News-Record.com

According to the N&O, sounds like Vernon got 4 of the 7 accusations right.

I believe that's above average for most politicians in the war of words leading up to an election.

The problem isn't simply what's factual or not. It's Robinson hateful tone.

Robinson will add a new demension to the congress. One that is long overdue. He is plain,yet well spoken. He says what he means and means what he says. We need more like him in congres.

He certainly says what he means. I just don't care much for what he says, pushing buttons of fear, prejudice and ignorance.

Allen said: "The problem isn't simply what's factual or not. It's Robinson hateful tone."

And therein lies the problem with liberals. They (most of them) value the "tone" of a person's speech rather than the content - even factual content.

I suspect it is not so much Robinson's "tone" that is upsetting to the liberals, but rather the content that they cannot agree with and must find fault with his manner of speaking.

Allen, do you find Louis Farrakhan's or Teddy Kennedy's "tone" offensive when they speak of Bush?.... I suspect not. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Come to think of it JR , I don't believe that I have ever heard Allen critize the "tone" of Louis, Teddy, Henry, Nancy, Jesse or a myriad of others from the farleft. Hmmm, maybe you are on to something JR.

Mrp, we all have double standards in our lives. I freely admit to mine.

The difference is that I do not have the power of the press to denigrate those with whom I disagree.

I like Robinson because he is a card carrying conservative who shoots from the hip. The liberals are not so scared of what he has to say, but rather (IMO) they fear a populace that would elect him. In other words they see Robinson as a nut case (the reference to fear, prejudice, and ignorance) but THEIR fear lies in what it would mean for them if the masses voted him in, knowing full well what his message is. His election would shake the foundation that the Allen Johnsons of the world have built their careers on. It would be a giant step forward for the republican party if one of Robinson's caliber were to be elected over the liberal Brad Miller. This would also show the world that the people who hold themselves up as the defenders of 'civil rights' are not so much about civil rights as they are about liberalism.

I would challenge those who criticize Sen. Kennedy for his "tone" to find a published spot from any of his campaigns or his office's literature that takes such a over-the-top personal attack approach against Pres. Bush. You won't. Because both of he and Pres. Bush have actually worked togteher to pass legislation, and thus there personal animosities, if they harbor such, are kept to themselves.

Louis Farrakhan, I cannot say. He is no "liberal", though, that's for sure. Not in the tradition of the Democratic Party.

As far as Vernon Robinson goes, I am not surprised by his lousy rhetoric. But I am happy to learn Brad Miller sat as chairman of the committee that jerrymandered his own district. It is almost enough to keep me from voting for him (I am a registered Independent, not a Democrat). But I won't vote for Robinson.

All the other accusations rang false.

Uh, Freddie, calling Bush, "King George" is not exactly the most respectful "tone" one could use and Teddy used that phrase back in December of 05. Then you can go back I beleive in 03 and Sen. Ted Kennedy called President Bush's judicial nominees "Neanderthals". Not exactly a very nice tone now would you say? There are many other examples but these were at hand and didn't require a lot of research.
Admittedly he is not as bad as Nancy and Henry and some of the other farleft folks he is still lacking in the respectful "tone" that one should show the office of the President, regardless of who is sitting in the chair. I said the same thing when others were maligning Bill Clinton with all kinds of names and such. Regardless of personal thoughts concerning the person, respect is still due to the Office.

"King George" is hardly denigrating: it only elevates him to his birthright. Granted, the tone is ironic. Republicans seldom get irony. This is hardly the kind of mudslinging practiced by Vernon Robinson.

The office of president certainly deserves respect, but when the occupant regularly oversteps the office's limits and acts like a self-appointed czar, sidestepping Congress with a slip of a pen (Pres. Bush has ignored, by fiat, hundreds of provisions passed by a Republican-controlled legislature), an ironic and gently-mocking coronation is the least one can attempt. Impeachment might be more appropriate.

As afr as "Neandertals" comment: I haven't seen that particular one. I venture the adjective is meant to describe certain stances of said nominees, not the persons themselves. Were, in fact, those judges eventually appointed by the Senate? Who were they and what were the views Sen. Kennedy objected to? I can think of several caveman-like stances held by a good number of elected officials, not to mention lawyers and would-be or actual jurists.

But even more to the point: because some Democrats take a tone some may find offensive, should Republicans like Robinson throw around misleading accusations?

"Bush has issued more than 750 'signing statements' in which he asserts constitutional authority to ignore provisions of new laws, which is more than all previous presidents combined."

Wartime presidents do allocate more powers to themselves, and our courts allow it, for a time; but after several years, constitutional watchdogs bring cases to the federal courts challenging the length and breadth of such assumed powers.

I am concerned that Rep. Miller allocated a nicely perosnalized district for himself to run in, but I am even more alarmed at the degree of leeway Vernon Robinson is certain to not only let slip for Pres. Bush; I beleive Robinson would encourage and abet said abuses of executive power. We need strong opposition in the House to stand up against Pres. Bush and VP Cheney.