Stay classy, Republicans!Austin Creigh Deeds, 20, is due to be arraigned next week on a charge stemming from a May 30 incident in his native Bath County.[begin serious snark]Of course, in fairness to the Republican "operatives" digging up "dirt" on Creigh's family, this does after all have a great deal to do with Creigh Deeds' vision for Virginia, his qualifications to be governor, and other such substantive matters. And, of course, Bob McDonnell will condemn these "operatives" and pledge to run a campaign focused on his (far-right-wing) vision for Virginia and stays away from Creigh Deeds' family. [end serious snark] Oh, forget it...
The younger Deeds, whom family and friends call Gus, is a rising junior at the College of William and Mary. He is one of four children in the Deeds family.
His legal entanglement was unearthed by political operatives digging for dirt. Deeds faces a tight race against Republican Bob McDonnell, and the national organizations of both parties are closely involved in the campaign.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, over at Free Republic (I refuse to link to that trash, but here's the Daily Kos story) they're bashing Malia Obama ("ghetto trash" is one of the typical epithets) for wearing a peace symbol t-shirt. Now, I'm sure none of the Freepers ever wore t-shirts when they were kids, let alone peace symbol t-shirts, let alone in godless/socialist/commie Europe, but still...this is yet another new low = racist attacks on Barack Obama's 11-year-old daughter - for the right wingnuts. Pathetic.
Posts
14 comments:
Big surprise....as unfortunate as it is for Creigh's boy to get introduced to the legal system like this I guess it good to know that if this is the best Republican operatives can find then I think we're alright. I've seen these cases come through the courts regularly, especially being so close to George Mason University and anyone who knows how the legal system treats these cases this is viewed more as a learning experience, especially for first time offenders.
A quick reading of 4.1-305 (F)reiterates this point. While he faces penalities of a Class 1 misdemeanor he can come out of this case with the charges dismissed given he completes the prescribed community service and treatment program.
"Upon fulfillment of the conditions, the court shall discharge the person and dismiss the proceedings against him without an adjudication of guilt."
Now of course, he is only accused...hasn't been found guilty but I'm just speaking from my experiences in seeing these cases played out in the court.
For better or worse, this type of stuff is always going to be of public interest -- you can see some of it going all the way back to Jefferson who had a son-in-law with a "dreadful temper." Trying to say it shouldn't matter, in my opinion, is not unlike trying to drain Lake Anna with a sieve. Both parties (if not the candidate him/herself) engage in looking for this stuff on the opposition, and both insist that it shouldn't matter when it's on their own turf.
On the other hand, most people have been young adults (although there are a few who seem to have sprung fully form as old and cranky), which helps keep perspective, even in the worst situations. So I agree with DanielK -- the best news here is that if this is all the dirt there is, we're doing pretty well.
I guess I missed the Virginian Pilot article about the Republican run City of Virginia Beach deciding not to enforce the ordinance prohibiting the display of campaign signs more than 60 days prior to the general election. Of course the only party in violation of the ordinance is the Republican Party. So I suppose the arrogant flaunting of the abuse of power and associations by McDonnell and Stolle is not a reflection on their respect for the rule of law or their integrity.
20 is a little old for you liberals. You prefer to go after the new born babies with Downs and talk about knocking up 14 year olds kids. I looked around this blog and I can't find one post saying that the Democrats need to leave the kids alone. Can you point one out?
You people lowered the bar, remember. What a bunch of hypocritical boobs you are. You can dish it out, but can't take it?
What goes around comes around. Get used to it. It's the new reality.
Really, your indignity in this makes me laugh.
Oh come on. Just yesterday on another Virginia politics site I posted about not going after Palin through her kids. It's not my fault, My, that you can't keep up with my posts!
Is it pathetic to attack through children? Yes, it is. And I've already said that both parties either do so or encourage the media to do so. It's also true that almost all candidates use their family as a political prop -- a la Sarah Palin. (And before My or anyone else critisizes me for partisanship, let me point out that Dick Gephart was ALWAYS hauling out his kids and telling stories about them.)
But again, not any of this is new. Deeds and the Democrats can and will survive this, as would McDonnell and Republicans, should anything of similiar "substance" come to light during the campaign.
Gretchen, I am not talking about comments. I am talking about actual blogs on the websites. There are thousands of comments, and I am sure someone on the left criticized the attacks on children, but not the bloggers.
And when the right uses more tactics on liberals like running up $500,000 in personal legal fees for Palin and $2 million for Alaska on you libs, I am sure you will whine about it too.
Perhaps you have not noticed. The gloves are off. The tactics of the left have really angered a lot of conservatives. Your win at all cost Acorn mentality is no longer the exclusive realm of the left wing. Two can (and will) play at that game.
Yes, it's ridiculous and just plain nasty to go after any candidate's kids, no matter what the age. The candidate is running, not the kid. I find any attacks on family to be over the top and out of line. That goes for Palin's kids too, MY, and I must say I haven't witnessed these attacks to which you're referring, at least not in these parts. And doing it yourself after condemning it in others just makes you a hypocrite.
I see, too, that the charge is one of underage alcohol possession; to wit, that Deeds's 20 year old son possessed alcohol. Quel horreur! Why, oh why are we continuing with the nonsensical practice of under-21 Prohibition? It wasn't against the law when I was 20 years old to have a lousy glass of beer, but if this young man admits having possessed alcohol he'll have to go to a program to be educated about Demon Rum and perform community service and possibly suffer a license sanction. Why, for being a young adult who felt like drinking a beer?
As an attorney I've seen dozens of cases like this. My favorite was the case of a backyard barbecue where a bunch of college students were quietly sitting around one night sipping beers and chatting with each other. Police came along and spotted them in "plain view", mostly by entering the property on a non-existent noise complaint and peering through a crack in the 8 foot security fence surrounding the yard, where they saw a group of young looking people with beers in their hands and charged through the fence to round up the miscreants and demand proof of age. One kid who hadn't even been drinking ran in terror and was pursued, tackled, and brought back with his hands cuffed with those little plastic ties behind his back and then made to take a personal breath test or face a charge of resisting arrest. These young college students were hurting no one, and in fact had a couple of designated drivers in their midst to make sure no one drove under the influence. None of that mattered. The only thing that mattered was that they possessed beer.
This country is currently engaged in two conflicts and as I write this young men (and some young women) deemed too young to drink a beer are carrying hundred pound loads up mountain paths, battling a mostly unseen enemy, chancing instant death just by driving in a vehicle, and placing themselves in harm's way. They're too young to drink a beer, but old enough to carry an M-16 or M-4A, shoot or be shot at, aid their wounded comrades, and process their dead.
What about our young people at home? Well, according to the law they're old enough to get married, enter into contracts, and be held accountable - as adults - for any crimes they commit. They can sue or be sued. They can decide to join the military, to seek medical treatment, and to do virtually everything that adults are allowed to do but one: drink a beer.
How does that make sense to anyone?
"My" - My my my! :) Seriously, how many generalities without any specific examples can you possibly throw around in a couple of comments "You prefer to go after the new born babies with Downs and talk about knocking up 14 year olds kids." Who did this? Where? Link, please? "I looked around this blog and I can't find one post saying that the Democrats need to leave the kids alone." Again, start by providing an example or two of Democrats attacking Republicans' kids. If you find any, please explain how that immediately translates into "the Democrats" in general going after Republicans' kids, as opposed to a blogger or two out of the thousands of pro-Dem. blogs. Thank you.
There you go again, Lowell. Changing the subject and attacking the poster. Either you have been living in a shoe the last year, are in denial, or simply too ashames to admit the truth. YOU provide me with a link showing you have denounced Letterman's comment, the photoshopped pictures, the attacks on Bristol's baby daddy (pot, etc). Not a word, eh Lowell.
Do this: Google attacks on Sarah Palin's kids.
Don't use the liberal tactics I have posted here before. Change the subject, invoke Bush, Palin, Cheney, Liberalbat signal, etc. Ad nausium. Argue like you are right about something for a change.
My -- about that massive 500K legal bill of Sarah Palin's -- I lived through the Clinton years. I know all about frivolous lawsuits brought about for political gain.
Good one, Gretchen. Change the subject.
I lived through Clinton lying and Nixon as well. In both cases, the original deed was not what got them in trouble. It is the cover up that got them in hot water.
See, I was in a highly sensitive position in the Navy in the 70's. I was single then, but knew some married guys that had affairs. When NIS found out, these guys faced severe punishment. Sex is one of the most powerful weapons used against married men. Blackmail. Monica could have been a plant and her handlers could have forced Clinton to sign this treaty or issue that exec. order. Who is to say it didn't happen? Could have even been a Republican. Frivolous? That is when a blogger goes after a governor because she wore a jacket with a patch on it.
Nice try, but you are comparing jay walking to murder.
By the way, Lowell. The article you were referring to did not denigrate Malia. The commenters did. And the article has been pulled and a letter published in it's place with a comment that it is not appropriate to go after the kids. There are several hundred comments, and I read a few and most of the conservatives agree that the kids should be off limits. I am sure that even you would agree that the comments on this page do not necessarily reflect your views. You have to admit that pulling the post and the comments was the right move. And if you want to see the "rest of the story", go here, and read the comments.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2289769/posts
"My": Actually, that's not really correct. Here is the whole story: "I really cannot keep up with their indecision. The first time it was pulled pending review by the "Religion" moderator; now it is pulled pending review by the 'Administration' or something like that." Also, the owner of Free Republican writes, "We should steer clear of Obama's children. They can't help it if their old man is an American-hating Marxist pig." Lovely.
I never said he was a classy blogger. I consider him just as over the line to the right as Daily KOs is on the left. Just as it would give readers a heart attack to read a post on BV that was complementary to a conservative (and I mean a Real conservative - Powell and McCain are Liberals) so it would to see something on FR saying what a great guy Obama is. I have more class. I would have called Obama an America hating SOCIALIST pig. But I am a gentlemen. (Ok. That's a joke for the humor disabled.)
And I will tell you right here, if he places those comments back up, I'll be the first to complain. I suppose my blog and yours tend to tear into the opposition in a less disrespectful way. I never miss a chance to post with glee as Obama's numbers plummet, and I use equal enthusiasm to publicize an important accomplishment on the right, at the end of the day I feel confident that no one is waiting outside to jump me. While my identity shall remain anonymous here, I do not hide on my blog. If nothing else but to keep me inside the lines, if you know what I mean.
Post a Comment