woiyo wrote:ebrown_p wrote:The irony of Republicans (who sold out an entire religion) to complain about this is rich... just in itself.
We have one little story with no context. Was this an offhand comment? was this a policy speech? I guess if a Democratic official was staunchly holding the rest of the party hostange... I would object-- but there is no evidence of this happening.
There is no story here.
On the other hand... I heard there is a new sex scandal breaking. You have to admit, when it comes to scandal, you Republicans are much more fun.
So a Superdelegate selling his vote for money is no big deal to "you democrats", business as usual.
Funny that you would bring up a "sex scandal" as if a democrat never got involved in one.
It is the stupid partisanship of people like you that forced me to become more "jeffersonian" in my beliefs and just ignore all parties and force these politicians to earn my vote.
You keep repeating this woiyo and it is no more accurate now than it was the first time you said it.
The superdelegate is NOT getting money personally for his vote. Money is being put into a program he supports. There is a difference. If you want to complain that money going to a program that is supported by the person that will vote is a problem then you better roll out the republican scandal sheet because Delay was notorious for requiring donations to his favorite causes that his wife worked for and was paid a salary by.
If you REALLY believed what you are saying woiyo then you wouldn't vote at all because ALL politics involves money going toward something the politician wants.
