Democratic Tactics: Car Wrecks, Exploiting Soldiers, and Blackmail
Posted by Adam Graham in : General PoliticsCourtesy of Captain’s Quarters, I found this blog which tried to desperately rally the Filibuster which was crushed by a 72-25 margin.
They celebrated some good news:
Four up, one down, one big fracking sissy: Republican Senator John Ensign in car accident, unable to attend cloture vote — that’s effectively one more for our side!
UPDATE: The author of the Post, posted below that the Big Fracking Sissy comment referred to Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Cn.) not the injured Senator Ensign. However, the Sentence Construction shown above is exactly as it was written on the blog, so it appears that they may need to work on communicating clearly.
Wow, that’s the Democrat’s key plan for victory. Make sure enough Republicnas in car wrecks and then celebrating afterwards.
The author of the blog understood that 61 votes were required to stop a Filibuster. So, they just preferred Democrats not show up for the vote, instead they had an alternate plan:
SECOND, call the “URGE ABSTENTION” Senators identified immediately below and do the same — say that you hope they vote NO on cloture this afternoon but if they can’t, urge them to ABSTAIN from the cloture vote by doing something good that most Republicans would never do, like visiting wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Hospital instead.
Yeah, show up at Walter Reed and say to a soldier, “Hello, son, I’m here to visit you to avoid taking political flack back home.”
The grateful soldiers will then curse the Senators out. Indeed, using our injured soldiers as props is an awful tactic, particularly when its meant to avoid going on the record. To use a Military Term, the author is basically suggesting these Senators Section 8 themselves out of the vote. Again, I’d suggest a Section 8 would be appropriate for anyone listening to this advice.
However, this is minor league stuff compared to what Michael Rogers is up to at Blog Active(warning: Not for Children) in which he tries to blackmail a Republican Senator in a post to the Senator (Hat Tip: Red State), Rogers write:
Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects of any other you have cast in your Senate career.
Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don’t do in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.
How does this blog decide who to report on? It’s simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*.
When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own…it’s the least you could do.
Ladies and gentlemen, this person is trying to subvert the Senate of the United States. What’s being attempted is the corruption of our government at the highest levels. The threat strikes at the very heart of our republican institutions of government.
Indeed, the left calls Republicans mean-spirited, what do you call this? The attempts to unleash the politics of personal destruction on a member of the United States Senate for failing to fall lock, stock, and barrel with the radical homosexual agenda.
Subversion, blackmail, and deceit is all that’s left to the unhinged left.
As seen on Myopic Zeal and Wonkette, Paging John Sayles, Florida Masochist, National Journal’s Blogometer
Linked to:
Basil’s Blog, Jo’s Cafe, Don Surber,
![SaveForMike.com [Grassroots]](http://www.christianevents.co.uk/saveformiketicker.png "SaveForMike.com")
Comment by Mike in Seattle [Visitor]
Why is it blackmail to out a closeted senator but patriotic to fire a gay soldier? Just wondering.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Lets see, one is blackmail because it involves threatening someone in order to achieve a desire vote (in this case a vote against Alito.) Firing the solider involves enforcing a policy meant to insure the military cohesion.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
Does anyone know anything about this so called “outing “. What is to prevent these people from simply making up stories that have no basis in fact ? You can claim you heard a second hand or thrid hand story from anyone .
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
I’d tend to believe it. If its not true and they don’t have the goods on anyone. This isn’t much of a threat.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
You would ? You forget who you are dealing with . Remember the singer Moby ? He suggested making up false claims and spreading them on right wing blogs.
Here is the comment .
Punk the prez? Moby’s anti-Bush tricks
One of Sen. John Kerry’s celebrity supporters is ready to pull out all the stops to get him elected. Republicans are shrieking over a suggestion by rocker Moby that Democrats spread gossip about President Bush on the Internet.
“No one’s talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day,” Moby tells us. “It’s a lot easier than you think and it doesn’t cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes.”
Moby suggests that it’s possible to seed doubt among Bush’s far-right supporters on the Web.
“You target his natural constituencies,” says the Grammy-nominated techno-wizard. “For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
As this is targeted at a random GOP Senator, that doesn’t seem to be applicable.
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]
Adam, did you trackback yourself???????
Comment by Sam [Visitor]
and you’re just as bad by stereotyping an entire group of people by the actions of one person. I am gay. I don’t approve of his actions and I am disgusted by the whole thing.
Comment by Thersites [Visitor]
I’ve got no problem with you taking a position contrary to mine — God bless America! — and the fact that you completely miss the point of abstainers visiting Walter Reed — to protect themselves, not from legitimate criticism but from Swiftboating — I’m willing to just call a difference of opinion. The Walter Reed thing wasn’t my idea, anyway.
But you really should have done your homework on VichyDems’ take on John Ensign’s car accident. That was, mathematically, one for our side. But I didn’t glory in it, and the “big fracking sissy” I referred to was Lieberman, not Ensign (you should like that!).
If you’d read a little more, you’d also have read this:
The Republicans are down to 54 Party votes, with John Ensign in a car accident (not seriously injured, thankfully, but unable to attend).
Disagree with us. But don’t make us out to be monsters, and we won’t do it to you, either. We just see things differently.
Warmest personal regards,
Thersites
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Yes, I TBed myself, so people can read the latest post.
Comment by Thersites [Visitor]
Re: “sentence construction”: try printing the entire paragraph in your blog, instead of just two sentences pulled from the middle of it, and see how differently it reads. But that asks for intellectual honesty…
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
The first sentence reads, “Big Recent Developments.” That doesn’t really change the content of the Sentence.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
I never said all of any group are like this, unless you identify yourself as an “unhinged leftist”.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Adam: I think she thought you meant *all* leftists are unhinged, in which case she would have a point. And btw, unhinged leftist could be taken that way legitmately.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
No, that’s why I designated the “unhinged” left as opposed to the whole left. BTW, why are you signed in under me?