Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Connolly Finally Blinks

By Greg L | 6 March 2010 | Gerry Connolly | 22 Comments

Keith Fimian and RPV kept up a steady barrage of criticism against Gerry Connolly for accepting money from the scandal-ridden Charlie Rangel, forcing Connolly to cast off $9,000 from his campaign fund lest his close association with Rangel become a campaign issue.  Once again, Connolly is reacting to Keith Fimian who has been on his case continuously, leveling an unrelenting barrage of criticism against Connolly’s behavior and his voting record.

Good work, Keith.  Keep it up!



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

22 Comments

  1. Freedom said on 6 Mar 2010 at 12:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    I E-Mailed Connolly, asking him how it felt to be holding onto “tainted” Rangle money. I also asked him if he (Connolly) knew how to operate a lawn mower; I’m beginning to tire of mowing my own grass.

  2. Silent Knight said on 6 Mar 2010 at 2:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, just curious. Will you be holding Republicans to the same standard?

  3. Greg L said on 6 Mar 2010 at 4:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yes. Any Republicans who have accepted campaign contributions from Charlie Rangel should immediately donate them to charity.

    I think they ought to resign as well.

  4. Rocky said on 6 Mar 2010 at 5:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    I love it! Hold his feet to the fire Keith.

  5. Red, White and Blue said on 6 Mar 2010 at 5:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Silent Knight:

    Everyone should be held to the same standard. Many politicos have been dirty over the years but we continue down the slippery slope of re-electing them - democrat and republican. Rangel’s has been under strong suspicion for a long time and finally it appears that his peers are abandoning him. As for republicans, Nixon resigned, Agnew resigned but Clinton didn’t have sex and he swears he didn’t lie under oath. He basically got a pass twice (finishing both his terms and still is a regular good ole boy for the dems. Nixon and Agnew were finished - and resigned before any trials) especially when the impeachment fell on its face. There is a double standard. Other republicans have been burned at the stake for off the wall comments while democrats get a free pass time and again. Pelosi called tea party folks akin to Nazis. No they are Americans exercising their rights. Yet Pelosi demands an apology and possible censorship of Joe Wilson for saying “You lie”. That is a clear double standard. She can say what she wants but he cannot.

    If you are an advocate against the present health care bill, you may be labeled a racist, an extremist or a person that may be watched for possible terrorist activities. Yes, there is a double standard. Oops, I forgot that our troops are also under suspicion for their service for possible future terrorist recruitment.

    Murtha, God rest his soul, verbally and viciously attacked our Marines and called them murderers, he was re-elected. He never apologized even when they were all exonerated and commended for a job well done.

    John Kerry called many Vietnam Vets crazed killers, torturers and body defilers in his congressional testimony in the 70s. He never apologized despite his obvious lies. He was rewarded by being elected to the Senate - many times and nearly getting the Presidency. Yes, there is a double standard.

    I have taken that oath they all take, several times. If you violate the oath, some punishment should come of it. An example is Ronald Reagan firing all those air traffic controllers in 1981 for going on strike. They were not fired for going on strike, they were fired with violating their OATH not to go on strike.

    Oh yes, there certainly is a double standard. We, the People, are held to that standard they, the elected and the parties have their own with the media going along with the party they favor for the most part which leads to reinforcement of that double standard in the manner they see fit.

    All that said I hope Charlie Rangel’s is run out of town; not going to happen though.

  6. babe said on 7 Mar 2010 at 1:37 am:
    Flag comment

    When a skunk like Connolly feels enough heat to dump his dirty Rangel money, something good is happening. Fimian has Connolly on the run. You go Keith!

  7. Silent Knight said on 7 Mar 2010 at 12:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, your response was a bit too clever. I just want to know the ground rules here. I gather you consider money from Rangel to be “tainted” money, so Connolly should have returned it. Will you consider money from any other source to any other politician, regardless of party affiliatioin, regardless of level of government, (fed, state, local), to be “tainted” if the donor or donee is under suspicion of unethical conduct either to get the money or in the recipient’s use of the money? I ask because I’m trying to figure out if you are an objective blogger or a party operative.

  8. Greg L said on 7 Mar 2010 at 1:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    My response is about as clever as the question. But more seriously, when there’s proof that money is tainted (not simply allegations), I believe we should call on any politician of any party to forfeit those contributions.

  9. Freedom said on 7 Mar 2010 at 4:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Silent Knight, I LOVE your reference to “suspicion.” Suspicion, in and of itself doesn’t mean a lot. I could “suspect” you, but what does THAT prove? Nothing! Rangle was admonished by the Democrat controlled Ethics Committee…a step beyond “suspicion” Oh, and by the way, Rangle’s tax issue is yet to come. I quite “suspect” that he knowingly filed an inaccurate/incomplete tax return…but that’s an issue of “more to come.” Of course, Nancy Pelosi will excuse it since it’s “not an issue of National security.”

    Silent Knight, you need to find another horse to ride. :(

  10. Silent Knight said on 7 Mar 2010 at 4:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Very happy to read your reply Greg. Would you care to define what does and what does not qualify as “tainted money”?

  11. Greg L said on 7 Mar 2010 at 5:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Since you seem to have a point to make, how about you take a stab at it. I’d be interested to get your take here.

  12. Silent Knight said on 7 Mar 2010 at 7:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    No point. Just want to understand your position on what constitutes “tainted money”. There’s a lot of money floating around in politics and I’m just hoping to understand where your lines are for what’s ethical and what isn’t.

  13. Red, White and Blue said on 7 Mar 2010 at 9:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Silent Knight:

    You seem to want to hold Greg to some type of standard, I gave mine but you chose to ignore it. Nice job trying to dodge a bullet or “tainted money”. Dirty politicians are dirty but some get a free ride and some get the hammer. Can you explain that? Seems like the dems get a lot more free rides.
    Marsh pulls a fast one this past week in the Virginia senate by creating a de facto committee against their own rules. No tainted money but a clear violation of ethics and their own rules - no mention in the papers. Dem gets a free ride. Obama wants the nuclear option on health care despite his multiple attempts to discredit the republicans who had considered doing the same thing. The press gives him a free ride so far. Again, the dems are cleared.

    Yes, there is a double standard and that includes “tainted money” or leaving a drowning or dead woman in car in the water and staying in the senate until you die. Name one republican that happened to. I’m waiting.

  14. Dan said on 8 Mar 2010 at 9:53 am:
    Flag comment

    Exactly! Democrats who are tainted with scandal never resign. Just ask Eliot Spitzer who must still be the governor of New York since he is a Democrat and we all know they never resign in the face of scandal.

    And Charlie Rangel probably won’t resign his seat. He is still the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He must be. He is a Democrat and everybody knows that they never step down because of scandals. The lying liberal media reported that he is no longer heading the Ways and Means Committee. But we know he couldn’t possibly have stepped down.

    And New York Governor Paterson (who can’t really be governor because Spitzer couldn’t have resigned because he is a Democrat) hasn’t withdrawn his bid for re-election because of scandal. Because Democrats always run for re-election despite ethical or legal violations.

    Republicans are held to a very different standard. That is why Senator John Ensign resigned his seat. And why Senator David Vitter resigned his seat and would never even think of running for re-election after having broken the law.

    Oh, wait! They are both still in the Senate. And Vitter is shamelessly running for re-election.

    But it would be unfair to wonder about any type of double standard.

    I think I understand. You don’t have a double standard. You judge all Republicans by the same standard. And you judge all Democrats by the same standard. They just happen to be two distinct and completely different standards.

    But it would be terribly unfair to characterize that as having a double standard. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Here’s a novel idea. Let’s be honest enough to bring pressure to bear on crooks to resign from office. Regardless of party.

    I’m a Democrat but I believe Rangel should have been removed from his Chairmanship long ago. For the good of both the country and the party. And that he should resign his seat and return to private life.

    Can we agree that men of dubious moral character like Ensign and Vitter should also resign. Or does that other standard (which we won’t call double) not require that breaking trust as well as the law subject the miscreants to any consequences at all.

  15. Karla H said on 8 Mar 2010 at 2:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Any Republicans who have accepted campaign contributions from Charlie Rangel should immediately donate them to charity.

    I think they ought to resign as well.”

    LOL! Good one, Greg!

  16. Silent Knight said on 8 Mar 2010 at 3:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree that politicians from all parties should be held to the same standards with regard to passing the “smell test” about money they receive. My only question, really, is whether or not Greg will be using his blog to expose “smell test” incidents for politicians from all parties, at all levels of government. From his answer it looks like he is committed to doing so. I applaud that if there is consistent follow through. The follow-on question was with regard to what standards will apply, i.e., where the lines are, since there is so much money floating around in politics. No need for y’all to get all knotted up and defensive over the question. It was just a simple question.

  17. Dan said on 8 Mar 2010 at 3:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Any takers for calling on Ensign to resign?

    How about Vitter?

    Let’s make this a bi-partisan effort to get rid of all the skunks.

  18. Whatever said on 8 Mar 2010 at 6:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is pretty funny. Here’s hoping that Fimian wins the nomination. I don’t know anyone who honestly thinks that seat is in play if he’s the nominee.

  19. Red, White and Blue said on 8 Mar 2010 at 9:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Vitter and Ensign both admitted their transgressions. It seems that Bill Clinton did not do this - all the way and all his women. In fact, he never admitted it and never was called to resign over it by any democrat of stature. Even republicans did not go to floor and demand his resignation. Jeffers had to go all the way to trial over his money in the icebox and other nifty places. He never resigned while it was clear he was dirty.
    Hence, the double standard applies. As I said, Nixon and Agnew did, without trial and quickly once exposed. Kennedy and many others never were held to the standard of resignation over violation of their marital vows. This includes Rudy Julliani. It seems infidelity has a different value but criminal activity, the selling of the office, bribery, theft and misuse of office should certainly be held to the standard of resignation and even jail.
    Obama clearly buys votes with at least 2 senators and nothing happens. I guess that is how it is done in Chicago and Washington. Bipartisanship is nice and we both agree that there are problems but the masters and the media control the show while we sit in the cheap seats and watch the show. It is appalling how many of these scoundrels have gotten away with “murder” and keep on going. Only a few had honor after the sin and it mostly falls in the republican quadrant. Once that playing field is equal, the press reports (not distorts or ignores) the full story and truth, then and only then will things be better (or at least clearer).

  20. ... said on 9 Mar 2010 at 10:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “My only question, really, is whether or not Greg will be using his blog to expose “smell test” incidents for politicians from all parties, at all levels of government.”

    He has been instrumental in exposing the stench eminating from Manassas Park, and many of the people involved have claimed to be “republicans”.

  21. babe said on 11 Mar 2010 at 12:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Connolly needs to get used to blinking. The fruminous bandersnatch will soon be unemployed.

  22. Wolverine said on 15 Mar 2010 at 4:01 am:
    Flag comment

    I’ll bite on Dan’s challenge and agree that Ensign should go. Too much crap in that one— reports of his parents trying to pay off the principals in the case and now talk of Ensign trying to buy off his lover’s husband with some kind of contract deal. Bad political karma there. Ensign better start clearing his name or do the honorable thing and retire. I for one am getting damned tired of all these schlumps on both sides of the aisle. Maybe Ensign and Rangel can arrange a tandem retirement party. Vitter’s fate is in the hands of the people of Louisiana. Let them decide that one. But let me add one more schlump for Dan’s benefit: that Dem House member in Utah if he switches his vote on health care after Obama gave his brother a judgeship. Could be schlumps all over the place.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1186