“And how does that make him any less “guilty” than the other candidates?”
Do what? That doesn’t even make sense.
“These charges go back to 1979 and 1983, 25 or more years ago. Whatever debt Martin owed to society, he paid a long time ago.”
That is completely irrelevant. No one who was guilty of those crimes should be associating with a candidate for president, whether they were 25 years ago or 2500 years ago.
“In contrast, three of Mitt Romney’s inner circle are under investigation and/or facing current criminal charges:”
That’s what I’m on about. Why is every pubbie candidate buddies with scumbags? I’ll bet you don’t associate with scumbags.
Your litany of pubbie moral crapitude is quite depressing. I had so hoped that Thompson would be clean.
“But none of these Republicans can hold a candle to the King and Queen of sleaze, the Clintons!”
Please, don’t say “hold a candle” and “Clinton” in the same sentence.
“Watch how the drive-by media will try to graft long legs onto this story. Much longer than the ones they gave to Garrity, Fabian and Lichfield, I’ll wager.”
Yes, exactly, and that’s why the Republicans must find and nominate a man who is sufficiently ethical and moral that he has no scumbags in his retinue.
We had a couple in a bible study, thought we knew them well, turned out one of them was cheating on the other, and they divorced.
In our church softball league, there was a church with a pastor who ended up being involved in a murder-for-hire scheme.
Last year at the end of my kid’s basketball league, the church had a presentation, and it turned out the guy they had speak was found to have been a druggie who also stole things and slept around.
Oh wait, that was the whole point — he had accepted Christ, and turned his life around, and now Christians were associating with him and he was using his life as a lesson.
I suppose that if anybody in that group runs for office, they better make sure they don’t “associate” with this man, or they’ll lose your vote.