Classy
Brantley Hargrove says Saxby Chambliss groped his granddaughter.
Aunt B. addresses the sheer dickheadedness involved.
13 Responses to “Classy”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I’m not defending the allegation by any means, but if anybody has no right to gripe about baseless, classless attacks against his person and character, that would be Chambliss, who got elected by painting a thrice amputated war veteran as a “coward” and terrorist sympathizer.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Yeah, I was about to say the same. The attack on Chambliss is obviously ridiculous and overblown, but you reap what you sow—there are few people more deserving of such scurrilous attacks than Saxby Chambliss. Cry me a river 🙂
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Right, ‘cuz if a guy blows himself up in a routine training exercise, not only is he entitled to be Senator, no one is even allowed to run against him. Crimea River.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Two dickheads don’t make it right. They do, however, make for any Ben Stiller movie.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Xrlq:
There’s a wee bit of a difference between saying that Chambliss doesn’t have a whole lot of room to complain about baseless, classless attacks and claiming that the guy he beat deserved to keep his seat unconditionally. For all I know, Cleland could have been the worst senator in the history of senators; that wouldn’t have justified Chambliss’ low-blow attacks against him. Nothing short of actual treason and cowardice would have. That you would seemingly defend Chambliss’ attacks — and work in another gratuitous cheap shot at Cleland in the process — says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Uncle:
You’re right that two dickheads don’t make a right, but they’re not equal levels of dickhead, either. This attack comes from some obscure Nashville blogger, whereas the other attack came from Chambliss’ campaign. Big difference.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
So, level of dickheadedness is proportional to social stature and fame? That explains Tom Green.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Well, perhaps not the level of dickheadedness, but the relevance and importance is certainly different. Unless you think that there’s no difference at all between some spurious allegation that comes from some two-bit nobody, and a similar one coming from a viable candidate for senate…
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
And, by the way, I’m willing to concede that the consequences for both should be roughly the same: you don’t get to be a senator. That should apply to Hargrove as well as to Chambliss.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I never amazes me the depth the left will dive to.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
TGirsch, to call *my* response gratuitous is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle African-American. You are the one who gratuitously brought up the incident in which Cleland blew himself up, not me. I merely supplied the context needed to make your gratuitous reference to that accident not misleading.
I’ll have to plead ignorance on the merits of your attacks on Chambliss’s alleged attacks on Cleland. Give me a credible link or quote as to what exactly was said, and I’ll either condemn or defend the original statement, as warranted.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Xrlq:
You mean to tell me you had no idea about the Chambliss-Cleland dustup of 2002?
See here for a summary.
Of course, the ad itself is a Rovian classic — it doesn’t actually say the really bad stuff, it simply lets the viewer draws those conclusions. (e.g., it doesn’t directly call Cleland a coward, it just says that when he says he has courage, he’s being “misleading”).
Then again, if you consider it fair to describe the circumstances of Cleland’s injuries as “blow[ing] himself up in a routine training exercise,” then perhaps you’re not terribly well-versed in the history here.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Cleland lost the election because he was diametrically opposed to the veiws of the voters in his state who rejected him after a single term in office and not because of a campaign ad.
Saxby doesn’t impress me terrible well either but he got re-elected by a substantial majority which is more than what Max can say.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
TGirsch: of course I know about the dust-up. More specifically, I know of the liberals who, like you in this thread, disingenuously referred to the accident in a way to suggest Cleland had been injured in combat. What I didn’t remember was Chambliss having actually attacked Cleland over his war injuries, as opposed to his voting record. And the summary of the ad that you link to confirms I was right not to remember any such thing.
To his credit, Cleland himself never claimed the accident made him a hero:
The Army apparently concurred, granting no Purple Heart. Sympathy for the accident got him one more Senate term than he legitimately earned.