Comments on: A party I’d be ashamed to be associated with

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 18:51:04 +0000

I note, whenever Rats bitch about Gingrich and Delay, that they never list specifically anything they did wrong. You know, like delay a swearing in, or some other democracy subverting thing.

Republicans do not tolerate leaders that stray ethically or morally. You cannot say that about Democrats. Edwards, for instance, was a Democrat credible candidate for Presidential nomination. Sanborn will never ever be and was drummed out immediately.

By: Carl Nelson

Carl Nelson — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:34:31 +0000

I’m sure the Republicans are glad to hear that you have such faith in their devotion to fair play. The many doubters might be relieved in you could convince them that Gingrich and Delay never existed.

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:04:19 +0000

Good question but again, more of a debate tactic than a real question.

The obvious difference is that the tactics in the Senate are purposeful and available to both sides – and WOULD BE DONE by both sides. Republicans would not delay a swearing in because their party members would not permit it. Just like Barney Frank could never be a successful Republican, even if he held conservative views politically. His ethics and mannter would not be permitted.

One voids democracy, the other IS democracy.

By: Carl Nelson

Carl Nelson — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 14:56:28 +0000

” the MA Democrats. Slimey people voiding democracy in their state. … I would hope that if they pull this that the Senate Republicans pull no punches in flat our war to delay the nation ruining Obamacare bill.”

A situational contradiction? It’s anti-democratic if MA Dems (of which you imply a good knowledge) delay a vote, but highly praiseworthy if Senate Republicans do so. Please rationalize where to draw the ethical line in political tactics.