. “Healthcare reform” is a strawman excuse for permanent marxist control of our constitutional republic.
The closet Marxists are about to take a mighty fall, along with their Pocket Lenin. And none too soon.
Get ready for some cheatin’
ROFL… HAHAHAHAHAHA… good stuff. He’d put a fence two feet over your property line, then poison your dog.
That’s not new for democrats, they’ve been doing that for decades…from presidents(JFK?) to governors(Gregoire) to senators(Franinstien).
what’s newsworthy about this? it’s standard operating proceedure just being announced by the propoganda wing of the dnc. think of this as marching orders for radicals, the same as when osama bin laden puts out an audio recording before a strike.
If anyone at Fox said anything close to that, Would he be allowed to stay on the network? Would the MSM be mum as today?
Well, he’s certainly their role model.
Slimy disgusting Democrats winning in any way possible? Having no problem with voter fraud? Acting in their usual morally bankrupt fashion??? This is news?
Wow, Sch!tz looks like “Fat Albert” Gore. They’re morphing into each other!
All Schultz is doing is being truthful. Everyone knows the dems do what they accuse Republicans of doing and cheat they will.
Their manipulation of the voting process by changing the law when they thought John Kerry was going to win the election and then changing it back after Kennedy died speaks volumes. The Dems even try to legitimize their cheating.
Have a Merry Martin!
Reconsidering…?
Ummm…, does that mean that, unlike the socialist/fascist enthusiastic supporters/proponents of the bill, who loudly and proudly proclaim their hatred of America, that the “
moderates“unicorns did not actually enjoy their whoring for socialism/fascism?Over the top and extremely bad form on the part of Schultz.
Everybody start calling him the de-facto head of the dem party. start refering to them as Ed’s dems. Hammer it all day every day. Keep refering to Obama as Ed’s puppet.
Umm, Obama is already Soros’s puppet.
Can a puppet actually serve two masters?
Interesting point you raise, MY…inquiring minds want to know.
Is that being used by the Brown campaign? It should be.
You mean Acorn & the Libs aren’t already out digging up dead people in MA to vote for Marcia…er Martha??
As for someone becoming Senator there are rules that must be followed and the Weekly Standard article is misleading. It escapes common sense and serves to solicit emotion vice reality(facts).
Elections must be certified and absentee votes counted. Should there be a challenge like the recent Minnesota Senate election, what then?
Moreover, when elections are held in November those winners are not sworn in until much later. Do the current individuals holding those seats stop voting? Did Sen Coleman stop voting in that period between election day and the day the new Senate class was sworn in?
No and no.
The Weekly Standard is being intellectually dishonest, and setting up an emotional straw man to direct the next cycle of a story.
When one has no God, and “might makes right” and “the ends justify the means”, well, you wind up with Democrats.
I sorta hope not. IMO, talk radio and ‘we the people’ can milk this one.
We know they will cheat. The question is how much fight do the voters and Scott Brown have. I suspect that Scott Brown is no Norm Coleman.
Off topic but important nonetheless, the Taliban have launched another attack in Kabul.
What do we have here? Sure looks like one of them domestic enemies you hear about.
“I’d cheat to keep these bastard”, etc… As that great AMERICAN, GOMER PYLE would say, “SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE”!!!
Good examples of projection by socialists/fascists…a couple of their favorite sayings that I have heard over the past 40-45 years.
Hell, I remember teachers in grade school and high school talking about how bad, bad America had the attitude of “might makes right”.
(No, I have no references, quotations, affidavits, nor other documentary evidence.)
Ooh, bad form? That’s all you got? You make it sound like all he did was just cut the cheese at a social gathering.
***
So what’s new here? The AMERICAN PRAVDA press has been carrying water for the “democRAT” / liberal / socialist / statist / marxist / communist Comrade Obama (PBUH) and his congressional / government ilk for years.
***
And as for the perfect “journalist” leader for these clowns–Schultz is small potatoes compared to “leg tingle” Chrissy Matthews.
***
Thank Heaven for the good conservative web sites, talk radio, and Fox News TV. They are the only honest news sources–and they are only 10 percent of our media. Good job Michelle Malkin and others–keep “outing” these commies!
***
John Bibb
***
Exactly.
RC,
You didn’t actually expect more from that poster, did you?
Lighten up!
That post had almost as much backbone as the squishy, jellyfish 60s/70s college administrators’ responses to
students’animals’ demonstrations.They should flood the Boston airwaves with this. Even Rush never jokingly advocates breaking the law — something the MSM conveniently “overlooks”.
Can someone get a schoolchild to ask their teacher whether this was right?
James Greenidge
Queens NY
Obama pledged to pretect us from all enemies foreign and domestic. And Shultz is an enemy, as cheating would deprive the voters of their constitutional rights as well as undermine our democratic republic.
Obama and his czars and cronies on the FCC are planning limitations on talk radio. If there ever was an example of who should be limited, its Ed Shultz.
I hear polls don’t close until 9pm. It will make for a long day.
He already said that the wants them all thrown in jail. He is just another commie thug.
Listen zzzzzzzqaz, this is a SPECIAL ELECTION for a vacated Senate seat due to a death. There ISN’T SUPPOSED TO BE ANY REPRESENTATIVE UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION.
That’s what the law was when Kerry was running for president. Romney couldn’t appoint a senator, it had to be done by special election.
When Kennedy died, they CHANGED THE RULE to allow the D governor to appoint the guy who is there now. The selection rules to the senate are done by the states. states choose. When they choose, their choice gets the vote UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION during the regular process.
If it was a normal election, then Kennedy would still be voting now.
Whatever though. your grasp of the ‘rules’ here is underwhelming.
Do not overlook the FACT that the DNC has asked Schultz to run for the Senate seat in North Dakota! I hope the good people of North Dakota will remind Mr. Schultz that they don’t want to send a CHEATING, CORRUPT, LYING SCUMBAG to Washington!
There has already been a revolution in this nation and the federal government has already overthrown the constitution!
THEY ALL NEED TO GO!
How does zyzyzygyyaygygygya manage to get it wrong every time…
Doesn’t he mean “cheat more”? I don’t know how they do it, but every year the deceased end up voting democrat. I don’t know how the Living Impaired movement is so powerful that it can ensure 100% compliance, but this group is the staunchest of democrat supporters.
Today is MLK’s birthday holiday. So, the socialists and marxists, to show their hypocrisy, are celebrating a conservative republican. “I have a dream” goes against their social plans for this country.
Typical of the morality of the left. Cheating and traitorous acts that at any other time in history would have this maroon jailed. Cheating in an election, last I heard, was a felony. If these creeps think destroying our constituional right to free, honest elections is going to get them anywhere, they just don’t know history. God will not be mocked and they will be punished!!
I pray in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for all attempted corruption to be exposed, prevented, prosecuted, and convicted.
Shouldn’t someone who openly advocates for cheating/stealing an election be tried for TREASON?
Thank you Rogue, for my first belly laugh of the day.
That single set of footprints you see behind you this last year was Jesus carrying you. No human could have scripted this as well.
Now, even if Coakley wins and they get all the health care they want, their announcements of what they will do after the election already betray their innermost emotions.
I’m telling you people, no matter how much you do or how great you think you are, you are no match for God. God has a plan. It is an awesome plan. Anyone who tells you they know what the plan is is lying to you. It is greater than any human could imagine or fathom.
Playing by rules is for saps! That is the new “Obama Doctrine.”
this not Racist, but what I’d do is set up camera’s in all the large cities at the voting stations. and count the black voters. When the number of blacks exceed the number of black voters in the state, file a law suit getting those votes in those stations thrown out.
I wonder if some reps from the New Black Panthers will show up just to keep voting legit.
On January 18th, 2010 at 10:29 am, Rogue Cheddar said:
Indeed.
And, what has that got to do with Sen Kirk voting until the next Senator is certified and sworn in? Yes, it is a special election. Ummmm, but there is a representative.
Ummmm, OK. What has that got to do with Sen Kirk voting until the next Senator is certified and seated?
Yep.
Yep. The current person holding that seat would still be voting until the next person is certified and sworn in. A special election does not mean that the current person holding the seat does not get to vote. Were that the case then MA would not have a vote until the election is certified and the person is sworn in.
Though not a resident of MA, I am partial to having it’s residents having a vote in the Senate. Are you?
Really? What are the rules? That MA looses it’s vote in the Senate until the new Senator is certified and sworn in? That certification should be waived? And, should there be a challenge, does MA loose it’s vote in the Senate until the challenge is resolved?
Yeah, go ahead and tell me about the rules. I expect to be overwhelmed with your response.
Boy, zyzyzygygygy is evidently going to insist on demonstrating his stupidity this morning. Please, oh, please, don’t anyone explain how the idiot is wrong. Make him try and figure it out for himself. It should be HILARIOUS!!!
Exactly what did I get wrong and be specific?
Grow a pair and deconstruct my arguement. And, start with MA loosing it’s vote in the Senate before the next Senator is sworn in.
Like it or not, whoever is in that seat gets to vote until the next person is sworn in.
I am convinced these True Believers in the Continuing Revolution of the Left and Nihilism are soon to make a grab for total power-more in line with the Russian Revolution than European Social Democrats. When they do it will be our turn.
This country was born battling tyranny. Benedict Arnold got away. We must see to it that does not happen again.
What we need is Jimmy Carter to monitor this election…/s
The actions of the MSM show how shallow-thinking they are. They are “fed” the news, and think it is a “scoop.” There will be a time, IMHO, that they will be on the outside looking in, wondering what happened to their freedom of the press. It will be gone.
A fill in appointment is NOT a representative of the state of MA. The winner of an election IS a representative of the state of MA (Kennedy/whoever wins tomorrow).
The fill in has a vote until the state votes again. This vote isn’t for a 6 year term. This vote is to complete the term that Kennedy was elected to. But I guess according to you, they can just delay seating the person who won the special election until they actually have the election for a 6 year term.
Special elections are different and have different rules. The representative is Kennedy – but he’s dead. Now they have to select another one.
When they do select another one, the replacement has NO AUTHORITY – none by the state, none by the senate, none by the federal government.
All this is said without mentioning the absolute RAGE that Americans would have should they elect Brown and push a vote through with this appointed guy.
I should be a lawyer. I hope all the D’s are as corrupt as you are because the law is cut and dried.
I wonder if the 9th level of the Inferno has basic cable so Fat Teddy, the DWI Killer and Waitress Groper, can watch Keith Olbermann go apoplectic when the election results come in…
C’mon, people, don’t argue with ziggy about this.
He may even be right. So what? If a Democrat got elected, they would certify him election night (or thereabouts), and we all know it. Even ziggy knows it, and we all know ziggy knows it.
So we’re just arguing legal loopholes with a troll. Why bother?
The Democrats will not pass the bill with 60 votes. There are too many of the false conservative Democrats who now realize voting for the final bill would be their political doom, so they will pass it through reconciliation with 50 Senate votes plus Biden, hoping to give 10 false conservative Democrat Senators political cover.
They may even certify Brown quickly (assuming they think they can’t steal it like with Franken) so they can argue they “had no choice” but to use the nuclear option (“reconciliation”).
I think the argument that Kirk can’t vote after Tuesday is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced by it. The term “qualification” is used in several other laws in the MGL, mostly having to do with appointments to various state regulatory boards. Below is a typical example:
MGL 13:45
What would qualification of successor mean in this instance? Well, it can’t simply mean the appointment by the governor, because it is subject to the board’s advice and consent, i.e., a board-internal procedure for recognition and acceptance of the appointment. And the statute is clear that the current member serves until this “qualification” occurs. So, while I think they are correct in asserting that certification does not necessarily equal qualification, I do think that qualification would be subject to the internal rules of the Senate which, in recent times has refused to seat someone until after they are certified (see Franken and Burris) by proper state procedures.
I’m not sure of this, and I have neither the time, resources or inclination to do a better analysis of it. All I am saying is that one cannot take the Republican’s lawyer’s definition of “qualification” on its face. They really provide little context to back it up.
Typical.
Instead of responding directly to a post and addressing what was said, there is the standard liberal tactic of attacking the messenger and not dealing with the message.
Sen Kirk should continue to vote until the new Senator is sworn in. Grow a pair and tell me why that is wrong.
I am not afraid of being wrong or corrected, but that will only happen when you present a cogent arguement with all the facts deconcstructing my position. Yeah, I know . . . I know, you are taking the standard liberal position by throwing rhetorical bombs and avoiding facts.
No. It really isn’t. Please define “qualification” in this respect. Use whatever legal references, statutes, court cases, etc…to back you up.
I would also note that the Republican lawyers claim that state law controls whether or not Kirk can vote after Tuesday and then use as their basis for this what the federal government decided to do with their paycheck.
Poor form.
so chapi, you think that the founders would have wanted an appointment to vote after another person was elected to the position that the other person was appointed to?
That makes NO SENSE. The founders would have rather had an empty seat than a seat improperly awarded.
It may not SEEM cut and dried, but why have an election if you aren’t going to let the guy they voted for represent them? Kirk was never elected and has no authority after someone else is.
Personally, I think all senators should be appointed like the founders wanted. . . but they aren’t now (I doubt Mitt would have appointed Kennedy).
The representative is Kennedy. He’s dead and they shouldn’t have a representative until they vote again.
I’ll use this case to back me up. . . Minnesota. They didn’t appoint someone to represent Minnesota when the election was in question until they decided who won. Minnesota didn’t have a vote in the senate.
The same thing goes here. If the certification draws out, that’s fine, but MA (the cause of the delayed certification) would not have a representative until the new guy is certified.
That is because, by law Coleman’s term had expired. The term of this interim Senator is until the next Senator is elected and qualified. So we again get back to what qualification means. Please provide me your definition, and sources to back it up.
Um…the statute is quite clear that he does until such person is elected AND qualified.
So we YET again get back to what qualification means. Please provide me your definition, and sources to back it up.
On January 18th, 2010 at 11:43 am, chapoutier said:
It appears that a win by Brown will shine a spotlight on the concepts of “Qualification” versus “Certification”.
And this applies not only to Brown but also to Obama.
While the Congress “Certified” the Electoral College vote, they never “Qualified” Obama, even though the Constitution clearly requires that the President and Vice-President must “qualify”.
The members of Congress, including President of the Senate Dick Cheney, inspected official certificates, sent to them under seal from the Secretary of State of each and every state, to certify the Electoral College vote. Dick Cheney failed to follow the law requiring him to ask for objections, so the legality of this “Certification” is in question.
But these members of Congress never inspected any official certificate from Hawaii to “Qualify” Obama’s birth there. And they never addressed the legal question of whether or not someone born to a father who was a foreign subject could be considered a natural born Citizen of the United States.
Congress “Certified” the Electoral College vote, they never “Qualified” Obama, even though the 20th Amendment makes it perfectly clear that
Every member of Congress has sworn to support and defend the Constitution, which includes the 20th Amendment.
Every member of Congress has a responsibility to qualify Obama, yet so far not a single one of them has done so.
Interesting you have such insight on the desires of the founding fathers.
It took me about 2 minutes to search the First and Second Congresses of the United States, you know…that time when the Founding Fathers were running things, to find several interim appointments to both Senate and House seats. Why didn’t the Founding Fathers address this obviously horrendous problem when they had the chance?
you are arguing that the special election is unconstitutional because there already is someone there in the capacity of MA senator.
Why even have the special election? They are going to have a regular election soon. Why not just hold up the certification (even for Coakley) until the regular election? MA has ‘representation’.
What is the point of the special election if you aren’t going to let the person who gets actual votes serve? Why didn’t the guy who was appointed run in the special election?
It seems like elections don’t matter. I go back to my mantra of ‘why vote’. They do whatever they want anyway.
Hey genius. Take another minute and point out the senate election that took place ‘you know the time when the Founding Fathers were running things’.
I am arguing nothing of the sort. For you to extrapolate that from what I said is truly baffling.
Sigh. The thread has been hijacked.
It should be about Democrat gross lack of respect for the sanctity of our election process, as illustrated by the likes of Ed Shultz (he is not nearly the rare exception most people think, he just came out and said it).
Instead we are now arguing about the legal technicalities of certifications and qualifications.
Let’s get back to discussing how the philosophical leadership of the Democrat Party completely lacks the most basic morals necessary to a representative democracy.
First Congress:
Sen. William Patterson (NJ) retires to become Governor. Replaced by Philemon Dickenson for remainder of term.
Second Congress:
William Johnson (CT) replaced midterm by Roger Sherman
Sen. Charles Caroll (MD) replaced by Richard Potts for remainder of term.
There are two other interim Senators, if you care to look.
And in the House…
Representative William Hindman was appointed to the seat after Seney retired. Same with John Mercer, taking over the vacated seat of William Pickney.
Ummm…which is exactly what the article that MM cited was discussing. I don’t really know how more on-topic one can be.
“Oh Zyggy, will you ever win?”
- Montgomery Burns
Chap,
That was under “Related:” It wasn’t meant to be the central topic of the post.
And arguing legal details that even you said you were not inclined to research definitely qualifies as a hijacking.
Like I said: Let’s get back to what Ed Schultz said.
Do you agree with Ed? I don’t see where you’ve said one way or the other, yet
You cannot use the terms
democratsocialist and morals in the same sentence.Surely (I know, your name isn’t Shirley) I am not the only one who has seen socialists/fascists mock, ridicule, deride, belittle, marginalize, banish discussion of, (your word hear) morals over the past 40 or so years?
Morals are kryptonite to socialists.
This is what happens when democrats try to change the laws to fit their agenda. The laws of unintended consequences prevail and bite them in the butt.
Perfect example of them trying to circumvent the constitution……
Apologies.
I am troubled by your statement.
Sen Kirk has been representing the State and voting in the Senate. Yes, or no? By definition Sen Kirk is representing MA. Yep, he is a place holder. Yes, he does not reflect the choice of the electorate in MA. He is the Governor’s choice and until the next Senator is elected and sworn in, Sen Kirk represents the interests of the Commonwealth of Massachusettes. Yes, or no?
If you have a different definition of representative of MA, please share it.
Actually, the fill in has a vote until the State votes again, the election is certified, and the new Senator is sworn in. Yes, or no?
True. Ummmm, who said it wasn’t?
Stop guessing.
You can get an answer by asking a question. I have said nothing about delaying seating anyone. You are working yourself into a tissy with your errant speculation.
Have the election, certify the results, and swear the new Senator in. Period. When that happens, the new Senator gets to vote and Sen Kirk does not.
Very well, what are the rules regarding the fill in continuing to vote until the new Senator is sworn in? That is the issue in the Weekly Standard article. Has Sen Kirk been acting on behalf of MA? Has he been voting in the Senate? His acting and voting on behalf of the Senate does not stop until the new Senator is sworn in.
Your statement escapes reality. For that to be the case MA would not have a vote until the new Senator is sworn in. Take a deep breath and recognize the difference in ‘election’ and ‘swearing in’. The rules require counting absentee votes and certification. The rules allow a specific period of time for this to happen. Are you suggesting that MA loose it’s opportunity to vote on any legislation during that period?
OK. Though I would be saying the same thing no matter who won in MA.
You can be anything you want to be as long as you work for it. This is America.
Though the reality is that this is our system. Yep, the law is cut and dried, like it or not, Sen Kirk being a lame duck does not mean he gets to loose his vote.
Of course not, assuming he was serious. But in any case to call Schultz the “philosophical leadership” of the Democratic party, a guy who draws about as much as a Marlins/Pirates game, is silly.
Agreed with those who have observed that this is a dog-bites-man story, but for the unusual candor (well, for a donk any candor is “unusual”) of the statement.
Maybe it was “Just the liquor talkin.”
What is interesting is the demonstration by Schultz of the donks’ acceptance of zealotry in the service of an over-valued idea: it’s actually OK in his mind to undermine the rule of law in this case, because the cherished end — the preservation of donk tyrannical power for just a little bit longer, long enough to finish screwing the American People — justifies any means.
What’s so disgusting about a donk like Schultz is that he’d normally be against zealotry. Religious zealotry, certainly; an over-eager CIA interrogator breaking the law to gain valuable information from a terrorist, also certainly … but zealotry leading to illegal acts in the service of the donkey party? No problem.
There comes a point when one must recognize the obvious: donks will be donks before they are Americans. Their allegiance to their gang that masquerades as a political party trumps their sense of loyalty to the country and the people they want to lord over.
The donks in the Civil War era were perfectly content to see this country torn in half to protect an overvalued idea of theirs — slavery. While Lincoln struggled to save the country, Copperhead donks tried to sabotage his efforts. When Reagan struggled to win the Cold War, donks like Teddy Kennedy collaborated with the Soviets to protect another over-valued idea: Marxism.
That is why I call them The Domestic Enemy. Because that is what they are. Not just to Republicans, but to any American who yearns to live free.
And that is why, if truth in labeling is the object, donks should be referred to in polite company as “Democrat-Americans” in the same way that multi-culti and PC sentiment demands that we refer to so many others as “hyphenated Americans.”
“My country, may she always be right; but my country, right or wrong.”
- Stephen Decatur
“My party uber alles.”
- Ed Schultz
Bingo!
I’ve considered them nothing more than that for years.
Sadly, and unfortunately, that is not the case. I am being called names but no one is presenting a cogent arguement or addressing the specific issues I raise.
Of course, I am right. LOL.
Nope. Absolutely untrue. How you know what I know is certainly an exceptional talent on your part. Though, I am sure you are teasing.
I have avoided mentioning any party or person, and maintain that Sen Kirk will continue to vote until the new Senator is sworn in, whoever that might be. And yes, that would include Mr Kennedy, who is also on the ballot.
I consider Ed Schultz to be a typical Progressive. There is nothing special about his opinions regarding the rule of law, the integrity of the vote, and the Constitution.
The masses simply do not have the intelligence that he and his ilk have. In other words, he’s an elitist puke.
For the Left, the end justifies the means. There is no honor, no integrity, no moral standard they value. The Cause is above all.
Or like Al Franken and “Air America”, huh?
Chris Matthews said they should be buying votes.
No one should make any mistake. These aren’t talking heads making noise.
These men are making suggestions, giving instructions to those in the Democrat machine.
Combined with the Secretary of State Project, I hope a great many people are keeping a careful eye on these elections.
zyzyzyzyzyzyggggygygyzyzy, says I am a “liberal.” That’s funny. I am not sure if he intended to make a joke but it is funny.
Now, let’s see how long it will take him to figure out why his own “argument” is so wrong.
I am betting that will take a V E R Y . L O N G . T I M E…
And remember, as far as Ed “Election Fraud” Schultz has been asked to run for the Senate by the DNC…
The DNC is obviously in favor of systematic election fraud but even they don’t advocate calling it that BEFORE-HAND!
I have to agree. It has become an embedded part or their culture, encouraged and spurred along by the assumption of entitlement to power that comes both from a long time holding the reins and a sense of superiority.
I’d bet he’d kill too. He just didn’t have the guts to say it.
Hey, Ed. Watch your language. I have documented proof my parents were married to each other before I was born. The POTUS hasn’t convinced me that he has the same for his.
Chris Matthews was considering a run for office in Pennsylvania in 2010. And he was a former aide to Tip O’Neill.
I have no doubt that many, many leftists share this belief that cheating to win is fine since they and their goals are “superior” to the evil Republicans…
The Democrat Party is a RICO! Never forget. They are just getting sloppy about hiding it!
This isn’t the same as a regular election cycle. A Senator’s term is for 6 years, ending on Dec 31 of his/her sixth year. Even if that Senator loses re-election in November, there are still several weeks left in that term before the new Senator takes over. But, in this case, the special election is to determine who finishes a term that has already started. Once a new Senator is elected, Kirk no longer holds office. Yes, it does mean MA is without a vote if the new Senator’s swearing-in is delayed.
You should recall that Norm Coleman did not continue to have a vote in the Senate once his term ended, even though no winner had been certified yet, and Al Franken had not yet been sworn in. MN was without one vote in the Senate, until the time Franken was sworn in.
The Weekly Standard got it right. If it were any other way, the majority party could just refuse to seat the newly elected Senator indefinitely, in favor of an iterim, appointed Senator who will vote their way.
Every time I read one of zyzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz’s posts, I fall asleep. Why is that?
In my post #66 I said, ‘liberal tactics’ and ‘liberal position of’ but I did not call you a liberal. Then again if you use their tactics and go about arguements in the manner of a liberal, you may very well be a liberal, you may not. The thing is you have not denied using liberal tactics.
See, you are doing it yet again. A liberal offers no substance to support their assertion. You saying that my arguement is wrong and waiting for me to figure it out, is weak.
Prove me wrong. Offer up some facts.
What will take longer is your presenting a cogent arguement that deconstucts my position.
Like it or not, lame ducks get to vote until their replacement is sworn in. Sen Kirk is a lame duck and will vote in the Senate until he is properly and lawfully replaced.