September 19, 2006

Turnabout Is Fair Play – But Not The Liberal Way

All the moonbats are upset that Joe Lieberman has stayed in the Connecticut Senate race rather than supporting and endorsing moonbat nominee Ned Lamont. They claim that the three-term senator is somehow obligated to back the primary winner.

But the moonbat who opposed Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination refuses to endorse her.

The anti-Iraq war activist who was crushed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in last week's Democratic Senate primary said Tuesday he would not support her re-election bid and called on his supporters to vote against her.

"I urge my supporters and the people who voted for me to vote their conscience," said Jonathan Tasini. "Every vote that is not cast for the incumbent is a clear repudiation of an immoral war."

The reaction from the Clinton camp was curt: "Who cares?" said Howard Wolfson.

Tasini, a former president of the National Writers' Union, did not endorse any specific candidate in the Senate race, which many see as a prelude to a 2008 White House run by the former first lady.

I guess that the “party loyalty” argument only goes one way – in favor of the latte-sipping surrender-chimps of the Bush-bashing hate-America Left. When the finge-oids are rejected by the party of the Left, they won’t give what they demand of others.

Posted by: Greg at 09:23 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Nobody's complaining about Tasini because Wolfson has it exactly right - nobody cares.  Yes, he ought to be supporting the democratic nominee.  Now are you happy?

This is going pretty far to dream up a controversy, don't you think?

Posted by: Dan at Tue Sep 19 11:26:19 2006 (IU21y)

2 Hey -- pointing out liberal hypocrisy is alays in season.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Sep 19 21:36:51 2006 (uN8+D)

3

Hilary is a warmongering "soft Bushite." The "exception" clause was meant for her in such controversies. Her image as  progressive/Left  is  phony and the voters need to nip off the bud of her national arena aspirations as soon as possible.

 

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Wed Sep 20 11:21:43 2006 (EPkr9)

4 I'll agree with nipping her ambitions in the bud -- but still note that the anti-American left subscribes to a "do as I say, not as i do" philosophy.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Sep 20 11:59:23 2006 (mRGQO)

5 Serious question here - why is hypocrisy so important to us? I agree with you - republican hypocrisy is one of my favorite things to mock. But why do we act as though it really proves anything? Let's say I managed to dig up a quotation by you saying the exact opposite of some position you are taking today. Say I find proof that on the same day you wrote a piece on the evils of abortion, you paid for your mistress to have one. Or, during the Clinton administration, you opposed a plan he had made to invade Iraq on shakey pretenses. Would either circumstance disprove your current position? Of course not. But I sure as hell would mock you with it, and act like it did. I've been contemplating the effect of hypocrisy, and wondering why we place such a high value on evidence of it.

Posted by: dan at Wed Sep 20 12:05:26 2006 (mRGQO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0119, elapsed 0.5386 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.5341 seconds, 34 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]