MD Dem Paying Drug Addicts To Support Campaign

Discussion in 'Politics' started by GotZoom, Jul 25, 2006.

  1. GotZoom
    Offline

    GotZoom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,719
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cordova, TN
    Ratings:
    +366
    Error in judgement. Right. Once you got caught. it was an error in judgement.

    -----

    Josh Rales, a Democratic candidate for Maryland's U.S. Senate seat, paid a drug-treatment center in Baltimore to drive its recovering addicts to last week's debate in College Park, where they held signs supporting his campaign.
    About 20 patients from the I Can't, We Can (ICWC) drug-treatment and counseling center in northwest Baltimore attended the debate, said Adrian Harpool, president of the 21st Century Group, a Baltimore public-relations firm hired by the Rales campaign to recruit volunteers.
    "It's not something that happens on a regular basis," Mr. Harpool said, adding that the recovering addicts were unpaid volunteers who were to help post signs but ended up holding the placards. "It was a real error in judgment on my part."
    The ICWC patients told The Washington Times that they pay about $350 a month to undergo treatment at the center and that some have criminal records, including felony convictions.
    Using recovering addicts as campaign supporters does not appear to be illegal, said a spokeswoman for the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Kelly Huff said campaigns can use their money for "pretty much any lawful purpose as long as it relates to the campaign."
    Still, Derek Walker, executive director for the Maryland Democratic Party, said the Rales campaign's volunteer-recruiting method was unusual.
    "I have not heard of it being done," Mr. Walker said. "Certainly, you get supporters to events in any way you can."
    Mr. Rales, a Bethesda real estate investor and political newcomer, has spent $2 million this month on TV ads and could spend up to $5 million of his own money running for the Senate.
    After last week's debate at the University of Maryland, Mr. Rales said he was "not familiar" with the treatment center but that he had no problem with recovering drug addicts holding the signs.
    "If I can help people who have some drug issues ... participate in the democratic process, I think that's great," he said.
    Rales campaign manager Robin Rorapaugh later said via e-mail that the recovering addicts "were recruited by one of the campaign's contractors without the knowledge of the campaign."
    ICWC founder Israel Cason, a former heroin addict who said he became drug-free in the mid-1990s, said Mr. Harpool paid the center only to rent its two vans.

    http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20060724-111915-6219r.htm
     
  2. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,901
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,789
    Without the criminal element, drug addicts, high school drop outs, the dead, and unions, the Dems wouldn't stand a chance in elections.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    Dems are scared to death of Lt Gov Steele.

    Dems know Steele is probably going to win and - gasp - be a black conservative Senator
     
  4. fuzzykitten99
    Offline

    fuzzykitten99 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,965
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    You'll have to check the Marauder's Map...
    Ratings:
    +199
    best quote for this thread is from one of my favorite movies 'Super Troopers'...


    "Despiration is a STINKY cologne..."
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    Liberals do make our job so much easier.

    http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060206&s=groopman020706
    HOW LIBERALS PLAY INTO KARL ROVE'S HANDS.
    Opposition Party
    by Steven Groopman
    Only at TNR Online | Post date 02.07.06




    This year's State of the Union came not long after Karl Rove sparked outrage among liberals by unveiling the GOP's strategy for the 2006 elections. "At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security," Rove said. "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview." I think Rove's claim is largely false, and I think his strategy is cynical. But if Rove wanted evidence that it will succeed, then he should have watched the State of the Union with me.

    I watched the speech at an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, perhaps the most high-profile liberal advocacy organization in the country. A panel of pundits--which included radio commentator Sam Seder as well as several liberal bloggers--were there to "decode, debunk, and deride" Bush's speech in real time on Air America.

    A packed house of 100 or so viewers huddled around a few plasma screen TVs to watch the address. Early on, when Bush invoked September 11, the audience let out a loud groan and snickered. Seconds later, the president mentioned "weapons of mass destruction" for the first time. A bell rang, and the audience laughed; then Bush said the words "freedom" and "terror" and bells rang again, followed by more laughter. This ritual was repeated throughout the speech whenever Bush uttered any of these words or phrases

    This made me wonder: Why the visceral reaction to these particular formulations? The speech contained plenty of lines worthy of ridicule, and Bush certainly uses his share of dishonest conservative catchphrases ("activist judges" for instance). But spreading freedom around the world is--or should be--a paramount goal of liberalism. Meanwhile, terrorism remains a real threat to America, and a source of continuing death and destruction the world over. As for "weapons of mass destruction": A fanatical regime in Iran with a history of sponsoring terrorism and a stated desire to see Israel "wiped off the map" is well on its way to having such weapons. This is not an invention of the Republican imagination; it is reality. Why, then, laugh at Bush's warning that "Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek"--get ready for that bell to ring--"weapons of mass destruction"?

    To be sure, there is a compelling argument that Bush overuses these words, or uses them to justify unwise policies. "Terror" and "weapons of mass destruction" can be invoked effectively and cynically to raise levels of public fear and alarm. And certainly Bush has, in practice, proven less than fully committed to his stated desire to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. But if liberals disagree with Bush's means, they can still remain sympathetic to his ends. Even the most vociferous critic of the Iraq war, or the most zealous opponent of domestic wiretapping, should agree that preventing terror, denying nuclear weapons to dictatorships, and opposing tyranny are worthy goals.

    And yet when Bush spoke of "writing a new chapter in the story of self-government," spectators burst into laughter. When he said, "Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change," I heard a mix of bell ringing and belly laughs. Why is the goal of promoting "political freedom" worthy of such derision?

    The point is bigger than just one gathering at a liberal organization. In the years since September 11, many liberals seem to have concluded that you're not really opposing Bush's means unless you also scorn his stated ends. That's too bad. Liberals have no chance of winning the national security debate if they dismiss its premises. I think most liberals recognize this, but some are so disgusted with the current administration that they feel compelled to oppose--and to mock--anything with Bush's name on it. And any Democrats, like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, who oppose the Bush administration yet decline to scoff at the notion that America ought to stand for the spread of human freedom are liable to be labeled weak, neoconservative, or traitorous to their own cause.

    This only stifles the possibility of a serious liberal alternative to Bush's policies. As long as Democrats are required by their base to ridicule Bush's ends rather than his means, they will have lost the debate over foreign policy before it even starts. Indeed, despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, recent polling shows that Americans still trust Republicans more than Democrats on national security.

    September 11 changed American foreign policy by raising issues like terror, weapons of mass destruction, and foreign tyranny to a level of a heightened importance. When Democratic bloggers and activists mock Bush for privileging these issues, it may please some liberals. But the person it pleases most is Karl Rove.

    Correction: This article originally misstated the order in which Bush first spoke the words "weapons of mass destruction," "freedom," and "terror" in his State of the Union address. We regret the error.

    Steven Groopman is assistant to the editor at The New Republic.
     
  6. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,901
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,789
    Good article, thats just the way rabid liberals are. They don't care if they sink their own ship to kill the Captain. Blinded by stupidity.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    The article was written by a liberal, which makes it even better.
     
  8. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    Oohwee! Those crazy Democrats are at it again! They're so different from you and me! Every single one of 'em is stoned you know. They might as well have green skin. And they abandon their children at birth, if they even get that far, because you know most of 'em abort their children because it gives them pleasure. OMG, they're always running from something called "glerbal womming" or somethin'. Whatever it is, I just pray God and the military will deliver me from it. That's another thang, all Democrats don't believe in God and they hate Jesus and have launched a secret war on Christians. Most of 'em burn Christians in effigy in their back yards alongside their aborted children. And you know they all own the media companies. All reporters hate America, except for that Hannity on Fox News. He's handsome. You know, Fox just gets it right more of the time. I don't pay no attention to all the awards CNN has won for its news coverage. I just know, in my gut, that Fox cares about me and my family. The same way I know there were WMD in Iraq. You know, I'll bet those liberal reporters who were inbedded in the military invasion of Iraq had somethin' to do with all the WMDs goin' missin'. I just know it. I just BELIEVE it in my heart of hearts.
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    You forgot to blame the vast right wing conspiracy
     
  10. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    Don't mean the vast *left* wing conspiracy? The diatribe I wrote was written in the voice of a redneck conservative, not a liberal. It's a parody of a conservative. Nice try though. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page