Scott Fitzgerald once said “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” If so, Republican Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania is a certifiable genius. However, in this case, Murphy’s two opposing views have cost him his seat in Congress. Murphy, who has run on a pro-life platform in securing eight terms in Congress, has struggled to explain emails where he asked his mistress to get an abortion. He has now announced his retirement from Congress to “take personal time.” The story is credited to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Murphy drew the ire of his former mistress, Shannon Edwards, a forensic psychologist in Pittsburgh, when he posted his pro-life messages on his website. He posted the following statement:
“The United States is one of just seven countries worldwide that permits elective abortion more than halfway through pregnancy (beyond 20 weeks). It is a tragic shame that America is leading the world in discarding and disregarding the most vulnerable.”
Murphy told voters that he sponsored a bill prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions and that he hoped that “we will once again be a nation committed to honoring life from the moment of conception and ensuring American taxpayer dollars are never spent to end a life before it even begins.”
Edwards was livid and sent him a January text that read:
“And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options.”
Murphy responded with a text that made it sound like his pro-life position through the years was just so much political posturing by his staff: “I get what you say about my March for Life messages. I’ve never written them. Staff does them. I read them and winced. I told staff don’t write any more. I will.”
These communications were first disclosed in a divorce proceeding by the husband of Murphy’s mistress. Dr. Jesse Sally, a sports medicine physician, demanded to depose Murphy as part of the divorce.
Dr. Sally filed for divorce from Ms. Edwards in July 2016. Then, this past summer, his attorney filed a request with the courts to depose Mr. Murphy as part of that court action.
The statements from Murphy are in sharp contrast to his past pro-life statements that made him a favorite of the Family Research Council and secured the endorsement of LifePAC, which opposes abortion rights. He is also a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus.
In addition, the newspaper found a six-page memo to Mr. Murphy reportedly from his his chief of staff, Susan Mosychuk, who criticized Murphy for repeatedly trashing employees and maintaining a state of “terror”. If the allegations are true, Murphy is not only a hypocrite but a truly, truly horrible boss and person.
The memo was titled “Office Conduct and Behavior: Harassment/Legal Compliance,” and alleged an “ongoing and ever more pronounced pattern of sustained inappropriate behavior” by Murphy leading to “abysmal office morale.” It also detailed the difficulty in hiring or retaining people due to Murphy’s “hostile, erratic, unstable, angry, aggressive and abusive behavior.”
What is astonishing is that the memo says that Murphy had a 100 percent turnover of staff in just one year as Murphy burned through over 100 employees. The memo describes truly tyrannical behavior by Murphy and even discusses his “dangerous and erratic” behavior while reading his iPad and watching YouTube videos.
The tantrums associated with Murphy are ironic given his publications as a psychologist and an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh. He co-wrote The Angry Child: Regaining Control When Your Child Is Out of Control (2002) as well as Overcoming Passive-Aggression: How to Stop Hidden Anger from Spoiling Your Relationships, Career, and Happiness (2005).
Ya know it never fails. You can always count on a family values conservative to have a girl friend on the side. Left wing progressives want to take away your firearms, just don’t take theirs(Diane Feinstein) for example.
I don’t want to take away **all** your firearms, but limiting people to a few, for hunting and immediate self-defense, seems reasonable to me. But for someone to have dozens and dozens of guns, large-caliber guns, to have rapid-fire trigger devices, to have very large magazines, to have .50 cal sniper rifles — to what purpose?
I don’t want to take away **all** your firearms, but limiting people to a few, for hunting and immediate self-defense, seems reasonable to me.
Well, thank you very much.
Everybody please remember! Hitler took the guns, and then came WWII. Stalin took the guns, then started killing people who,put him there. And by the time he died a million deaths are attributed to Stalin. No one will willingly give up guns. You never know when you might need it to protect themselves.
If you imagine that individuals with private firearms are going to withstand the military forces of the federal government, you have been watching too many old movies.
Just when did Hitler and Stalin take anyone’s guns? The Nazis had their own private army, the Brown Shirts, with plenty of firepower. And most of the peasants in Russia were too poor to own and maintain guns.
You can always count on a family values conservative to have a girl friend on the side.
You can? Got a list? A probability assessment?
On her back, on her side, ……
As far as I can tell, Rep. Murphy also likes to redistrict to push ‘troublesome’ voters elsewhere. After sending some pointed letters regarding his stance on the NSA spying and TARP and a few other issues, I was surprised to discover that my area had been ‘redistricted’. I did not get to vote Rep. Murphy out of office. So glad he took himself out.
He can likely lobby the legislature, but the district lines are not his call (and troublesome voters have to be in someone’s district).
Is it any surprise that any of our legislators on any side of the isle can be hypocrites? None the less legislators need to do what is right for the country and despite him being a hypocrite some of his ideas on the use of federal monies for abortion might be correct.
Abortion, IMO should not have become a federal issue.
Abortion, IMO should not have become a federal issue.
Well, you can thank our awful judiciary for that.
You actually cannot avoid some federal issues re abortion. It’s properly criminalized in military law. Traveling across borders to obtain abortions is also properly criminalized. Maintaining shipboard abortuaries is properly criminalized. The use of federal insurance to pay for abortions is properly debarred. The use of out-of-state insurance to do so is properly debarred.
DSS, those responses sound more like your opinions.
Military law: Maybe the government has a right not to pay for an abortion, but I don’t know what justification the military has to prevent a woman from having an abortion. Can you tell us?
“Traveling across borders to obtain abortions is also properly criminalized. ” What is your justification behind that?
“The use of out-of-state insurance to do so is properly debarred.” Once again why?
Are you basing all of these comments on specific sections of the Constitution, the Bible, or your own morality?
Abortion is properly viewed as a common crime for reasons that are plain to everyone but progs and libertarians.
The restrictions on abortion apply only to women who cannot afford them. Women who are well off, or whose sexual partner is well off, have the means to get one. It’s only those without means who have white men in suits in various legislative bodies deciding that they can practice medicine without a license dictating that they must bear a child regardless of the personal cost. And then these same white men in suits cut funds for medical care, education, school lunches, etc. for those same children. Hypocrisy!
The restrictions on abortion apply only to women who cannot afford them. Women who are well off, or whose sexual partner is well off, have the means to get one. I
If they’re willing to break the law and can go undetected, they may. That’s true of anyone willing to break the law. Your point is what, that we abolish penal codes?
It’s only those without means who have white men in suits in various legislative bodies deciding that they can practice medicine without a license
Statutes criminalizing abortion reflect moral norms. They’re a ‘medical’ decision only in the minds of the obtuse.
dictating that they must bear a child regardless of the personal cost.
No one’s right to life bows to ‘costs’. In any case, the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience.
And then these same white men in suits cut funds for medical care, education, school lunches, etc. for those same children. Hypocrisy!
No one’s right to life is contingent on subsidies for school lunches either (which are almost wholly unnecessary as we speak).
Those with the means can always get what they want. If the law is against them and it’s important to them, they can go where it’s legal. They have options.
Those with the means can always get what they want.
Betty, none of us are compelled to pay attention to your social fantasies. Go ask Conrad Black, once upon a time a man with means, if he got what he wanted.
What you said is absolutely correct, bk. Texas has done a much as as any state has to deny poor women access to abortion.This has impacted poor women in rural areas and small towns but not wealthy women in Dallas. They have options in the city and if they did not they could always fly to New York or Chicago.
Texas has done a much as as any state has to deny poor women access to abortion.
They care about the lives of poor children. You don’t.
Sure that is why they deny them healthcare.
You can’t tell the difference between social reality and your talking points, because dope.
You wrong again.
That is your opinion and not based upon fact or the Constitution.Even many concervatives won’t agree with you, but you will create whatever classifications you desire without dealing with the legal implications. You (as I have said over and over again and will probably say many times in the future) exist in a black and white world where gray is near non existent.
Allan, moral and ethical judgments are not ‘based on fact’. They can draw on factual information, but they are not ‘facts’. There is no constitutional provision which truncates the discretion of Congress in composing penal codes applicable to military service or the high seas or the territorial waters. You could complain that Congress does not have the discretion to criminalize travel across frontiers for immoral purposes but that would hardly be one’s first priority in complaining about excess Congressional exercise of discretion.
You (as I have said over and over again and will probably say many times in the future) exist in a black and white world where gray is near non existent.
That’s pretty funny.
It’s obvious DSS that you base much of your arguments on your personal views and personal morality. That is great for a person who lives in a country of one person whose laws are based upon personal whims and not a Constitution. That explains your response to my question “Are you basing all of these comments on specific sections of the Constitution, the Bible, or your own morality?” I guess I left out your pesonal whims as an answer to the question.
It’s obvious DSS that you base much of your arguments on your personal views and personal morality.
You fancy you and the others are doing something other than that?
A bunch of us at least try and tie our views in with the law and the Constitution. That is a step you have decided not to take.
Kookoo fantasyland. It’s not viewed as a common crime, rather, it’s merely viewed as birth control. Next.
this is to “wrong again” toady
Someone should do a welfare check on bam-bam. She may have hurt herself while twisting herself into pretzels while defending the marital status of the good congressman.
Perhaps, when you get a chance to leave the dayroom and the institution’s free computers, a lesson in reading comprehension may be of assistance to you? It takes great imagination and a delusional mind to read into what I wrote and allege that I was defending the marital status of the congressman. I claimed no such defense, no matter what the voices in your head repeatedly tell you. I simply stated that this politician, like all politicians who came before him and will, undoubtedly, come after him, happened to act and behave in a manner that was contrary to his stated beliefs and values. It doesn’t justify the behavior; it merely sheds light on a very common and unfortunate practice. Is it good? Is it proper? Is it right? No, no and no. Is it common? Yes. Does it occur across party lines? Yes. Also, I noted what I perceived as the disproportionate amount of blame and responsibility being leveled at one individual, involved in a clandestine affair. It’s 2017; this guy may be a hypocrite, as are all politicians, but I don’t find his behavior any more or less repugnant than the woman with whom he was involved. In a time when we have been forced to acknowledge that individuals can be any gender that they wish, despite the one assigned at birth, or forced to accept individuals who choose to claim a racial identity which, in reality, doesn’t exist, and forced to accept that individuals of the same sex can declare their marriages to be as sacrosanct as the one of my grandparents, it seems quite Puritanical, in 2017, to suddenly start to toss about antiquainted words like, affair and mistress. Suddenly, we have all reverted back to some long gone semblance of morals and convictions? Too funny. Pretty easy to comprehend, well, that is, if you are capable of reading. Suppose that rules you out.
Murphy didn’t resign. He wants to stay in Congress until his term is up; then he will not run again. Turley is not a reliable reporter.
Just a reminder : children are a good thing.
Clearly, there are some children you haven’t met.
Always good to see you here, Riesling.
You too, Nick!
The memo was titled “Office Conduct and Behavior: Harassment/Legal Compliance,” and alleged an “ongoing and ever more pronounced pattern of sustained inappropriate behavior” by Murphy leading to “abysmal office morale.” It also detailed the difficulty in hiring or retaining people due to Murphy’s “hostile, erratic, unstable, angry, aggressive and abusive behavior.” What is astonishing is that the memo says that Murphy had a 100 percent turnover of staff in just one year as Murphy burned through over 100 employees. The memo describes truly tyrannical behavior by Murphy and even discusses his “dangerous and erratic” behavior while reading his iPad and watching YouTube videos.
Did you catch what Murphy’s profession was before entering Congress? Clinical psychologist.
It’s really no surprise that a Republican member of Congress regards his constituents as marks and plays shell games with them. That’s common if not bog standard among Capitol Hill Republicans. We elect ’em and they engage in failure theatre for the next two years (while fellating Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce).
SOT – why do you think I have been an Independent for the last 40 years?
Step, Superb comment.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” If so, Republican Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania is a certifiable genius.
His Chief-of-Staff would disagree: Murphy is not only a hypocrite but a truly, truly horrible boss and person.
This guy needs a psych eval. He’s Dr. Jekyll to his constituents and Mr. Hyde to everyone else.
Lying, Lust and Murder.
Wow.
And I didn’t even get to the dictator-anger part.
I still want to know more about the IPAD-YouTube thing???
John 3:19-21(KJV)
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Come to think of it, this guy is reminiscent of men in “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
We want small government, that’s why the government should force women to remain pregnant.
Anyway, here’s some Carlin:
https://youtu.be/AvF1Q3UidWM
Does this small govt. include removing PP and the govt. funded baby killing? Then sign me up. And before you jump all over me, I am for choice, I just wish moms would choose to not kill.
Others wish that Presidents and the military would choose not to kill and displace millions of people around the world.
I understand where you’re coming from Chris and that is another topic for debate. I guess I view it like this, I’m not in favor of war, which most people would agree. But, if a group of people came to my house threatening me and family, I would have to bear arms and protect the family. It is not lost on me though that our current conflicts are not as black and white as that and thus there is and should be debate on our current affairs.
Pacifists come in three varieties: Mennonite-Amish, who are not afraid to die; Quaker and Brethren, who are congenial but haven’t a serious thought in their head; and your type, who are intellectual and moral frauds.
Little do you know: just Making Stuff Up.
No, I’m giving Chris, who fancies he’s Jeremiah but who is really a puerile scold who has no conception of the actual choices policy-makers face in this world, a frank assessment of what his judgments are worth. I’ll give it to you too, when I’m in a mood to pick on an invalid.
Not sure what desiring a small government has to do with being pregnant…. ???
Removing PP from the govt funding makes for a smaller govt. and a lot less genocide.
In that case, would you favor banning foreign travel by young women, in case they are going abroad to get an abortion?
Only if the govt. was paying for the trip otherwise, they can do what they want. Why only young women?
Because old women can’t get pregnant …..
Jay S – women into their 60s have gotten pregnant, although not many.
No, they haven’t. They’ve contracted with perverted physicians to manufacture fertility contra nature. Women who get pregnant past the age of 48 are circus-freak rare. At age 38, an ordinary woman has (for all practical purposes) 1 baby left in her absent the use of fertility drugs and other paraphenalia. The most fecund woman I’ve ever known face-to-face had her last baby (her 10th) at age 37.
You’re *must resist impulse to insult* incorrect. Lots of women have babies at 39 and 40. But what’s the relevance anyway?
Lots of women have 1 baby after the age of 38, not multiple children absent synthetic enhancements. Getting pregnant past 40 is a gift. You shouldn’t expect it to happen to you.
Procuring an abortion abroad is properly a criminal offense in both state and federal law. If our legal profession were something other than gross and indecent, it would be.
So, how would you stop this “criminal offense”? Mandatory pregnancy testing at all airports? Mandatory monthly pregnancy testing by law enforcement? Spot pregnancy tests by the state police, along our highways? Mandatory chastity belts?
So, how would you stop this “criminal offense”?
With the same tools you use to contain any crime that isn’t obtrusive. Start with mandatory reporting requirements by physicians. Start with hotlines. You put up with the child protective service just fine, the family courts just fine.
Before being legalized abortions were taking place all over. A lot of young girls died from having an illegal abortion performed under poor conditions. Some knew how to pretend and with a blind eye some physicians ended up coming to their aid recognizing that the abortion would be done one way or the other and that the girls life was at risk.
(I am not advancing a moral opinion on the subject)
You can impose reporting requirements on physicians in (say), Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, Europe, ….. ?
He outed the craven hypocrisy of conservatives better than anyone. He should have lived forever.
the craven hypocrisy of conservatives
What’s interesting about you is that you’ve gotten through life with no conception of personal agency and no conception of probability and no rough-and-ready understanding of human frailties. From what group home do you make these posts?
I would have to agree with Modern Miner and RSA, he should switch parties and run as a Democrat. Situational ethics is their modus.
Nah, you can keep him.
Dave137 – I have been an Independent for over 40 years. I do not want him. 😉
:::high-five:::
LOL. GOP and their enablers can’t take responsibility for anything. He’s GOP no matter how much you feebly try to pretend otherwise.
What am I supposed to ‘take responsibility for’? I’m an ordinary voter. I’ve never heard of this guy? Do you ever give anything a moments thought before you open your trap?
Ah well, a politician is a hypocrite. This is news?
And a shrink needs a shrink. Also, not news.
The article describes the woman, with whom Murphy was allegedly involved–Edwards–as his MISTRESS; however, there is no mention, whatsoever, of Murphy ever being a married man at the time of this relationship. So, if he wasn’t a married man at the time of this dalliance, wouldn’t that make the brilliant and lucky woman, who chose to discuss her sexual indiscretions and potential abortion via, of all methods, a text, simply his GIRLFRIEND, as opposed to, his MISTRESS? According to this article, SHE was the one who was, allegedly, married at the time of this rendezvous. If that is, in fact, the case, wouldn’t that make Murphy her paramour, or does it just sound better to call Edwards, his mistress? Interesting how an article, in 2017, seeks to heap blame on the Representative, alone, for being hypocritical, among other things, yet the MARRIED woman, who is legally, morally and ethically bound, to another, escapes all blame or responsibility for the activity. Yes, I am aware that she was not an elected official. I get that, but it takes two to tango, folks. Why is only party singled out as the wrongdoer? Equal rights also mean equal blame. . .equal responsibility and equal accountability, regardless of gender. I suppose that despite it being 2017, we are not as enlightened as we pretend to be in our perceptions.
Should’ve been, why is only one party singled out as the wrongdoer. . .
Don’t follow the shiny ball under the couch. The issue is the slimebag’s hypocrisy regarding abortion; nothing more. I understand your confusion though, non-stop Pravda Faux News probably has you confused.
this is to “but Hannity “proved” Hillary did it” bammie
I more than comprehend the hypocrisy, Marky Mark. So, he acted outside of the parameters of his professed convictions. . .and. . .? Your heroine, Crooked Hillary, does the same, as do all of the politicians. Shall we discuss Wild Bill and his multitude of sexual assault and rape charges, all while he declares himself to be one who believes in all that is good and pure? I find all politicians, of every stripe, to be disingenuous and hypocritical. What I don’t comprehend is the slant, of the article, which puts all blame squarely on the shoulders of this one individual. He didn’t act alone. Plenty of blame to go around, and Edwards is supposed to be some sort of a psychologist. Does her behavior jive with what mental health counselors advocate? Hypocrtitical behavior, obvious, abounds. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your a$$ once in a while, you would get the drift.
as do all of the politicians.
No, not all. But plenty do. To some extent, having principles you don’t quite live up to is human normal. However, the vast majority of men seem to be able to get through late middle age without screw*** women half their age and most woman don’t seduce married men who are contemporaries of their father. These are sleazy people.
Bam Bam, I read the link. There is a sentence in the article in which Murphy states his concern for his own marriage in consequence of the affair with Edwards. Murphy has a grown daughter with a child of her own. If Murphy’s wife Nan is the mother of their grown daughter, it seems reasonable to assume that Murphy was married at the time of his affair with Edwards.
Bam Bam, the sentence at issue is near the end of the article and easy to miss. Here it is:
In the Nov. 27th email with Ms. Edwards, Murphy described his marriage as troubled.
There’s another sentence in the article in which Murphy says the affair with Edwards began when his daughter when away to college.
Murphy described his marriage as troubled.
He was banging a married woman about the same age as his daughter. That’s trouble.
Diane – it appears that one or both of them is an adulterer and one is a hypocrite. I don’t get the mistress part. At most, it seems to be a mutual affair. I think JT needs to get out more or read the National Enquirer. He would start understanding these things. 🙂
By some accounts, his wife’s name is Nannette Missig Murphy and they have two children, Bevin and Tim. These four do show up as affiliated in a White Pages search, though mistaken identity would be common with someone named “Timothy Murphy”.
There are a number of Bevin Murphys listed on LinkedIn, but none seem to have a Pittsburgh connection.
I guess it doesn’t take moral turpitude to be elected to Congress.
Oops. I meant fortitude!
A perfectly understandable Sleudian frip under the circumstances, Mr. Benson.
We could all save ourselves a lot of confusion, endless discussions of morality, and constant bickering and debating about abortion and “right to life” arguments if we would simply adopt the definition of a human being as provided in the Internal Revenue Code. (“IRC”). The IRC law provides a very clear and undeniable line for when a fertilized entity within the womb may be designated a human being. The line is the actual birth of the child. Until the entity is actually born, the IRC does not recognize the entity as a human being. And, of course, no tax deduction may be taken until the the entity has been born as a child and has been officially registered with the state by being assigned a social security number. We should all adopt the wisdom of the the founding fathers of the IRC.
Not an SSN but a birth certificate.
Otherwise I agree.
Ralph, I disagree with IRC definition. Once the fetus has developed enough to be viable outside of the mother’s uterus, the fetus has acquired . . . in effect . . . squatter’s rights and cannot be evicted from the premises unless it poses a substantial risk to the life or health of the mother. It’s a property dispute.
Diane – considering the baby had no part in his conception, he/she is hardly a squatter. However, I would agree that at ALL times the baby has rights and needs to be assigned an attorney to work on its behalf. If it does not agree with the abortion, then no abortion. In this country, it is a citizen and you are exterminating a citizen. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires you to have a SS or bc to be a citizen.
Paul, squatter is an odd choice of words, for sure. But it fits well with the property right. And property has to be owned to the exclusion of all others. The fetus cannot own its own life to exclusion of all others [namely, the mother] until it has developed enough to be viable outside of the mother’s uterus. That’s when the fetus acquires a property right of its own. That the State could regulate abortion in the third trimester, with the provided exceptions, is what makes the property right of the fetus analogous to squatter’s rights. No matter how off-putting it sounds, abortion is a property dispute.
Just go to the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”
Dave137, The 14Th Amendment is fine, but I prefer the 13th Amendment in re property rights.
The IRS is your gold standard? The same IRS that targeted one party? The same IRS that can’t even interpret their own rules? As a woman, I know when that life is a growing child. I certainly don’t need the IRS to tell me.
What the IRS was targeting was blatantly political organizations seeking tax-exempt status under the category for charitable (not political) organizations. It just so happened that most of the organizations pursuing this scheme had Republican connections.
And, “as a women, I know when that life is a growing child,” are you agreeable to having men decide this for you?
What the IRS was targeting was blatantly political organizations seeking tax-exempt status under the category for charitable (not political) organizations. It just so happened that most of the organizations pursuing this scheme had Republican connections.
Yeah, that’s why the IRS was playing hide the ball (even with their own inspector-general) and Lois Lerner took the 5th.
As far as progtrash are concerned, rules apply to others. You want that fine. Be prepared to be hit hard and high.
The law was (and is) that partisan organizations of any kind are not entitled to 501(c)4 tax exempt status, which is reserved for “social welfare” organizations. There is no ball to hide.
Most men are wrong when they opine about pregnancy. They do not have the natural instinct to understand it, neither the correct type of hormones. They are full of beliefs learnt at Sunday school but the men who wrote those beliefs knew even less about the female organism. And lived in a patriarchal society. The exception are the male physicians.
Most of the men that make decisions about pregnancy and are pro-life have probably search and paid for Doctor to perform an abortion, for a lover or whatever name you want to give to “the other woman”
The pity is that the pro-life elected officials forget quite fast that those babies grow up and need schooling, food, shelter and clothing. For this attitude a nun called them not pro-life but pro-birth. I agree, once the baby is born it is somebody else problem.
I disagree. It isn’t the pro life faction that is comprised of women with seven kids demanding the government pay her.
Most men are wrong when they opine about pregnancy. They do not have the natural instinct to understand it,
If you’re attempting to persuade the broader public that no one should ever take you seriously, you’re succeeding.
Thus proving once again that if one is a U.S. Citizen, at least twenty-five years in age and has a pulse they are sufficiently qualified to become a member of Congress. It is also such an organization where the British and American definitions of Sleaze converge and both accurately describe manifest properties thereof.
Representatives such as this are poster children for term limits, especially when it seems not a single Congress serves without having at least a few members arrested, caught up in a sex scandal, or egregiously commit some form of corruption or malfeasance.
Unfortunately we collectively have only ourselves to blame for continuing to elect miscreants such as this man and in many respects we get the politicians we deserve. The most unfortunate aspect comes when informed voters try through the ballot to oust charlatan politicians such as he only to be diminished by other voters easily persuaded to vote otherwise. The informed tend to suffer the most damage from wayward rulers.
I agree that we get the government we deserve, good and hard.
Why did he resign? He should have just switched political parties.
In case you haven’t noticed, the overwhelming majority of pro-life activists are Republicans. Pro-life-ism is woven into the heart of the current Republican platform.
So….. this clod is simply a world-class hypocrite. And, evidently, a heck of a slimeball when it comes to office management.
Jay S – he certainly is not going to have enough employees left to vote him Boss of the Year. 🙂
And he’s one of the more sane and normal members of Congress. In fact, this makes him well qualified.
Did you read about his 100% staff turnover in a year and crazy behavior? He belongs in the White House.
enigma – CBS or MSNBC is perfect for this guy. 😉 CNN is a fall- back.
I’d have said never Fox, but they kept Charles Payne.