Thursday, June 17, 2010

Russell sticks his foot in it... again.

So, Russell's at the candidate forum today put on by the Republican Women at Club Green Meadows, when he's asked: So... when you lose the election (Sorry... I meant "if" you lose the election) will you support Ann Rivers? (I mean, will you "support whoever the Republican candidate is?")

His moronic response?

"I will if they're pro-life."

Tell us, Jon... which Republican running in the 18th is NOT pro-life, eh?

No wonder that guy (and no, it wasn't me... but it should have been) hollered out "SCREW YOU!"

I had no idea you didn't believe that Brandon Vick wasn't pro-life, because you know damned well Ann Rivers is, more then you ever could be or even dream of.

Don't even think about going there.


  1. Voting pro-life sounds reasonable to me. You are really touchy about something. I would have made the same statement.

  2. All of which begs the question: Would Russell support the winner or the second place candidate who was a Republican.

    ALL the GOP candidates running in the 18th are Pro-life.

    Russell knows that. So exactly what did he mean? Why would he say that? Who was he talking about?

  3. And, in response to "being touchy about something?"

    I'm touchy about candidates who will lie and exaggerate to their district's own PCO's. I'm touchy about candidates who puff themselves up by lying about what they've done. I'm touchy about candidates who call their physician assistant wife a "physician," as if there's no difference between the two.

    I'm "touchy" about someone who will do all these things, quite unnecessarily, while RUNNING for the office... making it very easy for me to know what he would do if he was ELECTED to the office.

    Yeah. these things make me "touchy," particularly when the source of all of that is supposed to be such a hardcore, conservative Christian. Since you mention it.

  4. I learned something else today about Russell and his new campaign flyer.

    At the very bottom, he claims, "He forced a corrupt elected official in his own party to resign."

    That's quite a spin, considering he had already thrown her under the bus in favor of a Democrat to be elected and that the very corruption she is accused of, of which I have yet to hear of her being charged with, he had oversight on and signed off on all the expenditures he labels as "corrupt."

    Little wonder Herrera would make a glowing statement on him, they're both alike. There is no one or nothing they won't use for political gain.

  5. HE "forced a corrupt official to resign?"

    REALLY? HE did?

    Where was this testicular fortitude when that "corrupt official" was still around?