Obama court appointee a big donor to Democrats

posted at 2:55 pm on April 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

On the surface, there isn’t much doubt why Barack Obama selected John J. McConnell Jr. as his nominee to the US District in Rhode Island.  McConnell has had a long career as a litigator in cases that would thrill any advocate on the Left, suing manufacturers over lead paint, asbestos, and tobacco.  However, it may have been McConnell’s ability to turn those cases into cash for the Democratic machine that got him his nomination, as the Providence Journal reports:

John J. McConnell Jr., President Obama’s choice for the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, is one of the top election campaign contributors among the nearly 1,500 nominees to the federal courts since the late 1980s.

McConnell, 51, a Providence lawyer, has given at least $432,456 to Democratic House, Senate and presidential campaigns since the 1990 election cycle, according to a Providence Journal analysis of reports to the Federal Election Commission.

Over the years, McConnell contributed tens of thousands of dollars in total to the campaign funds of major Democratic presidential candidates and of Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse. The Rhode Island senators last April recommended McConnell for a seat on the court. McConnell is also a substantial contributor to the party campaign arm that helps elect Democrats to the Senate, whose members must vote on whether to seat him on the federal bench.

That total obscures McConnell’s more recent efforts. The Journal notes that McConnell donated over $120,000 in the 2008 cycle alone. In 2006, he gave $8400 to Sheldon Whitehouse’s Senate campaign, and has donated a like amount to Jack Reed over the course of Reed’s two Senate campaigns. The pair have endorsed McConnell for this nomination and likely pushed McConnell as a choice with the White House.

Granting appointments to big donors is hardly new in politics, but mostly those are limited to term-limited positions such as ambassadorships or US Attorneys, to name a couple of examples. A position on the federal court is a lifetime appointment, as well as a position of trust that should require some sense of independence. Serving up a lifetime sinecure to a big donor should raise some eyebrows.

Besides, Barack Obama campaigned on “hope and change,” insisting that the days that money talked in Washington were over. I guess it just depends on what language that money uses. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should explore this issue in great detail at McConnell’s confirmation hearing.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Apparently, Mr. McConnell was the highest bidder on Ebay for the judgeship the Obama Administration was auctioning.

olesparkie on April 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Syndicalism.

Inanemergencydial on April 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should explore this issue in great detail at McConnell’s confirmation hearing.

you bet your sweet bippy they better do that…

cmsinaz on April 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM

the ultimate payoff

Doctor Zhivago on April 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Shouldn’t the party of big money keep money out of our democracy?
/s

Inanemergencydial on April 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM

I’m no lefty, but it’s about time that we put someone on the federal court who had some empathy for really rich white guy Democrats.

myrenovations on April 26, 2010 at 3:01 PM

That’s how things work in Chicago….

thomasaur on April 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Frankly, the GOP does the same thing.

Come on, people.

That’s the judiciary “status quo” except for maybe some who get appointed due to sex, etc.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

If it walks like corruption, and it talks like corruption…

Rational Thought on April 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

At least two dozen federal judges appointed by President Bush since 2001 made political contributions to key Republicans or to the president himself while under consideration for their judgeships, government records show. A four-month investigation of Bush-appointed judges by the Center for Investigative Reporting reveals that six appellate court judges and 18 district court judges contributed a total of more than $44,000 to politicians who were influential in their appointments. Some gave money directly to Bush after he officially nominated them. Other judges contributed to Republican campaign committees while they were under consideration for a judgeship.

Republicans who received money from judges en route to the bench include Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Sens. George Voinovich and Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Gov. George Pataki of New York.

The CIR investigation analyzed the campaign contribution records of 249 judges appointed by Bush nationwide since 2001. The money trail leading from Bush judges to influential politicians runs particularly deep through the political battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Since 1990, Judge Deborah Cook, who was confirmed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2003, gave more than $10,000 to three Ohio Republicans who were instrumental in getting her on the bench. One was Sen. George Voinovich, who is chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics. Another was Sen. Mike DeWine, a member of the Judiciary Committee, which is critical to the confirmation of federal judges. The other was Gov. Bob Taft, who gained national notoriety after he was convicted of ethics violations in 2005 for not reporting gifts he received.

Cook’s contributions included $1,000 to Voinovich and $1,500 to Taft after President Bush had nominated Cook, with their backing, in May 2001. Once on the bench, Cook continued giving, contributing $800 to DeWine in December 2005. Political giving while serving on the federal bench is a violation of the official Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. The code says that “A judge should not … solicit funds for or pay an assessment or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate.” DeWine’s campaign committee returned the money three weeks after Cook made the contribution.

Another judge, Christopher Boyko, gave $2,000 to Voinovich in August 2004 — his first federal contribution on record since 1996 — less than a month after Bush nominated him for the bench upon the recommendation of Ohio’s senators.

Another, Judge John Adams, cut a $1,000 check received by Voinovich’s campaign committee just two days before Voinovich and DeWine publicly recommended him to Bush in November 2001. “I’ve been supportive of the Republican Party and President Bush,” Adams said, after DeWine and Voinovich recommended him for the judgeship, according to the Akron Beacon Journal. “I’m sure that had some bearing on the selection.” About two months later, in January 2002, Adams gave DeWine $1,500, which was returned to him in February. Then, less than a month after his subsequent nomination by Bush in October 2002, Adams gave $250 more to Voinovich.

Brian Seitchik, a spokesperson for Sen. DeWine’s current reelection campaign, confirmed that the money from Cook and Adams was returned because, at the time it was given, Adams was a judicial candidate and Cook was a sitting judge. “The campaign has operated out of an abundance of caution,” Seitchik said, “and we thought it was the prudent thing to do.”

In some cases from around the country, judicial candidates gave money directly to the president’s campaign. Judge Thomas Ludington of Michigan gave Bush $1,000, after being nominated in September 2002. Judge P. Kevin Castel of New York gave Bush $2,000 after Bush nominated him in March 2003. Judge Paul Crotty of New York gave $1,000 to Bush in June 2003, the same month he met with Bush officials about the judgeship. Judge Mark Filip of Illinois, who had volunteered as a Republican election monitor in Florida during the disputed 2000 election, gave the president $2,000 after Bush nominated him in April 2003.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/10/31/money_trail/print.html

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

McConnell seems to know which side of the bread to butter. But, then, he is a lawyer.

Kissmygrits on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Frankly, the GOP does the same thing.

Come on, people.

That’s the judiciary “status quo” except for maybe some who get appointed due to sex, etc.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

If that were the case it would be in block letters across the front page of the NYT and WaPo.

thomasaur on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I find it amusing that supporters of Captain Hope ‘N Change excuse his continuation of corruption by pointing to Bush doing the same thing.

Wasn’t Bush the reincarnation of Hitler/Satan? Letting big donors and oil companies run Washington, deregulate everything, and buy positions of power?

But now his activity is something for Captain Hope ‘N Change to copy. Gotcha.

amerpundit on April 26, 2010 at 3:06 PM

“This thing is f***ing valuable!” /blago

Fallen Sparrow on April 26, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Who knew that “change” meant bringing back room deal making into the front room?

rbj on April 26, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

And that was treated like a scandal by the left. It was a “four-month investigation” that was “scrutinizing the federal judiciary under Bush”. Think Salon will say the same of Obama?

amerpundit on April 26, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should explore this issue in great detail at McConnell’s confirmation hearing.

you bet your sweet bippy they better do that…

cmsinaz on April 26, 2010

Isn’t Graham on that committee? Count on him to ask tough questions but end up on his knees clawing at Obama’s zipper.

SKYFOX on April 26, 2010 at 3:10 PM

McConnell, 51, a Providence lawyer, has given at least $432,456 to Democratic House, Senate and presidential campaigns

Most of my donors were small donors, less than $200….
/obama

ted c on April 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM

And that was treated like a scandal by the left. It was a “four-month investigation” that was “scrutinizing the federal judiciary under Bush”. Think Salon will say the same of Obama?

amerpundit on April 26, 2010 at 3:08 PM

–Read more carefully. It was a four month review of the records, not a four-month investigation by Congress.

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM

What’s that old line Democrats used to use for Republican nominees? Oh, yeah! “Just the appearance of impropriety is enough to disqualify him/her.”

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Apparently, Mr. McConnell was the highest bidder on Ebay for the judgeship the Obama Administration was auctioning.

olesparkie on April 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Overheard

“This thing is effing golden…”

“This is a big effing deal….”..

Dem effers

ted c on April 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM

A four-month investigation of Bush-appointed judges by the Center for Investigative Reporting reveals that six appellate court judges and 18 district court judges contributed a total of more than $44,000 to politicians who were influential in their appointments. Some gave money directly to Bush after he officially nominated them.

vs.

McConnell, 51, a Providence lawyer, has given at least $432,456 to Democratic House, Senate and presidential campaigns since the 1990 election cycle, according to a Providence Journal analysis of reports to the Federal Election Commission.

?

myrenovations on April 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM

I don’t think political contributions should really matter. I’m sure most people who end up judges, from either side of the aisle, are somewhat politically active before becoming judges.

Neither party is out scouring the states for great judicial minds. the names of nominees come up through the political machine. the names get into the political machine by the individual either being active in party politics or being a big donor.

Monkeytoe on April 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Frankly, the GOP does the same thing.

Come on, people.

That’s the judiciary “status quo” except for maybe some who get appointed due to sex, etc.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Name a major GOP donor sitting on the bench.

Freddy on April 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM

myrenovations on April 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM

It’s the seriousness of the charge. I’m concerned
~Tom Daschle

Inanemergencydial on April 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Pay to play?
Naaahhhh. There’s no coincidence here.
Nothing more to see.
Please move along, comrade.

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

McConnell, 51, a Providence lawyer, has given at least $432,456 to Democratic House, Senate and presidential campaigns since the 1990 election cycle,

And notice that the people in the article on Bush were judges, not lawyers.

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I hardly trust Salon as a credible source. But let’s assume I do. Are you saying because Boooooooosh did it, that makes it OK for the bearer of Hope ‘N Change(tm) to do the same? Typical.

All of this should stop regardless of who is the culprit.

stvnscott on April 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Frankly, the GOP does the same thing.

Come on, people.

That’s the judiciary “status quo” except for maybe some who get appointed due to sex, etc.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

And if that’s true, that makes it right.
WTH woman?!
IT isn’t right no matter WHO does it.

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

–Read more carefully. It was a four month review of the records, not a four-month investigation by Congress.

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Did I say it was an investigation by Congress? I asked if Salon will say the same about Obama, and I said it was treated like a scandal by the left. Which it was.

Be sure to scroll to where commenters demand prison time, impeachment, disbarring, Congressional investigations, independent prosecutors, public shaming…

amerpundit on April 26, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Thanks for pointing out what pikers the Republicans were. If you’re going to bribe someone, do it right like the good Mr. McConnell, Esq. This like you criticizing those complaining about the deficit by citing Bush’s. Evidently size doesn’t matter to you. And yes, I complained about deficit spending before O.

gitarfan on April 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Politicians in power are just going to keep doing this kind of thing until there are consequences.

Daggett on April 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

And if that’s true, that makes it right.
WTH woman?!
IT isn’t right no matter WHO does it.

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I gave up idealism along with my peace symbol and bell bottoms.

There is plenty of stuff to discuss without taking pot shots over stupid stuff that the GOP does as much as the Dems.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

$1,000…$2,000…$1,000…$24,000 for 16 judges…$432,000

Come on you people, there’s no difference between the 3rd rate Chicago machine trash it takes to represent me, and everybody else. Get with it!

MNHawk on April 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

So, a sitting judge should not donate $800 to a political campaign because it could be construed as payback for a purchased gavel… but an attorney can donate $450,000 over a twenty year period to Democrats in a position to give him a gavel?

myrenovations on April 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Halperin agrees.

Schadenfreude on April 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

You guys sound as naive as Huffpo posters. LOL*

Of course, becoming a judge takes donations and politics.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:26 PM

You guys sound as naive as Huffpo posters. LOL*

Of course, becoming a judge takes donations and politics.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:26 PM

And you sound like a typical Democrat.

myrenovations on April 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Imagine that. Obama sets his agenda due to monetarial motivations? Who would have thought of that?/

kingsjester on April 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM

You guys sound as naive as Huffpo posters. LOL*

Of course, becoming a judge takes donations and politics.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:26 PM

And you sound like you’re trying to stop the discussion.

kingsjester on April 26, 2010 at 3:29 PM

I gave up idealism along with my peace symbol and bell bottoms.

There is plenty of stuff to discuss without taking pot shots over stupid stuff that the GOP does as much as the Dems.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

You never fail to amaze me with the flexibility of your morality. Were you a gymnastic in your younger days?

DFCtomm on April 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

kingsjester on April 26, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Not at all.

I simply disagree with the blog premise. I spoke out.

It’s what I call, “cheap shot” stuff.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Funny, I only see one then judge mentioned. The rest may have been lawyers but they were certainly not judges at the time. I guess you need to work on that comprehension thingy.

Also McConnell gave over 120 thousand in the 2008 cycle alone. So in 5 years 24 gave 44,000 vs. 2 years, at most, 120,000 and 1. I wonder what other “contributions” might be out there. Obama is good at moving money, especially other folk’s money.

gitarfan on April 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Say, what became of Ratty… ?

Sharr on April 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee should explore this issue in great detail at McConnell’s confirmation hearing.

Don’t hold your breath.

Wine_N_Dine on April 26, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I gave up idealismstanding up for what is right over what is wrong, along with my peace symbol and bell bottoms.

There is plenty of stuff to discuss without taking pot shots over stupid stuff that the GOP does as much as the Dems.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

I guess we shouldn’t address corruption in the courts at all since that is what it takes to be in that business.
After all, public outcry & making a fuss won’t change anyone’s mind at all, so why even bother.
It’s not like court rulings have any lasting effect anyway.
I should instead focus my efforts upon the starving children here & in Africa, or wherever, & leave that stuff alone.
After, all, it’s not like any of us could make realy & lasting change.
Defeatist.
It’s people like you that kinda make this country suck like it does.
Thanks for the apathy.

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 3:34 PM

So, a sitting judge should not donate $800 to a political campaign because it could be construed as payback for a purchased gavel… but an attorney can donate $450,000 over a twenty year period to Democrats in a position to give him a gavel?

myrenovations on April 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Thank you. Most judgeships are actually elected positions. Of course, they are political.

Once past a certain level, they are appointments, but it’s obvious that they are political.

I was blown away by the false issue brought up about the Bush firings.

Hello? Of course, federal positions are political.

I couldn’t believe that Bush took heat, even, on that deal.

I can’t believe what I’m reading here.

What, are we becoming 7th grade idealists again in this country?

Get real.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

I personally couldn’t care less how much McConnell donated to candidates of the Party of his choice. That’s free speech, as McCain-Feingold tried to limit. A profession shouldn’t be a qualifier for a Citizen’s legitimate First Amendment guarantees.

Same for holding a public position. Being a judge doesn’t automatically negate his/her being able to politically donate as he/she sees fit.

But the Democrats are the ones who started nonsense like this back in the 80s. They used such convincing arguments as “seriousness of the charge” and “appearance of impropriety” instead of actual discussion on a nominee’s qualifications. Democrats are the ones who pushed the notion of litmus tests, too.

Liberals in the MSM even went so far as to ‘fact-check’ a comedy skit, of all things, of a show that should’ve been canceled twenty years ago (in my opinion about good entertainment, that is).

The Left started this kind of ‘discourse’ thirty years ago. Seems now, their own ideas are coming back to bite them like a beaten dog.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM

I guess we shouldn’t address corruption in the courts at all since that is what it takes to be in that business.

You want to focus on the courts, go right ahead.

Me?

I think the real corruption is so, so much easier to spot.

It’s in huge stimulus payoffs to Labor. It’s in the current Wall ST. bill that gives HUGE powers to the executive branch. It’s in the sheer corruption in one of the major parties in their caucus systems.

You pick your battles. I’ll pick mine.

And this ain’t one of em’.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM

What cheap shot?

This guy has given at least $432,456 to Democratic House, Senate and presidential campaigns since the 1990 election cycle and Obama’s going to make him a judge for it. You want to participate in cheap shots, go to Salon or HuffPo.

kingsjester on April 26, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Sounds like the profits of BIG LAW are wayyyyyy too high.
Time for a windfall profits tax!

/libs

search4truth on April 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM

At least two dozen federal judges appointed by President Bush since 2001 made political contributions to key Republicans or to the president himself while under consideration for their judgeships, government records show. A four-month investigation of Bush-appointed judges by the Center for Investigative Reporting reveals that six appellate court judges and 18 district court judges contributed a total of more than $44,000 to politicians who were influential in their appointments. Some gave money directly to Bush after he officially nominated them. Other judges contributed to Republican campaign committees while they were under consideration for a judgeship.

Republicans who received money from judges en route to the bench include Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Sens. George Voinovich and Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Gov. George Pataki of New York.

The CIR investigation analyzed the campaign contribution records of 249 judges appointed by Bush nationwide since 2001. The money trail leading from Bush judges to influential politicians runs particularly deep through the political battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania

etc etc….

McConnell, 51, a Providence lawyer, has given at least $432,456 to Democratic House, Senate and presidential campaigns since the 1990 election cycle, according to a Providence Journal analysis of reports to the Federal Election Commission.

so on one hand we have ONE (probably of many) donating $432,456 to Obama, et,al; and on ther other we have 23 totalling $80,250 avg $3489 per donation.

another question. Does Arlen Specter really count as a Republican?

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on April 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Funny, I only see one then judge mentioned. The rest may have been lawyers but they were certainly not judges at the time. I guess you need to work on that comprehension thingy.

Also McConnell gave over 120 thousand in the 2008 cycle alone. So in 5 years 24 gave 44,000 vs. 2 years, at most, 120,000 and 1. I wonder what other “contributions” might be out there. Obama is good at moving money, especially other folk’s money.

gitarfan on April 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Cook was a judge since at least 1990. She served four years as a state appellate judge and was elected and re-elected to the Ohio Supreme Court starting in 1994.

Boyko was a judge since 1993 (except for 1994-1995).

Adams was a judge since 1999.

Need I go on?

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM

You pick your battles. I’ll pick mine.

And this ain’t one of em’.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM

If it isn’t a battle you are interested in, then why are you even here wasting your time posting about it?
Why aren’t you off fighting the good fight?
We have so much corruption everywhere, I will agree it’s hard to know where to start.
But since the BO admin is corrupt on ALL levels, I think it’s useful to brutally drive home every point of corruption ad nauseum.

What, are we becoming 7th grade idealists again in this country?

Get real.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

This is extremeley amusing.
Having taught 7th graders, I can tell you they are NOT examples of being idealistic. Anything but.
Relaxing our country’s ideals has gotten us into this huge mess of trouble we are experiencing in our govt & society.
I think we need a good shot of some idealism.

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM

If they were legal, then they are OK.

My cousin moved to a small town where his wife was from after he graduated from law school. A decade later when he ran for DA, he was tagged for getting “out of town” contributions; from his mother, sisters, aunt and cousins.

I repeat; if it was legal, then they are OK. Or is money NOT free speach?

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I think we need a good shot of some idealism.

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Don’t you get it, Patriot? idealism is bad unless it’s liberal ideology. Really, everyone has an ideology to varying levels and to differences of intensity. Religion is an ideology. Politics are ideological in nature. The only people mocking ideology, saying it’s puerile–infantile, even–are those opposing Conservative thought and opinion.

Notice how the Left, most among the MSM, hide their ideology by calling themselves ‘mainstream’.

I mean, wasn’t ideology to say Bork, who allegedly opposed abortion (he didn’t oppose it, per se), ‘would be in everyone’s bedroom’?

Not even Captain Kirk could pull that off.

Liberals only claim to ‘oppose’ ideology when contrary beliefs are of a matter. Then they claim they’re not ideological, but, rather ‘mainstream’.

The Left started stuff like this back in the 80s, not having thought ahead as is usual for them. Now, the cornered rat they once used as a cudgel is coming home to bite them.

And those hypocrites just hate that.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 4:05 PM

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Your posts today have been enlightening (a basic tenet of liberalism!). I finally figured you out.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM

I finally figured you out.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Liam!
Finally?
It has been obvious since day one!
You are too idealistic!
LOL!

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 4:32 PM

LOL!

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 4:32 PM

I left a lot of room, going on the chance I might be wrong. Sometimes, really, she seemed ‘fair’. So, I ran with it far as I could.

I couldn’t explain her bouncing between liberal ideas and Conservatism. That oddity just didn’t sit right, till I could get a better profile.

Now I have that better profile.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Color me a skeptic.
Often, I would love to give the benefit of the doubt.
But the older I get, the less patience I have with willful stupidity.
If someone’s IQ approaches that of mental retardation, then of course that is quite excusable.
But honestly, to constantly vacillate back & forth like that, I have to wonder whether bi-polar disorder is involved here (& I do have experience w/ that BTW. One of my best friends was afflicted w/ it).
How ’bout political bi-polar disorder?
A lot of the things we aregue abt on here can be drawn as a line in the sand.
You are either taking a stand for or against something & you usually cannot have things both ways.
I get really disgusted w/ people who cannot see what being a political hypocrite means to this country’s future.

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Frankly, the GOP does the same thing.

Come on, people.

That’s the judiciary “status quo” except for maybe some who get appointed due to sex, etc.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Now if you only provided some links…if only…

right2bright on April 26, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Powerful comment there, and I largely agree. Read of me here, and I’m one intolerant SOB. I don’t consider that some kind of ‘shame’, as libs will simper, whine, and cry about.

And I don’t give a hoot what a lib cries about. Wait till ObowCare kicks in! I’ve mocked trolls that they’re going to pay out the patootie like I will, and guess what? They call me ‘evil’! LOL

I gave AnninCA room, and she showed what she is. I did what I felt desire–need, maybe–to do, and it’s okay in the end.

Like among all the trolls, they make for debates, and do all they do. I’ve posted much and long on this, as have Patriots better than me. Libs are going to be what they are.

The difference is that Patriots speak to personal belief, whiles libs toy around, having no genuine core. I can imagine if, the Dem Party said we need to ‘euthanize’ people over 65, to save money, most libs and the trolls here will back it. And they’ll find a ‘reason’ they consider good.

AnninCA has played here, done her job, but in the end she’s not reasonable. She’s a lib, using tactics to justify herself. She, like other libs, aren’t about to change minds; that’s not a matter to them. They seek only to feel right.

The Allegemigne SS did the same thing while guarding those ovens. Then, later, the Waffen SS.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Now if you only provided some links…if only…

right2bright on April 26, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Liberals are quite convinced their feelings are fact. That’s all they need to know.

BushHitler: yes!

GoreStalin: How dare you?

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM

whiles libs toy around, having no genuine core.
Liam on April 26, 2010 at 5:13 PM

You hit this one. Right on the money.
That is why they are extremely lax on moral issues.
The fence sitters AKA Independents (most of them, IMHO) also fit this mold.
They are often just liberals themselves, but they either refuse to admit it, or are too stupid to make the label connection.

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I have one matter for suggestion, please.

‘Moderates’ are the fence-sitters. They seem to be the ones waiting for which way the wind blows.

I’m a Conservative, an independent voter. Moderates, to me, are the cowards–libs who are afraid to admit they’re liberal.

And I just don’t get that. I mean, if you can’t stand to your beliefs, then what good are you? Of course, you know that. I’ve read your posts a long while and enjoyed them.

I’ll stand up before a Klan meeting and tell them what-for soon as I’ll go to a liberal conclave and tell them all to get stuffed.

No Moderate would have the nerve.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Badger40 on April 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Far as I’m concerned, a ‘moderate’ is someone too shickenchit to express an opinion. Cowardice rules their day; the summer soldier and sunshine patriot.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Anybody want to have some fun?

Ask a liberal how he/she defines liberty.

That’ll be telling.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM

I’m a Conservative, an independent voter. Moderates, to me, are the cowards–libs who are afraid to admit they’re liberal.

And I just don’t get that. I mean, if you can’t stand to your beliefs, then what good are you? Of course, you know that. I’ve read your posts a long while and enjoyed them.

I’ll stand up before a Klan meeting and tell them what-for soon as I’ll go to a liberal conclave and tell them all to get stuffed.

No Moderate would have the nerve.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

–Liam, you know some of us aren’t “radical”. So, for instance, we’re okay with things up to some limits. That’s still standing up for our beliefs; it’s just that our beliefs are not absolutes. I think you’d call us moderates, but you could just as easily say we see the nuances more than you do.

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM

You seem defensive, and I wonder why.

That presumed ‘defense’ of seeing nuances–of me–being somehow ‘less’ than YOU claim, says quite a lot. Moat, really, of you.

That’s still standing up for our beliefs; it’s just that our beliefs are not absolutes.

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Logically, if you’re beliefs aren’t absolutes in your own head, why believe in them at all?

I believe in the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. If it’s not an absolute, of the United States, then I should have no support for it, right? (using your own words)

I’m a Bible-thumper. I believe, in my own person that Christ Jesus is truly my only Savior. Without Him, I do not believe I will touch the Face of God.

Those are, whether you believe it or not, ARE absolutes. There ARE absolutes in life. My contention is that ‘moderates’ don’t want absolutes. Moderates, in my personal view, test the winds before they vote.

How about this, Jimbo, just for sake of talk. No attack here, but I ask you a question.

If in a crowd, and you get hurt, who do want? A ‘moderate’ taking a poll of calling 911 for you, or somebody like me moving immediately to save your life?

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 6:17 PM

but you could just as easily say we see the nuances more than you do.

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM

What’s that old saying, oh yeah, it’s one man’s nuance is another man’s vacillation. Take my freedom’s away slowly or take my freedom’s away rapidly in the end you have taken my freedom’s away no matter how nuanced it was.

chemman on April 26, 2010 at 6:18 PM

chemman on April 26, 2010 at 6:18 PM

And the libs will be first to whine about no one is listening to them. After we warned them all along.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 6:23 PM

If in a crowd, and you get hurt, who do want? A ‘moderate’ taking a poll of calling 911 for you, or somebody like me moving immediately to save your life?

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 6:17 PM

–What makes you think a moderate wouldn’t call immediately if I was seriously hurt?

BTW, I wouldn’t want you or anyone calling 911 because I cut my finger slightly or if I could easily walk or drive myself to a doctor’s office. Or is that position a moderate one to you, because either I’m hurt and you should call 911 or I’m not hurt and you shouldn’t.

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Go where you need to, nitpick if that works for you. I’m just too bored with liberals, and people like you, to even care about YOUR minutiae.

Die in your ignorance, since that ultimately works for you (though you’ll deny it)

I, and many others. are really quite bored with people like you. Sure, you and your others think you have a moral high ground, and that’s okay. I sought a little bit of discussion but, HEY! You have all the answers, you nitpick.

Enjoy being what YOU and others like are all about.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Jimbo3 on April 26, 2010 at 8:34 PM

You think yourself so great but, your ‘argument’ is a comical. Cut your finger???

THAT is YOUR basis of debate? LOL

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 11:01 PM

‘Moderates’ are the fence-sitters. They seem to be the ones waiting for which way the wind blows.

Liam on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I can agree w/ that definition.
A moderate is more than willing to trade a few freedoms for some perceived security.
They do it all the time.
I always get in trouble for sdtnading up for what I believe in.
It has cost me a job on one occasion & perhaps one day may cost me the one I have now.
And I am totally fine w/ that.
And many a moderate (not all) would only call 911 & not physically deliver actual assistance.
They feel that if you are not trained specially that you cannot help or perhaps they don’t want 2 dirty their hands.
{Point is really that people like this will only do what is right if it’s relatively easy.
If it requires them sticking out their neck for someone or something, forget it.

Badger40 on April 27, 2010 at 12:46 PM