Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pete Stark: Raving lunatic/Michelle Malkin rips into foul-mouthed leftist congressman
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, July 23, 2003 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on 07/23/2003 12:20:29 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark, D-Calif., is the foul-mouthed poster boy for Liberal Double Standards.

There he was on Capitol Hill last week, sounding more like Eminem than an eminent lawmaker, hurling epithets such as "fruitcake" and "c--ks----r" at Republicans during a mark-up session on pension funds legislation of all things.

Most of the mainstream media coverage of the fracas has focused on the handling of the meeting by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, who is accused by Democrats of summoning Capitol Hill police to the scene in order to prevent the minority from meeting in a committee library to discuss procedural objections.

But while Beltway types squabble about whether Thomas was technically out of order, Stark's blatantly thuggish behavior has once again gotten a pass from the establishment Left.

According to an official committee transcript, Stark physically taunted fellow Ways and Means Committee member Scott McInnis, R-Colo., while Thomas attempted to hold a voice vote on the bill at hand. In response to McInnis' demand that Thomas be quiet while the bill was being read, Stark blurted out: "Oh, you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you.''

Further goading McInnis, a married Republican gentleman, Stark lashed out: "You little fruitcake. You little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake." According to Fox News Channel, witnesses say Stark then hurled a 10-letter homophobic insult at Thomas better suited for an anti-gay rap record than the Congressional Record. Stark's press office refused to answer my questions on the record about these remarks.

Homosexual-rights groups, whose fax machines and phone lines would have been on fire had the comments been made by any prominent conservative, shrugged at Stark's remarks. "I think he meant nothing by it," Human Rights Campaign official Winnie Stachelberg told Fox News. In his own defense, Stark claims "fruitcake means inept, crazy, a nut cake to me."

No word on what liberally construed definition Stark cites for "c--ks----r."

And no word of protest from magazine writers at the Advocate, who went ballistic when "antigay" Texas Rangers baseball player John Rocker called a couple of restaurant patrons who were harassing him last summer "fruitcakes."

The silence over Stark is no surprise. Liberals have long looked the other way at Stark's bigoted boorishness over the course of his three decades in public office. In 1995, when he called Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., a "whore" for the insurance industry and suggested that her knowledge of health care came solely from "pillow talk" with her physician husband, not a single Democrat objected. Not one of the proud feminists on Capitol Hill signed a letter, supported by 35 Republican House members, demanding that Stark apologize.

Nor did the Congressional Black Caucus emit a peep when Stark lambasted former Bush I Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan, an accomplished doctor and medical researcher, as "a disgrace to his race and his profession" because he opposed Stark's socialist health care schemes. "I guess I should feel ashamed because Congressman Stark thinks I am not a 'good Negro,"' Sullivan observed after the 1990 incident. "As a Cabinet member who has spent almost four decades of my life dedicated to healing, ... [I] am unable to express my own views without being subject to race-based criticism by those who are not ready to accept independent thinking by a black man."

Then there was the time Stark attacked former conservative California state welfare director Eloise Anderson in 1999 as a baby-killer, complaining at a public forum that she would "kill children if she had her way" simply because she opposed cradle-to-grave government welfare entitlements. Not a single finger-wagging editorial from the media elite about the need for decorum and decent behavior in public debate appeared in either the California or national op-ed pages.

The lesson couldn't be more stark: Only the self-anointed preachers of tolerance and civility on the Left can have their fruitcake and eat it, too.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fruitcake; michellemalkin; pensions; petestart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: JohnHuang2
"No word on what liberally construed definition Stark cites for "c--ks----r."

That does it, no Democrat refers to a Republican as an intern and gets away with it!

21 posted on 07/23/2003 10:01:07 AM PDT by 100%FEDUP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Anybody got a picture of him?

Sounds to me like this vicious little punk needs to threaten somebody on the Hill who will actually take him up on his challenge.

This guy is the same type of "all talk but no action", boorish, loud-mouthed, vulgar, punk-a@@, little b!tch that is your average liberal male. Same type that made up the "Anti-War" rallies with their "masks" and hoods - any show of force and the rat-like, cowardly vermin flee.

22 posted on 07/23/2003 10:01:46 AM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry; MeeknMing
RE: your request as per post #22.

I don't, but I'm pinging MnM --- he's the best!

23 posted on 07/23/2003 10:05:36 AM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
I would have thought that Stark supported abortion...

He does. He just opposes killing them after they're born.

More precisely, he only opposes killing them after they're completely born.

Pete's House speech opposing the partial birth abortion ban

24 posted on 07/23/2003 10:08:16 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
The Constitution was not ratified -by- the states. It was ratified in special conventions called -in- the states. The framers knew that the sovereignty of the new government had to rest on the whole people, and so it does.

?!?!?!?! WTF?!?!?!?!

I guess happy hour has started at the Walt household. The Constitution was not ratified by the states? Then why does Article VII of the document state that nine states are needed to ratify? Why were states kept in the first place, instead of removing the boundaries and making us all one people, instead of Virginians, New Yorkers, Georgians, etc.? You've had some whoppers on these threads, but this is indefensible!

25 posted on 07/23/2003 10:08:27 AM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry

26 posted on 07/23/2003 10:09:03 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
THAT'S HIM?!?!

Oh, excuse me while I go into the other room and laugh myself silly!

THAT's Fortney?!?!

OH! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Sorry, I'm wiping the tears from my eyes!

Oh, how I would love to have been a Congressman who was in that meeting and have this smarmy, wimpy looking old, leftist punk challenge me!

OH MAN! I'm still laughing to the point of tears....

27 posted on 07/23/2003 10:12:53 AM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
Don't let the wimpish demeanor mislead you. He's a hectoring, snotty, abusive clown.

What he really needs is for somebody to beat the living snot out of him -- it's the only way to communicate with his kind.

28 posted on 07/23/2003 10:15:00 AM PDT by Cincinatus (Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Like I said, let me be a Congressman on the Hill in a committee meeting and have this loud-mouthed punk challenge me or threaten me.

I'd be happy to step outside with him and see if he was man enough to follow through on his big talk.

All it would take would be for him to take one swing at me, just one...

29 posted on 07/23/2003 10:19:16 AM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
See, then you would have fallen into his trap. "Look at the mean Republican beating up on a weak old man."
30 posted on 07/23/2003 10:29:09 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Oh no...he would take the first swing....and I'd make sure there were plenty of "R" witnesses present. Maybe a Fox News Channel reporter or two, too.

Still, I'd not hesitate to get right into this smarmy, loud-mouthed punks face right back at him, and goad him into taking a swing.

I hate his type, and I'd stand up to him immediately. The Republicans are fools for allowing this moron into any committee, any meeting, or even having any further dealigns with him. They should tell the DemoNAZIS that if they want to particpate, if they want to "deal" then Starky boy goes. No committee positions.

The Republicans need to put this abusive bullying punk in his place.

31 posted on 07/23/2003 10:35:05 AM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
"The Republicans need to put this abusive bullying punk in his place."

I'll buy that.
32 posted on 07/23/2003 11:01:00 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Im Your Huckleberry; yall
Hey, thanks Onyx !!

I see someone posted a pic of Pete Stark already, but here's another one anyway:

Found on THIS Google Image Search .


33 posted on 07/23/2003 11:08:42 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
Unless he was born with that honker, it looks like he's been punched in the nose more than once!
34 posted on 07/23/2003 11:19:35 AM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Thanks Meek, you ARE thee best!
35 posted on 07/23/2003 11:20:22 AM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: onyx
My pleasure. You're so kind, thanks !!

36 posted on 07/23/2003 11:31:02 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
I hope you're right. But to put things in perspective, the cumulative audience of the big 3 news networks garners 28 Million viewers a day. FR has about 100,000 members. The largest Internet news websites are all liberal- MSNBC (which syndicates Newsweek and WashingtonPost- both of which are awfully biased) then CNN at the top. It seems that we've got our foot in the door, but have our work cut out for us to pry the door open.
37 posted on 07/23/2003 12:42:32 PM PDT by jagrmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac
The notion of a monolithic "big business" lobby has been debunked eons ago- it's a mystery why it keeps rearing its head. A simple review of Common Cause documents from 2000 reveals that Democrats and Republicans earned roughly an equivalent amount of soft money dollars- so to extrapolate that there exists a "big business" monolith with a set agenda that favors one party or another is simply a myth. Look at Daschle's push for big ethanol subsidies to understand why agribusiness might want to fund Dems at the same level if not more so than Republicans- it just depends on industry, but by and large they want to grease the wheels of BOTH parties.

The answer to your question is a complicated one but at the base of it, people who want to become wealthy (most Republians) don't become journalists, teachers, or take the rare shot of making it big in Hollywood. There is a self-selection of people in that go into these industries and they favor those with liberal biases and inclinations. There is no conspiracy about it, it's simply a phenomenon that can be explained by human nature.
38 posted on 07/23/2003 12:47:43 PM PDT by jagrmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lelio
I was thinking 'casksoaker.' You know, they people who soaked new barrels so the wood staves would swell up and make a watertight seal. Stark must have meant McInnis was retaining water.
39 posted on 07/23/2003 3:00:02 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
My God, I would love to go one on one with this old fart.
40 posted on 07/23/2003 3:15:48 PM PDT by Dead Dog (There are no minority rights in a democracy. 51% get's 49%'s stuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson