Posted on 11/03/2002 9:12:28 PM PST by Pokey78
It's not exactly that Demos have been following Marquis of Queensbury rules. Remember 1960?
Minnesota’s Senator Hubert Humphrey was a leading candidate against John Kennedy in the primaries. He didn’t have any problem identifying JFK’s major asset: “I don’t have any daddy who can pay the bills for me. I can’t afford to run around this state (West Virginia) with a little black bag and a checkbook. I don’t think elections should be bought. They’re spending with wild abandon.”
Evidence suggested Humphrey knew what he was talking about. A Baltimore Sun reporter claimed he saw votes bought. Rumors surfaced that one of Kennedy’s brothers-in-law had withdrawn all the $1 bills from a Charleston bank to buy votes. Humphrey even hired a former FBI agent to look into the matter.
The editor of the Logan Banner claimed the West Virginia primary was “one of the most corrupt elections in county history” and payoffs “ranged anywhere from $2 and a drink of whiskey to $6 and two pints of whiskey for a single vote.”
Kennedy’s forces hit back at Humphrey, suggesting he was a draft dodger during World War II. That wasn’t accurate; Humphrey had a deferment, as many fathers of three children did. When he volunteered for the Navy he failed the physical. These facts were irrelevant to JFK backer Franklin Roosevelt, Jr.: “There’s another candidate in your primary. He’s a good Democrat, but I don’t know where he was in World War II.”
Although officially “disapproving” of bringing up his opponent’s lack of military service, candidate Kennedy said that no one had contributed more to an honest discussion of the issues than his pal Roosevelt.
Robert Kennedy, his brother’s manager, asserted Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa was backing Humphrey. Hubert’s response was, “This is just cheap, low-down, gutter politics.”
The Kennedys liked tossing Hoffa’s name around. They later claimed Hoffa was backing Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson. The Texan denounced the rumors as “constant, crude efforts to smear candidates by association.” He also noted the Kennedys had “been running against Mr. Hoffa for several years now. . . the closer we get to the nomination, the hotter their breath becomes.”
Lyndon was not going to be outdone in the dirty politics department, of course. He attacked JFK's father: “I never thought Hitler was right. I was never any (Neville) Chamberlain umbrella man.” Johnson campaign chief John Connally called a press conference to announce John Kennedy was hiding the fact he suffered from Addison’s Disease.
Not wanting to miss out on the action, old war-horse Harry Truman decided to get his licks in. Charging Kennedy used unfair tactics and money to win the nomination, Mr. Truman asked: “Senator, are you certain that you are quite ready for the country, or that the country is ready for you in the role of President in January 1961?”
As I said, Demos haven't been following the Marquis of Queensbury rules for quite a while.
Democrat: In the dictionary between 'Defraud' and 'Deranged'.
ATTACK THE DNC, ATTACK THE TICKET AND THE VOTER FRAUD orchestrated by the hard core sore losers but we must reach out to the conservative dems who are fed up and ashamed of being a democrat. They have every reason to be ashamed, not of themselves but of the DEM PARTY. Invite them to join us.
Speaking of "love your enemies" my husband is a Dem. Yesterday, after church we got into an argument, he said that Republicans are "social darwinists" and I said that Democrats were theives, trying to leave all of their "charitable" acts up to the government, paid for with other people's money...and that their actions were ultimatly destructive to the very people they tried to help, pointing out the rise in the number of old folks on "social security"no longer welcomed in their children's homes, farmed out to nursing homes which are hopelessly understaffed due to the inordinate cost of insurance, a direct result of the trial lawyers that own the DNC.
When the story broke on the "compassionate" Dem postal employee trying to cut 500 jobs in Arkansas, he refused to discuss it. He got all emotional, said he hated politics and would agree to no longer vote if I would simply never bring up the subject to him again.
We live in FL. I am considering his offer. I'm looking for input, here.
The Party of Bill Clinton hard at work for THEMSELVES!!!
Good article to send off to all my family and friends .. thanks for the Ping Fracas
On the other hand, I was able to get one of his other friends hooked on O'Reilly/Fox News a few weeks ago. Another dimwit that fortunately does not vote, but at least she will discuss things rationally when confronted with the truth. Told her I'd make a Pubbie out of her yet, LOL!
As for his "Social Darwinist" comment (implying that Democrats are "charitiable"), I offer you the following bit to bounce off of him (gently!):
A Lesson On Big Government
Dinesh D'Souza
The power of coercion, which is inherent in the nature of government, fundamentally undermines the claim that the government is doing a moral thing by helping people. Let me show why this is so.
I am walking down the street, eating a sandwich, when I am approached by a hungry man. He wants to share my sandwich. Now if I give him the sandwich, I have done a good deed, and I feel good about it. The hungry man feels grateful to me, and even if he cannot repay me for my kindness, possibly he will try to help someone else when he has the chance. So this is a transaction that benefits both the giver and the receiver.
But see what happens if the government gets involved. The government takes my sandwich from me by force. Consequently, I am a reluctant giver. The government then bestows my sandwich on the hungry man. Instead of being thankful to me, however, the man feels entitled to this benefit. In other words, the involvement of the state has utterly stripped the transaction of its moral value, even though the material result is exactly the same.
Now let's keep the same scenario but change the outcome. I am approached by the hungry man, as before, but this time, instead of agreeing to share my sandwich, I refuse to do so. Along comes a third man, who pulls out a gun, points it at my head, and forces me to hand over my sandwich to him, upon which he gives it to the hungry guy. What is the moral quality of the gunman's action? I think most people would consider him an unscrupulous thug who should be apprehended and punished. Yet when the government does precisely the same thing - forcibly seizing from some in order to give to others - the liberal insists the government is acting in a just and moral manner. This is clearly not true.
Good luck...
"My mother's mother, Grandma Loy, came from downstate Illinois....Grandma thought the Democrats were, like drought and wheat rot, an inexplicable evil of nature that America had done nothing to warrant....And she wouldn't even speak the word 'Democrats' if there were children in the room. She'd say 'bastards' instead."
Uh,...F16Fighter...They are not 'Socialists' or 'Liberals' or 'Progressives' or 'Leftists' or any other such newspeak bullsh*t.
These are hardcore, unrepentant 'neo-Stalinists' and nothing but.
I get real tired of posting this, but I could really use some help down here in the language war....
In KKT's mind, she owns black votes. They owe her for being a kind political slave owner. How dare they think their vote is their vote.
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.