Did the White House bribe ScuzzyFuzzy to support a Democrat?

Old joke:

At a very fancy ball, a man has been talking to a woman for a while, and they’re getting along well.  Eventually he asks her, “Would you sleep with me for $1 million?”

She bats her eyes at him:  “Oh, you romantic man!”  She then suggests that they rendezvous in a quiet hotel near the ballroom.

Rather than agreeing, he pulls her up short with another question:  “Would you sleep with me for $100?”

She draws herself up, completely affronted.  “What do you take me for?!  A whore?!”

His response:  “We’ve already established what you are.  Now we’re just negotiating your price.”

As is often the case, my bad old jokes have a point.  We all know ScuzzyFuzzy was a RINO.  We all know she’s a vengeful bee-ach.  But now Bruce Keslar raises the interesting possibility that she’s also something more:  a woman who will sell herself to the highest bidder.

(And a hat tip to Rob Miller, who blogs at JoshuaPundit, for introducing the nickname ScuzzyFuzzy to my vocabulary.)

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Al says

    BW,
    My understanding of that story about having a “respectable” lady willing to go  to bed with someone not her husband is that George Bernad Shaw posed the question to a high society dame at a royal function. With the same initial response, and then the subsequent offended  reaction.
    But whatever. It deftly describes the corrupt nature of the Libs.
    Al

  2. suek says

    My husband suggests that it is more likely a case of a woman scorned.
     
    I said I thought that Newt should come out with a statement that he’d made a mistake in endorsing her…that led to further discussion about the National Party standards, and local ones.  Granting that though, it seems to me that mighty oaks from little acorns grow, and if you support a local candidate who is non-supportive of your party platform on a national basis, you’re likely to get lots of RINOs in your national party.
     
    In any case, she pretty well put “paid” on that republican designation…!

  3. says

    One of the beliefs of the arms traffickers is that they sell arms to both sides, thus they take no side, while profiting from the war itself.

    They advertise themselves as unifiers, those that can bring people together because they are ‘neutral’. But are they neutral when they need both sides to be in conflict?
    McCain and Bill Keller and Alen Specter, all think in similar fashions. They take the road of the middle, between each side, selling their services to both, and declaring themselves somehow superior because they can transcend ‘partisan’ bickering.
    There’s a purpose behind partisan bickering, i.e. the Loyal Opposition. There needs to be disagreement and flexibility, but there also needs to be clear cut chains of command otherwise we end up arguing in the midst of a war and self-destruct. But obedience without question also leads to inevitable self-destruction, because once a path is taken no deviation is allowed for calibration or correction.

    I don’t think Specter or politicians like him understand that. They think in terms of the deal. Not in terms of what is best for America, but what is best for the people they are making a bargain with. That’s not the same thing. Even if they make bargains with Bush, Kennedy, or 50 other Republicans/Democrats, that does not in anyway benefit the Republic. After all, those bargains could have been designed to further erode unity and national security. How is McCain going to tell, except based upon the word of the politician in question? Some politicians will try to keep their word, others are like Obama. How is McCain or Specter going to decide or differentiate?

    They won’t. They won’t even try. Cause it doesn’t matter to them. Something else matters to them. If it is not personal wealth, then it is some ideological or status concern. That’s not going to help beat back an enemy as atrocious and relentless as the Left, however.

  4. JKB says

    Well, she didn’t do the Democrats any favors.  This move will shake up  the Republican leadership.  No cover at all for them now that she’s crossed over.  Sure there is a risk that the Rep leadership will go extreme right but more likely is that is will get back to core beliefs.  When provided with a real choice, the Dems may find the voters are center right.  
    From what I’ve read, all that might happen is that her core voters will have to vote for a candidate just a little less liberal than she is.  
    The question the Rep leadership is going to have to defend against is are they conservatives or Democrat fellow-travelers?

Leave a Reply