Democrats revealing their true colors

Let me preface this by saying that I know that Democrats are not the only ones that participate in attack ads and mud slinging. I for one can say that if a candidate uses attack ads in their campaign, it usually steers me clear of that candidate. That being said, where do Democrats get off this year? I am currently thinking of two examples.

The first is the DNC's ad saying that the GOP has been receiving foreign money from the Chamber of Commerce.


That is a pretty serious accusation! Now if someone was walking around telling everyone that you broke the law, wouldn't you want them to either prove it or shut up? Well David Axelrod was confronted on this issue by Bob Schieffer on CBS about this accusation because The New York Times looked into the accusation and had concluded it was false. What is Axelrod's response to the question of what evidence he is basing his accusation on? See for yourself.


Yes you heard him right. When asked to backup his claim he instead says we must prove that his claim is false. So with the DNC they can make baseless accusations and people are guilty until proven innocent. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Democrats once again are doing the opposite of what is moral, decent, and spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

Second example comes from Alan Grayson. I'll just let you watch the ad first.


Holy crap! He is saying his opponent is a Taliban and that he wants women to submit to him. They even have him saying so in his own words! Daniel Webster is a terrible person right? Wait for it. Let's listen to the entire quote from Daniel Webster.


So the quote in context is Daniel Webster saying THE OPPOSITE of what he was quoted as saying in the attack ad. He says, "DON'T submit to me," but is quoted as, "...submit to me..." He says when interpreting verses from the bible don't pick the verses that say, "wives submit to your husbands" but instead pick ones that say, "cherish and love your wife even as Christ loved the church." What a terrible guy huh?

I've got a verse for Alan Grayson and the rest of you Democrats. "Thou shalt not bear false testimony against thy neighbor." Exodus 20:16

Jim Matheson is on thin ice with me.

I voted for Jim Matheson last election. I'll tell you why. First of all, yes I'm a Republican, and yes I usually vote Republican, but last election, Bill Dew was the only other option. Bill Dew I'm sure is a great guy in real life. But all I heard about Bill Dew the entire campaign season was attack ads against Jim Matheson. One thing you should know about me is that mudslinging and attack politics are one of my biggest pet peeves in politics. I HATE people who say you should vote for them just because "that other guy is evil and is going to vote the opposite of everything you believe in!" On top of that, I couldn't find one single iota of information on what Bill Dew stood for. All I knew from Bill Dew was that Jim Matheson voted for whatever policy in Congress and it was usually something you didn't care about.

That being said, I also thought Jim Matheson was a man of good character. And integrity. I haven't had reason to start worrying about him until recently. I have been so proud to know that he is one of the democrats standing up against pushing healthcare down our throats. Then of course the whole thing came out about Scott Matheson being appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and that the timing was strangely, coincidentally on the exact same day that Obama invited all the Democrats against healthcare to the White House for buttering up. I'm willing to accept that Scott Matheson deserves the appointment, but I hate the fact that none of these stupid White House people saw any kind of coincidence. Those who raised the concerns were called "absurd" and accused of "manipulat[ing] the message out there for partisan gain" and this by Matheson himself who was described as "furious". So I'm basically hearing "those people are just crazy Republicans and we should ignore them." Why would you be furious for being asked if an accusation is true or not? Its not like we are accusing you personally of taking a bribe. We are just concerned about the integrity of the White House and Obama. And rightly so. It's not a baseless accusation at ALL!

Let's make an analogy here. Your son really wants a cookie before dinner. You say no, mainly because you know that you will be in big trouble with your wife if you say yes. Your son then decides to be really obedient and helpful, including getting a cookie for you. In the midst of him getting a cookie for you and handing it to you, your wife walks in. What do you think she is going to think immediately? That your son was just trying to be nice and that him giving you a cookie was completely unrelated to the fact that HE wants a cookie? No that would be stupid. Almost as stupid as my analogy :)

Anyway, a few days ago I wrote Jim a letter letting him know that I wasn't accusing him of anything wrong but that I hoped he wouldn't let these seeming favors influence his votes and that he would continue to vote for his constituents (me). Then, I read about Jim's refusal to give back $45,000 given to him by Charlie Rangel over the years because the money had been spent during past campaign cycles. The problem I have with this?

Matheson had reported $860,000 left in his campaign bank account after his last race in 2008 and reported $1.24 million in that account at the end of 2009.

So... you must keep a very specific ledger of each individual or group that gives you money and then when you spend that exact same money. But even if that were the case, the money that he was given by Rangel is money that Rangel obtained through tax fraud. Meaning (to me at least) that Matheson is basically refusing to give back tax payer money. He is funding his campaign in part with money that should not ever have been his whether he knew at the time he got it or not. He obviously has plenty of money right now for his next campaign. I would think that at a point when his public image is somewhat in the hands of how he votes on healthcare, he might want to try and shift that negative focus to something more positive like giving back money that he doesn't technically have to give back. At this point I'm feeling more like everything I hear about Matheson is about how he received some benefit out of corruption within his party yet he is unwilling to acknowledge it. The message I'm getting is this:

Utah, my party is infected with corruption and I have benefitted many times at the hands of it. But I never participated in any of it directly so I should not be held responsible for any of it. I also should not have to give up any of the benefits I am receiving from it. After all, if a bank robber steals money and then gives me some of it later and I spend it on a new TV then shouldn't I be allowed to keep the TV? After all I didn't know he got the money by stealing it. I'm totally innocent. And if you say I should give up my TV because I bought it with dirty money then you are an absurd self righteous jerkhead. You voted for me and that means I'm allowed to do whatever I want for two years and screw you.

That's the message I'm hearing from Jim. Sorry buddy, but you are going to have to find a new job soon.