« Leave My Coffee Alone | Home | If a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words… »
Wictory Wednesday
By Matt Margolis | December 3, 2003
George Soros is the only billionaire the Democrats can rely on to raise unprecedented amounts of soft money, right?
Wrong!
Meet Peter Lewis. Lewis, the heir to the Progressive Insurance fortune, is a billionaire. While Soros is a publicity-hungry egomaniac who’s using his prodigious donations to gain notoriety, Lewis is a true believer who doesn’t much care for the publicity. Lewis has kept his political donations to a minimum in the past; but the fact that he’s getting older seems to have convinced him to donate tens of millions of dollars to ultra-liberal extremist groups like MoveOn.org. Lewis’ donations could ultimately turn out to be much larger than Soros’. When you’re 70 years old, you realize you can’t take it all with you.
We can fight back! Republicans have built up a mammoth database of hundreds of thousands of small individual donors. Cumulatively, these donors can go toe-to-toe with the richest limousine liberals Democrats can find.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.
If you’ve already donated and volunteered for the Bush campaign, then talk to your friends and enlist them in this battle for America’s very soul.
If you’re a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And do e-mail the PoliPundit at wictory@blogsforbush.com so that he can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:
Content from Blogs for Bush.
Topics: Bush 2004 |
Related Posts:
December 3rd, 2003 at 1:47 pm
Matt– again with the hyperbole…as if the Janklow conspiracy wasn’t enough you stretch reality to its limits with your statement, “ultra-liberal extremist groups like MoveOn.org”.
Have you ever been to MoveOn.org? Or are you just repeating what you heard on Rush or O’Reilly? Please, instead of resorting to name calling, why don’t you try to explain how MoveOn is ultra-liberal and extremist?
December 3rd, 2003 at 3:33 pm
Well Cole, considering how Moveon asked us all to move on concerning President Clinton sexual issues, but had a major change of heart when a republican ran for governor shows… oh I don’t know… at least a tinnie tiny leftward bent. (Clinton was in office, should be slaped on the wrist, and remain in office. Arnold should never be elected and thrown in jail. Ahhh but in both cases it’s just sex right?)
On another note. I love how the GOP is the party of the rich and all the fat cat businesses and the donks are the party of the people. Right Cole? Except *single* hyper wealth donors are giving to the donks. In the cases of businesses at least *many* stakeholders are making the decisions for the business giving to the GOP. So who is actually the party of the people?
December 3rd, 2003 at 4:03 pm
Nice try, Cannon- but no cigar. You people hate the details, don’t you.
Regardless of what you think of him, Clinton was involved in consensual sex. Arnold was involved in non-consensual sex. There is a huge difference. Just so you know what that difference is… Arnold’s “sex” being non-consensual(if you can really call it that) was AGAINST THE LAW. Nothing about Clinton’s sexual act violated the law. In short, Arnold is a molester, albeit of adult women, and he has admitted this.
Secondly, MoveOn was advocating the position that Clinton did not deserve to be impeached for lying about that sex. Coincidentally, Arnold Schwarzenegger (your prized example) agreed with this by saying that he was “ashamed” to be a Republican during the impeachment.
So Arnold argeed with MoveOn.
Your point was … what?
December 3rd, 2003 at 5:12 pm
The question wasn’t as much if Clinton committed adultry, as it was: Did Clinton perjure himelf (lie under oath)?
December 3rd, 2003 at 5:26 pm
Jaws — read my post carefully.
“MoveOn was advocating the position that Clinton did not deserve to be impeached for lying about that sex.”
Arnold agreed that Clinton did not deserve to be impeached for potentially perjuring himself.
So your point is… what?
December 3rd, 2003 at 5:26 pm
Jaws — read my post carefully.
“MoveOn was advocating the position that Clinton did not deserve to be impeached for lying about that sex.”
Arnold agreed that Clinton did not deserve to be impeached for potentially perjuring himself.
So your point is… what?
December 3rd, 2003 at 5:27 pm
There’s a difference between lying about sex, and lying under oath.
December 3rd, 2003 at 5:28 pm
Perjury is not a reason for impeachment???????
Have you gone mad?
Clinton was a lying, adulterer sack of shit who squashed the military and sat back and let terro attacks happen.
fuck clinton… he’s a piece of shit.
December 3rd, 2003 at 5:32 pm
Matt- what is the difference in this case? He lied about sex under oath.
There is however a difference between lying about sex under oath and grabbing the genitalia of women on multiple occaisions without their consent. Its called sexual assault.
And again… is Arnold a ultra liberal extremist? He agreed with MoveOn.
December 3rd, 2003 at 5:37 pm
I guess breaking the law isn’t a crime to “Cole Whitaker”
December 3rd, 2003 at 5:43 pm
No jackass– perjury is not a high crime. If it was Reagan and Bush would have been impeached from Iran-Contra. Remember that one… people actually DIED because of that.
December 3rd, 2003 at 6:37 pm
People died because Bill Clinton was a lousy Commander-In-Chief who chose not to defend this country against terrorism.
December 4th, 2003 at 1:35 am
Cole, *all* of Clinton’s sex acts were consentual? Ok tell that to Broderick. Ahhh but it is Clinton so we’ll let a little rape slide.
Concerning Iran-Contra. Perjury has been proven? (as in a guilty plea) Or admitted to? Clinton has admitted he committed perjury.
—
Besides there were 2 points. The second was about the money. How can donks claim to be the party of the people when their main source of funding are wealthy *individuals*? Donks claim that the GOP is in the back pocket of business. However businesses represent many different interests called stakeholders. (The stakeholder concept comes not only from management and econ on the right but business ethics on the left.)
So which party is being hijacked by a few extremists? hmmm…
December 4th, 2003 at 11:35 am
Hmmmm, Paula Jones didn’t ask for Clinton to drop trou in the hotel when he was her boss. That’s sexual harassment, and it’s certainly actionable. After all, that is why Clinton gave a deposition (under oath), the one in which he perjured himself.
Juanita Broaddrick did not ask to be raped by Clinton. That was totally non-consensual. There’s no way to spin that.
It is true that the Jones trial was dismissed due to lack of evidence, but the same could be said of Reagan’s and G.H.W. Bush’s involvement in Iran/Contra. We’ll drop Paula Jones when the left shuts up regarding presidential malfeasance in that issue. We’ll drop Whitewater when the left stops lying about Bush’s TANG record. We’ll stop questioning the left’s true loyalties on the war when they stop calling any criticism of their position “McCarthyism”.
MoveOn’s double standard is astonishing.
December 6th, 2003 at 12:52 am
Let’s put it this way, Cole.
Would you trust Klintoon being alone in a room with your daughter/wife/girlfriend?
December 7th, 2003 at 10:12 am
Hmmmm, no reply from Mr. Whittaker and it’s been days. That speaks volumes in itself.
December 7th, 2003 at 11:41 am
Well liberals do have a short attention span (after all they can only debate in jingos… “bush lied=people died” and “it was all about the oil”) so maybe his only two brain cells just misfired and he was distracted. Ya never can tell.
December 9th, 2003 at 6:02 pm
Or maybe he doesn’t have time to read days old blog forum posts. Because unlike us, he has a life.
Seriously people. He says, it’s not contradictory for MoveOn.org to be against impeaching people for lying about sex, but for impeaching people for sexual harassing people. It may be wrong, it may not be, but it’s clearly not contradictory.
Everything else you’ve been saying is basically “Clinton is a bad man! I don’t like Clinton!”
But you can’t impeach someone for being a bad man/president, you can only impeach people for being criminals.
December 9th, 2003 at 9:50 pm
No Emmett you Impeach for breaking the law. Oh but that’s right perjury is not breaking the law. Silly me.
December 13th, 2003 at 8:03 pm
Clinton so famously said:
“I never had sex with that woman”
Clinton never did. She did…service him a few times, but that’s not sex. At least not if you look it up in a dicitonary. So technicaly speaking it’s not even perjury. Yes, it’s twisting words. But that doesn’t matter - if the prosecutor wants to force the defendant to answer about all sexual acts, then he should ask.