nice catch Rob (0.00 / 0)

---

by: soapbox @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 21:26:56 PM UTC

I have finally figured out what the Tim Cahill Theme Song is (0.00 / 0)

Karma Chameleon.  It's perfect.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 21:34:06 PM UTC

All Things to All People? (0.00 / 0)

Cahill?  Really, Rob?

Don't you mean Baker, who says one thing to the Globe and other things to conservatives?

Cahill has consistently taken positions that are unpopular with the public and media - see calling out Deval for meeting with Muslims and his comments on Health Care, for two examples.

What has Baker done to show that he is not "all things to all people"?  Gee, he wants to cut taxes?  There's a controversial position!

He's the Milquetoast Candidate.

Tim's position on abortion is entirely consistent with what was on his website and his questionairre.  He is pro-choice, but not a liberal activist on the issue.

---

by: Brent041 @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 21:45:10 PM UTC

How soon... (0.00 / 0)

before this blurb disappears from the Tim Cahill for Governor web site, too?  

http://www.timforgovernor.com/...

Same Sex Marriage
I have been and will continue to be a supporter of same sex marriage.
I believe that civil marriage is a fundamental right, and that your constitutional rights do not begin or end based on your sexual orientation.

Whenever the MA Family Institute decides to endorse, I guess...


Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. - H. L. Mencken

---

by: MiracleGirl @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 22:59:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amazing though (5.00 / 1)

Cahill can say all that . . . .

I have been and will continue to be a supporter of same sex marriage.
I believe that civil marriage is a fundamental right, and that your constitutional rights do not begin or end based on your sexual orientation.

And STILL be to the right of Baker.
 

"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 13:40:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What % of the public RU referring to? (0.00 / 0)

Brent U Said
"--Cahill has consistently taken positions that are unpopular with the public and media - see calling out Deval for meeting with Muslims and his comments on Health Care, for two examples."--

Yes quite daring.. In a who here likes ice cream kind of way.

C'mon Brent those 2 positions are popular with well over 60% of the voting public & didn't take any political daring at all.

This latest decision to court the pro life vote is just more ammo for those who think Cahill is really just a straw dog trying to cut into Charlie Baker's support as a favor for Dah-val.

"When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness."
                    Alexis de Tocqueville

---

by: bobbyg @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 16:59:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

In liberal Massachusetts, calling out the Governor for meeting with Muslims and using the phrase "playing politics with terrorism" was a popular position?

It was so popular that religious leaders of three different faiths - who usually can't agree on anything - joined forces to condemn him.

In liberal Massachusetts, going on Glenn Beck and Fox News to criticize Obamacare before it was enacted was "popular with 60% of the voting public"??  Really?  Can you back up that assertion?

What were Charlie Baker's positions on these "popular" issues?

---

by: Brent041 @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 17:21:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I stand by it (0.00 / 0)

Yup even in this Progressive Petry Dish we call the Bay State all it took was cocktail onions to take a stand on those 2 issues.
& Obviously Baker would like Mitt to support him, so I don't anticipate him being to harsh on Romneycare.

As for the condemnation from leaders of 3 faiths,re: Mr. Cahill not swallowing the "Islam is a religion of Peace" placebo.

When friends of mine were practicing destructive behavior my mother used to be fond of this saying about them jumping off of a bridge.

C'MON Brent I'll bet you didn't even have a str8 face whn U typed that whopper.    

"When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness."
                    Alexis de Tocqueville

---

by: bobbyg @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 17:55:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scott Brown won (2.50 / 2)

because he was running as #41 to stop Obamacare. So not 60%, but 54%. Who'd Tim vote for? Did I miss his endorsement of Brown? THAT would've taken political courage as a career Democrat turned Independent. THAT would've shown how serious he thought the issue is. If he came out on Beck's show and said, "Obamacare will bankrupt America like Massachusetts' plan is bankrupting my home state and that's why I endorse Scott Brown for US Senate." that would show some stones. Talking about how bad it will be was something everyone already knew. That's why 60% nationally were against it. And that's why 54% of Massachusetts voters voted for Brown.

Why is President Obama's Justice Dept. running guns to Mexican drug cartels, and possibly MS-13 too?

Karl (TLC)Weld

---

by: TLCWeld @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 18:34:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nicely done blogmaster EaBo!!! Nicely done! (0.00 / 0)

If you disagree with me you are a racist homophobe.

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 23:50:41 PM UTC

OK (5.00 / 2)

There is no inconsistency whatsoever between Tim Cahill's endorsement of a woman's basic right to choose abortion and his recognition of the same woman's interest in knowing what she is doing. Abortion is usually an elective medical procedure in which is the provider stands to make money if the patient chooses to go through with it. The patient has to deal with LT consequences. The doctor says: "Next."

Now I know that even after 50 million abortions, you upper middle class RINOS are appalled to even CONSIDER that a DOCTOR would be influenced by crass pecuniary considerations. Nevertheless, there is an objective conflict of interest between the doctor's position and the patient's, in every elective procedure. That's why, when you go to get your boobs done, the doctor is obligated to give you information regarding the risks of the procedure.

Just like a breast augmentation, abortion is usually a casual medical procedure which is performed in order to enhance the patient's perceived quality of life. It's not usually a life and death matter. Therefore, it stands to reason that the same limitations on the basic right of choice that apply to a breast augmentation should apply to an abortion.

Would anyone want their child to be able to get a pair of DDs without parental notice? Would anyone want a doctor to be able to give someone a rhinoplasty without an explanaton of the risks involved? Of course not. Therefore, Tim Cahill's support for reasonable safeguards to insure that abortions are undertaken with fair consideration of the ramifications is perfectly consistent with his May 10, 2010 position that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare."

The same Tim Cahill that called out Boston Muslims leaders for failing to come forward in time to prevent the would be Times Square bomber; who used his elected position as Massachusetts Treasurer to speak with experience to the perils of Obamacare BEFORE it passed, apparently wanst to call doctors to account for what they do to 14 and 16 year old "women" behind closed doors. And you have the nerve to impugn his courage. That is grossly unjust.

I quit contributing to this site when I saw the BIAS of the contributors. Cahill walks on water, and you guys say he can't swim; but to call a man a like this a "chameleon" when he has the print of more than one freight train on his face just this year; I can't let it pass.

You know what this guy is? Cahill? He's a big, dumb, Irish lug that would give you the shirt off his back, and who doesn't have the sense to come in out of the rain. It's too bad that the "better people" in this Commonwealth always choose the effetes over guys like this. The last time a guy like this left the democratic party and got past the establishment republicans who guard the door from the unwashed Irish, he made it to the White House and actually did some good. By the time you RINO establishment types recognized him, inflation was defeated and the Berlin wall was torn to the ground.  

Who would you rather have beside you in a dark alley? Baker? Shit.  

---

by: Victor Majewski @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:20:19 AM UTC

Jump Roping Sharks (0.00 / 0)

To compare Tim Cahill with either Ronald Reagan or Jesus Christ is to make me want to laugh until I puke up my breakfast.

The only similarities to the aforementioned is that Reagan left the Democrats & that if Cahill could walk on water it would be due to the polluted nature of Boston Harbor.

Sorry, Reagan was a man of learned principle whereas Cahill is a crass political opportunist.  No comparison.

Congratulations to Cahill for getting the MCFL endorsement.  Are Baker & Tisei to the left of me on life issues?  Yes, I've never claimed otherwise.  Did I expect MCFL to endorse them, no not really.  Did I expect MCFL to endorse Tim Cahill?  Absolutely not!  I would have preferred, and despite Cahill's questionnaire response, I believe that the evidence of a lifetime shows that a more proper action would've perhaps been no endorsement whatsoever.  I generally value the endorsements of MCFL but in this matter with the chamelon endorsement all I can say is:

In regards to doctors making money sorry but adding sillicone is not equal to slaughtering innocent life.  Furthermore:

The classic rendition of the Hippocratic Oath:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

The original Greek translated into English:

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Finally, if you prefer Latin, primum non nocere -"First, do no harm."

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:19:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uh, Dude (0.00 / 0)

Can't you see it? Cahill is an Irish Catholic. He personally disfavors abortion. He probably thinks it's a sin. He is also sworn to respect the principle of separation of powers, under which the Supreme Court of the United States has taken the question whether abortion is lawful out of the hands elected officials. So, he has taken a pragmatic, concessionary pro-choice position which encourages full disclosure and thereby tends to promote unborn life.

The analogy to breast augmentation surgery is a argumentum a fortiori: Everybody agrees that cosmetic surgery is lawful. Nevertheless, providers of such services are expected to do so within a framework of ethical limitation. Similarly, abortion services should be subject to regulation. And that's how I read Cahill's position. You can vote for whomever you want: My carp with you is that it's simply specious to call Cahill a "chameleon" on this point.  

---

by: Victor Majewski @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 20:20:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nancy Pelosi (0.00 / 0)

is according to herself, a good practicing Italian Catholic.  She favors partial birth abortion.  

Unless the Irish are more Catholic than the Italians your argument makes no sense.  

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 21:22:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pop The Balloon (0.00 / 0)

Sir:

The claim at the head of this string is that Tim Cahill's May 10, 2010 "safe, legal and rare" position is inconsistent with support for laws which tend to discourage abortion in the name of safety and informed consent. The string attacks Cahill for changing his position on abortion in a manner inconsistent with his "safe, legal and rare" position in order to garner the endorsement of Massachusetts for Life.  

My point is that there is no inconsistency in Cahill's "safe, legal and rare" position and his support for laws that tend to discourage abortion in the name of safety and informed consent.

If I had argued: "Catholics always oppose abortion. Therefore, Cahill opposes abortion;" then your reference to Speaker Pelosi would have been a cogent attack on my major premise: "Catholics always oppose abortion." However, that was simply not my argument. Your rebuttal is fallacious and invalid as a logical matter, and your conclusion that my argument "makes no sense" is off the mark because you rebuttal is directed away from the thesis of my argument. That's a technical way of saying: "You're throwing chaff in order to confuse people."

---

by: Victor Majewski @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 07:58:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No victor (0.00 / 0)

It slams Cahill for being sleazy and REMOVING the abortion language and ONLY the abortion language from his website.  If the two positions are consistent why did he remove the position from his website, and only the abortion position?

That's the crux of this post.  Thanks for playing though.  The missing position in the title refers to the position now missing from his website.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 11:08:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also victor (0.00 / 0)

if you were not trying to infer that Catholics oppose abortion why use the Irish Catholic descriptor?

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 11:35:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is my last try (0.00 / 0)

You are correct: I absolutely WAS implying that Catholics generally disfavor abortion and that Cahill's position in favor of laws that tend to discourage abortion may be an outworking of his Catholic roots. However, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of that statement in my argument. Cahill's catholicism may or may not play a role in his political support for laws that tend to make abortions "safe," and "rare." That's just speculation on my part and your rejoinder is beside the point of what I am saying. I have stated what I am trying to say in simple, noninflammatory language, twice now, and you can refer to that language above. If you don't understand me, let me know; maybe it's my fault. But the sense I get is that you have some emotional or financial interest in opposing Cahill. Therefore, my suspicion is that you are feigning confusion in order to obfuscate my argument and confuse other people. If I am wrong about that, please forgive me.  

---

by: Victor Majewski @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 21:16:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This isn't odd (5.00 / 1)

I've actually expected this might happen for a while.  Let's say for the sake of argument that Baker and Cahill are essentially the same on abortion.  The difference between Loscocco and Tisei is night and day.  Loscocco is openly pro-life and Tisei is a NARAL donor.  We already knew what the most Pro-Life ticket was.

Besides, Cahill appears to be the only candidate for Governor who even wants the MCFL endorsement.  Cahill's assertion to Pro-Life voters is that he is the best candidate on our issues.  That assertion is completely uncontested by any other candidate.  Unless another candidate claims to be more pro-life we have to assume Cahill's assertion is true.  Like Scott Brown in the US Senate race, Tim Cahill is both "Pro-Choice" and the most Pro-Life option available.

Yes, Tim Cahill doesn't have a voting record.  That's true.  However, neither does Charlie Baker.  If we use this as the standard to measure Tim Cahill on abortion, shouldn't we also use it as the standard to measure all the candidates on all the issues?

Bob Hedlund for Minority Leader.

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:02:40 AM UTC

Im starting to question your loyalty (0.00 / 0)

Mike, i know we had it out quite a bit before the convention but after the convention you stuck to your word and supported the party's candidate and i give you a lot of credit and respect for that, but more recently all your posts seem to be pro-cahill anti-baker are you the new Joe Sheehan. Why do you continue to attack our candidate and post pro cahill pieces??  

---

by: UncleSam1 @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:25:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

UncleSam1 (0.00 / 0)

This post is fair game. It's news. We talk about the news here at RMG.  I assure you Mike is still on board with Baker. Questioning his loyalty isn't gonna help.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:39:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the post was not the problem (0.00 / 0)

I agree the post about Cahills endorsement was needed, and should be posted, i am commenting on Mikes later posts within the feed, i do not have an issue with any of the articles mike has posted, but do question his comments in the feeds following, where he continues to attack both Baker and Tisei. It isnt putting news out there or just putting the facts out there when you continue to call the highest ranking republican in the state a liberal, or bash our candidate for governor for having socially moderate views

---

by: UncleSam1 @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 12:18:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If The Shoe Fits... (0.00 / 0)

The highest ranking Republican in the state said that he was "to the left" of Obama on social issues!

This shouldn't subject him to criticism among true conservatives??

---

by: Brent041 @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 13:12:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so of course (0.00 / 0)

The thing for those "true conservatives" to do is support a lifelong liberal hack from Quincy.  Nice logic tree Brent

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 14:23:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So you agree with UncleSam... (0.00 / 0)

That Baker is above criticism from people like Rossettie?  That was the point of my post.  Nowhere did I mention Cahill.

Slightly off topic, why do you feel the need to add "from Quincy" after "liberal hack"?  If Cahill were from, say, Swampscott or Wakefield, would that make a difference?

---

by: Brent041 @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 14:46:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hacks live in.. (0.00 / 0)

Swampscott and Wakefield, but not as many! Actually only kidding, I think. I didn't understand the harsh response to teh Quincy comment.  

"Never, never, never give up" - Winston Churchill

---

by: David Whelan @ Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 00:05:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW, Rob... (0.00 / 0)

I found it pretty informative the other day when our mutual friend South Shore Republican called out UncleSam1 for posting under multiple usernames.

Is this true?  If so, what's the point?

Does he just like...agreeing...with himself all the time?

---

by: Brent041 @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 14:50:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

? (0.00 / 0)

I believe it was Charlie who said that, not Richard, unless you dont understand that Richard is the Highest ranking Republican State official (Brown is a federal official)  

---

by: UncleSam1 @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 13:26:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm still voting for Baker (0.00 / 0)

I'm just being intellectually honest.  This story is the news of the day and the Republican ticket simply isn't the most pro-life ticket running.  The MCFL endorsement is news and should be posted here.  Failing to do so would me an omission.  Yes, I am personally very pro-life.  I thought the post I wrote was pretty objective.  I didn't even mention Charlie Baker much less attack him.

More over, Charlie Baker isn't trying to be the most pro-life candidate.  The campaign isn't campaigning as the most pro-life campaign.  If Charlie Baker was interviewed in the media he would assure people that he is pro-choice.  To pretend otherwise obviously isn't what the Baker campaign wants.  It would be off message.

Bob Hedlund for Minority Leader.

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 13:57:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In support of Mike (5.00 / 1)

Voters who plan to select a candidate based ONLY on their position re: abortion should probably support Cahill-Loscocco.

But there are plenty of pro-life voters who, like me, are choosing to leave that issue off the table for this specific election, recognizing that

1. all three gubernatorial candidates are pro-choice,

2. Cahill-Loscocco's poll numbers and financial situation suggest they are not serious contenders so a vote for them would be a waste, and  

3. the Governor has much more influence over issues such as the bloated state payroll, taxes, education, and the unions' control of state policy and projects than he does over abortion, and on those matters Baker is the most conservative candidate by far.    

Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. - H. L. Mencken

---

by: MiracleGirl @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 14:03:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So Baker continues to just give away conservative votes (social cons, pro-lifers etc.)... (0.00 / 0)

And you still think he can win?

Even if those groups (that is, people who vote exclusively on those issues) are only 5% - and I think it would be hard to argue its less than that - Baker cannot win a three-way race without that block of voters.  This is true even if those voters just sit out the race, but it's especially true if some or most of them go to Cahill.

In a three-way race with an incumbent Democrat and a former Democrat-turned-Independent, did you really expect the Republican to win in a landslide (i.e., more than 10% ahead of the second place candidate)? That was never going to happen.  It's going to be an extremely close race.

Which is why, starting with the Tisei pick, Baker's continuing and ongoing strategy to alienate social conservatives may be looked upon in hindsight as his campaign's fatal flaw.

And don't think the Fabulous Baker Boys don't know this.

Disparage Cahill-Loscocco all you want, but they are in a better position to win this race than Baker-Tisei.

---

by: Brent041 @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 14:41:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did YOU really think... (0.00 / 0)

Tim Cahill, who is PRO-ABORTION and PRO-GAY MARRIAGE would get away with masquerading as a social con?

Nobody's buying it-- and imho, the people who support that ticket are just USING "social consevatism" as the pretext  to cover the REAL reason they're supporting him, which is that Cahill is a HACK, and as Governor he would continue doing what he does best as Treasurer-- protect the HACKERAMA.

You guys think you'll get away with shamelessly exploiting voters who are gullible enough to buy this notion that Cahill is a conservative crusader. But too many of us know what he is, what he realy stands for-- corruption, pay-to-play, packing the state payroll with his friends and family, enabling his underlings to get away with downloading PORNOGRAPHY on the Commonwealth's time, crashing taxpayer-funded computers, and then signing confidentiality agreements to cover their butts...

And were it not for polls indicating the Cahill campaign is continuing its downward spiral, I would encourage those who are pro-life and socially conservative (and sick of watching Cahill attempt to use those issues for his self-aggrandizing agenda) to work as hard as we possibly can to expose what a FRAUD Cahill is...but it looks like his campaign's financial ineptitude is rendering him irrelevant anyway.  

Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. - H. L. Mencken

---

by: MiracleGirl @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 16:06:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So... (0.00 / 0)

You're voting republican?  

---

by: Victor Majewski @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 20:30:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cahill isn't the last poll we are going to see switching positions on abortion (0.00 / 0)

Abortion nationally is now about 50/50 for and against. It's been trending slowly pro-life in the last decade.

Technology is driving the change. These days a lot of families, when they have a wanted pregnancy get vivid 3d ultrasounds of their babies, and circulate them to their friends and extended family.

When people see just how developed abortable babies are that changes people's minds about the ethics of abortion on demand.

As the public changes we are going to see more and more politicians claim they were never really pro-choice after all.

It's true that Cahill is a political opportunist and I'm not surprised to see him among the first to see an oppotunity and jump on it.

I don't think its fair to say Cahill is a long time Democrat. I don't think he has a really party affiliation. He just goes with whatever is most expedient at the time.

Massachusetts Election 2010

We dig up the dirt so you don't have to.

---

by: MassElection @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:22:02 AM UTC

Cahill did not switch positions on abortion n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Brent041 @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 13:17:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then why was the abortion section (0.00 / 0)

the only issues section removed from his website.  That certainly gives the impression he did, no?

Face it Brent.  Tim is being true to his image as a slimy politician that will do and say anything to get elected. But what would one expect from a guy that is, "not trying to pass myself off as a reformer or good government guy"?

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 13:24:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As you cited, Rob... (0.00 / 0)

Cahill's website stated:

I believe in and support a women's right to choose. I also believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Is there anything in the questionairre that leads you to believe his position has changed from the above quote?

---

by: Brent041 @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 13:27:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He just forgets (0.00 / 0)

I have come to the conclusion that Tim Cahill, isnt Flip Flipping he simply forgets... he forgets that he had the first Ad... He forgets that he has been a huge part of the problem and not the solution on beacon hill and he forgets he supported abortion before he opposed it....

---

by: UncleSam1 @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:29:34 PM UTC

Cahill's motto "all things to all people" (0.00 / 1)

Cahill is another Brian "multiple choice" Joyce.

Joyce, as a State rep, was a favorite of the MCFL crowd. I even heard him described as an "up and comer in the pro-life movement".

As we all know, Joyce sold out completely and is now a favorite of the Cultural Left.

Cahill is trying to match Joyce's opportunism.

---

by: kingsmill @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 19:15:26 PM UTC

Didn't MCFL also endorse Brown? (5.00 / 1)

Let's face it, Brown is in a much more influential position.  He'll presumably be voting to put another pro-abortion justice on the Court.  Makes little sense to have seen nothing wrong with that endorsement but to be outraged by this one.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 11:46:37 AM UTC

MCFL Should Abstain .. (0.00 / 0)

To have any credibility, a single issue organization that is opposed by all of the candidates has no grounds to endorse any of them. I suppose there is some logic to doing so but this action IMO borders on absurd.

---

by: nomad943 @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 12:24:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For the record (0.00 / 0)

I'm not outraged that this organization endorsed Cahill. I'm just surprised that an organization with the mission of ending abortion would endorse any pro choice candidate for anything. And that Brown is in a much more influential position only makes that endorsement even more surprising. As you said, he will most likely vote for a pro choice leftist to sit on the Supreme Court(!), the same vote that Marsha would've cast. So what good did their endorsement do for the pro life cause in that case?

And since I would never vote solely on this issue alone I don't follow who these guys endorse so I had no idea they endorsed Brown. If I did, I would've commented on the inconsistency of their endorsement then too.

Why is President Obama's Justice Dept. running guns to Mexican drug cartels, and possibly MS-13 too?

Karl (TLC)Weld

---

by: TLCWeld @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 12:43:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

mmmright (0.00 / 0)

And since I would never vote solely on this issue alone I don't follow who these guys endorse so I had no idea they endorsed Brown. If I did, I would've commented on the inconsistency of their endorsement then too.

Alot of that has been going around lately.  Must be something in the RMG water.  

"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 15:42:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what happened to the pop tart ad (5.00 / 1)

I actually went out and bought pop tarts to see if buttering the bottom actually did add deliciousness...and like always RRRR- you where right. Buttering the bottom side of a pop tart does in fact add to the deliciousness!

Matthew P. Carleo, Yobgoblin

---

by: mcarleo @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 16:15:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That reminds me Matt (0.00 / 0)

What happened to the first negative ad of the campaign. You know the one where Tim attacked Charlie.  

Tim has a history of removing things that aren't beneficial to him.  

Kind of makes you wonder. What else has he removed that we haven't caught.

Thanks

Rob Eno

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 16:46:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To start, the (D) after his name (4.00 / 4)

Personally, I like that fact that Tim doesn't go around the state insulting social conservatives.

Eno, how does it feel to not have your moral cudgel. Can't toss around that "I'm pro-life - Cahill murders babies" garbage anymore. I'm telling you, a lot of conservatives are going to wake up and realize Charlie "The Emperor" Baker has no clothes.  

Matthew P. Carleo, Yobgoblin

---

by: mcarleo @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 17:38:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He was asked a direct question (2.50 / 4)

He gave a direct answer. He also said that he's a big tent kind of guy, and that he has openly supported socially conservative candidates, which he has.

At least he's consistent.

Tim, not so much.  Whichever way the winds blow is where you'll find Cap'n Tim and the SS Hack.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 20:56:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

when you consider (5.00 / 1)

Obama to your right on social issues it shouldn't be that hard.

Matthew P. Carleo, Yobgoblin

---

by: mcarleo @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 17:38:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

free camouflage patterns (0.00 / 0)

free camouflage patterns

free camouflage patterns

free camouflage patterns  

---

by: pandawill @ Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 02:38:35 AM UTC